Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by JOSERENATO, Mar 5, 2017.
Just wait. When it's actually released - you ain't seen nothin' yet.
I doubt the members commenting on this 600 pg thread are part of the Pepper is overrated crowd.
Once the folddown tapes are uploaded into a computer's digital audio workstation (DAW), each individual pre-bounce tape recording then appears within the software program as a horizontal audio track stacked above or below each other (like the sentences in this paragraph). Each horizontal track can then be cursor-dragged left or right (in time) with millisecond precision thus syncing up all of the folddown tapes one-at-a-time until they are reconstructed to match the original mix exactly, or as close a possible.
Because this is Pepper were talking about, I imagine the remixing process was at the very least exhilarating & fun.
I love doing my own thing trying to match up Beach Boys tapes to isolate double-tracked vocals, I would have a blast doing this.
That "crowd"are probably lurking here though.
This is a newbie question, spurred by all the talk of reduction mixes in Pepper:
I was reading Lewisohn's Beatles recording sessions book yesterday - someone was wrong on the internet, so I spent 22 hours reading the book so I could get definitive proof and crush their spirit (joke, joke, English humour).
Here's my question. On songs like Taxman, it mentions that they tried making 11 mixes one day and the band didn't like any of them. As well as those 11 mixes, as has been discussed many times in this thread, reduction mixes were made many times on many tracks - just to keep it on topic, Pepper has a ton of reduction mixes.
Oh, sorry, here is my question: I know that multiple generations of bouncing will introduce noise, but won't the physical quality of those master tapes also be reducing every single time they're played?
I sit there reading and it's clear they must've played the masters hundreds of times. Is tape that good that it won't even drop in quality by 1% after a thousand plays?
See, one thing I've noticed is on The Beatles - the "jet plane" sound effect on Back in the USSR gradually gets worse throughout the song. I believe it was played repeatedly through the song and the sound effect tape gradually became stretched. My own long-ago experience of consumer tape in the UK in the 1970s was that you should never pause it or repeatedly rewind long tapes, cos you could stretch or distort them. C120 (tape that was 60 minutes each side) was universally known as being awful. Obviously Emitape and all studio tapes are bigger and sturdier, but does the same principle apply?
When I read about all the Pepper reduction mixes, I wonder: do they make copies and make their mixes from those, and then when they make their final mixes do they go back to the pristine masters? Or is Emitape so damned good, what I'm talking about simply was never an issue?
Someone posted a link earlier about how some master tapes really are literally unlistenable now. So it's gotta happen at some point. And back in the 60s did they know about dust and keeping tape heads clean and maintained? They certainly didn't know about making their feet not smell. Men's feet, up until the 1990s, smelled absolutely awful in the UK. I dunno what it was like in the US, but boy did our history of living in slums, 6 to a room with no bathrooms, leave a lasting legacy. I don't know why I'm mentioning that.
In that case, I take back my comment about people making threats of violence. Please, please don't hit me.
Simple answer, tape can deteriorate each time it is played whether consumer level or pro. That's why everything in The Beatles canon (as far as I know) has been uploaded into a computer, without degradation, to protect the source tapes from being played again unless absolutely necessary.
As for smelly feet, I imagine it's because one's shoes & socks are removed over & over again, similar to repetetive analog tape playback. The simple answer may be taking a bath once-a-month, whether one needs one or not.
And by all means, please sleep with your socks on!
Did someone say tea??
All things are, of course, relative but it's hard to read posts complaining about the price of this set (and others) from those who are paying far less than I will have to, and feel any sympathy. Cheapest UK price I've found? £110. That'll be $140 to you, good sirs.
I would think that tapes were stored in a proper environment...(temp and humidity). This certainly would help reduce oxide shedding. Also storing them "tails out ' may have been used ...meaning the next time they were used they had to be rewound first. Helped to keep the tape"packed correctly". Your C120's were an awful thin tape.
You must bear in mind that the tapes that were used will vary at each stage. The session tapes would only be played a handful of times during studio playbacks to see how things were progressing, and then during mixing. Once a mix had been made (onto a freshly minted twin track or mono tape) it would have been cut out and appended to a tape on a new reel. My understanding is that this tape would then be used to create a final album master. That is, it wouldn't be used every time a new pressing was required. So it's only the final album master that would get used a bunch of times but, even then, nowhere near enough to cause the damage you're thinking of.
But here's my own question: am I right in thinking that the final compilation tape is then used to make a final master? If so, the final product would be several generations down. We talk about first or second generation tapes being used to create final masters but, even if a song didn't require a reduction mix, we're talking:
1st gen: studio multi-track
2nd gen: twin-track or mono mixdown, cut out and compiled onto new reel
3rd gen: final EQ'd master.
Given that the "1st gen" tape might actually be a second or third generation tape in reality, we could, in fact, be talking 4th or 5th generation by the time we get to making records. That would surely have a greater impact on quality than the number of times each tape was played.
No is the simple answer. Every time tape is dragged over a tape head and tape path a little bit of oxide wears off.
Its an oft-quoted story that Fleetwood Mac discovered the hard way that there is a finite number of times that you can run a tape. During the Rumours session, the tape started wearing out because it had been run back and forward so much for overdubbing.
Some tapes are also more durable than others. EMItape is reportedly very stable (probably used a whale oil binder) whereas some others (Ampex 456) is very prone to sticky shed syndrome. Tapes like this can still be used but have to be "baked" first to restore the polymer chains in the binder.
No Beatles eating biscuits?
There's a great early Beatles"tea" sipping pic with all 4 holding cups.
Theres also this one
Was thinking of the 1963/64 colbalt grey Beatles suits.
I think it is a new transfer but I don't know why. I think they would have identified it as the 2009 remaster because they correctly attribute the Strawberry Fields Forever remix etc.
And no doubt they will all have moved on to 'hard' drugs by the end of it.
What fixes were they?
I am interested as to how you identify the Sergeant Pepper chat in the Rock Band thing. It was my understanding that the speech had no necessary connection with the track it was associated.
Great Britain you are terrific".
No probs with a new 2017 Mono LP mastering excluded then ?
You know absolutely nothing about surround sound and you have never heard a proper surround sound set up. Sad. Sounds like you are basing your opinion because of that failed 70s abortion called quadraphonic. Quad was the first attempt at surround sound and it was a miserable failure because they did everything wrong. They put the four speakers in the corners and then the engineers made some of the worst surround recordings imaginable. It is not right to put the listener in the middle and then have the sound swirling around them. Might sound cool the first time but it becomes really cheesy after that.
There are two different forms of modern surround sound. The first is for movies. Currently most people are using 7.1 systems for movie surround. Two speakers behind you and 5.1 in front of you and around you. This allows action to go front to back, left to right or any combination. Surround sound for music is not like that at all. Surround sound music is 5.1 channels and it is all in front of you. It doesn't surround you. My surround speakers are at the ten o'clock and two o'clock position, my front left right speakers are in the eleven o'clock and one o'clock position. The center speaker is at 12 o'clock and the subwoofer is at 11:30. This means all the music comes from in front of me in a very wide and deep soundstage that sounds a lot more like a real performance than having everything coming out of a single pair of speakers or a single speaker.
The whole reason surround sound is so wonderful is because with six channels you get most instruments and vocals receive their own channel, amplifier and speaker. This gives you clarity that is just not possible with normal stereo which had a half a dozen or more sounds coming out of the same speaker. Really muddies up the sound. Considering that the remixes will go back to the stems and remove several layers of distortion and that the new mixes will be in 5.1 means that this will be the cleanest Beatle recordings of all times. I am so excited to hear the Beatles like they have never been heard before. I feel sorry for anyone who will only get to hear them on a stereo or a mono system. A properly set up surround system beats either one by a mile.
Very informative, never realised surround sound for music was at ten to two. thank you
No, the .1 is the LFE channel, the Low Frequency Effects channel, like explosions and such.
That is lousy engineering and the whole reason quad failed in the 70s. Modern surround is a lot more immersive and natural sounding.
Yes. Macca's solo proper period of success was being heavily shadowed by EMI's repackagings and reissues, including the ongoing 20th anniversary singles and picture discs.
I'm sure he and the other fabs had been sick enough of the likes of Hollywood Bowl, Ballads, Rock and Roll Music, Love Songs etc so adding the belated Stars on 45-style desecration to the list of offences was enough to ally the former fab estates under Apple toward the aim of getting control.
In a way, we have Reel Music and Beatles Movie Medley to thank for the ultimate and ongoing triumph of Apple Corps in recent decades. It wasn't until this point that the fabs stopped suing each other long enough to see that they might best battle EMI together as Apple. I think Paul was least inclined to do so, especially legally-speaking, being under contract to EMI, but the shadowing of every single of his with a Beatles item was really, as they say in Liverpool, starting to 'get on his wick'.
Not heard of that either I must admit. Left, Right, Centre and Sub are arrayed in front of me of course. But I use my system for movies and TV as well as music so I have put the four satellites parallel with and above my head. That corresponds to what I thought was the correct setup. I admit the satellites would be better at ear level but compromises must be made I think.
Most surround sound music that emulates a 'live in the studio performance' is placed in front of you nevertheless with only ambient sound filling the room. However an album like Sgt Pepper doesn't really have that sort of feel I think, especially after we get high with Lucy...
You can only tell when they are vamping chords or perhaps playing or singing a bit of melody along with the chat. Lots of chat still has unknown origins. Ron
Separate names with a comma.