The Beatles "Help!" and "Rubber Soul" original 1965 stereo mixes?

I'm less upset about NR than I am about the various other "fixes" which definitely are in places other than fades.

 

lukpac, are you opposed to the use of NR, no matter how artfully or subtly it might be implemented? Regardless of the nature of the noise involved?

 

I can't think of any valid use of it for the Beatles' studio recordings, if that's what you're asking.

 

You are right and I am wrong. I looked and looked. No actual quote. And I couldn't find it any press release either. I thought I read it somewhere.

Still, if it's only on crossfades and gaps does it matter?

 

Yes, on that we agree; it is a great box set. Happy I bought it and skipped the stereo remasters

 

As I stated:

 

Yes, it is. I suppose I have more faith in the skills and judgement of Rouse & Co. than you do. Unlike the case with the re-mixing of SPLHCB, which was questionable, I can't see why Rouse's team would use NR in a way that would not withstand audiophile scrutiny---nothing to be gained by that as far as sales/marketing goes.

 

They did a lot of things that don't withstand audiophile scrutiny, so I don't know why noise reduction would be any different than anything else.

 

"A lot" of things with the 2009 mono remasters?

 

Yes.

 

See my edit. Mono, is what I meant. Still "yes"?

 

They aren't limited, and, being mono, they necessarily couldn't be narrowed any further. So there's that. They still contain various other "fixes" though, namely removing noises that the remaster team did not feel were appropriate.

 

Regardless none are loud except Beatles VI

 

I agree----even with Fool on the Hill and Martha My Dear.

 

That's a complete myth that has been perpetrated incessantly on this forum. And regardless, I don't care what the remastering team has said. I have a giant lobe on either side of my head that can detect it, and there are other more scientific ways of determining when it is present. Whether or not the remastering team are "lying" or simply "mistaken" would be a question up for grabs. There are many instances where one member of the remastering "team" has totally contradicted another in print, and so on...

 

The reason that the first four were in mono is that George Martin didn't have time to remix them before the release date so he requested they have issue the mono mixes. Had EMI got George involved earlier in the project we would be now talking about remixes of the first six albums. This was widely reported in the press and discussed in interviews with George back when the first CDs came out.

 

Regarding PPM and WTB, he stated "I don't think the first two should have been put out in stereo at all."

As far as AHDN and BFS go, it's unclear. He hints at remixing, but isn't explicit about it, and it has been said that his issue was actually only with the first two albums, and EMI got mixed up and thought he meant all of the first four should be mono.

ALLAN KOZINN: I understand your reasoning about the mono mixes of the first two albums, those are clearly more solid and punchy in mono. I'm not sure I understand why "Hard Day's Night" and "Beatles for Sale" are out in mono, though.

GEORGE MARTIN: Expediency, I think, in a word. Because I wasn't brought into this until December, by which time EMI had made up their mind what they were going to do, and they really consulted me I suppose out of old fashioned courtesy -- saying, you know, "don't you think we've done rather a good job?" And when I heard what they'd done, I thought they were dreadful. They had presented me with the stereo versions. And I told them that if they had to issue any stereo versions, they should be specially looked at, particularly in these early cases, and I don't think the first two should have been put out in stereo at all. And I think that because they had so little time, they said, well look, we'll put them all out in mono, and if you like you can have another look at them, and maybe number three and four can be transcribed for stereo later on. Now, this was because they had a date to adhere to, and they had to press up a great many records, and I guess they had to make some kind of decision, which they made. And at that time, they also asked me to look at the next batch of records, which is, "Help!" "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver," which are due to come out in April. And I looked at those and found that the stereos of that weren't very good. They were very woolly, and not at all what I thought should be a good issue. I went back to the four-tracks on those and actually did remix them -- not changing anything, but hardening up the sound a little bit, and cutting down a little background noise. By going back to the four tracks, we get a cleaner sound even than you can get with contemporary recording, because four-track one-inch is a much better medium than 24 track two-inch.

ALLAN KOZINN: How possible is it to precisely recreate a mix that you had done 20 years ago from a four track?

GEORGE MARTIN: It's impossible. In a word, it's impossible. Everything is different. The [mixing] desks in those days were tube operated, they weren't transistorized. All the outboard gear that we have today didn't exist. The EQ characteristics are quite different, much cruder. The echo facilities in Abbey Road consisted of a long cellar like room with old drain pipes standing around; they had nothing like electronic echo at all. So yes, it's impossible to get exactly the same, no matter how much you try. But in fact, I think it would be wrong in any case to get the same mix. The mixes that I did in 1964 were fine for vinyl, issued in 1964. When you hear them on CD, they're not fine. Now the reason for this is that you hear a wider frequency range on CD, and you're hearing things that I never intended you to listen to in the first place, in 1964. I was making a record that was designed to cut through the fog of the players of those days. What I'm saying is that the mixes I did then, when they're heard in the form they were done then were fine; but if you're hearing them as CDs, they should be different in order to be the same.

A 1987 Interview with George Martin by Allan Kozinn

 

I’ve posted that a few times before over the years. His memory was obviously a bit faulty on some things. Nonetheless, read what he says about Rubber Soul, for all those that think stereo was only an afterthought. Also, if you look at Lewisohn, the dates stereo mixes of tracks were done was often the same day as the mono mix. Not always, but enough to believe they thought both were important.

 

It's difficult to trust his memory. First, he says that when he listened to the stereo Rubber Soul in 1986, he thought "did I really do that?". Then, he explains with detail what he allegedly was trying to do with that mix. Anyway, he says his goal was a stereo mix that would fold down to mono better, so that doesn't imply a lot of regard for stereo:

GEORGE MARTIN: Yes, we were still doing different things then, but I was still working towards the compatibility, and in fact my attempts on "Rubber Soul" were to find a decent mono result from a stereo record. As you know, if you put something in the center, it comes up four dB louder in mono than it does in stereo. But if you tend to balance your things between one side and the other....And also, I was aware in those days that the majority of record players in the home were built into kind of sideboards, where the speakers were about three feet apart, and the stereo picture was a very near mono one anyway. So I exaggerated the stereo to get a clearer effect. These were experiments. It wasn't a question of rushing, I really was trying all sorts of things.


I don't think he cared much for stereo until a few years later. There were several stereo mixing sessions that he missed, they were done faster and there are a lot of obvious mistakes (Eleanor Rigby, If I Fell, I Should Have Known Better...). That's not saying they were all bad, in fact I like many of them, but I think they were paid much less attention than mono.

I suppose that's simply a practical question: if they had finished the mono mixing of a song, and they had some time left, it's practical to make the stereo mix then, when you have the multitracks ready and have analyzed the song and made some decisions already. That doesn't mean they were equally important, in fact everybody involved said mono was the priority.

 

His memory may have been faulty (or perhaps they've now re-written history -- Paul's memory has been suspect as well), but he clearly indicated in this 1987 interview that he was working towards producing stereo-only albums that could just be folded to mono, which to me indicates stereo was more important at some point. When that point was, I don't know. Was it 1966, 1967, or 1968? He says he was working towards that as early as at least 1965 on Rubber Soul. You omitted the previous portions which puts that comment about Rubber Soul in its proper context:

GEORGE MARTIN: No, that's not true. Putting a voice on the right hand side doesn't make a record more quick to produce. In fact, there is a reason for it which becomes apparent after a while. One of the things we were struggling with in the days of "Rubber Soul" was the eventual issue of stereo records and how it was going to vary between mono and stereo. When we started in 62 and 63, mono was the only thing. Gradually, stereo came in, very few people had it, rather like CD in England today; and the first albums, if you sold five percent of your total in stereo form, you were lucky. Gradually that balance changed. There came a point where, instead of doing separate mono and stereo mixes, which I always did, we were looking to produce a stereo only mix.

ALLAN KOZINN: And that didn't happen until "Yellow Submarine," which is the same in both formats.

GEORGE MARTIN: Well, I was working towards it.

ALLAN KOZINN: Still, even as late as the "White Album," you've got a different violin solo in "Don't Pass Me By," the airplanes coming in at different times in "Back in the USSR." They were clearly still entirely separate mixes.

GEORGE MARTIN: Yes, we were still doing different things then, but I was still working towards the compatibility...

Emphasis added.

 

^^ Compatibility with MONO was a goal for any stereo product at that time. They wanted a record that, when played back with imperfect stereo soundstage reproduction, would still have *some* of the impact the true mono version had. Because stereo reproduction was not a top priority for anyone, inside or outside of EMI, circa 1965 in Britain

Could well be that they muted that track, but I also hear the vocal bleed from the other track before the hiss kicks in on the instrumental side

 

For the first 2 seconds, the right channel was pasted into the left channel and adjusted in level and EQ to fit. After that point the left channel edits back to the left channel of the stereo mix.

On the stereo mix (as heard elsewhere), there's initially an open mic in the left channel at the start of the song, where you can hear a stray guitar noise, as well as studio leakage from the vocals, which had already been recorded. That open mic is faded down about 1.5s into the song.

No noise reduction specifically, but definitely audible "restoration".

 

Thanks for the correction Luke

 

I don't think that changes what I said. If the goal was a mono-compatible stereo, that doesn't say much about their concern for stereo.

Anyway, I don't think that was the case. Because Martin didn't attempt anything like Rubber Soul again. He kept on making separate mixes until stereo became the standard.

Actually, I find it believable the theory that the horrible fold-down mono of the Capitol Help! could have something to do with it. It was the previous album, and maybe Martin's alleged concern for mono compatibility arised from there. After all, mono was still the main format and America the biggest market. He might have considered, "if they are going to do mono like that, at least I should make sure it sounds good".

Since Capitol didn't use fold down mono in the next albums, Martin didn't need to make that type of stereo again.

Of course, it's speculation, but I think it fits.

 

I still have a hard time believing Martin would have been aware of what the Capitol Help! sounded like.