Forums dot lukpac.org

The Canadian pressing of "Help!" has been posted to alt.binaries.beatles.

MK wrote:Seriously though, the stereo mix for RS sucks so bad, even if all CD issues were never remixed, I doubt I'd favor it over the mono mix I have now.

Eh...the vocals on one side is annoying (although not bad where there's double/triple tracking, like on Think For Yourself), but other than that it holds together well. The mono is nice too, although I don't listen to it much. Drive My Car is pretty cool. Even more "active" than the original stereo mix.

MK wrote:Seriously though, the stereo mix for RS sucks so bad, even if all CD issues were never remixed, I doubt I'd favor it over the mono mix I have now.

Exactly my thoughts. It is extremely ironic that those two rare Canadian CDs feature the two worst stereo mixes in the entire Beatles catalogue. Yes, the remix is even thinner than the original, and the digital processing of the vocals on the remix is bothersome, so I agree that the original stereo mix is worthwhile to have. But the mono mixes of these two albums are the definitive versions wheraes the stereo mixes sound like work-in-progress. (Sorry for the thread-crap. )

I don't like the stereo mix to A Hard Day's Night either. That was a real stereo mix too, and from an 'audiophile' perspective it sounds a little nicer, but it has no backbone to it compared to the mono mix.

BTW, even though it's not a real mix, I wouldn't mind a stereo reissue of the first album, mastered straight from the original twin-track work parts. Yeah, I know I complained about Rubber Soul, but I think losing a good deal of echo, not to mention EQ, compression, a generational loss, etc. compensates for any spatial issues.

That's what I would do, reissue the first album with the original LP mono mix EXCEPT I'd splice in the 45 masters for "Love Me Do" (Andy White version, of course) and "P.S. I Love" instead of using the crappy dubs left in that LP master...then I'd follow it with a flat transfer of the original, absolute first-generation twin-track recordings EXCEPT I'd once again splice in the 45 masters for those two songs because those cheap bastards at EMI destroyed/lost the original twin-track tapes...all on hybrid SACD, all analog with vintage tube equipment...with Gavin Lurssen or Doug Sax at the console...no compression or limiting...yeah, then after that I'd cure every disease...fix the environment...world peace...

MK wrote:I don't like the stereo mix to A Hard Day's Night either. That was a real stereo mix too, and from an 'audiophile' perspective it sounds a little nicer, but it has no backbone to it compared to the mono mix.

I'll admit some songs are clearly more polished in mono - If I Fell for example - but AHDN has always been one of my favorite stereo mixes. Different strokes I guess.

BTW, even though it's not a real mix, I wouldn't mind a stereo reissue of the first album, mastered straight from the original twin-track work parts. Yeah, I know I complained about Rubber Soul, but I think losing a good deal of echo, not to mention EQ, compression, a generational loss, etc. compensates for any spatial issues.

Not sure about EQ and compression, but generational loss should be nill, and there was no added echo on the final mixes - all the echo there was printed live during the sessions. Besides, the session tapes only exist for maybe half the album.

lukpac wrote:

MK wrote:

BTW, even though it's not a real mix, I wouldn't mind a stereo reissue of the first album, mastered straight from the original twin-track work parts. Yeah, I know I complained about Rubber Soul, but I think losing a good deal of echo, not to mention EQ, compression, a generational loss, etc. compensates for any spatial issues.

Not sure about EQ and compression, but generational loss should be nill, and there was no added echo on the final mixes - all the echo there was printed live during the sessions. Besides, the session tapes only exist for maybe half the album.

I have the "Die Beatles" album which is the German pressing of "Please Please Me". This album has been discussed (and praised) extensively on the SH Forum. It is not as compressed and in general as "futzed" with as the UK stereo mix as apparently the original twin-track tape, or close to it, was sent to Germany to make the record. It does sound noticeably better to my ears than than the UK vinyl.

I have Die Beatles as well. Didn't cost me an arm and a leg, though.

It's good. I think the biggest difference is EQ, though. There's certainly no difference in echo, and I'm not totally certain there's a huge difference in compression either, although I haven't done anything like compare waveforms.

Sometime I should see what happens if I tried to re-EQ, say, ISHST from the Capitol Vol. 1 box to match the version on Die Beatles.

"That's German for 'The Bart, The'"

lukpac wrote:I have Die Beatles as well.

I should know this because it has been discussed a few dozen times...but I don't have any copy the Please Please Me stereo UK LP for comparison, only a Dr. Ebbetts "Die Beatles" CDR.

Is "Die Beatles" technically the stereo mix of the Please Please Me album, and is the UK LP from an equalized copy tape, i.e. the same mix? In that case, would the unmixed twin track tape be of even better sound quality than "Die Beatles" (one generation closer to the performance)?

1) I don't think Die Beatles was really 'mixed.' I don't think the channels were folded in like they were for the UK LP master, if Hoffman's correct.

2) Yes. A marginal difference on the latter, but yes.

The absolute first generation would be the original twin-track, which has never been used as a master.

Die Beatles supposedly came from a dupe, transferred 'flat' from that original twin-track. So it's one generation removed but presumably no EQ, compression, echo, etc. was added.

So there is:
1. The twin track master. Never used for any release.
2. A flat dub of #1, no compression or eq added, not mixed. Used for "Die Beatles"
3. A mixdown tape, sourced from #1, with added eq and maybe compression and reverb (?). Used for the original UK stereo LP.

If that is the case, what are the mix differences between "Die Beatles" and the UK stereo LP?

Andreas wrote:If that is the case, what are the mix differences between "Die Beatles" and the UK stereo LP?

I don't know that there are any mix differences. I haven't sat down any really compared the mixes, just the sound, but I haven't noticed any mix differences either.

Andreas wrote:So there is:
1. The twin track master. Never used for any release.
2. A flat dub of #1, no compression or eq added, not mixed. Used for "Die Beatles"
3. A mixdown tape, sourced from #1, with added eq and maybe compression and reverb (?). Used for the original UK stereo LP.

If that is the case, what are the mix differences between "Die Beatles" and the UK stereo LP?

THERE WAS NO REVERB ADDED TO THE STEREO MIX TAPE. Nothing was "folded in" either.

I don't think there was a whole lot of "mixing" done other than *maybe* some compression, although I'm not even sure about that. I think the fades may have been done live, and there was very little editing on the first album. IIRC, the editing that was done (ISHST for example) was done directly on the twin-track masters. It's also unclear what EQ is on the tapes, and what was done during cutting (for all releases).

Note that the session tapes are gone for about half that album. The only finished song remaining from WTB is Hold Me Tight (track one of Don't Bother Me also exists).

The EQ on these is totally different, and they aren't level matched, but FYI:

Please Please Me (Die Beatles)

Please Please Me (unknown tape source, DJM CD)

I have added the word "maybe" and a "(?)", to make sure that the claims for reverb are questionnable...I am sorry if I have stepped on any toes with that remark.

A tape with some added eq and compression does not constitute a new mix. So is it correct to state that the twin track master, the "Die Beatles" LP and the UK stereo LP are all the same mix?

I think I rememeber a recent sh.tv thread where it was claimed that the UK stereo LP has a dedicated stereo mix, made from the twin track, beyond just adding eq and compression.

There is also conflicting info about the creation of the mono mix. In 2003, Steve claimed that it is a fold-down of the twin track tape, save for eq and compression (and (?????) reverb (??????)). But in a recent thread, I was quickly corrected for stating that the UK mono LP of Please Please was a fold-down.

The echo thing just bugs me.

The question is really "what constitues a 'mix' from twin-track?" Lewisohn lists stereo mixes being made. What exactly was done is unknown, though. There really isn't much you *can* do - the echo was printed live, your channels are already set, the fades are most likely there already. Balance the two channels? "Dedicated stereo mix" in this case means little more than "a tape was created that we're calling the stereo master".

The reason they jumped on you about it being a 'fold down' is the actual mono edit/mix of the title track was used, rather than the stereo edit/mix. That and the mono masters were prepared by using the session tapes, rather than the stereo mix tapes.

WTB is a *little* more involved (there are a couple of different edits in mono and stereo) but it's the same basic idea.