LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2012

ARSCLIST November 2012

Subject:

Re: Interesting details on new Beatles LP reissues

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:27:21 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

The MoFi LPs were not done at Abbey Road, I don't think. My understanding is that Stan Ricker cut 
them, half-speed, at the JVC Cutting Center in California. Now what I don't know is, did they use 
EMI masters or the copies sent to Capitol in the 60s? Apparently, there was enough of a difference 
that EMI/Capitol issued multi-CD box sets of the Capitol mono and stereo versions, made from the 
tapes in the Capitol vaults. I think it was more than just different LP sequences up to Sgt. Pepper, 
but it may have been as simple as second-generation dubs vs the first-generation mix-masters in 
England. I admit not being a Beatles triviatic enough to know those details, but apparently there 
was enough demand to have two separate sets of pre-Sgt. Pepper CDs before 2009.

These new LPs were cut from a similar source and their intent is similar to what UMG did with the 
6LP Mercury box set. The intention there was for the LPs to sound great, first of all. But also, the 
intent was not to mimick the sound of the original LPs but rather to get as close to the master 
tapes as possible, via the CD masters, which were direct 3-2 mixes from the master tapes. In the 
case of the Beatles, they are using new digital sources that are judged to be closer in sound to the 
master tapes than the original LPs were. There are variety of reasons this can be so, the most valid 
one being better playback equipment in the modern era, better vinyl manufacturing so therefore less 
need to cut records super-loud (which then allows for more dynamics, more conservative margins and 
depths, and thus better tracking on a wider variety of systems) and transparent or near-transparent 
digital transfer and storage of the original master content. In short, today you don't need to 
achieve an excellent analog tape playback at the same time you are working to achieve an excellent 
analog disk-cutting, so no compromises need be made, signal chains can be kept very simple, there is 
no reason for a tape-delay or lower-quality digital delay, etc.

Bottom line, for Beatles fans, if you didn't like the 2009 CDs, you probably won't like the 2012 
LPs. To my ears, the 2009 CDs were better-sounding than previous CD issues, particularly with the 
good solid base and also the stereo imaging on the Abbey Road and The Beatles. The mono box set 
sounds vastly superior to any original-issue mono LPs I have, especially the Capitol ones. The MoFi 
stereo LPs sounded different from the original-issue Parlophone and Capitol stereo LPs, and they 
sound different from any of the CDs. I would say different, not better or worse, just a very 
different version of some things, less different of most things. If these new LPs sound like the 
2009 CDs but with 3dB less compression and the same rock-solid bass, I'll be very happy. That said, 
I can see how someone not very much into the Beatles would stick with the regular-priced 2009 CDs 
and be very happy. What you should do, if you like the music at all, is compare the 2009 CDs to any 
of the original LPs and also to the earlier CDs. You may find you want to upgrade, very much.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Shoshani" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting details on new Beatles LP reissues


> On 11/14/2012 02:33 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>
>>
>> 4. I like the fact that Magee spanks down Fremer about the Beatles and
>> dynamics compression. The Beatles LPs were SUPERLOUD in their day.
>> Original Capitol monos will overdrive any lesser preamp, only slightly
>> less so with Parlophones because they cut slightly lower peak levels to
>> fit more time on the sides. The only cuts I've ever heard that weren't
>> dynamics-compressed, stereo or mono, were the Mobile Fidelity reissues.
>> Supposedly those are not compressed, cut at half-speed from the master
>> tapes with no EQ or compression. These new cuts are supposed to have no
>> additonal compression beyond the master tapes. I'll be interested to
>> hear when my set arrives next month!
>
> Sean Magee has touched on the subject in a thread on the Beatles vinyl reissues on the Steve 
> Hoffman forums. You won't be able to read it now because the forum software is being upgraded and 
> it's been down for days; however he does say something in the thread that he may also say in this 
> article (which I haven't clicked on), and that is that the new vinyl is not intended to replace 
> the originals. The goal he and his team have with the remastered CDs and now LPs is not to 
> replicate the sound of the records, but the sound of the actual master tapes.
>
> He also talks about limiting, how limiting is required for the CDs, and how the vinyl doesn't have 
> that limiting, but then qualifies it by saying that the 24 bit masters had to be reduced to 16 bit 
> for the CDs. So really he's talking about *dithering*, not limiting.
>
> So far as MoFi not having additional compression beyond the master tapes, my understanding of 
> Abbey Road practice - and I know that Peter Mew is on the list, so hopefully he can clarify - is 
> that they cut their lacquers directly from the first generation mixdown tapes, applying 
> compression, limiting, EQ, etc as needed to the signal chain  before it reached the cutting head. 
> Other EMI operations, such as Capitol in the US and Odeon in (West) Germany, cut their lacquers 
> from duplicate masters to which all the necessary EQ adjustments had been printed. The remasters, 
> in all formats, were prepared from these same mixdown tapes which, given their age, rightly should 
> be retired as accurate digital raw copies do exist. (In the Hoffman thread, Magee also discusses 
> digital vs analog, and how even at 24 bit/ 44.1khz the signal is already pushing what the cutting 
> head can comfortably handle, and that higher resolutions would be a waste for that purpose.)
>
> Michael Shoshani
> Chicago
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager