It's Looking Good - The Beatles In 5.1! (1 Viewer)

[Jagan Seshadri]

Another question to ask is whether or not the drums (for example) were tracked in mono or if they were multitracked and bounced-down to mono (like the Eleanor Rigby strings were).

If the first-generation multitracks are around, then there is hope that a 5.1 remix will sound good. Otherwise it would be like trying to put a 3x5 black-and-white photograph into the IMAX format.

-JNS

 

[mike_decock]

But to protest even the existence of a surround mix as "sacrilege" is just silly.

I consider a 5.1 surround mix as just as much of a "sacrilige" as a disco-fied remix or a dance version. Yeah, it's a different interpretation, but if I were the original artist, I would never endorse it.
How do you propose to do a surround mix of master tapes that have a single track for each instrument? Maybe with songs like Eleanor Rigby you could pan different strings to different speakers around you, but that would be 5.1 times as bad as ping pong stereo .
The only other option to panning different instruments to different speakers would be to synthetically generate ambience for the surround speakers. I think that's opening up an even bigger can of worms. Sure, that may sound "cool" or "neat", but it's no less of a "sacrilege" to me than a Hip-Hop Remix of Strawberry Fields.
The other sad aspect of such a project is that there would be a big push to clean up the noise and compress the snot out of it. Hopefully, some of the respectable pros like Bob Ludwig would be involved to reign in those bad habits.
-Mike...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The "ping pong" stereo Lee describes in the stereo mix of Rubber Soul is the result of mixing in Stereo music that was INTENDED as mono. If the drums are recorded to a single track, how do you get a natural sounding, stereo spread? If "ping pong" stereo mix sounds unnatural, how much worse will "ping pong" surround mix sound?

True and also my point is that all the band members agreed with the stereo mix. But going from there to 5.1 is a big leap...would Lennon or Harrison have approved? If so, what do you put in the back channels?

Nevertheless, as long as we have a good stereo track and George Martin and a good remastering engineer are involved, it could be interesting.

 

[mike_decock]

True and also my point is that all the band members agreed with the stereo mix.

According the the article in Listener, the Sgt. Pepper's stereo mix was done in a few days by George Martin without the input of any Beatles.


-Mike...

 

[Louis C]

I consider a 5.1 surround mix as just as much of a "sacrilige" as a disco-fied remix or a dance version.

I disagree. A disco or dance remix actually changes the music. A faithful 5.1 mix merely changes where the sound is heard.

Regarding removal of hiss, one should not fear technology, simply listen to the results and choose accordingly!

I think a subtle use of the rears for ambient effect would really improve the listening experience - just don't change the music or the relative volume of each instrument to the other.

 

[mike_decock]

I think a subtle use of the rears for ambient effect would really improve the listening experience

Since no ambient effects aren't part of the original tapes, you would have to generate them. Why don't you just throw it through your own surround processor and generate effects that improve the listening experience according to your tastes? Why should I be stuck with somebody else's interpretation of "subtle".


-Mike...

 

[Anthony Hom]

The wide stereo in Rubber Soul seems like an abberration. In Please Please Me and With the Beatles, they had twin track tapes, so the stereo was just that, very wide and separated.
Hard Days Night, Beatles For Sale and Help all had vocals planted firmly in the middle. Then Rubber Sould came along and separated again the lead vocals to one track and spread the music out among both. There has been no explanation why Rubber Soul went back to this type of mix from anyone. Was it a lazy engineer? Although they said they had nothing to do with the stereo mixes (GM and the fab four), according to Mark Lewisohns book, GM was present for all the stereo mixing sessions, and sometimes the others.

 

[Steve Meskell]

True and also my point is that all the band members agreed with the stereo mix. But going from there to 5.1 is a big leap...would Lennon or Harrison have approved?

I remember George "liked" the 5:1 re-mixes for the Yellow Submarine DVD. He was impressed on how the songs surrounded him.

 

[Steve Meskell]

True and also my point is that all the band members agreed with the stereo mix. But going from there to 5.1 is a big leap...would Lennon or Harrison have approved?

I remember George "liked" the 5:1 re-mixes for the Yellow Submarine DVD. He was impressed on how the songs surrounded him.

 

[Grant B]

A disco mix of a Beatles Song???? That's almost as bad as playing the Beatles through Bose Speakers (May God have mercy on your "Rubber" Soul)

 

[Michael St. Clair]

According the the article in Listener, the Sgt. Pepper's stereo mix was done in a few days by George Martin without the input of any Beatles.

That was pretty typical. On most albums the mono mix was what everybody worked on together, and more time was spent on the mono mix.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people who say they are Beatles 'fans' have no interest in the preservation and availability of what the band considered the definitive version of an album at the time that it was produced.
Especially on formats like DVD-A, where there is plenty of room for high-res mono, high-res stereo, AND high-res 5.1.

 

[Anthony Hom]

I think Cobbin can do whatever he wants with the 5.1 mix of Sgt. Pepper, provided the new DVD-A to be released will have the original mono and stereo mixes of the album.
The same is happening to Pet Sounds DVD-A, to be released this February.
Most likely the new hi rez stereo version will be just a fold-down of the 5.1 mix, like so many DVD-A albums are, which might be a dissappointment.
After all, that 5.1 mixdown of Lucy In The Sky on YSS was not exactly a great listening experience.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Most likely the new hi rez stereo version will be just a fold-down of the 5.1 mix, like so many DVD-A albums are, which might be a dissappointment.

I've run into very few DVD-As that use the downmix capability. They all have either a dedicated stereo mix or no stereo mix. At least in my experience... What discs downmix?

Anyway, I'd be curious to hear the quadrophonic mix of Pepper that was prepared but not released in the early 70s.

 

[Justin Lane]

Most likely the new hi rez stereo version will be just a fold-down of the 5.1 mix, like so many DVD-A albums are, which might be a dissappointment.

Where are you getting this information from? The vast majority of DVD-A have seperate Hi-res stereo tracks. Unless you buy strictly Silverline discs, you are very mistaken on this point.

I can't imagine them doing away totally with the stereo/mono tracks on any Beatles 5.1 remaster because this could ptentially sour the fans which will have to be the main buying audience for any hi-res release. Choices are never a bad thing, so give me 5.1, stereo, and mono.

J

 

[Ted Lee]

while i would certainly enjoy having a 5.1 version of the beatles catalog, i would be very hesitant if it didn't include the original mixes.
i've only recently discovered the beatles (i know..i know...) and i'm positive i wouldn't want to be "tainted" by only hearing the new versions.
i would rather buy the existing catalog then do that to myself.
i have sort of a related technical question (or two).
when you guys talk about the beatles MONO recordings, are you literally talking about one channel only? i know i've listened to stuff with "exaggerated" left/right channel info - is that their version of STEREO? if it is truly a mono recording, how in the world are they going to get the information "separated" for the various 5.1 channels?
also, even though i've heard the term "downmix" i've never really understood what the means. are you taking multiple channels of info and "blending" them into only two channels?
the beatles are cool!

 

[Alex Shk]

Mono is mono (one channel) but all of the Beatles material was recorded on at least 2 track stereo. The majority of their work was recorded on 4 track. The final 3 albums were recorded on 8 track and 16 track equipment. Each "track" is the equivalent of a discreet channel.

There is no real way to get a true 5.1 mix from those 2 track stereo tapes from the first 2 albums. They will have to be presented in mono or stereo only. (By the way - since you just got into them, be aware that the first 4 Beatle albums were never released in stereo on CD. They WERE released on stereo records back in the day).

When they recorded in 4 track, they would record the band on 4 tracks of the tape, mix it down to 2 tracks - which freed up 2 more tracks for vocals and overdubs. Often they would then mix the band, vocals and overdubs onto two tracks to free up two more tracks for orchestration. This process was called "bouncing". Apparently they have discovered the "pre-bounce" element tapes of much of the Beatles material, so you may have as many as 6 to 8 tracks that can be synched up to create a true suround mix.

BTW - the only Beatle songs that have NEVER-EVER appeared in stereo are Love me Do, P.S. I Love You, She Loves You, and I'll Get You. Oh yeah, and the second half of I Am The Walrus, but that's another story.

 

[Ted Lee]

thanks for the additional info alex.

 

[Rick_Brown]

"There is no real way to get a true 5.1 mix from those 2 track stereo tapes from the first 2 albums. They will have to be presented in mono or stereo only."

I agree with the first statement, but not necessarily the second. A 5.1 mix can be created from a stereo source, generally by expanding the stereo mix into a sort of horsehoe mix where extreme L/R sounds are placed in the surround speakers. Of course, if the stereo source is totally discrete, e.g. all instruments in one channel, and all vocals in the other, then it can't be done, which may be your point, Alex.

An example of '5.1 from stereo" is "God Save The Queen" from Queen's DVD-A of A Night At The Opera. They could not find the original multi-tracks for that song, so had to derive a 5.1 mix from the stereo master.

 

[mike_decock]

Apparently they have discovered the "pre-bounce" element tapes of much of the Beatles material, so you may have as many as 6 to 8 tracks that can be synched up to create a true suround mix.

I've heard that there are some 400-600 hours worth of studio tapes from The Beatles.

Anthology (Vol 1-3) explores those tapes and presents a lot of the pre-bounced tapes, alternate takes, etc. Even if you're a casual Beatles fan, Anthology (esp. Vol. 2 and 3) are very, very interesting and entertaining. Be sure to read the liner notes along with the songs.


-Mike...

 

[Anthony Hom]

There are hundreds of hours of studio tapes, but mostly they consist of 100+ takes of Maxwell's Silver Hammer, 100+ takes of Oblad- Oblada, and 100+ takes of Not Guilty.