It's time for Saw to rule the world (ProTools 9) !!

[Dave Labrecque]

Don't know if they ever did that, but yes, your analysis is correct.

I don't think so, but then it has been a while since I heard the relevant interviews (part of the video "Beatles Anthology", I think).

That reminds me... I think I'm up to the third DVD of Anthology. Time to head back to the rental shop.

[Richard Rupert]

I used to stripe SMPTE to my 16 track MCI and lock an Atari computer running Hybrid Arts midi software to it to increase track counts. That was fine whenever you weren't dealing with an all guitar band.

[Tim Miskimon]

I think guys that worked on 16 or 24 track analog had to do that quite frequently. For example, bounce down the background vocals or guitars to a submix to open up more tracks. Or create a composite of the best lead vocal lines and erase the originals to make room for more lead vocal tracks. In this case the original takes were erased.

Thomas

Yes - many of us only had 1 multi track machine & a few 2 & 4 track machines so we had to erase tracks after the bounce down to free up more.
I would bounce 4-6 tracks of backup vocals down to one track freeing up 5 tracks.
Abbey Road had dozens of 4 track machines so they could bounce the 4 tracks onto a new reel of tape and be able to save the original tapes.

One little note - back in the late 90s the songs from the Yellow Submarine movie were remixed.
They gathered all of the original tapes, converted them to digital and sync'd them up.
The remixes are quite interesting but one song bothers the hell out of me.
Eleanor Rigby.
Like lots of us Beatles fans I've been listening to that song for 40 years and I can hear that Paul's voice is not quite in sync to the other tracks.
It's slight but it really changes the feeling of his vocal performance.
Since all those tape machines had motors that ran untethered I don't believe that it is possible to lock up those tracks to perfect sync like the original performance.
It's a good idea but the end result is always gonna be different than the original intention.
I guess some things are better left alone.

[Dave Labrecque]

I have wished that I had copies of those session rough mixes that I could compare with the final mix on the CD. I have to say, though, that I deliberately kept those mixes very simple, partly by just using the monitor mix section of the Neve 8048 console that we used for the sessions. It was a small panel, all rotary controls, 24 inputs, just level, pan, and 2 sends for each input, no EQ, no patch inserts. I usually sent that mix to the cans during the session, then made maybe a couple of minor level adjustments. Nothing fancy, but very clean and a good record of what the performers did.

I doubt that Geoff Emerick considered the expected quality of those bounces as "pressure", since he had done many sessions where the whole performance was mixed live to a single track, and that was the record. With that experience, it probably wasn't much of a stretch.

Well, I'd think it's a little tougher to do "keeper" submixes without all the parts-yet-to-be-recorded in place (as compared with full-mix live to one- or two-track). And if you're still a few reductions away from the full mix, man alive! But I bet you learn pretty quickly.

I suppose drums and bass is one thing, but those guys would record a vocal and a piano, or drums and an organ. Those might not be accurate examples, but I remember reading about odd-ball combinations of things that they'd be pre-mixing. I have to believe that there was a certain amount of "it is what it is"; that the mix balances would end up to some degree a product of the limitations of this approach. That said, they probably had a pretty good idea what they were doing, too.

We could probably learn a lot from that approach though. Like don't worry about a half dB here or there. It's just not that important.

[Richard Rupert]

<snip>
One little note - back in the late 90s the songs from the Yellow Submarine movie were remixed.
They gathered all of the original tapes, converted them to digital and sync'd them up.
The remixes are quite interesting but one song bothers the hell out of me.
Eleanor Rigby.
Like lots of us Beatles fans I've been listening to that song for 40 years and I can hear that Paul's voice is not quite in sync to the other tracks.
It's slight but it really changes the feeling of his vocal performance.
Since all those tape machines had motors that ran untethered I don't believe that it is possible to lock up those tracks to perfect sync like the original performance.
It's a good idea but the end result is always gonna be different than the original intention.
I guess some things are better left alone.

I've been working on a project that will eventually be released as a live DVD performance, albeit "sweetened". It's basically a country/pop Christmas show featuring an 8 piece band, but on a couple numbers a small backing choir was used in the performance. The choir was not properly mic'd and sounded smaller than small (more like minuscule). They needed some serious help.

So we used the stacked backing tracks that had been sung by the band on the companion audio CD (I had access to the multitrack because it was recorded here). The live performance was slightly faster, so I ran the tracks though a tempo shifter and then did some physical tweaking to line everything up. Sometimes I had to adjust several successive lines, but in the end, it all sounded in sync. Since they had converted everything to digital on the Eleanor Rigby remix, I can't imagine they wouldn't (couldn't) do that for Paul McCartney... what were they thinking?

[Sean McCoy]

Well - there is the freeware JMS Audio Buss Extension - which will allow you to rout back to/from other aux and input channels give you up to 8 more Aux Send/Returns (for a total of 14) if you wish. Not the same work flow elegance as simply having more Aux/Return channels - but can be handy when you need it.

Info:
http://www.jms-audioware.com/jmsbuss.htm

Direct download:
http://www.jms-audioware.com/progs/JMSBussExt01.exe

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Thanks, Steve. Yeah, I already have the Buss Extension, and used it quite a bit. Its lack of automation and the fact that it eats into input channels limits its usefulness. Better than nuttin', though!

[Tim Miskimon]

I've been working on a project that will eventually be released as a live DVD performance, albeit "sweetened". It's basically a country/pop Christmas show featuring an 8 piece band, but on a couple numbers a small backing choir was used in the performance. The choir was not properly mic'd and sounded smaller than small (more like minuscule). They needed some serious help.

So we used the stacked backing tracks that had been sung by the band on the companion audio CD (I had access to the multitrack because it was recorded here). The live performance was slightly faster, so I ran the tracks though a tempo shifter and then did some physical tweaking to line everything up. Sometimes I had to adjust several successive lines, but in the end, it all sounded in sync. Since they had converted everything to digital on the Eleanor Rigby remix, I can't imagine they wouldn't (couldn't) do that for Paul McCartney... what were they thinking?

The difference is you were use to the way those tracks sound having been there to cut the tracks.
The guys that remixed Eleanor Rigby were young guys who weren't even alive when that song was released.
To my ears Paul's vocal track is out of sync in certain spots and it sometimes lags behind and nudges ahead of the instrumental tracks.
Don't forget analog tape machines had motors which in those days weren't locked to any sync tone so unlike newer analog tape machines they were free rolling.
That means that the 4 tracks on each reel of tape would not be in exact sync with the 4 tracks on the next reel of tape because the motors in each machine would speed up and slow down slightly at different times during each pass.

Yeah with today's technology you can cut & paste, speed up & slow down and sometimes it works but there are differences that will never completely be the same exact timing and alignment.
Believe me I've tried locking free wheeling analog tape recordings in the digital domain - sometimes it worked only because it was in a less obvious situation.
You've got to remember that Paul's vocal performance was locked with the violins & cellos to Paul's interpitation of timing.
The feel of his performance was created by his small variations in timing. Everytime he sings Eleanor Rigby he will give a slightly different performance - it can't and never will be exactly the same as the version on Revolver.
For that reason it will never be recreated by trying to sync digital transfers of tracks originally recorded on free wheeling analog tape machines.
Most people will not hear the difference - unfortunately I can hear it and it drives me nuts...

[Dave Labrecque]

The difference is you were use to the way those tracks sound having been there to cut the tracks.
The guys that remixed Eleanor Rigby were young guys who weren't even alive when that song was released.
To my ears Paul's vocal track is out of sync in certain spots and it sometimes lags behind and nudges ahead of the instrumental tracks.
Don't forget analog tape machines had motors which in those days weren't locked to any sync tone so unlike newer analog tape machines they were free rolling.
That means that the 4 tracks on each reel of tape would not be in exact sync with the 4 tracks on the next reel of tape because the motors in each machine would speed up and slow down slightly at different times during each pass.

Yeah with today's technology you can cut & paste, speed up & slow down and sometimes it works but there are differences that will never completely be the same exact timing and alignment.
Believe me I've tried locking free wheeling analog tape recordings in the digital domain - sometimes it worked only because it was in a less obvious situation.
You've got to remember that Paul's vocal performance was locked with the violins & cellos to Paul's interpitation of timing.
The feel of his performance was created by his small variations in timing. Everytime he sings Eleanor Rigby he will give a slightly different performance - it can't and never will be exactly the same as the version on Revolver.
For that reason it will never be recreated by trying to sync digital transfers of tracks originally recorded on free wheeling analog tape machines.
Most people will not hear the difference - unfortunately I can hear it and it drives me nuts...

I'd think the timing could be matched if they'd bothered to check the new mix against the original and made digital tweaks as needed. Even better if they created pitch maps from the original mix's instrumental/voice components with which they could drive the capstans of the playback decks during transfer of the first generation media.

[Tim Miskimon]

I'd think the timing could be matched if they'd bothered to check the new mix against the original and made digital tweaks as needed. Even better if they created pitch maps from the original mix's instrumental/voice components with which they could drive the capstans of the playback decks during transfer of the first generation media.

It's well known that during many of the Beatles sessions they altered the speed of the tape machines while recording & playing back certain tracks.
Also the power in England is 50 cycles not 60 like in America. That alone would vary things in unpredictable ways.
A lot of Beatles songs are what George Martin called "in the cracks" - meaning they were a little below or above natural pitch - not in the A 440 tuning standard.
These are just 3 more variations of the recording & playback process (along with the others I mentioned earlier) that makes it nearly impossible to ever recreate the original performance.
It's nice to dig into the past but music wise I think it's better to leave it alone.
I'd hate to sacrifice those great performances just for the sake of trying to improve the sonic qualities of an old recording.
Personally I even prefer the mono mixes over the stereo versions.
The mono version of Paperback Writer for instance has a lot more balls than the stereo version.
Most of the Beatles recordings were recorded & tracked with mono in mind - stereo was an after thought.
There was much more time and effort put into the mono mixes since most people in the 1960s heard most of their music back through a mono system.

[Dave Labrecque]

It's well known that during many of the Beatles sessions they altered the speed of the tape machines while recording & playing back certain tracks.
Also the power in England is 50 cycles not 60 like in America. That alone would vary things in unpredictable ways.
A lot of Beatles songs are what George Martin called "in the cracks" - meaning they were a little below or above natural pitch - not in the A 440 tuning standard.
These are just 3 more variations of the recording & playback process (along with the others I mentioned earlier) that makes it nearly impossible to ever recreate the original performance.
It's nice to dig into the past but music wise I think it's better to leave it alone.
I'd hate to sacrifice those great performances just for the sake of trying to improve the sonic qualities of an old recording.
Personally I even prefer the mono mixes over the stereo versions.
The mono version of Paperback Writer for instance has a lot more balls than the stereo version.
Most of the Beatles recordings were recorded & tracked with mono in mind - stereo was an after thought.
There was much more time and effort put into the mono mixes since most people in the 1960s heard most of their music back through a mono system.

I think Geoff says in his recent book that the boys would stick around for the mono mix, then turn things over to Geoff and the boys for the stereo mix, which they weren't too interested in.

I'm way too interested in hearing individual details of the tracks, so I feel like I prefer the stereo versions; though, admittedly, I haven't compared the mono mixes to the stereo. I got the whole dang catalog for Christmas last year -- the stereo mixes. Thanks Mom!