(OUTDATED) Watching Rainbows - The Ultimate Get Back Sessions Remaster (BETA RELEASE)

[Lupine Assassin]

Fabulous!

[iPanggo]

innerwreckdom here. I just wanted to clear up a few things about NBS (Stereo Edition). I used an online program (which I still am paying $6 a month for some reason) called Moises.ai which at the time sounded cool but has aged terribly in just 2 short years. I worked with lossless cd sources all of which are being used here (Yellow Dog, Perfect Crime, etc.) but I finally figured out that Moises cut off those high frequencies above 11kHz, not to mention the artifacts causing the "whacky" panning. I took the WAV files from those and mixed them down from 5 point stereo on Reaper and edited all the rolls together on Audacity. I still have all of those stems on a hard drive if anybody is interested in mixing their own version and I'd be happy to share them here if there is enough interest. My work was done on the original project very quickly doing the entire (approximately) 100 hours in less than four months. Earlier this year, I began making a (mostly) unnecessary mono version for easier listenability. I quit working on it after the 2nd volume when I began to disagree with the current numbering system. I do believe that needs more work but it must be done diplomatically in order to be accomplished. Anyway, it is that 2nd volume from January 3rd in the Mono Edition thread that I would say is worth keeping. I worked hard on syncing and speed correcting the different A and B rolls when there were unique recordings on each. As a matter of fact, I spent several grueling weeks working on it. Here's a quick link to that Volume:
hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1RywvEVUhFZyTMtOuaA7Plnma81ZViEij/view?usp=sharing
Good luck with your work, iPanggo. These sessions can get very tedious and overwhelming,

Hi innerwreckdom! Thanks and good to hear from you.
It may seem that I hate NBS, that's not true, it's a great set that I'm actually in part using as reference here.

Pretty much my purpouse with this set is to concentrate on sound quality and not much on "experimentation" like you did with AI stereo. My ""ADT"" is pretty much helping with clarity.

By the way, taking my time here to say I most likely won't bother with DDSI, for me is just a complete mess.

Lastly, if anybody wants to help me with artwork/info booklet and stuff, I'll very much appreciate

[ruedabeat]

Looks like a project that will keep you busy for a while, and I hope you enjoy it.

I agree with you that many (all?) AI generate tracks lack high frequencies, above 11kHz. With good equipment, and young ears, you can actually hear that. I often also detect a swishy atmosphere, softening of the highs and lows, that I don't like.

...

It could be a good thing to normalise volume and EQ a bit, but I would be very careful with it. Twickenham and Apple Studios have very different soundscapes; to what do you normalise the EQ?

Little correction: I'm not using EQ, only for some cases. I'm mainly balancing the volumes, the Nagras are incredibly dynamic, so that helps having a better listening experience.
My corrections are mainly hum removal and restoring lost spectrum, also since I'm 16, I can hear the difference between lossy and lossless
The "ADT" is not really that, it's a plugin that Cubase has called "MonoToStereo", it's much more enjoyable than a normal ADT if setted correctly

You´re 16 !!! That´s really amazing.

I´m 56 and fortunely can hear the difference between lossy and lossless, but I don´t doubt you have better ears than mine.

Thanks for your work and time dedicated to this project.

[dumbchops]

By the way, taking my time here to say I most likely won't bother with DDSI, for me is just a complete mess.

DDSI is indeed a mess and out of date, but it is the universal code for which we use to identify the performances. In my opinion, I don't really want a 40+ minute track of "Old Brown Shoe" but I feel like I would get blasted by others for changing the system. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your set as it comes along.

[iPanggo]

By the way, taking my time here to say I most likely won't bother with DDSI, for me is just a complete mess.

DDSI is indeed a mess and out of date, but it is the universal code for which we use to identify the performances. In my opinion, I don't really want a 40+ minute track of "Old Brown Shoe" but I feel like I would get blasted by others for changing the system. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your set as it comes along.

Yeah, I agree. I was thinking of making my own identification scheme, for the moment I'm just gonna divide the rolls in segments.

Also, tomorrow I should upload day 3!

[Darth Kybiel]

innerwreckdom here. I just wanted to clear up a few things about NBS (Stereo Edition). I used an online program (which I still am paying $6 a month for some reason) called Moises.ai which at the time sounded cool but has aged terribly in just 2 short years. I worked with lossless cd sources all of which are being used here (Yellow Dog, Perfect Crime, etc.) but I finally figured out that Moises cut off those high frequencies above 11kHz, not to mention the artifacts causing the "whacky" panning. I took the WAV files from those and mixed them down from 5 point stereo on Reaper and edited all the rolls together on Audacity. I still have all of those stems on a hard drive if anybody is interested in mixing their own version and I'd be happy to share them here if there is enough interest. My work was done on the original project very quickly doing the entire (approximately) 100 hours in less than four months. Earlier this year, I began making a (mostly) unnecessary mono version for easier listenability. I quit working on it after the 2nd volume when I began to disagree with the current numbering system. I do believe that needs more work but it must be done diplomatically in order to be accomplished. Anyway, it is that 2nd volume from January 3rd in the Mono Edition thread that I would say is worth keeping. I worked hard on syncing and speed correcting the different A and B rolls when there were unique recordings on each. As a matter of fact, I spent several grueling weeks working on it. Here's a quick link to that Volume:
hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1RywvEVUhFZyTMtOuaA7Plnma81ZViEij/view?usp=sharing
Good luck with your work, iPanggo. These sessions can get very tedious and overwhelming,

I'd be interested in any of the stems. Every time a song is redone with AI the stems are always slightly different I can compare tracks with what I have so far.

[yymca6]

By the way, taking my time here to say I most likely won't bother with DDSI, for me is just a complete mess.

DDSI is indeed a mess and out of date, but it is the universal code for which we use to identify the performances. In my opinion, I don't really want a 40+ minute track of "Old Brown Shoe" but I feel like I would get blasted by others for changing the system. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your set as it comes along.

It might be a mess (I ain't so sure about that...) but let"s acknowledge the fact that someone somewhere had to do this and Doug Sulpy did. Thanks to him, that might have been a first step to something else but in the meantime, no one came up up with a better "system".

Those who don't like the DDSI numbering, well guys what do you suggest?

[dumbchops]

It might be a mess (I ain't so sure about that...) but let"s acknowledge the fact that someone somewhere had to do this and Doug Sulpy did. Thanks to him, that might have been a first step to something else but in the meantime, no one came up up with a better "system".

Those who don't like the DDSI numbering, well guys what do you suggest?

It is a mess, but you are correct. The trail had to be blazed somehow and Doug really came through with that. I still have the hardcopy from the 90's called Get Back written before all the tapes were available. It was exciting reading for me at the time but now all the tapes are out there, and they are a mess to begin with. A few rolls are numbered out of order for instance but that is the fault of the original Nagra guy (quick quiz: what was his name?).

So, updating the numbering system where it makes sense? I'd say first offer the job to Doug with suggestions from others or make a thread somewhere in this forum where many of us can knock it out and compare notes until we have this thing which makes sense. A reality where 3 seconds of a stray guitar line does not constitute as a performance and get the correct titles to songs. I do believe that performance numbers should begin and end where there are breaks in the tape, but I have proven several times that even though sometimes the level of a track goes down super low, it is in fact one continuous performance, therefore it does not require a new number or track. I shoe-horned everything on NBS (Stereo) specifically to fit the DDSI numbers to make Doug and others happy. Now it's time to update. I'm not suggesting a "new" "stereo" NBS but just a whole new way of looking at the Get Back sessions and what there is available thanks to those who made it available for all of us to begin with.

[yymca6]

It might be a mess (I ain't so sure about that...) but let"s acknowledge the fact that someone somewhere had to do this and Doug Sulpy did. Thanks to him, that might have been a first step to something else but in the meantime, no one came up up with a better "system".

Those who don't like the DDSI numbering, well guys what do you suggest?

It is a mess, but you are correct. The trail had to be blazed somehow and Doug really came through with that. I still have the hardcopy from the 90's called Get Back written before all the tapes were available. It was exciting reading for me at the time but now all the tapes are out there, and they are a mess to begin with. A few rolls are numbered out of order for instance but that is the fault of the original Nagra guy (quick quiz: what was his name?).

So, updating the numbering system where it makes sense? I'd say first offer the job to Doug with suggestions from others or make a thread somewhere in this forum where many of us can knock it out and compare notes until we have this thing which makes sense. A reality where 3 seconds of a stray guitar line does not constitute as a performance and get the correct titles to songs. I do believe that performance numbers should begin and end where there are breaks in the tape, but I have proven several times that even though sometimes the level of a track goes down super low, it is in fact one continuous performance, therefore it does not require a new number or track. I shoe-horned everything on NBS (Stereo) specifically to fit the DDSI numbers to make Doug and others happy. Now it's time to update. I'm not suggesting a "new" "stereo" NBS but just a whole new way of looking at the Get Back sessions and what there is available thanks to those who made it available for all of us to begin with.

You definitely have a point.

But being rational, we must firt start with what everybody agrees to be the definitive Ge Back sessions tapes. Once we all agree it is the final version of it all, then we could get on the project of renumbering it, starting with the most up-to-date DDSIs. Unless someone comes up with a better term because he does not like DDSI (and tell us why!), we should stick with this acronym and adjust the numbering with what we all agreed on what is the final version of the Get Back Sessions.

So first what is the definitive version? Then once we agree on it, either Doug comes up with a new updated numbering or we all get along and do our bit and one up one day (soon I hope) weith the definitive numbering.

[Darth Kybiel]

It might be a mess (I ain't so sure about that...) but let"s acknowledge the fact that someone somewhere had to do this and Doug Sulpy did. Thanks to him, that might have been a first step to something else but in the meantime, no one came up up with a better "system".

Those who don't like the DDSI numbering, well guys what do you suggest?

It is a mess, but you are correct. The trail had to be blazed somehow and Doug really came through with that. I still have the hardcopy from the 90's called Get Back written before all the tapes were available. It was exciting reading for me at the time but now all the tapes are out there, and they are a mess to begin with. A few rolls are numbered out of order for instance but that is the fault of the original Nagra guy (quick quiz: what was his name?).

So, updating the numbering system where it makes sense? I'd say first offer the job to Doug with suggestions from others or make a thread somewhere in this forum where many of us can knock it out and compare notes until we have this thing which makes sense. A reality where 3 seconds of a stray guitar line does not constitute as a performance and get the correct titles to songs. I do believe that performance numbers should begin and end where there are breaks in the tape, but I have proven several times that even though sometimes the level of a track goes down super low, it is in fact one continuous performance, therefore it does not require a new number or track. I shoe-horned everything on NBS (Stereo) specifically to fit the DDSI numbers to make Doug and others happy. Now it's time to update. I'm not suggesting a "new" "stereo" NBS but just a whole new way of looking at the Get Back sessions and what there is available thanks to those who made it available for all of us to begin with.

You definitely have a point.

But being rational, we must firt start with what everybody agrees to be the definitive Ge Back sessions tapes. Once we all agree it is the final version of it all, then we could get on the project of renumbering it, starting with the most up-to-date DDSIs. Unless someone comes up with a better term because he does not like DDSI (and tell us why!), we should stick with this acronym and adjust the numbering with what we all agreed on what is the final version of the Get Back Sessions.

So first what is the definitive version? Then once we agree on it, either Doug comes up with a new updated numbering or we all get along and do our bit and one up one day (soon I hope) weith the definitive numbering.

In my set's new numbering system, I still use DDSI as a start point as a numbering system. I use a similar idea as the Let It Be box sset giving long gaps of dialouge a D and title after their numbers Much like P has been for playbacks. What was long rehearsals being shoved as a long lungthed number I divided into .a .b .c so it's easier to find any particular rehearsal in the lumped start-stop DDSI numbers to avoid needing huge amounts of totally redone numbering. Some new renumbering would catch back up anyway if the .a .b .c is used to show a performance ending one roll is obviously still continued at the start of a next roll. instead of having two different numbers for a same song. I'm sure everyone agrees there are many that are obviously the same performance continued. Those too different can still be kept at different numbers to be on the safe side. But Doug's hard work does not need to be totally redone. It's still an excellent point to start from to adjust and tweak. He hinself adjusted it as needed over the years. His books are still not obsolite when collecting the CDs from the times they came out and help starter collectors as well. Collecting 'everything' has expanded.Opinions of various collectors of sound quality vs sound of source differs based on opinions of various collectors. Most arguements are just differences of opinions, but we all keep collecting in our own styles. Look at how everyone disputes AI stereo mixes. You have people that want better better better sound quality, but you can't get better than the mastertape without tampering, which will then make some say 'oh not true to the source' Separate every voice and instrument to an individual track without cancelling out any other's sound, make a perfect spread stereo mix, you'd still have 50% say 'oooo' and 50% say 'ugh' Which is why it's next to impossible to make a perfect official or unofficial mix that will please EVERYONE. The collecting is as diverse as the music itself and the ways it was recorded during a very changing music and music technology decade.