Revolver 2022 issues

Discuss official releases and re-issues. The only links allowed here are to the Beatles YouTube channel or other band-sanctioned platforms.
User avatar
yymca6
Posts: 2719
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 1:02 pm

Re: Revolver 2022 issues

Post by yymca6 »

harrylime wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 5:55 pm A "Prod CD Master" on U-matic that's analogue? That would be a first :lol: You are aware that originally Philips and Sony devised the master-to-disc process to use so-called "PCM-adaptors" that converted the digital master signal to (Sony's) U-matic tapes, before the advent of DAT?

Note that if you look a bit closer the master label has 44.1 and "PQ encoded", both are aspects of a PCM signal and meaningless for an analogue tape. Not to mention on the tape label there's even a check box for "pre-emphasis", which we all know from the Black Triangle CD. Also note the "467 DA-60" on its side, meaning it's the common Ampex 467 3/4" Umatic tape. See how Ampex indicates its intended use on its label:

Image
Sorry I plead total ignorance, I just deleted my post.
Yves
User avatar
Lord Reith
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 am
Location: BBC House

Re: Revolver 2022 issues

Post by Lord Reith »

harrylime wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:57 am Question remains how a different edit of Revolver ended up there as well, because it doesn't seem plausible digital masters were sent throughout and suddenly an analogue one was ultimately used for DA's Revolver. Meaning they (presumably Capitol Canada) had to have an analogue tape sent over, transferred somewhere and mastered for CD all at their expense. That just wouldn't make much sense. Perhaps EMI also made two different CD masters in multiple cases and the same sequence of events led to DA eventually and unknowingly releasing the earlier master set.
I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant was that at least two attempts at a transfer of the WTB/AHDN/PEPPER from the analogue tapes to digital took place at Abbey Road. These different digital masters were sent at different times to Captol. So I guess they had the first lot of analogue to digital transfers put aside, not meant to be used, but by 1990 nobody remembered that and they just brought up their database which directed them to the first lot of tapes that had come in. That's the trouble with databases. They almost never have additional info like that, they just list what exists. This happens in the BBC ALL THE TIME. I've got loads of BBC dvds where they've sourced it from a higher generation film print, a cropped 4:3 version or some other random source. Lots of times my old off air vhs looks better than the dvd. The reason this keeps happening is because they keep all these different prints and edits, but probably only the people who worked on the programme know which are the right versions. So when a junior tape librarian is tasked with fetching a master for dvd production, he goes to their inhouse database and randomly chooses a version from a list of their holdings. I reckon this is what happened at Capitol in 1990. Some junior employee was tasked with fetching the tapes out of storage, pulled up a list of holdings on the computer, saw that there were multiple versions and just picked the first one on the list (the earliest). Ditto with the Get Back cd in Japan.
User avatar
yymca6
Posts: 2719
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 1:02 pm

Re: Revolver 2022 issues

Post by yymca6 »

Lord Reith wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:58 pm
harrylime wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:57 am Question remains how a different edit of Revolver ended up there as well, because it doesn't seem plausible digital masters were sent throughout and suddenly an analogue one was ultimately used for DA's Revolver. Meaning they (presumably Capitol Canada) had to have an analogue tape sent over, transferred somewhere and mastered for CD all at their expense. That just wouldn't make much sense. Perhaps EMI also made two different CD masters in multiple cases and the same sequence of events led to DA eventually and unknowingly releasing the earlier master set.
I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant was that at least two attempts at a transfer of the WTB/AHDN/PEPPER from the analogue tapes to digital took place at Abbey Road. These different digital masters were sent at different times to Captol. So I guess they had the first lot of analogue to digital transfers put aside, not meant to be used, but by 1990 nobody remembered that and they just brought up their database which directed them to the first lot of tapes that had come in. That's the trouble with databases. They almost never have additional info like that, they just list what exists. This happens in the BBC ALL THE TIME. I've got loads of BBC dvds where they've sourced it from a higher generation film print, a cropped 4:3 version or some other random source. Lots of times my old off air vhs looks better than the dvd. The reason this keeps happening is because they keep all these different prints and edits, but probably only the people who worked on the programme know which are the right versions. So when a junior tape librarian is tasked with fetching a master for dvd production, he goes to their inhouse database and randomly chooses a version from a list of their holdings. I reckon this is what happened at Capitol in 1990. Some junior employee was tasked with fetching the tapes out of storage, pulled up a list of holdings on the computer, saw that there were multiple versions and just picked the first one on the list (the earliest). Ditto with the Get Back cd in Japan.
Quite logical explanation. But what versions did we have in Canada prior to 1990 and before Disque Americ? And since i got rid of all my physical CDs at the beginning of this century (yeah I know I am a jerk for not keeping Beatles stuff, shame on me!), there is no way for me to find out.

I remember though we had longboxes like in the USA. And I also remember buying Pepper's in 1987 when it came out (probably in the summer) before I even had a CD player.

I shall do some more thorough searching on this. I guess we had US copies but that would be surprising as it was not the tradition with LPs from the 60's on. We had our own copies, usually of lower quality. I used to buy our Canadian LPs and at some point bought also the US editions (we used to travel to the US often and I was buying lots of LPs in Burlington, VT at the time at Upstairs Records on Church Street). And then I started importing the UK versions either directly from a UK wholesaler or through an import/export in California.

Stil some work to do eh?
Yves
User avatar
Lord Reith
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 am
Location: BBC House

Re: Revolver 2022 issues

Post by Lord Reith »

Pre 1990 the Canadaians just imported the Capitol versions from the US.
harrylime
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:56 pm

Re: Revolver 2022 issues

Post by harrylime »

Lord Reith wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:58 pm but by 1990 nobody remembered that and they just brought up their database which directed them to the first lot of tapes that had come in. That's the trouble with databases.
I think we're on the same page then. I could be there was some different order of events somewhere, but the net result was the same. It would be interesting to see if for example Lewisohn or some other historian would eventually sort all these things out with the same diligence as with Tune In for example.
They almost never have additional info like that, they just list what exists. This happens in the BBC ALL THE TIME.
Indeed, it's a common error and plagues all kinds of material (re)use everywhere. They most often do have some kind of "final version" or "release version" marker to flag the version to be used subsequently, but that system often fails as well if it's not made a hard requirement throughout the process.
User avatar
Lord Reith
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 am
Location: BBC House

Re: Revolver 2022 issues

Post by Lord Reith »

harrylime wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:40 am
Lord Reith wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:58 pm but by 1990 nobody remembered that and they just brought up their database which directed them to the first lot of tapes that had come in. That's the trouble with databases.
I think we're on the same page then. I could be there was some different order of events somewhere, but the net result was the same. It would be interesting to see if for example Lewisohn or some other historian would eventually sort all these things out with the same diligence as with Tune In for example.
They almost never have additional info like that, they just list what exists. This happens in the BBC ALL THE TIME.
Indeed, it's a common error and plagues all kinds of material (re)use everywhere. They most often do have some kind of "final version" or "release version" marker to flag the version to be used subsequently, but that system often fails as well if it's not made a hard requirement throughout the process.
Yeah, I think it's down to the fact that important people are not tasked with menial jobs like going down to the archives and poking around looking for tapes. Those sorts of jobs almost always go to an underling, probably a very young person or an intern. The fact that all this took place three or four years after the original issues left enough time for everybody who was involved in the original project to have moved on, and those tasked with this minor job just didn't appreciate that there might be different versions. In this case we were lucky though. Instead of a worse version, we got the better one!
Post Reply