Disque Americ Revolver

[Lord Reith]

Okay I've got a second rip of the cd here and it has clicks in different places so it's clearly a ripping issue.

But if you pull the level of the left channel on the Canadian cd down by -0.235 and then OOPS it with the right, you get silence (except for the spurious clicks in my case). That to me suggests it was a true mono source, rather than folding down the L/R output of a stereo machine which would not result in a channel mismatch.

This is the eq applied to the 1987 cds relative to 2009:

87eq.jpg (107.72 KiB) Viewed 2845 times

which shows a small peak around 5khz which is what makes the sound brighter. Oddly enough there's some bass boost too. That surprised me.

The alternate mono transfer theory makes the most sense to me, though I'm surprised the two transfers sound as close as they do. It's really weird though... why only two of the four monos?

They do sound similar, but it seems a stretch to me that an 80s stereo tape machine would not be capable of playing back at the same speed both times... that would be really strange. By the 80s the motor speed was not dependent on the mains frequency anymore, so there is no reason the speed would not be rock solid on both playbacks. That's part of the reason I think the Canadian cd is from a different machine (either a different stereo machine, or an old mono machine).

[vinylwall]

They do sound similar, but it seems a stretch to me that an 80s stereo tape machine would not be capable of playing back at the same speed both times... that would be really strange. By the 80s the motor speed was not dependent on the mains frequency anymore, so there is no reason the speed would not be rock solid on both playbacks. That's part of the reason I think the Canadian cd is from a different machine (either a different stereo machine, or an old mono machine).

I'm not so sure that your speed statement is accurate. In an article in Mix Online (by Matt Hurwitz ⋅ Published: 02/07/2020 ⋅ Updated: 02/25/2020) Giles Martin & Miles Showell had this to say about analog tape [in reference to remixing using the pre-submixed tapes] - I added the bold emphasis:

“You can slide things on a [ProTools] timeline, but they won’t be phase-accurate,” Martin explains. “And we don’t want to digitally stretch anything, because we want to keep it pure.” Adds mastering engineer Miles Showell: “Analog tape never plays at the same speed twice. Every time you run it, it’s different. Even if you cue up all the tape machines and hit Go at the same time, they will drift out of sync.”

So [engineer Matthew] Cocker uses two special tools to accomplish the task: his ears and a manual vari-speed control connected to the playback tape machine (a Studer A80 from the 1970s for 4-track and a Studer A820 for 8-track). Keeping the original stereo master as a reference, Cocker transfers in the first multitrack reel. He will then find a start point—say, the fourth beat of the song—and cue the tape machine of the following reel to that point, then hit Play at the right moment.

[paul62]

It's possible that Capitol's Canadian branch had their own version of Dave Dexter Jr. or Bill Miller on the staff, someone who made their own decisions about how The Beatles product was to be mastered for record (or CD). "Beatlemania!" (the Canadian version of "With The Beatles") has a very wide stereo soundstage. As I write this, I'm listening to a 24/192 'drop of the Canadian-made Capitol "Help!" LP which also has a very wide stereo soundstage.

[alphabeatles]

paul62, would that be 1977 - Canada Stereo Reissue Vinyl Rip (Capitol SMAS-2386) (24 - 192) ?

[paul62]

paul62, would that be 1977 - Canada Stereo Reissue Vinyl Rip (Capitol SMAS-2386) (24 - 192) ?

alphabeatles, I sent you a polite and friendly PM a few weeks ago: would you mind sending me an equally polite and friendly reply?!!

At any rate, to answer your question, it's a 'drop that I've done a few months ago from a copy I talk about at discogs: I don't know what year my copy was made but I bought it sometime in 1981-83. It was new, an import pressing that I wanted to add to my collection.

https://www.discogs.com/The-Beatles-Hel ... e/14213525

26luap Nov 13, 2020
I bought a Canadian gatefold copy in about 1981, 1982 or 1983. My copy has a purple and silver label and the matrix in the side one run-out is SMAS-1- 2386 H27 (handwritten) with MASTERED BY CAPITOL stamped and an O. The matrix in the side two run-out is SMAS 2386 B (handwritten) with the seventies Capitol "C" symbol/typeface stamped and then TLC - T (handwritten). SMAS 3436 . B . is handwritten (but scratched over heavily). Also present is 6C (or GC) which is handwritten.

[Doug]

I'm not sure about conclusions based upon different needle-drops unless they're made by the same person using the same equipment. The last time I bought a new cartridge, for example, I was surprised how much wider the stereo soundstage was, so some of the difference might be due the equipment that's being used to transfer the record.

[alphabeatles]

The version I just found (as noted above) does indeed seem to be a wider mix than the '87 CD, but after a quick A/B listen (and peek at the waveforms) it also seems similar to the 1978 US Capitol LP and 2006 Capitol Albums box. So maybe there is nothing unique about this Canadian Capitol pressing mix?

[paul62]

I'm not sure about conclusions based upon different needle-drops unless they're made by the same person using the same equipment. The last time I bought a new cartridge, for example, I was surprised how much wider the stereo soundstage was, so some of the difference might be due the equipment that's being used to transfer the record.

Very good points, Doug! The listening experience I'd mentioned upthread was the first time I'd heard the LP 'drop I'd done (and the listening was done through headphones). I haven't noticed this wideness with other 'drops I've done in recent times, though, so the wideness was remarkable enough to raise the issue here, remembering that "Beatlemania!" came out with a wide soundstage. (I think Dr. Ebbetts did a CD of "Beatlemania!": I'll check that out, at some point).

The discogs entry for "Beatlemania!" indicates that the mastering and manufacturing of the LP was out-sourced to RCA, so that might explain why that LP was mastered with a wide soundstage:

Manufactured By – Capitol Records Of Canada, Ltd.
Lacquer Cut at – RCA Studios, Toronto
Lacquer Cut By [Uncredited] – Graham Newton
Pressed By – RCA Records Pressing Plant, Smiths Falls, Ontario
Printed By – Parr's

https://www.discogs.com/The-Beatles-Bea ... se/2160905

[Lord Reith]

I'm not so sure that your speed statement is accurate. In an article in Mix Online (by Matt Hurwitz ⋅ Published: 02/07/2020 ⋅ Updated: 02/25/2020) Giles Martin & Miles Showell had this to say about analog tape [in reference to remixing using the pre-submixed tapes] - I added the bold emphasis:

Well, I could be easily be wrong I guess. But the speed different is pronounced - 0.625% - and with an error like that the machine would basically be useless. Even in the 1960s, if their 4-track recorders had played back with a speed variance like that, it would have been impossible to overdub anything because the overdubbed parts would sound very out of tune and, worse still, out of tune by different amounts during the overdubs where they punched in segments within a track. I think Giles is talking about much smaller speed errors - down around 0.01%

[paul62]

I'm not so sure that your speed statement is accurate. In an article in Mix Online (by Matt Hurwitz ⋅ Published: 02/07/2020 ⋅ Updated: 02/25/2020) Giles Martin & Miles Showell had this to say about analog tape [in reference to remixing using the pre-submixed tapes] - I added the bold emphasis:

Well, I could be easily be wrong I guess. But the speed different is pronounced - 0.625% - and with an error like that the machine would basically be useless. Even in the 1960s, if their 4-track recorders had played back with a speed variance like that, it would have been impossible to overdub anything because the overdubbed parts would sound very out of tune and, worse still, out of tune by different amounts during the overdubs where they punched in segments within a track. I think Giles is talking about much smaller speed errors - down around 0.01%

You might recall me making a post about speed differences between the mono and stereo versions of the '64 output of The Beatles at "YWSM" and in "the 'zone" a few years ago (I'd posted this information at The 910 and SH Music Forums, as well, back then). Thought I'd copy this post of mine, verbatim, from a thread at my own joint and paste it here as it might be pertinent to the discussion:

Here's something I posted at a few places just over a year ago, ideal if you want to create yourself slightly different stereo versions of the '64 tracks from the 2009 remasters: the huge span and variety of speed differences was quite astonishing to discover and could be accounted for by performances being captured by two different tape recorders (a mono "delta' tape recorder and a stereo tape recorder).

I was checking the 2009 remastered mono versions against the 2009 remastered stereo versions of the "A Hard Day's Night" LP tracks, the "Beatles For Sale" LP tracks, the "Long Tall Sally" EP tracks and the "I Feel Fine"/"She's A Woman" single tracks: in all but one case, the stereo version runs substantially faster than the mono version.

When the remastering team at Abbey Road put together the remastered sets in 2009, they used tape equipment that was recently serviced and took great care (one song at a time was transferred to digital with the tape heads being cleaned after each song was transferred). I understand that the original stereo master tapes and the original mono master tapes were used for the '64 remastered editions, so any speed variations must have been "baked into" the mixes back in '64 (except in the case of "She's A Woman": the mono and stereo mixes more or less correlate).

If you are one of those people that believe that the mono version of a Beatles track is the "official" or "correct" or "right" version then you can use Audacity (which can be downloaded for free) and make the speed corrections needed to make the stereo version "right" or "correct". I'll list each track and give the speed correction percentage needed to bring each stereo track "down to speed" to correlate with the mono version:

CAN'T BUY ME LOVE (-0.730%)
YOU CAN'T DO THAT (-0.925%)
I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER (-0.735%)
AND I LOVE HER (-0.511%)
TELL ME WHY (-0.835%)
IF I FELL (-0.655%)
I'M HAPPY JUST TO DANCE WITH YOU (-0.664%)
LONG TALL SALLY (-0.164%)
I CALL YOUR NAME (-0.628%)
A HARD DAY'S NIGHT (-0.712%)
MATCHBOX (-0.075%)
I'LL CRY INSTEAD (-0.691%)
SLOW DOWN (-0.256%)
I'LL BE BACK (-0.561%)
THINGS WE SAID TODAY (-0.454%)
WHEN I GET HOME (-0.529%)
ANY TIME AT ALL (-0.604%)
BABY'S IN BLACK (-1.137%)
I'M A LOSER (-0.824%)
I DON'T WANT TO SPOIL THE PARTY (-0.783%)
EVERY LITTLE THING (-0.383%)
NO REPLY (-0.422%)
EIGHT DAYS A WEEK (-0.450%)
SHE'S A WOMAN (-0.012%: minimal difference)
KANSAS CITY/HEY HEY HEY HEY (-0.626%)
MR MOONLIGHT (-0.647%)
I FEEL FINE (-0.591%)
I'LL FOLLOW THE SUN (-0.788%)
EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO BE MY BABY (-0.731%)
ROCK AND ROLL MUSIC (-0.681%)
WORDS OF LOVE (-0.630%)
HONEY DON'T (-0.434%)
WHAT YOU'RE DOING (-0.564%)