Is this because there is almost no center sound, only hard L & R?
I guess this means the same for Please Please Me too?
Is this because there is almost no center sound, only hard L & R?
I think we're getting off into the weeds. It gets confusing because the term "master" is applied at several different steps in the process. Based upon what I understand about how things were done at Abbey Road at that time:Spaniard in da Works wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:27 pmIf I'm not mistaken, what they did with twin track masters was to blend both channels with a bit of reverb. I'm curious though; did they do that (add the reverb and compression) directly during the cutting stage? So they cut it directly from the master mix and there was not a mastering to tape phase?
When you sum stereo to mono the side infomation drops 3 decibels while the center information stays the same volume.
Over time the prevailing view on SHF has shifted towards the 87 stereos being superior to the 2009s. A lot of downright lies and misinformation have been trotted out over the years in regards to the 87s, implying that they were done on the cheap from degenerated tape copies. It's all bollocks. The guy who did them put as much effort into them as the 2009 team did. And he did a bloody good job in my opinion. If George Martin hadn't stuck his nose in, we'd have gotten a perfect set of stereo cds. At least the unfutzed Help and RS escaped later on. But I don't really like the 2009 versions of the first 4. There is tape damage, narrowing, EQ changes and turbo charged low end... and limiting. In my opinion they don't sound as good as a vanilla needle drop.Kando wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 8:53 pm
As for the '09 releases my only objection was the volume increase and limiting. Apparently not a lot of people are bothered by this, and that is their right. But it was the limiting that really bothered me, lol. However, most people don't even seem to notice it, or at least are not bothered by it, so go figure.
The old maxim 'You can't please all the people all the time', is absolutely true in this case.
Ha, ha, as for the SHF, that site drives me nuts sometimes. If I even begin to defend the MFSL recordings I often get jumped on, and not rather nicely either, by a handful of people who I doubt have ever even listened to them, and are probably just rehashing, or reinventing old unfounded comments about them. And if those have senior membership status they the Gorts help if they think you are remotely criticizing them, lol. SH himself very recently had some of my posts temporarily deleted, and said (in the middle of a thread) that I would be' thread banned' unless I posted my home setup in my personal details. Once I did I eventually got my posts put back up. Funny thing is that not all of my detractors had systems listed at the time either, but they were not publicly confronted like I was.Lord Reith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 9:33 pmOver time the prevailing view on SHF has shifted towards the 87 stereos being superior to the 2009s. A lot of downright lies and misinformation have been trotted out over the years in regards to the 87s, implying that they were done on the cheap from degenerated tape copies. It's all bollocks. The guy who did them put as much effort into them as the 2009 team did. And he did a bloody good job in my opinion. If George Martin hadn't stuck his nose in, we'd have gotten a perfect set of stereo cds. At least the unfutzed Help and RS escaped later on. But I don't really like the 2009 versions of the first 4. There is tape damage, narrowing, EQ changes and turbo charged low end... and limiting. In my opinion they don't sound as good as a vanilla needle drop.Kando wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 8:53 pm
As for the '09 releases my only objection was the volume increase and limiting. Apparently not a lot of people are bothered by this, and that is their right. But it was the limiting that really bothered me, lol. However, most people don't even seem to notice it, or at least are not bothered by it, so go figure.
The old maxim 'You can't please all the people all the time', is absolutely true in this case.
DESS used eq though, so that skews the comparison. I've compared the 87 cds to flat vinyl rips, and they are exactly the same bar no narrowing. No eq, nr or anything like that was added other than reproducing what changes Harry Moss implemented while cutting the vinyl. The DESS rips of the blue box have bass and treble boost similar to the EP box set. They sound GOOD... just not like the albums actually were originally. I think there was a misconception that Ebbetts didn't use eq (which was never actually stated) and so when comparing the conclusion reached was that the 87 cds had eq. It was actually the other way around!tymime wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 1:04 pm I remember when I first heard the DESS needledrops through Purple Chick, I thought they were much more dynamic compared to the '87 CDs. I suppose that may have been because the '87 CDs were likely flat transfers (correct me if I'm wrong), but I've sometimes suspected it was also partly due to analog-to-digital technology not being quite up to the task at the time.
I don't have the '09 CDs, but it sounds to me like they fiddled with the sound just a bit too much. I did once listen to Sgt. Pepper on vinyl (the 2012 issue) since my grandma had a copy, and the bass on When I'm 64 made the needle jump.
Can't say I noted DESS eq on the Blue Box series I have, but perhaps that was a difference between his original and the updated version. I was quite pleased when Cliftdean74 posted the MR series of these, as I want to hear if they are any better. Overall I thought the updated DESS sounded rather clean and pleasant, other than a subtle fuzziness in the very bottom bass extensions, but the mid and upper range on them sounded quite nice. However, he certainly did something weird with the MFSL series. The DESS versions don't sound nearly as clean, in any manner, compared to the MR versions that I got somewhat earlier.Lord Reith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 9:37 pm DESS used eq though, so that skews the comparison. I've compared the 87 cds to flat vinyl rips, and they are exactly the same bar no narrowing. No eq, nr or anything like that was added other than reproducing what changes Harry Moss implemented while cutting the vinyl. The DESS rips of the blue box have bass and treble boost similar to the EP box set. They sound GOOD... just not like the albums actually were originally. I think there was a misconception that Ebbetts didn't use eq (which was never actually stated) and so when comparing the conclusion reached was that the 87 cds had eq. It was actually the other way around!