Harry Moss, Beatles Cutting Engineer..Serious Question

william shears · 11-11-2004, 01:49 AM

Been reading all of the threads about the possibilities or not of good re-issues of the UK LPs..some people have an almost forensic desire for 'pure' releases that have seen nary a scented hand of the great futzers and fudgers of digitalville. But what about the dudes who originally cut the first pressings of all the great and good fab revolvers? Inside their dank and fetid chambers they slaved, adding a smidgen of EQ here a nudge of compression there..Surely their dark arts have gone to the grave with them? Once the master tapes had been sent down the draughty halls of Abbey Road they were in a sense out of the beatles and G. Martins hands for ever..they were clearly tweaked for release. What if EMI were to do exactly what everyone has been asking and go back to the surviving master tapes, cleared off the mushrooms and grot from the oxide and transferred them 'flat' to the digital domain without a flicker of digital jiggery pokery and they sounded, to the millions of expectant beatle people licking their lips around the world, erm..flat?

How important is the 'cutter' and where be he now?

OK....I've re-tooled this thread as I wasn't getting any action, maybe its just a really boring thread? Was the tone too facetious?

What I am really trying to get at is this:

Take the Beatles just as an example, but it could be any of the greats from the vinyl era. When we play those old records and they sound so awesome are we hearing something better, worse, different or not from the 'original' master tapes. Is it the compression, eq-ing or whatever that was used to cut the record to wax adding anything to the experience? Or is it just a necessary evil of the format. I mean grooving to an original mono 'please please me' album seems to be very much an experience of THE VINYL, the specific warm sound that exists above and beyond the 'source' tape.

What are the thoughts of you guys on the process of preparing archive sounds for cd/digital..Is it just to transfer EXACTLY what was on the source/master or do a different set of skills from the likes of Harry Moss come into play for the modern era of disc appreciation.

Forgive me for repeating myself....

vanmeterannie · 11-11-2004, 04:43 AM

Well, for one thing, those great old tube limiters seem to really have a sound of their own, and certainly influenced the sound of vinyl.

John Carsell · 11-11-2004, 04:52 AM

To bring out the best sound IMO the tapes need more than just transferring. They need mastering. They don't all sound "perfect". Some songs are dull sounding (I'm Down) and some are too bright (Long Tall Sally). Some light analog eq I think in most cases would do the trick.

BITBANGER · 11-11-2004, 06:54 AM

I think EQing should only be done on a case by case basis, when absolutely necessary, and in all cases an original pressing should be used as a reference. In many instances just doing a flat transfer will yield results superior to the vinyl. Many companies (Mercury comes to mind) would roll off the bottom end in order to increase the signal level on the record and to increase yield I suppose???
On the other hand the CD should sound at least as good as the vinyl does and if it takes some tweaking to do that, so be it. Case in point is the Japan Past-master CD of the Beach Boys 20/20. I know that this series is highly thought of by many here in Steve land because of the flat transfers and no noise reduction, but when this this CD came out I was so disappointed because it sounded like they used some crappy third generation tape. My original US vinyl sounded better (Deja vu again) and as a result I did not purchase another from that series. The 2000 remaster of 20/20 sounds so much better. I know its been futzed with but I don't care because the results speaks volumes.
This can be carried too far though as I feel the first three Beach Boys 2000 remastered two/fers are over tweaked and hard on my ears. Its as if they picked one setting and went with it for their whole catalog. It works to great effect for the later 60's material but it compromises the warmth on the earlier catalog stuff.

william shears · 11-11-2004, 01:41 PM

Thanks for the replies guys..in agreement with you here in that some stuff, I feel, DEFINATELY needs mastering for release. The way I see it alot of the original disc cutting engineers were very cleverly producing sound knowing that the available audio gear out there in peoples living rooms would have to be doing some of the work for them. The oft quoted stories about Who records or Stones records being produced, mastered and cut for tiny 'dansette' record players or transistor radios..did they plan on people sitting down infront of $10,000 stereo/surround set-ups forty years later appreciating their mixes? I know that through my modest gear, rega turntable, arcam amp and swallow acoustic speakers my mono UK first Stones album wastes any cd version avilable so something in that combination of studio/cutting room/end-point playing hardware really works. Mostly nowdays dissapointment seems to be the emotion when playing hugely lauded 'remasters' or whatever. Signals way too high, the amplification doesn't really have to do any work, no warmth in the bottom end or mid-range. Is this just redbook deficiencies? Where would we be now if the compact disc had never been invented?

Mal · 11-11-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BITBANGER

.......Case in point is the Japan Past-master CD of the Beach Boys 20/20. I know that this series is highly thought of by many here in Steve land because of the flat transfers and no noise reduction, but when this this CD came out I was so disappointed because it sounded like they used some crappy third generation tape. My original US vinyl sounded better (Deja vu again) and as a result I did not purchase another from that series. The 2000 remaster of 20/20 sounds so much better. I know its been futzed with but I don't care because the results speaks volumes.
This can be carried too far though as I feel the first three Beach Boys 2000 remastered two/fers are over tweaked and hard on my ears. Its as if they picked one setting and went with it for their whole catalog. It works to great effect for the later 60's material but it compromises the warmth on the earlier catalog stuff.

James,

you need to read this if you haven't already.

The 1998 Japanese mini-LP CD edition of 20/20 will give you everything you desire

.

Malc

william shears · 11-11-2004, 02:01 PM

Maybe this forum should trademark a system called 'YesNoise'...........?

11-11-2004, 01:49 AM	#1
william shears Forum Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: new zealand Posts: 4,332	Harry Moss, Beatles Cutting Engineer..Serious Question Been reading all of the threads about the possibilities or not of good re-issues of the UK LPs..some people have an almost forensic desire for 'pure' releases that have seen nary a scented hand of the great futzers and fudgers of digitalville. But what about the dudes who originally cut the first pressings of all the great and good fab revolvers? Inside their dank and fetid chambers they slaved, adding a smidgen of EQ here a nudge of compression there..Surely their dark arts have gone to the grave with them? Once the master tapes had been sent down the draughty halls of Abbey Road they were in a sense out of the beatles and G. Martins hands for ever..they were clearly tweaked for release. What if EMI were to do exactly what everyone has been asking and go back to the surviving master tapes, cleared off the mushrooms and grot from the oxide and transferred them 'flat' to the digital domain without a flicker of digital jiggery pokery and they sounded, to the millions of expectant beatle people licking their lips around the world, erm..flat? How important is the 'cutter' and where be he now? OK....I've re-tooled this thread as I wasn't getting any action, maybe its just a really boring thread? Was the tone too facetious? What I am really trying to get at is this: Take the Beatles just as an example, but it could be any of the greats from the vinyl era. When we play those old records and they sound so awesome are we hearing something better, worse, different or not from the 'original' master tapes. Is it the compression, eq-ing or whatever that was used to cut the record to wax adding anything to the experience? Or is it just a necessary evil of the format. I mean grooving to an original mono 'please please me' album seems to be very much an experience of THE VINYL, the specific warm sound that exists above and beyond the 'source' tape. What are the thoughts of you guys on the process of preparing archive sounds for cd/digital..Is it just to transfer EXACTLY what was on the source/master or do a different set of skills from the likes of Harry Moss come into play for the modern era of disc appreciation. Forgive me for repeating myself....

11-11-2004, 06:54 AM	#4
BITBANGER Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milford, CT. Posts: 492	I think EQing should only be done on a case by case basis, when absolutely necessary, and in all cases an original pressing should be used as a reference. In many instances just doing a flat transfer will yield results superior to the vinyl. Many companies (Mercury comes to mind) would roll off the bottom end in order to increase the signal level on the record and to increase yield I suppose??? On the other hand the CD should sound at least as good as the vinyl does and if it takes some tweaking to do that, so be it. Case in point is the Japan Past-master CD of the Beach Boys 20/20. I know that this series is highly thought of by many here in Steve land because of the flat transfers and no noise reduction, but when this this CD came out I was so disappointed because it sounded like they used some crappy third generation tape. My original US vinyl sounded better (Deja vu again) and as a result I did not purchase another from that series. The 2000 remaster of 20/20 sounds so much better. I know its been futzed with but I don't care because the results speaks volumes. This can be carried too far though as I feel the first three Beach Boys 2000 remastered two/fers are over tweaked and hard on my ears. Its as if they picked one setting and went with it for their whole catalog. It works to great effect for the later 60's material but it compromises the warmth on the earlier catalog stuff. __________________ James Barbetti

11-11-2004, 01:41 PM	#5
william shears Forum Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: new zealand Posts: 4,332	Good Stuff Thanks for the replies guys..in agreement with you here in that some stuff, I feel, DEFINATELY needs mastering for release. The way I see it alot of the original disc cutting engineers were very cleverly producing sound knowing that the available audio gear out there in peoples living rooms would have to be doing some of the work for them. The oft quoted stories about Who records or Stones records being produced, mastered and cut for tiny 'dansette' record players or transistor radios..did they plan on people sitting down infront of $10,000 stereo/surround set-ups forty years later appreciating their mixes? I know that through my modest gear, rega turntable, arcam amp and swallow acoustic speakers my mono UK first Stones album wastes any cd version avilable so something in that combination of studio/cutting room/end-point playing hardware really works. Mostly nowdays dissapointment seems to be the emotion when playing hugely lauded 'remasters' or whatever. Signals way too high, the amplification doesn't really have to do any work, no warmth in the bottom end or mid-range. Is this just redbook deficiencies? Where would we be now if the compact disc had never been invented?

11-11-2004, 02:01 PM	#7
william shears Forum Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: new zealand Posts: 4,332	We could be rich, RICH I TELL YE' Maybe this forum should trademark a system called 'YesNoise'...........?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-11-2004, 04:43 AM	#2
vanmeterannie Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Wild, Wonderful West Virginia Posts: 2,142	Well, for one thing, those great old tube limiters seem to really have a sound of their own, and certainly influenced the sound of vinyl.

11-11-2004, 04:52 AM	#3
John Carsell Forum Legend Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Northwest Illinois Posts: 11,299	To bring out the best sound IMO the tapes need more than just transferring. They need mastering. They don't all sound "perfect". Some songs are dull sounding (I'm Down) and some are too bright (Long Tall Sally). Some light analog eq I think in most cases would do the trick.