Re: watch out for cd labelling

[nvuxe!txb@bellcore.bellcore.com (T Bowers)]

In article <8907071720.AA00160@godiva.goldhill.com>, rpk@goldhill.COM writes:
> 
>     From: gregr@basser.oz (Greg Ryan)
> 
>     In article <QYgYIFS00WBMA1bVIN@andrew.cmu.edu> "William M.
>     Bumgarner" <wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
> 
>     >> The import (from UK) CD's of Kate Bush are mastered ADD instead
>     of the US
> 
>     I'd be careful of the [AD][AD]D labelling that companies put on
>     their CDs.  An ADD disc would require a remix of the album from
>     the multitrack to a digital master and I don't believe this has
>     been done in that case of any Kate Bush albums.  You should take
>     these labels with a grain of salt.  Remember that the first CD
>     releases of Beatles material claimed ADD as well, which would have
	 
The first 4 cd releases DID NOT claim to be ADD.  They were in
mono and were taken directly from the mono master tape (which
in my mind, means they don't even deserve the last D - a
digital master made FROM an analog master implys no added
value in the mastering process - BIG DEAL).

>     been a neat track in the mid '60s.
> 
> But weren't they indeed digitally remixed ?  I was under the
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

yes and no.

Some of them were (the mid period stuff) and some of them
weren't (the early stuff as discussed above and the later
stuff were NOT remixed.  Why?  No one dared tamper with the
original mixes for something like Revolution 9)

I believe that a bit of digital processing was done here or
there but nothing spectacular (for example, the white noise
on "She's So Heavy" had to be limited).

The mid period stuff was "remixed" ("rebalanced" is probably 
a better word) because the original balance was quite strange.
The vocal track used to sit on one channel while the remaining
three tracks (the instruments) sat on the other channel.  The
"rebalancing" was simply the spreading of the vocals and
instruments across both channels.   The same could (and should)
have been done for the early LPs (which were originally
recorded in two track.)  All one has to do is make two separate
mono mixes (one for the left & one for the right), the result
is true stereo and sounds just as if a four track was used
(and for years people DID think this about the Beatle's cover
of "Money" - a 2-track recording that went down in the history
books as "their first 4 track recording" - a misnomer which has
only recently been refuted.)  In 1976, some of the early
tracks from their first album did indeed get this treatment
when the "Rock and Roll Music" album was compiled.  The 1976
mixes sound *SO* much better than the 1987 cd mixes.  In my
mind, it's a crime that EMI/Capitol was damn lazy.  

> impression that George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and Paul McCartney
> remixed the original three-track masters.  (Not that they were trying
		       ^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm only commenting on this because so much that you said is
inaccurate.  The Beatles recorded with two track and four track
machines (and later, even higher 2_to_the_nth track machines).
The only thing recorded with a three track was the Hollywood
Bowl album (which isn't even on CD yet!)

> to really make them sound different, of course.)  There might have
> even been some slight treatment with digital reverb.
> 
> Anyway, ADD and AAD do often get confused by pop record companies, as
> we've seen in the case of Kate...