George Harrison in 24 bit/96 kHz

[magiccarpetride]

As a huge Beatles fan, I couldn't resist the urge to get the latest high definition version of the remastered "All Things Must Pass" (http://www.georgeharrison.com/#/all-things-must-pass-40th-anniversary). Especially after the stellar offering of Paul McCartney's uncompressed/unlimited high definition "Band On The Run" last year (I'm still using it to demonstrate to my friends how a really good high resolution audio should actually sound).

Am I impressed by the high definition FLACs of Harrison's triple album? No, not really. Unlike the material offered by McCartney, where sonic improvements are so obvious, I was very unpleasantly surprised to find Harrison's material sounding a bit pale, un-engaging, and, hmm, lifeless. It's almost like this pale material does need a healthy injection of limiting and compression to breathe some life and juice into it.

So, why the differences between high def unlimited "Band On The Run" and high def unlimited "All Things Must Pass"? Is it due to the recording techniques, or due to mixing, or due to mastering?

[Ali Tait]

If it was a poor recording in the first place, then all you have is a high resolution copy of a crap recording. You'll be able to hear in much more detail how crap it is!

[magiccarpetride]

If it was a poor recording in the first place, then all you have is a high resolution copy of a crap recording. You'll be able to hear in much more detail how crap it is!

So McCartney goes to Lagos, Nigeria, and makes a stellar recording in a probably poorly run, shabbily equipped, sub-standard EMI studio there. Meanwhile, Harrison records at venerable Abbey Road studio (where pretty much all the Beatles masterpieces were recorded), and then records some more at the Trident studio, and manages to produce crappy sounding master?

Go figure!

[Ali Tait]

It would seem so. Simplicity in the recording chain often resuts in a superior recording in my experience.

[Jac Hawk]

So McCartney goes to Lagos, Nigeria, and makes a stellar recording in a probably poorly run, shabbily equipped, sub-standard EMI studio there. Meanwhile, Harrison records at venerable Abbey Road studio (where pretty much all the Beatles masterpieces were recorded), and then records some more at the Trident studio, and manages to produce crappy sounding master?

Go figure!

Or Macca goes to Africa to a brand new studio owned by EMI with all the latest equipment, where he can hone the almum as it doesn't cost as much to record there, where as george Harrison goes to Abbey Road where the gear is old and time is precious, and he has to get it done quick resulting in a poorer end product.

[Stratmangler]

Have you got a previous release of ATMP to compare with - how do you find that ?

[Stratmangler]

To add my two penn'orth to the thread there are a number of things to consider.

All Things Must Pass was recorded in 1970.
The Beatles had just split up.
George Harrison chose Phil Spector to co-produce the album. In later years Harrison was alleged to have regretted his choice of Spector as co-producer.

Spector did what Spector does - he made the recording sound like a Phil Spector recording, ie. lots of reverb and little definition.
He did the same to Let It Be, only his involvment was after the tracks were laid down, so he couldn't get in and screw things up from a fundamental level. As a result Let It Be sounded half decent.

Anyway, chances are that Spector was regarded with too much respect by Harrison, and vice versa.

Band On The Run was recorded in 1973.
Paul McCartney and Wings had put out two successful albums and toured regularly.

Paul McCartney selected Geoff Emerick to co-produce the album.
Geoff Emerick had worked with George Martin and The Beatles for quite some time, and was not afraid of telling McCartney if a performance didn't cut the mustard.
McCartney had a long term respect for Emerick, and trusted Emerick's opinions.

The recording studios do not come into the equation - Harrison recorded at Abbey Road and Trident, both state of the art facilities at the time.

The studio in Lagos where BOTR was recorded was a ramshackle 8 track setup, with no isolation booths or baffles - the band had someone make sound deadening panels in order to facilitate recording.

The point I am attempting to get across is that the reason why the two albums sound so very different is very much due to the choice of co-producer.
The personel involved in a recording and production capacity were far more important with respect to sound and its quality that the studios and equipment involved.

Harrison chose a self centred egomaniac, McCartney chose someone who could do the job.
It's as simple as that;)

[Alex_UK]

Very interesting Chris, thanks for posting that - I'd agree that it is the workman not the tools that makes a great recording - and often simplicity is the key.

[magiccarpetride]

As a result Let It Be sounded half decent.

I disagree -- to me, Let It Be sounds great.


It's as simple as that;)

Nothing is as simple as that.

[magiccarpetride]

Have you got a previous release of ATMP to compare with - how do you find that ?

Yes, the previous version sounds different, but not necessarily better (nor worse). I was harbouring high hopes that this high definition remaster will finally give us George's masterpiece in its full glory, but as someone here said, you can't polish a turd.

[magiccarpetride]

It would seem so. Simplicity in the recording chain often resuts in a superior recording in my experience.

Agreed. I'm just not sure if the sub-standard sound quality on this album is due to poorly recorded tracks, or due to poorly mixed or poorly mastered?

[Jac Hawk]

Very interesting Chris, thanks for posting that - I'd agree that it is the workman not the tools that makes a great recording - and often simplicity is the key.

Me too :)

[Jac Hawk]

Yes, the previous version sounds different, but not necessarily better (nor worse). I was harbouring high hopes that this high definition remaster will finally give us George's masterpiece in its full glory, but as someone here said, you can't polish a turd.

That is very true, i mean how many times have you bought an LP or a CD for that matter and just been left cold by a crap recording, it's happened to me loads of times both with vinyl and CD, you get the disc playing and it's not that you don't like the band or the track for that matter it just doesn't sound right, if that makes sence, the recording just seems wrong.