Here is an excerpt from the referenced article:
...since for that process a custom AI system was used to separate the vocals of the various Beatles members from background noise, enabling high-quality reproduction.
I'd like for someone to explain to me why this is considered "AI". I used to create new songs out of old many years ago using technology of the day. None of this "AI" BS.
The techniques haven't really changed much, I don't think, it's just that AI enables the audio restoration software to do its thing faster and with better quality.
In other words, this sort of thing has been possible, in some way or another, for at least 30 years now, AI is just making it easier.
Peggy Lee's version of "Fever" was recorded in 1958 and first released in widely separated stereo on vinyl in the early 1960s. It still has plenty of reverb, just perhaps not as much as the mono version.
Yeah, that was common back then, since stereophonic sound was relatively new. In fact, many of those early stereo mixes actually had
more reverb, perhaps to further emphasize the spaciousness of stereo sound.
Perhaps it was remixed to make it sound more modern when "Fever" was re-released as a single in the UK in 1983 and again in 1992, but I haven't heard those versions.
That's probably it. If you look up Fever on Amazon Music or Youtube, this appears to be the only version that's widely available (the original mix is there, but you have to look hard for it).
I finally found the original 1958 mono mix on a 45 RPM record I got as part of a lot allegedly from a defunct Top 40 AM radio station, and it sounds fantastic compared to all the supposedly high quality stuff floating around the Internet (record noise notwithstanding, of course, though this particular copy is in quite good condition, so the noise level is pretty low).
As for the so-called "original" versions of Beatles songs, that depends on which side of the pond you were on and which versions of the albums or 45s you bought. There are entire web sites and books dedicated to keeping track of all of them.
For example, "We Can Work It Out" had four mono mixes and two stereo mixes done back in 1965-1966. The U.S. stereo mix was done first, with less reverb and an organ in the center of the stereo image. The UK stereo mix was done a year later, with more reverb and the organ only in the right channel. I don't think the U.S. stereo mix has ever been re-released on CD, since the band deemed it to be "inferior".
Yeah, it's quite a mess, especially early on.
I find the UK catalog to be more consistent, but as for whether the US or UK mix is better, I'm not too picky, though I find I like the UK mixes of some of their earliest songs better, especially in mono (George Martin was said to believe that stereo was a gimmick, so he didn't devote much energy to the stereo mixes of the Beatles' first few releases, and it shows; the mono mixes are definitely better).
This was a bone of contention with the band and George Martin. Martin wrote about it in his book. Capitol Records thought they knew the American audience better than the folks at EMI, so they took it upon themselves to do remixes and repackages of the Beatles music until the band signed a new contract that established Apple Records and put all control in the hands of the band. After that, they released the original British mixes in subsequent US albums.
That makes sense. And once Apple Records took over, the almbum catalog between the US and UK became unified and much more consistent (much of the early confusion was due to the Capitol vs. EMI rivalry, I guess).
c
techcrunch.com
