Allan Rouse, en av de mest sentrale personene i remastering-teamet for the Beatles er på Steve Hoffman forum...
August 26, 2009
Dear SH Forum members,
I'd like to start by thanking the Gorts for posting this little note!
I have been following with interest the Beatles Re-master threads and felt it would be helpful to inform you about some of the topics you have been discussing and not resolving.
With regard to the tapes that were used for the original CD transfer and the 2009 re-masters. In both cases they were the original mono/stereo masters. The ¼" master tapes are not a second generation tape, but the original mix masters compiled to form the albums. The reason we transferred them a title at a time was simply to make sure that the tape machine heads and rollers were cleaned in between. This may have been partly obsessive as EMI tape 40 years on shows no signs of problems. Incidentally we transferred the mono tapes using a full track head. Also regarding this issue, we do not have EQ'd productions masters from which speculation has arisen that they may have been used for the 1987 release. When Harry Moss originally cut them he made extensive notes and when new cuts were required he used the original master tape and replicated what he had done before. The practice of making production masters did not occur at Abbey Road until much later. Besides which any engineer about to embark on a re-mastering a project would ignore the oft used expression seen on an original master tape DO NOT USE, SEE PRODUCTION MASTER as indeed Steve Hoffman himself has stated, you always want to go back to the original source.
With regard to cross fades, this is the only time the tape is second generation. Where this occurs (with the mono/stereo mixes) the cross fade is made with two playback machines, one with the outgoing title and one with the incoming, a third machine is used to record the cross fade. Once that has been created the master is assembled using the original mix masters and cutting in only that which is required for the cross fade itself, thereby retaining as much of the original as possible. (Lukpac is right).
Help and Rubber Soul, what did we use? We used George Martin's 1986 digital U-matic versions and yes the press release did state 'transferred from the original analogue master tapes'. However we are all human and that was overlooked, but not within the CD booklets where this is clearly indicated. Why were they used for the stereo box set and not the original 60's versions? This was not the mastering team's decision; we're not that important (sarcasm). This was made higher up than us, however the team along with Mike Heatley can at least take credit for proposing that the originals should be released as well, which Jeff Jones readily agreed with. Finally George Martin re-mixed these two albums back then at his own studio AIR. I might have to hold my hands up to making a mistake here as I think I have suggested they were mixed in 86, they were actually created in February 1987, sorry. In response to Ron's statement that "I would never say that Jeff Jones ordered the original masters to be redone", you're right I wouldn't, because he didn't.
Now I would like if you don't mind to take a moment of your time to defend myself. I fully recognise and appreciate Allan Kozinn's expertise particularly with regard to The Beatles. However Allan, your interpretation towards my manner during the playback we did in New York is not accurate, although I recognise that this is more my fault than yours. I was asked what track I had enjoyed working on most. Well as has been pointed out by Brainwashed I didn't actually work on them as an engineer and put on the spot I wonder whether many could answer that question off the top of their head, I couldn't. As to which track I would never like to hear again and my reply straight faced was "all of them" well that remark is simply explained - irony, it was meant to be a light hearted riposte. The same thing applies to being burnt out, I have been working on The Beatles material for many years now and if I was going to be burnt out it would have occurred long before now. I happen to love working with their music and fully recognise the lucky and enviable position I'm in, as indeed do all of the team. Incidentally in an earlier interview (which was actually posted before the press embargo), It was suggested I didn't know which album Eleanor Rigby is on, I DO and I'm also well aware of the double track issue that occurs, unfortunately my misplaced humour fell flat on its face yet again.
One last point whilst I'm discussing my personality. Yes Ron, I am actually a nice guy (supposedly you have met me so you must be right - irony!), but I'm afraid I can't be more like the "affable Giles Martin" much as I would like to have his good looks and his public speaking expertise. I and the team were unexpectedly given the task of talking about the remasters just a short time before we started the interview process and in the last two months we have been to LA, New York and Tokyo and completed over four weeks doing the same here at the studios for Europe, in addition to phone, email and TV interviews, in all we have now spoken to in excess of 400 people. None of us had experienced this before or likely to again and I have to say it was quite nerve racking at times. Whilst I accept whole heartedly that we are probably not the best at it, we have always answered questions truthfully and openly about the work we have done. Anyway enough of me/us.
As an aside regarding two names that have cropped up recently, Mike Jarratt is the brother of Jeff Jarratt, although their paths did not cross at the studios, by the time Mike had started here Jeff was working at EMI as a house producer.
I apologise for this lengthy post but I hope I may have gone a little way towards clearing up some of your concerns.
Many thanks,
Allan
