The Beatles - She's A Woman Conventional Stereo Mix

Copyright - 1964 EMI Records Ltd.

READ THIS: For best audio quality watch the video in 720p
360p seems to cut off the bass frequencies and changes the listening experience, aside from adding in some horrible low quality sounds it's not how I intended it to be heard.

While talking with fellow Beatles Remixer "TheMusicalSteve" I found that he mixed into pseudo-stereo due to the fact that he felt the song sounded a bit messed up if you split the tracks using an EQ or similar tool. I then said I found a way to make it sound pleasing to the ear and stereo so this is more of a video to show him it's possible than anything else.
Since that conversation took place a matter of hours ago this is a very quick and dirty mix and I haven't spent the amount of time I usually do on it. Normally while doing a mix like this I would spend about 6 hours over a period of days so I can tweak it over time.

This mix is RS2 so if I tweak it I will put a download link up.

Category:

Music

Tags:

• abbey
• road
• beatles
• mccartney
• john
• lennon
• harrison
• george
• starr
• cover
• clapton
• paul
• want
• you
• She's
• So
• Heavy
• ballad
• classic
• rock
• please
• me
• taste
• of
• honey
• twist
• and
• shout
• hey
• bulldog
• sgt
• pepper
• 1968
• stereo
• Eleanor
• rigby
• she's
• woman
• rock music
• pop music

[TheOneBeatleManiac]

Do you not mind If I post my stereo remix of this same song as video response of yours?

[sgtelzilcho]

@TheOneBeatleManiac

of course :)

[TheMusicalSteve]

I really appreciate that you did this amount of hard work just for me. Well, saying that I didn't mix into a proper stereo is a bit cheesy (do you think that it's a pseudo-stereo or a fake stereo mix) ? Secondly, it still sounds quite, well it's not bad or anything, but I can still hear that it's very over-EQed. Those frequencies change the whole song, the guitars that you panned also moved the drums, so it sounds almost the same as the original one, only messed up a little.

[sgtelzilcho]

@TheMusicalSteve

(continued)

I normally use a spectral tool to take out each instrument with care but for this I just cut the round about frequencies, very rough. Spending a few days just making the isolation's means I can take out literally just the vox etc.

if we had the multis this would be easier.

You know EMI used the spectral analyzer to separate the instruments, but they will have spent weeks doing it.



I spent a lot of time doing the abbey road mix and that seems to sound fine.

[beatlesfan464]

@sgtelzilcho I have multi tracks for about 50 songs! would you like them?

[sgtelzilcho]

@beatlesfan464

are they the rockband .mogg files?

because if they are then I've already got them, but there might be a few I'm missing so could you send me a list via PM please?

[dhatje]

I had almost forgotten how incredibleness of the things on your channel.

[TheOneBeatleManiac]

Do you not mind If I post my stereo remix of this same song as video response of yours?

[combatevolved100]

i LOVE you

[sgtelzilcho]

@TheMusicalSteve

pseudo-stereo that's what I meant, sorry it was about 11 at night and I couldn't find the right words. As for the mix like I said I did this in 2 hours so I didn't take the care I usually do when separating the instruments, I think some of the frequencies were just not taken out of the original song so they won't be in here, bit of a fail on my part :P

had I more time I would have gone back and made better isolations

[TheMusicalSteve]

You see (I'll just finish my thoughts), frequencies are somewhat the core of the whole song, it's unfortunately like playing with a house of cards. Sure, you can do something, but it can very easily fall down to little pieces. I don't know if we can do something, because we don't have the multi-tracks. I have my methods with stereo mixes, but I would also mix differently with multi-tracks. But thank you again for your hard work, I really appreciate it !