I am looking for to the new mix of Revolver. I remember listing to the new mix of The Beatles "1" by Giles Martin and thinking the balance of the mix sounded the same. Then it dawned on my the artificial placement of instruments and sometimes vocals to hard left or right was changed to a more realistic placement of them. Think about it, do you ever see the drummer placed anywhere on stage other than the center. Same with voices on stage are never to the extreme left or right. Then his soundtrack to the Cirque du Soleil show "Love" was such a thrill, buying it on the day of release. It I would say could be thought of as an interpretation but it still was The Beatles' vocals and instruments. To those who think it's simply a money-grab, do you really prefer the unnatural stereo of the original releases? Have you ever noticed a mistake in the panning of Paul's vocal in "Eleanor Rigby" at one point as he sings "all the lonely people"? From what I have read The Beatles did not take part in the mixing of the stereo versions through "The White Album". If you haven't read it I strongly recommend reading "Here There and Everywhere" by Geoff Emerick.
The Beatles Revolver
Just read where Giles Martin is using AI-powered audio separation technology to remix Revolver. From what I read he can take the mono tracks and separate all the instruments and vocals on the 4 track tape the were recorded on and then I guess remix them in 24 track or whatever he wants. Is this good? I love The Beatles and no matter how much better it my sound it not the same. They had what they had in 1966. And George Martin did wonders with 4 tracks. Where does this reissuing of classic albums stop. Is Revolver remixed in multi tracks still Revolver?