Yet another "Pet Sounds" reissue....

[GroovinGarrett]

This time from Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (MoFi), an SACD release of the 1996 stereo mix.

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-45343-the-beach-boys-pet-sounds-numbered-limited-edition-hybrid-sacd.aspx

[Jason]

I'm surprised the Beach Boys never went the SACD route with Pet Sounds and the planned Surf's Up DVD-A. If they had intended to move more units, the SACD medium would have been more commercially viable than DVD-A. SACD is a much bigger (although still niche) market than DVD-A.

EDIT - for those who doubt the SACD medium, consider checking out the European reissues of the Moody Blues' "Classic Seven" LPs. Three layers; CD stereo, SACD Stereo, SACD 5.1 Surround. PLUS bonus tracks. And they were EXCELLENT.

[GroovinGarrett]

I should note that it's a hybrid SACD with both high-resolution and redbook layers, another advantage over DVD-A.

[PS]

I'm with you - I love this medium, and collected the essentials. Elton John's first four are amazing, revelatory 5.1 mixes, as are David Crosby and Graham Nash's first solo albums. The Stones and Dylan SACD's are beautiful remasters of what were problematic vinyls (especially Columbia pressings) - you can hear the very air in those early Dylans in 5.1. Bjork's Vespertine and Beck's Sea Changes are the gold standard of SACDs.

The incredibly stupid marketing and the limited, esoteric releases (if they had released the Beatles catalogue, everyone would have bought a player) doomed SACDs and DVD-A's from the start.

[Jason]

Nine Inch Nails made good use of the format on the reissue of The Downward Spiral. Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue is another great release, as is Getz/Gilberto.

[Bill Ed]

SACD is a much bigger (although still niche) market than DVD-A.



Not doubting you, but what is your source on this? I've searched before for data comparing sales of the two formats and haven't been able to find much. It appears to me that both formats failed in the marketplace, which is a real shame. I am a fan of both formats. Maybe 5.1 is too demanding for most listeners.

[hypehat]

It's all a question of releases put out on new formats. For instance, how many Beach Boy fans would have invested in Surf's Up DVD-A. And before you go "I would!", consider the meat & potatoes crowd.

[Myk Luhv]

Took long enough for MoFi to get the rights to this! I am very interested in this, especially in comparison to the DCC release.

[Jason]

SACD is a much bigger (although still niche) market than DVD-A.



Not doubting you, but what is your source on this? I've searched before for data comparing sales of the two formats and haven't been able to find much. It appears to me that both formats failed in the marketplace, which is a real shame. I am a fan of both formats. Maybe 5.1 is too demanding for most listeners.

I don't have specific sources but going back to 2003 SACD always outsold DVD-A. Several discussion forums mention it as well. The fact that SACDs are more common in retail stores than DVD-As, even when DVD-A was more visible in the marketplace, should be the dead giveaway. I think of all the time since the Pet Sounds DVD-A has come out, I saw it ONCE in a store (and I frequent the big-name electronic stores often, as they're the only stores who seem to carry both SACD and DVD-A) and didn't pick it up because even my (for 2006) excessively up-to-date and high-end Playstation 3 couldn't play it, but COULD play SACD. Problem is that the niche market for high-end audio is still a niche, although it's certainly grown since the 70s. Sure, the players may be more affordable but the equipment required to get the most out of the high-end audio playback is still considered pricey.

[?]

Took long enough for MoFi to get the rights to this! I am very interested in this, especially in comparison to the DCC release.

Apples and oranges.  Different mixes.  But MOFI is great.  For those that prefer the stereo mix, this should be a slam dunk.

[Bean Bag]

Any idea as to when we might see this?  I'm all over it!!!!  Love the MoFi!!!!!   

[PS]

Any idea as to when we might see this?  I'm all over it!!!!  Love the MoFi!!!!!   

Now, as far as I can tell. I just ordered it on the link above.

[Bean Bag]

Any idea as to when we might see this?  I'm all over it!!!!  Love the MoFi!!!!!   

Now, as far as I can tell. I just ordered it on the link above.

I think it's just a pre-order.  The MusicDirect link supplied above state TBD.  And Mofi doesn't list it on their site yet.

[WaxOn]

I'm surprised the Beach Boys never went the SACD route with Pet Sounds and the planned Surf's Up DVD-A. If they had intended to move more units, the SACD medium would have been more commercially viable than DVD-A. SACD is a much bigger (although still niche) market than DVD-A.

EDIT - for those who doubt the SACD medium, consider checking out the European reissues of the Moody Blues' "Classic Seven" LPs. Three layers; CD stereo, SACD Stereo, SACD 5.1 Surround. PLUS bonus tracks. And they were EXCELLENT.

as long as I got a friggin' SACD player I have to bite.

Too bad it's so late in the game - I have real doubts as to how long the medium is going to stay alive.

The thing about the Moodies releases is that Justin was involved in every facet of the new mix and it shows. Very good (for digital) and with the exception of a couple of my vinyls (toss-up) are the best available. I'm a 2 channel person.

That said, MoFi has been spotty at best. I'd like to know who was involved and what if any "tinkering" was done. I get worried when they use words like "enhanced". With SACD though it more than stands a chance to trounce the DCC and '72 Carl and the Passions version.

Bring it on!

BTW, for those who are unfamiliar with musicdirect - I can personally vouch for them. I've put their kids through college.

Also looking forward to seeing the Moodies show Friday (such as they are!)

[Jason]

Don't want the thread to get too off-topic but HELL YEAH on the Moodies!

[Custom Machine]

While it's fun to listen to stereo audio on a high resolution SACD and think you're getting a superior listening experience compared to listening to a regular CD of the same source material, I have never seen any verifiable double blind listening test indicating that any listener, anywhere, at any time has ever been able to consistently tell the difference between a high res stereo SACD and a regular CD of the exact same source material. Obviously, such is not the case with a 5.1 surround mix. Plus there is something to be said for the psychic gratification of knowing you're listening to a higher resolution source, even if some naysayer like me comes along and says your ears really can't tell the difference.

Even though it's never been more than a very small niche format, currently there are still a whole bunch of players available, both CD and Blu-Ray based, which accommodate the SACD format. I've never been much of a fan of 5.1 surround mixes for listening to music (as opposed to movies and tv), but it is unfortunate that the format war between SACD and DVD-Audio further dampened what little interest eventually materialized for these formats.

[OBLiO]

"extracting previously buried information and obscured details"

yikes!

[Custom Machine]

Took long enough for MoFi to get the rights to this! I am very interested in this, especially in comparison to the DCC release.

Well, since this MoFi is in stereo and the DCC is from the original mono tape, they're gonna sound very different!

[WaxOn]

OBLiO sees this coming...

While it's fun to listen to stereo audio on a high resolution SACD and think you're getting a superior listening experience compared to listening to a regular CD of the same source material, I have never seen any verifiable double blind listening test indicating that any listener, anywhere, at any time has ever been able to consistently tell the difference between a high res stereo SACD and a regular CD of the exact same source material. Obviously, such is not the case with a 5.1 surround mix. Plus there is something to be said for the psychic gratification of knowing you're listening to a higher resolution source, even if some naysayer like me comes along and says your ears really can't tell the difference.

On what, exactly to you place your determination? Since you don't own said format it's hard to take your opinion seriously. Do you find it to be a "psychic" difference between a 16 bit recording at 44.1Khz and an MP3 at 128kbits as well? Or do you base your statement on the lack of verifiable double blind tests? I've found for the most part double blind tests have their own agenda.

Put it this way.
If I sit down and start listening (to a hybrid disk) - it takes me all of about a minute (unless I've been drinking a lot) to determine that I've set the player to redbook and not SACD. The difference is not subtle. This is based on a stereo that's been in the same place, unchanged for years. That's why "double blind tests" have to be taken with a grain of salt. http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1
If you're familiar with something, it's pretty easy to find when something is right, or something is out of place. The same listening familiarity has told me that my stereo needs to warm up for a couple of hours - and it does sound better regardless of whether I'm listening during that time, or let it idle and then start. Psychological?

I can sit down at a stranger's stereo (as in a double blind test) and tell it sounds really good, or bad. I can tell that I think it performs certain tasks better than mine. Could I then tell the difference between redbook and SACD? Probably not. Since the ear acts as a comb filter making such determinations in the space of a few minutes or even an hour prove difficult. The brain fills in the blanks, balances things out and creates the perceived space. It takes a while to actually "hear" what is being presented in fact.

I was (with some friends) double blind tested by Sony in the early 90's just before the introduction of SACD, and our group for the most part had no trouble in pointing out the HD vs. regular format. Were they completely honest in the demonstrations? Probably. Then again, it was Sony. I also know that when people can tell the difference (in staged "scientific" tests) the excuse is that more care was taken in the engineering, mixing etc. of the SACD over the CD. Puleez. People are lazy by definition, and they're not going to go through any extra work for an SACD vs Redbook release of the same title.

At the same time, I'm not going to sit here and say every SACD sounds better.There's some where the difference is negligible. Redbook has gotten very good when it's good. And on the same hand - a crappy recording is going to sound just as crappy in HD. And there's a lot of crappy recordings out in HD.

More on double blind testing: http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/

[Mikie]

Somebody recently posted every release of Pet Sounds since the original in May 1966. There was a big list - I forgot how many different versions there were/are.  When does it end?  Is this new one the be-all and end-all of Pet Sounds releases? The vinyl versions (Warners) were nice, the remastered versions are nice, but to me the 30th and 40th Anniversary sets with the stereo mixes are definitely my favorites. Especially the 40th release - the 5.1 Surround Sound Hi-Res 24-bit stereo mix that came in a velvet slip case to make it sound even better. Maybe they took this SACD version a step further than the DCC and HDCD versions. I'd be interested in reading reviews before I sink 30 smackers into it. Ahhhh, who am I kidding? I'm a sucker for this kinda thing.......

I always liked this statement, from the back cover of the 1974 version of Pet Sounds on Warner/Reprise:

"This recording is pressed in monophonic sound, the way Brian cut it".

[Bean Bag]

To me, the best sounding MONO Pet Sounds that I've heard (which excludes vinyl, unfortunately) is the recent Audio Fidelity.  I like it better than the DCC...but it's not night and day -- and I've never done any extensive comparisons.  The Audio Fidelity just sounds clean and tight - balanced and perfect.  After the AF and DCC, the next best is the MONO bonus disc that came with the Pet Sounds Sessions box.  Really nice version.  I had that before the AF and DCC --- and it was the first version that made me go "why do I like this one better than my other versions?"  The MONO/Stereo version from 2000 or 2001, I never cared for.

The best STEREO is on the Pet Sounds Sessions boxset.  Tremendous version.  The stereo on the DVD-Audio is nice, but I for some reason never play it.

So....the MFSL Stereo will be a VERY welcomed addition in my house.  I'm confident that it will be an incredible sounding disc.  Their version of Beck's Sea Change destroys the standard-release redbook -- and even sounds better (better mastering) than the DVD-Audio!  And that's one of the best DVD-Audios I own.


As for SACD -- I'll take it...but I always though DVD-Audio was more apparent.  I go back and forth on Hi-res.  Sometimes it's all I can stand -- others, I wonder why I bother.  Either way... STEREO Pet Sounds getting a hybrid SACD treatment on MOFI (!!!!) is simply too good to be true! 

[Custom Machine]

OBLiO sees this coming...

While it's fun to listen to stereo audio on a high resolution SACD and think you're getting a superior listening experience compared to listening to a regular CD of the same source material, I have never seen any verifiable double blind listening test indicating that any listener, anywhere, at any time has ever been able to consistently tell the difference between a high res stereo SACD and a regular CD of the exact same source material. Obviously, such is not the case with a 5.1 surround mix. Plus there is something to be said for the psychic gratification of knowing you're listening to a higher resolution source, even if some naysayer like me comes along and says your ears really can't tell the difference.

On what, exactly to you place your determination? Since you don't own said format it's hard to take your opinion seriously. Do you find it to be a "psychic" difference between a 16 bit recording at 44.1Khz and an MP3 at 128kbits as well? Or do you base your statement on the lack of verifiable double blind tests? I've found for the most part double blind tests have their own agenda.

Woah, after you said I "don't own said format" I was concerned you knew something I didn't know, but was relieved to find that my SACD players and discs (just a few) are still there.  And no, 16/44.1 vs 128 MP3 has nothing to do with this discussion.

Put it this way.
If I sit down and start listening (to a hybrid disk) - it takes me all of about a minute (unless I've been drinking a lot) to determine that I've set the player to redbook and not SACD. The difference is not subtle. This is based on a stereo that's been in the same place, unchanged for years. That's why "double blind tests" have to be taken with a grain of salt. http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1
If you're familiar with something, it's pretty easy to find when something is right, or something is out of place. The same listening familiarity has told me that my stereo needs to warm up for a couple of hours - and it does sound better regardless of whether I'm listening during that time, or let it idle and then start. Psychological?

Enjoyed the Robert Harley article from TAS (The Absolute Sound).  Harley used to write for Stereophile, which I subscribed to for a number of years, and I still read TAS and Stereophile from time to time.  Both mags are heavily in the subjective camp.  It's often stated that this is an economic necessity in order to attract high end advertisers, but I will refrain from making such an accusation.  I do enjoy and appreciate the open discussion both these mags allow on their internet forums, as anyone who takes the time to read the comments posted in response to the above article will see that this is a contentious issue with many disagreeing with Mr. Harley's statements.  Also, he is incorrect in stating that Stereo Review compared two Mark Levinson monoblocks to an inexpensive Pioneer receiver.  It was two Jules Futterman mono amps.

WaxOn, you made a great comment about needing to let your stereo warm up for a couple of hours for it to sound better.  I can unequivocally state that I have had the exact same experience whenever enjoying a bottle of wine, a few beers, or Jack Daniels on the rocks.  In fact, in the seventies I had a number of listening episodes where the Beach Boys, approximately six inches in height, emerged from the tweeters of my JBL L100's and were singing, suspended in space about a foot away from the front of the speakers, providing an incredible listening experience.  How did that happen?  Well, that's another story!
 

I can sit down at a stranger's stereo (as in a double blind test) and tell it sounds really good, or bad. I can tell that I think it performs certain tasks better than mine. Could I then tell the difference between redbook and SACD? Probably not. Since the ear acts as a comb filter making such determinations in the space of a few minutes or even an hour prove difficult. The brain fills in the blanks, balances things out and creates the perceived space. It takes a while to actually "hear" what is being presented in fact.

I was (with some friends) double blind tested by Sony in the early 90's just before the introduction of SACD, and our group for the most part had no trouble in pointing out the HD vs. regular format. Were they completely honest in the demonstrations? Probably. Then again, it was Sony. I also know that when people can tell the difference (in staged "scientific" tests) the excuse is that more care was taken in the engineering, mixing etc. of the SACD over the CD. Puleez. People are lazy by definition, and they're not going to go through any extra work for an SACD vs Redbook release of the same title.

SACD was first demoed in late 1999, and generally available starting in 2000, but I'm guessing you are simply misremembering the time frame for the Sony demo, or perhaps when SACD was introduced.  I will say that a number of talented people involved in the mastering and production of SACDs will take offense to your statement that "People are lazy by definition, and they're not going to go through any extra work for an SACD vs Redbook release of the same title."  

At the same time, I'm not going to sit here and say every SACD sounds better.There's some where the difference is negligible. Redbook has gotten very good when it's good. And on the same hand - a crappy recording is going to sound just as crappy in HD. And there's a lot of crappy recordings out in HD.
More on double blind testing: http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/

Another interesting read, this time from Stereophile.  Again, a lot of back and forth on this issue, but the last comment, from well known audio writer Tom Nousaine, states he is in favor of double blind testing.

But - ya know what?  You're on one side of this issue, and I'm on the other.  Despite what is said, we will have to agree to disagree.  Obviously loudspeakers and the listening room can make a huge difference in the listening experience.  Same with headphones and phono carts, and I see you must be into vinyl with the cool 45 rpm center spindle logo you have.

Right now I'm trying to decide whether to spring for the Pet Sounds SACD or invest the $35 in more Jack Daniels.  The latter may provide more listening enjoyment, but the SACD is probably a better investment because it gives one the ability not only to convince themselves that they are enjoying a rather unique and superior sonic experience, but also to invite listeners over to hear the Pet Sounds SACD, telling them that it's the best version ever, and have them say, "Wow man, that was incredible!  Wish I had something like that!"  So that does it - but I'm gonna go for it!.  I heading right over to the Music Direct site to order the PS SACD (seriously!).   

Bottom line - enjoyment of the music is what it's all about.  SACD is a great medium with technical specs superior to those of regular CDs.  I applaud all efforts to record and edit in high resolution.  But, unlike the obvious and easily identifiable benefits of high def TV, there is no verifiable double blind listening test showing that the human ear, when listening to music, can tell the difference between the exact same stereo audio on a SACD and a regular CD.  Do I expect better sound from the Pet Sounds SACD?  Not really, but I've only got 14 copies of PS so far (7 vinyl and 7 CD), so it's time to add to the collection!  Plus the Music Direct site claims, "You won't Hear a Better Version.  Prepare to swoon.  Mobile Fidelity engineers treated this project with utmost reverence, extracting previously buried information and obscured details that add to the elaborate music’s meaning, enjoyment, mood, and breadth.  Enhanced, too, are Brian and Carl Wilson’s spiritually informed high-register vocal performances, now unbound by any connection to artificial ceilings or veiled frequencies."  Can you imagine that?  The writers of late nite infomercials should be jealous.  And I promise not to tell the Mobile Fidelity Engineers that WaxOn from the Smiley Smile message board said, "People are lazy by definition, and they're not going to go through any extra work for an SACD vs Redbook [standard CD] release of the same title."  

[Sam_BFC]

But SACD is only 1 bit audio right     

[WaxOn]

This post has been formatted to fit your monitor and edited for content

Yikes!

I went back to see just when the demo was I attended, I was pretty sure it wasn’t the last show I attended in 1997, but I was wrong. Sony gave us “24 bit” downsampled type discs, and the date is 1996 on that.  I remember waiting and waiting for the format to come out after that, but never bit until a couple of generations as $5k was a bit steep to cough up at the time. I was sure it was the show Roy Hall got us drunk on Scotch, but those late afternoon sessions are fuzzy.

Anyway, I too did stereophile when it was a small format (as TAS) and it was at the stereophile show that Sony was giving the demos in the SF bay area. Gave up on both when the average cheap amps reviewed cost as much as a friggin' Ducati. The sony demo was given comparing 16 bit vs 24 bit downsample (the new cool thing) vs real SACD. We couldn’t see what was behind the curtain so to speak, but the difference was most apparent on the SACD.

As far as double blind tests, I would proffer that the average person couldn't tell the difference between 1080i or 1080p, or even between brands of sets (much less types) if a test could be done as easily as audio. The beauty of vision is you can do a simultaneous comparison, but alas - not being "Data" cannot listen to two musical programs at once. What is readily apparent in a side by side comparison would be rendered useless when presented in a linear fashion. I deal with "visual resolution" as my business, and it's amazing what is passable by people who think they can tell the difference. Side by side, yes. On its own, no. Sad but true.

Personally, I don't and have never bought in to the snake oil side of hi-fi, from $$$ cable to a lot of sound enhancements. Remember those - God what were they - like safety pins with washers on them? You were supposed to wear them and it improved the sound. Same with placing shakti stones on different components or speakers or whatever. I will buy though that electrical interference can cause some issues, and there may be something to power conditioners depending on environment. In our old house I could tell if lights were on in the kitchen. Here, I went from a shared outlet to a dedicated 20 amp circuit and the noise floor went black.  I also take great joy out of reading folks on the (digital) asylum who claim they can hear a difference in USB cable or other digital sources. That’s where I draw the line, ones and zeros are ones and zeros. At my age I can still hear 15Khz no problem, but sadly and only recently my ability for 16KHz went away. Considering I thought I went deaf at a show in 1980, not too bad.

Overall I’ve been a bit disappointed with SACD in general, in spite of whether I can hear the difference or not.  I’ll take a leap of faith and assume you can hear a difference between vinyl and digital. The difference I’d place there is one of rhythm and pace more than tonal differences or soundstage. The difference is so great that my wife will come in and listen as she can tell the difference from anywhere in the house. And that’s been part of my disappointment – the TT still shuts down the player in most circumstances. I too only have a smattering of SACD disks - and since I think the difference is most apparent on classical and jazz recordings -  I don't see that changing any time soon.

Bwahahhahahah. Centuries? Damn. Did you keep them long enough for the foam grills to start rotting? God I hated those things. Gorgeous with crossovers from hell. I also had some decades before that. Whew. 12" white woofers and midranges that buzzed.

Ah well, I guess we can agree to disagree. Let me know how the PS SACD sounds - I'm still wary of MoFi. And, unlike vinyl there’s no degradation in the printing process, so waiting won't hurt none.

Dude. Jack Daniels? Really?
I guess that's another argument for another forum.

But SACD is only 1 bit audio right     

SACD is 1 bit Direct Stream Digital, the 16 bit is referred to as Pulse Code Modulation (think I got that right) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PCM-vs-DSD.svg

24 bit PCM is pretty much every bit as good as SACD - it's just a different way of sampling the source material.
When Sony was giving us the above referred demo - they hadn't come up with their marketing terminology (or perhaps settled on DSD) and simply referred to it as 24 bit audio.

[OBLiO]

OBLiO sees this coming...

 

I love the tech talk... even though my focus is more on the musical side of things. When I read that stuff about extracting... are they removing a gall bladder? a tooth? I just think there is a reason the mix is what it is. What you have is the mono mix by Brian. Then you have a stereo mix by Brian and Mark Linnett. When mastering engineers start talking about extracting and all that kind of thing... that's the scary part.. the mixes aren't to their liking? If the mix is good then leave it alone. There may be a very good reason why the original creators mixed it the way they did in the first place. I like stereo mixes, too... but lately some have become very distracting. I like listening to a whole presentation first and then maybe after, if I want to get a fix on something that made the sound, I don't mind isolations just to hear what is in there if you can't pick it out of the original mix with the ear. One thing I notice more and more about the sounds Brian created... it's the blending of two or more sounds to make one whole new sound. I just hope they don't inject Botox into the cover photos to remove any perceived wrinkles.

I have heard some good MFSL stuff, but I wonder if they remove tape hiss, along with the highs, and then add the highs back in. I know they use the Gain II thing as a selling point, but nothing beats a good ear. You need a good musical ear to hear if anything needs to be done at all. So just from a musical standpoint... "it's not the gear, it's the ear".