Yet another "Pet Sounds" reissue....

[hypehat]

And the fact that the Pet Sounds mix is full of errors such as left-in studio chatter clearly shows he 'slaved over it'.......


We are all very sorry we have not spent as many years on the internet as you, I. Spaceman. We clearly owe you a huge debt.

[Zach95]

Brian "slaved over" the sound, what was being recorded in the studio.  The mix? Nah...he couldn't care less if there were a few coughs/chatter/sneezes what not. 

[drbeachboy]

All I want to know if Dr. Beach Boy is in fact a real doctor.  Then he's got every right to patronize anyone 

Sorry, it is just my initials, but I am guessing if you are a Spaceman you can be patronizing too. I will say, the boy/girl has a pair of brass ones to make a post like that. I suppose he/she thinks that because we had prior altercations, that all present and future encounters have to be treated the same way.

[drbeachboy]

Remember too, that Brian's name is on the stereo mix. It may have taken 30 years, but Brian gave his blessing, if nothing else, to the creation of the stereo mix. If he allowed it, then he is quite OK with any of us listening to and enjoying it. Like most things in life, we have a choice and two wonderful listening experiences.

[Austin]

Brian "slaved over" the sound, what was being recorded in the studio.  The mix? Nah...he couldn't care less if there were a few coughs/chatter/sneezes what not. 

An important distinction. Quoting AGD's Beach Boys guide (emphasis mine):

As was his habit, Brian spent much longer in the studio than Capitol deemed fit, with the result that, apart from the previously released "Sloop John B" and "Caroline, No," all of Pet Sounds' complex backing tracks and vocals were mixed in a single nine-hour session (which probably explains the chatter heard on some tracks).

I mean, I get that some people prefer the mono mix because they grew up with it. That's probably half the reason I prefer the stereo mix. And I'll bet some people don't want to admit they like the mono just because Brian mixed it. That's actually a perfectly valid reason too, among others -- but don't tell me that "more care" was put into it, or something similar, because a good amount of evidence seems to show that there wasn't.

EDIT: From the Mark Linett thread, talking about stereo remixes:

"inferior" is not the word I would use, and in fact Brian has asked that we use stereo mixes wherever possible on the most recent compilations.

That's enough Brian approval for me.

[Mikie]

I mean, I get that some people prefer the mono mix because they grew up with it.

I first listened to Pet Sounds in 1972. So between 1972 and 1996 I listened to it in mono (and Duophonic). Between 1996 and the present, I've listened to Pet Sounds in stereo. I will never go back.

[tansen]

So did anyone get this yet? Worth getting?

[adam78]

I've not got this....yet. I may do. I'm very happy still with my 1996 boxset version, even though i've bought each variation of the album since.

Over at the Hoffman board though, i've seen some say they now consider this release as the definitive stereo version. A lot of these opinions are obviously very individual but that fact that a few have said it counts for something i reckon.

[Dr. Tim]

What is distressing about these arguments - and why they are so vehement - is that both Ian and DrBB are right.  Ian likes the mono and says so with gusto; DrBB likes the stereo and says so with mucho gusto.  Both have their purpose, and neither is going away.

Example: Ian is right that Brian slaved over and approved the mono mix first; the others are right to point out the artifacts, i.e, the cross-talk noises, noting the rest of the LP was mixed in one go.  These are not inconsistent positions.  Brian, as producer, said "good enough, print that", a decision which drives the Audiophile Auxiliary nuts but was his call, in order to GET THE THING DONE.  No one questioned those decisions until us nitpickers came along and spotted them decades later.  Plus, Brian would have correctly assumed that most record buyers in his day would be listening on $30 Webcor record players with one tinny speaker and a 5-gram cartridge that carved the LP grooves like a turkey.   In other words, no NORMAL person would ever give a rat's ass.  But we can.  So there is the stereo version, all spread out and (as reported) also Brian-approved, minus those artifacts.  It's a floor wax; it's a dessert topping; it's both.  I don't feel the need to buy the new version, though, unless I hear it in Sterling Sound's big listening room or something and it blows my socks off.

[drbeachboy]

I just ordered the SACD the other day through Amazon for $25.88. Won't get here until late February. I'm basically paying that money for one song, You Still Believe In Me, just so I have the double tracked lead vocal in stereo. I'm hoping the Hoffman Board is correct in saying the mastering is terrific and the sound is revelatory. As for the mono/stereo issue; I like both, but for differing reasons. I will say that I listen to the stereo version more, because I love hearing the clean, clear background vocals and on some songs, the stereo separation of the music tracks. The biggest issue with the mono version is the tinny sound on all the Capitol releases. I love the sound on the Brother/Reprise releases, as well as Hoffman's DCC & AF releases.

[anazgnos]

What is distressing about these arguments - and why they are so vehement - is that both Ian and DrBB are right.  Ian likes the mono and says so with gusto; DrBB likes the stereo and says so with mucho gusto.  Both have their purpose, and neither is going away.

Example: Ian is right that Brian slaved over and approved the mono mix first; the others are right to point out the artifacts, i.e, the cross-talk noises, noting the rest of the LP was mixed in one go.  These are not inconsistent positions.  Brian, as producer, said "good enough, print that", a decision which drives the Audiophile Auxiliary nuts but was his call, in order to GET THE THING DONE.  No one questioned those decisions until us nitpickers came along and spotted them decades later.  Plus, Brian would have correctly assumed that most record buyers in his day would be listening on $30 Webcor record players with one tinny speaker and a 5-gram cartridge that carved the LP grooves like a turkey.   In other words, no NORMAL person would ever give a rat's ass.  But we can.  So there is the stereo version, all spread out and (as reported) also Brian-approved, minus those artifacts.  It's a floor wax; it's a dessert topping; it's both.  I don't feel the need to buy the new version, though, unless I hear it in Sterling Sound's big listening room or something and it blows my socks off.

Beautiful post. 

Pet Sounds, like Smile, is durable.  The underlying materials are strong enough to survive and flourish under any number of circumstances.

[guitarfool2002]

It's just stating the obvious: That some people prefer mono and some prefer stereo, and as had been said in the previous pages, what is a beautiful thing is how all of those options are available for those fans who prefer one mix over the other.

[Alex]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...I love the stereo mix. Heard PS for the first time that way, thought the mono was too muddy sounding...I think the drums in the WIBN intro still kick ass in stereo. Sorry, but mono does nothing for me, I rather enjoy being enveloped in sound when I listen to the stereo mix.

[adam78]

As people may have read elsewhere on here, I'm a big fan of mono on a lot of original mixes of the early beach boys. The power, feel, and mix I generally find to be ALOT better than the stereo counterparts. Same with Beatles and a lot of other 60's music.

So it's with a fair amount of thought with that in mind that I consider the modern stereo Pet Sounds to be my favourite mix by a long way. The original mono has a feel certainly but it's almost too dense and muddy, when put against the stereo mix for me. Mark Linett deserves a lifetime achievement award for the 1996 stereo mix because he 100% nailed it! It's clear. Bright without being overly EQ'd like some latter stuff he's done, and you can hear things that never even saw the light of day on the mono. The panning is beautiful and not overdone either. It's was like this was his big one. The project that he really took his time over and got completely right. I'm forever greatful for the fact he did it. No matter how many times I listen back to the mono, which is a lot, it's suddenly like someone has placed earmuffs on me because of the difference. Going back to the stereo is like having my ears cleaned out!

Now how I wish I wish Mark Linett could have got hold of the multitracks to remix The little girl I once knew. I think it's Brian Wilson's ONLY poor mix in comparison to what instrumentation I can hear being played on unsurpassed masters. He buried some gold in that song!!!

[Sam_BFC]

So do we have any idea how the stereo YSBIM with the double tracked lead came about?

[I. Spaceman]

And the fact that the Pet Sounds mix is full of errors such as left-in studio chatter clearly shows he 'slaved over it'.......


We are all very sorry we have not spent as many years on the internet as you, I. Spaceman. We clearly owe you a huge debt.

I've even discussed things besides The Beach Boys!!! *shock horror*

[drbeachboy]

So do we have any idea how the stereo YSBIM with the double tracked lead came about?

No, and I posted about it at Hoffman and Mark answered saying that it would appear on the new MSFL SACD, but did not elaborate about it. Sometimes I don't understand why they are so hush hush about stuff, especially after it was announced. I was always under the impression that it was not possible since the box set release. I guess they found the tape since the last Pet Sounds stereo release in 2006.

[Mikie]

As people may have read elsewhere on here, I'm a big fan of mono on a lot of original mixes of the early beach boys. The power, feel, and mix I generally find to be ALOT better than the stereo counterparts. Same with Beatles and a lot of other 60's music.

Yeah, ALOT!

[hypehat]

And the fact that the Pet Sounds mix is full of errors such as left-in studio chatter clearly shows he 'slaved over it'.......


We are all very sorry we have not spent as many years on the internet as you, I. Spaceman. We clearly owe you a huge debt.

I've even discussed things besides The Beach Boys!!! *shock horror*

What?! Unheard of! 

[tansen]

Trying again. Did anyone buy this yet and want to comment?

[DonnyL]

Brian "slaved over" the sound, what was being recorded in the studio.  The mix? Nah...he couldn't care less if there were a few coughs/chatter/sneezes what not. 

An important distinction. Quoting AGD's Beach Boys guide (emphasis mine):

As was his habit, Brian spent much longer in the studio than Capitol deemed fit, with the result that, apart from the previously released "Sloop John B" and "Caroline, No," all of Pet Sounds' complex backing tracks and vocals were mixed in a single nine-hour session (which probably explains the chatter heard on some tracks).

I mean, I get that some people prefer the mono mix because they grew up with it. That's probably half the reason I prefer the stereo mix. And I'll bet some people don't want to admit they like the mono just because Brian mixed it. That's actually a perfectly valid reason too, among others -- but don't tell me that "more care" was put into it, or something similar, because a good amount of evidence seems to show that there wasn't.

EDIT: From the Mark Linett thread, talking about stereo remixes:

"inferior" is not the word I would use, and in fact Brian has asked that we use stereo mixes wherever possible on the most recent compilations.

That's enough Brian approval for me.

Not sure if this aspect has been touched upon yet, but for me it's not really a mono/stereo thing, a 'brian mixed it this way' thing, or a thing about having grown up with the mono.  The original mix just sounds better to me, more balanced, punchier ... I think it works better.  The upper-mid range is more clearly defined, everything sits just right.  and it certainly has a lot more character.  It was mixed to a certain kind of tape that I like the sound of.

[b00ts]

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?

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/

Yay, a thread about high-res!

I am an ardent listener of high resolution DSD and PCM audio; I'd always wished that the formats took off more. I own  SACDs and DVD-Audios, as well as DTS CDs.

I offer and try to push my own music in high resolution FLAC and Apple Lossless (even though most people download it in MP3).

However, I have read numerous times that the human ear can only detect frequencies at a limit well below CD quality (44.1khz). Also, as you mentioned, double blind tests usually show that people cannot tell the difference between CD quality audio and high resolution. Your point about people unfamiliar with the material being unable to hear nuances is well-taken, and most people do not listen for detail generally.

Bit depth seems to be more important to sound quality in a sense, although SACDs technically use a very high sampling rate and a very low bit depth if I understand correctly. I have tried to rip the Beach Boys 2000 era CDs with the purported
20-bit HDCD quality, but have been unsuccessful.

As I said, I love high resolution; I listen to music in high res whenever I can, and I perceive there to be a difference between red book CDs and Super Audio CDs. As you said, some of this is undoubtedly due to better mastering - likely also the case for HDCDs - but I wonder if there are intangibles that go beyond what our ears can hear, such as "feeling" frequencies we can't hear.

SACD was more successful overall than DVD-Audio at one time and may still be. I believe there are more classical/jazz and specialty SACD releases, whereas DVD-Audio is more popular for rock and pop. Of course, neither format is bringing in a ton of money nowadays, but releases like Pet Sounds and the recent Wish You Were Here set still trickle through.

It is cool that SACD has a redbook CD layer for backwards compatibility, but don't forget that DVD-A has a similar advantage, being playable on any DVD player up to 96khz. DVD-A was also cheaper to produce, using PCM audio (through MLP) and DVD discs. My PS3 was one of the first to not play SACDS; Sony has also neglected to include DSD as an audo format in the Blu-Ray specification. Shameful.

Most digital audio workstations and audio hardware don't support Direct Stream Digital - Samplitude is one app for Windowsthat does, but there is nothing on the Mac - and when edits are performed on DSD material, the DSD data is converted into high resolution PCM for the edited areas. High res PCM sounds great to me, but this lack of support is unfortunate. Sony didn't push DSD as a format beyond the SACD. DSD could have been the premiere format for digital downloads in high res; Sony could distinguish their hardware by supporting DSD, and they could leverage their mammoth catalogue and make some money back on the SACD remasters they'd already paid for.

Anyway, I will be buying this. Too bad it lacks a surround layer. God, I would kill for the Surf's Up DVD-A. I was just listening to the 5.1 mix of the title track on the Endless Harmony. Are those mixes the ones that would have been on the DVD-A? Does anyone know if it was completed?

[Iron Horse-Apples]

bOOts, I think some people just have better hearing. I record at 32bit, and there is a marked difference in fidelity between that and 24bit. Easier to mix as well, the parts sit next to each other better. But from what I've read, the human ear shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

They're obviously testing the wrong ears.

[Sam_BFC]

What do you use to record at 32-bit...do you have 32-bit converters?  And what DAWs can record 32-bit files?

[The Shift]

Trying again. Did anyone buy this yet and want to comment?

Far as I know it's not out in the UK yet – amazon uk lists it for Feb 14.  Once it is out I'm sure you'll get the responses you seek, as that album's been better appreciated over here for 45 years now…