Yet another "Pet Sounds" reissue....

[Alan Smith]

Mastered from original first-generation analog stereo mixes by Brian Wilson and Mark Linett, Pet Sounds has never sounded better.

This line confuses me.  The stereo mixes were a digital production, no?  I thought they had to sync-up the seperate instrumental & vocal multis and that this was done in the digital domain, so how can there be "analog" stereo mixes?

In the recent iconfetch interviews, Linett said the PS box -- which was the first appearance of the stereo mix -- was created in the analog domain. It was done back in 95, before Protools was standard.

It does get really confusing, so I've referenced page 26/27 of the (large, wood panel art) booklet for those who have the Pet Sounds Box - where Mark L tells us the tracks were transfered up to digital via a vintage 4 track as used by BW, sorted out in digital, then the final mix was via an analogue console.

So, the best of both domains!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

OK, it's here, and it was worth every penny. I wasted no time and listened to the SACD layer of the disc. Aside from a track indexing issue (Here Today) this thing is pretty damned awesome sounding. Mike on WIBN bridge, double tracked lead on "You Still Believe In Me", nice bass, smooth strings, sturdy cardboard sleeve, hugs and kisses in the dark. Get a player than can decode SACD and then go to town.

[Jason]

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

An SACD of "Long Distance Voyager" would get me to invest in a player no doubt!

Veteran Cosmic Rocker with 24-bit technology would be orgasmic.

[drbeachboy]

OK, it's here, and it was worth every penny. I wasted no time and listened to the SACD layer of the disc. Aside from a track indexing issue (Here Today) this thing is pretty damned awesome sounding. Mike on WIBN bridge, double tracked lead on "You Still Believe In Me", nice bass, smooth strings, sturdy cardboard sleeve, hugs and kisses in the dark. Get a player than can decode SACD and then go to town.

Does the CD liner notes say how they came about getting the double tracked lead vocal for You Still Believe In Me? This would have to be a new mix for 2011, while WIBN is the 2001 mix and the remainder are from 1996 mixes? I'm debating whether this is worth purchasing for one track, since I don't own a SACD player.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Liner notes give away no secrets.

This SACD is the bomb. I haven't listened to the redbook layer, but the SACD layer blows my mind. I almost got misty listening to it.

[PS]

First listening, confirmed. This is the now the most listenable Pet Sounds release, IMHO.

[I. Spaceman]

Words can't possibly express what a piece of crap the stereo mix of Pet Sounds is.

[drbeachboy]

Words can't possibly express what a piece of crap the stereo mix of Pet Sounds is.

Wow, what a useful piece of non-information!

[Jason]

I can't say I disagree. I always find myself going back to the mono mix. The stereo mix doesn't have anything close to the immediacy and the passion that the mono mix does.

Sorry, but when I hear Wouldn't It Be Nice, I wanna hear da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da BOOM...  BADOOM and not da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da TAP ALTER SADDLE.

[guitarfool2002]

I listen more to the stereo PS mix than any other mixes, the one that was in the sessions box. I also play/share that mix more often with people who have never heard Pet Sounds before, as I think the definition of each instrument is better, the individual parts jump out of the mix. Personal preference.

That's the big reason for me - you can hear the individual parts. Mark Linett did a terrific job on that remix, and going into it he was facing an uphill battle not only from the listeners who would say Pet Sounds in anything but mono is akin to blasphemy but also being technically limited by some tracks which were only added during the mono mixdown not being available, and other limitations like that. In spite of that, I think it's fantastic being able to hear some of the more quirky and interesting parts (especially some of the piano/keyboard parts) which were buried on the mono mix.

For the record, the biggest disappointment for my ears was getting the DCC Gold Pet Sounds Hoffman remaster, playing it through both good speakers and playing it flat, no EQ through studio-quality AKG headphones, and feeling like I was missing something. I still don't get what all the hype is about with that one. I know the original vinyl was not that distorted and peak-y. yet so many think that's the ultimate way to hear PS.

[Mikie]

I listen more to the stereo PS mix than any other mixes, the one that was in the sessions box. I also play/share that mix more often with people who have never heard Pet Sounds before, as I think the definition of each instrument is better, the individual parts jump out of the mix. Personal preference.

That's the big reason for me - you can hear the individual parts. Mark Linett did a terrific job on that remix, and going into it he was facing an uphill battle not only from the listeners who would say Pet Sounds in anything but mono is akin to blasphemy but also being technically limited by some tracks which were only added during the mono mixdown not being available, and other limitations like that. In spite of that, I think it's fantastic being able to hear some of the more quirky and interesting parts (especially some of the piano/keyboard parts) which were buried on the mono mix.

Exactamente!  I'll take the stereo mix any day o' the week.  Haven't listened to the mono since the PS Sessions box came out.

[drbeachboy]

I can't say I disagree. I always find myself going back to the mono mix. The stereo mix doesn't have anything close to the immediacy and the passion that the mono mix does.

Sorry, but when I hear Wouldn't It Be Nice, I wanna hear da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da BOOM...  BADOOM and not da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da TAP ALTER SADDLE.

I like both and for different reasons. The stereo for much the same reasons as guitarfool2002, and the mono mostly for the way Brian wants us to hear it. The balance of the instruments and the vocals, etc. What I was commenting on is that I hate when people throw out blanket statements like "piece of crap" without one reason why they feel that way. If people care enough to throw opinions like that out there, then at least give us all an explanation (like you & guitarfool2002 did) why you feel the way you do. Personally, I find all of the Capitol LP & CD mono versions tinny as hell, whereas both Brother/Reprise LP releases have much clearer and fuller sound. Both of Steve Hoffman's CD releases come closer to the Reprise versions, than they do the main Capitol releases.

[anazgnos]

The stereo mix was the first one I heard and the mix to which I fell in love with the album and the Beach Boys in general.  Now I go back and forth all the time.  I listen to the mono mix on vinyl and the stereo mix on the iPod, and I'm happy to have both.  They both have essential qualities that the other lacks.  Like Smile, there can never be a single comprehensively definitive version.

I've always kind of wondered whether there was a segment of the audience that regarded the stereo mix as a George Lucasy, "Special Edition" kind of thing that tosses everything great about the original out the window...

[guitarfool2002]

I've always kind of wondered whether there was a segment of the audience that regarded the stereo mix as a George Lucasy, "Special Edition" kind of thing that tosses everything great about the original out the window...

One of the only ways you could make that comparison would have been if someone had added samples, triggered drum sounds, or some other new, obvious additions to the original tapes, and in this case that simply wasn't done. The original tapes were given a stereo mix, and no new parts were added which were not already there on the multitracks in 1966. This is all about aesthetics, and personal preferences. If there are folks out there comparing a stereo Pet Sounds to Lucas adding digitized characters to the original print of the film, I'd say that's a bit too much of a stretch.

I really appreciate the level of care and respect given to sets like the Pet Sounds and Smile sessions box sets. And the beautiful thing about the way these were handled is how we, the buyers, can choose if we want to play the mono or the stereo mixes where available. If you're a purist, the mono Pet Sounds album as released in '66 was there on a single disc. If you prefer the stereo remix, that's there in the same box. The Monkees box sets handle the mono/stereo issues in much the same way by offering both in the set. What else could we need in the way of having a choice between mono and stereo albums?

[I. Spaceman]

Words can't possibly express what a piece of crap the stereo mix of Pet Sounds is.

Wow, what a useful piece of non-information!

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Told you once before.

[I. Spaceman]

I can't say I disagree. I always find myself going back to the mono mix. The stereo mix doesn't have anything close to the immediacy and the passion that the mono mix does.

Sorry, but when I hear Wouldn't It Be Nice, I wanna hear da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da BOOM...  BADOOM and not da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da TAP ALTER SADDLE.

Righteous. Glad to know there is someone else with ears around.

[I. Spaceman]

I hate when people throw out blanket statements like "piece of crap" without one reason why they feel that way. If people care enough to throw opinions like that out there, then at least give us all an explanation (like you & guitarfool2002 did) why you feel the way you do.

Awww, sowwy about that, precious one. Here's the deal: I dislike the stereo Pet Sounds in the same way I dislike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdT-9ld7WlE

Of course, some maroon will now come along and say how great that looks.

[drbeachboy]

I hate when people throw out blanket statements like "piece of crap" without one reason why they feel that way. If people care enough to throw opinions like that out there, then at least give us all an explanation (like you & guitarfool2002 did) why you feel the way you do.

Awww, sowwy about that, precious one. Here's the deal: I dislike the stereo Pet Sounds in the same way I dislike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdT-9ld7WlE

Of course, some maroon will now come along and say how great that looks.

Your opinion is absolutely worthless to me. Man, we really need an ignore button.

[drbeachboy]

I hate when people throw out blanket statements like "piece of crap" without one reason why they feel that way. If people care enough to throw opinions like that out there, then at least give us all an explanation (like you & guitarfool2002 did) why you feel the way you do.

Awww, sowwy about that, precious one. Here's the deal: I dislike the stereo Pet Sounds in the same way I dislike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdT-9ld7WlE

Of course, some maroon will now come along and say how great that looks.

Comparing the stereo mix to a colorized version of Casablanca couldn't be anymore moronic. You're the maroon.

[SMiLE Brian]

I can't say I disagree. I always find myself going back to the mono mix. The stereo mix doesn't have anything close to the immediacy and the passion that the mono mix does.

Sorry, but when I hear Wouldn't It Be Nice, I wanna hear da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da BOOM...  BADOOM and not da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da TAP ALTER SADDLE.

Brian wanted the listener to hear that song exactly like that, Pet Sounds in mono is the best way to enjoy the album. The stereo mix is for hearing and learning about the instruments in the background.

[Jason]

The issue is that, really, a stereo mix of Pet Sounds (an album created and released in mono) is very much like colorizing a classic movie like Casablanca or Citizen Kane. In fact, wasn't it Mark Linett who made a similar remark? Yeah, you may see or hear more, but at what cost? Some people enjoy their memories. For a band whose fanbase is constantly at war with each other over "what Brian wanted" I'm still stunned that the stereo mixes of EVERYTHING haven't been sworn off by the holier-than-thous that inhabit our lovely fanbase.

I prefer the mono mix. I prefer Casablanca in black and white. It was the artist's intent. The stereo mixes are nice as a novelty. Brian worked in mono during his glory days. The immediacy is gone from the stereo mix of Pet Sounds. The muddy sound of the mono (as well as the hiss) is where the magic lies. I don't prefer to get lost in symphonic trappings and interlocked vocals in two channels on the stereo mix. I like it in my face. The bass in the gut. The thundering drums. The ringing guitars. All of that is GONE in the stereo mix. The mono mix is a clear case of the sum being much more than the parts. That's the magic of the Brian Wilson production.

[hypehat]

I like the stereo mixes for the reason you say you don't, RBB, but they don't supplant the mono in terms of 'When I want to LISTEN to Pet Sounds.' But I like the option of hearing it the other way, and Linett's never said 'We made Pet Sounds better', just that it's another way to present the material. And no, I don't even want to think about Casablanca in colour. The issue isn't (i'm really sorry about this) black and white!

[SamMcK]

Laurel and Hardy look worse when colourised to me! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkhFv7Xp-E

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

An SACD of "Long Distance Voyager" would get me to invest in a player no doubt!

Veteran Cosmic Rocker with 24-bit technology would be orgasmic.

I wouldn't make it through even half of "The Voice" without dropping dead of  sheer audio bliss!

I liked this thread better when we were talking about whiskey!

[Austin]

The issue is that, really, a stereo mix of Pet Sounds (an album created and released in mono) is very much like colorizing a classic movie like Casablanca or Citizen Kane.

I respect the opinions of people who prefer the mono mix, but the colorization comparison frequently trumpeted isn't exactly accurate. Colorizing films involves creating synthetic color information that was never recorded in the first place. The separation needed for a stereo Pet Sounds has always been there. The audio equivalent of colorization is more like Duophonic, or a mono mixdown passed through harmonic extraction.