Armin Steiner in outtake from the film The Wrecking Crew talks about "Vegetables

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

...'Here Today' has the most noise and distortion of any of the tracks. probably just sloppy engineering.

It is just hideous engineering, isn't it?  Maybe the best evidence that Chuck was not involved in it?  I mean, there's stuff from other tracking sessions bleeding through, noise, really bad.

[guitarfool2002]

Pet Sounds would have very likely been a two-step mix: tracks cut at Western mixed to mono there (technically, a reduction mix) then transferred to the Columbia 8-track for the vocals, which were mixed there.

Do we have the documentation for this?  Because what I think Donny is hinting at is that maybe none of the 8-tracks WERE actually mixed at CBS, if Western was auditioning 8-tracks at the time?

That is one of the key issues that we'd need to move forward: There needs to be a date established when Western was auditioning 8 track machines. There is too much information now to suggest either option (CBS or Western) or both is a possibility.

Now to throw this into the mix: Someone recently posted on this board some thoughts from Mark Linett, I believe, who suggested that a reason for Pet Sounds having a bit of a muddier sound was that the way they were trying to mix it on the UA 610 based modular boards was actually more than the equipment could handle, and it was doing something beyond what those specific units in the setup at Western was designed to do. So the sound quality suffered a bit.

Was I dreaming that? Please confirm!

But above all, that bit of info would lean the assumptions more to the album being mixed at Western, since CBS wasn't using boards based on Putnam's 610 units. Yet the educated guess would say Western only had 4-track capability at the time Pet Sounds was mixed.

Yeah, Mark supposed that the line-level pad down on the 610 inputs muddied the sound.

Yes! So therefore, could we take a preliminary leap of faith and assume that would affect mixes that would have to have been done at Western since CBS did not have Putnam's 610's in 1966? And it would suggest that the album would have that issue affect all the mixes across the board because it was all sent through the same equipment. If mixes were done at Columbia and Western, wouldn't there be a noticeable difference in frequencies heard if a specific issue is attributed to Western's mixing equipment that wouldn't be there on those mixed at Columbia?

I not sure we can get much from that. There are too many variables in terms of what could make the sound 'muddy'. For instance, 'Here Today' has the most noise and distortion of any of the tracks. probably just sloppy engineering.

Right, but I think you're bypassing the main point I tried to raise, which is people accustomed to hearing these intricacies critically listening to the album track-by-track would be able to notice a difference if a certain issue at Western due to equipment shortcomings or quirks caused a muddiness (according to Linett), so in return they'd also be able to hear that such issues were not present on tracks mixed at other studios. Apart from the fading details, is there an audible difference between tracks assumed to have been mixed at Columbia versus those we assume were at Western?

Just to even it out, do we agree Pet Sounds has a cohesive, overall sound quality in the mixes where we'd agree with the guy who works almost every official Pet Sounds project when he says a muddiness is there? Then that same engineer attributes that to a situation specific to Bill Putnam's studios. That would suggest that he (or we) can assume everything was run through those modules at Western to cause the muddiness across the whole album, and not just certain tracks.

[DonnyL]

I don't think Western had 8-track when Pet Sounds was mixed.

My bad. Of course, I meant that the instrumental 4-tracks were mixed to mono at Western then copied to the Columbia 8-track. Or, maybe, they did the reduction mix on a Columbia 4-track direct to the 8-track, thus saving a generation.

Or maybe the mix fairies did it at midnight when no-one was looking. I have no idea.

Think I need to have a word with someone who might know. And currently has time on his hands.

YES !

PS, I meant, "I don't think Western had 8-track when Pet Sounds was mixed." ...

[guitarfool2002]

That is one of the key issues that we'd need to move forward: There needs to be a date established when Western was auditioning 8 track machines.

Per the known Smile sessions, it had to be 1/5/67 or later as there were no Western sessions between the Fire recordings and that date (er... except for 12/19/66). Of course, the band could be wearing the fire hats after the "GV" promo shoot but before "Fire" (anyone care to do an A/B between the two film clips to see if they are the same: my impression is, they're not). The studio newsletter only mentions auditioning 8-tracks in the 4/67 edition, so we can tentatively infer that said footage is indeed post-"Cow" and thus early 1967 (or maybe 12/19/66). That's my best shot.

I want to be clear and ask if you mean an A/B comparison between the actual firehats or something else in the videos. 

I can speak to the firehats at least between the silent film at Western and the shots at the Gold Star session - these are indeed the same toy hats. The reference may be in several articles, but didn't Steve Korthof or someone else around Brian have a stack of those in the car or something?

This is the best comparison I can offer showing a scene from the GV promo, a scene from the Western film, and a photo from Gold Star Fire session:






I'd say they appear to be the exact same toy hat model pictured in all three events.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Many thanks for that... so the faux-"Fire" session at Western replete with Scully 8-track that really shouldn't be there could be mid-October.

Times like this when I start to hate The Beach Boys. 

[DonnyL]

Pet Sounds would have very likely been a two-step mix: tracks cut at Western mixed to mono there (technically, a reduction mix) then transferred to the Columbia 8-track for the vocals, which were mixed there.

Do we have the documentation for this?  Because what I think Donny is hinting at is that maybe none of the 8-tracks WERE actually mixed at CBS, if Western was auditioning 8-tracks at the time?

That is one of the key issues that we'd need to move forward: There needs to be a date established when Western was auditioning 8 track machines. There is too much information now to suggest either option (CBS or Western) or both is a possibility.

Now to throw this into the mix: Someone recently posted on this board some thoughts from Mark Linett, I believe, who suggested that a reason for Pet Sounds having a bit of a muddier sound was that the way they were trying to mix it on the UA 610 based modular boards was actually more than the equipment could handle, and it was doing something beyond what those specific units in the setup at Western was designed to do. So the sound quality suffered a bit.

Was I dreaming that? Please confirm!

But above all, that bit of info would lean the assumptions more to the album being mixed at Western, since CBS wasn't using boards based on Putnam's 610 units. Yet the educated guess would say Western only had 4-track capability at the time Pet Sounds was mixed.

Yeah, Mark supposed that the line-level pad down on the 610 inputs muddied the sound.

Yes! So therefore, could we take a preliminary leap of faith and assume that would affect mixes that would have to have been done at Western since CBS did not have Putnam's 610's in 1966? And it would suggest that the album would have that issue affect all the mixes across the board because it was all sent through the same equipment. If mixes were done at Columbia and Western, wouldn't there be a noticeable difference in frequencies heard if a specific issue is attributed to Western's mixing equipment that wouldn't be there on those mixed at Columbia?

I not sure we can get much from that. There are too many variables in terms of what could make the sound 'muddy'. For instance, 'Here Today' has the most noise and distortion of any of the tracks. probably just sloppy engineering.

Right, but I think you're bypassing the main point I tried to raise, which is people accustomed to hearing these intricacies critically listening to the album track-by-track would be able to notice a difference if a certain issue at Western due to equipment shortcomings or quirks caused a muddiness (according to Linett), so in return they'd also be able to hear that such issues were not present on tracks mixed at other studios. Apart from the fading details, is there an audible difference between tracks assumed to have been mixed at Columbia versus those we assume were at Western?

Just to even it out, do we agree Pet Sounds has a cohesive, overall sound quality in the mixes where we'd agree with the guy who works almost every official Pet Sounds project when he says a muddiness is there? Then that same engineer attributes that to a situation specific to Bill Putnam's studios. That would suggest that he (or we) can assume everything was run through those modules at Western to cause the muddiness across the whole album, and not just certain tracks.

I don't think I can hear any discernable difference track-by-track, except to say that the all-Western tracks sound a little bit better (slightly 'warmer'?) overall. I would say this is down more to technique than equipment. But in any case, most boards in those days were similar. There is also an argument that can be made that the electronics on Columbia's 8-track are inferior to the ones typically used in studios at the time. The electronics they used were taken from the Ampex PR-10 (same as a 354 w/ different transport), which was designed for portability. These machines crammed a bunch of stuff (including tubes) in a really small space ... a rat's nest in there & really difficult to service.

... too many variables there in my opinion.

and for the record, I like the sound of the line stage going back through the mike preamp. my mixer has this 'flaw' as well. These days, the gear geeks would call it 'warmth' ... it hits the transformer twice basically. I find it creates extra depth.

you know, on Ampex 440 tape machines, some people consider the headphone output to be 'better' than the actual line out, because the line out has an extra transformer. I've transferred mixes through both, and i've found the line out has a greater depth (but you could call it  murky') but also a more 'clean' sound ... I think this comes down to preference more than an actual flaw.

[guitarfool2002]

Remember it was Mark Linett's suggestion that the 610 and related Putnam gear they mixed with at Western may have caused the issues-flaws-muddiness on Pet Sounds' mixes. Unfortunately I don't have the actual article or interview with his exact words but I think reposting that here if possible would be very helpful!

I think the word "warmth" may hold the gold medal as the most overused/misapplied word in marketing gear, from recording to processors to pedals to amplifiers. "This new overdrive pedal from xxxxxxx has an actual 12AX7 tube, you can see it glow! Plug in and get that instant warm tube tone..." etc.  But then again, I think we do know it when we hear it in our own way.

I do agree, too many variables.

[guitarfool2002]

Many thanks for that... so the faux-"Fire" session at Western replete with Scully 8-track that really shouldn't be there could be mid-October.

Times like this when I start to hate The Beach Boys. 

I have a feeling that there are perhaps one or two photos hidden somewhere that could fill in a few of the missing pieces, either hidden or just not widely published as some of the other Webster-Dailey studio photos.

There are a few wider shots of Brian doing Fire at Gold Star 11/66, reproduced very small in LLVS and in B&W, that may add some clues. If anyone has them in better resolution/color, please consider making them available for the sake of solving this! I think those shots of Brian in Gold Star show what appear to be 2 Scully tape machines at that session, but they look like 4 tracks from a distance...you can't tell from the tiny size of the reproductions in LLVS.

[DonnyL]

Remember it was Mark Linett's suggestion that the 610 and related Putnam gear they mixed with at Western may have caused the issues-flaws-muddiness on Pet Sounds' mixes. Unfortunately I don't have the actual article or interview with his exact words but I think reposting that here if possible would be very helpful!

I think the word "warmth" may hold the gold medal as the most overused/misapplied word in marketing gear, from recording to processors to pedals to amplifiers. "This new overdrive pedal from xxxxxxx has an actual 12AX7 tube, you can see it glow! Plug in and get that instant warm tube tone..." etc.  But then again, I think we do know it when we hear it in our own way.

I do agree, too many variables.

I have the MIX magazine (1996) when he was quoted. sounded like an off-handed remark. I can dig it out when I'm home later. I think everyone just kind of assumed it was mixed at Western without giving it too much thought.

[guitarfool2002]

Remember it was Mark Linett's suggestion that the 610 and related Putnam gear they mixed with at Western may have caused the issues-flaws-muddiness on Pet Sounds' mixes. Unfortunately I don't have the actual article or interview with his exact words but I think reposting that here if possible would be very helpful!

I think the word "warmth" may hold the gold medal as the most overused/misapplied word in marketing gear, from recording to processors to pedals to amplifiers. "This new overdrive pedal from xxxxxxx has an actual 12AX7 tube, you can see it glow! Plug in and get that instant warm tube tone..." etc.  But then again, I think we do know it when we hear it in our own way.

I do agree, too many variables.

I have the MIX magazine (1996) when he was quoted. sounded like an off-handed remark. I can dig it out when I'm home later. I think everyone just kind of assumed it was mixed at Western without giving it too much thought.

I definitely assumed it was all mixed at Western, too! Not just that but from numerous other articles with and without Mark Linett which mentioned Brian mixing "with Chuck", or descriptions of mixing at Western in general, or of Chuck Britz describing mixing Pet Sounds tracks (unless my memory is playing tricks on me). Definitely a case of assumptions not necessarily being realities.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

"Mark Linett explains why:  "One of the failures I've always felt about that console in particular was that it recorded great, but the line inputs were padded down and went back to the mic inputs, creating a real distortion problem.  This problem is typical of a lot of consoles from the '60s.  The 3-track, 2-track, and live-to-mono stuff always sounded fantastic, but when they started mixing it through the board, they definitely lost a lot of the fidelity." "

Italics added by Aeijtzsche

[DonnyL]

Remember it was Mark Linett's suggestion that the 610 and related Putnam gear they mixed with at Western may have caused the issues-flaws-muddiness on Pet Sounds' mixes. Unfortunately I don't have the actual article or interview with his exact words but I think reposting that here if possible would be very helpful!

I think the word "warmth" may hold the gold medal as the most overused/misapplied word in marketing gear, from recording to processors to pedals to amplifiers. "This new overdrive pedal from xxxxxxx has an actual 12AX7 tube, you can see it glow! Plug in and get that instant warm tube tone..." etc.   But then again, I think we do know it when we hear it in our own way.

I do agree, too many variables.

too much 'warmth' = 'murky'. but i'm into that sound personally.

[DonnyL]

"Mark Linett explains why:  "One of the failures I've always felt about that console in particular was that it recorded great, but the line inputs were padded down and went back to the mic inputs, creating a real distortion problem.  This problem is typical of a lot of consoles from the '60s.  The 3-track, 2-track, and live-to-mono stuff always sounded fantastic, but when they started mixing it through the board, they definitely lost a lot of the fidelity." "

Italics added by Aeijtzsche

yeh, and all the instrumental tracks were bounced down to another machine anyway, so you're going through several generations of this.

[DonnyL]

...'Here Today' has the most noise and distortion of any of the tracks. probably just sloppy engineering.

It is just hideous engineering, isn't it?  Maybe the best evidence that Chuck was not involved in it?  I mean, there's stuff from other tracking sessions bleeding through, noise, really bad.

it is, but it's so charming. i love the emotional impact of those original mixes. the distortion increases as Mike Love's passion increases.