How Hi-Fi are Pet Sounds, Smiley Smile, and Wild Honey?

[The Heartical Don]

I was just sitting on the loo, this morning, and whilst doing what one does there, I thought:

...Pet Sounds, Smiley Smile, and Wild Honey, great albums, all don't seem to have a wide frequency range (compared to other stuff from the era, e.g. the Byrds (5D, or Notorious) and other bands. Did anyone ever assess the range of the music on those LPs? I don't mean eventual hiss and other artefacts.

How did I arrive at that question? Why, I played some Lee Perry reggae, from his Black Ark studio, he only had an antique Teac tape machine, only 4 tracks, a phaser, and a flanger at his command. Combine that with blistering Jamaican heat and oft-used tapes, and you get the picture. I'd be surprised if his material from that time has a range that exceeds 200-6000 Hz. But, thing is: his is a fantastic musicality, an enormous feel for proper 'riddims', sound effects, mixing, and so on... you don't notice that his technical material was so primitive.

[Mr. Cohen]

Well, maybe, even though Brian was a great producer in the studio, his skills at mastering records weren't quite as good. By all reports, Brian was a bit sloppy in this regard, mainly because he was impatient. That was his biggest problem when it came to mastering records. The whole Smiley Smile album was mastered in one day. People who were with Brian during the recording process of his songs with the Wrecking Crew couldn't believe how he would go through 20-30 takes perfecting the sound of a song, only to master it so quickly that he buried some of the sounds he worked so hard to perfect in the mix. By the time of Pet Sounds up through Wild Honey, Brian was more involved than ever in the mastering process, and you hear the result. He probably would've been better off letting other people handle more of the mastering process but he couldn't relinquish that control over the final product.

When you listen to the raw recordings of those songs, there's no reason it couldn't have sounded as good as what the Beatles were doing in terms of fidelity.

As for Lee, I always thought that the scratchy sounding effect produced by his material was part of the charm.

[Jason]

The raw session tapes for Pet Sounds, Smiley Smile, and Wild Honey are indeed of great sonic quality and richness - good bass and treble frequencies. Never underestimate what a mix can do to the sound. It can work wonders or make the sound into sludge. Plus keep in mind that Brian oftentimes would make a mono mixdown and then decide to overdub further parts over it and then make another mixdown. The constant mix-making degrades the quality of the sound as tape is copied to tape. Generational degradation is unavoidable in analog tape.

[Jason]

Another thing to remember, which Brian talked about at an extensive length in 1977 for the King Biscuit Flower Hour, was that he mixed his records with the assistance of a four-inch speaker as a playback device to get an idea how the songs would sound on an AM car radio. He was aware of the sonic quality of the tapes ("we used to play the studio monitors, you know, and FEEL the bass in the gut and all that"), but he mixed for AM radio. Granted, if FM radio was around at the time he was making these records, perhaps there would have been a higher fidelity to the actual mixes. But to sound good on AM radio, we're talking compression, compression, compression. It allowed for that "instance" of sound that Brian loved when he made his records, which of course, he took from Phil Spector's productions.

[adamghost]

Really good point there, Tony.

Even compared to FRIENDS and PET SOUNDS, I find WILD HONEY to be one of the most lo-fi albums the Beach Boys ever made.  That's part of its charm, of course, but it is one thin, murky record.

[Jason]

That's the beauty of the mix. The muddy sound allows the bass to thunder and rumble underneath the guitars and keyboards, and the drums POUND rather than click, at least as much as they could POUND considering Brian's love of restraint when it came to striking the drums.

The murkiness, muddiness, and overall sludge is where the magic lies. It's in your face. Plus the layers of tape hiss. I'll take Brian or the band's incredibly murky mono mixes over any digitally-reverbed, Pro-Tooled-to-death modern day stereo mix. Sure, you'll hear "more" of what's there, but to what end? It's all there in the mono mix. You just have to give the extra effort to uncover all of the layers.

And certainly, everyone goes on and on about "what Brian wanted it to sound like". Funny how this little tidbit is always left out of the mono/stereo, muddy/clear debates.

[adamghost]

As I said, it's part of the charm, just like, say an early Apples In Stereo record.  I can see the argument, though, about the mastering working against FRIENDS and PET SOUNDS, which are much lusher productions.

[the captain]

As I said, it's part of the charm, just like, say an early Apples In Stereo record. 

That's a charm that band very much abandoned!

[adamghost]

Yeah, but those guys were major Beach Boys freaks.  I first met them at the Brian tribute that I performed at with Wondermints the night Brian saw them.  They did the world's most abysmal version of "Heroes and Villains" as I recall.

[The Heartical Don]

Wonderful replies, cheers for that!

I was thinking about 'Born To Run', today. I never heard the remaster-de-luxe version, only recall the sound of the original LP version. Part of its charm surely was the murky, sludgy sound... the title track, and 'She's The One' sound like antique AM mono mixes for sure. The only song that really suffers from this effect is the overlong, operatic 'Jungleland'.

BTW, the worst-ever mixed, mastered, and sounding LP of all times is also in my possession. It is 'L.A.M.F.' by Johnny Thunders and the Heartbreakers. I think John Keen and Daniel Secunda are the guilty parties here.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I was thinking about 'Born To Run', today. I never heard the remaster-de-luxe version, only recall the sound of the original LP version. Part of its charm surely was the murky, sludgy sound... the title track, and 'She's The One' sound like antique AM mono mixes for sure.

"She's The One" is a mono mix. Slathered with lashing of reverb, but mono nonetheless.

[absinthe_boy]

How hi-fi is Pet Sounds?

Well...I can tell the difference between the old CD, the DVD-Audio, the Simply Vinyl release and the 40th anniversary vinyl (made from the same digital master as the DVD-A).

But its not hi-fi in the sense that it's totally clean and distortion free. The layers of dubbing of course make a difference, wasn't Brian working with 4-track machines? The bass can be a bit 'wooly' but its glorious in its way.

Its clear that care was taken recording the album.....and it rewards the listener when care is taken reproducing it. Pet Sounds from a decent audio source (the 40th anniversarly LP or DVD-A for example) into a decent amp and speakers is an experience far better than Pet Sounds on an iPod.

Personally I far prefer it over the pro-tooled 'perfection' that producers seem to favour today. It is kind on my ears and it has dynamic range.

[The Heartical Don]

How hi-fi is Pet Sounds?

Well...I can tell the difference between the old CD, the DVD-Audio, the Simply Vinyl release and the 40th anniversary vinyl (made from the same digital master as the DVD-A).

But its not hi-fi in the sense that it's totally clean and distortion free. The layers of dubbing of course make a difference, wasn't Brian working with 4-track machines? The bass can be a bit 'wooly' but its glorious in its way.

Its clear that care was taken recording the album.....and it rewards the listener when care is taken reproducing it. Pet Sounds from a decent audio source (the 40th anniversarly LP or DVD-A for example) into a decent amp and speakers is an experience far better than Pet Sounds on an iPod.

Personally I far prefer it over the pro-tooled 'perfection' that producers seem to favour today. It is kind on my ears and it has dynamic range.

Is Pro-Tools the source of brickwall productions? Or, more precisely, is brickwall that samey sound which aims to make the impression of permanent loudness but sounds incredibly tedious and lifeless? Lack of dynamics? I can't really 'get into' Bruce Springsteen's 'Magic' for this reason, although the songs are fine.

[c-man]

How hi-fi is Pet Sounds?

Well...I can tell the difference between the old CD, the DVD-Audio, the Simply Vinyl release and the 40th anniversary vinyl (made from the same digital master as the DVD-A).

But its not hi-fi in the sense that it's totally clean and distortion free. The layers of dubbing of course make a difference, wasn't Brian working with 4-track machines? The bass can be a bit 'wooly' but its glorious in its way.

Its clear that care was taken recording the album.....and it rewards the listener when care is taken reproducing it. Pet Sounds from a decent audio source (the 40th anniversarly LP or DVD-A for example) into a decent amp and speakers is an experience far better than Pet Sounds on an iPod.

Personally I far prefer it over the pro-tooled 'perfection' that producers seem to favour today. It is kind on my ears and it has dynamic range.

Is Pro-Tools the source of brickwall productions? Or, more precisely, is brickwall that samey sound which aims to make the impression of permanent loudness but sounds incredibly tedious and lifeless? Lack of dynamics? I can't really 'get into' Bruce Springsteen's 'Magic' for this reason, although the songs are fine.

That's more the result of mondo-compression being added in the final mastering process (after the mixdown is made).  Although heavy-handed compression certainly CAN be added during the mixdown as well.  But, the "brickwall" effect normally happens when a band or a record label tells the mastering engineer, "Make it LOUD".

[c-man]

I think the main reason those albums sound murky is due to the mixing console that was used.  Describing the Bill Putnam custom-built recording consoles used at Western during this time (in a 1996 article for "EQ"), 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."

"Smiley Smile" and "Wild Honey" were mixed at Wally Heider's Studio 3, which was designed to be an exact replic of Western 3 (so presumably they also used a Putnam console?).  Some of "Pet Sounds" would likely have been mixed at Columbia (since the multi-tracks on a few of those songs were 8-track), but they may have had a similar problem with their mixer (notice Mark said a lot of consoles in those days also had that problem).

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think the main reason those albums sound murky is due to the mixing console that was used.  Describing the Bill Putnam custom-built recording consoles used at Western during this time (in a 1996 article for "EQ"), 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."

"Smiley Smile" and "Wild Honey" were mixed at Wally Heider's Studio 3, which was designed to be an exact replic of Western 3 (so presumably they also used a Putnam console?).  Some of "Pet Sounds" would likely have been mixed at Columbia (since the multi-tracks on a few of those songs were 8-track), but they may have had a similar problem with their mixer (notice Mark said a lot of consoles in those days also had that problem).

I'm thinking the makeshift board they had at Brian's home studio - originally a radio console - can't have helped the situation much.

[runnersdialzero]

How hi-fi is Pet Sounds?

Well...I can tell the difference between the old CD, the DVD-Audio, the Simply Vinyl release and the 40th anniversary vinyl (made from the same digital master as the DVD-A).

But its not hi-fi in the sense that it's totally clean and distortion free. The layers of dubbing of course make a difference, wasn't Brian working with 4-track machines? The bass can be a bit 'wooly' but its glorious in its way.

Its clear that care was taken recording the album.....and it rewards the listener when care is taken reproducing it. Pet Sounds from a decent audio source (the 40th anniversarly LP or DVD-A for example) into a decent amp and speakers is an experience far better than Pet Sounds on an iPod.

Personally I far prefer it over the pro-tooled 'perfection' that producers seem to favour today. It is kind on my ears and it has dynamic range.

Is Pro-Tools the source of brickwall productions? Or, more precisely, is brickwall that samey sound which aims to make the impression of permanent loudness but sounds incredibly tedious and lifeless? Lack of dynamics? I can't really 'get into' Bruce Springsteen's 'Magic' for this reason, although the songs are fine.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Pro-Tools or digital recording. Are far too many people abusing a few aspects of it? Shore. Does that mean it's bad, outright? Nah. Brickwalling is certainly not the result of it, either.

As for your question, you described the "loudness war" pretty well. It's sad :\

[runnersdialzero]

That's the beauty of the mix. The muddy sound allows the bass to thunder and rumble underneath the guitars and keyboards, and the drums POUND rather than click, at least as much as they could POUND considering Brian's love of restraint when it came to striking the drums.

The murkiness, muddiness, and overall sludge is where the magic lies. It's in your face. Plus the layers of tape hiss. I'll take Brian or the band's incredibly murky mono mixes over any digitally-reverbed, Pro-Tooled-to-death modern day stereo mix. Sure, you'll hear "more" of what's there, but to what end? It's all there in the mono mix. You just have to give the extra effort to uncover all of the layers.

And certainly, everyone goes on and on about "what Brian wanted it to sound like". Funny how this little tidbit is always left out of the mono/stereo, muddy/clear debates.

Its clear that care was taken recording the album.....and it rewards the listener when care is taken reproducing it. Pet Sounds from a decent audio source (the 40th anniversarly LP or DVD-A for example) into a decent amp and speakers is an experience far better than Pet Sounds on an iPod.

Personally I far prefer it over the pro-tooled 'perfection' that producers seem to favour today. It is kind on my ears and it has dynamic range.

Not everything is so black and white, though - there doesn't have to be two different extremes.

Keep in mind, too, that Brian often HAD to mix quickly and couldn't devote much time to it. I would not call anything about that "magical", and I think it shows in a big way. Some things are absolutely buried and understated in the mix, so much so that they're not even audible or apparent unless you hear another mix of it.

Sorry, tradition for the sake of tradition doesn't always win out - some of this stuff is murky and muddy to the extent of it working against the recording rather than for it. That's just me, though.

[mikee]

"She's The One" is a mono mix. Slathered with lashing of reverb, but mono nonetheless.

  So  is "Backstreets" Odd that some of the album is stereo and some mono in all the masterings released so far.  "Born To Run" (the song) is an entirely different production and (stereo) mix from the rest of the l.p.  I thought they did a nice job on the recording and mix of Ernest Carter's drums on that song.   

[absinthe_boy]

Its true that brickwalling is not the fault alone of Pro Tools. Pro Tools in itself isn't evil, and neither are nuclear weapons. Its how its used...Pro Tools made it possible for any talented person to create a masterpiece in their bedroom...it also made it possible for anybody to ruin potentially good recordings. In the end the production trends of the last 10-15 years are down to what the record companies think the public want to hear, and to the growing trend away from playing music on high quality sources through a hi-fi and instead using MP3s or iPods. And its down to general ignorance among a public who doesn't know why pop CDs are harsh on the ears.

The early Beach Boys records definately were mixed for AM radio, whether that was the case with Pet Sounds I honestly don't know. I'm no expert on the Pet Sounds mixing sessions.

[groganb]

Oh, well, I've been trying to remain silent on this, but, as Popeye sez, "I can't stands it no more."
The bashing of ProTools and digital recording -- especially with today's sufficiently high sample rates -- is just plain ignorant. Stop, stop, stop. It hurts.
Digital recording technology, properly used, is, in fact more transparent than analog because there's no tape hiss over everything. If digital technology is abused, blame the abuser. The technology itself (very cute comparing it to nuclear weapons, btw) is absolutely innocent in this, as was the analog gear used to make crappy-sounding records in the 60s, of which there were plenty.
The loathsome over-compressing/squooshing/flattening/brickwalling (whatever you want to call it) is a (poor) judgement call on the part of the person doing the mastering, often at the behest of the producer/artist/record label. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the equipment used is digital or old-school. In fact, lots of highly paid modern mastering engineers pride themselves on the vintage analog gear they use along with their digital equipment to ruin recordings.
The loudness wars are a real problem, but it has nothing to do with digital vs analog, a debate that I guess will never end since it's now been going on nearly 30 years. Sigh.

[Mr. Cohen]

I agree that you can do great things with modern recording technology, but I also understand why people vilify it. I know some people who grew up using fancy recording programs and tools and I think it has completely ruined how they approach music mentally. Instead of playing a song all of the way through, capturing all of the reverb and little musical intricacies that pop up, they just record a small loop and repeat it over and over. Their playing becomes more mechanical as the program gives them immediate feedback on if the tempos were perfect.You then get bands playing to a mechanical tempo instead of locking into a groove with each other. I hate it, hate it, hate it and I don't use anything more complex than Audacity for this reason.

[Chris Brown]

Great post grogan, I completely agree.  It's easy to blame the technology for the way that music is recorded and produced today, but it really does begin and end with the person using it.  If you are dedicated to producing a great sound, the technology that is available today is a great facilitator in achieving that. 

[runnersdialzero]

Oh, well, I've been trying to remain silent on this, but, as Popeye sez, "I can't stands it no more."
The bashing of ProTools and digital recording -- especially with today's sufficiently high sample rates -- is just plain ignorant. Stop, stop, stop. It hurts.
Digital recording technology, properly used, is, in fact more transparent than analog because there's no tape hiss over everything. If digital technology is abused, blame the abuser. The technology itself (very cute comparing it to nuclear weapons, btw) is absolutely innocent in this, as was the analog gear used to make crappy-sounding records in the 60s, of which there were plenty.
The loathsome over-compressing/squooshing/flattening/brickwalling (whatever you want to call it) is a (poor) judgement call on the part of the person doing the mastering, often at the behest of the producer/artist/record label. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the equipment used is digital or old-school. In fact, lots of highly paid modern mastering engineers pride themselves on the vintage analog gear they use along with their digital equipment to ruin recordings.
The loudness wars are a real problem, but it has nothing to do with digital vs analog, a debate that I guess will never end since it's now been going on nearly 30 years. Sigh.

Very well said. Early forms of the loudness war were going on as far back as the 50s and 60s when people realized compression could make your record the loudest in the jukebox - it's nothing new, and it is NOT the fault of digital recording or Pro-Tools. People were just as soon abusing sound in analog.

I DO hate a lot of trends in recording and mastering these days, but Pro-Tools and digital are not at fault. People are gonna realize this stuff sounds awful over time, bad trends in producing and mastering have popped up during every era of music there is.

Instead of playing a song all of the way through, capturing all of the reverb and little musical intricacies that pop up, they just record a small loop and repeat it over and over.

Hmm, recording parts of a song seperately and re-using the exact same parts in the song? Where have I heard that before?

Again, this was happening decades before Pro-Tools.