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

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I have really weird tastes I guess. I read a lot of classical music criticism and really prefer the precision and insight those books offer over the anecdotal and conversational style of most books on rock music.

I'd like to see a book that married aesthetic criticism, biography, physics, musicology, etc. I've always wanted something like a rock and roll version of Berlioz's Treatise on Instrumentation. A book that was built on real scholarly research and written in a serious way.

A sort of journal format would be cool. There could be an essay length critical biography of some producer or engineer, another essay examining his production aesthetic through criticism of his key singles, and then you could put essays in that vein alongside ones that looked at the history of a particular recording technology, or of an instrument, or maybe even a recording studio.

Just a book that covered production from multiple angles, showed considerable historical knowledge, and maintained a consistent style of scholarly criticism is the type of book I'm constantly hoping to find, but I'm not sure it exists yet.

That sounds great--but it wouldn't sell.  I wouldn't care a whole lot about sales, but a book like that would require funding to put together.  It's not something you slap together in your spare time.

I work at a bookstore, and sad to say Berlioz's treatise sat on the shelf for years.  I think I might have even bought it out of pity even though I already had a copy.

[Dunderhead]

I have really weird tastes I guess. I read a lot of classical music criticism and really prefer the precision and insight those books offer over the anecdotal and conversational style of most books on rock music.

I'd like to see a book that married aesthetic criticism, biography, physics, musicology, etc. I've always wanted something like a rock and roll version of Berlioz's Treatise on Instrumentation. A book that was built on real scholarly research and written in a serious way.

A sort of journal format would be cool. There could be an essay length critical biography of some producer or engineer, another essay examining his production aesthetic through criticism of his key singles, and then you could put essays in that vein alongside ones that looked at the history of a particular recording technology, or of an instrument, or maybe even a recording studio.

Just a book that covered production from multiple angles, showed considerable historical knowledge, and maintained a consistent style of scholarly criticism is the type of book I'm constantly hoping to find, but I'm not sure it exists yet.

That sounds great--but it wouldn't sell.  I wouldn't care a whole lot about sales, but a book like that would require funding to put together.  It's not something you slap together in your spare time.

I work at a bookstore, and sad to say Berlioz's treatise sat on the shelf for years.  I think I might have even bought it out of pity even though I already had a copy.

I guess that's why Andrew suggested the collaborative approach. And I'm sure if you offered it by subscription there would be a lot of people on these internet boards who'd sign up. Start by finding contributors, decide on an editorial board, and then aim to put out an issue a year or something.
Certainly a lot of work, and the results would definitely be sort a niche thing, but I think that's why a book like this should be written. This is a niche I'm sure a lot of us would like to see filled, there's a demand for this type of book (maybe not a huge demand, but a demand nonetheless).

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Almost a magazine approach.

[Dunderhead]

Almost a magazine approach.

Yeah basically a journal of rock criticism, aesthetics, and recording history.

[guitarfool2002]

I think the main stumbling block would be the fact that a lot of that information is available through active discussions online, on various message boards, forums, blogs, etc...so many that it's overwhelming to cross-post a question and forget which boards to check in with to see if anyone replied.

The power of the internet is that such discussions are liquid, and can evolve rapidly or slowly over time, depending on the availability of the information. If you cement that kind of thing into a book form, the information has to be airtight, factually correct and checked many times, and somewhat timeless because the moment something appears in such a book as fact, and a year later something turns up in the form of a tape, or photo, or film, or session log in some random person's dad's attic, the book has a black mark on it..."this is out of date".

The other drawback is with certain topics, specifically centered around media/music/pop culture, which is ever-changing, a lot of folks simply go to the internet for their references. It would be a tall order to create a book on recording unless it becomes strictly historical, and even those fall out of date as new information comes out, or certain accepted facts become less factual as more evidence is offered by a larger group of people, i.e. those folks posting things online which maybe the researchers and authors had never seen before.

That said, I'd skip the essays and the philosophy and also the technical diagrams and have a historical book based solely on pictures with brief histories behind them.

I REALLY wanted that for the Smile sessions, just a nice collection of dozens of photos from Jasper and Guy Webster presented in an organized way, in high-quality prints. I'd be happy, I'd buy multiple copies for gifts. Honestly I don;t understand why there is such a reluctance to put more of those photos out, not just Beach Boys stuff - they tell a beautiful story of the studios and the people working in them.

[DonnyL]

I find a lot of the info I'd like to have really difficult to find online, sometimes it's really not there. There's more we don't know than we know !

for instance, what tape formula was each album recorded and mixed onto? which tape deck? I can deduce some general info (most from '63-'68 was probably on Scotch 201/202/203, probably on an Ampex 3XX or Scully 280 deck, 3M M23 from '68-'69, and 3M M56 '70-'71). The info from Desper has filled in a lot of blanks re: '68-'71. the info is something which can be found with a tape survey, but it is not documented anywhere, like it is with groups like the Beatles.

[Dunderhead]

We all seem to want different things, books that focus only on this or that particular subject, but I don't see that as a stumbling block at all, I see it as the thing that really affords this, so far, hypothetical book with the lion's share of its' potential.

I can't help but see these various niche topics as all being interconnected, and I honestly believe their intermingling serves, not to diminish their individual effects, but rather to enhance those effects significantly.

It has gradually grown into an accepted platitude that rock musicians of bygone eras used all the talents at their disposal to "elevate" the music of their time, to make what material they had on hand into genuine works of art. Part of the reason why they never fully succeeded I think, is that there was no real reciprocal  development in criticism to meet them.

Criticism and art go together hand in hand, the one refines the other. Their interdependence ensures that when one falters, the other will likewise share in his injuries, when one makes a wrong turn, the other will lose his way at the same juncture, and when one is overtaken in route by a band of thieves, the other will almost certainly be swindled by the same men.

By combining a variety of approaches, by tackling things from many different angles at once, I think the proposed book would achieve more in the service of the music than the different attempts would have otherwise achieved individually. Aesthetic criticism shows more insight with greater historical contextualization. The history of recording technology enjoys a greater immediacy in its' effect when we see that history demonstrated for us through a critique of the music which utilized that technology.

I believe that a collaborative, or multidisciplinary effort would yield the best fruit. "Recording Art", "Production", "Sound Design", these are ideas that can and should be put into sharper focus, historically and artistically. In order to do that I think the concept needs to be treated through a discussion, in turn, of each of its' constituent elements. The parts will furnish the whole with its greatest meaning, and the whole will bind all the parts together and reveal the intimate relationship between them.

[DonnyL]

I was reading through the Desper thread, and I totally forgot, he confirmed the tape deck immediately as well, for anyone still skeptical that there was a Scully 1" 8-track at Western, '66-'67:

   Re: The Stephen Desper Thread « Reply #1105 on: Today at 09:40:21 AM »   
 
It is great to see you posting again, I hope the board bugs get addressed and fixed soon!

I had a question about Brian's use of 8-track tape machines, specifically one machine that he is shown working with in a piece of silent film. In this film, Brian is at Western studio 3 with Chuck Britz, Van Dyke Parks, and the Beach Boys. In another thread we were assuming the video was from either the Fall of 1966 or Winter 1967.

Here is the question: Do you recall ever seeing or working with this tape machine, and do you recall any of the history or dates associated with it? Was it Brian's personal machine? The assumption was that Brian worked at Columbia with the vocal tracks because they had 8 tracks available when other studios did not, yet here is a film of what looks like Brian mixing at Western while running 8 tracks. In the film you can see all 8 meters responding to whatever is on the reel. Obviously when you worked with Brian at the house they had another 8 track machine, but I'm curious how this one ended up either in Brian's possession or at Western earlier than we assumed.

COMMENT to guitarfool2002:

You ask if I ever worked with the machine in your photo.  The tape machine is made by Scully, the 280 series. Shown is a Scully, model 284-8 1” recorder. You can read about it at this link >>> http://www.technicalaudio.com/pdf/Sonocraft_ASCO_Sound_Corp/Sonocraft_catalog_1967_chunks/Sonocraft_cat67_pp91-116.pdf
Scully and Ampex were the most popular tape machines around Hollywood at that time. Most independent studios had them as eight- and two-track versions. Union studios usually had Ampex and Studer machines. A few had the 3M tape machine. So the Scully shown in your pictures belonged to Western Recorders or was a rental. I have used this and other multi-track machines. The Scully had a bold sound with good bass. It usually worked, and broke very seldom – a good workhorse machine. Brian never actually owned a tape recorder. At this time Wally Hider studio had most of the (then new) 8-track and 16-track tape recorders. Wally made his money renting the machines to other studios, including Columbia and Western, when they wanted one. As multi-track began to be used by recording artists more often, the major studios did buy them … but at first, renting one was the practice. When it came time for me to rent a multi-track for the home studio, I wanted the 3M machine because it had less noise for ping-ponging and a greater dynamic range then any other machine. Here is a photo of the 3M isoloop transport used by Brian in his home studio >>> http://wallyheider.com/wordpress/2005/03/wally-heiders-first-3m-8-track/ If you read the history of Wally Heider in this article you will understand how this and other brands of multi-track recorders can be seen in the recording session photos of that period. Brian did not have any favorite tape machine. He did not get involved with equipment much. As long as the machine recorded and played with a faithful sound, he was OK with it. Certainly all the professional machines of that day did just that, so he used whatever was available.

Good Listening, ~Stephen W. Desper

  


 

[guitarfool2002]

DonnyL: talk about a blast from the past! I forgot about that, thanks for posting. Between DonnyL and Desper confirming what it was, case closed for that part of the mystery. I'm glad those posters whose word is more trusted than mine were able to set the record straight, for history's sake. Onto the other questions about that film.

[guitarfool2002]

For those interested in following the backstory, I was just able to piece together another part of the history behind these 8-track machines, thanks to this morning's mail delivery and a new interview with engineer Jay Messina.

Jay Messina says one of his first studio jobs was working at the studio of Don Elliott (most everyone has heard his commercial work at some point), but he didn't specify if it was the New York City location or Elliott's studio in Weston, Connecticut. Messina remembers that it was the same 1" 8-track machine that had belonged to Les Paul in the 50's.

This is the machine I had written about on page one in response to a question about Atlantic and Motown having 8 track machines earlier than thought.

This Ampex machine which Messina worked on at Don Elliot's would have been that very first Ampex 1" 8-track to be commercially available, and as on page one, Tom Dowd working at Atlantic ordered and installed the second machine from Ampex in 1957 and had it working Atlantic sessions in NYC by 1958. Now we know what happened to Les Paul's Ampex 1" 8-track machine, that first one in the line: It went to Don Elliott.

One interesting quote from Jay Messina: "There were only five 8-track machines in the world then (mid 60's)"

Let's add them up and see if the numbers work:
1. Les Paul buying Ampex #1, which goes to Don Elliott
2. Ampex #2 which went to Tom Dowd at Atlantic
3. Motown's 8-track constructed in-house
4. Columbia/CBS in Los Angeles, constructed in-house
5. Armin Steiner at Sound Studios, constructed in-house

Was that all there was? By the mid-60's as Messina dates his comments, let's take 1965 as a median date: We have documented proof that numbers 1-4 were actively running sessions on those machines by 1965. Armin Steiner's dates are still in question for me, yet he does state he had the "first" in LA in that Mix Magazine interview.

1966 into 1967 seems to have been when the floodgates opened for more studios to invest in 8-tracks, whether for financial reasons, greater availability, or greater demand from their clients.

But Jay Messina saying there were only five such machines in the world in, his term "mid 60's"...does the timeline sound correct?

[DonnyL]

I'd take it with a grain of salt, but it's interesting ... just not sure it's true.

"Mid-'60s" is too vague a term, because it covers roughly '64-'67. Remember, we had 16-track by late '67 (Lovin' Spoonful's 'Everything Playing' was probably the first major 16-track release).

By 1965, it'd be hard to say what was "in existance" ... Ampex were in a lull at the time as they were moving facilities ... that's how Scully jumped in the game.

Scully were able to break into the studio tape machine business by making one of the first solid-state electronics modules, additionally they did them much smaller than Ampex had previously. The 280 was a slim design compared to Ampex's most recent model, the 350. Ampex didn't introduce the 440 (slim design modules like the Scully) until 1967.

Anyway, *I THINK* Scully were already experimenting with 8-tracks by 1965. Bob Ohlsson (Motown) says that Motown had the first Scully 8-track, but he doesn't cite the year. According to the best sources I know of, Scully began formally selling (and aggressively marketing) 1" 8-tracks in June 1966. This is likely around the same time 3M was entering the market.

There were also so many unknown (and possibly not formally documented) custom-jobs in studios, I'd say 5 is not a correct number. There was a studio in New York called Studio 76 that had a custom 10-track as early as 1966 (possibly earlier), made with Ampex parts that used video tape to record on.

So there were defintely a lot more than 5 by mid-1966.

[Andrew G. Doe]

For those interested in following the backstory, I was just able to piece together another part of the history behind these 8-track machines, thanks to this morning's mail delivery and a new interview with engineer Jay Messina.

Jay Messina says one of his first studio jobs was working at the studio of Don Elliott (most everyone has heard his commercial work at some point), but he didn't specify if it was the New York City location or Elliott's studio in Weston, Connecticut. Messina remembers that it was the same 1" 8-track machine that had belonged to Les Paul in the 50's.

This is the machine I had written about on page one in response to a question about Atlantic and Motown having 8 track machines earlier than thought.

This Ampex machine which Messina worked on at Don Elliot's would have been that very first Ampex 1" 8-track to be commercially available, and as on page one, Tom Dowd working at Atlantic ordered and installed the second machine from Ampex in 1957 and had it working Atlantic sessions in NYC by 1958. Now we know what happened to Les Paul's Ampex 1" 8-track machine, that first one in the line: It went to Don Elliott.

One interesting quote from Jay Messina: "There were only five 8-track machines in the world then (mid 60's)"

Let's add them up and see if the numbers work:
1. Les Paul buying Ampex #1, which goes to Don Elliott
2. Ampex #2 which went to Tom Dowd at Atlantic
3. Motown's 8-track constructed in-house
4. Columbia/CBS in Los Angeles, constructed in-house
5. Armin Steiner at Sound Studios, constructed in-house

Was that all there was? By the mid-60's as Messina dates his comments, let's take 1965 as a median date: We have documented proof that numbers 1-4 were actively running sessions on those machines by 1965. Armin Steiner's dates are still in question for me, yet he does state he had the "first" in LA in that Mix Magazine interview.

1966 into 1967 seems to have been when the floodgates opened for more studios to invest in 8-tracks, whether for financial reasons, greater availability, or greater demand from their clients.

But Jay Messina saying there were only five such machines in the world in, his term "mid 60's"...does the timeline sound correct?

There's an interview with Steiner where he dates 'his' 8-track at spring 1967, thus not the first by some three years. Certainly he didn't have one in 1966.

[guitarfool2002]

It's good to see more information on what seemed to be a vague or broad answer in that interview. I literally had just received it in the mail, was reading through, and that bit of the interview lined up with this thread. The numbers "5" and "mid 60's" did seem vague, especially since the mid 60's was when the market for 8 track tape machines was just starting to explode, and as mentioned so many custom models were made at individual studios, it would be tough to tally up any kind of a total for, say, 1965 of how many were out there.

Armin Steiner's interview(s) were kind of vague too, so it's good to find a date elsewhere of Spring '67. I think that time may have been the tipping point for many of the studios to invest in an 8 track of some kind to keep up with the market demands.

Now to veer off course just a bit, I had to mention Les Paul and had a question or two.

The Messina interview states he was working on Les Paul's Ampex 1" 8-track machine when he worked at Don Elliott's studio, which was known on the East Coast as much as, say, Gold Star and the rest would be known in Hollywood in certain markets.

But there is a series of interviews conducted by Howard Sanner about the history of Ampex with Ross Snyder, who was in the special products division when Les' 8-track was designed and built.

First question: I love Les Paul and his work, and have for some time. But Ross Snyder says in the interviews that the design for Sel Sync and the way they were able to design the heads in order to make it possible on that first machine were his concept which he dreamed up thinking of Les Paul's records and how to make them easier and in higher fidelity so he wouldn't lose the sound quality bouncing and dubbing down every time Les needed more tracks. In the interviews he mentions several times how Les seemed to be taking and being given credit for inventing certain things which Snyder or others at Ampex actually did...and to further confuse it, the Mix magazine article on the history of Sel Sync presents both sides, while still crediting Les...seeming to contradict Snyder in the audio interviews.

This is the first 1" 8-track machine, actually ordered in concept by Les Paul and eventually delivered to him at the price of $10,000 (1957 dollars, equal to the cost of 4 higher-end American cars and in some areas nice houses at that time...), and even with that there appears to be a conflict between two of the key figures behind that machine. Is there a general perception among those historians following this area that one of the two men is stretching the truth?

Question 2: We know Ampex shipped the machine to Les, we know it had some issues and Les shipped it back, we know Ampex fixed them and shipped it back again to Les who finally installed it at his East coast studio. Some histories suggest the machine remained there well into the modern decades, and Les is pictured with that first Ampex machine "The Octopus" in several well-known photos of him later in life in his shop. The machine is in some circles a part of his celebrity as an innovator in pop music.

Yet Jim Messina specifically states he was working on that same machine at Don Elliott's in the 60's. So there is a conflict in the stories.

Could it be a case as simple as Les Paul having rented that machine to Don Elliott? Or did Elliott actually buy it from Les, then sell it back to him? Whatever the case, in the histories I've seen, Don Elliott is only mentioned a few times, and other histories suggest as soon as Ampex shipped it back to Les in the 50's, it never left his studio.

I'm confused, especially on question one which I knew existed but always took the word that Les Paul was the inventor because it has been repeated so often.

[DonnyL]

yeh, i don't know man. my guess is Jim Messina is wrong.

but in any case, I don't know much about the Les Paul era or scene ... my focus is trying to figure out the L.A./mid-'60s/Beach Boys puzzle! I'm just afraid of veering too far off-topic ...

I'd really love to confirm:

1. Where, when, and by whom 'Summer Days' (probably Western/Columbia), 'Pet Sounds' (ditto), 'Smiley Smile' (Heider?) and 'Wild Honey' (Heider) were mixed. Specifically, I'm wondering if the tracks were mixed as they were recorded, or in one mix session (likely a combination).

2. Why and how the Scully 8-track ended up at Western in late '66-early '67.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Smiley Smile - the obvious tracks excepted - was assembled and mixed at one session, as detailed by Lockert in the Byron Preiss book. Pretty sure it was at Wally Heiders.

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.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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?

[guitarfool2002]

I know it was veering off topic, but as this seemed to be a catch-all for some of the earliest working 8-track machines in the business, it was worth a shot.

For the record, Messina's dates could be in question but his accounts of working on Les' specific 1" 8-track at Don Elliott's have been backed up elsewhere, with other accounts I've read placing that "Octopus" machine with Don Elliott at least for one period of time around the 60's. The specifics are what drags it all down a bit, because there are conflicts and contradictions to be found everywhere.

It speaks to Fishmonk's idea for some kind of book on these topics: My thought on this proposal is that if the facts can't be lined up and proven enough to "solve" the facts and figures behind that first machine, which I'd say would easily be the single most famous and historic tape machine in history, except maybe some at Abbey Road for Beatles fans, how can a definitive history be written? You'd need to spend many pages presenting all sides, and then expect the readers to sort through what they believe versus what they question? Or whose word they take versus whose memory is in question?

It all makes the head spin too much, and the Les Paul history itself confused the hell out of me because the accepted wisdom has been challenged and the conventional wisdom behind the story has been disputed in a very logical way by someone else who was directly involved. I'm of the old fashioned view that in order to record a factual history of something like the history of recorded sound, you need to confirm those facts in an airtight way before putting it in print. Otherwise someone will plant the seeds of distrust in the entire project if something you claim is a fact is proven not to be, and the other 95% of the facts contained in the same publication will be called into question, unnecessarily.

Back to the topic! 

[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.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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.

[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?

[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?

Not quite, but close ...

I don't think Western had 8-track when Pet Sounds was mixed. But I think we can find out when BW started using the 8-track at Western by getting more info on the SUMMER DAYS and PET SOUNDS mixes.

I know you guys think I'm crazy with the 'step fade' thing, but this really provides some serious clues. I'm still trying to work it out getting a good source of the flat mix tapes.

SUMMER DAYS flat transfers (if anyone knows of any pressings that have the fades 'unhelped') would help clear up the mystery. If I can confirm that the 8-track songs from SUMMER DAYS are the only ones with step-fades, then we can come to the logical conclusion that the Columbia board had step fades, and any track w/ step fades was mixed there. Then, if we hear any original mixes from 8-track masters WITHOUT step fades (that were not 'helped' by a later engineer) from '66-'67, we can pretty much assume that these were MIXED AT WESTERN ON 8-TRACK (perhaps there are none of these, I don't know yet).

Based on what I've heard so far, this is actually where I think the PET SOUNDS tracks were mixed:

(in terms of when, not sure, but we can theorize. Obviously, "Caroline, No" and "Sloop" were mixed before the rest of the album)

1 - WIBN - Columbia
2 - YSBIM - Western
3 - That's Not Me - Western
4 - Don't Talk - Columbia
5 - IWFTD - Columbia
6 - LGAFA - Columbia
7 - Sloop - Western
8 - God - Columbia
9 - IKTAA - Columbia
10 - Here Today - Columbia
11 - IJWMFTT - Columbia
12 - Pet Sounds - Western
13 - Caroline No - Western

If my info above is true (it may not be; I'm not 100% on it yet), then some of the 4-track songs were mixed at Columbia as well.

If this is correct, "Caroline, No" and "Sloop John B" would have of course been mixed earliest. (maybe "Pet Sounds" too).

Then, perhaps "WIBN" and "God Only Knows" maybe mixed separately at Columbia for the single.

I would suggest maybe "You Still Believe in Me", "That's Not Me" and "Pet Sounds" were mixed earlier than the rest, maybe at the same session as the recording.

Then the rest mixed at Columbia in one session. Note these are also the tracks which have sloppier mixes than the rest (background noise, distortion, uneven vocal levels).

[DonnyL]

Smiley Smile - the obvious tracks excepted - was assembled and mixed at one session, as detailed by Lockert in the Byron Preiss book. Pretty sure it was at Wally Heiders.

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.

well ...

This raises another question I've asked before (doesn't seem there is an answer).

check it out:

so, for a back track cust at Western, then vocals added at Columbia ... was the back-track 'mixed' to a mono tape (or one track on a 4-track), then the tape taken to Columbia, and transferred to 8-track? Or was the 4-track master taken to Columbia, where it was pre-mixed from 4-track to one track on the 8-track?

I can see the benefits and disadvantages of either method. The first method would allow BW & Chuck to mix it at Western, locking in the exact balance they want. The other method would leave it to Columbia engineers, but would have slightly better sound quality (saving a generation of tape).

I've always thought it was strange that the 4th track was generally reserved for what's usually termed 'reference mix'.  I always thought that maybe that was the actual final mix of the back track, which was then transferred to the 8-track.

[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.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.