The Smiley Smile Message Board

This time from Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (MoFi), an SACD release of the 1996 stereo mix.

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-45343-the-beach-boys-pet-sounds-numbered-limited-edition-hybrid-sacd.aspx

(http://www.musicdirect.com/images/product/medium/45343.jpg)

I'm surprised the Beach Boys never went the SACD route with Pet Sounds and the planned Surf's Up DVD-A. If they had intended to move more units, the SACD medium would have been more commercially viable than DVD-A. SACD is a much bigger (although still niche) market than DVD-A.

EDIT - for those who doubt the SACD medium, consider checking out the European reissues of the Moody Blues' "Classic Seven" LPs. Three layers; CD stereo, SACD Stereo, SACD 5.1 Surround. PLUS bonus tracks. And they were EXCELLENT.

I should note that it's a hybrid SACD with both high-resolution and redbook layers, another advantage over DVD-A.

I'm with you - I love this medium, and collected the essentials. Elton John's first four are amazing, revelatory 5.1 mixes, as are David Crosby and Graham Nash's first solo albums. The Stones and Dylan SACD's are beautiful remasters of what were problematic vinyls (especially Columbia pressings) - you can hear the very air in those early Dylans in 5.1. Bjork's Vespertine and Beck's Sea Changes are the gold standard of SACDs.

The incredibly stupid marketing and the limited, esoteric releases (if they had released the Beatles catalogue, everyone would have bought a player) doomed SACDs and DVD-A's from the start.

Nine Inch Nails made good use of the format on the reissue of The Downward Spiral. Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue is another great release, as is Getz/Gilberto.

It's all a question of releases put out on new formats. For instance, how many Beach Boy fans would have invested in Surf's Up DVD-A. And before you go "I would!", consider the meat & potatoes crowd.

Took long enough for MoFi to get the rights to this! I am very interested in this, especially in comparison to the DCC release.

Apples and oranges.  Different mixes.  But MOFI is great.  For those that prefer the stereo mix, this should be a slam dunk.

Any idea as to when we might see this?  I'm all over it!!!!  Love the MoFi!!!!!   :hat

Now, as far as I can tell. I just ordered it on the link above.

I think it's just a pre-order.  The MusicDirect link supplied above state TBD.  And Mofi doesn't list it on their site yet.

as long as I got a friggin' SACD player I have to bite.

Too bad it's so late in the game - I have real doubts as to how long the medium is going to stay alive.

The thing about the Moodies releases is that Justin was involved in every facet of the new mix and it shows. Very good (for digital) and with the exception of a couple of my vinyls (toss-up) are the best available. I'm a 2 channel person.

That said, MoFi has been spotty at best. I'd like to know who was involved and what if any "tinkering" was done. I get worried when they use words like "enhanced". With SACD though it more than stands a chance to trounce the DCC and '72 Carl and the Passions version.

Bring it on!

BTW, for those who are unfamiliar with musicdirect - I can personally vouch for them. I've put their kids through college.

Also looking forward to seeing the Moodies show Friday (such as they are!)

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

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.

Even though it's never been more than a very small niche format, currently there are still a whole bunch of players available, both CD and Blu-Ray based, which accommodate the SACD format. I've never been much of a fan of 5.1 surround mixes for listening to music (as opposed to movies and tv), but it is unfortunate that the format war between SACD and DVD-Audio further dampened what little interest eventually materialized for these formats.

"extracting previously buried information and obscured details"

yikes!

Well, since this MoFi is in stereo and the DCC is from the original mono tape, they're gonna sound very different!

OBLiO sees this coming... :-D


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?

I can sit down at a stranger's stereo (as in a double blind test) and tell it sounds really good, or bad. I can tell that I think it performs certain tasks better than mine. Could I then tell the difference between redbook and SACD? Probably not. Since the ear acts as a comb filter making such determinations in the space of a few minutes or even an hour prove difficult. The brain fills in the blanks, balances things out and creates the perceived space. It takes a while to actually "hear" what is being presented in fact.

I was (with some friends) double blind tested by Sony in the early 90's just before the introduction of SACD, and our group for the most part had no trouble in pointing out the HD vs. regular format. Were they completely honest in the demonstrations? Probably. Then again, it was Sony. I also know that when people can tell the difference (in staged "scientific" tests) the excuse is that more care was taken in the engineering, mixing etc. of the SACD over the CD. Puleez. People are lazy by definition, and they're not going to go through any extra work for an SACD vs Redbook release of the same title.

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/

Somebody recently posted every release of Pet Sounds since the original in May 1966. There was a big list - I forgot how many different versions there were/are.  When does it end?  Is this new one the be-all and end-all of Pet Sounds releases? The vinyl versions (Warners) were nice, the remastered versions are nice, but to me the 30th and 40th Anniversary sets with the stereo mixes are definitely my favorites. Especially the 40th release - the 5.1 Surround Sound Hi-Res 24-bit stereo mix that came in a velvet slip case to make it sound even better. Maybe they took this SACD version a step further than the DCC and HDCD versions. I'd be interested in reading reviews before I sink 30 smackers into it. Ahhhh, who am I kidding? I'm a sucker for this kinda thing.......

I always liked this statement, from the back cover of the 1974 version of Pet Sounds on Warner/Reprise:

"This recording is pressed in monophonic sound, the way Brian cut it".

To me, the best sounding MONO Pet Sounds that I've heard (which excludes vinyl, unfortunately) is the recent Audio Fidelity.  I like it better than the DCC...but it's not night and day -- and I've never done any extensive comparisons.  The Audio Fidelity just sounds clean and tight - balanced and perfect.  After the AF and DCC, the next best is the MONO bonus disc that came with the Pet Sounds Sessions box.  Really nice version.  I had that before the AF and DCC --- and it was the first version that made me go "why do I like this one better than my other versions?"  The MONO/Stereo version from 2000 or 2001, I never cared for.

The best STEREO is on the Pet Sounds Sessions boxset.  Tremendous version.  The stereo on the DVD-Audio is nice, but I for some reason never play it.

So....the MFSL Stereo will be a VERY welcomed addition in my house.  I'm confident that it will be an incredible sounding disc.  Their version of Beck's Sea Change destroys the standard-release redbook -- and even sounds better (better mastering) than the DVD-Audio!  And that's one of the best DVD-Audios I own.


As for SACD -- I'll take it...but I always though DVD-Audio was more apparent.  I go back and forth on Hi-res.  Sometimes it's all I can stand -- others, I wonder why I bother.  Either way... STEREO Pet Sounds getting a hybrid SACD treatment on MOFI (!!!!) is simply too good to be true!  :o

Woah, after you said I "don't own said format" I was concerned you knew something I didn't know, but was relieved to find that my SACD players and discs (just a few) are still there.  And no, 16/44.1 vs 128 MP3 has nothing to do with this discussion.


Enjoyed the Robert Harley article from TAS (The Absolute Sound).  Harley used to write for Stereophile, which I subscribed to for a number of years, and I still read TAS and Stereophile from time to time.  Both mags are heavily in the subjective camp.  It's often stated that this is an economic necessity in order to attract high end advertisers, but I will refrain from making such an accusation.  I do enjoy and appreciate the open discussion both these mags allow on their internet forums, as anyone who takes the time to read the comments posted in response to the above article will see that this is a contentious issue with many disagreeing with Mr. Harley's statements.  Also, he is incorrect in stating that Stereo Review compared two Mark Levinson monoblocks to an inexpensive Pioneer receiver.  It was two Jules Futterman mono amps.

WaxOn, you made a great comment about needing to let your stereo warm up for a couple of hours for it to sound better.  I can unequivocally state that I have had the exact same experience whenever enjoying a bottle of wine, a few beers, or Jack Daniels on the rocks.  In fact, in the seventies I had a number of listening episodes where the Beach Boys, approximately six inches in height, emerged from the tweeters of my JBL L100's and were singing, suspended in space about a foot away from the front of the speakers, providing an incredible listening experience.  How did that happen?  Well, that's another story!
 

SACD was first demoed in late 1999, and generally available starting in 2000, but I'm guessing you are simply misremembering the time frame for the Sony demo, or perhaps when SACD was introduced.  I will say that a number of talented people involved in the mastering and production of SACDs will take offense to your statement that "People are lazy by definition, and they're not going to go through any extra work for an SACD vs Redbook release of the same title."  


Another interesting read, this time from Stereophile.  Again, a lot of back and forth on this issue, but the last comment, from well known audio writer Tom Nousaine, states he is in favor of double blind testing.

But - ya know what?  You're on one side of this issue, and I'm on the other.  Despite what is said, we will have to agree to disagree.  Obviously loudspeakers and the listening room can make a huge difference in the listening experience.  Same with headphones and phono carts, and I see you must be into vinyl with the cool 45 rpm center spindle logo you have.

Right now I'm trying to decide whether to spring for the Pet Sounds SACD or invest the $35 in more Jack Daniels.  The latter may provide more listening enjoyment, but the SACD is probably a better investment because it gives one the ability not only to convince themselves that they are enjoying a rather unique and superior sonic experience, but also to invite listeners over to hear the Pet Sounds SACD, telling them that it's the best version ever, and have them say, "Wow man, that was incredible!  Wish I had something like that!"  So that does it - but I'm gonna go for it!.  I heading right over to the Music Direct site to order the PS SACD (seriously!).   

Bottom line - enjoyment of the music is what it's all about.  SACD is a great medium with technical specs superior to those of regular CDs.  I applaud all efforts to record and edit in high resolution.  But, unlike the obvious and easily identifiable benefits of high def TV, there is no verifiable double blind listening test showing that the human ear, when listening to music, can tell the difference between the exact same stereo audio on a SACD and a regular CD.  Do I expect better sound from the Pet Sounds SACD?  Not really, but I've only got 14 copies of PS so far (7 vinyl and 7 CD), so it's time to add to the collection!  Plus the Music Direct site claims, "You won't Hear a Better Version.  Prepare to swoon.  Mobile Fidelity engineers treated this project with utmost reverence, extracting previously buried information and obscured details that add to the elaborate music’s meaning, enjoyment, mood, and breadth.  Enhanced, too, are Brian and Carl Wilson’s spiritually informed high-register vocal performances, now unbound by any connection to artificial ceilings or veiled frequencies."  Can you imagine that?  The writers of late nite infomercials should be jealous.  And I promise not to tell the Mobile Fidelity Engineers that WaxOn from the Smiley Smile message board said, "People are lazy by definition, and they're not going to go through any extra work for an SACD vs Redbook [standard CD] release of the same title."  

But SACD is only 1 bit audio right  :shrug   :3d

Yikes!

I went back to see just when the demo was I attended, I was pretty sure it wasn’t the last show I attended in 1997, but I was wrong. Sony gave us “24 bit” downsampled type discs, and the date is 1996 on that.  I remember waiting and waiting for the format to come out after that, but never bit until a couple of generations as $5k was a bit steep to cough up at the time. I was sure it was the show Roy Hall got us drunk on Scotch, but those late afternoon sessions are fuzzy.

Anyway, I too did stereophile when it was a small format (as TAS) and it was at the stereophile show that Sony was giving the demos in the SF bay area. Gave up on both when the average cheap amps reviewed cost as much as a friggin' Ducati. The sony demo was given comparing 16 bit vs 24 bit downsample (the new cool thing) vs real SACD. We couldn’t see what was behind the curtain so to speak, but the difference was most apparent on the SACD.

As far as double blind tests, I would proffer that the average person couldn't tell the difference between 1080i or 1080p, or even between brands of sets (much less types) if a test could be done as easily as audio. The beauty of vision is you can do a simultaneous comparison, but alas - not being "Data" cannot listen to two musical programs at once. What is readily apparent in a side by side comparison would be rendered useless when presented in a linear fashion. I deal with "visual resolution" as my business, and it's amazing what is passable by people who think they can tell the difference. Side by side, yes. On its own, no. Sad but true.

Personally, I don't and have never bought in to the snake oil side of hi-fi, from $$$ cable to a lot of sound enhancements. Remember those - God what were they - like safety pins with washers on them? You were supposed to wear them and it improved the sound. Same with placing shakti stones on different components or speakers or whatever. I will buy though that electrical interference can cause some issues, and there may be something to power conditioners depending on environment. In our old house I could tell if lights were on in the kitchen. Here, I went from a shared outlet to a dedicated 20 amp circuit and the noise floor went black.  I also take great joy out of reading folks on the (digital) asylum who claim they can hear a difference in USB cable or other digital sources. That’s where I draw the line, ones and zeros are ones and zeros. At my age I can still hear 15Khz no problem, but sadly and only recently my ability for 16KHz went away. :-[ Considering I thought I went deaf at a show in 1980, not too bad.

Overall I’ve been a bit disappointed with SACD in general, in spite of whether I can hear the difference or not.  I’ll take a leap of faith and assume you can hear a difference between vinyl and digital. The difference I’d place there is one of rhythm and pace more than tonal differences or soundstage. The difference is so great that my wife will come in and listen as she can tell the difference from anywhere in the house. And that’s been part of my disappointment – the TT still shuts down the player in most circumstances. I too only have a smattering of SACD disks - and since I think the difference is most apparent on classical and jazz recordings -  I don't see that changing any time soon.

Bwahahhahahah. Centuries? Damn. Did you keep them long enough for the foam grills to start rotting? God I hated those things. Gorgeous with crossovers from hell. I also had some decades before that. Whew. 12" white woofers and midranges that buzzed.

Ah well, I guess we can agree to disagree. Let me know how the PS SACD sounds - I'm still wary of MoFi. And, unlike vinyl there’s no degradation in the printing process, so waiting won't hurt none.

Dude. Jack Daniels? Really?
I guess that's another argument for another forum.



SACD is 1 bit Direct Stream Digital, the 16 bit is referred to as Pulse Code Modulation (think I got that right) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PCM-vs-DSD.svg

24 bit PCM is pretty much every bit as good as SACD - it's just a different way of sampling the source material.
When Sony was giving us the above referred demo - they hadn't come up with their marketing terminology (or perhaps settled on DSD) and simply referred to it as 24 bit audio.

 ;D

I love the tech talk... even though my focus is more on the musical side of things. When I read that stuff about extracting... are they removing a gall bladder? a tooth? I just think there is a reason the mix is what it is. What you have is the mono mix by Brian. Then you have a stereo mix by Brian and Mark Linnett. When mastering engineers start talking about extracting and all that kind of thing... that's the scary part.. the mixes aren't to their liking? If the mix is good then leave it alone. There may be a very good reason why the original creators mixed it the way they did in the first place. I like stereo mixes, too... but lately some have become very distracting. I like listening to a whole presentation first and then maybe after, if I want to get a fix on something that made the sound, I don't mind isolations just to hear what is in there if you can't pick it out of the original mix with the ear. One thing I notice more and more about the sounds Brian created... it's the blending of two or more sounds to make one whole new sound. I just hope they don't inject Botox into the cover photos to remove any perceived wrinkles.

I have heard some good MFSL stuff, but I wonder if they remove tape hiss, along with the highs, and then add the highs back in. I know they use the Gain II thing as a selling point, but nothing beats a good ear. You need a good musical ear to hear if anything needs to be done at all. So just from a musical standpoint... "it's not the gear, it's the ear".

Listening to The Who's Tommy on SACD nearly had me moved to tears.

Yeah, most people are far more easily satisfied with audio/video matters than those of us who tend to obsess over such things.  I too have never gotten into the snake oil stuff, although some of the products have provided me with a good laugh.  

When I first saw a 1080i vs 1080p side by side demo, at CES (maybe around 7 years ago?) I was surprised that the difference was more subtle than I had expected when viewing a moving picture from a normal seating distance, whereas the difference between 480i and 480p, for example, is huge.  Most people think satellite radio has wonderful sound quality and look at me like I'm nuts when I tell them it sounds like hell to me.  I'm still a sucker and subscribe to Sirius XM in my car because I really enjoy the wide variety of music programming, but the listening experience is seriously compromised by the heavy duty data compression.

Unitl I read your post, I hadn't thought about checking out my high frequency hearing in years, and was dismayed to find that I can no longer easily hear 15 kHz in my right ear. :(  A number of years ago I was playing the same test CD (which goes in increments of 10 - 15 - 18 - and 20 kHz) and I needed to crank up the stereo so that I could hear the 18 k tone.  My kids were in the room and immediately put their hands over their ears and started jumping up and down, yelling that the sound was hurting their ears and asking me to turn it down.  Fortunately there was no dog present.

I well remember the L26 Decades and knew a number of people who had them.  Of course I still have my L100s!  I'm just too nostalgic about 'em to ever get rid of them, so they are in service in the family room, with the LE-25 tweeters having been repaired twice.  The foam grilles were replaced with official JBL cloth grilles years ago, and the originals are in storage in their wood frames in the garage.  And ya know what?  I just realized that the only times the six inch tall Beach Boys ever emerged from the L100 tweeters and began singing, suspended in space about a foot in front of the speakers, was when I had the foam grilles!  That's right, it's never happened since I went to the cloth grilles.  Those crafty JBL engineers obviously knew what they were doing when they introduced foam grilles to the world.  No wonder the Maxell guy is still pictured listening to L100 Centurys, complete with the classic foam grilles!

Yeah, it'll be interesting to actually hear the MoFi Pet Sounds, and how (if at all) it lives up to the claims of extracting previously buried information and obscured details, etc.

Yes ... Jack Daniels!  Really!  Totally great stuff.

I’ve got a lot of MoFi stuff, both their original half speed masters and of course the gold disks. I don’t think any of it has ever bowled me over save for their original vinyl. Most if it seems fairly dull and even muddy – which may or may not have a positive effect on Pet Sounds. They even claim the GAIN 2 system brings “warmth and ambience” to the digital medium. http://www.mofi.com/store/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=9
Yeesh. In almost all cases I’ve found better versions – from newer masters to SACD’s.

But, I have to stress different systems handle digital differently. For instance, I bought a (rather pricey) Japanese pressing of XTC Nonsuch almost 20 years ago. My ears bled. So bad it went into the “assorted” heap (after several more attempts). Tizzy and forward, the original sounded just so much better.

Then, after a move and a huge step up in my amp and preamp, one evening while listening to the original, I decided to throw the discarded disk on for comparison. Holy MOLY! It sounded fantastic! No longer tizzy and forward – it was open and smooth. In comparison the original was dark and compressed. Go fig. I guess it just didn’t get along with solid state. On the other side of that coin, the MoFi stuff still sounded just as dark and distant as ever. Maybe I should go back and reevaluate some of those MoFi Ultradiscs.


They employ "the mosquito" sound at some malls to send teens running. I still can't have the halogen lights in my listening room on (that light the artwork) as they put out a high frequency buzz that seems to only bother me.

For those interested - here's a test site. Prepare to be depressed: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/
Granted - some PC systems can't play it back correctly - but if you've got an ok sound card and a couple of speakers it should work.

It's sad that the 15khz tone I can hear doesn't sound nearly as high pitched/painful as I remember the 17khz one. Technically I guess I can hear the 16khz, but it's more of a "pressure" and not a tone at this point. Not 2 years ago I could hear it just fine.


See, that's what I hated about the centuries and similar US speakers at the time. The giant woofers gave people chest cavities the size of a hippo. That's when I moved to smaller drivers that gave a realistic scale to voices and instruments - granted, at the loss of bass. This is no longer the case. I never got a "soundstage" out of my centuries - although I did manage a similar "in front of" effect, but still very much emanating from the speakers. Now, with my setup the sound is far beyond the back wall, and off past the side walls several feet. So dramatic is the soundstage I've never felt any need to move to 5.1/7.1 - the best of which I've heard doesn't create that same sense of space - it's all coming from the speakers again, only a bunch of 'em this time. Not to say it can't be done - but that's a LOT of tweaking. Not to mention $.


Holding my breath not am I (best Yoda impression).


Hmm. We gotta get you onto Four Roses or Knob Creek or something. Although my tolerance for brown liquor is much diminished, I still have it from time to time. Back in the early 90's (again) at a stereophile show (I think '93) I was in a liquor store (go fig) and found a bottle of original "lead top" 8 year old (as opposed to "old number 8 brand") Wild Turkey. I used to drink this stuff so much, well, I had a college nickname. Anyway, I bought it with the intention of cracking it when the year 2000 rolled around. Party like it's 1999. http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/DBvd.php?id=416&task=displaybottling  This stuff makes Rare Bird taste like Sterno. The French ruined it - then again, most commercial Bourbon is soooo much worse than it used to be. Old Grand Dad 101 used to be quite good too. Anyway - I still have the bottle as I've never had the heart to open it. It started to evaporate, so it's turned on its side to keep the cork moist. Next it'll probably wind up in the wine cellar!

Anyway, I think this thread is being hijacked again - I tend to do that.

MoFi SACD! Woot!

 :o *note to self: take those 200 CDs out of the freezer ASAP. They will smell of fish for sure. And buy green felt markers, a dozen. Idiot!*

I actually tried the marker thing for a bit. Never bought into the cryogenic thing.
I remember old Sam Tellig was telling people to use armor all on their CD's, freaked me right the f* since I knew it would delaminate the label side if people got carried away, which they did. And why he apologized.

What DOES help is Brillianize™ if the surface is compromised. Polishes the surface and takes away tiny scratches. Good for plexiglass framed artwork and helmet visors too. Just be sure to use a cotton cloth and not paper towels.

You might remember that when burnable CD's first came out, the surface was green to facilitate burning. What I never understood is why they don't sell music CD's that way (well I do - more expensive). Absorbs the stray red light - the theory behind the green marker. The surface itself makes sense. And probably why some mfg's "Audio" CD's are green. While I don't think it makes a direct impact on sound I do think it probably effects jitter on some transports. They've made tremendous leaps in the last 25 years.

Yeah, this thread has been totally hijacked!  

Haven't tried Four Roses yet, but in addition to regular Jack and other old standbys like Crown Royal and Maker's Mark, I do also enjoy Knob Creek, and especially relative newcomers Woodford Reserve and JD Single Barrel.  All good stuff, especially the Woodford and JD Single Barrel.

Light green dye CD-Rs are still available from Taiyo Yuden, now owned by JVC.  Unlike most CD-Rs which are made in Taiwan (although Chinese CD-Rs have recently appeared as well), the Taiyo Yudens are made in Japan and are also sold by Maxell as CD-R Pros.  The light green dye is said to be more stable and longer lasting, superior to the silver colored dye used in mass market CD-Rs which go for a bulk price of 10 to 20 cents a pop, whereas the Taiyo Yudens cost an unconscionable 40 to 50 cents each in bulk!  

If you go to the Music Direct site they'll be happy to sell you the Audio Desk System, which "Trims the Edges of Your Discs (to a 38° angle to reduce laser scatter), Improving Sound and Picture Quality of Any Disc!"  It includes a black marker, since the green marker treatment has been passé for ages.  Normally priced at $1000, be sure to act now as it's on sale for $695!  Not sure you can justify the price?  Put your amp, speakers, or whatever up on eBay, replace them with lesser equipment at a fraction of the cost, and spend the proceeds on something that will truly make a difference in listening enjoyment!

Brian, Dennis, Carl, Mike, Al, Bruce, David, and even Blondie and Ricky.  There!  Now the BBs have at least been mentioned again in this thread.

Somebody has to say it.

Take thees thread to Cu-ba!


Try the Four Roses. At least all hope isn't lost for you yet!
I'm pretty much on Tito's vodka nowadays. And red wine since we have an award winning winemaker friend. Hell to get old.


Got a stack of 'em. Don't know why - I only burn CD's for the cars. Believe it or not they're branded memorex whoops - Sony. Hmm, think I got 'em at Costco - they were called "audio" disks in pretty rainbow colors.


Yeah, I've seen that. Can't really buy this thing that it goes out the edges. Back when transports were iffy I'd buy off on something to actually stabilize the disk. Now they shove crap in PC's for $40 that are superior to thousand dollar technology from a decade ago.

Best "tweak" I ever got was a record cleaner. That's worth it.


Don't forget John Stamos!

JOHN! :rock

Ah God, am I going to Hell for that?

Interesting, cheers! I understood that the laminated label side has the essential digital code just below it; so that the label side is in fact the super-sensitive side, and not the other, silvery side. Treating the label side with some detergent is therefore dangerous. Am I right?

A typical commercially pressed CD is comprised of a polycarbonate substrate which has a series of pits and lands, representing the digital data, molded into it.  On top of this is an aluminized reflective layer.  A relatively thin coat of acrylic lacquer is applied on top of this reflective layer, with the label, covering all or part of the lacquer, screen printed on top of that. 

So, yes, the any scratches or other damage to the label side could ruin part of the thin reflective layer and the data below it.  The bottom of the CD is not as susceptible to minor scratches as one might think, as the focal point of the laser reading the disc is not the bottom surface of the disc, but on the reflective layer above it.  Plus CDs have redundant error correction data built into them, which can handle many relatively minor scratches.  A water based detergent should pose no problem.  However any solvent based solution, which could include solvent based permanent pens, could react with the lacquer or label and lacquer, potentially damaging the reflective layer underneath.

It's important to keep the bottom side of CD-Rs away from direct sunlight, as over time it can degrade the photosensitive dye layer into which the data is burned.

Thanks!

As Custom Machine said.

The "armor all" thing was supposed to be a tweak - supposedly filling in gaps or greasing the surface of the read side. Point is, people got it on the painted label side of the disk. And, the armor all would penetrate the surface (as is its job) and it would separate from the plastic! Cool!!

Brillianize works great and actually will save DVD's which tend to be a lot more sensitive to scratches (read side). If you got kids or drunks in the house it's a lifesaver. As durable as they are, poor handling can still cause scratches and or hazing which affects read. If you actually scratch the label side so it goes through (silkscreen, lacquer and reflective), there's nothing you can do about it! Go ahead, key that old crappy DCC Pet Sounds and see.

Supposedly the life span of a CD is around 20 years, depending on how they're kept. So the "forever" medium turns out to be less than my LP's. Gold CD's are supposed to be less susceptible to oxidization than ultra-pure aluminum and supposedly have a longer life span. In addition, gold is less porous than the aluminum, thus enhancing playback in theory. Also the reason they use it for cable contacts and pins.

I'm not sure what material they used to make old CD's out of (we're talking commercial), but you couldn't break one to save your life. Only bend it. Now they snap quite easily. So it's not the same "polycarbonate" formulation - at least the ones that have incurred my wrath. Perhaps the new stuff is more stable and transparent? I know there are lots of dye formulations for CD-R's, so it would make sense these would affect "brittleness".

Burp.

This ends the Smiley Smile dot net technical seminar for May 27, 2011.
 
Your hosts, Custom Machine and WaxOn will be available for questions and autographs all week.

Next up in the Seminar Series " Toilet Paper and You : 2 Ply or not 2 Ply".

Thank you, and don't forget to tip your waitress.

Thank you. I want a seminar on the next generation of Gillette shaving devices - reportedly they will have 12 blades apiece below the Lubrastrip. Quite a jump from the current 5.

What was this thread about again?

Whiskey.

No Scotch, no credibility. When I can afford it, this is amazing


 (http://www.drinkhacker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/laphroaig-quarter-cask.jpg)

Buncha alki's on this thread.......

Not at all!

We're having a technical discussion about which makes a superior coaster for Single Malt Scotches (or cheap, crappy bourbon), the Pet Sounds DCC, the recent Capitol releases and how those might stack up against the new MoFi SACD.

We've pretty much come to the conclusion that LP's are useless (such as the Carl and the Passions double LP) and cumbersome, unless you are serving chips with the drink.

My take was that most of the MoFi releases tend to stick to the bottom of the glass after a while, but find that SACDs work better on the whole compared to a standard redbook CD. Custom Machine seems to think that it's all in my head - and a double blind test would show that both are equal as far as keeping moisture rings off of the furniture.

Oh well, I better get myself ready for the Moodies show!  :brian

Son, I will defend the '72 CATP/PS pressing to my death  ;D

One can appreciate fine whiskey/whisky and not be an alcoholic, honestly. It is proof of a kind and benevolent God....

Mmmmm.  Quarter Cask. 

(http://th57.photobucket.com/albums/g216/sjnngs/Myspace/th_HomerDrool.gif)

Did anybody receive this yet? Is it worth the money?

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?

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

I'm a scotch man myself. And with scotch, you tend to get what you pay for, so it is an expensive love affair. Talisker, Oban and Johnie Walker Green (I'm  not a single malt snob) or Double Black are my faves. Not big on "regular" whiskey but JD Single Barrel is FANTASTIC!!!

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.

Received an email yesterday from Music Direct stating that my copy has shipped and is scheduled to arrive next Thurs.  I'll report back after some extended listening sessions.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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 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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Told you once before.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

Laurel and Hardy look worse when colourised to me!  :o

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

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!

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.

It'd be more like if they recut the film from the original negative or removed some frame masking so you could see more of the backgrounds...but that's a much less snappy metaphor.

To recap:


Nothing was added to the original master tapes of Pet Sounds. Nothing - and if something had been added, something musical or an instrument which wasn't recorded in 1966, then yes, the comparison to colorizing a black-and-white film would be more appropriate. Or a comparison to Lucas putting a character in a Star Wars scene who wasn't on the original reels of film when it was shot might fit. But as it stands, nothing of the sort was done. If you prefer stereo, it's there, if you prefer mono, it's there too, or to be a total purist buy an original Capitol pressing! They're available. :)

How about this one to consider: The extensive cleaning and restoration of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, which revealed bright and vibrant colors that were masked and distorted under decades of soot, dirt, smoke, and wax residue from candles and other assorted pollutants inside the chapel. There was controversy about "artist's intent" with that restoration, too, but anyone seeing the results or a before-and-after comparison of even one figure on that ceiling can judge if restoring the colors was a good or bad thing. If you saw the ceiling prior to the 1990's, then saw it today, it might be a shock to see the difference. I suppose hearing Pet Sounds in stereo could cause a similar reaction after hearing it on vinyl in mono for however many decades...

No sh*t.  Who's the Spacecase, Doc?

I can see both sides of this issue.

In the case of Pet Sounds (as opposed to Today/Summer Days/maybe even Wild Honey) it's clear that Brian put the whole thing together with mono in mind. All the stacking/blending of various instruments so that they sound like a singular entity: all this has been well articulated, and I think it's fair to say that audible separation of the instruments was close to the opposite of what Brian was going for. To my ears, with Pet Sounds, when you start wedging in spaces in the "room" things lose a bit of the intended flat sort of balance. Hal Blaine and Jim Gordon are playing very stripped down drum parts with all the extra percussion filling in where hi-hats/ride cymbals would normally be and these elements are meant to bleed and blend and when separation is introduced, the individual elements are less impressive.

I can't speak for Brian, but it seems this is what he strongly and explicitly intended with Pet Sounds. Today, for instance, sounds to me like a more typical rock band production with some extra flourishes and just sounds muddy in mono (though some fans swear by the mono) to me. I agree that the stereo Pet Sounds is vital for historical and educational purposes as a peek behind the curtain, and some songs found fabulous with the extra separation.

I bought a SACD player several years back...picked it up for about $150.00 at The Good Guys (remember them?).  For me, it depends on whether the SACD is regular stereo or multichannel.  If it is regular 2-channel stereo, I can't really hear a difference between the SACD and a regular well-remastered CD.  On the other hand, if the SACD is multi-channel, then the difference is amazing on a stereo system equipped to handle it!  I have a Police Greatest Hits album in SACD multichannel, and my favorite song is "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic".  You hear every instrument and every note.  It sounds like a completely different song.  I think I heard once that Sony would use that version of the song to demo their SACD players in stores. 

So, if Pet Sounds is going to be a 2-channel SACD, I'll pass on it, but if it's multichannel, I'll definitely pick it up.

You ain't gotta choose! You can have both! Sometimes I want mono, sometimes I want stereo! Can't we all just get along? The SACD sounds great! Not a replacement, an alternative! Get the DCC Gold too!

Interesting to see those that praised the The Smile Sessions fly-ins and pitch shifting so critical of the Pet Sounds remix. I would've thought those bothered by the liberties taken with the stereo PS would be incensed by how the material was presented on disc one of TSS.

The new MoFi SACD is two channel.  If you want Pet Sounds in multichannel surround, go for the 2003 DVD Audio release, which contains a two sided disc with Pet Sounds in 5.1 surround in the DVD Audio, Dolby Digital, and DTS Digital formats.  The new MFSL SACD sounds wonderful, but (not counting You Still Believe in Me) it sounds very close to the 1997 stereo mix on which it is based.  It's a dual layer release, and the CD layer sounds essentially the same to me as the SACD layer, with the added benefit that the red book CD layer does not contain the track indexing error on Here Today which is found on the SACD layer.

Is the 1966 release of Pet Sounds really a monophonic recording? In light of the box set and subsequent dvd-audio release, the answer must be a resounding NO. The "monophonic" Pet Sounds is nothing more than a hurriedly prepared fold-down of multichannel recordings to a single channel, replete with the attendant artifacts. Perhaps Capital should have marketed the album as "Unophonic".

None of this was sufficient to keep it from being my favorite album the last 40 years or so, but I don't understand the Cult of Monophonic who cannot abide to listen to the album with both ears.

I guess the point would be that it was folded down because Brian conceived it for mono and the hurried  "Unophonic" dub-down was close enough to actual mono.

You're totally missing the point. It has nothing to do with "hearing it with both ears." What is significant about the 1966 mix isn’t that it’s mono – it’s the differences in reverb, tonality, how the vocals are blended, the relationship btw the track and vocals, etc. Nothing to do with stereo vs. mono, it’s good mix vs a great one (regardless which you prefer.)

For example, while the stereo remix is far better sonically the vocal blend during the "I Just Wasn"t Made For These Times" chorus is superior. The 1966 mix is the one Brian Wilson slaved over. Sure, he was hurried but don’t tell me he didn’t slave over blending the layers of harmonies on the chorus. The mix is part of the performance , Brian's talent behind the board is a big part of his legend. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

Did you know the Polyphonic Spree was originally named the "Cult of Monophonic"? It helps explain the schtick with the robes. ;D

Your life itself is worthless to me.

That should read "any more". Two words, Dr. Worthless.

Exactly.

Quoted for truth.

I am surprised anyone who thinks they are a Brian Wilson fan would disagree with this. It is so obvious that the mono mix is THE Brian-created and approved mix, THE version of Pet Sounds for the ages.

Leave Dr. Beachboy alone, Dufus.   He contributes worthwhile stuff to this board.

I was around this board before you or him, when the board started, and I was a moderator once as well. Who in the hell ARE you, anyway?
All I did was state my very strong opinion on the remix of an album, and I have to endure uncalled-for insults from people who are only fit to be patronised by me. Ya'll are laughable and late to the party.

I don't give a crap how long you have been on this board. I asked you a question and you started the pissing match. All I asked was why you thought the stereo version was a "piece of crap", since you didn't bother to the first time. You are an ex-moderator, so you should understand that if you make a statement like that, that someone is going to ask you why you feel that way, considering most members here think quite the opposite. Also, considering you have 363 posts on this board, I'd say that you are the one late for the party, at least as "I. Spaceman".

great post :)

i've only got 92 posts, can i join in?  :lol :smokin :3d :old :grouphug :grouphug :hug

Absolutely! :) He/She (not sure with using the word "precious") brought that into the conversation, not me.

Patronize my ass you cocky motherfu*ker!

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

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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


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:


That's enough Brian approval for me.

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.

So did anyone get this yet? Worth getting?

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.

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.

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.

Beautiful post. 

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

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.

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.

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!!!

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

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

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.

Yeah, ALOT!

What?! Unheard of!  :lol

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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…  ;D

Well, you could check my brief comments about four weeks ago in Reply #82 on: January 03, 2012.

You could also wander over to the Steve Hoffman board and check out the comments there, with some posters saying they think this new MFSL release sounds great and others saying they don't care for it.  http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=271958

I'm really curious as to how the double-tracked vocal on YSBIM was accomplished.  Did they find another missing tape?  Or was it simulated through artificial means (ADT)?

I tend to agree with you. I record at 24-bit 96khz and while it taxes my computer and takes up more space, I prefer igh resolution. I read somewhere that effects and plugins sound better with less artifacting at 96khz.

I should get an interface capable or 32-bit recording at some point...

Cubase. The DAW is self built and pretty powerful

Good point, John :)

Oh so you designed the computer/interface etc? Cool :)

I'd be interested in any details you can give.

I use Logic nowadays, but Cubase is very powerful. I used to use Cubase vst32 v5. Have you tried Presonus Studio One? It is written from the ground up by the original Cubase coders in Germany and the US. Excellent stuff.

For me it's Pro Tools all the way. Pro Tools owns in the audio realm, and I actually prefer it for midi stuff too now.

hey guys.....

just reviewing an old post here.......

and wondering what thoughts or comments people now have on the mobile fidelity Pet Sounds.....

did anyone purchase and have any further opinions on this?

im looking at getting a sacd player and of course I want to get this issue of 'pet sounds'....

but really know little as in what benefits in going sacd......

RickB