The Smiley Smile Message Board

Since I have yet to purchase it, would someone please describe how this remaster sounds compared to the '96/'99/'01 and 2006 varieties? I find the '96-'01 mono version to be really good, and the 2006 version to be smoother still in some places, but harsher in others (particularly WIBN and a couple of other tracks, where my apparent tinnitis is really triggered by the higher frequencies).

Sonically, I’d go with the original “Pet Sounds Sessions” boxed set for the stereo mix. Not mastered too loudly. It’s still my favorite work sonically from Mark Linett. Impeccable.

For the mono mix, I’d go with the Hoffman-mastered Audio Fidelity CD from a few years ago. It’s out of print; I’m not sure how much it’s fetching these days. But it’s the “smoothest” to me, and has the both “breath of life” or whatever one wants to call it. He leaves the freaking tape alone and doesn’t futz with it too much. He also of course doesn’t master as loudly as the major labels in most cases, so that’s a plus as well.

I’d probably say the MFSL CD of the stereo mix (is this one still in print?) is the best apart from the original 1996 boxed set (the MFSL of course uses the later “tweaks” made to a few songs) , and it does have the SACD layer for those into the high-rez.

I’ve still meant to hear Andrew Sandoval’s mastering of the mono mix on the original 1999 “two-fer”, but haven’t gotten around to it. I’ve heard good things about that relative to other issues of the mono mix.

And yes, I realize this doesn’t answer your question about the 2012 CD. I can’t really justify buying another copy of the album, with the possible exception of a potential Kevin Gray SACD or another attempt from Hoffman. I’m not a big fan of the mastering of the 2012 CDs I’ve heard. Some of the stereo remixes are nice (though many still have excessive reverb), but the actual mastering is still too loud.

The best release of the mono version is still the 1972 Brother/Reprise vinyl. There are a few rips of it floating around on the Internet if you want a digital version. There is not one Capitol version, vinyl or CD that sounds very good to my ears. As mentioned, both of Steve Hoffman's Mastered CD's sound good too. They are the 1993 DCC and the 2007 or so Audio Fidelity releases.

Thanks, I realize what you're saying, but I'm really looking for someone to answer my question about how the 2012 remaster stacks up against the others...assuming there's anyone here who's actually heard it...?

I have FLAC's of the 2012 Remaster series. Since my turntable is currently inoperable with cobwebs on it and a dead spider hanging upside down between the stylus and platter, I will compare the 2012 Pet Sounds Remaster release to:

1. 1974 Pet Sounds vinyl needle drop Mp3 (same as the '72 release)
2. Pet Sounds DCC Gold CD
3. Pet Sounds Japanese Pastmasters FLAC
4. Pet Sounds 40th Anniversary CD

Film at 11.

I'm getting the distinct impression there isn't

Hey, HeyJude - I am ignorant of this AS mastered original 1999 twofer - what is the story, as far as you (or anyone else) know - thanks in a - a

Amazon has it for $11.88. Only your ears can decide how good it sounds. All of the Capitol releases sound tinny and hurt my ears. As they say, your mileage may vary.

The 2012 Remaster (speaking of the mono here) uses remixed song intros for several songs, etc.  It's not the true original, unfutzed with mono mix from 1966.  To get that you'll want the DCC or Audio Fidelity version.  Preferably the DCC.

On CD, it's the only way to go for Pet Sounds in mono, IMO.  The Pet Sounds Sessions box, disc 4 also uses the unfutzed with original mono mix.  But I think the transfer isn't the best and I'm not sure that the generation of tape used is as "high up the chain" so to speak, as the DCC from 1993.

Until these Kevin Gray Acoustic Sounds remasters come out (if ever) the best way to hear Pet Sounds in mono on CD is the DCC.  For Stereo, probably the 2012 Mobile Fidelity SACD.  I have heard nothing but good things about it.

IIRC correctly, it doesn't sound bad at all.  Andrew Sandoval did that two-fer 2 years after the PSS box came out.  And then in 2001 the two-fer was redone by Linett with the only change being the bridge for "Wouldn't It Be Nice" stereo being "fixed".

OK, so the sad-strange Stiltskin-eseque trainspotter junvenille that dwells within me thinks any of the following were from the master mastered by Andrew Sandoval:

Pet Sounds ‎(CD, Album, RE, RM, Mono)                             Capitol Records                                         72435-21241-2-1                    US               1999    
Pet Sounds ‎(CD, Album)                                           Capitol Records                                         72435-21241-2-1                    Canada       1999    
Pet Sounds ‎(CD, Album, Club, RM, Mono)                     Capitol Records                                         72435-21241-2-1, D131646                US       1999    
Pet Sounds ‎(CD, Album, Club, RM)                                     Capitol Records                                         72435-21241-2-1                           US       1999    
Pet Sounds ‎(CD, Album)                                           Capitol Records                                         7243 5 21241 2 1                          Australia    1999    
Pet Sounds ‎(CD, Album)                                           Capitol Records                                         72435-21241-2-1                          Europe       1999

Anyone got one and can confirm (liner note sighting)?

The 1999 Sandoval mastering was the first release of the stereo mix outside of the “Pet Sounds Sessions” box. But the main point of interest on this release as far as mastering is concerned is his unique remaster of the mono mix. This was the first CD to pair the mono and stereo mix on one CD.

Only two years later, this same two-fer was reissued yet again, with different masterings and, as someone else mentioned, the first “tweaks” to the stereo mix in the form of adding Mike’s vocal to the WIBN bridge.

Telling these two releases apart can be difficult, because early copies of the 2001 CD used the old backcard for the 1999 CD if I’m recalling correctly. So I would imagine some trial and error would be involved in confirming that what is actually on the disc is Sandoval’s mastering.

It’s more of a curiosity though. I actually prefer Sandoval’s work on the BB material he has done, but in the one case of PS, Hoffman’s remasters are the go-to for the mono mixes, so I’m not strongly motivated to track the Sandoval disc down on this one. 

But.........there is.  I have it.  If you want, I'll send a FLAC of it to one of you dog-eared audiophiles and you can compare it to whatever you want, including vinyl versions, Sandoval versions, Linett versions, DCC version, or whatever.

IIRC, the back cover of the 1999 issue says that it is mastered by Andrew Sandoval. I'll check mine tonight and get back.

I've read that Sandoval's mastering hosed up the HDCD encoding, in that it would trigger an HDCD player to play it, but not in true HDCD mode.

From "Here's a brief history of the Pet Sounds master tape: (from Bicycle Rider, October/November 2008)":
"The first mono/stereo version used the same 24 bit HDCD master (as the box set version) but according to Mark it was re-equalised (by Andrew Sandoval), thereby ruining the HDCD encoding, even though the disc would still trigger HDCD players. This version was pulled at the request of Mark Linett and Brian & Melinda, and the 2001 version, with proper HDCD encoding was issued."

My recollection of discussion back then was that the Sandoval 1999 CD used a DAT copy of the stereo mix master (which is why I mentioned more or less ignoring the stereo mix on the CD). My recollection is also that Sandoval certainly wanted to master from the original analog tape (even though the '96 stereo mix was done digitally; the final mix down was to analog tape), but Capitol would not (or could not) supply him with the analog master, so he had to use a DAT backup.

Sandoval did not intend to make his version HDCD-encoded (which I and some industry folks believe is a largely useless process that doesn't improve sound quality, is certainly not "high rez" compared to SACD and the like, and some engineers that have been asked to encode their product with HDCD as largely a marketing gimmick have eventually discovered it actually hinders their mastering process and they have dropped use of it), but some HDCD flags were left on the CD inadvertently.

However, I believe the mono mix on that CD was mastered by Sandoval from the actual analog master tape. So, while the stereo mix on the CD is supposedly/allegedly just a digital clone of the stereo mix from the '96 set (not sure how much Sandoval even did to it in terms of any EQ), the mono mix is a unique mastering made from the analog master tape.

Apart from fixing the HDCD flag errors in encoding the '99 disc, I always felt the 2001 CD was simply a way to put the thing out again, because that whole team including Sandoval was being edged out of being the "BB team" working on reissues and archival releases, etc. I always felt the stuff like adding Mike's vocal to the bridge of WIBN on the 2001 CD was just a way to justify remastering and reissuing the entire CD again, rather than simply removing the erroneous HDCD flags.

But as I've been saying, I have pretty simple go-to versions for the album. For the stereo mix, the original '96 boxed set is perfect. Linett's work on that set is great. For the mono mix, nothing beats Steve Hoffman's Audio Fidelity disc (though his older DCC disc would be the next best thing; it used the same mastering ethos; Hoffman simply had better A/D converters all those years later when doing the Audio Fidelity disc).

@HeyJude

Mike has stated in interviews that he pushed for the new 2001 remaster and to have his vocal inserted to the stereo mix of WIBN. I believe he stated that radio stations had begun to use the stereo mix and wanted his vocal on there instead of Brian's. That he wanted the stereo to be the same as the mono mix. I have Sandoval's 1999 CD and I don't think the mono version sounds any better than the other Capitol releases before it. I do agree that as far as CD's go, both the DCC & AF releases sound the best.

I had the DCC version for a time and then sold it -- I'm not convinced that Hoffman's mastering is what folks believe it is. He seems to simply boost midrange at the expense of other frequencies, and then claim that's what's on tape. I suspect that's what some vinyl pressings sounded like, but that's not the same as saying that's what the original master tapes sound like.

Honestly, I don't care what hocus pocus Hoffman does, as long as the results sound good. In the case of the mono Pet Sounds his hocus pocus did the trick.

I recall hearing that "radio stations playing the wrong version" was one of the justifications. I don't recall Mike himself mentioning this, but if there's an interview out there, I'd be curious to read it.

"Pet Sounds" is not what I would use as the greatest example of Hoffman's work, simply due to the inherent somewhat murky sound of the mono mix in some cases.

But his work on many releases is revelatory. I would probably hold up his mastering of "McCartney" as the best example of how he lets the inherent warmth of the recording speak for itself. Another great CD of his is the DCC job on ELO's "Eldorado." His DCC versions of "Endless Summer" and "Spirit of America" sound great too.

But Hoffman has discussed to varying degrees his angle and general attitude towards mastering things, and "Pet Sounds" in particular. So I don't think he's lying about how he's mastering these things. He doesn't give away every detailed "mastering move" he has. But when he, for instance, says he does more or less a flat transfer of a tape, I don't think he's lying and secretly using a bunch of trickery to achieve the sound. In some cases, he has mastered something and left it sounding like what the original tape sounds like, and there's almost a backlash because it sounds nothing like what the old vinyl or previous CD's have sounded like. His version of Billy Joel's "52nd Street" for instance sounds markedly different than any other version, but that's apparently what the tape sounds like.

Very few folks have handled these master tapes and heard them played back with no futzing, but this guy has. I don't have a huge ton of his CD's, but every CD I have that he's mastered has been reliably excellent, which is something I can't say for most artists' catalog across the board. But I'm not one of the sycophant Hoffman boosters. I don't just buy stuff because his name is on it. I just pick up the stuff he does for artists I like.

IIRC, Mark Linett has said that the PS tapes don't sound like the Hoffman discs.

Edit -- see my later post. I seem to have dreamed this comment up.

If the two engineers are literally calling each other mistaken (or worse), and I'm not saying they've specifically called each other out on that issue, I have to call it a wash at best in terms of who I'm supposed to believe. Here is a post from Hoffman regarding his Audio Fidelity disc:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mastering-beach-boys-pet-sounds-again-leaving-the-2-db-step-fades-intact.171692/

I find it hard to believe he's making any of that up, and to the degree I can trust my ears when listening to the plethora of attempts to master the mono mix, what I hear on his discs sounds the least futzed-with. A quick excerpt:

So, there you go. When you hear the new Audio Fidelity PET SOUNDS you will hear the wacky fades just as they were done in the studio by Chuck Britz and Brian Wilson (and incidentally just as they appear on the ORIGINAL first Capitol LP cutting). I have used NO noise reduction of any kind and no compression, limiting or anything of a compromising nature on this mastering. It is as pure as possible; there isn't even a mastering console in use, just the playback deck to the recorder with nothing in between.

Now, sometimes purely "flat" doesn't sound the best, but in this case not only does his description sound like a very pure mastering in terms of procedure, it also happens to sound the best to my ears.

For those who may be interested in some geeky additional info addding to Hey Jude's post above, when Steve Hoffman was quoted (on January 15, 2009) as saying:

So, there you go. When you hear the new Audio Fidelity PET SOUNDS  ...  there isn't even a mastering console in use, just the playback deck to the recorder with nothing in between.

He isn't saying that he simply played back the original Pet Sounds master tape straight to a recorder for that release, but that he played back a 30 ips analog tape that he made in 1992:

I have our half-inch mono head-stack 30 IPS AES Agfa-Gevaert full-bandwidth transfer that I made back in October or so of 1992 and consider it the best and most accurate version of the original release that exists in the world, having cobbled it together with the correct mixes for all songs including WOULDN'T IT BE NICE and a few bits and pieces of other songs that needed mending and my the new HDCD transfer is stone FLAT (neutral) as being played back on an Ampex ATR 100-2 with special vacuum tube electronics into our new A/D converter.

And that tape was an editing production in itself, made thusly:

October, 1992, the original tape of PET SOUNDS brought over to LRS and dubbed. First, to 30 ips, with a split to digital using full track headstack. Then, two track stack, left only. Then two track headstack right only. Second, tube playback to 30 ips, with a split to digital. Took about two and one-half hours and back to warehouse. A week later the safety came over. Same thing (not taking any chances). Since the safety was on Scotch 111 it played fine but we only used one song and a few tiny bits to fix missing parts, etc., also the train ending.

PET SOUNDS [was] edited together by me to make complete songs without oxide loss, major dropouts, etc. Minor dropouts I left alone. All those little console noises and buzzing sounds on the original we just left on there (the 1990 CD "No-Noised" EVERYTHING out, even some of the music percussive bits!) Our new restored masters were used to make the DCC Gold CD and the DCC LP. Most of the songs on the old original tape were totally shot, I mean the tape had curled to the point of disaster and parts of the intros and outros of some of the songs were just clear tape, the oxide had fallen off. Why? Not from overuse but just faulty storage and careless rewinding when the reels should have been slow wound. We had to pick parts of the song that would still play using the left or right channel of a two track machine and splice the segments together in mono to get one usable track. A pain. Nothing could have been cut from the original tape. Besides the drop outs it had the wrong version of the first song and no ending of the last song. We fixed it up and this week I breezed right through it in order, in real time. Got the test today and it's perfect (for me).

And concerning the DCC version vs the Audio Fidelity version:

I didn't help the fades at all and the playback deck is different, the wiring is different and the A/D is different. This version will sound, er, different. Could be fun to compare but if you already have the DCC PET SOUNDS no one is asking you to run out and buy another one. But let's give the people who don't have the DCC and want to hear the original mix that Brian made A CHANCE to hear it as he heard it in the studio.

How can you make that determination without having heard the tapes themselves?

I've read that Steve has conceded that the choice of tubes used in the analog playback deck can color the sound to varying degrees. Perhaps that coloring is what Mark hears.

I took the chance this afternoon to look through Mark's archived posts here, and I don't see a post where he specifically said that. It's my mistake, and I apologize to those involved.

Mark did post at length about the 2006 "fuzzy" reissue and said it was the most accurate up to that time, being made from a flat DAT master of an analogue tape that had since been lost. For what it's worth.

Take a look at them all here ... good reading.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=profile;u=48;sa=showPosts

I didn't say it was impossible. Rather, it seems highly unlikely that a well-regarded engineer who has worked on mastering tons of well-known artists and albums, and who would seem to have a vested interest in not alienating artists or labels by lying, assuming he wants more work, would fabricate a story about mastering what is sometimes billed as the greatest album of all time. It makes even less sense in light of the copious detail he had provided on how he went about mastering.

To me, this is a weird burden of proof that seems to be suggested. We never get to hear the master tape ourselves. That doesn't mean we should assume that people that Capitol allow to master these things are lying about their mastering process.

Is this the same Steve Hoffman that got fired from MCA for mishandling some master tapes? Anyone check his garage for the missing Pet Sounds master?

You weren't mistaken.  The post you remembered was from the Smile Shop, not here.

Funny enough, the last time I heard Wouldn't It Be Nice on the radio on Sirius recently, it was the '96 stereo version, no Mike on the bridge.

Personally, I prefer the stereo and mono versions have differences like that, the way they sound on the box set, that's part of what makes it worth it to have both versions in my opinion.

Yet, you realize that if the bridge could have been added in 1996 it would have been. We only got the Brian bridge because of the lack of technology to correct it. Wouldn't It Be Nice was perfect as released. It stands that the stereo mix should match that perfection.

The bridge with Mike exists only in mono, which is why the Brian version appeared on the first stereo mix of the album.  The made a pseudo stereo version of the bridge (duo phonic  M 2?) which is blatantly not stereo and jarring to listen to in my opinion.  The Brian stereo version is far superior.

Mark did indeed say that there were no versions of Pet Sounds on CD that had not been EQ'd I.e. futzed with, and this directly contradicts Steve's account, but Mark was not present when Steve mastered his versions and this is just his opinion.  Steve readily admits when he has to EQ or work changes in the master tape to make it sound better - Cream's Wheels of Fire is just one example.  So I find no compelling reason for Steve to lie about what he did with. Pet Sounds.

There are differences in the DCC and Audio Fidelity versions - besides the inherent differences from using different A/D converters and other electronics along the audio chain, Steve elected not to fix some of the dropouts he obsessively repaired for the DCC in the later AF.  So AF is actually closer to the master tape (he fixed the dropouts using the New York safety tape when he could).

Finally the 2006 PS mono from the DAT tape - this is one of the worst sounding digital Pet Sounds, probably for several reasons, including the time at which the transfer was done (the A/D converters) and the nature of the DAT tape itself.  I've AB'd it against other versions and it doesn't compare.

It's the same Steve Hoffman.  When I first heard the DCC Pet Sounds back in the 1990s I was unaware of his "history".  I guess this is one of those things where you have to hold your nose.  Kind of like listening to Phil Spector after 2003. 

Hoffman's DCC disc is the best Pet Sounds has ever sounded in the digital domain.  I'm hoping the Kevin Gray remasters finally come out and are the go to...  I wonder what is holding those up?  Waiting on Love & Mercy to hit maybe?

Of course, no one ever knows for sure what happened in the mastering studio, but we generally can believe what most folks say. Some engineers may disagree with one another's ears. That doesn't mean either one is wrong. Different tape playback decks can have different characteristics as well.

The original 1993 DCC is probably the most 'pure' version on CD in a sense. That one is my favorite, followed by the one that came in the Sessions box. There's clearly a bass reduction and/or treble/hi-mid boost on all of the CD versions I've heard. The vinyl originals seems to have a bass reduction but maybe not the high-mid boost. The fades are longer on the Hoffman CDs, which I think supports his comments of the transfer being closer to the master.

The more recent Hoffman version is made from a tape copy of the original. The 1993 version is the original transfer (with whatever 'fixes' were done to the dropouts, etc.). The 1993 version sounds much better to me.

That bridge in the stereo version straight-up sounds like the original mono mix right in the middle of the instrumental stereo track. The balance is all off.

To me, the original mono is the only way that Pet Sounds sounds correct. There are too many missing or alternate elements for me to get into it!

Hoffman doesn't still have the original L.A. master tape of "PS", since it was logged as returned to Capitol hours after he took possession of it. Rather, it was chopped up into S reels (one song per reel) and stored with a numbering system recorded in books that have since been destroyed. The tapes reside among hundreds of other S reels in storage, waiting for someone who has the patience to sit and play them all until they find it. Maybe for the 50th anniversary edition?  :)

Meanwhile, switching to the stereo mix for a minute...I found this quote in the EQ magazine's cover story "Pet Project" from '96: "The new stereo master of Pet Sounds was mixed on to 9-inch Scotch 996 using Dolby SR at 15 ips". 9" analog tape ?!- dude, that's some serious bandwidth! Anybody know how many formats of Scotch 996 there actually were? 1", 2"? And has anybody ever read somewhere else where Mark described the format he ACTUALLY mixed it to?

I've got some spare time! (ha)


It was mixed to 1/2" 996.

My second favorite digital mono PS after the Hoffman is the Sessions box version as well - but remember that is from the NY safety tape which is second generation.  Nevertheless Mark did an excellent job with it.  And your part about the bass - the master tape is definitely heavier in the bass than the vinyl versions where no doubt the bass was "shaved" in the process of cutting to vinyl.  The bass is quite prominent in the Hoffman masterings and to my ears that's a good thing, some may not like it.  But Brian must have!

Yeh, somewhere in my post I was trying to get to the NY tape being just as 'pure' as the 2009 Hoffman version ... since they were both copies of the master. Apparently the NY tape copy is on Scotch 111.

I'm out of the country at the moment, and I always bring Pet Sounds and my CD walkman with me ... I have the 1993 DCC version. This might sound silly, but I feel like this version has the most amount of eerie 'energy' to it. Like the feelings were all transferred. It's magical sounding.

The problem is that the purpose of the stereo remix was to get the album mixed into stereo. The stereo remix with Mike on the bridge of WIBN sounds wonky, because the whole thing collapses back to a weird mono/stereo hybrid when they mix his vocal in from the mono mix. It’s as good as one could possibly do given the tools and extant tapes. I can’t fault the job done on the mix. I would simply question whether it needed to be done. Actually, I think it’s fine to make another version to make an attempt at a what-if, in this case what if we had a stereo mix with Mike on the bridge. I do think it was silly to use that as a justification for reissuing that mono/stereo two-fer back in 2001.

It’s obviously not a big deal, we didn’t have to buy all those versions. I didn’t. I’ve surprisingly kept from buying a million copies of PS. I bought that old original 1990 CD. I bought the PS Sessions boxed set. I ended up holding my nose and buying that fluffy, flocked “Anniversary” edition from 2006 (more for the video material), and I snagged Hoffman’s Audio Fidelity. Oh, and I did also end up with the MFSL SACD edition of the stereo mix. With the possible exception of a Kevin Gray-mastered SACD, I don’t think I’m likely to buy the album again unless something drastically new surfaces. 

It wasn't silly if Mike wanted his vocal placed back in the mix. That is his and the band's perogative to add it back to sound like the original released version. Even Brian replaced his own vocal back in 1966.

My comment was more concerning using the vocal replacement as a justification for reissuing it again. Again, I haven't head or seen any evidence that Mike requested this (he usually seems rather uninterested the few times he's been questioned about album reissues and whatnot; he only seems to care when he is consulted on compilations and whatnot from the inteviews I've seen). I would imagine he would be happy to have his vocal back there. But if one is to weigh in more on the cynical side and suggest the label just wanted to put another version out to get fans to buy it again (and there is no evidence this is the case; I honestly don't know, and don't particularly care I suppose), and offered a noticeable "tweak" to justify it to fans, then that would be "silly" as I rather unimaginatively put it previously.

I also have a vague recollection that Carl allegedly had some issues with the PS Sessions boxed set, having to do with the anomalies that different from the original mix (the WIBN bridge, the different vocals at the end of GOK, etc.).

Back on the topic of the mono remasters...does anyone have the Japanese Past Master edition? If so, how does it compare to the Japanese Green Line (assuming you have that one - I do, but not the Past Masters) and the 1990 U.S. edition...I'm assuming it's either identical to the former (only with different packaging) or the latter (only without No Noise). Really, it and the 2012 release are the only CD editions of PS I don't have (I think...).

The Japanese Pastmasters is supposedly the same as the 1990 US version (came out a year earlier though). I had it, and it did sound the same.

Great, thanks!

Donny, wasn't 1990 pre no noise? For some reason I seem to remember 1992 as the approximate year that they started using it on most CDs.

I don't know about no-noise or what processing was done, but the 1990 twofers and the 1990 US Pet Sounds always sounded a bit too dark or stifled to me. The 1989 Pastmasters sounds the same to me. The general consensus on the Hoffman board seems to be that the Pastmasters Pet Sounds is the same ... it certainly doesn't sound like a 'flat' transfer like the other Pastmasters do.

Yeah but it sounds like crap.  And doesn't sound like the rest of the song and therefore not like the original mono where the bridge fits in seamlessly.

I have the Japanese greenline and it does not sound like either the Pastmasters or the 1990 US.   There's something about the vocals on the Greenline that are magical.

My versions:

Japanese Greenline
Pastmasters
1990 US
DCC
PS box set
Stereo/Mono single CD release (corrected HDCD version with Mike bridge)
Anniversary fuzzy cover
Audio Fidelity
MFSL stereo

Plus a boot of the stereo mix with stereo outtakes from the box set that was released well before the box (because of the booklet delays) that was in "Tru-ophonic stereo"!

The 1990 2fers were No-Noised.