The Smiley Smile Message Board

Alright by reading various threads, it seems the consensous is that the CATP/PS vinyl twofer has the best sounding mono mix of Pet Sounds.  That's all fine and dandy if I 1) had a record player that worked and 2) had a copy of it or 2a) someone sent me a CDR rip of it...  *hint hint*

Since that's not the case, what's the best sounding mono version available on CD?  Is it still the DCC Gold disc (which I do own and love BTW)?

How does the Advanced Resolution Mono from the DVD-A compare?

And for Mark and Alan, how will the 40th Anniversary version sound?

Sorry for the dumb questions but if you're gonna listen to the best album of all time, why not listen to the best version of it?

I love both the DCC version and the 2001 mono tranfer by Mark. I know that the 2001 tranfer was done with the 1996 mono boxset tapes but the 2001 version sounds better. I know that it was mastered louder from playing through my DAT's digital imputs.

Anyone else?

PS - Going through my BB stuff about a month ago I found a Carl & The Passions / Pet Sounds set still sealed in the shrink wrap.

Man, I gotta check this stuff out more often.

Defeats the purpose IMO.

Okie... come May once I graduate (finally) and get some money (finally) I'll invest in a decent turntable and some vinyl   :P

I dunno, recorded audio in general is just one big series of defeating the purpose.  Recording defeats the original purpose of music, bringing people together for ritual, putting an instrument on tape degrades the sound of that instrument, then mixing that down to another tape degrades that, then putting that sound on vinyl degrades the sound again, what's another step?

And Scene.

Excerpt from "The Devil's Advocate"

Yes, the best sounding "Pet Sounds" is the mono.
Oh sorry, I thought it was a question...
ha ha.

C-Man

No, it still sounds better. IMO.

If the CATP is one gen closer to the original master -- and by all accounts it is, more so than any CD version that has ever come out, more so than even 1966 Capitol vinyl -- then it could easily blow away the CD at all levels, even as a needledrop.

I know lots of folks have a fondness for the '93 DCC gold disc, and that does probably sound the most "vinyl-like" of all the CD issues.  That said, a few nights back I listened to the 2001 issue on my very nice Polk Audio speakers in the control room of my studio, and it sounded freakin' AMAZING.

C-Man

Who cares? We have the album in stereo and in surround sound!!! Who wants to listen to outdated mono???

 :P

PS: The DCC Gold CD is wonderful and my favorite.

People can prefer Brian's original "mixed in one day" version of the album,
but nobody that isn't an audio snob will say the mono SOUNDS better
then the stereo mix.

Except that the mono is the only place to find some of the origial elements, like Brian singing the lead line on the "GOK" tag.   I do appreciate the stereo, but man, the Carl line on the stereo version is just plain weaker...I cringe everytime I hear it.  Brian's performance is just so much stronger.  And "official", since that the performance he went with in '66 (with good reason, IMO).

C-Man

Guess I'm a snob.

Actually I prefer the original because it is the original, mixed by the man himself.

If the DCC is too expensive for your tastes, then I'd get the DVD-A transfer made by Mark - it's definitely the best currently available version out there.

whoa...what?

when/why were the elements of the song changed during the re-mixdown?

Brian taped over vocals on both WIBN and GOK shortly after "finishing" the songs.  Why?  Who knows?  He liked to tinker.  But Mike's bridge vocals on WIBN and Brian's first tag line on GOK are both lost to that exercise. 

Was it that he taped over them or was it that those parts were added during the mono mix?  I thought in at least WIBN Brian was live mixing a final part in during the last phase of mixing....

They were taped over.

You Still Believe In Me was the track that lost one of Brian's double leads because it was added live to mono.  Apparently Caroline, No would have suffered a similar fate but Chuck forgot to unpatch something and ended up with a mono double-vocal only run through on a reel somewhere.

Ok, so they already had the Mono mixdowns completed, and the later versions that were mixed down (linett's stereo mixes) are the ones with what Brian recorded over? Meaning in the mono version its Brian on the tag at GOK and that the stereo mix its Carl instead?

This is hella confusing.

That's correct.

Gosh darn, excuse my ignorance...but were talkin about 'what id beeeee wiiiiitthhhouuuut yoouuu...god only knows...what id beeee wiiiittth'

right?

i left my headphones at home so I cant really listen to them back to back and try to hear the difference.

OK, that makes sense.  I knew that happened in at least one spot.

No, that was never taped over and remains on the stereo mix.  The line that was taped over is the first part of the "round" right after the last verse ends: "God only knows what I'd be without you."

The story is that Carl was too tired to go on at that point, so Brian handled two parts while Bruce took the middle part.

No, I believe that part is identical on mono & stereo, but the main vocal on the tag, the first one to appear, is a strong Brian on the mono and a weak Carl on the stereo.  I think it was Bruce who said that Carl's attempt was taped at the end of a very long session when he was out of steam.  Brian redid that part at a later session, apparently on a different multi-track master, and it was edited in.  They have not been able to locate this.  Same kind of story with Mike's bridge on "WIBN", although that was corrected on the 2001 release (they either found that missing multi-rrack, or somehow transferred in the bridge from the mono mix while keeping the stereo sound).

C-Man

I'm not sure that's completely correct. To clarify: there were certain elements that Brian added during the original mono mixdown that only exist on the mono mixdown tape. Since these elements were mixed in with everything else and could not be isolated, Mark could not include them in the stereo or surround mixes. Instead, he went with whatever material existed on the multitracks that could be isolated and remixed into stereo and surround (Carl's weak lead into the GOK tag and Brian doing the WIBN bridge instead of Mike among a couple of other anomalies). For accuracy, Mark did attempt later to isolate (through phasing) Mike's WIBN bridge so it could appear on the stereo version reissued in 2001. Sonically, however, this conceit didn't hold up when heard in high definition, so Brian's original bridge vocal returned for the stereo/surround DVD-A release of 2003.

Incidentally, this kind of thing happened again with the "Hawthorne" stereo remix of "Vegetables". The vibe part on the original mix's tag was added during the mono mixdown session in '67 and could not be isolated. Therefore it is missing from the stereo remix completed by Mark.

Ok, I can hear it. I was listening to the wrong part...dumb me.

Thanks for the clarification!

Mark's technical notes seem to indicate that the parts were taped over, rather than sourced from seperate multi-track masters.  But it does seem like what is on the multi-tracks that exist would be the opposite of what you'd expect.  You'd think Mike would tape over Brian's guide, and Carl over Brian's guide, yet Brian's on the WIBN bridge multi, and Brian is on the final mono mix of GOK.

Certainly would seem to me that logically, we might be currently working from a seperate earlier multitrack...but I dunno.  I'll see if I can get Alan over here...

I'm just popping in to say that I greatly prefer Carl's "tired" vocal at the end of GOK to Brian's vocal on that one line. Carl's sounded so lush (similar to the "I love you" from PLMW) whereas Brian's (and his vocal for the song on the other version) always sounded too forced.

I never understood and probably never will understand why people can be so obsessed about alternate mixes and remasters and stuff like that... It's all the same music...

(no offense, just my personal opinion)

I can only tell you what interests ME about it. Alternate mixes (to a sound guy like myself) is a peek into the mixing process that either came close to what was wanted, but fell short, and from the alternate mix compared to the final mix, you can figure out what was going thru their mind, what direction they were going, and what settings it took to get there. Sometimes alternate mixes have instruments and arrangements that were wiped off of the final mix, and that is great stuff. Then other times you will be treated to an outtake, or a completely different take of the familiar song, all of which are fascinating to me. Remasters I get a little less excited about, but it is still the old takes , but heard in a different way, which creates a new listening experience. I'm just thinking out loud, and typing at the same time, so I hope this is making some sense.

Makes a lot of sense.

I just ordered a copy of the DCC disc, which I'm really looking forward to hearing.  What's the differences between that and the more recent mono/stereo edition.  It was described above as more 'vinyl-sounding'.  Does that mean it's 'warmer', or what else?  I don't have a record player or would have purchased one on vinyl.  So I want the next best thing, but can't really go down the dvd-a route.

Paid quite a bit more than what it presumably was initially (I bought a Blonde on Blonde gold disc years ago that was £18.99).  How much is it really worth these days?  Or, rather, I guess, how much would you pay for a copy?

It is a lot "warmer" and "vinyl-sounding". The bass is simply incredible. However, it´s not an option for me, since I prefer stereo over mono. If you like the mono-mix, you will LOVE the DCC-version.

Excellent.  I do like the stereo a lot, but ultimately prefer the mono.  Cheers.

I was blessed to find an origianl vinyl copy last year...bit scratchy...I have the 1990 CD and the 1999 2fer and I prefer the 1990 mono over the 1999 2fer mono as it has too much tape hiss.