The Two-Fers: 1990 versions versus 2001 versions

[PhilCohen]

Even after I bought the 2001 reissues of the Capitol Two-Fer CD's(the 1962 to 1969 albums), I held onto the original 1990 editions. I'm aware that some of the bonus tracks were remixed again for the 2001 discs(due to Capitol misplacing the tapes for some of the 1990 mixes), but there are also other differences, including one unfortunate one that I only noticed today: during "Dance Dance Dance"(alternate version)[a bonus track on the "Today/Summer Days...and Summer Nights" two-fer], there is a loud digital click during the intro(on the 2001 CD) that was not there on the 1990 CD.
                Aside from different E.Q. during mastering, perhaps some of you experts can catalogue other changes(both good and bad) on the 2001 CD's. As for overall sound, I prefer the 1990 discs(though this may be because I listened to them for so many years)

[Jason]

Yeah, the 1990 ones are no-noised a bit, while the 2001 ones are EQ'd. Of the two-fers I'd go with the 1990 ones if only for the lack of harshness; the best way to hear the 1960s albums is actually the Pastmasters series. No EQ, straight from the master tapes.

[I. Spaceman]

Yeah, the 1990 ones are no-noised a bit, while the 2001 ones are EQ'd. Of the two-fers I'd go with the 1990 ones if only for the lack of harshness; the best way to hear the 1960s albums is actually the Pastmasters series. No EQ, straight from the master tapes.

Agreed. The problem, however, with straight transfers is that good analog EQ doesn't automatically equal good digital EQ, which leads to a heavy bassy quality in practically all straight-across copies. I first found this out when I transferred an LP to DAT with no in-between steps, resulting in a sound that resembled Bootsy Collins making a guest appearance. The PastMasters do have the best presence overall to my ears, but it does definitely require a slight turn of the bass knob on the receiver when listening.

[runnersdialzero]

Unfortunately, the Past Masters series, while great, become compromised with All Summer Long and Summer Days due to a couple duophonic tracks. Pain in the ass imo. I feel like it was recently stated that we'll see some remasters, so let's hope a tasteful job is done.

When working on archival projects, I really wish more folks would realize there's a very happy medium to be found when it comes to volume, dynamic range compression, etc. A Beach Boys record should never be as loud as a Slipknot record, knowwhatimean? Even outside the harsh sound, trying to make a 1960s recordings sounds like a modern recording is always gonna make those alleged "faults" you're trying to smooth over even more obvious, and not in any kind of charming way.

So yeah, hopefully they go a bit easier on the limiting and over-EQing this time. I hear a world of potential in the 2000 remasters that is occasionally marred by the previously stated items. It'd be good to have some definitive, minimally compromised versions of these albums out there for more than a decade this time (all while, of course, being compromised with extensive liner notes and bonus tracks )

[Iron Horse-Apples]

My 1990 disks, the cases cracked, the booklets dog-eared, are still the centrepiece of my CD collection.

Just wish I still had all my original vinyl.......

[adam78]

Whilst I think the sound on the pastmasters is clearly pretty hot, maybe a bit too much low end in some cases, I can't get over the super wide stereo versions used on the early albums. I'm whole heartedly against a song having the lead vocal or rhythm section panned hard to one side. It drives me nuts that some tracks are only widely available in these formats. All the power/drive/feel of a track is some what diminished to me. 2 off the top of my head I can't stand are Farmers daughter (track hard right) and Don't worry baby (vocals hard left and right). Why oh why are the original monos so hard to come by?

There's a real morbid obsession going on to turn everything in the beach boys catalogue into some hard panned, poorly mixed second class version of what made the originals sound so great as a whole. Just so it can be stereo!? So what that I couldn't hear the second timpani clearly on the third bridge? It all blends to create that overall sound, and Brian knew how to do that better than anyone.  Some, and I mean only some of the stereo versions used for the DCC compilations are miles better to my ears but even then, please can I have some well released mono mixes of the early catalogue? Or are there any i've clearly missed?

Sorry, that sounded like a bit of preaching, all just my opinion of course.

[sockittome]

Whilst I think the sound on the pastmasters is clearly pretty hot, maybe a bit too much low end in some cases, I can't get over the super wide stereo versions used on the early albums. I'm whole heartedly against a song having the lead vocal or rhythm section panned hard to one side. It drives me nuts that some tracks are only widely available in these formats. All the power/drive/feel of a track is some what diminished to me. 2 off the top of my head I can't stand are Farmers daughter (track hard right) and Don't worry baby (vocals hard left and right). Why oh why are the original monos so hard to come by?

There's a real morbid obsession going on to turn everything in the beach boys catalogue into some hard panned, poorly mixed second class version of what made the originals sound so great as a whole. Just so it can be stereo!? So what that I couldn't hear the second timpani clearly on the third bridge? It all blends to create that overall sound, and Brian knew how to do that better than anyone.  Some, and I mean only some of the stereo versions used for the DCC compilations are miles better to my ears but even then, please can I have some well released mono mixes of the early catalogue? Or are there any i've clearly missed?

Sorry, that sounded like a bit of preaching, all just my opinion of course.

Don't Worry Baby got a stereo remix with the vocals centered on the Summer Love Songs collection a few years back.  I for one like the original hard panning, particularly on this song.  I know it's a matter of taste and the mono vs. stereo camps are pretty equally divided, but I feel that most of the Beach Boys music is far too layered to be mashed together on one track.  The mono songs always sound so muddy to me, whereas the stereo tracks breathe and have more life.  Your mileage may vary.

[adam78]

Whilst I think the sound on the pastmasters is clearly pretty hot, maybe a bit too much low end in some cases, I can't get over the super wide stereo versions used on the early albums. I'm whole heartedly against a song having the lead vocal or rhythm section panned hard to one side. It drives me nuts that some tracks are only widely available in these formats. All the power/drive/feel of a track is some what diminished to me. 2 off the top of my head I can't stand are Farmers daughter (track hard right) and Don't worry baby (vocals hard left and right). Why oh why are the original monos so hard to come by?

There's a real morbid obsession going on to turn everything in the beach boys catalogue into some hard panned, poorly mixed second class version of what made the originals sound so great as a whole. Just so it can be stereo!? So what that I couldn't hear the second timpani clearly on the third bridge? It all blends to create that overall sound, and Brian knew how to do that better than anyone.  Some, and I mean only some of the stereo versions used for the DCC compilations are miles better to my ears but even then, please can I have some well released mono mixes of the early catalogue? Or are there any i've clearly missed?

Sorry, that sounded like a bit of preaching, all just my opinion of course.

Don't Worry Baby got a stereo remix with the vocals centered on the Summer Love Songs collection a few years back.  I for one like the original hard panning, particularly on this song.  I know it's a matter of taste and the mono vs. stereo camps are pretty equally divided, but I feel that most of the Beach Boys music is far too layered to be mashed together on one track.  The mono songs always sound so muddy to me, whereas the stereo tracks breathe and have more life.  Your mileage may vary.

You know what, I genuinely am thankful for Mark Linett's work in making some great, great stereo mixes. I'm a big big fan of the Pet Sounds stereo for starters, and apart from the new H&V stereo mix on TSS which I really don't like, I don't think there's a single other stereo mix that he's done that I don't like. Well mixed, eq'd and great panning.

I also never argue mono is better than stereo or vice versa. I literally take each song and each mix on it's own merit to me. Part of what annoys me is that the better versions of some songs are littered about on various new compilations only whilst the "to me" inferior earlier stereo mixes are the ones used for everyone to buy as "The Beach Boys - Album" version. It's that whole early 60's way of over doing panning. That's the stereo that I can't get on with. I also love having both mono and stereo versions of songs. Sometimes I just love hearing the muddier, more powerful version of a song, and another time, I love to listen to the separation and instrumentation you can hear from the space to breath you mention. And you're absolutely right about the layering. Newer stereo mixes Linett has done have really brought songs a new lease of life, with entire parts that are completely buried in mono mixes audible.

[DonnyL]

The stereo mixes (old and new) are very cool and interesting, nice to have as a supplement to the original mono mixes.   The problem is the stereo mixes have replaced the mono mixes as the 'standard' in many cases ... I think their stuff just sounds better in mono until 'Friends'.

[Zach95]

The Beatles early stereo mixes have that same hard panning...like adam said that is trademark of the early sixties. The mono stuff for their earlier albums is much more powerful and I believe all together superior than the stereo mixes, though any "modern" stereo mixes of these tracks are quite good, i.e. The Pet Sounds stereo album I thoroughly enjoy.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I distinctly recall reading that the left-center-right nature of some early sixties stereo mixes is because the consoles were wired like that.

[guitarfool2002]

I distinctly recall reading that the left-center-right nature of some early sixties stereo mixes is because the consoles were wired like that.

You are correct with channel strips like the UA 610 (Western), where there was a 3-way switch where they could choose left-center-right. But at the same time, and even a bit earlier, there were stereo experiments going on with all of those audiophile demonstration records where you'd hear things like the ping-pong game or the auto race zipping from channel to channel (3D sound! ), and with music it was with guys like Esquivel who were writing arrangements specifically for the stereo market, where you'd hear various instruments and sections panning from side to side, across the stereo field.

The only explanation I have for a reason why *that* kind of stereo mixing and recording, which is closer to what we have today, wasn't used on records from the Beach Boys or Beatles might be because the 60's rock and pop acts were for the kids, it was considered kids' music. And kids in 1964 generally did not have access to better quality stereo hi-fi sets, where the folks who would buy an Esquivel album or a stereo ping-pong demo record to show off their hi-fi to their Tom Collins-sipping neighbors and friends probably did.

And AM radio was king, next to the 45rpm...no need for an audiophile stereo mix if that's the case. 1967 was the stereo-mono tipping point, though, and it all changed and blurred around that year.

[adam78]

I distinctly recall reading that the left-center-right nature of some early sixties stereo mixes is because the consoles were wired like that.

Now that I did not know! Thank you.  And that explains and excuses, (well not excuses....rhythm track and lead vocals should NEVER be panned hard to one side...PERIOD) the heavy panning when first used in the 60's. It still does not excuse these mixes being the definitive versions on the only albums you can purchase in 2012!! The US capitol singles mono boxset is pure heaven to listen to. Now I want it all please!!!

[GuyOnTheBeach]

I distinctly recall reading that the left-center-right nature of some early sixties stereo mixes is because the consoles were wired like that.

I also wasn't aware of this!, that hard panning is what makes me so sore that the Mamas & Papas multitracks are lost, (although with some of that mixing it's not too bad, eg some M&P tracks it's easy to get a reasonably clean isolated vocals/stereo backing track). I do think that sometime in the nearish future spectrum analysis is going to have come a long way and there are going to be algorithms dedicated to isolating instruments from pieces of music (I know this is nigh on impossible now but look what has been achieved in the last 15 years as far as computers in music goes)

Back to the Beach Boys, I think the only one I find really distracting is Lonely Sea, and that's because it's quite a bare track anyway, it just sounds empty, and also because I don't listen too much to the pre Today albums except from the odd track.

[DonnyL]

Additionally, many of these early tracks were 3-track masters.  When recording with 3-track with a mono end result in mind (certainly the way Chuck Britz and Brian Wilson were), you're not thinking about stereo relationships -- you're thinking in terms of what makes sense for overdubbing.  In the Beach Boys' case, this was often 1-track, 2-vocal, 3-vocal overdub w/ maybe lead guitar overdub.  Later on, they started getting more sophisticated, bouncing from one machine to another.  When you are making a stereo mix from 3-track, your options are fairly limited.

Certainly, the left-center-right setup of many studio systems was a big factor (many studios actually had 3 speakers for monitoring; 'center' was an actual channel, not a phantom channel as it is now), but I think this was still a stylistic choice of the period as well. Hard-panning was preferred as stereo was a 'gimmick' and an afterthought in the AM-radio era, as such, the effect as more striking when presented as extreme as possible.  The concept of realistic stereo imaging was not in vogue until the later '60s when 8 and 16-track recording made this more feasible.

[guitarfool2002]

I quit.

[DonnyL]

I quit.

!?

[Heysaboda]

Yeah, the 1990 ones are no-noised a bit, while the 2001 ones are EQ'd. Of the two-fers I'd go with the 1990 ones if only for the lack of harshness; the best way to hear the 1960s albums is actually the Pastmasters series. No EQ, straight from the master tapes.

T.R.B.B.

The Pastmaster series -- is that the Japanese Toshiba series?

[guitarfool2002]

I quit.

!?

Frustration.

The way things in pop music were mixed in mid 60's stereo may have *something* to do with a three-way selector switch on certain consoles but when there are examples from 1959 into the 60's of what we'd consider "panning" in a more modern sense, where the sound travels from side to side, it suggests if the bloody Mamas And Papas records called for that kind of stereo mixing, they'd have received it, because it was technically possible. To say it wasn't because of a 3-way switch isn't 100% accurate.

The way those Esquivel records and the like achieved that panning is simple: If you have only two speakers, left and right, there is technically no "center channel". The center channel is an illusion of hearing the same sound coming out of both speakers at the same level. If you lower one channel on one side, and raise another on the opposite side, the sound appears to tilt and shift to one side, and that's the illusion. Panning equals volume. So the way they'd move the sound images is have the same sounds on two channels, and raise the volume of one while lowering the volume of another. That is panning, and it was available to anyone mixing a record after 1958, or on countless scientific experiments in labs dating back to the 1930's. The development of a pan pot made all those moves possible using one control knob rather than multiple.

And above all, a mid-60's teenager buying a Beach Boys or Mamas and Papas record really had no need for "real" stereo, top 40 stations had no use for it anyway because they couldn't broadcast in stereo, and it just wasn't what the market demanded at that time in the music biz. Therefore, stereo wasn't that big of a concern until people started listening to full albums on better equipment, and radio stations on FM started to broadcast those albums in stereo regardless of having a "hit single" to spin. None of that has as much to do with a three-position L-C-R switch on a mixing board as it does with the market itself, because albums mixed in full stereo in 1967-68 were soon using the same boards to mix, but some were just not panned the lazy way they were done in, say, 1965.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly stand corrected.  

[guitarfool2002]

This is an RCA "Living Stereo" demo record I found on YouTube to demonstrate, remember this is 1958...listen to the big band record starting around 1:38 into the video. This was 1958, any pop record made the next decade could have had this kind of stereo separation if it were necessary. That was my original point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnGOLHtzsao&feature=related

[DonnyL]

I quit.

!?

Frustration.

The way things in pop music were mixed in mid 60's stereo may have *something* to do with a three-way selector switch on certain consoles but when there are examples from 1959 into the 60's of what we'd consider "panning" in a more modern sense, where the sound travels from side to side, it suggests if the bloody Mamas And Papas records called for that kind of stereo mixing, they'd have received it, because it was technically possible. To say it wasn't because of a 3-way switch isn't 100% accurate.

The way those Esquivel records and the like achieved that panning is simple: If you have only two speakers, left and right, there is technically no "center channel". The center channel is an illusion of hearing the same sound coming out of both speakers at the same level. If you lower one channel on one side, and raise another on the opposite side, the sound appears to tilt and shift to one side, and that's the illusion. Panning equals volume. So the way they'd move the sound images is have the same sounds on two channels, and raise the volume of one while lowering the volume of another. That is panning, and it was available to anyone mixing a record after 1958, or on countless scientific experiments in labs dating back to the 1930's. The development of a pan pot made all those moves possible using one control knob rather than multiple.

And above all, a mid-60's teenager buying a Beach Boys or Mamas and Papas record really had no need for "real" stereo, top 40 stations had no use for it anyway because they couldn't broadcast in stereo, and it just wasn't what the market demanded at that time in the music biz. Therefore, stereo wasn't that big of a concern until people started listening to full albums on better equipment, and radio stations on FM started to broadcast those albums in stereo regardless of having a "hit single" to spin. None of that has as much to do with a three-position L-C-R switch on a mixing board as it does with the market itself, because albums mixed in full stereo in 1967-68 were soon using the same boards to mix, but some were just not panned the lazy way they were done in, say, 1965.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly stand corrected.  

I see.  I'm not really saying you're wrong, just presenting some alternate ideas.  It seems we're both interested in similar aspects of recording history, with perhaps differing opinions as to why things were the way they were.  I think it's good to have a dialog that presents this contrast; no offense intended, certainly none taken on my end.


The limitations of L-C-R boards had a LOT to do with why hard-panning was the only option in many cases (Listen to the Kinks' "Phenomenal Cat" to hear a crude attempt at moving a signal from left to right with buttons instead of a pan!).

Pop music being 'disposable' kids' stuff may have also been a factor.

But I don't think that really explains it all.

There was still a lot of hard-panning going on (even into the '70s) once pan pots were standard (drums on 'don't go near the water' for instance).

I'm just adding two additional reasons I believe hard panning was standard:


1. limitations of 2, 3 and 4-track tape decks.  The multi-track was generally considered to be the working tape to get to the mono master; stereo was generally considered a fad or gimmick until about '67-'68.  When stereo was the main point (like the examples you mentioned), extra consideration was made to accomodate.  But this was not the case on a pop-rock session.  Overdubbing, not realistic stereo capability, was the function of multi-track units.  When you had the 3 or 4 track master and the time came to do the stereo mix, options were limited because it was not given priority during tracking.  When 8 and 16-track became the norm in the later '60s, producers, engineers and musicians recognized the ability to actually create a realistic stereo image and overdub as they wished to. This is where you start to see pan pots used.

2. stylistic choice.  There were instances where engineers had pan pots and could have easily narrowed the stereo field, but they chose not to ... this was a stylistic choice; making the stereo effect as extreme as possible ('wow! the drums are all the way over there and the vocals are over there!)

[Andrew G. Doe]

I should point out that the stereo 'mixes' of the BB albums 1963/64 are in fact nothing of the sort, but rather a straight copy of the raw 3-track tape that Chuck balanced and eq'd because Capitol were demanding stereo masters. Of course, Tom Dowd was using an early 8-track 9for live recording) as far back as 1958 and yes, pukka stereo mixing and panning were practical before then, but my point was that some of the l-c-r mixes were like that because of how the consoles were hard-wired.

[DonnyL]

I should point out that the stereo 'mixes' of the BB albums 1963/64 are in fact nothing of the sort, but rather a straight copy of the raw 3-track tape that Chuck balanced and eq'd because Capitol were demanding stereo masters.

That's not really true; mixing decisions were made on those albums.  Take 'Surfer Girl' (the song and most of the album) ... Chuck presented the stereo image as: vocal group 1-LEFT, vocal group 2-RIGHT, track-CENTER.  He could have chosen other options, such as track-LEFT, vocals-RIGHT (like some Beatles records), or track-LEFT, vocal 1-CENTER, vocal 2-RIGHT.  And on albums like 'Shut Down Vol 2' and 'All Summer Long', the stereo mixes are quite varied.

[guitarfool2002]

It's definitely nothing personal, I just saw a few posts in replay that seemed to be stating that the reason why certain things were mixed a certain way was the 3-way switch, and that's missing a lot of other reasons and history which is being posted now. Stereo more or less has been around since the 30's, and the audio folks working on Disney's "Fantasia" were getting their feet wet trying to do things with it...unfortunately it wasn't all possible outside the labs until the later 50's.

Narrow it down to the years 1965-1969, and it is some of the most radical change you'll find in how music was recorded, mixed, broadcast, sold, mastered, transferred, etc... All in the span of a few years, you had all kinds of issues including radio broadcast licensing and power issues, lawsuits centered around mono versus stereo albums and needles to play them, and how consumers heard and bought their music. The fact that it coincided with the explosion of pop music which took it from kid's music to an art form in some circles is one of those right-place/right-time coincidences, as is the arrival of an album like Sgt. Pepper and guys like the team of Hendrix and Eddie Kramer who took panning from the ping-pong novelty albums into outer space with what they were doing in the studio.

All in 5 years or so, the rules changed and were re-written, naturally there will be many answers when the questions are asked "how?" or "why?". It's good to get many more of the reasons on the table.

[DonnyL]

It's definitely nothing personal, I just saw a few posts in replay that seemed to be stating that the reason why certain things were mixed a certain way was the 3-way switch, and that's missing a lot of other reasons and history which is being posted now. Stereo more or less has been around since the 30's, and the audio folks working on Disney's "Fantasia" were getting their feet wet trying to do things with it...unfortunately it wasn't all possible outside the labs until the later 50's.

Narrow it down to the years 1965-1969, and it is some of the most radical change you'll find in how music was recorded, mixed, broadcast, sold, mastered, transferred, etc... All in the span of a few years, you had all kinds of issues including radio broadcast licensing and power issues, lawsuits centered around mono versus stereo albums and needles to play them, and how consumers heard and bought their music. The fact that it coincided with the explosion of pop music which took it from kid's music to an art form in some circles is one of those right-place/right-time coincidences, as is the arrival of an album like Sgt. Pepper and guys like the team of Hendrix and Eddie Kramer who took panning from the ping-pong novelty albums into outer space with what they were doing in the studio.

All in 5 years or so, the rules changed and were re-written, naturally there will be many answers when the questions are asked "how?" or "why?". It's good to get many more of the reasons on the table.

Indeed!

the five year period saw so many changes from direct-to-mono from machine to machine (still widely used in '65) to 16-track by '67 ... that in and of itself is unbelievable ... definitely some Future Shock must have occurred. Some producers and engineers were still recording mono to mono in 1970 (Shocking Blue's 'Venus')!

I can't remember where I heard the story, but upon being presented with 4-track recording, an old-school engineer asked, "What are we going to do with all these tracks?". 

Ray Davies also tells a story about recording "You Really Got Me".  They tried recording in the the sophisticated 4-track room and found the result to be too clean.  So they went to the lower-cost studio and recorded mono to mono 2-track (track to one tape, then bounced to another tape while adding vocals) to get it more raw!