Why do the session tracks for some songs sound better than the released tracks?

[bonnevillemariner]

DISCLAIMER:  I am neither a musician nor a producer, so please forgive me if this is a completely idiotic question, or if there's some mastering principle you all understand but I don't.  My description of a song or song part as "crappy sounding" is in no way intended to offend those of you who disagree and are prone to get defensive.  Restrictions apply. END DISCLAIMER

I was listening to 50 Big Ones the other day and realized yet again that the released versions of songs like H&V and GV sound inferior to the session tracks they were compiled from.  Great tunes, obviously, and they happen to be my top 2 favorite BB songs.  But I'm really confused as to how muddy and flat sounding these tracks are compared to the session recordings.  Most of those sessions are crystal clear, dynamic, have depth.  

So two questions:

1. How and why did the quality of the sound erode so exponentially from session recordings to mastered release?

3. Since the session tracks are of better quality, couldn't Linett or somebody use those tracks to recompile the songs?

[Cabinessenceking]

TY mono

[bonnevillemariner]

TY mono

I get mono but I haven't heard of TY mono.  I'm still confused, though.  To me, H&V and GV in particular sound worse than earlier, pre- Pet Sounds BB mono recordings.  GOK comes to mind as one that sounds excellent in remastered stereo.

And has anybody in the BB realm thought about reconstructing the tracks from the sessions?  You could probably compile near-exact versions that would sound a whole lot better.

[DonnyL]

1. When a track is mixed, it goes through at least one generation from tape/tape deck to another ... this degrades the quality slightly. Additional processing (compression, reverb, etc.) is often used to help all elements sit together in a cohesive mix. When presenting a 'session' as a work-in-progress, the mix doesn't need to 'gel' in the way that it would have for, say, AM radio (which was in most producers' and engineers' heads in the '60s).

2. A variety of 'bounces' (mixing smaller sections or groups of instruments/vocals/effects from one tape machine to another) was often used in preparing the multi-track from which the final mix would be made.

3. The masters used in the production of a CD or LP are in some cases analog copies of the original master mix.

4. In some cases, the tapes are worn from being used repeatedly over the years for various releases and reissues.

5. Additional audio processing is used in mastering as well.

If you're talking about the Unsurpassed Masters stuff, that material really has no 'mastering', so what you are hearing is raw 'fly on the wall' session material. These 'mixes' would never have made it in the marketplace in the '60s.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

And has anybody in the BB realm thought about reconstructing the tracks from the sessions?  You could probably compile near-exact versions that would sound a whole lot better.

Starting around '65, Brian would record a track performance to three tracks, giving him more control over the mix. He'd then make a mono mixdown to another four or eight track then add the vox.

The new (since Pet Sounds '96) stereo mixes, are, on the whole "reconstructed from the sessions". That is to say, new multi tracks were made by synching up the track multis with the vocals.

Is this what you mean?

[leggo of my ego]

+1 What DonnyL said.

Im listening to "Here Comes the Night" on UM 19 and Carl's vocal is way up in the mix on the left Ch, very clear and distinct.

The bkgd vocals are have greater separation and are more discernible on the session tracks, rhythm guitar on the right really
bites and is crisp, the drums sound distant though.

Distinctly different from the finished mix on the LP but overall this UM recording lacks the drive and cohesiveness of the completed work. Both are enjoyable from different perspectives.  I don't find the early mono or stereo LPs really muddy or unpleasant and I listen to a lot of raw mixes too.

[adamghost]

Yeah...it's always a shock to listen to '60s sessions and realize how good the raw recording technology was...but the overdubbing and reproduction technology was another matter.  What came through on record, once you overdubbed, bounced, went to lathe, and then squished it down to vinyl, was a fraction of what went to tape.  Imagine what a fine art mastering was in those days, trying to ballpark what something would sound like on a 45, and then rebroadcast to radio.

People in recording studios still highly prize and use the pre-amps and microphones that were in use in the '60s.  But the ability to replicate what the mics picked up has increased greatly.

[c-man]

Describing the Bill Putnam custom-built recording consoles used at Western during this time (in a 1996 article for "EQ"), Mark Linett explains why:  "One of the failures I've always felt about that console in particular was that it recorded great, but the line inputs were padded down and went back to the mic inputs, creating a real distortion problem.  This problem is typical of a lot of consoles from the '60s.  The 3-track, 2-track, and live-to-mono stuff always sounded fantastic, but when they started mixing it through the board, they definitely lost a lot of the fidelity."

This, I think, had a lot to do with it, in addition to the other reasons mentioned above.  This is a shame, because a listen to the original multi-tracks reveals them to be crisp, clear, and free of audio "dirt". 

[leggo of my ego]

Describing the Bill Putnam custom-built recording consoles used at Western during this time (in a 1996 article for "EQ"), Mark Linett explains why:  "One of the failures I've always felt about that console in particular was that it recorded great, but the line inputs were padded down and went back to the mic inputs, creating a real distortion problem.  This problem is typical of a lot of consoles from the '60s.  The 3-track, 2-track, and live-to-mono stuff always sounded fantastic, but when they started mixing it through the board, they definitely lost a lot of the fidelity."

This, I think, had a lot to do with it, in addition to the other reasons mentioned above.  This is a shame, because a listen to the original multi-tracks reveals them to be crisp, clear, and free of audio "dirt". 

Thanks for that post, very interesting information!

[Stephen W. Desper]

+1 What DonnyL said.

Im listening to "Here Comes the Night" on UM 19 and Carl's vocal is way up in the mix on the left Ch, very clear and distinct.

The bkgd vocals are have greater separation and are more discernible on the session tracks, rhythm guitar on the right really
bites and is crisp, the drums sound distant though.

Distinctly different from the finished mix on the LP but overall this UM recording lacks the drive and cohesiveness of the completed work. Both are enjoyable from different perspectives.  I don't find the early mono or stereo LPs really muddy or unpleasant and I listen to a lot of raw mixes too.


COMMENT:  You are never going to appreciate your questions until you have sat behind a console and recorded 48 tracks and then mixed them into a production. HCTN was recorded on two syncronized 24 track Studer A800's. It was mixed using a state-of-the-art Solid State Logic $250,000 console operating in Class A. Whatever you are experiencing is just what happens when you mixdown. It is not caused by the shortcomings of equipment.

Here is a photo of the Studer(s) used (two side by side) and at the top of this link is a photo of a typical SSL board like was used for HCTN.

A800 >>> http://www.historyofrecording.com/studera800.html

Older consoles like the UR Putnam models at Western did not pad-down mic level inputs (sorry Linett) through the mic input. Rather, gain structure was acknowledged in the input topology by directing line level inputs to the second stage of each IO channel. Thus, distortion and noise were at their lowest and surpassed some of today's consoles in terms of presence, clearity, and MUSICALITY. If there was any shortcoming, it would be the need to copy over track after track in the absence of multi-track capacity. But the decay of presence you note is just what happens when you combine dozens of tracks together. They all can't be up front. 

THE ART OF MIXING IS THE MANIPULATION OF THE MASKING EFFECT TO ITS MINIMUM DEGREE.  ~Stephen W. Desper

[bonnevillemariner]

The new (since Pet Sounds '96) stereo mixes, are, on the whole "reconstructed from the sessions". That is to say, new multi tracks were made by synching up the track multis with the vocals.

Is this what you mean?

This is exactly what I mean.  I responded to this question shortly after your post, but it must have been lost in the server move.  Particularly on Good Vibrations, would the existing tapes suffice to faithfully reconstruct this song from the sessions?  If so, has anybody considered it?  Best BB song, IMO, and such a shame that the finished track sounds so inferior to the session tapes.  I understand, I guess, that given the technology of the time, this couldn't be avoided.  But GV is one of those cases where the whole, clarify/fidelity-wise, is inferior to the sum of its parts.

Thanks everybody, including Mr. Desper, for your comments

[AndrewHickey]

This is exactly what I mean.  I responded to this question shortly after your post, but it must have been lost in the server move.  Particularly on Good Vibrations, would the existing tapes suffice to faithfully reconstruct this song from the sessions? 

As I understand it, the vocal multitracks are lost. The stereo mix on the Smiley Smile reissue was an extraction mix using the mono mix, and I think that's the closest they can come.

[bonnevillemariner]

As I understand it, the vocal multitracks are lost. The stereo mix on the Smiley Smile reissue was an extraction mix using the mono mix, and I think that's the closest they can come.

So if the best sounding release of GV is the 2012 Smiley Smile, what's the best sounding Heroes and Villains release?

[Mikie]

I know which version of "Still I Dream Of It" is better.

Hint: It ain't the released version!

[leggo of my ego]

Personally, I like both the raw sessions and the finished mixes of the BB material. The sessions give you greater insight to the detail and structure of the sound and often the vocals are clear and concise. I am grateful for the wealth of this sort of material that is available and listen to it often. I enjoy the studio chatter and various conversations in the studio and some of that is quite humorous. But neither do I expect the finished recordings to deliver that sort of raw impact and artist-to-listener intimacy because those are groomed especially for public consumption.