Pet Sounds 2012 CD Remaster

[c-man]

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

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.

[Wirestone]

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

[HeyJude]

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.

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

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.

[Bud Shaver]

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?

[?]

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.

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

[Rocky Raccoon]

@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 release before it. I do agree that as far as CD's go, both the DCC & AF releases sound the best.

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.

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.

[drbeachboy]

@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 release before it. I do agree that as far as CD's go, both the DCC & AF releases sound the best.

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.

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.

[Bicyclerider]

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.

[sea of tunes]

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?

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?

[DonnyL]

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!

[c-man]

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?

[DonnyL]

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? 

I've got some spare time! (ha)

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?

It was mixed to 1/2" 996.

[Bicyclerider]

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!

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!

[DonnyL]

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!

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.

[HeyJude]

@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 release before it. I do agree that as far as CD's go, both the DCC & AF releases sound the best.

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.

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 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. 

[drbeachboy]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.).

[c-man]

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...).

[DonnyL]

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.

[c-man]

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!

[drbeachboy]

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.

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.

[DonnyL]

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.

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.

[Bicyclerider]

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.

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.

[Bicyclerider]

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...).

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"!

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

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.

The 1990 2fers were No-Noised.