Strange Mix Of Pet Sounds on vinyl?

[arnoldfringe]

Hello everybody!
I've got Pet Sounds in mono on vinyl that I bought from a second hand record shop quite a few years ago. What I've always noticed about it is that it sounds like EVERYTHING is double tracked. Everything sounds doubled. Now when I first started listening to the Beach Boys when I was a nipper the only compilation I had was the "20 Golden Greats" album that had a lot of that wierd fake stereo effect where you get one channel in mono and then the other channel slightly delayed. I think AGD mentions this on his wonderful info site. My mono Pet Sounds album sounds like the fake stereo effect but collapsed into mono. Could this be possible? Did Capitol do this? The album is definately mono (T2458) and is on the black Capitol label with what can only be described as like a  rainbow colour effect on the edges of the label. It sounds different  to all the mono CD editions of Pet Sounds too including the 40th anniversary edition. Anybody else got this? Or notice this?

Thanks

arnoldfringe

[Wilsonista]

You may have a Duophonic copy. What does the actual record label say?

[arnoldfringe]

The label says "Capitol Records" to the left of the hole, "Long Playing High-Fidelity" also to the left of the hole, the trackilsting to the right of the hole broken up by T2458 in the middle, and "Sold in U.K subject to resale price conditions, see price list" on the left hand side of the label. Does this help?
I wish I could upload a track to show exactly what I mean but of course thats a no-no on this site!

[Dr. Tim]

RobMac may still be right that you have a Duophonic "fake stereo" pressing.  This would be so even though the label says (or, in the case of the Capitol rainbow label, if "STEREO" or "DUOPHONIC" does not appear on the left hand side, it's a mono label).  Every now and then during the stereo/mono years, an occasional LP would slip through the pressing plant mislabeled, usually stereo LPs with mono labels.  I have quite a few of them.  Most often the error would be caught in the plant and rather than junk the LP, they would issue the stereo LP bearing a mono label anyway and paste a "stereo" sticker on the album cover.   In your case, the way to be sure is to look at the "stamper" number in the lead-out groove on each side.  If it shows the prefix DT 2458, it's a duophonic "fake stereo" LP with a mono label on it.

On the other hand if, as you say, it's really a true mono LP but "sounds doubled" - and you have a UK pressing - it may be that some pressing plant guy was in a hurry and cut a mono lacquer for a run of LPs using a duophonic safety copy of the master, folded-down to mono.  THAT would be weird, but not entirely out of the question.

[Alex]

RobMac may still be right that you have a Duophonic "fake stereo" pressing.  This would be so even though the label says (or, in the case of the Capitol rainbow label, if "STEREO" or "DUOPHONIC" does not appear on the left hand side, it's a mono label).  Every now and then during the stereo/mono years, an occasional LP would slip through the pressing plant mislabeled, usually stereo LPs with mono labels.  I have quite a few of them.  Most often the error would be caught in the plant and rather than junk the LP, they would issue the stereo LP bearing a mono label anyway and paste a "stereo" sticker on the album cover.   In your case, the way to be sure is to look at the "stamper" number in the lead-out groove on each side.  If it shows the prefix DT 2458, it's a duophonic "fake stereo" LP with a mono label on it.

On the other hand if, as you say, it's really a true mono LP but "sounds doubled" - and you have a UK pressing - it may be that some pressing plant guy was in a hurry and cut a mono lacquer for a run of LPs using a duophonic safety copy of the master, folded-down to mono.  THAT would be weird, but not entirely out of the question.

Maybe that's where the wierd mix of WIBN I was talking about in the other thread came from.

[Wilsonista]

Bob Flory and Mark Linett explained that one, acrodin.


Dr. Tim: I came across a "stereo" Wild Honey at a record store a few weeks ago. The clerk (after checking a book) swore on his mother's grave that it was a legit stereo issue. I sampled it (w/headphones) at a listening station and lo and behold: it was Duophonic.  Duophonic = sonic garbage.

[Dr. Tim]

Well as David Leaf and others have noted, Smiley Smile and Wild Honey only got mono mixes in their day.  That didn't stop Capitol from putting the "Stereo" LP label on the duophonic pressings and the cover with an "ST" prefix denoting true stereo rather than fake.  I have a Japanese LP of Wild Honey that says "stereo" but in fact is the original mono.  On Smiley Smile the LP label says "Stereo" but the front cover says "For Stereo Phonographs", another Capitol shorthand for fake stereo.

[arnoldfringe]

Well, I listened to my mono Pet Sounds through headphones and it's definately mono but sounds like a duophonic mix mixed to mono. Why would anyone want to do that?! Oh well...thanks for your thoughts and comments!

arnoldfringe

[pendletone]

Dr. Tim: [...] The clerk (after checking a book) swore on his mother's grave that it was a legit stereo issue. I sampled it (w/headphones) at a listening station and lo and behold: it was Duophonic.  Duophonic = sonic garbage.

That's what happened to me yesterday. I went to a good old record store and found a copy of a UK pressing of  Pet Sounds. I told the owner it wasn't true stereo. He also checked a book and told me that I was wrong. After I had explained to him all the details for 10 minutes or something, I gave up. He wouldn't listen. He thought I was nuts and started screaming (!) at me that PS was "IN STEREO! PERIOD!"    Oh my... 

[Dr. Tim]

Well sure, if you were showing him a vintage 60s/70s single-LP pressing, and his book is describing that era's releases thusly, the book is wrong and he's nucking futs to yell at you.  On the other hand -- if you were holding up the 2006 40th Anniversary 2-LP vinyl reissue --  one volume WOULD be true stereo, bearing the Mark L. stereo mix.

But since that vintage "doubled" LP of Pet Sounds appears to be in true mono, I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

[pendletone]

Well sure, if you were showing him a vintage 60s/70s single-LP pressing, and his book is describing that era's releases thusly, the book is wrong

Yes, sure, it was a 60s pressing he told me, not the anniversary one (a PS freak like would have recognised it from a mile's distance ) I told him a true mix wasn't done until 1996 by Mark Linett and so forth, you know the story... but it had no effect on him.

and he's nucking futs to yell at you

He can't cope with the fact that someone 40 years younger than him knows much more than him...  He said "The company ALWAYS released stereo records in the sixties. Especially psychadelic LPs like Pet Sounds." - I immediatelly replied "Well, basically PS was not psychadelic, maybe just a little bit... it rather had a baroque touch and that prominent wall of s..." - "NO, PET SOUNDS WAS PSYCHADELIC!" Hahaha... strange people out there...

Thanks a lot for your answer!

[Wilsonista]

The thing to have said was "OK, play it with headphones and then try and tell me that it's stereo."

[harveyw]

Remarkably, mr Arnoldfringe is right. I've just A/B'ed my original UK mono and a non-UK mono (actually a South American pressing, as I don't have an original US mono), and there's a definite difference. So I A/B'ed the UK mono and an original US duophonic pressing collapsed to mono on my amplifier, and whaddya know? They're identical.

How come it's taken 41 years for someone to notice this?

I grew up with the duophonic version (the 1980's UK "fame" reissue, in fact), so I assumed that's how the record sounded; everything double-tracked, a little swirly, maybe. The first time I heard PS in mono was from the original US CD issue. It was my first ever CD purchase, so put the leap in audio quality down to the clarity of the new medium. How wrong I was! It was because all that time I'd been listening to the music processed through utterly unnecessary EQ & audio delays.

[Dr. Tim]

In that case, the discography question is: do all the UK mono LP pressings "sound doubled"?  Was some UK pressing plant guy in such a hurry to cut a mono lacquer for at least one run of LPs he used a folded-down-to-mono duophonic safety copy of the master without checking?  Or was that just one run of LPs in the UK, with other/later UK mono LP pressings matching the original (non-duophonic) mono master?

[c-man]

We need someone like AGD, who probably has an original UK 1966 mono pressing...

[arnoldfringe]

 :-DHurrah! I'm not going mad! Thank you harveyw for putting my mind at rest.
Now for some world peace...(Well, at least peace in the head of arnoldfringe.)

Cheers

Shane (AKA arnoldfringe)

[Andrew G. Doe]

We need someone like AGD, who probably has an original UK 1966 mono pressing...

My 1966 UK mono - which is about as thick as a dinner plate, btw  - is, allowing for wear & tear, not a DuoPhonic fold=down.