New US singles box-set

[HeyJude]

AGD, I don't know if you've been there before, but head on over to stevehoffman.tv, where there has been some discussion of the different mixes. It's a really intelligent bunch of folks over there.

You're joking. Right?

Um, no. I don't agree with everybody on that message board, and I tend to feel some of them pay too much attention to very minute sonic differences that probably would not be able to be discerned at all under a double-blind test. But there are a ton of very knowledgable folks both in terms of specific bands and artists and the whole area of sound reproduction, recording, mixing, mastering, etc. Most of the people I converse with and read posts from on that board tend to be part of general discussions about music and artists rather than the nit-picky audiophile-type discussions that take place there.

I believe Steve Hoffman himself (who mastered the DCC discs which are still the best sounding Beach Boys CD's in existence) has mentioned that the two different mono mixes of "California Girls" are indeed different mixes, not just different fades.

It may surprise you to learn that "Steve Hoffman himself" is neither infallible nor an always-reliable source of factual information.

Well, I didn't speak to anything other than what Hoffman said about the two different mixes of "California Girls." He's right about that, and while I certainly can't speak to every statement he has ever made, he seems to me to be a reliable and knowledgable source of information. In the case of the Beach Boys, he has actually handled and listened to the master tapes in question (not that that is even a requirement to tell the difference between two mixes of the same song). As far as I can tell, he is also one of the most well-respected mastering engineers around, and his work on the DCC catalog is almost always cited even to this day as the best sounding version of the individual titles he worked on by fans and "audiophiles" alike. His DCC discs of "Endless Summer", "Spirit of America", and "Pet Sounds" are the best-sounding versions of those songs/mixes available, and every other DCC CD that I own is the definitive version of those albums. I'm not a Hoffman aficianado or anything, I just think his mastering work speaks for itself, and most everything I've read that he has commented on has been accurate and informative.

[Wirestone]

You might want to check with Linnett about some of that.

He has stated (here, I believe), that Steve's info about Pet Sounds is mistaken at best, self-serving at worst.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I'm also not aware of a separate 45 mix of CG.  I've only seen record of the 45 master separate from the album reel in Alan's documentation.  But he'd be the final word on this, obviously.

Mastering is really a pretty powerful thing and differences in mastering can sound like completely different mixes, masking sounds that are apparent on another master, bringing sounds out, making instrument balances seem different.

[HeyJude]

I'm also not aware of a separate 45 mix of CG.  I've only seen record of the 45 master separate from the album reel in Alan's documentation.  But he'd be the final word on this, obviously.

Mastering is really a pretty powerful thing and differences in mastering can sound like completely different mixes, masking sounds that are apparent on another master, bringing sounds out, making instrument balances seem different.

I think some of the types who pick apart such things do hear differences in the two mono mixes. Nevertheless, as I've also alluded to in previous posts, even if the two mixes were the exact same mixes and the album mix simply chose to fade it much earlier, that means there is a mono 45 master or some sort of source out there somewhere (same or different mix) with that longer fade, as it's been used on a few other CD releases. So that seems like what should have been used on the new set, because it appears it was that longer fade that appeared on the original 45. The fact that that longer fade recording was used on a 1999 mastering suggests the tape is out there available to be used, and I can only hopefully assume that the versions we're hearing with shorter fades were not simply using that longer fade tape and fading it out artificially or anything.

I don't want to lead the thread into any sort of Hoffman-themed debate here since it would get pretty far off topic of this thread, but he has apparently indicated that the mixes are different, and he would understand as well as anybody and probably more than most what the difference is between what mastering will do to the sound of a recording versus an actual mix difference. As I said, in many cases he has listened to, handled, and worked with the actual tapes in question. He would be the last person in the world to just assume a mix is different because the fade is different or assume for any other reason.

[Alan Boyd]

The singles masters held by EMI are generally stored on compiled reels called "phono reels."  In many cases, when a single was later included on an album, that master would have been pulled from the phono reel to the master album reel, and replaced by a "dub" copy (and this is usually indicated on the documentation found with the phono reel).   The original mix tapes are flat, unmastered, and often will have a long fade.  The phono reel logs generally have fairly precise mastering and EQ notes indicating how the sound, the speed, the fade, etc was to be adjusted during mastering.  The album reels will also have their own mastering notes and instructions, but they're often quite different because they were handled by different technicians.

[Andrew G. Doe]

One thing to remember - back then, Brian mixed, and presumably mastered, his singles to sound as good as possible on a car/transistor radio.

[HeyJude]

The singles masters held by EMI are generally stored on compiled reels called "phono reels."  In many cases, when a single was later included on an album, that master would have been pulled from the phono reel to the master album reel, and replaced by a "dub" copy (and this is usually indicated on the documentation found with the phono reel).   The original mix tapes are flat, unmastered, and often will have a long fade.  The phono reel logs generally have fairly precise mastering and EQ notes indicating how the sound, the speed, the fade, etc was to be adjusted during mastering.  The album reels will also have their own mastering notes and instructions, but they're often quite different because they were handled by different technicians.

Great, interesting info. In this case, it sounds like under this scenario, it would seem even more likely that the single and album mono mixes of "CG" are indeed different mixes that were not substituted for each other. If the version included on the original single (with the longer fade out) had been taken out and spliced into the album reel, then the album would have had the longer fade just like the single. The fact that the album has the shorter fade would mean either that the album used a completely different mix/source, or they would have had to dub a copy of the single version onto another tape for the album and in the process fade the track out earlier (assuming, as I mentioned before, that none of the "short fade" versions we hear on CD have been artificially faded for those specific CD appearances). In other words, if the album has a shorter fade than the single, then there's no way that the exact same physical tape that had been used for the single could have been added to the album master. The album has to have a different mix, and/or different tape, and/or at least a different dub in order to acheive a different fade.

As mentioned before, the fact that the longer fade version has been included on at least two CD's (the Japan singles collection, and the '99 version of the "Greatest Hits Vol. 1" CD) seems to indicate that that longer faded version (different mix or not) exists in some form somewhere, and exists on some tape other than the album master. The two cases where this longer fade version was used were both cases in which the compilers would have been specifically looking for the "single" version, which would seem to make it likely that the tape was found on some sort of source that indicates it is the "single" version.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Great, interesting info. In this case, it sounds like under this scenario, it would seem even more likely that the single and album mono mixes of "CG" are indeed different mixes that were not substituted for each other.

I took the opposite from Alan's statement.  Can you lay it out explicitly for us, Alan?

 

The fact that the album has the shorter fade would mean either that the album used a completely different mix/source, or they would have had to dub a copy of the single version onto another tape for the album and in the process fade the track out earlier (assuming, as I mentioned before, that none of the "short fade" versions we hear on CD have been artificially faded for those specific CD appearances). In other words, if the album has a shorter fade than the single, then there's no way that the exact same physical tape that had been used for the single could have been added to the album master. The album has to have a different mix, and/or different tape, and/or at least a different dub in order to acheive a different fade.

That's not entirely true; I assume any fade decisions could be finalized at the mastering stage.  As Alan said, the phono reels tended to have long fades, and then the mastering engineer could presumably set the final fade length doing the tape-to-disc transfer on the lathe.  And therefore it's entirely possible that one of the "master fades" of CG exists only on disc, and not on tape.

[HeyJude]

That's not entirely true; I assume any fade decisions could be finalized at the mastering stage.  As Alan said, the phono reels tended to have long fades, and then the mastering engineer could presumably set the final fade length doing the tape-to-disc transfer on the lathe.  And therefore it's entirely possible that one of the "master fades" of CG exists only on disc, and not on tape.

I think I'm following what you're describing. I'm just looking at the end resulting material we have. We have the original 45 with the long fade, and two versions issued on CD with the long fade. So anything on the tapes used to cut the 45 or to master the track for those two CD appearances would have to be at least that long. In other words, if something exists "only on disc" and not on the tape, what is on the tape can't have a shorter fade than what is on the disc. So whatever tape was used to master to the original 45 single release had to be at least that long, or longer. So if that fade only exists on the original 45, the tape used to cut that 45 should be as long or longer, thus allowing a later appearance of the track from the same tape source to have that same fade (as heard on the two older aforementioned CD releases).

So I'm just looking at what appeared on the 45, and thinking that whatever that is or wherever it came from, it still seems to exist and could have/should have been used on the new US Singles set. It apparently was not, as the version we have on that set has a shorter fade as heard on the album.

We apparently have a longer mono version appearing on the original 45 single, and a shorter mono version appearing on the original vinyl album. In the CD era, we have appearances of both of these "versions", suggesting either two (or more) different tape sources are being used for these different CD releases, or the same source is being used and the versions with shorter fades are being faded out in the process of mastering those particular CD releases. Either way, I'm thinking the idea is for a US Singles collection to use the same "version", the same mix and fade as heard on the original single, and for whatever reason that has not happened. Whether it happened because the album master was used, or some other tape was used, or they simply took the same single master and for some reason manually faded it out earlier to match the album fade, I of course do not know. In most cases on these latter-day CD releases, I don't think any new fading is being done; they seem to transfer and master the source and maintain whatever fade is present (which I suppose in some cases could be detected if we hear the song fade but the level of tape hiss remain the same, etc.).

Honestly, I really enjoy discussing this sort of stuff. All of the mechanics of how these tapes were physically put together and exist are really interesting.

[brother john]

I don't suppose it counts, as its a new mix,  but I've just listened to about six different versions of Cal Girls and they vary quite alot, and the longest by some way is the version on Endless Harmony, which captures more of the great fills in the fade.

Not much info in the sleeve notes as to who was responsible for mix/mastering though...

[HeyJude]

I don't suppose it counts, as its a new mix,  but I've just listened to about six different versions of Cal Girls and they vary quite alot, and the longest by some way is the version on Endless Harmony, which captures more of the great fills in the fade.

Not much info in the sleeve notes as to who was responsible for mix/mastering though...

The two different mixes on two different versions of the "Endless Harmony Soundtrack" are stereo remixes, so those are a whole different item altogether, as those were done by going back to the multitrack elements and remixing. The fades on those were definitely newly-performed for the purposes of those remixes, as they would be working from the raw, multitrack tapes that have no ending other than the cold endings that exist on the original takes. It would up to whoever is mixing to decide how to do those fades, and as far as my personal taste in concerned, they can make those fades as long as they want so we can hear as much of the take as possible. I would imagine every case of remixing is different. Some may string it out as long as they can before the take breaks down before fading, some will try to replicate the fade from a vintage mix, and in some cases I've heard remixes of vintage tracks where they actually don't fade it and just give us the cold ending. All of those variations are interesting and valid for different reasons.

The issue with the longer fade on some mono mixes/masterings of "CG" is not whether I think any fade is better than another, or whether any mix is better than another, but simply that that longer fade was apparently on the original single and seems like it could have been on the new set to replicate that original single. The fact that it may well be a slightly alternate mix seperate from the issue of the fade is only another reason why it would make sense to have that version on the set as well.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I'm a fan of Mark's stereo mixes and mean absolutely no disrespect to the man with my upcoming question/comment. He always does a nice job with the stereo remixes and I listen to his  mixes more than the old monos these days. BUT....it seems to me that whenever he remixes a track from the "Today" album it tends to sound....odd. I'm not sure what my beef is. Something about it sounds tinny or  thin. "Kiss Me Baby" is an exception. Whether it's "Dance DAnce Dance" from HAwthorne or "She Knows ME TOo Well" and "Grow Up" on this new set, they never sound quite as good as other remixes. I don't hold Mark responsible for this, for I suspect there is something wrong with the Today album.

Were there flaws in the original recording of "Today"? I mean, look at those new cuts remixed from Summer DAys that showed up on the Warmth of the Sun comp. Awesome sound. Just perfect. Heck, even the remixes from Wild Honey and Smiley sound heavenly. The man has the golden touch. But not 'Today' for me. What causes the discrepancy? Is it just me?

[lupinofan]

Realizing I might well be opening a whole new can of worms here, speaking as a modern-day professional engineer, I'm often sent untrimmed, completely unfaded master mixes to master for release. It's one of my jobs to "build in" the fade on the final production master, usually to the producer's specification. (I believe this practice started in the 1970s when parts of the industry embraced DBX noise reduction. DBX tends not to handle some fades, particularly those featuring dynamic percussion, that competently.)

While the recordings in question pre-date DBX by some years, could it be that some Beach Boys mixes exist without fades on their mixdown reels, with fade instructions in the paperwork? Just a thought.

P.S. Hello. It's nice to be around after several years of intermittent lurking!

[audiodrome]

I think we need Mark to chime in on this to find out why the single version doesn't appear on the new box set. So far, that's the only mistake I've come across.

[mjd180]

Realizing I might well be opening a whole new can of worms here, speaking as a modern-day professional engineer, I'm often sent untrimmed, completely unfaded master mixes to master for release. It's one of my jobs to "build in" the fade on the final production master, usually to the producer's specification. (I believe this practice started in the 1970s when parts of the industry embraced DBX noise reduction. DBX tends not to handle some fades, particularly those featuring dynamic percussion, that competently.)

While the recordings in question pre-date DBX by some years, could it be that some Beach Boys mixes exist without fades on their mixdown reels, with fade instructions in the paperwork? Just a thought.

P.S. Hello. It's nice to be around after several years of intermittent lurking!

Hi lupinofan!

At the very least, we know the mono master of 'Good Vibrations' has a much longer fade than what was pressed on 45. Steve Hoffman actually sought out B.Wilson's permission to extend the outro by an extra 10 seconds (Hoffman assuming that the GV fade was part of the song's "artistic statement...this appeared for the first time ever on the DCC 'Endless Summer'). Hoffman has relayed that Brian told him it was OK with him, because that fade (along with most/all of the BB single fades) was an arbitrary decision by executives at Capitol to appease radio programmers with concerns about play length.

In other words, Brian didn't care/have/want control over when his great singles faded. Which makes sense since, for no apparent reason, we've been getting the "shaft" on Hal Blaine's drum work on the end of CG for years. Despite the original 45 having at least an extra 5 seconds, all that ever seems to be issued is the almost too quick LP fade. Including on this new singles box...

[audiodrome]

It appears that the mono LP mix of "Don't Worry Baby" was also used on the new box set. The single mix has a more blended vocal and a longer completely different fade. I'd love to know what's going on here. They should have called it The US Singles Collection (and album mixes where we couldn't be bothered to use the correct mix) 1962-1965.

[the captain]

That would be too long a title. 

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I'd love to know what's going on here.

I still don't believe that there are different mixes, since there's no documentation to back that up as far as what's in the vault (at my disposal, at least.)  I think that you probably just have really good, perceptive ears and are able to hear mastering differences, which can be shocking.  A fade is a fade, and may or may not have anything to do with a mix.

But if there were separate 45 mixes for the songs in question, EMI just made a mistake, which they've done before--including wrong versions of songs on a few different releases.  Despite having experts to call on for guidance.

[Andreas]

I still don't believe that there are different mixes, since there's no documentation to back that up as far as what's in the vault (at my disposal, at least.) 

Hello Josh,

did you listen to the different versions and conclude that they sound like the same mix (with mastering differences), or do you solely rely on documentation?

Is there any documentation about the known dedicated mono single mixes (e.g. Fun Fun Fun, Friends, Never Learn Not To Love, possibly Cotton Fields)?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I still don't believe that there are different mixes, since there's no documentation to back that up as far as what's in the vault (at my disposal, at least.) 

Hello Josh,

did you listen to the different versions and conclude that they sound like the same mix (with mastering differences), or do you solely rely on documentation?

Is there any documentation about the known dedicated mono single mixes (e.g. Fun Fun Fun, Friends, Never Learn Not To Love, possibly Cotton Fields)?

The "Cotton Fields" single isn't a different mix, it's a completely different recording.

Consider this - why would Brian decided to (almost imperceptably) remix one track on an LP when he could just strip the single master into the tape ?  "CG" was recorded during the album sessions, released a week after the LP. I know this is The Beach Boys we're talking about here, but even so, makes no sense.

[Andreas]

The "Cotton Fields" single isn't a different mix, it's a completely different recording.

Hello AGD,

 I was referring to the version produced by Alan Jardine, recorded August 1969. So was Cotton Fields a dedicated single mix or not? Stephen Desper has argued that it was merely a fold-down of the (never released) stereo mix, but I don't know if that is true. I wonder if there is documentation.

Consider this - why would Brian decided to (almost imperceptably) remix one track on an LP when he could just strip the single master into the tape ?  "CG" was recorded during the album sessions, released a week after the LP. I know this is The Beach Boys we're talking about here, but even so, makes no sense.

In the case of "Fun Fun Fun", we have exactly what you say makes not sense: A mono single mix and a mono LP mix (in addition to the stereo LP mix). Or do you doubt that these are different?

[Andrew G. Doe]

The "Cotton Fields" single isn't a different mix, it's a completely different recording.

Hello AGD,

 I was referring to the version produced by Alan Jardine, recorded August 1969. So was Cotton Fields a dedicated single mix or not? Stephen Desper has argued that it was merely a fold-down of the (never released) stereo mix, but I don't know if that is true. I wonder if there is documentation.

Best of my knowledge, there never was a stereo mix - otherwise why did one have to be done for the Hawthorne CA compilation ? Plus the preceding three 45s were issued in stereo. I'm guessing Alan mixed it to mono.

Consider this - why would Brian decided to (almost imperceptably) remix one track on an LP when he could just strip the single master into the tape ?  "CG" was recorded during the album sessions, released a week after the LP. I know this is The Beach Boys we're talking about here, but even so, makes no sense.

In the case of "Fun Fun Fun", we have exactly what you say makes not sense: A mono single mix and a mono LP mix (in addition to the stereo LP mix). Or do you doubt that these are different?

Have to admit, the vocals on the 45 are more prominent than the LP cut, but I'd hesitate to call it a different mix. I'd need to know more about the technicalities of mastering to pontificate on that. 

[Andreas]

In the case of "Fun Fun Fun", we have exactly what you say makes not sense: A mono single mix and a mono LP mix (in addition to the stereo LP mix). Or do you doubt that these are different?

Have to admit, the vocals on the 45 are more prominent than the LP cut, but I'd hesitate to call it a different mix. I'd need to know more about the technicalities of mastering to pontificate on that. 

The indication is the instrumental break: The single mix has the organ prominently, while the mono LP mix has the guitar in the foreground. You can't have this effect merely by mastering. Both mono mixes were done independantly from the three track tape.

[Aegir]

I thought the Fun, Fun, Fun single had a longer fadeout.

[lance]

Yes the album version fades out incredibly early compared to the single one.