BEACH BOYS "Pet Sounds" stereo vs. mono and warm vs. clear

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by kamedin, Feb 22, 2011.

  1. kamedin

    kamedin Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Hi! I'm new =) .

    My name is Laureano López -which I usually shorten to LL-; I live in Córdoba, Argentina; I'm a composer and singer.

    I have a question going around my head since yesterday, which would be addressed to Steve but I think others would have a perspective too.

    Among the music I cherish the most there is Pet Sounds. I find it breathtakingly beautiful. I spent last Sunday comparing the recordings I have: Linett's 2006(?) stereo, Linett's 2006 5.1, Steve's 1993 (AF 2009 really). In the meantime, I've read most of the discussions on the topic here.

    It's not clear to me if Linett's 2006 stereo version is based on his new 24/96 transfers or just a re-release of the 1996 mix, but I find those two terribly similar and different to the 5.1 mix which, to my ears, sounds way better. Reverb in the stereo mix is so awfully obtrusive it makes some textures airy to the point of becoming unrecognizable (especially in I just wasn't made for these times). Besides, elements are *too* spaced in the stereo field and in some places even the mix itself is ridiculous. For example, the beginning of God only knows: in the stereo mix, the organ is so in front and edgy that I can't even tell the exact point where the melody comes in, which wasn't the case in the original mix; it's way less prominent and ear-hurting in the 5.1. I also think the 5.1 has less reverb, and there's an apparent criterion of leaving the voices centered and in front, more in line with the original concept.

    I have no particular problem with the idea of "revising" sound-production in itself; it depends on the actual music we're talking about. There's an underground feel essential to all The Doors' music: it would be absurd to make it gloss like plastic. Listening to Pet Sounds as it was recorded is a little like listening to Furtwängler conducting Brahms: there was no way to catch all the nuances and dimensions of its sound with such twisted technical efforts. So, whatever Brian Wilson thinks about it, it seems pretty good to me having this music mixed in stereo and 5.1 with clearer sound.

    Now, I must agree with Steve that something is lost: some of the intimate, dreamy quality of the original. Nowhere is more evident than in the last track. In God only knows, the 5.1 recovers much of the original expression I missed in the stereo version. But, it's still an expansive, spacious song, which Caroline no isn't. Even in the 5.1, I find it metallic, too extended in space (probably by reverb), too far from the evening-like concept of the original.

    Repeated comparisons between 1993 mono and 2006 5.1 made me notice what else than panning I like in the new mix. Textures are much more comprehensible. There are things I hadn't ever heard in the original, and are still difficult to find now that I know them. The bass might be less present, but it has a clearer attack and is much more recognizable among the rest; something similar I could say of each independent sound. In full textures, the original mix gives me a muddy, cloudy impression, while the new one (almost) reveals them as soundscapes. Now, I'm no sound expert, but I guess that frequencies crowded in the mid range and patchy behaviors in the highs can end up sounding close to noise bands, which just couldn't be the original intention. This would mean that part of the clearness achieved might come from EQing in a way that isolates the elements and blurring noise with reverb: the very same things that make the sound metallic and too spacey...

    I know I'm coming late to the discussions and it might be nostalgic to toy with the idea of Steve making a surround remaster of Pet Sounds, but well, at least as a general thought... Is it possible to achieve this deal (warm+clear) with this recording quality? And, in any case, when you (Steve) said "[if I made a surround mix] the feel would match the original mix in every way", would you be considering clarity as a value or is it part of what you find, say, intrusive?
     
  2. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    No one ever asked me to do a new mix (or ever will, no doubt) so the point is pretty moot.

    No remix of any classic music can make everyone happy.

    PET SOUNDS is actually a "double remix" with the music being remixed and then the vocals as well. A "single remix" would involve the music remaining in the mono reduction track and just remixing the voices in texture, tonality and volume. This is what I would like, a stereo version of the original PET SOUNDS sound... Never happen though.

    The problem with rewriting history is that no modern engineer can truly do a vintage mix. Too many years of hearing modern stuff. The drums are always too loud, details that were subtle before are now punched up in the mix and stuff like that. Engineers can't resist bringing out stuff in new mixes that were meant to be felt or just barely perceived back in the day. Now these "new discoveries" are hanging out there, distracting us from the real emotion of the actual songs. Detail instead of lifelike warmth. Can't stand it. Therefore a 5.1 mix of this album would be really the antithesis of the original intent as produced by Brian Wilson.

    Welcome to the Forum.
     
  3. vonwegen

    vonwegen Forum Resident

    Remixing a classic always carries risks. While I would've liked to hear your 'single-layer' stereo remix, Steve, I'm glad we have more options to choose from. I like hearing the different layers of the instruments in stereo and surround, even if digital reverb does distract--too bad EMT plates were not fashionable when DVD-Audio surround was in vogue...
     
  4. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    I'm afraid it's more than a missing EMT plate..
     
    Solly Bridgetower and Drifter like this.
  5. Schoolmaster Bones

    Schoolmaster Bones Poe's Lawyer

    Location:
    ‎The Midwest
    For me, it's not warm vs. clear - I just think Brian did a better job in '66. It's a better mix.
     
    MPLRecords, Timos, goodiesguy and 8 others like this.
  6. kevinsinnott

    kevinsinnott Forum Coffeeologist

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA

    I have the same reaction to many stereo mixes from that time period, even when they were done by the original engineers (or their night crew). Many of those recordings are arranged for mono; once you split them up the seams are there and beautiful mixed sounds are split and each the ingredients too on-display.

    I have an ongoing fantasy to hear stereo mixes of favorite mono tracks. Like seeing colorized films, I am usually disappointed.
     
    Timos, Dyland, goodiesguy and 5 others like this.
  7. Beattles

    Beattles Senior Member

    Location:
    Florence, SC
    By the OP I'm not sure if he is talking about the 93 DCC or the 09 AF. To me the AF still has a warm sound but more detail than the DCC and the Capitol CD versions. The spaciousness of the stereo mix also allows you to hear deaul in the instrumentation, but loses the fullness of the mono.
     
  8. BZync

    BZync Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I'm not a big fan of remixes in general. However, I feel that the Pet Sounds stereo mix is very well done and an entertaining alternative to the original mono mix.

    The exception that proves the rule (to my ears).
     
    kyouki, Smiler, Chance and 10 others like this.
  9. PNeski@aol.com

    [email protected] Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    I am one of the few on this list that plays the mono only once in a while
    and understand the reasons why people like it,But music and performance trumps
    "Original" to me ,and I played the Mono version on lp till I got the Original Japanese cd.
    then the better Gold version,But after playing the Stereo Version first on the Box set
    then on DVD Audio,I already made it the classic version since I played it so many times
    and don't get the total love for the Mono version,which always sounds more like
    a production(a good one that is) then live vocals over live Instruments

    When I tell anyone how great this record is ,I make sure to tell them to get the Stereo
    Version,Maybe you guys with better set ups hear more out of the mono
    but I sure hear less
     
    dunce, dav-here, Shak Cohen and 2 others like this.
  10. nojmplease

    nojmplease Host, You Can't Unhear This

    Location:
    New York, NY
    Mono is a neat artifact, especially for those who grew up listening to that mix. But the mono mix of Pet Sounds, at least to my ears, sounds incredibly dated.

    The stereo, on the other hand, sounds like it could have been recorded yesterday. It reveals the complexity and depth of what Brian Wilson fashioned out of the cutting-edge recording technology of its time.

    Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows, etc - these tracks come alive in ways that the mono just does not do for me. It's like scraping a layer of dust and varnish off of an old painting.

    And on a side note, I completely understand the argument for historical preservation of a work of art - a la the criticism around colorizing a B&W film. But my guess is that Brian Wilson wanted Pet Sounds to sound powerful, rich, and complex. And the stereo mix (which Brian himself could not have made - at least not in his ability to differentiate from mono) captured that beautifully.
     
    Smiler, tug_of_war, ted321 and 12 others like this.
  11. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    At least in terms of the stereo remix, some digital reverb was used, but analog effects were also used. Mark Linett (emphasis mine):

    "The Pet Sounds multitrack instrumentals and vocals from the 8-track machines were transferred to a Sony PCM-3324S digital 24-track. Remixing at Linett’s project studio, Your Place or Mine Location Recording Service, was accomplished on a customized API2488 with Flying Faders, but using the UA610 board modules as the line amps “because there is a sound
    to the old board,” Linett admits. “Some reverb was added, mostly plate or spring, and a little Lexicon 300. In a couple of places, I used slap to duplicate what was done on the original. I did some bus compression, mostly with an SSL or a Calrec.”"
     
    Leviethan, Shak Cohen and Michael P like this.
  12. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Wow, good point (that no one else here will ever agree with, sadly.)
     
  13. drbeachboy

    drbeachboy Forum Resident

    I absolutely get what you are saying and I get that Brian wanted a certain sound and feel. The stereo mix is just nice on the ears and is a different experience. Hopefully, we will always have both available to us. As for the 5.1 mix, I never liked it. Played it once or twice and has sat on the shelf un-played for 10 plus years. Nothing about it sounds right to my ears.
     
  14. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    I always piss people off with my opinions, but it really comes down to this, when the "kids of tomorrow" discover PET SOUNDS, most likely they won't ever hear the original 1966 mix, only the modern stereo version. It's like seeing the "official" colorized version of Citizen Kane without ever having experienced the way it was supposed to look.

    I heard WOULDN'T IT BE NICE coming from some radio somewhere recently and it was (of course) the stereo remix. I think the actual vintage mixes will only be played by those who know and care about such things. That continues to bug me.
     
  15. Juan Matus

    Juan Matus Reformed Audiophile

    I liken it to seeing Star Wars the proper theatrical version where Han shot first (the only proper version of course*) vs the poor souls who have never seen anything but the re edited version and think that is the definitive version.


    *Is this version even available anymore? Might be lost forever, I don't know.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2016
  16. Andrew

    Andrew Chairman of the Bored

    Best stereo remix on CD? 1996? 2000? 2012? Upcoming 2016 perhaps?
     
  17. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Well, these are small issues in a big world but I wouldn't give it a second thought but for the fact that so many people on my Forum rave about the "detailed stereo mix" and how it is so much better than Brian Wilson and Chuck Britz's original mono mix. That's what bugs me.

    Discarding Brian's actual finished work is illogical, Captain.
     
  18. Juan Matus

    Juan Matus Reformed Audiophile

    Spock was in Star Trek :D but point well taken, and yes a bit of a head scratcher for sure!
     
    BeatlesBop likes this.
  19. Psychedelic Good Trip

    Psychedelic Good Trip Beautiful Psychedelic Colors Everywhere

    Location:
    New York
    :cop:MONO BABY!!

    Still like stereo, not as much as mono...
     
  20. drbeachboy

    drbeachboy Forum Resident

    You are definitely right there. I don't listen to radio like I used to, but yes, they always play the stereo mixes now. I guess that is why Mike Love wanted his vocal added back in on Wouldn't It Be Nice. Even back around 2000, stations were only playing the stereo mixes. Since forever though, Pet Sounds has been steeped in a tradition of listening to it in mono. With it holding such high ground for so many years, that listening tradition in mono will follow it heading into the future. "...The way Brian cut it." :)
     
    Old Rusty likes this.
  21. Psychedelic Good Trip

    Psychedelic Good Trip Beautiful Psychedelic Colors Everywhere

    Location:
    New York
  22. Psychedelic Good Trip

    Psychedelic Good Trip Beautiful Psychedelic Colors Everywhere

    Location:
    New York
  23. chacha

    chacha Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    mill valley CA USA
    I do.
     
  24. chacha

    chacha Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    mill valley CA USA
    I don't care for the stereo mix. It sounds synthetic to me. The mono has much better tonality and texture for me. Sounds more lifelike.
     
  25. JamieC

    JamieC Senior Member

    Location:
    Detroit Mi USA
    Brian was of no help in a stereo mix. The 66 is what it is. This is what Brian heard and let go. It is bloody brilliant. So good it overcame the duophonic record I was given back then. The mono is amazing and I've known that since the first mono copy I got.

    The stereo is a whole nother kettle of sunshine. 96 or 06 it is another experience altogether. Love it on headphones or in the car. The stereo opens it up and makes our memory spread across the stage. It shows us more depth. In my opinion they did it right, and they did it well(even if they got one vocal wrong its still good), and I am glad it was done so much care. Five stars

    One does not supersede the other. They are a 2D and 3D shift of a favorite movie. They are both amazing for different reasons.
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine