Digital reverb on BEACH BOYS "Pet Sounds" Box Set. Yes or No?

Reverb is possibly the second most misunderstood studio process after compression. Just about every multitrack recording ever made has reverb on it. Often it's subtle so the listener doesn't recognize it, but totally dry studio recordings sound very strange. Like uncompressed recordings, most members probably have never really heard totally dry recordings.

Granted larger ensemble recordings using distant mics have less need for reverb, but anything recorded with close microphones, especiailly vocals, pretty much has to have it to sound right.

 

Digital Reverb, when used appropriately, is just fine.

Without it, Enya would have no career.

 

The wall of music is the mono mix.

The stereo remix was not presented as a wall of music at all; in fact the reason why people are praising it is they can hear individual vocals and instruments more clearly and that it sounds less muddy, closer to the recording. This effect would have been even more effective if no reverb had been added at all.

 

I know that the recordings already have reverb; I am asking why do you have to add additional reverb for the stereo remix?

 

Well most reverb is added during the mix phase. Perhaps you misunderstood my post or I was not clear enough.

When you do a remix you have to add reverb if you want your mix to sound like the original mix because reverb was generally added during the original mix.

Most multitracks do not have much if any added reverb on them. Of course there are exceptions but I believe this is generally the case.

 

You're putting too much thought into this. The Wall Of Sound was a label they gave to the production technique not the mix. Stereo or not Phil Spector records still are considered to have a Wall Of Sound. Same goes for Pet Sounds but debating whether reverb should or should not have been used in the mix is pointless. It's in there and it sounds good.

 

I'll agree with that and I'm NO engineeer. I think it'd be wisest to use reverb in the mix instead of in the actual tracking session.

 

IMO the stereo backing tracks are still quite a "wall of music" - there's tons of bleed.

What makes you think reverb wasn't used during the mono mixing?

 

If your goal is to make a mix where it is easy to hear the individual tracks and vocals than by all means don't use reverb or any effects for that matter.

OTOH, if your goal is to make a mix that sounds pleasing forget about trying to make everything clear and natural.

Part of the beauty of studio production is to create neat textures and sounds which don't necessarily sound like the real things.

Why double a part? It makes it have a nice texture but the result is usually less clear. How about combining several parts to make one, such as burying a piano double to a guitar part. The goal is not necessarily to have the listener hear all the individual parts, but to revel in the wonderful effect created by the production team.

Studio production is kind of like magic to me. You don't necessarily want the listener to understand how the magic is created but to just enjoy the show.

 

Where did I say that?

 

Well, you ask why reverb would be added to the stereo mix, implying it wasn't added to the mono mix.

 

You explicitly talked about the reverb from the recording, not the mixing. What did I not understand?

I am not sure if the stereo mix should sound like the original mix, since it was never meant to replace it.

 

I was not implying that. I am sure there was reverb used for the mono mix.

 

Huh?

Shouldn't new stereo mixes generally sound like the original mono mixes, only in stereo?

 

A mix is a recording of sorts. Sorry for the confusion.

As for replacing the original mix, I'm afraid for many people it did. Most of the time I hear something on the radio from Pet Sounds it's now the stereo mix. This is from oldies stations. If the stations didn't think it was a replacement then I'd expect them to only play the original mono mixes.

 

That seems to be the silent implication that everyone accepts. I have no idea why, but I guess I am the only one.

The stereo mix does already not sound like the original mix for a variety of reasons:
Stereo instead of mono
Some missing double-tracked vocals
Some alternate vocal tracks
Left-out background chatter, clicks and noises
Different type of reverb
Very different balance, e.g. the drums on Wouldn't It Be Nice

Are you saying that the present stereo mix sounds like the mono mix, but if they had not used reverb, not anymore?

 

Why *shouldn't* they be like the original mixes?

 

Because it is a different mix. Why should they?

I have never heard people complain that the Sgt. Pepper stereo mix is different from the mono mix. Most people like the fact that there are subtle and obvious differences.

 

I guess I'm missing something.

Obviously there are mixes where the point is to be different. Penny Lane on Anthology 2 comes to mind. Yet the point of most first-time stereo mixes is simply to present the song in stereo.

 

Exactly. I am still wondering why adding reverb is neccessary for that.

 

I've heard a lot of people complain that one mix or the other isn't good, because it varies from the one they are used to.

And do you think Martin and company set out to create those subtle differences? Or did they just happen? I can't envision them going "let's make the stereo different".

 

If it's on the mono mix, why wouldn't you put it on the stereo mix?

 

Are you playing "Argument" with me?

 

It's nearly impossible for a remix to sound like the original mix especially when it's done years later at a different studio with different gear and a different engineer. In fact even in the same studio with all the same gear, it's pretty hard to do. There are just too many variables.

Often when mixing there will be dozens or more attempts to get the mix right. Sure the differences are subtle, but sometimes one just has some magic that can't seem to be recreated no matter how hard the team tries. Sometimes that mix with the magic is flawed. Often parts of one mix are edited with parts of another mix to create the final mix for this very reason.

This is my main objection to remixes. Quite often the remixes are essentially treated as the de facto standards. The Beatle CD's are a prime example. Most radio stations play the remixes rather than the original mixes. IMO this is wrong, especially on a station that claims to play oldies. Those mixes are not really oldies. They are from the time of their mixing.

I have no problem with a remix if it is clearly called a remix, but unfortunately that is rarely the case. In most cases I think the engineers try as hard as possible to make the mix sound as authentic as possible. It's just very hard if not impossible to do so.

 

But apparently, they were not saying "let's make the stereo mix exactly like the mono mix".