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

Because without adding reverb the mix will be dry and not sound right. Most people here have never heard a mix without reverb added.

 

I just don't get what you're after. Are you saying a first time stereo mix should be different simply for the fact of being different? That if a mono mix has added reverb a stereo mix shouldn't, and vice versa?

 

You are reversing the argument, again.

I am not saying: A stereo remix should be different from the mono mix.
I am asking: Why should a stereo remix necessarily have to be equal to the mono mix?
Your answer is: "Why shouldn't it?" That's very Pythonesque to me.

 

That's because they were in the middle of the creative process. The idea was simply to make a mix that sounded good, not to match any existing "standard".

 

People had not heard Pet Sounds in stereo before, either.

 

Aha!

That could have been a good concept for the Pet Sounds stereo remix as well.

 

It doesn't necessarily have to be, but in most cases that is the goal of the engineering team.

Let It Be Naked is a prime example of a remix that is different, but it is clearly noted as such. If it was released with the same cover as the original Let It Be, and not noted as a different mix, I think many people would be outraged.

 

I don't actually think I'm reversing the argument. The original topic of this thread was the reverb on the stereo Pet Sounds. You questioned why reverb was used, implying it shouldn't have been. What would the point of not using reverb have been?

 

I give up.

 

You brought it up! You asked "Why should a stereo remix necessarily have to be equal to the mono mix?" Well, if somebody does attempt to make them equal (regardless of success), what's the problem? What is the fault in trying to replicate an existing mix?

 

I asked, and you answered "why shouldn't it" or similarly five times. If you don't have an answer, why even respond?

 

Here's your original question:

"The question is, why would someone add reverb (analog or digital) to the stereo mix at all?"

To me, the wording of that implies there was something wrong with doing so in your mind, or that it was outside of the norm. If that's not the case, why ask? Why *wouldn't* someone add reverb to the stereo mix? Why did somebody add reverb to the mono mix? Why does anyone use reverb?

 

That really is an excellent point.

 

I'm rather proud of myself for starting this thread. I had no idea it would produce such a goldmine of information. Is it possible that no digital reverb was added to the stereo mix, but that reverb in the original mono mix simply became more audible in the stereo remix? If so, I would forgive such.

 

The thread had to have one, I suppose.

 

so i guess it's an established fact that the original 4 tracks had reverb recorded to the track?

 

A lot of the backing tracks certainly did, yes. That doesn't mean none was added during mono mixing, however.

 

I never said it was "wrong", I was wondering why it is necessary. I would have preferred it without.

Why is that a condition for asking the question?

The argument game again. Why would? Why wouldn't?

Speculation, but probably because they thought it improves the sound, it ensured its hit quality and it sounded better on 1960s radios and loudspeakers.

That is an artistic decision for which there cannot be one answer. That was never my question.

 

there are very few recordings that don't have reverb added to them.

if the stereo mix hadn't had reverb added to it, it would sound totally dry, unless there was reverb inherent in the 4 track masters, then there may not be a need to add 'extra' reverb to a new mix. a totally dry pet sounds would sound like crap imo

'why wouldn't' someone add reverb to a mix is a totally valid statement/question. it's been a standard procedure for mixing for over 50 years in every style of recorded music

Andreas, what are some of your favorite recordings that are totally free of reverb???

 

Agree, it would not be the classic Pet Sounds that we know and love !

 

That's merely the reversal of my question.

I don't quite understand why you are asking about "recordings" when my point was about "remixes".

But here are some examples where the different amount of reverb in the mix or master makes the difference:
Surrealistic Pillow mono mix > stereo mix
Please Please Me single master > mono album master
I Get A Kick Out Of You on the "Songs For Young Lovers" LP > "Songs For Young Lovers" CD
Reach Out I'll Be There single mix > stereo mix
That's All Right Mama original single release > CD release
Carrie Anne single mix > stereo mix

I haven't heard it, but the Tommy surround remix is reportedly much drier than the stereo mix.

 

Because that's what Mark Linett wanted to do. Presumably to get closer to the sound of the mono mix.

 

you have to have a recording before you can mix or remix.

of course the amount of reverb can significantly change a recording.


also regarding stereo vs. mono, you can have the same amount of reverb added, and it can sound like more in the stereo version, if more of the wet signal is mixed off to one side

and back to your original question
"The question is, why would someone add reverb (analog or digital) to the stereo mix at all?"

this is why i asked the last question about some of your favorite recordings that are totally free of reberb......... ok, let me rephrase it.........
what are some of your favorite remixes that are totally free of reverb.

 

Pet Sounds has already been recorded, as far as I know.