HiRez Poll Beach Boys - PET SOUNDS [DVD-A/BDA]

[JonUrban]

Please post your comments, thoughts and observations.......

Originally released as a DVD-A/V disc in 2003, the same 5.1 surround mix has also been reissued as a High Fidelity Pure Audio Blu-Ray disc as part of the 2016 50th Anniversary deluxe set.

[NOTE: All posts before post #67 were made before the Blu-Ray release.]

2003 DVD-A/V Front Cover:



2016 50th Anniversary Back Cover:

 

[Cai Campbell]

A very controversial mix, to be sure... but I absolutely adore it. This one gets a heartfelt and geniune 10 from me.

 

[MIDIQ]

I had never heard this album by the Beach Boys before i got the DVD-A. I really like the song God only knows, and had only heard another song or two from it. But everywhere i looked, the reviews were great, so i was really looking forward to a new Beach Boy album i had never heard before, plus it was in surround. All i could think about was beautiful Beach Boys harmony coming at me from all 5 speakers. But after getting the DVD-A, i was pretty disappointed in the surround mix, and pretty disappointed in most of the songs also. I know a lot of people on this forum really like this DVD-A, but in my opinion, i just don't get it, sorry. I gave it a pretty low score, because i didn't even like it enough to keep. Maybe i am just too used to their beach & car songs, which i really like, and would buy in a second in surround. Anyway, just my opinion.

 

[daved64]

If I turned my love seat around and face the rears, it would be a great mix. I don't know why it's SO rear heavy. When I turn down the rears (a lot!), it sounds great. The music is, of course, brilliant.

 

[bobou2]

If I turned my love seat around and face the rears, it would be a great mix. I don't know why it's SO rear heavy. When I turn down the rears (a lot!), it sounds great. The music is, of course, brilliant.

Dave got it right....I was more impressed with the sound of the studio outtakes. I was/still dissapointed with the surround mix, not enough discrete info.
I hope when EMI/Capital gets around to the Beatles they use this disc as a guide...Hi rez mono/stereo and 5:1, video extras, outtakes and lyrics. One of the best DVD-a packages out there...but that 5:1 mix forces me to give it a 6 rating

 

[dprokopy]

This is an album I'm very intimately familiar with, having done a significant amount of actual research into the recording process, etc. (If you get bored one day, type in "prokopy pet sounds beach boys" into a search engine and you'll see what I mean.) This was hands-down one of my most anticipated DVD-A purchases. And subsequently, I'm afraid, it turned out to be one of my biggest disappointments. I was never a fan of Mark Linett's stereo mix that preceeded this, and I'm afraid he didn't learn much before attempting the 5.1 mix, either. Everything is awash in copious amounts of reverb, lost in a fog, and (as others have complained) lacking in any definition and seperation. A true opportunity was lost here, especially in respect to the vocals (which, given the way they were recorded, perfectly suited surround remixing).

I end up listening to Brian Wilson's original 1966 mono mix infinitely more often than I bother with either the stereo or surround mix on this one.

 

[blackbirdr]

For some reason this album sound best in Mono.

 

[neil wilkes]

I have heard, from someone who must remain nameless but was actually present and heard the original surround mixes right off the DAW in the Studio, that there has been an almighty cockup in the manufacturing process, as in the studio everything sounds simply stunning.
When the engineers heard the disc, they were almost in tears.
There is allegedly stuff out of phase, on the wrong channels, all manner of problems.

I'll write my contact, and ask him to write out for us all exactly what was wrong.
But it would seem as if the Authoring loused everything up.

 

[dprokopy]

That would certainly go a long way in explaining stuff, if it's indeed the case. That's my big problem with the disc - there's very little discrete placement. Everything just sort of... hangs there in a big empty wash of echo. Phasing problems and/or switched channels would make sense.

 

[daved64]

I have heard, from someone who must remain nameless but was actually present and heard the original surround mixes right off the DAW in the Studio, that there has been an almighty cockup in the manufacturing process, as in the studio everything sounds simply stunning.
When the engineers heard the disc, they were almost in tears.
There is allegedly stuff out of phase, on the wrong channels, all manner of problems.

I'll write my contact, and ask him to write out for us all exactly what was wrong.
But it would seem as if the Authoring loused everything up.

Wouldn't surprise me....cuz when I first put it on my reaction was "What the &*^%@&^"?????? NO WAY I would have mixed this record this way! Might be my biggest disappointment for hi rez.

 

[Scottmoose]

If this was how it was 'supposed' to sound, I know not what they were thinking...
Let's hope it was a production glitch, and we might get a proper version.

 

[EMB]

Not a perfect mix--to be kind!--but, IMO, solid much of the way, and it is fun to isolate things in a full mix, rather than the bits and pieces of the box set.

Truth is, the only 'master mix' is the original mono tape....I think most of us would like to see a remix of the remix somewhere down the road, for surely there are different approaches one could take with this title that really aren't there for others.


ED

 

[Bob R]

For the era of the recording, they did an outstanding job with the mix.

Perhaps since the music seems dated, I've not played it too often.

Now, If I could just have "Smiles" in Hi-rez, I'd be happy.

 

[Kazaam]

I give it a 10. That wasn't always the case, though.

At first, I hated this disc. I thought the surrounds were way too strong; and I wasn't thrilled about the essential lack of a center channel. However, that was before I realized that it is OK to adjust the channel levels on my receiver for the 5.1 channel analog input. Once I lowered the rear levels this disc became wonderful! And, honestly, I feel it's better to not have a center channel than to have abused it. I like the center speaker, but I don't miss it here.

Once adjusted, the "wonderful warmth" factor I'm so fond of is in great supply. The recording is just so full. I enjoy the added ambience and the trippy feeling "Pet Sounds" gives in surround. I think it's audiophile quality. It's one of my favorite discs.

However, I will admit that the surround mix feels very much different from the tightness of the stereo mix. So I don't know how true the surround mix remains to the original mono mix from 1966.

 

[analogdemon]

As a Beach Boys die-hard who owns every studio album, every live album, and lots of other stuff, I will say that I am very satisfied with this disc. I will also say that I prefer the mono mix to any other mix that was done, stereo or surround. But since I'm on a surround board, let's talk surround. Yes, the rears are a bit on the loud side but I don't think it's near as bad as people make it out to be and I don't think that it takes away from the enjoyment of the disc, at least for me. Pet Sounds is one of the greatest albums of all time and I am glad that it's available in 5.1.

Keep in mind that the way Brian Wilson recorded records in the 60s was far different than how everyone else was doing it. For Pet Sounds, Brian used an 8-track recorder, but he recorded ALL of the instruments on one track and used the other seven for vocals. With that knowledge, I'm surprised that this mix came out as good as it did.

Also, am I the only one who thinks that this disc is tops in terms of sonic quality of the mono mix? Any Beach Boys fan will tell you that the best sounding vinyl pressing of Pet Sounds was NOT the original 1966 pressing, but was the one that was included with the "Carl & the Passions - So Tough" album in 1972 as part of a 2-LP set. The mono mix on the DVD-A disc even beats that vinyl pressing in terms of sonic quality.

I give it a 9 because even though I love surround, the mono is still the best bet for my ears!

 

[elmer]

I grew up like many on the forum listening to the Beach Boys on crappy little AM radios and phonograph players playing stacks of 45's as they dropped down on top of each other applying new scratches and pops each and every time. Forget fidelity, compression, or even bass and treble. It was the Beach Boys and they sounded like no others.

This was the first DVD A I purchased and I was and am still unimpressed - I don't hate it but it adds nothing to my enjoyment - perhaps it is because I can't quite relax as my ears try to hear something different coming from one of the speakers. For my money, unless the mix offers some new understanding or appreciation of the source material then it probably shouldn't have been done. Brian Wilson - deaf in one ear, created and heard this music in mono and that is how it probably should be.

 

[aquadad]

I have heard, from someone who must remain nameless but was actually present and heard the original surround mixes right off the DAW in the Studio, that there has been an almighty cockup in the manufacturing process, as in the studio everything sounds simply stunning.
When the engineers heard the disc, they were almost in tears.
There is allegedly stuff out of phase, on the wrong channels, all manner of problems.

I'll write my contact, and ask him to write out for us all exactly what was wrong.
But it would seem as if the Authoring loused everything up.

Hello,
I only recently acquired this disc and the first thing that I noticed was how weak the center and sub channels are. I proceeded to turn them way up with the surround channels off and to my astonishment:yikes I noticed that vocals were coming out of the subwoofer channel and bass info from the center channel. Luckily for me, the integrated amp that I use to drive these channels has a reverse switch so I reversed them and everything was where it should be.

That was only for the first song "Wouldn't It Be Nice" after that everything is where it should be. Then the problem becomes getting the volume levels for the center and sub channels properly balanced for every song. I could see where for those who use a digital receiver this disc would be a real pain to endure, but with the anolog equipment that I use it just gives me something to fiddle with while listening. And when it's all said and done it sounds great to my ears.

Has anyone tried to do a conversion of this title to tweak it and make the obvious corrections? Is it even possible? With a little engineering wizardry this could be greatly improved upon. Too bad "Capitol" doesn't take it upon themselves to get it right.

 

[EMB]

It's certainly not a perfect mix. And yes, the center channel isn't very strong, seems intentional though. Even so, the very novelty of this as a 5.1 mix keeps me coming back to it, flaws and all....

ED

 

[JonUrban]

For more info on Pet Sounds, and to relive what it was like here back when new titles were being regularly released, you should read through this thread:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1872https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/member.php?u=94

 

[Felix E. Martinez]

I have heard, from someone who must remain nameless but was actually present and heard the original surround mixes right off the DAW in the Studio, that there has been an almighty cockup in the manufacturing process, as in the studio everything sounds simply stunning.
When the engineers heard the disc, they were almost in tears.
There is allegedly stuff out of phase, on the wrong channels, all manner of problems.

I'll write my contact, and ask him to write out for us all exactly what was wrong.
But it would seem as if the Authoring loused everything up.

Interesting. I remember when I did my review for Dvdangle, I was criticized by some readers re: my observation of "clicks" throughout the 5.1 mix that many listeners apparently didn't hear. This is the first time I hear of a possible technical flaw, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.