Pet Sound Cover is up...

[kstuart]

Okay, I've compared "Wouldn't It Be Nice" on the following Pet Sounds disks:

- DVD-A mono track
- DVD-A stereo track
- DVD-A multichannel track
- 1990 Mono CD
- 1996 Pet Sounds Sessions CD Stereo track
- 1999 CD Mono track
- 1999 CD Stereo track

( I don't have the Hoffman DCC CD, I was referring to the Capitol releases, when I said "all the CDs". And, I don't have the time to compare a dozen tracks in seven versions, especially when I'm not being paid. So, I am assuming that "Wouldn't It Be Nice" is representiative. )

I reconfirmed my previous opinion that the 1999 is a classic "lifeless" remastering - both the mono and stereo tracks are inferior to the earlier masterings.

And, the new DVD-A disk's mono and stereo tracks are both oddly tilted towards the high end and lacking in bass. I'd guess that either some Capitol flunkey did something to "improve it" after Linett finished, or else a mistake was made and some EQ was accidentally applied (or the wrong file was used - it almost sounds like LP pre-EQ).

So, the 1990 and 1996 CDs still sound the best for listening in mono and stereo.

However, I find the new multichannel mix to be the best-sounding version yet of Pet Sounds. It's true that Linett made some unusual choices for positioning the instruments and vocals, but I don't find anything "wrong" about that, it's just an artistic choice.

If I sit somewhere in the room other than the sweet spot, and listen to all these recordings, it's clear that the new multichannel version is better than any previous version. And this is a valid listening position for this album - since it was intended for mono, there is no original "sound stage" that is part of the album, so there is no valid reason for sitting in the "sweet spot"...

 

[Guy Robinson]

Thanks for doing the comparison. It's a good thing you posted it on this forum as on another one there would be screams of "But You Missed The Best Version". Look, you can go on Ebay and shell out $80 for the DCC version. Oh, wait a minute, the DVD-A is about $15. Never Mind.

 

[dprokopy]

As a bit of a Beach Boys/"Pet Sounds" scholar and (more importantly) fan, I can honestly say this was perhaps my most anticipated m/c release yet. Quite simply, this is an album I know very intimately, inside and out, every note, every mistake, every mixing variation, every little quirk. I did a tremendous amount of research on this album about a decade ago when I put together my "Pet Sounds" b**tleg tape set (which some of you might even own).

I'm probably in the minority in that I personally didn't care too much for the recent stereo mix of this album, and still find myself almost always drawn to the mono mix for my "everyday" listening enjoyment. (I know, blashpamy on a m/c discussion forum!) So even though I was looking forward to the 5.1 mix, I was prepared for something not-so-spectacular. In short, that's pretty much what I got (in my opinion). Not that it's terrible. Like the stereo mix, it's interesting to hear things "spread out" a bit - but "a bit" seems to be all we got. Overall, the mix sounds rather muddy... too much reverb, not enough seperation (especially among the vocal tracks).

It's helpful to understand how this album was recorded - most of which is explained rather thoroughly in the liner notes. For those that are complaining of a lack of bass, I'm guessing a lot of that has to do with the fact that given the way the instrumental tracks were recorded (usually only on 3- or 4-track tape), and the fact that the bass(es) were usually recorded onto a track with other instruments. This would also explain the relative lack of discreteness (is that a word?) with the surround mix for the instrumental tracks as well. (There's only so many ways you can spread out three tracks of instruments.)

However, my biggest disappointment rests with the vocals. I'm usually "on the fence" regarding the issue of using the center speaker for vocals. Sometimes I feel it works well, sometimes it seems to sound better when mixing them between the fronts. However, I really didn't like the feel of the "in the middle of the room" treatment of these vocals. Again, whereas the instrumental tracks were generally done on 3 or 4 tracks, the vocals were usually recorded over up to seven tracsk on an 8-track tape (again, see the liner notes for how/why this was done). Surely, much more interesting, discrete mixing could have been done in spreading those tracks around the surround field. And in the (rare) instances where the leads were single-tracked, the leads really should have been stuck in the center speaker. (And if they were double-tracked - as often was the case - they should have gone in the LF/RF). As others have mentioned, the "Unreleased Backgrounds" bonus track really give a feel for how, I think, the vocals SHOULD have been mixed on this release.

Overall, I liked the balance of the mix - much closer to the feel of the original mono mix than, I feel, the previous stereo mix was. There were some "issues" I had with the stereo mix that seemed to have been taken care of with this new one. But again, Linett chose to dump tons of reverb over everything, and mix things sort of "halfway" between speakers, which leads to a rather muddied listening experience. As some of you may know, I'm not a huge fan of overly-discrete mixes, but I think in the case of some of this older material (i.e., anything recorded on less that 16 tracks), it actually benefits the listening experience to have things a bit more discrete than later-day recordings might be. This release definitely is proof of that. (And I'm hoping that whoever mixed the forthcoming Byrds "Fifth Dimension" SACD realize that as well.)

At any rate, maybe this one will grow on me. Maybe, like Cai, I need to listen to it again with less-critical ears and just enjoy the overall experience. I did like the bonus material quite a bit (although since I own the "Sessions" box set, along with a ton of less-than-legitimate releases, I'd heard a lot of it before). We'll see. I have (somewhat) higher hopes for the "Surf's Up" album, if it's still in the works. By far not my favorite Beach Boys album, but one that was recorded in such a way that (probably) would benefit much better from a surround mix.

 

[QUADradial]

Awww..what the hell do you know about the Beach Boys, Mr. Prokopy? hahaha!!!

I liked it overall. He did a lot with a little. After hearing this, I hate going back to mono...which was the only thing that bothered me about the original release. It can get a bit muddy at times, but consider the 3, 4, and 8 track sources. I loved the train/dogs at the end.

Now, to do a MC first release of SMILE.

 

[ssully]

IMO the original mono version is already swamped with reverb -- so the surround is simply recreating that , in four channel

 

[BrownRB]

Here is what Linett himself has to say about the mix. He was replying to a post in a thread on SmileShop here: http://www.comiclist.com/smileshop/viewtopic.php?t=22&sid=1562bf24defe69f0f83c53ed69ecb2fc

"Thanks for the nice review. Your point about the center speaker is exactly right. Many non-audiophiles (clothheads) have a diffft. speaker in the center since for DVD-video the center chl is for dialogue. Our use of a normal phantom center between the left and right speakers guarantees that the listener will at least get a decent stereo image for the 5.1 playback. The comment about the low end is interesting and again is the result of the entire 5.1 setup. Most consumer systems use small speakers w/ limited frequency response and route everything below 200 hz to the subwoofer. This is called bass management. In our tests on both large and small systems the bass was of course balanced according to the DVD-A spec. which is difft. from the DVD video spec. which presets the bass much higher. Luckily raising or lowering the bass on your system or doing the same with the subwoofer if you have one will make it sound right on any individual system as you discovered. In addition bass management is somewhat incompatible w/ big audiophile 5.1 systems. Anyway we worked real hard to make this the ultimate Pet Sounds . Glad you like it."

 

[High Fidelity Review]

Thanks for the link and quote, but I fear it demonstrates Mr. Linett’s failure to understand many aspects of multi-channel audio and only enhances the belief of some, that surround novices shouldn’t be mixing high profile titles.

Here are some of his misconceptions:

1) In motion pictures, the centre channel is not for “dialog” alone, its intent is to carry all on-screen sounds, whatever they might be.

2) Very few systems, other than bargain basement home-theatre-in-a-box type of designs, use a 200Hz crossover. The vast majority are 100Hz, 80Hz or lower, which is a good octave different. Moreover, “everything below 200Hz” is a misnomer, since all bass management filters are usually no better than 4th order (most are 2nd) so there is a considerable overlap between the satellites and subwoofer.

3) There should be no difference between DVD-Audio and DVD-Video bass playback levels, the bass is either correct or it is not. Dolby Digital provides 10dB more headroom due to an attenuation/boost routine in the encoders and decoders, but this has no impact if an engineer wishes to maintain consistent levels. Bass at 75dB SPL from DVD-Audio should also be 75dB SPL from DVD-Video. This is a total red herring.

4) The suggestion that listeners have to raise and lower the bass levels in their system according to disc is hard to believe from a professional engineer as it implies we should arbitrarily select our own channel levels, rather than the “correct” levels set by the engineer him/herself. The fact that as in the case of ‘Pet Sounds’, the results are far more pleasing if we deviate from those created by the engineer, is hardly an endorsement of output level tinkering or of the mix on that particular disc.

5) Bass management is not “incompatible with big audiophile 5.1 systems”, unless he means that bass management isn’t needed if one has five full-range loudspeakers. Moreover, there’s nothing inherently “audiophile” about full-range speakers as against crossed-over monitors, in fact in many cases the inverse is true.

 

[ssully]

Any plans to repost that to the smileshop list, to see if Mr. Linett responds?

 

[Guy Robinson]

Many non-audiophiles (clothheads) have a diffft. speaker in the center since for DVD-video the center chl is for dialogue.

All my speakers match exactly as to size and type of drivers but if my centre was different from my main speakers the term "clothheads" would not make me happy.

 

[deepsky4565]

Stuart, I have to agree with you on your points. Just because some clothhead might play Pet Sounds "wrong", we get an inferior mix? Come on!!!

 

[Guy Robinson]

Thanks for the link and quote, but I fear it demonstrates Mr. Linett’s failure to understand many aspects of multi-channel audio and only enhances the belief of some, that surround novices shouldn’t be mixing high profile titles.

Here are some of his misconceptions:

1) In motion pictures, the centre channel is not for “dialog” alone, its intent is to carry all on-screen sounds, whatever they might be.

2) Very few systems, other than bargain basement home-theatre-in-a-box type of designs, use a 200Hz crossover. The vast majority are 100Hz, 80Hz or lower, which is a good octave different. Moreover, “everything below 200Hz” is a misnomer, since all bass management filters are usually no better than 4th order (most are 2nd) so there is a considerable overlap between the satellites and subwoofer.

3) There should be no difference between DVD-Audio and DVD-Video bass playback levels, the bass is either correct or it is not. Dolby Digital provides 10dB more headroom due to an attenuation/boost routine in the encoders and decoders, but this has no impact if an engineer wishes to maintain consistent levels. Bass at 75dB SPL from DVD-Audio should also be 75dB SPL from DVD-Video. This is a total red herring.

4) The suggestion that listeners have to raise and lower the bass levels in their system according to disc is hard to believe from a professional engineer as it implies we should arbitrarily select our own channel levels, rather than the “correct” levels set by the engineer him/herself. The fact that as in the case of ‘Pet Sounds’, the results are far more pleasing if we deviate from those created by the engineer, is hardly an endorsement of output level tinkering or of the mix on that particular disc.

5) Bass management is not “incompatible with big audiophile 5.1 systems”, unless he means that bass management isn’t needed if one has five full-range loudspeakers. Moreover, there’s nothing inherently “audiophile” about full-range speakers as against crossed-over monitors, in fact in many cases the inverse is true.

Let me first say that I love the MC version of Pet Sounds but I also agree with a lot of what you say:

1) On screen sounds. I assume that you mean front sounds because sounds that are supposed to be "off screen" such as a bullet or plane passing over you shoulder should move to the appropriate speaker.

2) Entirely correct.

3) Levels can be equalled of course. So I agree with this as well.

4) Well I alter my subwoofer levels by about a quarter turn at the most (ie-about the 11 o'clock position to the 3 o'clock position depending on the disc). With the Pet Sounds disc I increased the bass to full on 360 degrees from zero. Can't get it any higher. This made the bass "enough".

5) I think that usually leaving everything as "Large" and letting what was designed for the subwoofer go there, is the way to go. However, this is not always the case with every recording. I agree that an audiophile "yes" or "no" determination can be made based on the speaker size unless the smaller speakers are part of a Home Theatre In A Box set-up. I don't think that this kind of set-up can be classified as "audiophile".

 

[Guy Robinson]

Let me first say that I love the MC version of Pet Sounds but I also agree with a lot of what you say:

1) On screen sounds. I assume that you mean front sounds because sounds that are supposed to be "off screen" such as a bullet or plane passing over you shoulder should move to the appropriate speaker.

2) Entirely correct.

3) Levels can be equalled of course. So I agree with this as well.

4) Well I alter my subwoofer levels by about a quarter turn at the most (ie-about the 11 o'clock position to the 3 o'clock position depending on the disc). With the Pet Sounds disc I increased the bass to full on 360 degrees from zero. Can't get it any higher. This made the bass "enough".

5) I think that usually leaving everything as "Large" and letting what was designed for the subwoofer go there, is the way to go. However, this is not always the case with every recording. I agree that an audiophile "yes" or "no" determination can be made based on the speaker size unless the smaller speakers are part of a Home Theatre In A Box set-up. I don't think that this kind of set-up can be classified as "audiophile".

Okay I type too quickly. Point (5) should read:


I think that usually leaving everything as "Large" and letting what was designed for the subwoofer go there, is the way to go. However, this is not always the case with every recording. I agree that an audiophile "yes" or "no" determination canNOT be made based on the speaker size unless the smaller speakers are part of a Home Theatre In A Box set-up. I don't think that this kind of set-up can be classified as "audiophile".[/QUOTE]

 

[Nick Satullo]

I don't want to be too presumptuous, but I continue to believe that, on the venerated status of Pet Sounds as a musical effort--and I have never doubted that--there has been a lot of cheerleading for this disc that has little to do with its quality as a multichannel, high resolution release--which I take to be the point. Great music is great music, and it doesn't matter if you're hearing it from an AM radio with one three inch speaker.

Sorry, but to give the credit to this disc that so many have gushed about requires that it be graded on a curve--it's a 37 year old recording with poor resolution and a surround mix that, at best, approaches the "party mode" of some receivers that just blast the same sound, same volume, from every speaker in the mx. Do you hear it all around? Sure. Is the music superlative--it always has been. But it is that fundamental confusion which accounts for so much of the praise thaI I've read--praise that is usually expressed in terms of "wow," and "my favorite," and other such bromides that really don't contribute to an understanding of "why" it's good.

What I think is often forgotten is that surround music is really a relatvely recent phenomenon. We are still early in the process of forming expectations and standards by which to make reasoned judgments about the quality of surround efforts. Too often, I fear, there is such a revered status associated with certain music that it almost doesn't make a difference what the presentation is.

Leaving the issue of quadrophonic recordings aside--because there was a few decades interval between quad and now--many of us began the sojourn to surround music with a "robotized" version of surround, such as a proprietary mode like Logic 7, or 6 Axis, or Meridian's Trifield. What we heard was an improvement over two channel presentations, and naturally we gravitated to the possibilites of music mixed in surround with a purpose. But, let's face it, the paucity of titles in DVD-A and Multichannel SACD make all of us, surround engnineers included, relative novices at bringing a context to our assessments.

There is a take-it-or-leave-it jazz DVD-Audio by Dave Koz, called The Dance. It's actually pretty good, but it will never become a landmark recording, nor will it lose its trappings of "Kenny G"-like music. Nonetheless, the fidelity of the disc, the discreteness of the surround mix, and the taut and powerful low bass put it in a league well beyond Pet Sounds. Attribute this to what you will--modern recording, more amenable to high resolution surround, whatever--the point is, for purposes of judging what multichannel and high resolution brings, we should only be grading on a curve to a very limited extent. If I could articulate one standard by which we should be judging multichannel recordings it is this--did we get something better and newer than what we already had? Because if that point is only debatable, the answer is, probably, that the multichannel mix really didn't succeed.

DSOTM gave us something new and better. Pet Sounds gave us something different. While art thrives on experimentation and innovation, there is often little point in being different sheerly for the sake of being different. No disrespect intented to those who have expressed a great fondness for the disc, but, when reading the praise for the disc, and the reasons given, I'm often waiting for someone to remind others that the emperor wears no clothes.

I would usually conclude a post like this with mention that the mileage of others will vary. Pet Sounds is and always been a special piece of music. As a surround effort, however, I continue to judge it as no better than ordinary, and that assessment was charitable to boot

Nick

 

[Cai Campbell]

All this seems a little like giving a 1966 Ferrari a new coat of paint and then complaining when it doesn't place in the 2003 Grand Prix.

Whether or not it lives up to modern surround-sound mixing standards is pointless (for me anyway). What matters is that the surround mix, despite its shortcomings, offers the best presentation of this classic album EVER. But then, that's just my opinion.

 

[petermwilson]

Cai,
Your comment with "current surround mixing standards" , regarless of album,is what I always seem to be taking issue with because (and I'm not sure exactly how you meant that), THERE ARN'T ANY.

That's why there's always so much meat on the bone as discussions continue regarding how the surround mix was handled on titles we all have had an opportunity to become familiar with.

It of course doesn't exclude the same discussions on the new "Steely Dan" or Fleetwod Mac discs, but we have no point of reference the way we do with the titles we sortof grew up with.

If your referring to the standards as to what the engineers (hopefully with the artists enthusiastic participation) are capable of your right, it's a whole new world.

Peter m.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Peter, you're right. "Standards" was a poor word choice. A better word would be "expectations".