Beach Boys - PET SOUNDS [DVD-A]

[jsgamache]

If I were a record company exec reading this thread, I think I'd just say, "Why bother with this surround s#!+? The people with the equipment are unbelievably nit-picky. We spend all of this money remixing, and nobody even likes the results. Let's just scrape the last few bucks we can from the bottom of the CD barrel and sell everything else on line. You know who's not picky? Those teenagers walking around with the iPods stuck in their ears. Those are our customers!"

Why is PS better in mono just because Brian Wilson can't hear out of one ear? Mono mixes were made for AM car radios and little plastic record players. To me, the PS mono mix has always sounded distorted, compressed and sloppy. Even Brian himself said that the stereo mix sounded like someone had pulled a blanket off the speakers.

Having said that, I think mono sounds great on those '50s recordings that were basically done live in the studio. But when producers started taking multi-track recordings and reducing them to one, combining noise from every individual track, monaural started sounding flat and lifeless. No one seems to be able, in remastering, to elicit much definition and presence from them. (Unlike, for example, the most recent remasterings of the early Elvis RCA albums.)

Pet Sounds and the early Beatles albums are the worst examples of flat mono. I even prefer the crude stereo of the '62-'64 Beatles records.

I'm not saying that y'all need to accept crappy mixing, but I think some of you are overreacting a bit to the supposed flaws in PS. When I first listened to the new mono remaster of it, I was put off by the quite loud hiss at the beginning of "Wouldn't It Be Nice." Does anyone actually prefer that to the surround mix?

[daved64]

If I were a record company exec reading this thread, I think I'd just say, "Why bother with this surround s#!+? The people with the equipment are unbelievably nit-picky. We spend all of this money remixing, and nobody even likes the results. Let's just scrape the last few bucks we can from the bottom of the CD barrel and sell everything else on line. You know who's not picky? Those teenagers walking around with the iPods stuck in their ears. Those are our customers!"

Why is PS better in mono just because Brian Wilson can't hear out of one ear? Mono mixes were made for AM car radios and little plastic record players. To me, the PS mono mix has always sounded distorted, compressed and sloppy. Even Brian himself said that the stereo mix sounded like someone had pulled a blanket off the speakers.

Having said that, I think mono sounds great on those '50s recordings that were basically done live in the studio. But when producers started taking multi-track recordings and reducing them to one, combining noise from every individual track, monaural started sounding flat and lifeless. No one seems to be able, in remastering, to elicit much definition and presence from them. (Unlike, for example, the most recent remasterings of the early Elvis RCA albums.)

Pet Sounds and the early Beatles albums are the worst examples of flat mono. I even prefer the crude stereo of the '62-'64 Beatles records.

I'm not saying that y'all need to accept crappy mixing, but I think some of you are overreacting a bit to the supposed flaws in PS. When I first listened to the new mono remaster of it, I was put off by the quite loud hiss at the beginning of "Wouldn't It Be Nice." Does anyone actually prefer that to the surround mix?

You obviously don't know that the Beatles spent time making sure the mono mixes were done right. When it came time to do the stereo mixes, they went home and let George Martin and Geoff Emerick/Norman Smith to do it. The mono mixes of the Beatles stuff is sometimes far superior to the stereo mixes. You haven't heard Revolution till you hear the mono mix.

As far as over reacting, I have plenty of surround titles that require no mucking with settings. I sit down, and they sound right. When I sat down to play PS, my reaction was "they fucked it up!" It just sounds wrong. It could have been a masterpiece. It isn't.

And as far as tape hiss goes, I'll take it any day over "no-noised" suffocated crap.

[jsgamache]

No, I'm aware that the Beatles worked directly on the mono mixes, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. And I think George Martin knows a bit about mixing stereo.

Don't get me wrong -- I know the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper's and the White Album definitely have their plusses. I know them very well, and I think they should be back on the market. But I can't say I prefer them.

But I'm amused by the venomous reaction to the 5.1 Pet Sounds. IMHO, it's significantly better than the harsh mono mix.

[DaneelOlivaw]

An 8. I liked the mix, dreamy and airy....like the music. Not very discrete but that doesn't bother me. I thought the sound itself was good but nothing special. Video extras are actually informative as far as content (most dvd-a titles I own have visual content that is barely worth viewing once, if even that). The addition of 96khz/24bit LPCM tracks playable on regular dvd players is a definite plus.

[jarofclay73]

I'm going to hold off voting for now because of the wonky surround mix. Although I have to say that "Pet Sounds" sounds better on a cheap home theater system rather than a 5.1 system with full range speakers all around, since the "hot" rears aren't as apparent with weak rear speakers.

With that said, I prefer the stereo version of the album. Sound quite a bit better than even the mono version, although it is nostalgic to hear.

[madship]

I must have really missed the boat on this one. After years of hearing what a great and ground breaking album it was, I was thrilled to hear that it was coming out in Hi-Rez and 5.1.

Other than the songs I already knew (2 or 3). i didn't like a thing. I actually preferred the Telarc Pap Do Run Run versions.

[ArmyOfQuad]

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.

Did you ever find out what the technical issues were with this disc? I'd love to make a corrected version of this.

[oxenholme]

What on earth is Group Eight on this disc?

It appears to be Dolby Digital, begins with a snippet of Surfin' Safari, and continues with well spaced snippets of all sorts of things including a lovely bit of stereo Good Vibrations with some of the vocals present...

[Brett]

Never cared for this album before playing it in surround. One of my favorites to play when I'm at a loss of what to play. Good surround mix and good somics, for a mid 60's album.

[rusinurbe]

I have to admit I have this as a hidden pleasure album. The music is stunning and with the kitchen sink approach to recording it really benifits form the expanded 5.1 sound field (OK 4.1).
The Mono just lacks something even though it has parts not that are aparently missing from the master recording tapes.

[cupboy]

I picked up a new one at FYE today, and with a coupon got the price down to around $19. I figured it was my last chance to get one now that Amazon and Barnes and Noble websites have sold out, and I'd assume it's now out of print. There's not even any on a well known auction site (except for EU imports with the old case design).

Got one in a more current super jewel case design with the thicker hinges, so that's nice... since it's replaceable.

[jdmack]

What on earth is Group Eight on this disc?

It appears to be Dolby Digital, begins with a snippet of Surfin' Safari, and continues with well spaced snippets of all sorts of things including a lovely bit of stereo Good Vibrations with some of the vocals present...

Better late than never to answer this, I suppose.

It's the soundtrack of the discography section of the bonus materials. The stereo "Good Vibrations" is from the "In Concert" album.

J. D.

[Jazzer]

A gorgeous album with stunning music and an adventurous mix. I have this on vinyl and cd, in mono and stereo mixes but I have always loved the detailed DVDA surround mix the best.

[Quad Linda]

I'm with you, Jazzer. Would I have mixed this different? Sure. It's an unorthodox mix. Technical flaws aside, I love being able to hear the cohesive song and pick out individual things, rather than parts as on the Pet Sounds Box. What Quad/surround mixes are all about. Distinctly hearing the music.

Is mono the best? It's hard to fault the mono mix. Brian's creation as he intended it, mono. Duophonic was absolutely awful. The stereo finally came in the Pet Sounds Box in '98. I like it better than mono. Though, like the early Beatles stuff, the mono is more cohesive (1 piece, lol!!) and punchier. Stopped listening in mono when the stereo came out. I'd mix that a bit different, too. Five years after stereo, we got a DVD-A with 5.1, stereo and mono. Whatever mix you prefer, it's here.

Regarding the content, it takes a bit of getting used to. Not your typical Beach Boys. I've owned 5 CD's and DVD-A, never vinyl. I'm glad I didn't own this when it was released in '66. I wasn't quite ready for this. There are a few low spots, but it's a terriffic album. Wouldn't It Be Nice and Sloop John B are closer to classic Beach Boys. Or, is Sloop closer to classic Weavers? Pet Sounds is a great instrumental. Caroline, No is haunting and should have been a bigger single. It signifies moving beyond surf music, as My Back Pages signals Dylan's shift from protest songs. This album typifies that spirit, while having a few fun 'n' sun threads. God Only Knows, signalling a greater role for Carl. If you've not yet heard Pet Sounds, it's EVERYTHING you heard it is.

I still have long hair, though it's shoulder length now. Time to run some errands in my convertible with a pony tail and the top down. And I'm bringing this disc to pop into my car's DVD-A/V/CD deck. Sometimes, reality beats fantasy!

Linda
Leggo My Ego

A gorgeous album with stunning music and an adventurous mix. I have this on vinyl and cd, in mono and stereo mixes but I have always loved the detailed DVDA surround mix the best.

[Chiburb]

I recently heard Sloop John B in 5.1 and came here to read the reviews. Not being a "mono purist", or even a Beach Boys fan, I am REALLY enjoying my just arrived DVD-A.
I give it a 9.

[leevitalone1]

I've been eyeing this one, I think I'll give it a go. grew up with the BB.

[LizardKing]

I've been eyeing this one, I think I'll give it a go. grew up with the BB.

If you are a BB fan you can't go wrong with mono, stereo and surround options all in hi-rez....

"wouldn't it be nice" if more discs from the 60s were re-issued with the mono, stereo & new surround mixes?

[Quad Linda]

There are several Dylan titles that are available as mono CD/LP's (not hi-res) and SACD 2.0/5.1 mixes.

QUOTE=LizardKing;140802]If you are a BB fan you can't go wrong with mono, stereo and surround options all in hi-rez....

"wouldn't it be nice" if more discs from the 60s were re-issued with the mono, stereo & new surround mixes?[/QUOTE]

[DaneelOlivaw]

.......it really benifits form the expanded 5.1 sound field (OK 4.1).

Maybe this is just my system and its particular set up - all channels set to "large" i.e. no crossover in use - my subwoofer barely did anything with this multichannel mix. As in, I had to lean down and place my ear near the woofer to hear what was there. I wasn't too surprised though, seeing as though the rear channels contain pretty much full range bass frequencies (I didn't use a sound level meter or analyzer software to check that - I just watched/felt the single 8" ported woofer per speaker vibrate like mad at higher volume levels much like the fronts did).

[neil wilkes]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the mix was very different to what has eneded up on the record, and that the mix engineer was seriously upset.
Something allegedly went seriously wrong in production - but cannot find the references right now.
I have to confess I play the mono stream more than the 5.1 version, although the default "straight in" play mode makes it a pain to find.
Other things also mess this title up for me - to change audio streams requires resetting to main menu, accessing setup, then the stream, then the playlist again etc.
At the very least the stereo mix should be included with either the mono (my choice) or the 5.1, but no - we have a different group for each stream type.
No PGC authoring (although it is possible it was not available then) makes life awkward.

I also do not like the music on the menus - to my mind, this is always a mistake & if audio is going to be there then please do what SW does and make something just for the screen, and for gods sake lower the volume on it.

A 10 for the mono stream, a 5 for the 5.1, a 5 for the authoring and a 7 for the stereo.
All in, a generous 7.

[zabble]

I also do not like the music on the menus - to my mind, this is always a mistake & if audio is going to be there then please do what SW does and make something just for the screen, and for gods sake lower the volume on it.

I can't remember what music is on the menu of this particular title, but I couldn't agree more. Who the hell needs a preview of one of the songs that you are obviously going to hear soon enough if only the disk will give you the chance to navigate to the surround layer and hit play? If I want a snippet of a song, I'll go to Amazon.

[beached]

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.

I have 3 copies (German + 2 x USA) of this fantastic album but all copies have drop outs ( not just clicks) in all the 5.1 streams. Mono and stereo play fine. I use a Denon 3910 and OPPO 980. Same on both and the same songs. I don't seem to remember hearing these drop outs when I first bought a copy many years ago. Anybody else have this nasty issue sneak up on them ?.

[Failed Muso]

Well, this version of the classic album seems to be quite polarising but I have to say, being familiar with both mono and stereo versions, I really do like the 5.1 mix.

In fact, this is a disc I will probably use when demonstrating to friends who are unfamiliar with multi-channel music what differences there are between mono, stereo and multi-channel.

Also, as an overall package (DVD-A 5.1, stereo & mono plus the DD and DTS mixes and all the bonus content) this was worth far more than the £10 I paid for it (used, ex. cond.).

What I'd dearly love now is to have the album that inspired Pet Sounds (Revolver) and the album Pet Sounds inspired (Sgt. Pepper) so I can play all three in hi-res 5.1 in that order.

It gets a 10 from me.

[Ed Bishop]

I rated it high, although I understand why some listeners have a problem with it. It IS unbalanced to a degree, and after listening to it yet again today, I can imagine a more sensible, balanced mix. But because it is PET SOUNDS, a legendary (and very fine, if not great as many claim) album from a special time for pop music, just having this in 5.1 is a treat, though the keeper mix is the original mono Brian supervised and approved. As I noted over at Steve Hoffman's site, it's a real pity that, instead of releasing only a mono mix, Brian would have served the album and band better if he'd also assembled a decent stereo mix too, since he must have known Capitol would do as they did, issue an appalling duophonically rechanneled edition. I understand his reasoning behind preferring mono, but even so, sometimes compromise is a better alternative to getting sonically screwed over. At least he had a measure of control over the stereo and 5.1 mixes that came later, but he could have done that in the first place.

Suppose we could talk into 5.1 for WILD HONEY? That would be interesting....

ED

[cupboy]

Suppose we could talk into 5.1 for WILD HONEY? That would be interesting....

Well, the two (or was it 3) Wild Honey stereo mix songs I heard weren't very good stereo.