Pet Sound Cover is up...

[ssully]

I have read the review several times now and I have to agree with Cai and Guy, no center=no problem and I hope that what the others say about the delay works but I just envision my self going nuts trying to fix the right front hole and getting a headach from the uneven soundfield.@: :howl

This is a Quad quad. How could lack of a center be a problem for folks here?

 

[shark42]

...wow, away for a day, look what happens?

I'm just working through the Chicago II (I'm a couple weeks behind y'all), so haven't even picked it up yet. But, yeah, I'll be buying it - I mean, cummon...it's Pet Sounds!!

Still haven't heard from you guys with the discs whether the mono is CC only or twin l/r mono (I'm assuming the latter, but kinda hoping for the former for no good reason except I've got my best speaker as a CC now... heh)

I must say, given the debacle over some debates when I first joined the forum months back, it's downright refreshing and encouraging to see such intelligent and well argued positions being made. THIS, friends, is what this forum is for, and I thank you for the obvious respect you all are showing one another (myself included...)

cool! hehe

I think it certainly stems from the fact that Nick clearly WANTED to like the disc, but had serious reservations. Now, I'll take those reservations in hand, make up my own mind, and continue to respect his (and his site's) reviews.

As for the fact that PS would be the disc to ignite the board, I'm not surprised at all - I really don't think the importance of its success can be underestimated, much the same as DSOTM for SACD in terms of key discs. This is a top 20 must-have disc for the format. How do I judge this? Well, like many Criterion LDs I hold onto, and the player I keep to play them, PS would be a title that I would always have a DVD-A player around to enjoy in hirez, even if the format dies. It may be a disapointment (with high expectations, you're bound to fall short), but I don't think Nick or anyone says it sucks.

That, I think, is a good sign...

 

[ssully]

Still haven't heard from you guys with the discs whether the mono is CC only or twin l/r mono (I'm assuming the latter, but kinda hoping for the former for no good reason except I've got my best speaker as a CC now... heh)

According to someone one the Hoffman board, it's L/R mono, not CC.

 

[Guy Robinson]

...wow, away for a day, look what happens?

I'm just working through the Chicago II (I'm a couple weeks behind y'all), so haven't even picked it up yet. But, yeah, I'll be buying it - I mean, cummon...it's Pet Sounds!!

Still haven't heard from you guys with the discs whether the mono is CC only or twin l/r mono (I'm assuming the latter, but kinda hoping for the former for no good reason except I've got my best speaker as a CC now... heh)

Chicago! That was last week.

The mono uses both l and r mains. It doesn't use the centre at all. In fact nothing really (except for maybe Track 14 which is a stunner) uses the centre channel.

 

[MC Maniac]

Next to the one Silverline disc I own, Pet Sounds ranks just ahead of it, only because the 5.1 MLP track beats it on sound quality..

They have simply taken the mono track and put the same information in 4 speakers and they ignored the center speaker..why not put the same in the center while they are at it?

I too find it biased towards the left..

I also listened to the hires 2.0 track using Logic 7..this gives a more typical stereo across the front and vocals in the center with ambiance in the rears presentation. This isn't overly satisfying either as it's the discrete mix I'm after..

This disc with a few interesting extras, is for the real BB fans only..

For me, this one does indeed suck..and will see very little airplay..

 

[Guy Robinson]

They have simply taken the mono track and put the same information in 4 speakers and they ignored the center speaker..why not put the same in the center while they are at it?

I too find it biased towards the left..
[/B]

I don't agree with the mono track in all four speakers. If anything it is the stereo version extended back on each side to encompass the rear speakers.

I still don't know why I am not experiencing this left bias.

 

[MC Maniac]

I didn't analyze it to this extent..you could be right but for me it doesn't make much difference - I can hear the lead vocals in all speakers other than the center..

I don't have a problem with lead vocals in the 4 speakers used occasionally , but this happens on every track..This is about as unimaginative as one can get in a 5.1 mix..

 

[Nick Satullo]

John's choice of words--"biased" to the left--was better than mine. It's primarily in the lead vocals, with a greater prominence in the left than the right. It might also be described that the lead vocals from the left channel are simply "louder" than what is offered from the right (which might be a better way of describing it than I previously attempted).

Even if I listened to the music in two channel stereo, I would expect the lead vocals to image in the center--and if that were pulled off here, I would truly have no complaints about no information from the center. Problem for me was that I got no center imaging, and noticed the bias to the left . . . and sat there and just wondered if the center channel might be put to better use, especially after listening to the one glaring example of its use for a few moments in Track 14.

I've now played it on a second DVD-Audio player (first the Panasonic RP-91, now the Kenwood Sovereign DV-5900M), and the results were the same. 4 speakers all playing the same thing is one way of describing it (or, if you've got a 7.1 speaker setup, 6 speakers playing the same thing).

One of the observations that should have been pointed out in the review was what this thread has developed--that there is a total lack of discrete sound from this disc, and what you get from one speaker is what you get from the next. For what it's worth, my personal preference is for as much discrete imaging as possible.

While the disc is not totally without bass, as if there were no woofer on your speaker, I really believe it's sometimes pretty close to that. It seems generally bass deprived, although that might be a limitation of the original material.

Last night, after three days of listening to Pet Sounds, I listened to Dave Koz's The Dance which is a true sleeper among DVD-Audio software, with a superb surround presentation and outstanding fidelity. It's a relatively recent recording, true, but it reminded me of the things that great surround music does.

Nick

 

[Guy Robinson]

John's choice of words--"biased" to the left--was better than mine. It's primarily in the lead vocals, with a greater prominence in the left than the right. It might also be described that the lead vocals from the left channel are simply "louder" than what is offered from the right (which might be a better way of describing it than I previously attempted).

Even if I listened to the music in two channel stereo, I would expect the lead vocals to image in the center--and if that were pulled off here, I would truly have no complaints about no information from the center. Problem for me was that I got no center imaging, and noticed the bias to the left . . . and sat there and just wondered if the center channel might be put to better use, especially after listening to the one glaring example of its use for a few moments in Track 14.

I've now played it on a second DVD-Audio player (first the Panasonic RP-91, now the Kenwood Sovereign DV-5900M), and the results were the same. 4 speakers all playing the same thing is one way of describing it (or, if you've got a 7.1 speaker setup, 6 speakers playing the same thing).

One of the observations that should have been pointed out in the review was what this thread has developed--that there is a total lack of discrete sound from this disc, and what you get from one speaker is what you get from the next. For what it's worth, my personal preference is for as much discrete imaging as possible.

While the disc is not totally without bass, as if there were no woofer on your speaker, I really believe it's sometimes pretty close to that. It seems generally bass deprived, although that might be a limitation of the original material.

Last night, after three days of listening to Pet Sounds, I listened to Dave Koz's The Dance which is a true sleeper among DVD-Audio software, with a superb surround presentation and outstanding fidelity. It's a relatively recent recording, true, but it reminded me of the things that great surround music does.

Nick

You are right Track 14 is a standout. Maybe Brian had control over the first 13 tracks (as they were the originals) and let others do what they wanted to with the extras.

I still think it is the best version of Pet Sounds that I have heard. Even the fact that it is hi-rez makes a difference. even if there is no discreteness. It will probably be re-done in DVD-AAA in 2010.

 

[quadanasaziland]

Or in 2033 maybe the ESACD II v 2.3 (extra supra audio chip delux) and the DVDC-A (digital vectoring dynamic chip- audio).
Jezzz will these format wars ever end?@:

 

[daved64]

for those of you that keep track of these things...I also posted this at Hoffman:

Ok...finally...my turn!
Well, I made some of the modifications that Guy recommended....turned the rears down 7db's from what the usually are set at.....to -3.5db's. Hit play.........and loved every minute of it! Having said that, I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THIS!....but anyway......

I know the purists say that the only way to hear it is in mono, but to me, there are too many instruments and vocals that were buried that are now shining thru.....You Still Believe In Me had me almost in tears. Let's Go Away For Awhile sounds great. The extras are incredible.....I loved the little Pet Sounds documentary.

BUT....like I said before, the average person wants to put it in, push play, and be entertained without fussing with level settings. This alone will make this disc a bit of a failure. But I am enjoying it.

The mono track is horrible though....very screechy! The stereo is alright.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Okay, I didn't think I'd be able to pick up and listen to this disc for a while, but yesterday while I was running errands I found myself near a Tower Records. One short diversion later and I had the Pet Sounds DVD-A in my hot little hands.

I first listened to the mono tracks since I am most familiar with them. One word: ugh. What people have been saying about the mono tracks on this DVD-A are certainly true. The songs sound thin and brittle with a definite lack of bass. Digital EQ artifacts are noticeable, especially in the top-end. I don't know what happened here... The mono master tape sounds astounding on other issues, including (but not limited to) the original mono Capitol release on vinyl and the DCC reissue on both vinyl and CD.

As has been noted elsewhere, the mono tracks play through the front main channels (as opposed to the center channel). I have to question what "advanced resolution" means in relation to the mono tracks. My Toshiba SD-9200 simply displays "PCM" without any information about bit-depth or sampling rate.

Next I listened to the stereo tracks. They certainly sounded much better than the mono tracks, that’s for sure, but I didn't hear the lack of bass that others have mentioned. Again, my Toshiba SD-9200 could not provide me any information about the resolution. I was very disappointed about that. I was hoping to see at least 24/96 but based on the fact that "PCM" is the only data displayed, I must assume that both the mono and stereo tracks are standard redbook 16/44.1. Anybody have any information on this?

Finally, I listened to the surround tracks. Expectations were not high based on past discussions here and on other message boards. However, I must say that I was taken quite by surprise. I like the surround mix. A LOT!

The fidelity of the surround tracks is much, much improved over the mono and stereo tracks provided on the DVD-A. Happily, my Toshiba SD-9200 displaying 24/96 gave visual confirmation to what I was hearing. I didn't detect any lack of bass. The music sounded full, rich and warm. The overall presentation of sound matched or surpassed that of my past experience with my vinyl copies of this title.

Probably the first thing I noticed was how "back-heavy" the mix seemed. However, I think this perception is inaccurate. The mix is actually quite evenly balanced in regards to front-to-back presentation. I think the perception that it is back-heavy comes from being overly familiar with front-heavy mixes, so that when you hear an equally balanced surround mix, the back just SEEMS heavier than the fronts. In any event, the perception of the surround mix being back-heavy went away relatively quickly and I began to appreciate being engulfed in sound.

Okay, the big complaint so far seems to be the "left-bias" issue. I won't discount this because I did notice it. However, I do believe this is being overstated and I don't think it is that big of an issue (or even an issue at all). First of all, it only affects the lead vocal. Even then, at worst, the presentation seems to be off-center by about 20 degrees to the left. I can understand why this might bother some people but it really does not bother me at all. I tried turning my head a little to the left, and sure enough, that does center up the vocals, but then the whole surround soundstage collapses into a mush of sound. Turning my head back again, the mix opened back up. In fact, the surround soundstage of this mix offers a wonderful presentation!

There has been talk that the "left-bias" issue might be a technical problem. I don't think so. If you want perfectly (or near perfectly) centered vocals, listen to "God Only Knows", "Here Today", and "Caroline No". Actually, on "Here Today" I think the lead vocals veer a little to the RIGHT of center! Anyway, I think every aspect of the surround mix was due to artistic considerations and NOT technical problems or carelessness.

Concerning the discreteness of the surround mix, yes, it is obvious that this is not 100% discrete. However, it is nowhere near Silverline synthesized crap! This is obviously a well-crafted labor of love, carefully mixed from the original multi-track tapes. I think they've done an AMAZING job of creating a new surround mix that remains very true to the feel of the original mono mix! The fact that the mix is not 100% discrete contributes to this. There is a careful blending of elements that creates a cohesive whole without being 100% mono or even something as simple as "stereo times two". I would almost call it a four-way "wall of sound", where any adjacent stereo-pair creates a distinct (yet blended) piece of the overall mix. The end result is an experience of total immersion in sound.

Anticipation of this release has been a roller-coaster, starting off with high expectations, followed with disappointment because of initial criticism, then denial and wishful thinking, and finally great relief with realization that this masterpiece delivers a wonderful new experience while managing to stay almost wholly true to its original self. I could not be happier!

Could things have been a little better? Perhaps. Would I have done anything differently? Well, yes. Does this stop me from enjoying this release? Hell no! Do I appreciate and respect the decisions of the artist and those he has chosen to work with? Hell yes! They’ve done an amazing job and I’ll be enjoying this one for years to come!

 

[daved64]

Glad you like it Cai...I might have to give it a chance without turning my rears down and see what happens. Or maybe not turning them down so much.

 

[Guy Robinson]

Glad you like it Cai...I might have to give it a chance without turning my rears down and see what happens. Or maybe not turning them down so much.

Try the 3 db lower.

 

[bear]

I was in media play last night holding Pet Sounds in my hands trying to decide 'to buy or not to buy'. After reading all the posts the last few days I decided to wait a bit as I was afraid I'd be disappointed. Your post Cai has changed my mind and now I guess I'll give it a shot. Thanks for all the reviews. This one really sounds like one that will be talked about for quite a while. Can't we just get a DTS of the original CD? ;-)

 

[kstuart]

I own all CD versions of Pet Sounds and will post a comparison of all of them with the DVD-A tomorrow (it will take me until then to dig all of them out of storage!).

I should mention that it is a typical case in that the later "remasters" are not automatically better.

Thus, my "hunch" is that a later mediocre remaster was used for the mono track.

This wouldn't surprise me, since on the Dark Side of the Moon SACD, both the redbook stereo track and the SACD stereo track both sound like excrement, since they are both made from the same lame over-the-hill master tape that was used in the previous lame CD remastering.

But unlike Cai, I am not going to jump to any conclusions without doing a personal comparison.

Overall, my first impression of the Pet Sounds multichannel mix is that it is enjoyable. All of the non-sound-related aspects are exceptionally good - for example, it has an option to automatically page the lyrics throughout the entire album, with no further use of the remote required. Compare this to SACD, which doesn't even have song titles, and you can see why I prefer that albums be released in DVD-Audio (even though the sound quality of SACD is the same).

 

[Cai Campbell]

Well, I just sat down and listened to the Pet Sounds DVD-A (in surround) all the way through for a second time. This time, I was not listening with a critical ear. I just sat back, relaxed, and enjoyed the music. Wow. What an incredible piece of work. I've listened to this album so many times that I didn't think it was possible that it could still move me the way it did tonight. I have a new favorite DVD-A.

 

[ssully]

Okay, I didn't think I'd be able to pick up and listen to this disc for a while, but yesterday while I was running errands I found myself near a Tower Records. One short diversion later and I had the Pet Sounds DVD-A in my hot little hands.

I first listened to the mono tracks since I am most familiar with them. One word: ugh. What people have been saying about the mono tracks on this DVD-A are certainly true. The songs sound thin and brittle with a definite lack of bass. Digital EQ artifacts are noticeable, especially in the top-end. I don't know what happened here... The mono master tape sounds astounding on other issues, including (but not limited to) the original mono Capitol release on vinyl and the DCC reissue on both vinyl and CD.

As has been noted elsewhere, the mono tracks play through the front main channels (as opposed to the center channel). I have to question what "advanced resolution" means in relation to the mono tracks. My Toshiba SD-9200 simply displays "PCM" without any information about bit-depth or sampling rate.

The mono tracks (on both sides of the disc ) are 96kHz/24bit LPCM. Using the digital output, my player passes this natively to my receiver, causing the '96 kHz indicator on it to light up. The stereo tracks, on the other hand, are downmixed from 96/24 in the player (apparently because they're flagged to do so by the disc authors).

To me, if I lsiten clsoe to the speakers, the mono tracks sound like they are breaking up a tiny bit on hte loud parts, like on drum hits. I have the previous HDCD remaster with mono tracks (the Gastwirt remaster) which afaict is the source for the mono and stereo masters of this DVD-A; the mono sounds much the same there.

It appears from the confusing liner notes that the HDCD tracks (mono and stereo) were transferred to 96/24.

Next I listened to the stereo tracks. They certainly sounded much better than the mono tracks, that’s for sure, but I didn't hear the lack of bass that others have mentioned.

Me neither.

Again, my Toshiba SD-9200 could not provide me any information about the resolution. I was very disappointed about that. I was hoping to see at least 24/96 but based on the fact that "PCM" is the only data displayed, I must assume that both the mono and stereo tracks are standard redbook 16/44.1. Anybody have any information on this?

The stereo tracks are 96/24 LPCM on both sides of the disc (DVD-V and DVD-A), according to the output of my player. However, you likely won't get that to your receiver unless you use analog outputs.

Finally, I listened to the surround tracks. Expectations were nothigh based on past discussions here and on other message boards. However, I must say that I was taken quite by surprise. I like the surround mix. A LOT!

ME TOO! I thought it sounded great, and it made me like this album for the first time. I was surprised.

The DVD-A surround tracks are 96/24 PPCM, in case anyone was wondering.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I have a new favorite DVD-A.

Wouldn't have been able to tell from your avatar.

 

[Guy Robinson]

Well, I just sat down and listened to the Pet Sounds DVD-A (in surround) all the way through for a second time. This time, I was not listening with a critical ear. I just sat back, relaxed, and enjoyed the music. Wow. What an incredible piece of work. I've listened to this album so many times that I didn't think it was possible that it could still move me the way it did tonight. I have a new favorite DVD-A.

Ya Cai, As I posted much earlier (is it really only 3 days since it came out?), I love it too. I have listened to it about 6 times now and I know that I will never tire of it. It has breathed new life back into an old friend.