Interesting Pet Sounds thread on the Smile Shop board

Chris M · Postby **Chris M** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:19 pm

http://www.comiclist.com/smileshop/viewtopic.php?t=5687

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:41 pm

Interesting (that the "master" used today is actually third generation), but the idea that the tape copies are that bad is silly. I'm not saying that tape copies *can't* sound bad, but at the same time a 3rd generation copy might sound no different from the master.

Jeeze...just listen to some of those Capitol Beatles LPs/CDs. With the right EQ, they sound as good or better than their UK counterparts. So much for Nth generation tapes!

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:49 pm

I'm irritated that you apparently can't bring this up on sh.tv. What gives?

The guy's problem re. copy tapes also seems to stem from a common misunderstanding: professionally-made copy tapes are far, far higher in quality than "consumer" copy tapes.

Chris M · Postby **Chris M** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:58 pm

So the DCC Pet Sounds really does use this "3rd gen New York Tape"? I assue this info comes from Mark Linett ?

Also, does anyone have the Wild Honey or Friends Pastmasters discs? If so how do they compare to the 2001 twofers?

dcooper · Postby **dcooper** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:35 pm

Not to thread crap or anything, but is there really a board devoted to the album Smile?!

Anyway, back on topic:

lukpac wrote:Interesting (that the "master" used today is actually third generation), but the idea that the tape copies are that bad is silly. I'm not saying that tape copies *can't* sound bad, but at the same time a 3rd generation copy might sound no different from the master.

Jeeze...just listen to some of those Capitol Beatles LPs/CDs. With the right EQ, they sound as good or better than their UK counterparts. So much for Nth generation tapes!

I think that Jared probably overstates the condition of the 3rd generation tapes, but I've always understood that each new generation of analog tape adds additional tape hiss. Wouldn't this result, eventually, in an audible distortion in the high-end?

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:47 pm

I wouldn't think two more generations on pro gear would cause catastrophic damage, though the difference could well be audible. The Pet Sounds tapes were probably overdubbed ad infinitum anyway, so the final master mixes likely started with all kinds of generational loss. What's another couple generations at that point?

This whole "New York Tape" business is interesting, though. It clearly isn't true that you aren't allowed to discuss it:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... hp?t=42063

(starting on page 2)

though apparently the official line is that SH used the original master.

Ryan

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:13 pm

dcooper wrote:I think that Jared probably overstates the condition of the 3rd generation tapes, but I've always understood that each new generation of analog tape adds additional tape hiss. Wouldn't this result, eventually, in an audible distortion in the high-end?

Yeah, you will add some tape hiss. A lot of factors will determine how much hiss, though. And if not done well, yeah, a dub can sound bad - or at least noticeably different from the original (Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed would be good examples, along with the first Buffalo Springfield album). On the other hand, when dubs are done well (read: Beatles) they can sound nearly identical to the original.

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:15 pm

The 1999 CD has NR?

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:19 pm

That thread gives me a headache.

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:24 pm

Yeah, it's stuff like that that makes me want to throw in the towel, sell my CD player, and go read a book or something.

Ryan

Ess Ay Cee Dee · Postby **Ess Ay Cee Dee** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:08 pm

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:08 pm

lukpac wrote:The 1999 CD has NR?

I don't think it does...?

Being as I own a surprising number of iterations of this thing, would anybody be interested in a MP3 comparison?

MK · Postby MK » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:28 pm

I don't think the 1999 remaster would have any additional NR. This is the Andrew Sandoval produced one, right? McMaster does use NR whenever he feels like there's a 'need,' but he also says he won't use it if he's ordered not to, and Andy hates NR. Unlike compression, I think Andy is given leeway and making that demand.

If you have the box set and the DCC gold CD or vinyl, you DON'T need anything else. Seriously, the 5.1 mix is all right, but if you're not crazy about 5.1, don't bother. You're DONE. That's it, save your money on other music or more sensible things.

BTW, yeah, I thought I was into "Smile" after doing my own reconstruction, but man, a whole MESSAGE BOARD? And it's not new, either! It's old, and they get threads everyday! Normal albums don't even have message boards like this. Hell, most bands don't.

MK · Postby MK » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:29 pm

BTW, which Pet Sounds do you need, David? The stereo version? I know someone with the box set, I have what I think is a CD-R of the 1999 version. If you give me some time, I can send you some samples, assuming I have what you want.

Andreas · Postby **Andreas** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:25 pm

The beginning of Wouldn't It Be Nice (mono) on the 1999 Pet Sounds CD sounds very odd, much different from the 1996 Mark Linett mastered version or the DCC version, worse, muddy and with less hiss. I'd say, NR was used on that intro, but it could be something else.

Andrew Sandoval himself has claimed that there is no NR on that CD; maybe we should trust him.