Mark Linett on Pet Sounds

[Chris M]

http://www.comiclist.com/smileshop/view ... c&start=15

Linett's comments start on page 2. He states that the 1990 CD used the original master and that Capitol soon lost that tape and used the "NY tape" on subsequent masterings. He doesn't know what the "LA Tape" is. He again states that the DCC is not a flat transfer, it's the most heavily EQ'd version ever and that Brian doesn't like it!

I think the DCC is the best presentation of the mono mix but then I also enjoy the dreded stereo remix so what do I know?

[Dob]

In addition the desriptionabove makes no sense since an ATR-100 is a tapedeck and so is an A-80.

I don't follow what Mark is going on about here as I think SH's description clearly refers to a "frankenstein" tape machine made with both ATR-100 and A-80 parts.

2- Hoffman's tape would be a heavily eqd copy and while some listeners prefer the sound of it, Brian does not.

I wonder if Brian actually expressed that opinion ("I don't like the DCC") or if Mark is extrapolating a statement Brian made ("Great job, Mark! The best version by far!). If it's the latter, we should allow for the possibility that Brian's statement may have been partially flattery, especially if it was told directly to Mark.

If Brian really doesn't like the DCC, I'm wondering what he doesn't like. I like the stereo mix too, but if you prefer mono (as Brian supposedly does), the DCC resembles the tonality of the master tapes (as per the Pastmasters CDs) more than the Linett, IMO. But maybe Brian decided (listening 40 years later) that he doesn't like those either.

[krabapple]

And recall too, that Brian's brain is a scrambled egg at this point.

.I wonder about this:

The tape we used in 1987 for the 1st CD was Brian's original master and as is the custom was labelled the master for Pet Sounds. The NY copy was used in 1992 and 1996 (etc) when the original master vanished from Capitol. As to the intros, I don't recall on which songs or on which CDs we used new quieter copies of the intros taken from the multi-tracks, but in any case noise reduction was not used except on the 1990 CD.

So, isn't there at least a straight digital copy of the original master, dating from 1987? If not, why? If so, why isn't *that* used for subsequent releases?

[dudelsack]

Well, either he or SH are making some shit up. That's what it boils down to. I don't think there's any love lost between those two dudes.

The whole "Brian doesn't like it" thing seems pretty juvenile, though, not to mention irrelevant.

[Dob]

So, isn't there at least a straight digital copy of the original master, dating from 1987? If not, why? If so, why isn't *that* used for subsequent releases?

Mastering engineers seem to think using a pre-existing digital master is "cheating" or something. The excuse usually given is that they can't be sure that the digital transfer is up to their standards (unless they did it themselves). This was partially explored in one of the many Steely Dan threads on SHtv, where the Nichols digital masters (which were made for the sole purpose of preserving the sound on the deteriorating master tapes, according to RN) were bypassed by MFSL, among others, in favor of the actual master tapes. SH, for one, would refuse to use anything but the actual master out of principle.

Oddly enough, SH won't even use a digital master that he did himself. Someone asked him if he used any of his work from the individual DCC Steve Miller Band albums to do the Greatest Hits CD, and he replied that he would never do that. Since the customer (DCC) was paying him for a mastering job, he would give them one as if he was doing it for the first time; in other words, using the master tape and remastering every track again.

But I suppose there's no other way, if you refuse to use a DAW. You either use the untouched digital master, or you have to start over.

[Chris M]

And recall too, that Brian's brain is a scrambled egg at this point.

.I wonder about this:

The tape we used in 1987 for the 1st CD was Brian's original master and as is the custom was labelled the master for Pet Sounds. The NY copy was used in 1992 and 1996 (etc) when the original master vanished from Capitol. As to the intros, I don't recall on which songs or on which CDs we used new quieter copies of the intros taken from the multi-tracks, but in any case noise reduction was not used except on the 1990 CD.

So, isn't there at least a straight digital copy of the original master, dating from 1987? If not, why? If so, why isn't *that* used for subsequent releases?

That's exactly what I was thinking. Surely a straight digital copy of the master would be preferable to using a safty?

Might this "LA Tape" (w/ WIBN from the NY tape) that SH said he used for the DCC be the actual mono master?

[Xenu]

JWB has several things to say about the refusal to use a DAW...

[krabapple]

So, isn't there at least a straight digital copy of the original master, dating from 1987? If not, why? If so, why isn't *that* used for subsequent releases?

Mastering engineers seem to think using a pre-existing digital master is "cheating" or something.


The excuse usually given is that they can't be sure that the digital transfer is up to their standards (unless they did it themselves). This was partially explored in one of the many Steely Dan threads on SHtv, where the Nichols digital masters (which were made for the sole purpose of preserving the sound on the deteriorating master tapes, according to RN) were bypassed by MFSL, among others, in favor of the actual master tapes. SH, for one, would refuse to use anything but the actual master out of principle.

Yes, but as I'm sur eyou're aware , here in the case of Pet Sounds we don't have the actual master any more, just analog copies. I *really really doubt* a decent digital transfer of the original master would be *worse* than such an analog copy, and it could well be *better* (and one could of course set up a DBT of the analog vs digital copies, to check this).

Oddly enough, SH won't even use a digital master that he did himself. Someone asked him if he used any of his work from the individual DCC Steve Miller Band albums to do the Greatest Hits CD, and he replied that he would never do that. Since the customer (DCC) was paying him for a mastering job, he would give them one as if he was doing it for the first time; in other words, using the master tape and remastering every track again.[

But I suppose there's no other way, if you refuse to use a DAW. You either use the untouched digital master, or you have to start over.

The only way this makes sense is if he uses a different transfer setup --e.g., different playback deck, different A/D gear -- otherwise it's just superstition. Then again, SH is using Shakti Stones these days, so clearly his powers of reason are suspect.

[lukpac]

Yes, but as I'm sur eyou're aware , here in the case of Pet Sounds we don't have the actual master any more, just analog copies. I *really really doubt* a decent digital transfer of the original master would be *worse* than such an analog copy, and it could well be *better* (and one could of course set up a DBT of the analog vs digital copies, to check this).

Well...who knows? Maybe a transfer of the master doesn't exist without NR. Or maybe that transfer simply isn't as good as a good transfer of the copy. Who knows...

The only way this makes sense is if he uses a different transfer setup --e.g., different playback deck, different A/D gear -- otherwise it's just superstition. Then again, SH is using Shakti Stones these days, so clearly his powers of reason are suspect.

Well, it makes sense if he wanted to EQ all of the stuff on GH to fit together (ie, the mastering wouldn't be the same as on the previous issue). I don't recall the Miller disc specifically, but I know Steve said he did use different EQ on some comps - Tull's Original Masters comes to mind, IIRC.

[JWB]

Mark Linett is a douchebag.

[Dob]

I *really really doubt* a decent digital transfer of the original master would be *worse* than such an analog copy, and it could well be *better*

I can understand certain perfectionists being uncomfortable with accepting a digital transfer...for example, who knows for sure whether it's a transfer of the actual master or a copy? Or if it has been tweaked? Not to mention issues with using the proper tape machine, electronics, etc.

For engineers (SH, for example) primarily concerned with tonality, using a safety copy that has a tiny bit more hiss but has the correct tonality is preferable to using a higher resolution digital transfer that may not have the correct tonality. I have to admit that if I was given a blind choice, I'd probably choose to work with the safety copy. Ideally, I'd like to hear both before I made a choice...I certainly wouldn't dismiss the digital transfer out of hand without hearing it.

[Andreas]

There is also a thread on SH.tv where Squalldog has confronted Steve with Linett's statements. Steve reacted very statesman-like.

Why would Steve lie about the flat transfer? What has he to win? He could have said that the master tape needs a little mastering work for the bass and that is why the DCC does not sound like the master tape. But he didn't.

Mark Linett has made mistakes on message boards before. Once on Brian Wilson's board, he claimed that the GV box set used all the single mixes. However, Friends, Do It Again, California Saga, Rock And Roll Music and It's OK are obviously the album mixes. (I am sure I have missed some others.)

Also, his claim that the GV box set uses no noise reduction, is suspicious. Notice the absence of hiss on the intro of California Girls and compare it to Made In USA or DCC Endless Summer or the 2001 Today/Summer Days twofer, where the hiss is rather massive. Can eq really reduce hiss that much?

Finally, he said that he stopped using noise reduction after 1990. However, Andrew Sandoval has written that Linett requested noise reduction on the Surf's Up remaster (2000). (I wonder why Andrew fulfilled this request, though.)

[Andreas]

I think the DCC is the best presentation of the mono mix but then I also enjoy the dreded stereo remix so what do I know?

In my opinion, the stereo remix is not bad at all! These mixes are Linett's best work. They are unfaithful, but that is okay since they are not intended to replace the mono mixes. Even better are the instrumental and vocals-only stereo mixes on the box set.

I really dislike his more recent stereo remixes (the second California Girls, Dance Dance Dance, Heroes And Villains, Let The Wind Blow).

[Sound]

The DCC lps say "analogue" on the front cover.
That might preclude them from using a digital master even if there was a better copy available.
If the original isn't available, I'll always go with the best sounding version we can get our hands on.
Some of the high rez digital masters I've heard sound fantastic.

[lukpac]

Mark Linett has made mistakes on message boards before.

I'm sure Steve has made far more...

Also, his claim that the GV box set uses no noise reduction, is suspicious. Notice the absence of hiss on the intro of California Girls and compare it to Made In USA or DCC Endless Summer or the 2001 Today/Summer Days twofer, where the hiss is rather massive. Can eq really reduce hiss that much?

Isn't the story that certain intros were spliced on from new mixes from the multis?

I haven't heard the box in many years, though, so I can't comment directly.