Beach Boys - Pet Sounds 192/24 download HD-Tracks

[berni]

This sounds nice. Far better than my 2001 CD version (mono+stereo). Got a good dynamic range and seems to be identical to the MFSL SACD mix.

 

DR Database

 

But the 192kHz version seems to be upsampled from 96kHz, so it would make more sense to go for that one.

 

In this case, this is especially annoying as HD-Tracks claim:

 

"About the Mastering

Stereo mix produced, engineered and mastered at 24bit/192kHz by The Beach Boys’ long time Grammy®-Award-Winning engineer Mark Linett under the supervision of Brian Wilson."

 

But, it sure sounds good. But I would now go for the 96kHz download.

 

 

 

[yrplace]

This sounds nice. Far better than my 2001 CD version (mono+stereo). Got a good dynamic range and seems to be identical to the MFSL SACD mix.

 

DR Database

 

But the 192kHz version seems to be upsampled from 96kHz, so it would make more sense to go for that one.

 

In this case, this is especially annoying as HD-Tracks claim:

 

"About the Mastering

Stereo mix produced, engineered and mastered at 24bit/192kHz by The Beach Boys’ long time Grammy®-Award-Winning engineer Mark Linett under the supervision of Brian Wilson."

 

But, it sure sounds good. But I would now go for the 96kHz download.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1361[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1362[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1363[/ATTACH]

 

Wanted to correct the above post. The HD tracks 192/ 24 bit version was not up sampled from 96 k. It is an analog xfr at 192/ 24.

 

Mark Linett

[Gluino]

But the 192kHz version seems to be upsampled from 96kHz, so it would make more sense to go for that one.

 

The files are 24bit, yet your vertical axis extends only down to about -90dB, obscuring what's beneath. If you had cut off the axis at -78dB you would have concluded that it's an upconversion from CD. Better use another audio editor.

[jhwalker]

The files are 24bit, yet your vertical axis extends only down to about -90dB, obscuring what's beneath. If you had cut off the axis at -78dB you would have concluded that it's an upconversion from CD. Better use another audio editor.

 

Or just use the right settings in Audacity (Preferences, Spectrograms, Range (dB) = 145; Preferences, Interface, Meter/Waveform dB range = -145)

[yrplace]

The files are 24bit, yet your vertical axis extends only down to about -90dB, obscuring what's beneath. If you had cut off the axis at -78dB you would have concluded that it's an upconversion from CD. Better use another audio editor.

 

This release was not, I repeat not upsampled from a CD. It was a 192k/ 24 bit conversion of my original analog mixes done on 1/4" 15 ips dolby SR.

 

 

Mark Linett

[Gluino]

This release was not, I repeat not upsampled from a CD.

 

I know, that was my point: wrong usage of audio tools will lead to wrong conclusions, in this case infering a limited frequency extension by not showing the entire spectrogramm.

[wgscott]

Hi Bruce

 

Looking at the FFT, it appears there is significant signal above noise to about 45kHz. Isn't that about the upper bound imposed by microphones and/or recording equipment?

 

i.e.,

 

[Felipe]

Wanted to correct the above post. The HD tracks 192/ 24 bit version was not up sampled from 96 k. It is an analog xfr at 192/ 24.

 

Mark Linett

 

OK Mark, but what was the resolution you worked on at 1996 before reconverting the thing to analog?

[David Sprinkle]

OK Mark, but what was the resolution you worked on at 1996 before reconverting the thing to analog?

 

In a recent interview re: the SMiLE Sessions Mr. Linett referred to the Pet Sounds Sessions as having been completed entirely in the analog domain.

 

http://www.iconfetch.com/great-music-interviews/2011-shows/418-mark-linett-beach-boys-smile-part-two-interview.html

[Felipe]

He was talking about the mastering, not the mixing. I've finally found an article about how was the entire process. The first thing Mark did was to transfer the two analog multi-tracks to a 16-bit 44.1/48khz machine, because they had to digitally synch the instrumental tape with the vocal tape. So my question now is answered. This was not a direct, but is conceptually an upmix. The difference of the 192 khz to the 96khz version is the first was probably able to get less errors while reaching a maximum real resolution of 16/44.

[powelb]

I don't suppose anybody has compared this HD Tracks download version with a rip of the DVD-A version? I've heard the DVD-A version sounds great, so would be good to know if getting the rip was worth the extra hassle over just buying this download.

 

I'd really like one good version of Pet Sounds, as for me the redbook version I have is very flat and disappointing.

 

Thanks.

[yrplace]

He was talking about the mastering, not the mixing. I've finally found an article about how was the entire process. The first thing Mark did was to transfer the two analog multi-tracks to a 16-bit 44.1/48khz machine, because they had to digitally synch the instrumental tape with the vocal tape. So my question now is answered. This was not a direct, but is conceptually an upmix. The difference of the 192 khz to the 96khz version is the first was probably able to get less errors while reaching a maximum real resolution of 16/44.

 

There are thousands of recordings made entirely on 16 bit digital from start to finish but if they were mixed to an analog format then the digital multi-track source is much less of an issue. In addition the 48 k multis were made from all the original analog tapes not the multi-generation dubs that were required in the making of the original album which then had to again be mixed to yet another generation of tape. As a result the final stereo mix is two to four generations closer to the original multi-tracks than the mono , and of course it was mixed analog and printed to 1/4" 15 ips dolby SR. Frankly all this talk about the limitations of the source tapes is just that , talk. Personally I think the MOFI mastering of the stereo mix is the best I have ever heard, but it is up to the listener to decide, and there is no simple answer based on what the source was for the mix since there are many other factors . And as the technology gets better I wouldn't be surprised to hear the mix sound even better

[drofgnal]

Thanks for the explanation. Very informative. I didn't opt for the download, instead purchasing the SACD release. If the download sounds close to that, it must be fantastic.

[Felipe]

There are thousands of recordings made entirely on 16 bit digital from start to finish but if they were mixed to an analog format then the digital multi-track source is much less of an issue. In addition the 48 k multis were made from all the original analog tapes not the multi-generation dubs that were required in the making of the original album which then had to again be mixed to yet another generation of tape. As a result the final stereo mix is two to four generations closer to the original multi-tracks than the mono , and of course it was mixed analog and printed to 1/4" 15 ips dolby SR. Frankly all this talk about the limitations of the source tapes is just that , talk. Personally I think the MOFI mastering of the stereo mix is the best I have ever heard, but it is up to the listener to decide, and there is no simple answer based on what the source was for the mix since there are many other factors . And as the technology gets better I wouldn't be surprised to hear the mix sound even better

 

Mark, no one is criticizing the sound quality nor comparing to the mono mix. The issue here is if the 192 khz and 96 khz are being delivered and deserve to be way more expensive than the 44 khz version

[KDinsmore]

I bought the 24/192 of this. I do have the MFSL SACD as well which I thought to be the best I'd heard...........until this. Unless I'm covered in snake oil I'm getting more out of the 24/192. Excellent!