Hello anons, I recently got a hold of some of the Unsurpassed Masters and bootlegs and was hoping to start a pet project creating multitracks. Why? So we can hear all the parts individually and won't have to wait for a shitty compressed re-release from Capitol every decade for a new mix.
Thing is I'm pretty shit at it so I thought I could ask you guys for some help. I've taken out the first overdubs for Wouldn't It Be Nice (Plus the second ones), You Still Believe In Me, That's Not Me, Don't Talk, I'm Waiting For The Day, God Only Knows, I Know There's An Answer, and a time/EQ-corrected I Just Wasn't Made For These Times.
If anyone's interested, I'll link a MEGA download and we can start with the first disc.
Come ooon. I thought this shit would blow up. Where be you people? Am I the only one interested? No? Maybe my dad? Is everyone shitposting in the Fantano threads?
>It's not even their fault, it's Capitol handing out dogshit masters. What's wrong with them?
Joseph Howard
Pet Sounds Sessions already has the multitracks
David Jones
They're compressed as fuck, they've lost a third of their dynamic range, they have gallons of stereo reverb added over them, etc. The DTS 5.1 release is alright but the vocals are too thin.
Kevin Carter
>They're compressed as fuck Are they? They all have pretty good DR numbers dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?album=pet sounds >they have gallons of stereo reverb added over them My original mono copy has digital reverb? Don't think so.
Also which master did you post above?
Julian Sanchez
Hardly multitracks, just reverbed vocals and instrumental. Even the Don't Talk snippet sounds fake and autotuned compared to the bootleg.
Juan Smith
The bootleg sounds dull and unmixed compared to the actual album.
Jeremiah Reed
watch the youtube video where brian and george martin discuss pet sounds. at the very end, brian lets george have mixing controls over the masters, and he mixes up the vocals differently and Brian is estatic at how amazing it sounds.
Julian Turner
Sure maybe the 90s stereo release is alright with compression but the point of this thread is to get multitracks. Plus if you compare the mono to stereo the stereo is too muddy. Loses the poppy freshness it had before.
Btw, look at the recent 2016 192 release to get what I mean with compression. It's a bit infuriating that they offer higher quality but only half the wave.
The first link is a disc from Unsurpassed Masters Vol 13. The second is the extracted vocals. I didn't say the bootleg was better, I'm saying on a more bare approach they let you hear more in the vocals.
I did, I think he just said that because George complimented him.
Angel Turner
>Plus if you compare the mono to stereo the stereo is too muddy How so? It's great. >Btw, look at the recent 2016 192 release DR9 -1.43 dB -12.82 dB 1-01 Wouldn't It Be Nice.aif DR10 -1.96 dB -14.28 dB 1-02 You Still Believe In Me.aif DR10 -0.73 dB -12.53 dB 1-03 That's Not Me.aif DR8 -2.29 dB -13.26 dB 1-04 Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder).aif DR11 -0.66 dB -13.59 dB 1-05 I'm Waiting For The Day.aif DR9 -1.60 dB -13.35 dB 1-06 Let's Go Away For Awhile.aif DR10 -0.85 dB -13.18 dB 1-07 Sloop John B.aif DR8 -1.03 dB -10.71 dB 1-08 God Only Knows.aif DR9 -0.58 dB -11.03 dB 1-09 I Know There's An Answer.aif DR9 -2.36 dB -13.66 dB 1-10 Here Today.aif DR9 -0.89 dB -12.00 dB 1-11 I Just Wasn't Made For These Times.aif DR9 -0.40 dB -11.43 dB 1-12 Pet Sounds.aif DR10 -1.58 dB -14.47 dB 1-13 Caroline No.aif
No clipping, it's fine. >I didn't say the bootleg was better No, you are implying YOU could do better using bootlegs, rather than Mark Linett with the ProTools sessions. > I'm saying on a more bare approach For Pet Sounds? Are you tarded or just high?
Chase Allen
...
Nathan Morgan
>DR10 -0.85 dB -13.18 dB 1-07 Sloop John B.aif I don't see how that's completely true. I took the liberty of even comparing the Blu-Ray version with the CD and they have identical clipping if you add back the amplitude. I wouldn't call that better quality. >No, you are implying YOU could do better using bootlegs, rather than Mark Linett with the ProTools sessions. No I'm implying FANS could do better or would have more freedom if they were given the multitracks (which they'll never get from Capitol). I remember on YouTube someone put out a gorgeous stereo version of Be My Baby but it got taken down and the record company put out this awful thin version instead. Maybe they did a better job but I thin people should have the option to choose what sounds best if they want. >For Pet Sounds? Are you tarded or just high? I don't know what you mean.
Ryder King
>I don't see how that's completely true. I took the liberty of even comparing the Blu-Ray version with the CD and they have identical clipping if you add back the amplitude Because you are using Audacity to check clipping you dummy >I don't know what you mean. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound
Jayden Russell
I have to say, in that video of George and Brian, the clip of just one track of Carl's vocals were out of this world. Is there anywhere I could hear that?
>Because you are using Audacity to check clipping you dummy I know audacity has a peak volume but even so they look like this when imported. >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound What does the original technique have to do with wanting to hear the bare portions of the sound in a multitrack? Check the link. I only did one track for him so far. mega.nz/#F!JxxTgaID!7lYWD3mKXInBlTabmmnr3w
Nolan Perez
Forgot the pic Oh yeah, the speed and EQ aren't fixed yet so it ain't perfect but it's there.
Sebastian Cook
The wavs look fine user, calm down
Landon Morgan
Doesn't look fine to me. Especially for what they call an audiophile purchase.
Aiden Howard
Oh how how long have you been a mastering engineer?
Wyatt Lopez
Lol you don't need to be a genius to realize when you're getting ripped off. Just like you don't need to be Bach to compose a song.
>pic related Shit even the 90s release is pretty compressed.
Aiden Perez
>Lol you don't need to be a genius to realize when you're getting ripped off How am I getting ripped off If I like how it sounds? >Just like you don't need to be Bach to compose a song. To do it well, you do. But have fun making fan mixes with bootlegs! I'm sure it'll sound great!
>Shit even the 90s release is pretty compressed. >waaaaahh I'm so scared of compression! Gay
David Ramirez
>How am I getting ripped off If I like how it sounds? Because they'll do it over and over and over and over again. First they give out a compressed stereo version with a low sample rate. Then they offer a 5.1 mix with a low sample rate. Then they say "I know you all are complaining about the loudness war so here's an "audiophile version" with a high sample rate. (Turns out it's compressed). Oh gee, we're sorry. You'll have to wait until the next release where we make a 7.1 mix that's compressed. Oh you wanted a high sample rate? Better wait for the next one. ;)
I have no problem handing them my money, even if they're the crooked bastards that gave Brian a piss-poor time to begin with. But I'm just sick of them holding back "just enough" every release. You might call that fair, I call it rotten business and milking the gullible fanbase. I'd gladly buy new vinyl pressings if I wear them out but to the digital market, they're despicable.
Thomas Nguyen
>Because they'll do it over and over and over and over again So you are saying I'll get what I want over and over again? Nice! >First they give out a compressed Compression is fine. You clearly have never worked in an actual studio before, have you? >even if they're the crooked bastards that gave Brian a piss-poor time to begin with Who are you even talking about? Do you think ((((CAPITOL RECORDS))))) is like one singular bogyman entity out to personally get him? Also do you think he doesn't approve these masters?
Connor Kelly
The MFSL stereo version doesn't have the shitty compression that the pleb version does
I get what you are trying to do, but the MFSL stereo mix already did it for you
Cameron Edwards
>So you are saying I'll get what I want over and over again? Nice! If what you want is a 1% improvement every release then go for it. >Compression is fine. You clearly have never worked in an actual studio before, have you? You do realize that the more compressed you make it now, the shittier it will sound in the long run right? I'm not talking about bare microphone compression I'm talking about letting all the dynamics sit flat and turn the music from what could be a symphonic rapture into a tubular mess. I don't know about you but I'd prefer a one-time digital purchase. >Do you think ((((CAPITOL RECORDS))))) is like one singular bogyman entity out to personally get him? Don't pretend that Mike Love and marijuana were the only problems in his life. Hell, Capitol let his dad run away with the rights to their music. Then they have the audacity to pull this frightened bumbling old man out of retirement to sit through as they bastardize his masterpiece SMiLE just so they can have his name on top of the box. Then they do it again releasing the actual sessions and putting him before another few hundred grabby fans. If he had any sanity left, he'd have avoided the company altogether. Haven't tried that one yet, thanks for letting me know. I'm picky lol. Too much panning to the right for the instrumental.
Kevin Diaz
>If what you want is I don't want anything. The versions we have are fine. Why are you complaining about something that doesn't effect you? If you don't like it, don't buy it. >the shittier Why? And remember "because I don't like it!" isn't a valid answer >I'm talking about letting all the dynamics sit flat Ah but they are not. See The best DR scores are a 13, which is my go-to copy of Pet Sounds: the stereo 2012 remaster. It's more dynamic that the 1972 remaster. >what could be a symphonic rapture into a tubular mess Except that's exactly what it's supposed to sound like you fucktard. You didn't read the Wall of Sound link? It's supposed to sound like a massive choral symphonic mindfuck >I don't know about you but I'd prefer a one-time digital purchase. I never purchased it, ever. What are you even on about? >Capitol Friendly reminder they paid for this album to be made. Without Capitol (and Mike Love) Pet Sounds wouldn't exist for you to be autistic over >sit through as they bastardize his masterpiece SMiLE just so they can have his name on top of the box. What are you on about? I want to know because I want to show you how you are wrong. >Haven't tried that one yet, thanks for letting me know. >even though I've been bitching about literal every remaster that exists
Liam Wood
OP please ignore autistic haters like the one you're arguing with. You've made a real thread and real content. Ignore these fucking losers who would rather post a picture of a frog and call it a day.
Evan Hughes
>I don't want anything. The versions we have are fine. Why are you complaining about something that doesn't effect you? If you don't like it, don't buy it. I care about the music, I care about the fans, and I care about Brian. If you get triggered by the idea that they objectively release a less that great pressing on purpose, lie about it, and bully the artist to the grave then you don't need to shit on this thread or have an argument with someone over the internet. >Why? And remember "because I don't like it!" isn't a valid answer What sounds better? An MP3 or lossless? What sounds better? Mush or dynamism? In 200 years when someone wants to hear The Beach Boys digitally will they look for perfect high quality masters or will they settle for the marketing gimmick their great great whatevers fell for? >Ah but they are not. See - The best DR scores are a 13, which is my go-to copy of Pet Sounds: the stereo 2012 remaster. It's more dynamic that the 1972 remaster. Put the stereo remasters back to back with a bootlegged mono release and give it a listen. All it takes is turning the volume low or looking at a picture of the waves and you can tell there's a significant difference. >Except that's exactly what it's supposed to sound like you fucktard. You didn't read the Wall of Sound link? It's supposed to sound like a massive choral symphonic mindfuck Wow big words. For stereo there is no objective true way for the Wall of Sound to sound like. It's designed for mono. That said I'm not gonna let Capitol decide that for me because so and so thought it was right, there's no science to it. It's art. >I never purchased it, ever. What are you even on about? Why are you here? >Friendly reminder they paid for this album to be made. Without Capitol (and Mike Love) Pet Sounds wouldn't exist for you to be autistic over So I'm supposed to lick the cum off whatever surface they masturbated onto? They didn't even record it, TBB just handed them the finished tapes
Jose Green
Frankly I'm having too much fun with him lol. If you want to help with the multitracking or make comments on what you hear let me know in the thread.
Nathan Evans
>If you get triggered Based on your posts, you seem to be the triggered one >objectively release a less that great How so? How are you objectively measuring it? > lie about it, and bully the artist to the grave [citation needed] >An MP3 or lossless? How is this relevant? >Mush or dynamism? Which did the artist intend? >In 200 years when someone wants to hear The Beach Boys digitally will they look for perfect high quality masters or will they settle for the marketing gimmick their great great whatevers fell for? They will have all the masters available to choose which they like. >Put the stereo remasters back to back with a bootlegged mono release and give it a listen Yep, the mono sounds like muddy garbage. Thanks for proving my point! >For stereo there is no objective true way for the Wall of Sound to sound like Sounds like you've never heard All Things Must pass > there's no science to it. It's art. But you just tossed around big words like "objectively release a less that great pressing". No you are saying there's no objectivity to it and it's just art. Which is it? >Why are you here? I'm a ProTools certified mastering engineer. I was going to help mix this for you but you are acting like a prick. >They didn't even record it Not relevant. You don't seem to understand how it works, do you? OP's an idiot. It's fun to show him how much of an idiot he is >it sure is fun to get all huffy and puffy to a total stranger! Nah.
James Murphy
Well if anyone wants to help, I've been doing it by taking the stereo tracks and negating the instrumentals by inverting them on top. It doesn't sound amazing come the the second track but with spectral selection it's possible to clean it further. For this one (harmonies) I only did the first bit. mega.nz/#!IgpE3AIa!M1d6seLSfTWqXyNCK6WGp91Ad74jwhiAq0jw_geIxak
Angel Anderson
Care to share?
Xavier Butler
>spectral selection
Chase Cox
Big file, I'd have to upload it. If it isn't abused then along with the negated instrumental it can sound pretty decent. These are only cymbals being removed really.
Carson Howard
bretty pls user :^)
Jonathan Adams
1.67gb, 96khz From the 2011 Immersion Edition. If it goes up within the hour lol. I'll try but it would be faster to pirate it.
Nicholas Ramirez
>Spectral filtering is OK >but compression is BAD!!! kys
Daniel Young
Thx m8 you made my day better :^)
Jonathan Ward
Np sonny. Here we go again. In a (good) final mix you wouldn't hear it, it would dissolve into the track. With compression the whole thing turns to shit. Either way it's nice to hear each bit by bit.
Gavin Flores
I'm going to report any link you post in this thread as containing copyrighted material.
How about that?
Aaron Perez
Isn't this already what the Pet Sounds sessions box is? Wouldn't using the 5.1 mix be a better source? Hasn't the MFSL version already provided a perfectly dynamic stereo master? So much confusion here.
Christian Carter
If you want, but that would be kind of a dick move. I don't exactly profit off of this so it might be fair use. >Isn't this already what the Pet Sounds sessions box is? The Sessions Box isn't very raw. They added a whole bunch of reverb over the vocals and released them all together as one track etc. This is for anyone interested in the nitty gritty sounds or wants as much as possible to create a personal mix or enjoy single tracks. >Wouldn't using the 5.1 mix be a better source? The center channel especially has some interesting unedited bits that I'll try extracting. FFmpeg keeps breaking on me though. >Hasn't the MFSL version already provided a perfectly dynamic stereo master? Maybe but it's nice to get to choose others or make your own.
Dominic Green
>If you want Sounds good! Post away OP!
Leo Ward
ok well carry on autismbro :^)
Mason Morales
bump for interest
Jayden Cox
Give the vocals a listen (if they stay up lol). Lemme know if you wanna help.
Colton Rivera
Pic related its you
Christopher Cox
Shit is painful but it's coming along.
I'll bite, I'm lonely. >How so? How are you objectively measuring it? By how the tracks are visibly cut off across the choruses at the same height. You can hear it too. That's not what I'd define as good quality. >[citation needed] I just don't think Brian has been or would be enjoying everything they're putting him through. youtube.com/watch?v=Sv2_JLAOUPU youtube.com/watch?v=asmWlyiccMI >How is this relevant? Similar concept of sacrificing sound. >Which did the artist intend? He intended something that pops out of the radio like a pocket symphony it was about hearing everything in one channel. If you really want to go on point by artistic intentions you'd settle for mono. >Sounds like you've never heard All Things Must pass Sound's like you've never heard Let It Be. Spectre's stereo work doesn't match up with his mono. >But you just tossed around big words like "objectively release a less that great pressing". No you are saying there's no objectivity to it and it's just art. Which is it? Objectively towards audio wave quality. Subjective towards what is decided to be heard and how. >I'm a ProTools certified mastering engineer. I was going to help mix this for you but you are acting like a prick. I dindu nuffin. Help if you want. I didn't just start this thread for me. >Not relevant. You don't seem to understand how it works, do you? I said that because no matter how sophisticated Capitol may be, how many historians and experts they hired they aren't the ones who crafted the music so they shouldn't be the ones to control how it sounds for everyone else (even if they own it).
Jeremiah Richardson
>By how the tracks are visibly cut off across the choruses at the same height. How is that "objectivity shit"? You are assigning a subjective judgement to the idea of compression, so it's not objective. Try again. >I just don't think Brian has been or would be enjoying everything He looks happy. Do you have any real information or not? >He intended something that pops out of the radio like a pocket symphony it was about hearing everything in one channel Heavy compression and less dynamics do this >Sound's like you've never heard Let It Be He didn't produce it, he remixed it. Nice misdirection though. Address the issue at hand. >quality Subjective, not objective. Try again. >how many historians and experts they hired they aren't the ones who crafted the music Do you think the Magic Capitol Boogeyman is perosnally remixing the albums to sell to you? I'm serious, I want to know.
>How is that "objectivity shit"? You are assigning a subjective judgement to the idea of compression, so it's not objective. Try again. How is removing dynamism and clipping the audio across the board not shit? Unless that's what everyone likes and I'm deaf. >He looks happy. Do you have any real information or not? In the first video he runs away at the end. In the second video he tries to cut away as fast as possible. I have schizophrenics in my family so I can kinda understand his mentality (no not that I'm an expert). Even from an unbiased viewpoint what they did was wrong. It's unhealthy to change their schedule so abruptly and in front of so many or reexpose them to something that fucked them up in the past. >Heavy compression and less dynamics do this There is no "pop" without dynamics though. Otherwise it sounds and feels shallow. >He didn't produce it, he remixed it. Nice misdirection though. Address the issue at hand. He mixed it on the same principles and imo sounded shit. >Subjective, not objective. Try again. Wtf, it's damaging a wave. Low-fi for example isn't top-tier quality. It's objective in comparison to something uncompressed. I don't wanna argue over semantics lol. >Do you think the Magic Capitol Boogeyman is perosnally remixing the albums to sell to you? I'm serious, I want to know. They determine what gets put out. If an audio engineer makes a beautiful mix they can clip off a third of the sound.
Josiah Robinson
>How is removing dynamism Wrong, it's still there. It's a DR13. >clipping the audio Also wrong, no track ever clips, and I posted the rip log to prove it. >I'm deaf. You said it not me >I have schizophrenics in my family Are you? It could explain things >Even from an unbiased viewpoint what they did was wrong. It's unhealthy to change their schedule so abruptly and in front of so many or reexpose them to something that fucked them up in the past No. You don't know him, you don't know what happened to him, you don't know what's happening now. >He mixed it on the same principles Like "Two of Us"? explain the Wall of Sound on that song. >Wtf, it's damaging a wave Your opinion that it's "damaged" is subjective. Not objective. > I don't wanna argue over semantics lol. Then use the correct language in the first place you dipshit >they determine what gets put out. If an audio engineer makes a beautiful mix they can clip off a third of the sound. Who specifically? Name names
Jeremiah Rivera
>Are you? It could explain things And you called me a prick. That's low.
