Pet Sounds Multitrack Project

i wish we could get a multi track for dark side of the moon

>>72428256
I have the remastered quadraphonic version which is basically that. You can hear the oos and everything.

File: 9pu34hfwh.png (64KB, 1177x397px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1177x397px

Upload speed is shit as usual. I'll just link disc 1 then.
https://mega.nz/#F!k0hgTJpS!P_37kFXeDTg-zTnSgw3YCA

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?

Here are the vocals.
https://mega.nz/#F!JxxTgaID!7lYWD3mKXInBlTabmmnr3w

>>72428228
>I can do better than trained professionals
Sure

File: Waiting for the day.png (22KB, 478x325px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 478x325px

>>72428722
It's not even their fault, it's Capitol handing out dogshit masters.

Give it a listen, most are just taken from the right ear anyway and I hardly touched them.
https://mega.nz/#F!JxxTgaID!7lYWD3mKXInBlTabmmnr3w

File: sloop john b.png (32KB, 405x324px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 405x324px

>>72428722

>>72428766
>>72428794
>It's not even their fault, it's Capitol handing out dogshit masters.
What's wrong with them?

>>72428228
>>72428653
Pet Sounds Sessions already has the multitracks

>>72428804
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.

>>72428851
>They're compressed as fuck
Are they? They all have pretty good DR numbers
http://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?

>>72428831
Hardly multitracks, just reverbed vocals and instrumental. Even the Don't Talk snippet sounds fake and autotuned compared to the bootleg.

>>72428889
The bootleg sounds dull and unmixed compared to the actual album.

>>72428766
>>72428889
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.

>>72428887
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.
>>72428909
I didn't say the bootleg was better, I'm saying on a more bare approach they let you hear more in the vocals.

>>72428920
I did, I think he just said that because George complimented him.

>>72429027
>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.
>>72429027
>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?

File: Thats-Gold-Jerry-Gold-Kenny-Bania-Seinfeld-Quote.gif (2MB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x286px

>>72428228

>>72429086
>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.

>>72429214
>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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound

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?

interesting thread

>>72429300

gee you are so hostile

Oh shit it's back!
The first one I was talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-bcn6Rwn44

Studio version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDv5ab16GvU

>>72429300
>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.
>https://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?
>>72429375
Check the link. I only did one track for him so far.
https://mega.nz/#F!JxxTgaID!7lYWD3mKXInBlTabmmnr3w

File: sloop.png (21KB, 477x319px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 477x319px

>>72429407
Forgot the pic
>>72429375
Oh yeah, the speed and EQ aren't fixed yet so it ain't perfect but it's there.

>>72429430
The wavs look fine anon, calm down

>>72429661
Doesn't look fine to me. Especially for what they call an audiophile purchase.

>>72429716
Oh how how long have you been a mastering engineer?

File: crap.png (111KB, 940x605px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 940x605px

>>72429745
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.

>>72429827
>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

>>72430075
>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.

>>72430222
>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?

File: pet-sounds-mfsl.jpg (411KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 750x750px

>>72428766
The MFSL stereo version doesn't have the shitty compression that the pleb version does

>>72429407
That version sounds worse than the original stereo mix from 1963 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DzAiYuqezc

I get what you are trying to do, but the MFSL stereo mix already did it for you

>>72430281
>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.
>>72430332
Haven't tried that one yet, thanks for letting me know.
>>72430436
I'm picky lol. Too much panning to the right for the instrumental.

>>72430473
>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 >>72428887 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

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.

>>72430617
>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

>>72430816
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.

>>72430863
>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?
>>72430816
OP's an idiot. It's fun to show him how much of an idiot he is
>>72430895
>it sure is fun to get all huffy and puffy to a total stranger!
Nah.

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.
https://mega.nz/#!IgpE3AIa!M1d6seLSfTWqXyNCK6WGp91Ad74jwhiAq0jw_geIxak

>>72428269
Care to share?

File: vomit-40.jpg (19KB, 300x257px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x257px

>>72431063
>spectral selection

>>72431081
Big file, I'd have to upload it.
>>72431098
If it isn't abused then along with the negated instrumental it can sound pretty decent. These are only cymbals being removed really.

>>72431211
bretty pls anon :^)

>>72431237
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.

>>72431211
>Spectral filtering is OK
>but compression is BAD!!!
kys

>>72431273
Thx m8 you made my day better :^)

>>72431380
Np sonny.
>>72431378
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.

>>72431464
I'm going to report any link you post in this thread as containing copyrighted material.

How about that?

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.

>>72431514
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.
>>72431555
>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.

>>72431653
>If you want
Sounds good! Post away OP!

>>72431653
ok well carry on autismbro :^)

bump for interest

>>72431815
Give the vocals a listen (if they stay up lol). Lemme know if you wanna help.

File: B135RyyCQAE0q4O.jpg (12KB, 261x320px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 261x320px

>>72431514
Pic related its you

Shit is painful but it's coming along.

>>72430972
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv2_JLAOUPU
https://www.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).

>>72432381
>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.

>>72431380
Here you go
https://mega.nz/#!Ag4SQBBA!Xo-7OBh9NVO1aeHyGtiNWWz21YMqPB1li_Uai0dFLhQ

>>72432515
>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.

>>72432826
>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

>>72433063
>Are you? It could explain things
And you called me a prick. That's low.

>>72433130
You didn't answer the question. Are you?