THE BEACH BOYS 1964 KEEP AN EYE ON SUMMER (follow up to The Big Beat 1963)

[Tricycle Rider]

Hey Craig, 3000 posts? You HAVE to get out more!    

Nice work on the new release!

Royce

[Matt Bielewicz]

As I've already said, I'm no purist, and I cannot claim to have any kind of 'golden ear'. And I *do* think KAEOS64 sounds great - I downloaded it the first day it was out. If you read some of my comments upthread, you'll know this already, although I'm guessing from what you've said towards the end of your comments that you didn't.

But no amount of persuasion will convince me that the effects of audio compression are not audible. As humans, we have a tendency to get hung up on theory, and I know this. You can say that some people get hung up on the fact that they know some audio has been removed from these files, and convince themselves that they can hear the effects. But you can also get hung up on theory on the other side of the argument. Equally, you can convince yourself that the technical spec of a particular codec renders it 'virtually impossible' that humans can hear the effects of lossy compression. People still can. I know I can (and I'm pretty sure I've got a fairly tin ear...), because I've conducted my own tests. It's very hard to describe the effect in words, but I have found the effects of excessive lossy compression to manifest themselves in a hazy, metallic quality to notes with lots of harmonics in recordings where there's a wide dynamic response. It always reminds me of the audio version of the 'digital hash' you see around well-defined colour boundaries in a highly compressed JPEG, although I admit that's my subjective impression, as I know the reasons for both types of artefact, the visual and the audible, are similar in both cases. If you've ever applied too much noise reduction to a recording, you will know something of what I'm describing. Your ability to localise sound sources in a stereo recording can also be affected, such that instruments that were once clearly located in one part of the stereo spectrum can seem more ambiguously positioned, or seem to waver in position. With extreme compression, the entire mix degenerates into a sort of hazy mush in which it's hard to tell where the different instruments are positioned. Notes that peal out clearly in an uncompressed version of the recording can acquire a bleary, mushy hash of noise around them while they are sounding; it can sound as if the formerly clear notes are 'wheezing'. (Again, words are really poor at describing this, but once you've heard the sound, you can't miss it). As with noise reduction, the tails of long-held notes can also be affected, choppily 'gating out and in again' as the tail fades to silence, rather than smoothly fading out. You often hear this kind of thing during quieter passages of on-hold music on the phone, which is compressed to death.

Solo piano is a great test, because piano notes and chords have a lot of harmonic content, and the dynamic range of a recording in which someone suddenly hits a piano chord loudly in a sparse arrangement is quite wide. It's harder to discern the effects in louder rock tracks, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

I have a practical outlook to this stuff. I did my listening tests when I bought my first iPod, because I wanted to know what bit-rate I should MP3 my CD collection at. I knew this meant a quality hit, but I figured that it was worth it given that a) having your music collection on an iPod makes it way more portable and useful than carting six tons of CDs around with you all the time and b) I would likely be listening to the iPod in what you might kindly call 'non-critical environments': in the car, on trains, when mowing the lawn etc, which aren't exactly the best environment for analysing how smoothly the sustaining tails of guitar or piano notes are decaying (not that I do that kind of thing a lot anyway...!). But I didn't want to be able to audibly hear the effects on tracks at full tilt. I concluded in A/B tests that I absolutely could hear compression on pretty much anything I tried at 128kbps or below, that I could hear it sometimes at 160, and that at 192, it was inaudible on most stuff, but not on quiet solo instruments. I picked 192 as a good compromise that worked for me.

And that's the other thing - you can only ever be person-specific about this stuff (ie. '192kbps works for me'). Hearing and audible perception is subjective, and because lossy coding works on psychoacoustic principles which hold more true for some people than for others, its effects will therefore be more audible to some than others. The best thing designers of lossy codecs can hope for is that the majority of people can't hear the effects.

I agree that double-blind tests are a good way to investigate, as it's the only way to eliminate confirmation bias, and I'm familiar with the fact that such studies have been conducted. But the devil with these things is in the detail. Who was tested? Kids whose main audio references are their iPhone earbuds? And was the study size statistically significant? Don't forget, human beings have been fooling themselves about audio quality for a very long time. The luminaries invited to playbacks of the earliest wax cylinder recordings of orchestral performances pronounced them 'indistinguishable' from the sound of real orchestras playing the same material. When we listen to those cylinder recordings now, we know that's not the case, to put it mildly...!

My wish is that I didn't have to get into any of this with this latest release. On one level, I don't - on a visceral level, I have enjoyed, and am enjoying it. But it bugs me intellectually that I can't hear quite what Mark and Alan heard through the studio monitors if I choose. These files are always going to be a generation down from that, and from what I *can* have over my stereo, say, with the Made In California set.

Still, as I said much earlier in this thread, given the choice between being able to hear this stuff as lossy files and not being able to hear it at all, I will keep handing iTunes my money every December if we continue to be given the option (there's my pragmatism, again). I just wish there was an (even better) way. Given that the music and mixes must exist as uncompressed production masters, I can't see why we can't have that option as a download as well. If there's a market for Beach Boys vinyl and SACDs that makes the production of such physical media worthwhile, producing another run of downloads at full resolution is surely a super low-cost option in comparison...?

[drbeachboy]

Matt, you do realize that compressed lossy files such as mp3 and m4a decompress when played? Also when compression takes place, data is thrown away. Data that has frequencies above our hearing threshold. This is not like the compression that record companies use(d) to squeeze sound frequencies to make the music sound squished and louder.

[The Shift]

Back to KAEOS… blown away by the stereo mixes. A lot of worthy bass pounding out of the car speakers - makes me realise what folk mean when they said the MiC mixes were too bright.

There must be an intention to release this stuff in a better (lossless) format - it deserves to be in everyone's collection in the best audio quality possible.

Sincere congrats and thanks to Mark and Alan. If the inflated UK pricing is to boost your pensions, then I ain't complaining (but don't retire yet!).


Edit: posting was delays by connection break. Lossy broadband…

[Matt Bielewicz]

I'm aware of the (great) distinction between dynamic compression and data compression, yes!

You cannot 'decompress' an audio file that's been lossily compressed. That's why it's called lossy compression. As you say, data is thrown away during the compression process, and you can't get it back. That's why an MP3 or an AAC is so much smaller than the original file, but it's also why MP3s can sound so different to uncompressed audio in the first place.

There are loss-*less* compression algorithms, which fully reconstitute the original file when you decompress them. However, they don't reduce file sizes by as much, and MP3 and AAC are definitely not in this category. What they throw away at the encoding stage is gone for good.

Not all of the frequencies that are lost during lossy encoding are simply outside the audible range of human hearing, either. Some are very much in it, but are deemed by the compression algorithm to be inaudible to human hearing for one reason or another. Of course, you can immediately see that the effectiveness of that approach is going to depend on how good an understanding the algorithm has of how the 'average' human hearing system works... and if your hearing doesn't correspond closely to that, you may hear the effects of the compression more than someone else does.

Anyhow, as John rightly says, we're getting off-topic. It's time to talk about how great this set is again. The first revelation for me so far was the backing track for Why Do Fools Fall In Love, which I've already mentioned. But the killer track for me today is the accapella to Don't Hurt My Little Sister. I've always been fairly underwhelmed by it, ever since David Leaf pretty much glided past it on auto-pilot in his notes to the 1990 Today twofer. More fool me for slavishly following what he said, and another reason to ignore what David Leaf says... The harmonies to this thing just get more and more out of this world as the track goes on! Too bad they were buried on the original mono mix... and too bad that the lyrics are so shonky. The amazing vocal arrangement is, IMO, kind of wasted on lines like 'she digs you and thinks you're a real groovy guy'...

And let me add my vote of thanks to Mark and Alan for their hard work on this awesome set, and to c-man for the session notes!

[drbeachboy]

Yes, you can decompress a lossy file. Of course you will lose what was thrown away, but those files decompress to bigger files when made to wav's or PCM files. Most lossy encoders do a great job these days, as opposed to what was around in 2005 or prior. I have ABX'd many of my CD's to my home ripped mp3's and rarely can I tell the difference.

As for the set itself, the sound is terrific. I agree with your assessment of Don't Hurt My Little Sister. This is one of those sing the phone book songs. While the lyric is slight, the vocals more than make up for it. There are many songs on this set where the melody is carried so beautifully by the vocals that the music is almost secondary.

[37!ws]

I keep saying this, but I think during my lunch break today I'm going to make MP3s at various compression rates -- 192, 256, and 320 -- and then OOPS them with the non-compressed versions and just see what is actually being lost...

[puni puni]

No, not necessarily. The 1964 collection has some stuff that's never been booted.

Bellagio has at least 4 or 5 tracks that could have been included but weren't. If you're referring to session chatter or a particular early take, that's not what I meant. Pretty much everything on this comp has been heard before. I don't believe 'California Girls 1965' will be any different. Maybe there's just not that much material worth releasing. Or maybe they're saving the leftovers for next year!

I'm predicting that 'Surf's Up 1966' will be composed mostly of vocal session chatter that didn't make it on the Pet Sounds box + isolated BVs.

[Mikie]

Custom Machine and Dr. Beach Boy are on the money. Mp3's are easy to play on iPods and iPads and iPhones, Very convenient to play on a computer too (and in many car stereos like mine). To play the lossless files (i.e. FLAC), you have to download another application to play them. People (especially non-techies) don't want to have to download an extra app pr codec to play music files. It's confusing to a lot of people and they just want files that are compatible with their music player with no hassles. FLAC's and ACC's are great, but to be honest, I can't tell the difference between them and a 256 or 320 Mp3 file.

Just knowing you have a lossless file is nice, but if you do an A-B and really can't tell the difference, then........

[37!ws]

No, not necessarily. The 1964 collection has some stuff that's never been booted.

Bellagio has at least 4 or 5 tracks that could have been included but weren't. If you're referring to session chatter or a particular early take, that's not what I meant.

Looks to me that the tracks listed on AGD's site with a '64 date are pretty much barrel-scraping, assuming they actually exist in the first place, so yeah, it's probably that they didn't deem them worthy.

But again -- it's win-win. Either the tracks get released, or in the EU they're up for grabs and there's nothing that can legally be done about it.

BTW, just did my OOPS experiment, specifically with the mono "Our Prayer" from The Smile Sessions. And yeah, MP3ing definitely DOES remove human-audible elements.

Those of you unfamiliar with "OOPS" -- that's an acronym for "out of phase stereo." Basically what you do is invert the phase on one channel of a two-track recording, and then collapse the two tracks down to mono. What happens is whatever both channels have in common are cancelled out. (This is how many karaoke machines work -- under the assumption that vocals are panned to the center.) This is a cool way to get some vocals-only versions of some early stereo Beach Boys tracks, btw.

I used the same basic technique...what I did was load up "Our Prayer", untouched (no compression whatsoever - a straight rip from the CD) into Audacity. Then I imported an MP3 version of the exact same track. I inverted the phase on one of them, then mixed them. If the tracks were 100% identical, the result would be total silence.

Result? I still heard "Our Prayer" -- albeit much quieter. Depending on the compression rate, I had to turn the volume up more and more to hear it. The higher the compression rate, the less I had to turn the volume up to hear "Our Prayer." So yeah, MP3 compression indeed removes audible features. Either that or I have a much wider hearing range than the average person.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[Micha]

As I hear little or nothing of the difference existing between mp3 from 192kbit on and lossless, I can't wait to get this from any source available to me. iTunes unfortunately isn't.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Have only listened to a few songs here and there, some of it is really great.  The alternate version of "I'm So Young" is really beautiful.  And the live in the studio versions of "Fun, Fun, Fun" and "I Get Around" are awesome too.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Custom Machine and Dr. Beach Boy are on the money. Mp3's are easy to play on iPods and iPads and iPhones, Very convenient to play on a computer too (and in many car stereos like mine). To play the lossless files (i.e. FLAC), you have to download another application to play them. People (especially non-techies) don't want to have to download an extra app pr codec to play music files. It's confusing to a lot of people and they just want files that are compatible with their music player with no hassles. FLAC's and ACC's are great, but to be honest, I can't tell the difference between them and a 256 or 320 Mp3 file.

Just knowing you have a lossless file is nice, but if you do an A-B and really can't tell the difference, then........

I tried to play FLAC files on my last laptop, and they pretty much killed it. Took me four days to even get it working again well enough to transfer my files to a new machine. Never, ever again, and anyway, at my time of life the audio/audible difference is miniscule.

[Peadar 'Big Dinner' O'Driscoll]

I downloaded the free version of MediaMonkey recently, plays FLAC no prob if people are looking for a player- http://www.mediamonkey.com/

[37!ws]

I will never put itunes on my computer. (Never again.)
Did Capitol and Bri get free ipads to only release this only on itunes or what??

Doubt it. If they did, then so did Parolophone and The Beatles.

[Mikie]

I downloaded the free version of MediaMonkey recently, plays FLAC no prob if people are looking for a player- http://www.mediamonkey.com/

Just get VLC Player.  It plays everything I throw at it.

[Mr. Tiger]

Wow, what a wonderful package! It caught me totally off guard but it has been a great joy so far. I haven't quite heard it all yet but I'm loving every minute. I hope that they keep the pace up for 1965. 1966 may ironically turn out to be less interesting because so much has been released, but maybe they'll get a hold of the Durrie Parks Heroes by then? (hoping...)

My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but the liners list the lovely instrumental Christmas Eve as author unknown. However, the chord progressions match Let's Live Before We Die almost exactly. So, surely that's Brian too?!? Quite a revelation.

[Daniel]

For someone unfamiliar with all the session details, the liner notes are amazing too. Dennis on drums for almost everything! And the biggest revelation is Brian on marimba for All Summer Long.  AMAZING!

[Mr. Tiger]

x

[CenturyDeprived]

Biggest revelation so far - Al Jardine on lead falsetto on "All Dressed Up for School" in the choruses (the "ooh what a turn on" part)

I KNOW, RONDEMON!!!! Man, that blew my mind! For twenty-four years I knew there was something odd about it, but it wasn't obvious until last night!

That was indeed a revelation for me too. All Dressed Up For School just kicks so much ass. I think it's the absolute best unreleased (as a proper album track) BB song of the entire pre-SMiLE period. And Carl's vocal is magic.

I agree that is Al singing that falsetto part on the chorus, but is it Brian on falsetto in all other parts of the song, and Al just takes the falsetto part on the chorus (the "ooh what a turn on" part)? I wonder if Al singing that part on record was done to prep the song for possibly playing it live in concert with the live show (sans Brian) BB lineup, on which Al would certainly sing a typically Brian-sung part like that. Then again, maybe Brian just like Al in that part.
Surprising decisions on who-sings-what-part for its day, in more ways than one.

I wonder how bummed Brian was that this song didn't see release in its day, considering how advanced and standout it was compared to other (also awesome) BB tracks of its day. I wonder how the song being unreleased came about; did the record company object, and then Brian willingly pulled it? How serious a contender was it ever for release?

[c-man]

Biggest revelation so far - Al Jardine on lead falsetto on "All Dressed Up for School" in the choruses (the "ooh what a turn on" part)

I KNOW, RONDEMON!!!! Man, that blew my mind! For twenty-four years I knew there was something odd about it, but it wasn't obvious until last night!

I wonder if Al singing that part on record was done to prep the song for possibly playing it live in concert with the live show (sans Brian) BB lineup, on which Al would certainly sing a typically Brian-sung part like that.

I doubt it, since the song was recorded several months before Brian's late December '64 meltdown and January '65 decision to leave the road band more-or-less permanently.

Glad you guys are diggin' the liners, though!

[bgas]

Biggest revelation so far - Al Jardine on lead falsetto on "All Dressed Up for School" in the choruses (the "ooh what a turn on" part)

I KNOW, RONDEMON!!!! Man, that blew my mind! For twenty-four years I knew there was something odd about it, but it wasn't obvious until last night!

I wonder if Al singing that part on record was done to prep the song for possibly playing it live in concert with the live show (sans Brian) BB lineup, on which Al would certainly sing a typically Brian-sung part like that.

I doubt it, since the song was recorded several months before Brian's late December '64 meltdown and January '65 decision to leave the road band more-or-less permanently.

Glad you guys are diggin' the liners, though!

unless of course, Brian was planning to leave the touring group in any case

[c-man]

Biggest revelation so far - Al Jardine on lead falsetto on "All Dressed Up for School" in the choruses (the "ooh what a turn on" part)

I KNOW, RONDEMON!!!! Man, that blew my mind! For twenty-four years I knew there was something odd about it, but it wasn't obvious until last night!

I wonder if Al singing that part on record was done to prep the song for possibly playing it live in concert with the live show (sans Brian) BB lineup, on which Al would certainly sing a typically Brian-sung part like that.

I doubt it, since the song was recorded several months before Brian's late December '64 meltdown and January '65 decision to leave the road band more-or-less permanently.

Glad you guys are diggin' the liners, though!

unless of course, Brian was planning to leave the touring group in any case

But if that were the case, I'd imagine he'd have had Al singing MORE of the falsetto chorus leads that he ended up singing himself ("Dance, Dance, Dance", "Kiss Me, Baby", etc.).

[bgas]

Biggest revelation so far - Al Jardine on lead falsetto on "All Dressed Up for School" in the choruses (the "ooh what a turn on" part)

I KNOW, RONDEMON!!!! Man, that blew my mind! For twenty-four years I knew there was something odd about it, but it wasn't obvious until last night!

I wonder if Al singing that part on record was done to prep the song for possibly playing it live in concert with the live show (sans Brian) BB lineup, on which Al would certainly sing a typically Brian-sung part like that.

I doubt it, since the song was recorded several months before Brian's late December '64 meltdown and January '65 decision to leave the road band more-or-less permanently.

Glad you guys are diggin' the liners, though!

unless of course, Brian was planning to leave the touring group in any case

But if that were the case, I'd imagine he'd have had Al singing MORE of the falsetto chorus leads that he ended up singing himself ("Dance, Dance, Dance", "Kiss Me, Baby", etc.).

Yes it could have happened either way, but I'm guessing, Brian probably didn't want to give Al too many leads all at once; it had to be in the back of his mind that he was getting overwhelmed, and might want to stop touring