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

[Matt Bielewicz]

But I repeat - unless I'm missing something - even if you buy it through Amazon, it's STILL THE SAME LOSSY COMPRESSED FILES.

So all you're doing by choosing Amazon over iTunes is avoiding paying Apple, which might be satisfactory to you on some level. But all I care about is the music; I don't really get exercised about who I buy it from once the transaction is complete. And the music - to my ears - is presented slightly less well than it might ideally be by being compressed.

Not to overstate this - I mean, I own the Heroes & Villains Sessions boot, which has to be the cruddiest-sounding xunth-generation hissfest of a bootleg ever, and still I pored over it back in the day like it was the Holy Grail - but given that this new archive stuff was professionally mixed on a high-resolution system in a lovely studio, it does bother me that it's fed to us as MP3s.

I dunno... it's like buying a beautiful art print of something you really like - but then when it's delivered, someone has made a fifth-generation cheap colour photocopy, and given you that instead...

And for the record, the files I got from iTunes for KAEOS64 were 256kbps MP3s. Well, AACs, but there's not a lot of difference. If they sound good, it's because the source material was good. Which frustrates me, as this stuff could have sounded even nicer than it already does...

[alf wiedersehen]

But I repeat - unless I'm missing something - even if you buy it through Amazon, it's STILL THE SAME LOSSY COMPRESSED FILES.

So all you're doing by choosing Amazon over iTunes is avoiding paying Apple, which might be satisfactory to you on some level.

Nope, iTunes has their own lackluster encoding. It will not be the same files.

[Casper Van Diem]

I haven't had a chance to fully digest this new release yet but what I have heard is excellent, In The Parkin' Lot a capella especially.

I'm quite glad that my ears cannot distinguish between lossy and lossless thus saying me the anguish that several members here seem to be experiencing.

Casper, please intro yourself so we know who we're talking to, K? Or did you just change your alias? Thanks.

The files I downloaded for the "Keep An Eye On Summer" comp are Mp4 files. And to be honest, while I have plenty of other FLAC files, I'm sure I can't tell the difference if these were Mp3, Mp4, Flac, or Wav (PCM) files. The quality is that good - comparable or better than my SOT 60's sessions on CD. No high-freq hiss or bass loss that I can distinguish. Are these suppose to be 320mps or 256mps Mp3's?  I wonder how I got Mp4's, which are video quality files.

Since you asked so nicely I'll tell you, I'm Casper Van Diem, 'star' of Starship Troopers.

Or I'm Paulos returning with a new alias.

The files I downloaded also show as MP4 and a quick look shows them to be 260kbps, but I have no idea what that actually means.

[tansen]

But I repeat - unless I'm missing something - even if you buy it through Amazon, it's STILL THE SAME LOSSY COMPRESSED FILES.

So all you're doing by choosing Amazon over iTunes is avoiding paying Apple, which might be satisfactory to you on some level.

Nope, iTunes has their own lackluster encoding. It will not be the same files.

Actually 256kbps AAC files = 320 kpbs mp3s.

[mrralan]

Before those get here, may I be the first one to beg, plead etc..Mark & Alan to give us that version of Barnyard with the backing vocals on it that was included on the 2011 SMiLE Sessions review streams.

What version of Barnyard with backing vocals?

[Amazing Larry]

But I repeat - unless I'm missing something - even if you buy it through Amazon, it's STILL THE SAME LOSSY COMPRESSED FILES.

So all you're doing by choosing Amazon over iTunes is avoiding paying Apple, which might be satisfactory to you on some level.

Nope, iTunes has their own lackluster encoding. It will not be the same files.

Actually 256kbps AAC files = 320 kpbs mp3s.

256kbps AAC files actually retain more audio information than 320 kpbs mp3s.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Before those get here, may I be the first one to beg, plead etc..Mark & Alan to give us that version of Barnyard with the backing vocals on it that was included on the 2011 SMiLE Sessions review streams.

What version of Barnyard with backing vocals?

The review streams of the Smile Sessions box version had some bvs. The actual box version didn't: apparently someone put up the wrong mix on the stream.

[CenturyDeprived]

Before those get here, may I be the first one to beg, plead etc..Mark & Alan to give us that version of Barnyard with the backing vocals on it that was included on the 2011 SMiLE Sessions review streams.

What version of Barnyard with backing vocals?

The review streams of the Smile Sessions box version had some bvs. The actual box version didn't: apparently someone put up the wrong mix on the stream.

I'm assuming that somebody out there probably recorded a stream and has a copy saved of that incorrectly-released version. That person wouldn't be me, but I'll bet some collector(s) have it.

[Emdeeh]

Now that I've had a chance to listen to KAEOS-64 a few times (admittedly only on the computer without headphones), I'm fascinated with the horseplay and banter going on between takes. So, who's singing the blues riff on "Fun, Fun, Fun" on track 1? Dennis, Mike, Brian? ....

Also, has anyone tried burning these tracks to CD yet? If so, how many discs per album, 1 or 2?

[metal flake paint]

Now that I've had a chance to listen to KAEOS-64 a few times (admittedly only on the computer without headphones), I'm fascinated with the horseplay and banter going on between takes. So, who's singing the blues riff on "Fun, Fun, Fun" on track 1? Dennis, Mike, Brian? ....

Also, has anyone tried burning these tracks to CD yet? If so, how many discs per album, 1 or 2?

I always though it was Mike singing the blues version of Fun x 3.

Windows Media Player divided KAEOS for burning into two discs of 74min (21 tracks) and 72min (25 tracks) respectively.

[bgas]

Now that I've had a chance to listen to KAEOS-64 a few times (admittedly only on the computer without headphones), I'm fascinated with the horseplay and banter going on between takes. So, who's singing the blues riff on "Fun, Fun, Fun" on track 1? Dennis, Mike, Brian? ....

Also, has anyone tried burning these tracks to CD yet? If so, how many discs per album, 1 or 2?

I always though it was Mike singing the blues version of Fun x 3.

Windows Media Player divided KAEOS for burning into two discs of 74min (21 tracks) and 72min (25 tracks) respectively.

Argh! If I could only get my Windows Media Player to play even one of these tracks it'd be a friggin miracle; but as it is I'll just have to wait for the computer tech visit

[metal flake paint]

Now that I've had a chance to listen to KAEOS-64 a few times (admittedly only on the computer without headphones), I'm fascinated with the horseplay and banter going on between takes. So, who's singing the blues riff on "Fun, Fun, Fun" on track 1? Dennis, Mike, Brian? ....

Also, has anyone tried burning these tracks to CD yet? If so, how many discs per album, 1 or 2?

I always though it was Mike singing the blues version of Fun x 3.

Windows Media Player divided KAEOS for burning into two discs of 74min (21 tracks) and 72min (25 tracks) respectively.

Argh! If I could only get my Windows Media Player to play even one of these tracks it'd be a friggin miracle; but as it is I'll just have to wait for the computer tech visit

Might just be a simple case of a missing codec as WMP doesn't support playback of certain file types out of the box. K-Lite Codec Pack might save the day:

http://filehippo.com/download_klite_codec_pack

[bgas]

Now that I've had a chance to listen to KAEOS-64 a few times (admittedly only on the computer without headphones), I'm fascinated with the horseplay and banter going on between takes. So, who's singing the blues riff on "Fun, Fun, Fun" on track 1? Dennis, Mike, Brian? ....

Also, has anyone tried burning these tracks to CD yet? If so, how many discs per album, 1 or 2?

I always though it was Mike singing the blues version of Fun x 3.

Windows Media Player divided KAEOS for burning into two discs of 74min (21 tracks) and 72min (25 tracks) respectively.

Argh! If I could only get my Windows Media Player to play even one of these tracks it'd be a friggin miracle; but as it is I'll just have to wait for the computer tech visit

Might just be a simple case of a missing codec as WMP doesn't support playback of certain file types out of the box. K-Lite Codec Pack might save the day:

http://filehippo.com/download_klite_codec_pack

Thanxx!!  May try that after Vegas...

[metal flake paint]

Now that I've had a chance to listen to KAEOS-64 a few times (admittedly only on the computer without headphones), I'm fascinated with the horseplay and banter going on between takes. So, who's singing the blues riff on "Fun, Fun, Fun" on track 1? Dennis, Mike, Brian? ....

Also, has anyone tried burning these tracks to CD yet? If so, how many discs per album, 1 or 2?

I always though it was Mike singing the blues version of Fun x 3.

Windows Media Player divided KAEOS for burning into two discs of 74min (21 tracks) and 72min (25 tracks) respectively.

Argh! If I could only get my Windows Media Player to play even one of these tracks it'd be a friggin miracle; but as it is I'll just have to wait for the computer tech visit

Might just be a simple case of a missing codec as WMP doesn't support playback of certain file types out of the box. K-Lite Codec Pack might save the day:

http://filehippo.com/download_klite_codec_pack

Thanxx!!  May try that after Vegas...

Good luck!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Before those get here, may I be the first one to beg, plead etc..Mark & Alan to give us that version of Barnyard with the backing vocals on it that was included on the 2011 SMiLE Sessions review streams.

What version of Barnyard with backing vocals?

The review streams of the Smile Sessions box version had some bvs. The actual box version didn't: apparently someone put up the wrong mix on the stream.

I'm assuming that somebody out there probably recorded a stream and has a copy saved of that incorrectly-released version. That person wouldn't be me, but I'll bet some collector(s) have it.

I'm sure no-one privvy to a review stream would do something so reprehensible.

[CenturyDeprived]

Before those get here, may I be the first one to beg, plead etc..Mark & Alan to give us that version of Barnyard with the backing vocals on it that was included on the 2011 SMiLE Sessions review streams.

What version of Barnyard with backing vocals?

The review streams of the Smile Sessions box version had some bvs. The actual box version didn't: apparently someone put up the wrong mix on the stream.

I'm assuming that somebody out there probably recorded a stream and has a copy saved of that incorrectly-released version. That person wouldn't be me, but I'll bet some collector(s) have it.

I'm sure no-one privvy to a review stream would do something so reprehensible.

Surely not. Surely not.

[John Manning]

Surely it would be reprehensible not to.

[Micha]

The review streams of the Smile Sessions box version had some bvs. The actual box version didn't: apparently someone put up the wrong mix on the stream.

Depends on the point of view - from my point of view, they put the wrong mix in the box!

[Tricycle Rider]

The review streams of the Smile Sessions box version had some bvs. The actual box version didn't: apparently someone put up the wrong mix on the stream.

Depends on the point of view - from my point of view, they put the wrong mix in the box!

I agree with Micha. We already have too much SMiLE without completed vocals to intentionally leave vocals OFF something that had them! It wouldn't matter so much to me except for the fact that getting "Barnyard" from a clean tape source (WITH the vocals) was one of the things I was most looking forward to about the SMiLE Sessions release. I hope Mark and/or Alan are reading this.

P.S. IF Mark and/or Alan are reading this, NICE JOB on the new release!

[Matt Bielewicz]

But I repeat - unless I'm missing something - even if you buy it through Amazon, it's STILL THE SAME LOSSY COMPRESSED FILES.

So all you're doing by choosing Amazon over iTunes is avoiding paying Apple, which might be satisfactory to you on some level.

Nope, iTunes has their own lackluster encoding. It will not be the same files.

OK, I didn't express myself very well, there, admittedly, but it seems like my point just isn't coming across. So the files may not be EXACTLY the same files, compressed in exactly the same way with the same codec, but what I was trying to say was: whether you buy from iTunes or Amazon, the files are compressed with a lossy codec. You don't magically get a better-quality version by choosing Amazon, while evil ol'iTunes gives you a worse-quality version. They're all as bad as each other.

Until Capitol release high-quality versions (if they ever do), then however you buy KAEOS64, it will be lossy. Burn it to CD all you like and hand those versions round, but you won't thereby obtain a higher-quality version... just a good copy of the lossy files.

That's why I don't really care who I buy it from, because the files are already down a level in quality no matter who you choose to get them from. And there's no higher-quality version at present. Unless I have missed something about a high-resolution release from someone... but at the moment at least, I don't think so.

And yes, I have heard it said that 260kbps AACs "are equivalent to" 320kbps MP3s, but these judgements are all subjective. Both compression schemes are lossy and the algorithms make judgements about what audio content they can get away with throwing out from the original uncompressed file in order to get the size down. They each do this slightly differently, but the underlying principle is the same, of trying to find frequency information that the 'average person' won't notice is missing when it's thrown out. Because no-one is exactly like 'the average person' and everyone's hearing is slightly different, this process works better for some people than others. It also depends what kind of content you're encoding. Loud pop or rock music with a limited dynamic range encodes better (ie. the deficiencies are less audible) than unaccompanied vocal or solo orchestral instruments, which are lower in level on average and have a greater dynamic range. So blanket statements like '260kbps AACs are equivalent to 320kbps MP3s' don't sit well with me, and also, I recognise that while it may be hard to distinguish a 320kbps MP3 of a Metallica track from a CD-quality PCM audio version, you can't assume that the same will be true when you compare a high-bit-rate MP3 (or AAC, or Windows Media File, or whatever) to the uncompressed PCM of a Chopin Nocturne, for example.

I know I haven't got particularly good hearing - I'm no golden-eared audiophile purist - but I can tell when I hear solo piano music that's been MP3ed, especially at bit rates below 260kbps. The compression IS audible, if you know what you're listening for. I'm pleased to say that I'm not hearing anything that massively spoils my enjoyment of KAEOS64 (the material is of very high quality to begin with, which helps, although the accapella mixes, which are one of the big selling points of this set but have a relatively wide dynamic range, are definitely not the best material to feed lossy algorithms with). In the final analysis, KAEOS64 has got to be way better than buying bootlegs, because the stuff is professionally mixed and of higher quality to begin with (and it's cheaper, as I said upthread!)... but on some level, I still feel like someone has made me a hissy cassette of some stuff I really like, and now I wish I could go out and buy the original on CD...

[Tricycle Rider]

Matt's post has me thinking about something. Can anybody answer WHO it is exactly that decides what format these files are released in? I mean, I would guess it's Capitol, but WHO at Capitol decides this?..What department?

[Matt Bielewicz]

I don't know the answer to that one, but I'm not sure it's necessarily Capitol's, er, 'fault' as such that KAEOS64 is only available as lossy files. If I understand correctly, it's pretty simple:

iTunes sells AAC files (ie. lossy, compressed audio). Therefore, if you want to release something on iTunes... you see where I'm going with this.

Similarly, Amazon sells MP3s for download (lossy, compressed audio). Therefore, if you want to sell something for download from Amazon...

My guess is the format is determined by how the retailer sells music — ie. it's an inescapable consequence of selling through iTunes.

[Tricycle Rider]

I don't have ANY experience in this downloading thing, so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but, does ANYBODY offer lossless downloads? and if so, why aren't they the most well known name in downloading land. This mystifies me. How can the music industry be this far behind the curve?

My guess is that under the old business model each individual record company/label were in competition with each other and that's just the way it was for a long time. When Napster came along in what was it? 1998? or so? the record companies would have been smart to realize that the only way to survive would be to band together and start selling lossless files on one BIG site that represented all of them. They could have reissued long out of print titles with little expense to them and used the income to exploit err,  I mean, promote young new acts. I don't know. This whole thing is just a disorganized fu**ing mess. I'm with Matt. Sell me a CD or DVD with Hi-Resolution files or at least let me download lossless/Hi-Resolution files. It's an insult to The Beach Boys, Chuck Britz, Steve Desper,  Mark Linett and Alan Boyd's hard work to do anything less. 

[Custom Machine]

But I repeat - unless I'm missing something - even if you buy it through Amazon, it's STILL THE SAME LOSSY COMPRESSED FILES.

So all you're doing by choosing Amazon over iTunes is avoiding paying Apple, which might be satisfactory to you on some level.

Nope, iTunes has their own lackluster encoding. It will not be the same files.

OK, I didn't express myself very well, there, admittedly, but it seems like my point just isn't coming across. So the files may not be EXACTLY the same files, compressed in exactly the same way with the same codec, but what I was trying to say was: whether you buy from iTunes or Amazon, the files are compressed with a lossy codec. You don't magically get a better-quality version by choosing Amazon, while evil ol'iTunes gives you a worse-quality version. They're all as bad as each other.

Until Capitol release high-quality versions (if they ever do), then however you buy KAEOS64, it will be lossy. Burn it to CD all you like and hand those versions round, but you won't thereby obtain a higher-quality version... just a good copy of the lossy files.

That's why I don't really care who I buy it from, because the files are already down a level in quality no matter who you choose to get them from. And there's no higher-quality version at present. Unless I have missed something about a high-resolution release from someone... but at the moment at least, I don't think so.

And yes, I have heard it said that 260kbps AACs "are equivalent to" 320kbps MP3s, but these judgements are all subjective. Both compression schemes are lossy and the algorithms make judgements about what audio content they can get away with throwing out from the original uncompressed file in order to get the size down. They each do this slightly differently, but the underlying principle is the same, of trying to find frequency information that the 'average person' won't notice is missing when it's thrown out. Because no-one is exactly like 'the average person' and everyone's hearing is slightly different, this process works better for some people than others. It also depends what kind of content you're encoding. Loud pop or rock music with a limited dynamic range encodes better (ie. the deficiencies are less audible) than unaccompanied vocal or solo orchestral instruments, which are lower in level on average and have a greater dynamic range. So blanket statements like '260kbps AACs are equivalent to 320kbps MP3s' don't sit well with me, and also, I recognise that while it may be hard to distinguish a 320kbps MP3 of a Metallica track from a CD-quality PCM audio version, you can't assume that the same will be true when you compare a high-bit-rate MP3 (or AAC, or Windows Media File, or whatever) to the uncompressed PCM of a Chopin Nocturne, for example.

I know I haven't got particularly good hearing - I'm no golden-eared audiophile purist - but I can tell when I hear solo piano music that's been MP3ed, especially at bit rates below 260kbps. The compression IS audible, if you know what you're listening for. I'm pleased to say that I'm not hearing anything that massively spoils my enjoyment of KAEOS64 (the material is of very high quality to begin with, which helps, although the accapella mixes, which are one of the big selling points of this set but have a relatively wide dynamic range, are definitely not the best material to feed lossy algorithms with). In the final analysis, KAEOS64 has got to be way better than buying bootlegs, because the stuff is professionally mixed and of higher quality to begin with (and it's cheaper, as I said upthread!)... but on some level, I still feel like someone has made me a hissy cassette of some stuff I really like, and now I wish I could go out and buy the original on CD...

Hey Matt! Yes, iTunes 256 kbps AAC is lossy compressed, but I've got some really good news for you - you're not gonna be able to tell the diff between an iTunes download and a CD quality 1441 kbps file of the same material.  Seriously, on a double blind listening test of program material such as found on KAEOS64 it's virtually impossible to discern any difference.  And that goes for high-res versions too.

I know the statement I've just made will cause some people to go bonkers, 'cause just looking at the specs it appears that there is no way a lossy compressed data reduced file such as this KAEOS64 on iTunes could sound as good as the original non data reduced file, but the fact is, given the way the human ear works, it does.  If we were dogs then maybe it would be different.  

KAEOS64 contains some incredible music, so seriously, just get over the specs, head over to iTunes and enjoy.  If a higher res version later comes available, which it most certainly will not in the near future, then perhaps later on you'll have the opportunity to enjoy that as well, although double blind listening studies show that your enjoyment will most likely fall under the category of "psychic gratification", i.e. believing it sounds better even if you can't discern the diff in a double blind listening test.  And that's totally cool too - if you think higher res sounds better then go for it and enjoy it, knowing you're getting the very best quality available!  But for now download KAEOS64 and enjoy the incredible musical experience found therein - you won't regret it.

And having just reread your post again, maybe you did already download it from iTunes.  If so, kick back relax, and enjoy the music, which is what it's all about in the first place.  

[c-man]

Great post, Rob!