The Smiley Smile Message Board

This isn't Sunflower. It's essentially a remix of the album into what someone thinks the album should have sounded like. On the insert Stephen W. Desper is credited as Chief Engineer and Mixer, but this is not what he and Carl Wilson submitted to Warner Brothers.

Hasn't anybody else bought this?  :)

I ordered it!
 Is there the mono version on the  SACD?

No mono mix is included. Only what I would call a new stereo mix.

Thank you, Bill.
How is the new stereo mix  different?

Did they really actually remix "Sunflower?" I'm pretty sure the Analogue Productions series is simply a remastering project, using original mono and stereo mixes and the recent (2012 or whenever the most recent Capitol CDs came out) stereo remixes done by Linett and Boyd where applicable (e.g. albums not originally released in stereo).

I haven't heard the SACD of "Sunflower", but I'm guessing it's just a remaster. Actually remixing the album from the multitracks would be a pretty big deal (and it something I actually would be interested to hear as an alternative), and would go against the whole point/ethos of the SACD reissue campaign from what I understand.

If there are liner notes indicating a stereo remix, I'd be interested to see.

There is no mono mix of "Sunflower", so there's no reason to include on on the SACD.

The album was not remixed.

Mark Linett

I haven't heard the SACD yet but I've read reports that both Sunflower and Surf's Up sound somewhat "dark" i.e. not much top end/treble (Murray would turn over in his grave to hear such an assessment of a Beach Boys production!).  Yet my original Reprise/Brother albums have plenty of top end, especially in the backing vocals.  I wonder if that reflects the master tapes and this "dark sounding" lack of top end was addressed in the EQ'ing for the vinyl mastering, and now what people are hearing sounds different without that EQ and so sounds like a different mix.

Ok, now this has me wondering....I thought the 2012 sounded ok, at least initially.  But then a lot of people were grumbling that the 2012 sounded a little shrill in the high end...to the point of distortion and other unpleasantness in the treble region.   I at least felt it was an improvement over the Sunflower/Surf's Up twofer, which sounded very flat and rolled off on the highs and lows.

I've been very happy with the SACDs thus far, and I have been anticipating that Sunflower in this set will not be a letdown.

But here we are.  A remix?  Are you sure?

Well, I've got one on it's way to me as we speak.  In a few days I will know for sure.

You've got me totally confused here, Bill. You are referring to the new Sunflower Analogue Productions hybrid CD/SACD released yesterday, right? Definitely not a remix at all. And it sounds great to me.

As I understand it, during the mastering process to vinyl Stephen Desper and Carl Wilson made some tweaks to the sound coming off the Sunflower master tape, which can only be found on an original Artisan pressed vinyl copy. Stephen, please correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'm assuming those tweaks were related to EQ and levels. Stephen, were notes kept so that these adjustments could be replicated? I'm assuming these adjustments were made from the two track stereo master, after Stephen had made the major adjustments during mix down from the 16 track master to the two track master. Again, any additional info from Stephen Desper would be appreciated.

Haven't listened to the new Surf's UP CD/SACD yet, but there is no way I would characterize the new Sunflower CD/SACD as being dark, although on initial listening I'd characterized the high end on this new release as being somewhat smoother (slightly less bright) than the previous CD reissues, benefitting the listening experience.

Really, the only CD reissue I consider to offer a poor listening experience is the original 1990 CD release remastered by Joe Gastwert, which is way too bright and strident, and lacking in bass as well. The 2000 twofer, remastered by Andrew Sandoval and Dan Hersch, the 2012 CD remastered by Mark Linett in 2009 (originally available only on a vinyl reissue), and the new 2016 CD/SACD remastered by Kevin Gray all provide for a very nice listening experience. I'd have to do some serious comparisons to declare a winner, but from my initial listening sessions today I'd say this new CD/SACD is probably the best sounding of the 4 CD reissues over the years, mainly because of its somewhat smoother high end.

I've seen Mark Linett credited on these new AP reissues as well, so since he's posted in this thread, I hope he'll chime in and explain his role in these reissues, as it pertains to supplying the material to Kevin Gray. I'll also add that Mark used the HDCD process on the 2012 CD. Only a very small number of CD players have HDCD decoding capability (none of mine) and I've heard claims (although not everyone seems to agree) that a HDCD mastered CD played back on a standard player without HDCD decoding will sound brighter, so this could also be a factor when I say that the new AP Kevin Gray CD/SACD sounds somewhat smoother than Mark's 2012 CD.

My sincere apologies to all concerned for the misinformation. I know that the term "remix" has a particular definition in the recording business, and I should not have used it.

And before writing anything else, I should admit to a degree of age-related hearing loss, so please take that into consideration.

The SACD is a letdown for me. To my ears, the "background" vocals are the main casualty of (what I conjecture is) the remastering process. I know there were complaints regarding the "brightness" of the mastering on the 2012 reissue, but to me that release sounds terrific and full of life. The SACD (you might want to factor in my hearing issues) is comparatively lifeless.  The remarkable background vocals are on too many occasions reduced to ghosts of their former selves.  

I have purchased all the AP SACD's, in part to maintain the commercial viability of the Beach Boys catalog and, in particular, to support projects which appeal to the real fan base. The Sunflower SACD is my first disappointment, and I hope nobody takes a pass on buying it based on my assessment.

Thanks for the clarification, Bill Ed. Your experience helps to confirm that not everyone prefers the same degree of equalization on a given recording. For that reason, whenever possible, I've always been into adjusting the bass and treble controls to my liking during a listening session, or using a multi-band equalizer for more serious tweaks. Of course these days a lot of casual listening is done via bluetooth or other wireless speakers with no EQ controls, but for myself I've never been into listening "flat" just for the sake of the playback being "flat". If your listening set up has a treble control you may wish to experiment with cranking it up when listening to the new AP Sunflower SACD and see what you think. (Even better if you have a multi-band equalizer.) I do find it intriguing that my experience was the opposite of yours, as I thought to myself "Wow, this new AP Sunflower release is really nice and smooth in the high end." And I'm a long time fan myself, quite possibly older than you.

Thanks for the insight, Rob - to me, the 2000 Brother-era twofer reissues sound too bassy (although Sunflower itself still sounds really good), while pretty much anything by anybody mastered from, say, 2010 on, sound too bright and shrill. I'm looking forward to a smooth-sounding high end on the new AP [Sunflower/i], hopefully with just the right amount of bottom-end! I find myself raising the bass EQ on the AP Pet Sounds, but at least it isn't as shrill as the 2006 and 2012 remasters. 

FYI, to my point about pre- and post-2010 remasters, the 1994 Virgin remaster of the Stones' Exile On Main Street sounds perfect (as do the other remasters of that series) - and I read (or maybe heard) an interview with Don Was where he explained that the original '72 LP production master was heavily tweaked (as we know to be the case with Sunflower, so to match it, they actually either placed or answered an add in Goldmine. Jagger, Richards, and Was then met up with the two guys selling a mint-condition original pressing - much to the astonishment of those two guys! They then set about matching the sound of that pressing when doing the '94 remaster. By comparison, the 2010 UMe Exile remaster is, to my ears, practically un-listenable - and Was had nothing to do with that (although he did help produce and mix the bonus tracks). It was mastered with iTunes in mind, and brickwalled beyond belief. And, your remark about HDCDs sounding too bright in non-HDCD players makes me wonder if some SACDs suffer from the same problem - like the SACD remaster of Sleepwalker by The Kinks - man, the guitars on that are so bright, they practically make my ears bleed! 

And thank you for your comments and insight, Craig. Yeah, now that a lot of classic material has been remastered a number of times it is amazing to hear the variations in EQ that exist. I agree that the high end on the new AP Pet Sounds remaster sounds especially nice, and the overall sound is dramatically better than the original 1966 release. Due to your involvement with ESQ I'm certain that you've read Lee Dempsey's review of the various vinyl Pet Sounds releases where he ranked the new AP Pet Sounds as the best sounding of the lot.

Great story about the '94 Virgin remaster of Exile. That's really the way to do it. Hope Stephen Desper will chime in as to whether he kept notes of the changes he and Carl made during the Sunflower vinyl mastering process. And if not, there's always the original vinyl to refer to, although replicating the changes may not be the easiest of tasks, as I get the impression they varied not only from track to track but also dynamically within each track. Stephen, if you are reading this, hope you can clarify.

Yes, brickwalling is a very unfortunate trend, to say the least, although to the average person "louder" often seems to sound better, but with the downside of a significant loss of dynamic range.

While I've read statements that CDs mastered in HDCD sound somewhat brighter when played on standard players (which these days, as far as I know, is anything other than an Oppo player), to the best of my knowledge the audio on a hybrid CD/SACD should sound identical on both layers as far as EQ is concerned, with the difference being that the SACD layer offers playback at a higher resolution than standard CD (the audibility of which can be debated).

The newest Pet Sounds CDs (twofer and 4 CD, 1 DVD set) do not have the HDCD logo, so I'm thinking Mark has stopped using the process for CD mastering, perhaps because so few playback devices have the ability to take advantage of it.

I listened to the Sunflower sacd last night, and it is clearly the best recreation of the original lp sound I have heard.  I have the original white label promo ( a different cut than the regular release, and slightly inferior), a first week first press, a UK first press, a 1980 Dutch press, the 1990 cd, the twofer cd, the 2009 vinyl, and the original 8 track tape.  The bass tones sound tight and solid on only two versions- the first press and the sacd- all other copies I have have a boomy, indistinct bass.  The high end is smooth and well balanced, and I heard no background vocal problems.  My system is sacd player to tube pre-amp to tube amp to Klipsch Cornwall II horn speakers with the tweeter horns damped by one thickness of toilet paper (I know this sounds silly to some, but it works for me). The sacd does not perfectly match the original lp (I wouldn't expect it to, it was apparently tweaked during cutting), but I recommend it to anyone who has the playback capability, this sounds very carefully done.  I am waiting impatiently for the new vinyl now.

In reply to an earlier question, I supervised the mastering of all the new reissues.  I recall that Sunflower required a couple of tries to get it to sound like the original vinyl LP which was what I compared the tests of the new version to before it was approved.

Your mileage may vary.

Mark

Thank you for the positive review there, gxios (and other posters as well).  When I first got into this thread I started to sweat a little as I had recently stuck another $30 on my credit card in hopes of adding the be-all end-all sacd of my close-second favorite BBs album, to my collection.  The thought of being underwhelmed when it arrives is something I don't want to consider, as I patiently stare out my front window at my mailbox at around 11:00 every day this week!  :)

 

Mark, thank you so much for the info you have provided in this thread. Concerning the remastering process of these new Analogue Productions SACDs and LPs, would it be correct to say that you were in the room with Kevin Gray supervising and approving as he remastered, or did he send you files of his work, which required your approval?

Sangheon, the SACD presentation seems much less "open" to me than what I have grown accustomed to hearing on the earlier CD's. The lead vocals are remarkably clear and strike me as being more prominent than on prior CD 's. I'm in a minority (of one) in thinking that some of the other vocals are too low in the . . . whatever the correct term is. But I no longer doubt that what I'm hearing is true to the original vinyl release. My (low-end) turntable has been in mothballs since I bought a receiver without the required inputs, and I haven't listened to vinyl in many years. So I guess the SACD will become my "vinyl" copy.

Custom Machine, thanks for the advice on experimenting with the equalization. My receiver has a self-calibration feature, and most everything I play sounds good to me as is. The only manual options for the listener are to boost/reduce the bass and treble, and I'm a little afraid to mess with settings. But I do have the option of reverting to the receiver's self-calibration settings, so I might give it a try.

Finally, I'm glad to hear that people are enjoying the SACD version of Sunflower.  I hope someone with more "standing" on this board will start other threads discussing the other recent AP releases. 

COMMENT:  Everything I wish to express about the making of Sunflower is in my book and can be heard and read at the link below. If you are interested in the history of Sunflower, check out my educational website. 

To answer your questions directly -- An LP master tape was generated at the time of the first mastering by Carl and myself. I don't know if it survives or not. Changes to EQ, limiting, and levels were noted, but over the last forty years may have been misplaced. Besides, those mastering tweaks were intended to be made on equipment that has long since been trashed, making such notations irrelevant. I say again, if you wish to hear what Carl and everyone heard at the time of mixdown, go to my website and listen. There you can hear the final mixes resolved through the playback matrix as intended. All other re-masterings do not resolve the master tape and only mimic the commercial release version. If that's good enough for you, then go for it. The current re-issues are part of the history of this album, but in addition you should back up to the mastering supervised by Carl and with the playback matrix resolution applied. The commercial version and the matrix resolution version are two different animals. Read about the history of why this is in my book, Recording The Beach Boys - Part One.  ~swd

http://swdstudyvideos.com 

Careening somewhat off-topic (from the BB to the Stones), but staying somewhat on-topic (modern digital remasters of classic albums):

Regarding the '94 Exile remastering for the Virgin label's reissue:

The interview in question (Don Was interviewed by Pierre Robert for WMMR in Philadelphia) has Was stating the original EQ'd master mixes (meaning, the production master that was made FROM the original UN-EQ'd stereo mixdown tape, and then used to produce the vinyl LPs in '72) had gone missing. They desired it so that it could be used as a point of reference for them to remaster the un-EQ'd mixdown tape for CD in '94, meaning they understood that it was "tweaked" significantly to the taste of the Stones & Jimmy Miller when that production master was made. The un-EQ'd tape, as Jagger pointed out in some interview, was wildly inconsistent in levels and in other ways. Was made the point that subsequent pressings of the album would suffer from some mastering engineer in Germany working the night shift deciding it needed more treble, for instance. They wanted the '94 CD (being mastered by Bob Ludwig) to sound like the '72 LP, but after a previous mastering attempt by Ludwig resulted in a version that sounded "like a modern record in 1994, which was virtually unrecognizable as Exile On Main Street", and the '72 LP production tape missing, they resorted to using a virgin vinyl 1972 LP (bought from someone advertising in Goldmine), and asked Ludwig to "straight copy" it over. Fortunately, said Was, Ludwig had too much pride for that, and ended up creating a new master by matching the sounds. Was' only real comment about the new (2010) version is that you can hear a few things better than before.

As for the 2010 UMe remaster/reissue - here's a review by Michael Fremer:

<<Now, about that sound: first I just played the new reissued double vinyl mastered by Doug Sax at The Mastering Lab. How many times have I heard this record? Probably hundreds. This new re-mastering sounded compacted, spatially flattened, deliberately dynamically compressed and shockingly bass-shy. The horns that are supposed to cut through with a mean edge on “Rocks Off” were limp, Charlie’s signature snare sound was soft. I mean it really sucks on a stereo but probably will sound swell on an iPod played back with cheap earbuds. The mastering gamesmanship does produce the sensation of more detail and greater transparency but it's sham detail and sham transparency. This production has had it's balls cut off.

Switching to the Stephen Marcussen mastered CD produced essentially the same blah results (you can hear the same tape "crinkle" 3 minutes into "Casino Boogie" on both) so blame him not Doug Sax who cut the vinyl from 44.1k/24 bit files and it sounds like it. The added bit depth does make the vinyl sound somewhat more detailed but why bother with the vinyl? Too bad, because the pressing quality is excellent. I have trouble believing this was pressed at United in Nashville. I bet it was pressed at Rainbo in L.A., which has really stepped up to the quality plate.

In fact why bother with this at all when if you play Bob Ludwig’s CD mastering for Virgin years ago, you’ll hear what this record is supposed to sound like, as intended for a real grown up stereo system, with bass, full dynamic range and as much three-dimensionality as redbook CD can manage, which admittedly isn’t much.

I compared original American, Japanese, Polish and German vinyl pressings to this limp noodle and even the Polish pressing, clearly from a copy of a copy of the master at best had more balls, but of course more noise and less detail and even less transparency.

I used to think the German Electrola pressing was the best but now I think it’s the original American, mastered at Artisan in L.A. It’s really the original since the record was mixed at Sunset in L.A. and it has a similar midrange to this latest reissue, but it also has bass and treble and dynamics. The German is hyped up in the presence region and the bottom end, giving the kick drums lots of punch and the horns great edge, but that sucks out the middle where Mick’s already dipped voice resides.

No doubt the Stones approved the test pressings that became the original issue. I certainly don’t think they listened much to this latest reissue before it was approved for release. If they did, what’s their excuse for this sorry sounding, limp noodle?

If it was to make it sound “good” on earbuds, well that’s not good enough and a sorry way to leave it until someone does it right for a future generation interested in getting their butts kicked by good sound. That will happen, I’m sure. Meanwhile, find yourself an original American pressing or Bob Ludwig’s Virgin CD and wait it out.>>

All this just goes to show how much mixdown tapes were often tweaked to produce the sound we remember on the LPs we love, and just how bad modern-day digital remasters can be, if that isn't taken into consideration.

This is it. The only real version of Sunflower is the DECODED matrix version.

I listened to the "matrix resolution" version last night on your website last night. Words can not describe the joy and awe I felt while listening to it. To say it was a revelation is an understatement. Songs like "Add Some Music (To Your Day), "All I Wanna Do", and "At My Window" almost became entirely different songs, with all the little details I had never heard before. Thank you so much for making it available! I wish there was a way to get a copy of the "matrix resolution", along with the proper equipment to play it.

Features:
• Hybrid Stereo SACD
• Mastered by Kevin Gray at Cohearent Audio from the original master tapes or best sources available
• Stereo mixes produced by Mark Linett and Alan Boyd
• Compatible with both SACD and CD players

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-267828-the-beach-boys-sunflower-hybrid-stereo-sacd.aspx

I'm not sure why the CD says stereo mixes produced by Mark and Alan - if they are using the two track stereo masters, those were produced by Carl (and Stephen).  Unless they went back to the 16 track multis and remixed the stereo mixes.

I think the "produced by Linett and Boyd" notation is a generic notation from the sort of "press release" for the entire series of CDs, and refers to the first-time stereo mixes Linett and Boyd did for the 2012 (or whenever those were) album remasters, which were used where applicable on the SACD series.

Even though that page is a listing for "Sunflower", it appears they've just copied and pasted the press release for the entire series under the production description section and then added some bits about the specific album.

COMMENT:  It is not possible to re-mix Sunflower or Surf's Up due to the many re-amped tracks used -- unless you want to leave stuff out, which is not what Mark or Alan would want.  I think it means, re-mastered. Refer to my book Recording The Beach Boys for details as to why these albums cannot be remixed -- but mainly it was not the age of computer controlled consoles or unlimited track recording. You are trying to plug modern recording technology into 50-year old recording techniques. It doesn't always work. ~swd

I'm pretty sure the reference to Mark and Alan producing stereo mixes is a straight copy/paste from earlier titles in the series, such as Beach Boys Today!, Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!), and Party!, for which they produced stereo mixes where none had previously existed.

That would explain why the "vocals" mix of "Our Sweet Love" also contained the string section on the Made In California compilation.  Correct?

Why didn't someone tell me that this is a multi-channel disc? I found out by reading on another forum (Hoffman's) where people discuss this sort of thing. I've been playing the disc on an Oppo set to default to the multi-channel layer of SACD's while outputting the signal through the 2-channel outputs. So I guess I've been listening to a fold-down of (quadraphonic?) material. No wonder it sounded muddy.

The multi-channel is amazing!

Fold-down of a quadraphonic mix - not exactly, the four channels are encoded into the stereo mix as they were into the original vinyl.  The Oppo is sensing and decoding the multi-channel but there are no "discrete" multi-channels in the SACD disc.  Stephen will chime in to explain better I'm sure.

Bicyclerider,

I think you're in for a pleasant surprise.

My disc appears to have three "layers": a 5.0 channel SACD layer, a 2-channel SACD layer, and a CD (Red Book) layer. If I set my player to default to multi-channel, "5.0 channel" pops up on my monitor when I play the disc, and I hear sound from the two front speakers, the two rear surrounds, and the player sends the lower frequency sounds to my subwoofers. I can't detect any sound coming from my center channel. In this mode, my receiver displays "5-channel", so I don't think the receiver is converting the signal to surround sound . If I set the Oppo to default to 2-channel when playing this SACD, sound comes only from the front two speakers, and again the player is routing sound to the subwoofers.

When I first played the disc I assumed that it contained only 2-channel content, so I used the 2-channel output on my player to send the signals to my receiver. However, the player was reading the multi-channel layer, and the effect was most unpleasant. This may explain the comments I've read about Sunflower sounding "dark".

The Surf's Up SACD has a 5.0 channel SACD layer as well. The Holland SACD does not.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong about all of this.  :)

COMMENT TO Bicyclerider and Bill Ed:

You are correct. There is no 4-channel master to fold down. The Sunflower two-channel Stereophonic Sound Master tape contains both the compatible Stereo sound and (if you apply the playback matrix) the encoded expanded-virtual-surround-sound. There is some similarity between the matrix resolution circuit (patented) and the Dolby algorithm (patented) used in the Dolby 5.1 chip set.
The Oppo uses superior D2A converters, but like all DVD players that must decode a Dolby sound format, Oppo uses a (tightly controlled and patented) Dolby chip set, under license, to realize the surround sound of DVD’s, as described by Bill Ed. The format is patented by Dolby. Part of the chip set includes algorithms to mimic surround sound from stereo tracks using several schemes. One of these is in play for 'Riders’s playback experience. It is taking the two-channels and synthesizing the surround by way of the original matrix cues. These cues do not render a complete resolution in the Dolby scheme, but if you like it, then go for it. To hear an accurate and complete resolution, hook your computer up to your sound system (best using HDMI ports) and play Sunflower tracks from my book via the link below. Of course, both the SACD and Vimeo tracks are digital. To ever hear it all you need a turntable and a black vinyl disc. Perhaps you already have a turntable, but if not, consider spending your money on LPs in place of samples. Rediscover analog.    ~swd

http://swdstudyvideos.com   Book, Part One (Sunflower)

Bill Ed Thank you for your comments.
My copy finally arrived, and I listened it several times. My impression about lead vocals is similar to yours. those are very upfront compared to the mix of the earlier CDs. and as you said, the background vocals and tracks are little low, thereby it sounds like there is wide range between lead vocals and bg vocals etc.
So, perhaps because of the range, this SACD is little bit of three dimensional-esque sound to my ears.

Sangheon,

I hope you're enjoying the disc as much as I am.

My first impression was based on my selecting (by default) the multi-channel disc layer but outputting to only the two front speakers. I guess I was hearing only two of the 4 channels, and the results were disappointing, to say the least. For the most part I now listen to the multi-channel "mix", or whatever we should call it, with 4 speakers in play. It's easily one of the best quad mixes I've ever heard. So if you are set up for surround sound, make sure to listen to the multi-channel layer. And if you listen using two speakers, please avoid my mistake by choosing the the 2-channel layer on the disc.

Here is a screenshot of the new Sunflower SACD on my system*. It just arrived this afternoon. This is the oddest authoring on a SACD I've ever seen. It is being fed direct with six analogue inputs into my Yamaha receiver, no digital or HDMI inputs in use, no Dolby or other decoding is in use. I'm getting discrete multichannel, no ambience, matrix, Dolby Pro Logic or DTS decoding. The 2fer Sunflower/Surf's Up CD does not do anything like it. WTF. By the way, it sounds really good. Can't wait to hear Surf's Up.
 
(http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b459/Rick_McCauley/Mobile%20Uploads/20160723_182543_zpsojexflkw.jpg)

*Pioneer Elite DV-79AVi, Yamaha DV-S5860, Polk Audio Monitor 40 Bookshelf Speakers, CSR center channel, Monitor 30 surrounds & PSW10 10" Powered Subwoofer. The Pioneer player defaults to the multichannel layer on SACDs.


Here's how the Summer days SACD defaults:

(http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b459/Rick_McCauley/Mobile%20Uploads/20160723_190416_zpsamizzhe2.jpg)
 

COMMENT to Bill Ed.

The bottom line in listening is to enjoy what you hear. If it makes you happy – the entertainment value is high.

Let me relate a story to you.  When I had my sound research lab in Los Angeles, it was located up in the northern part of the city in the foothills. I lived there too. There was a fellow, a retired old man who, with his dog, would wonder the neighborhood with a cart full of used radios, speakers, and amplifiers of all sizes and shapes. I learned he was a retired radio repair serviceman. He must have been in his 80’s and had been collecting for a decade. Occasionally I’d give him a piece of equipment no longer needed. Over the years we became friends. I don’t know where he got all his used equipment, but his cart was always brimming with audio things. I always assumed he repaired and sold the stuff, and one day asked him how he was doing with that. To my surprise I learned he did not sell anything, rather he took it home and added it to his collection of working sound devices of all types. Fascinated, I ask if I could see his collection, which was in his home. The day of my visit I found that his home was nestled, or should I say, hidden way back off a small street, behind hedges, bushes, and up against a hill. It was an old house, kinda rundown. Going inside it had that musty smell I remember from my grandparent’s house. I was shown into a rather large room, I guess the living room. Then looking around I could not believe all the speakers, some mounted in enclosures, some just sitting by themselves I could see. There were guitar amps, clock radios, tweeters, PA speakers, and every other type of sound generating transducer you can imagine. They were everywhere, floor to ceiling, left, right, behind me, in corners, shelves, tables – every nook and cranny. An amazing sight. But not as amazing as what happened next. I ask him if this was his stereo system. But he said he didn’t thing much of stereo, instead he liked mono and told me that every one of the devices I was seeing was connected to his one turntable. I said, you mean all this stuff is one very large and elaborate sound system? Yes was the emphatic answer. Knowing in my head that this was going against every design fabric in my audio head, I was anxious to her this gathering of sonic junk. My friend pulled out an LP of symphonic pops and placed it on his old Garrard record changer, fitted with, I think, a GE pickup cartridge. Now I had been living with state-of-the-art Tannoy monitors in the lab, so this was going to be an interesting sound, I thought. But was I wow-ed! It wasn’t anything like I was expecting to hear. In fact it wasn’t anything like I had ever heard, or have heard since. The sound was certainly open, and spacious – what with all those separate sources, each with its own sound tonality. Yet it was surprisingly detailed and interesting. You could direct your ear’s attention and hear whatever part of the sound you wished. In that way it was enveloping. As I listened I thought, here is a guy who could not begin to afford one of my lab speakers, and yet, his ingenuity and resourcefulness has put that refined listening experience to shame. Here was something completely different in approach and execution, but it worked and it worked just fine. I could relate to what I was hearing and could see how a person could be quite happy listing in this way. During the next few hours, I was treated to many old and wonderful songs, even some of the early 45 Beach Boy surfing hits. Those were especially enchanting, sounding anything but mono.

The point of this little story is to illustrate that in art, there is neither right nor wrong, only what you like.

If you wish to buy a re-mastered SACD and have some algorithm re-negotiate the spectral and spatial elements, it may not be anywhere near the intentions of the producer, but so what?  If it turns you on, make you sing along with the music, gets your foot tapping, and leaves you satisfied, that makes it a good listening experience.

In my present theater setup, I can call upon several (actually many) schemes that will do various things to the sound source I’m playing. I can adjust each channel’s spectral sound using graphic EQ, apply this or that matrix structure to bring out or suppress parts of the overall sound, etc. etc. But in the end, and after all my playing around, I always just like the sound of the LP with matrix resolution the best. It is the most musically satisfying to me – emphasis on “me.” Because, in the end and when all is said and done, it is ME and only ME that counts. I’m the listener. So to all the fans I say, go for whatever makes you, the listener, happy. As for me, I put forth what makes me happy in the study-videos at the link below. What you hear there is what made Carl and me happy many years ago. It set a standard, but a standard in art -- for whatever that's worth.

Good Listening,  ~Stephen W. Desper

http://swdstudyvideos.com   

This is a great post - Thank you.

Mr. Desper,

Thanks for the great story. You make your point well, and diplomatically.

In fairness to those involved with the SACD, I want to point out that they apparently took pains to capture the sound of the lp, as the general public has been hearing it, on the 2-channel layers of the disc. The inclusion of the quad mix on the SACD is not even advertised.  So I think of the quad disc as a bonus. Mr. Linnett has on prior occasion stressed that in presenting things in a new format (stereo vs. mono, at the time) he was not attempting to better his predecessors' work. My guess is that is still his philosophy.

Over the last few years I have bought several SACD's containing vintage quad mixes. The results have frequently been disappointing for me. But the quad mix on the Sunflower disc, to my ears, does justice to your excellent work as the recording engineer.

So far I have only been able to listen to the "original intent" album over computer speakers. I intend to borrow a laptop from a friend this week and listen to it properly through my sound system.

COMMENT to Bill Ed:  As I have posted over and over, there is no quad mix for Sunflower and you can't re-mix it because so many tracks were re-amped at the time of mixdown. That means all the sounds are not (not) on the multi-track, only (only) on the two-track master. Someone ask engineer Mark if SF was a re-mix or re-master to which he responded in the latter. If you want the complete album sound it's only on the two-track stereo master. Imbedded therein are also the virtual matrix cues. Those can be properly resolved by the matrix as heard on the study-video or improperly, sloppily, or approximately resolved by the algorithm within your playback device.

Since you say you need to borrow a laptop from a friend to hear "the original intent" or as it says in the book, "The Definitive Sunflower," I assume this is because your computer is not in the same room as your stereo player. Let me point out that you could also invest in a long cable to take the output from the same jack that your computer speakers are plugged into, over to your stereo system as a analog signal. Alternately, if you are borrowing a laptop with an HDMI port, you can take that digital signal directly into a modern receiver that has HDMI input ports for a better sound. Alternately, and as some folks are doing, you can make a CD copy of the various offerings on the study-videos for your collection. Unfortunately, I can't offer anything like that due to copyright laws. But as a private person you can make copies. Look for a button on page three of my website for instructions on making copies.

I would urge you to avail yourself of the other offerings at http://swdstudyvideos.com while you have the laptop connected. There are some great versions of Beach Boy songs, including many "Surfing Hits" and the album "Friends." We are working right now on editing and rendering part two of the book that deals with the making of Surf's Up. ~swd

There may not have been a quad mix of Sunflower or Surfs Up but my OPPO player with the SACD set to multi channel sure pulls out a lot of rear channel information.

Can anyone give some examples of what's happening in the surround channels?

I'm not that familiar with the "authoring" of CD's and SACD's but if there is a separate authored multi-channel area, wouldn't that imply that someone has run the two track master through a multichannel decoder (an EV-4 I believe was what was intended for the matrix decoding of Sunflower) in order to get the four channels separate, and then included those on the SACD?  So that it's not just the receiver creating a multichannel mix from the information coded in the two channel mix, it is a separate discrete multichannel mix?

COMMENT TO Bicyclerider:  Where did you get the idea that EV-4 was involved with Sunflower? Sorry, but you are very wrong.  The Sunflower "matrix" is based on microphone arrays that produce x-y-z coordinates. EV-4 is a circuit producing x-y coordinates. The EV-4 scheme is shifted by 90 degrees from the "matrix " of Sunflower. Further, EV-4 is based in physcoacoustics whereas the "matrix" utilizes neuroplasticity concepts. One has nothing to do with the other. As I explained in an earlier post, you are hearing the Dolby algorithm's reaction to the unresolved cues embedded in the dimensional matrix of Sunflower. It's part of the Dolby chip set, required if you wish to manufacture a player that can decipher patented Dolby encoded sound tracks -- which is about every movie. It is not any accurate resolution, but if you like what you hear ... go for it.  The correct or preferred rendition can be found at the link below. Go to page 3, "Sunflower" button.   ~swd
http://swdstudyvideos.com

What is being discussed has nothing to do with running a stereo mix on CD or SACD through a Dolby decoder in a player or receiver. The 4 channel audio exists on the multichannel layer of the SACD. That is being reproduced as-is on people's systems.

It's unclear how the multichannel layer on the SACD was created, but it certainly has nothing to do with what's in people's homes.

COMMENT:  Something is wrong -- not you, but the situation.    ...Stand-by.  ~swd

COMMENT to SACD users:  There should only be information or data on the two front channels. These represent the sound present on the Two-Track Master that was supplied to the SACD manufacturers.

Here is a quote from an email to Alan Boyd concerning why the rear channels have audio.

"I have no idea - and neither does Mark, or anyone at Capitol. The folks at Analogue Productions who licensed the albums from Capitol weren't authorized by Capitol / UMe to release anything other than previously released stereo and mono mixes (where applicable) and in fact I've been told they were expressly forbidden to do otherwise. They certainly didn't have access to any of the multitracks." Mark and I have "only been involved as consultants on these new releases, and we were never informed about any plans to create or include multi channel "mixes."  I had a meeting with one of the executives at Capitol a few days ago and I brought this up, and it turns out they knew nothing about it. I've asked if someone there could at least look into it, pop it into a player, and let us know just what's on there. But they're so understaffed it could take awhile.

So, if the folks at Analogue Productions followed the terms of their contract, what you are hearing is a function of the Dolby Chipset.  However, if the folks at Analogue Productions created new back channel mixes, they are in trouble and what is on the SACD is not representing the Sunflower master in any way.

We shall see. I'll keep you posted...   ~swd

Lots of confusion here. As far as I know, this release contains:

- A stereo version - taken from the Two-Track Master
- A discrete four channel surround version - taken from a decoded version of the Two-Track Master

No one knows which method AP used to decode the 2-track into 4 channels. It sounds like it's a different method than a standard Dolby surround. Perhaps they got hold of one your matrix devices Steve.

In any case, this is not a new multi-channel mix. It is a decoded version of the Two-Track Master that was supplied to the SACD manufacturers.

Does that count as "releasing anything other than previously released stereo and mono mixes"? All they've done is decode the previously released stereo mix.

I'd sure like to hear this SACD myself.

COMMENT:  According to Alan/Marks, only a two-channel stereo version is authorized for release by Analogue Productions. Why?  Because there is no 4-track discrete or decoded master. THERE IS ONLY STEREO.  ANYTHING ELSE IS UNAUTHORIZED by BRI and Capitol. And both of my matrix devices are sitting here in view. Whatever is going on is wrong and may be illegal.

Update:  Mark has been digging into the situation and found that the AP SACD people used the SQ matrix to create the rear channels. Their contract did not allow for this. What the AP engineers did is totally wrong and misrepresents the original intension of the master tape.

The QS matrix is designed for V-Groove record playback schemes, and has little to do with recording technology. The matrix used in these albums is an X-Y-Z matrix (a three-dimensional acoustic matrix) whereas the QS matrix is an X-Y or two-dimensional electronic matrix. One has nothing to do with the other. The QS matrix is shifted 90 degrees from the matrix lattice I used, so it will really screw up the dimensional intensions of the original. It's like taking a film that was shot with a spherical lens and making a copy using an anamorphic lens -- then calling it wide-screen. It is totally wrong. In fact, I would call these SACD issues bootleg copies. They are not authorized, violate the sonic copyright of the original, and misrepresent the original master to the public.

Anyone thinking of buying this SHAM COPY should save their money. Make a copy from my website and get the real thing. Besides, a regular CD will sound the same as a SACD if you are making a copy from an analog master tape. There is no sound improvement by using additional resolution. No dynamic range increase, no response betterment, no less noise. The AES proved that years ago, which is why the format failed. Again, given what has been uncovered, your best listen is from my website. This is what Carl and the boys wanted their music to sound like -- and there is no cost for learning. ~swd

Thanks for that explanation Steve. It's all clear now.

Just to confirm: there is no such thing as a true 4 channel surround version of Sunflower. Is this correct?

COMMENT to king of Anglia:  There is no discrete 4-channel format of Sunflower.  The two-channel commercially released version is a musically compatible two-channel stereo rendition. Within it is an unresolved surround matrix. This is an acoustically derived lattice that can be decoded using an x-y-z configuration that will produce a virtual surround panorama.

King, why don't you read all about it in my book. I keep providing the link and you keep asking questions that are all answered in that book. I wrote the book for people like you, who wish to know more. Take the time and read the book, or at least part one. 

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record. Certainly the current SACD from AP does not represent the album as it was originally produced, unless you are listening to the stereo track, but then this is without resolution of the playback matrix. ~swd

Why wasn't that presentation put on LP in the first place in 1970?

COMMENT to lukpac:  The answer to your question is in my book. READ THE BOOK !!  http://swdstudyvideos.com   Thank you.  ~swd

It's a simple question. Presumably there's a simple answer.

It just seems odd that the only way to "properly" hear the album is using equipment that only you possess.

COMMENT:  I don't think it is asking too much to read my book, a book that I took the time to write for fans such as yourself that seek more information than you find on an album jacket. As far as properly hearing the album via equipment I possess.  Since I was the one and only recording engineer and chief mixer for these albums, what is odd about me now having the one piece of equipment that will properly unlock the embedded codes in the stereo tracks I recorded. Equipment that I designed and Codes that I engineered. When I closed the studio I left all the equipment at the studio. What ever became of that equipment is not known, nor was it under my control. In recent years I have continued to refine and develop a playback matrix like the one I used over 45 years ago during the recording process. I have offered it to Capitol, Warner and BRI, but they think the public will be too confused if a resolved version is issued, so none ever was. Now with equipment I more recently designed, engineered, and built you may hear the definitive version for a visit to my website. I could be selfish and reserve playbacks for only myself, -- I think that would be odd -- but I have chosen to share with my fellow fans the sound of these albums that we (The Beach Boys) experienced in the control room those many years ago using equipment of more recent design that mimics the same lattice as was in use back then. Take advantage >>> http://swdstudyvideos.com  
~swd

It's extremely odd. Why mix something so it can't be properly heard by anyone other than yourself? It would be like creating a 3D film that must be viewed with special glasses, but nobody actually owns the glasses except the director.

Thanks Steve. I have read all of your descriptions in your study videos and if the book was available to buy, I would do so immediately (perhaps a kindle version?).

I know that there is no such thing as a four channel version of Sunflower. Its just useful to have it confirmed here in this thread by the engineer.

Lukpac, the answer to your question is in the Sunflower study video from about 6.31 minutes in. Simply put, the recorded company wasn't prepared to cut the correct resolved version of the album to vinyl as it would not have complied with RIAA standards. Therefore a consumer version of the matrix device was required.

This could have been corrected with subsequent digital releases as the same RIAA standards don't apply - no extra tech is needed to cut a fully resolved digital version.

However, no digital releases have ever contained the decoded mixes - apart from the version in the study videos.

The SACD is just another in a long line of incorrect versions of Sunflower. AP have attempted to do something with the surround version, but they've missed the point entirely.

I'm not sure what you mean by a long line of incorrect versions.  The stereo versions released through the years from the master are not incorrect, they reflect the tapes used and the engineering decisions of the mastering engineer of those releases, just as the original vinyl reflected Stephen and Carl's decisions.  Since the original vinyl mastering instructions in terms of EQ and volume are lost, these are about as correct as anyone can expect.  People who want the original vinyl can search out and purchase that version.  According to Mark the original vinyl was used as the reference for making the current stereo version on the AP SACD, so this may actually be the most "correct" version yet, despite what they did with the surround version.

What RIAA standards, specifically? The EQ curve and dimensional standards wouldn't be an issue.

http://www.aardvarkmastering.com/riaa.htm
https://linearaudio.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/RIAA%20Bulletins%20E1%20%26%20E4_1978%20LP%20dimensional%20standards.pdf

COMMENT to lukpac:  As King points out in his post, Warner did not wish to explore anything other than what they were use to doing. Actually the matrix version of Sunflower could meet RIAA specifications if one adjustment was made to the cutting lathe, which was demonstrated to them and they acknowledged. Yet, they were unwilling to advance the art and so stuck all the fans for the next fifty years with the same old stereo. And as King says, even in the digital age, the record companies were unwilling to release the intended versions (post LP). I have tried several ways to get the real version to those fans who wished to hear it, and the present idea, set forth in my website, is about the best one person can do. Please read the book and enjoy the sounds.  ~swd

COMMENT to lukpac:  "RIAA Standard" is herein used as a catch phrase. The RIAA standard for V-groove LP and 45 RPM records does give the cutting engineer a degree of leeway to practice his craft. Each cutting engineer has his own set of requirements of how the V-groove looks in cross-section -- requirements he has grown to trust and practice, knowing that the disk he cuts will not come back as un-traceable. In my case the engineer did not want to change settings on his lathe to bring the look of the groove (through a microscope) back into his comfort zone. (All LP cutting lathes are fitted with microscopes.) You won't find exact specifications for the V-groove in the RIAA spec just as you don't find exact specs for hysteresis curve requirements in NAB specs for tape recorders. Part of that is left to the "practice of the craft."  ~swd

COMMENT to Bicyclerider:  Of course in art there are no correct or incorrect versions, but since the art of recording and playback is an art based in science, there can be standards set to insure duplication of an original work of art does not deviate too much from the intentions of the artist. What King of Anglia means by stating that many of the reissues are "wrong" is that they deviate too far from the standard set by Carl as producer. What happens is that artistic judgments and flavorings are imposed by the mastering engineer which have the effect of moving too far from the sound of the original.

Now I know many of you are in love with digital sound or the digital method of mass-distribution. And digital has its advantages. But if you look at this from an engineering aspect, the ability of a master analog tape (15 or 30 IPS) recorded on a professional machine can be fully captured by any LP or CD. That is the frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, harmonic and intermodulation distortion generation and such measurements are exceeded by the LP or CD over an analog master tape. Given that fact, why not stay with the LP, that is, why change from analog to digital when the most complete representation of the original wave form is found on the LP. No matter how much the sampling rate is increased, it is still an incomplete representation of the complete analog waveform. If your source is an analog master tape, then the CD as a digital copy is just as capable of capturing all the tape can offer as the SACD and to think it somehow is an improvement is just in your head.
If the LP can capture all the master analog tape can offer, why not stay in the analog medium. What advantage is there to sample the analog and expect a computer to fill in the gaps between samples. Is this to somehow be superior?  I don't see the logic.
But the music business is a business. Digital copies have been sold to the general public as better than analog and so are a new source of income to many people. The music business has been saved by digital. That doesn't change the fact that analog is the standard, at least when it comes to Sunflower/Surf's Up and much before that. So when Mark says he used the original LP as a reference for mastering the SACD copy, I assume he is using an LP with the Artisan logo in the lead-out field. That is the original. But trying to match one sound to the other is very tricky and involves artistic judgment calls -- so again, we come back to the question, what is the standard?
In the study-video needle-drop section, I go back to the standard that Carl and myself approved. I used my original reference copy, a first pressing from the first LP-matrix cut by Artisan. This is an analog copy of the master tape with mastering changes approved by Carl and myself. Using the best A to D converters I own, I did convert to digital, but before that I applied the matrix and leading waveform reservation, to present the best representation of the standard approved by the artist (producer) that could be mass-distributed to those fans who wished to hear what we all heard and intended to be released to the public. As I said, that did not happen originally as the matrix was not included, but now available is the resolved version at http://swdstudyvideos.com as an educational reference. If you wish to spend money on something else, thinking it is somehow closer to what Carl intended, go ahead. However, I believe what you will find at my website is as close to the standard set by the producer as you will get. The only thing closer is to play the master tape through the matrix and listen over tube equipment. Unless you come to my house and listen to the LP through the matrix over tube equipment, you will have to settle for what is offered at my website. ~swd

Thanks for your detailed explanation Steve. Yours is the final word on this subject.

Steve I agree with almost everything in your post - I never meant to suggest that digital is a better medium or can sound better than a well crafted, engineered, mastered and cut LP.  In fact SACD and 24 bit sampling was specifically developed to get a more accurate reproduction of the sound on a master tape than a 16 bit CD - more sampling, less gaps to fill in, less digital artifacts introduced.  Note I said "more accurate" - it will only ever approximate the original master and LP, not improve upon it or match it.

Where some may disagree is whether one can hear the difference between 24 bit sampling on SACD and DVD and 16 bit sampling on a regular CD - Many believe you can, including the editors of Sterophile and The Absolute Sound.  More presence in the vocals, more air around the instruments, instruments like piano and violin sounding more like they sound in real life.  This will always be a subjective judgment and so can be impossible to prove or disprove, but there are some with"golden ears" who can perceive the difference and do it repeatedly in blind testing.  There are some audiophiles who can identify a digital cable's sound signature over another cable's reliably, as incredible as that seems to me.  

I understand and agree with your preference for analogue especially when that was the original artist's medium, but digital is how most people enjoy music today, and we wouldn't want to deprive the current and future generations of the pleasure of listening to Sunflower and Surfs Up and the rest of the Beach Boys catalogue in as good a sounding digital version as an be produced.  For me that was the intent of the AP SACD's - how well they succeeded is yet to be determined.

Actually, using double blind testing, there are no documented cases of anyone anywhere being able to repeatedly tell the difference between high resolution recordings of music and the exact same program material played back via a standard CD at 16/44.1. The same is true of high end cables vs well designed standard cables. There are many who claim to hear significant differences, but they almost always refuse to participate in a scientifically controlled double blind listening session in order to back up their claims. (This is not to say that a listener cannot enjoy a level of psychic gratification when listening to high-res or using expensive cables, feeling the music simply has to sound better or be blessed with various sonic qualities as a result of the fact that they aren't listening to standard CD quality or standard quality cables.)

For me, the glory of the SACD format has been in the 5.1 mixes and re-mixes and re-mastering of stereo music that I'm overly familiar with (e.g., Talking Heads, first four Elton Johns, Yes' Close to the Edge and Fragile, early Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Beck, Bjork, etc.). Steve Wilson's 5.1 re-mixes and Giles Martin's great work on LOVE in particular have refreshed music in ways that are what I imagined I was hearing when i used to get high. I realize that surround sound in the 5.1 format is not to everyone's taste, but when you hear something like Crosby's If I Could Only Remember My Name or Blood on the Tracks come alive into the room, it is genuinely thrilling.

Having said that, when I recall the great moments of aural joys in my life, nothing can compare with putting Sunflower on the turntable and putting on the headphones for the first time after i picked it up without any prior knowledge about it's release at a Korvettes department store in 1970. Who can forget reading Stephen's liner notes with such anticipation of what it would sound like? Still the greatest blend of foreground and background vocals in the history of popular music to these ears.

Good point. One of the nice advantages of remastered albums appearing in the SACD format, including those done in stereo as opposed to surround, is that since SACD listeners tend to be a very discerning bunch great care is typically taken in the remastering process, which isn't always the case with run of the mill remasters.


My reaction was the same when I picked up the Sunflower album in late Aug. 1970. I was listening with speakers (Fisher XP-5a's) rather than headphones, but the songs and the Beach Boys vocals, coupled with Stephen Desper's recording techniques, all combined to create a level of sonic nirvana which has never been duplicated in my listening experience. Sunflower instantly became my favorite album of all time, and has remained that way for the past 46 years. I feel we are very fortunate to have the engineer who was responsible for the amazing engineering work found on this album not only participating in this discussion but also making his study videos available to us.

Stephen, how close would I come to replicating the sonic presentation of Sunflower heard through your matrix device as it exists in it's current form today, when using the 360Surround matrix decoder I received when I purchased your original Recording the Beach Boys book back in 2002?

How about listening utilizing your consumer level Spatializer circuit or your pro Spatializer device?

Also, considering how technology has advanced over the years, how would you characterize the psychoacoustic sound and capabilities of the matrix device you would have used to encode Sunflower on LP back in 1970, compared to your modern matrix device?

That was difficult to read so my comment was that there have been single blind testing of individuals in the audiophile press, but you're right no double blind at least in the scientific sense - I.e. The individual is blinded to what he is listening to but the person doing the testing is not.

COMMENT:  Well stated bikerider!
Stereophile and Absolute Audio are well familiar to me having been the subject of articles, had records reviewed, and equipment analyzed of mine between their pages. I also am a member of several engineering societies including AES (Audio Engineering Society) for which I have also contributed papers.
Throughout my association with these groups, I along with others have concluded that they generally fall into two camps of thinking. The audiophiles like to make judgments from listening (subjective) whereas the engineers form their judgments from measurements (objective).
Each approach has its merits, but nether group should be taken as superior.
When I say that the master tape can be fully captured by a CD or an LP I am speaking from the objective viewpoint. When you measure the frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, or harmonic and intermodulation distortion of magnetic tape, the CD and LP can outperform magnetic tape. Therefore, from an engineering standpoint, nothing is compromised by mastering magnetic tape masters to the CD (Redbook) or LP (RIAA).
But in the subjective camp, listening to the magnetic tape and then the LP will give very little difference in quality, in fact if you use top-end analog equipment, you will be hard-pressed to tell the difference (once the music starts). However, a difference can be heard via the CD and in double-blind tests one can always be discerned from the other.
Is this difference a function of the sampling rate? A few years ago, when the SACD came into being, the AES (the objective guys) assembled a panel of mastering engineers, equipment designers, and experienced listeners, and involved them in a serious of double-blind listening tests designed to ascertain if music sounded better with the higher resolution of the SACD when compared to the standard CD. After many sessions, no one could repeatedly tell the difference. In fact, one group found the CD actually sounded better than the SACD. When looked into further, the engineers noted that artifacts generated by the increased processing of the higher sampling rate was creating artifacts that were audible and not part of the original. This phenomena was only present if the source was magnetic tape, but not if the source was of a higher resolution. Thus these engineering committees concluded that there was no discernible difference between a CD and SACD if the source was magnetic tape or analogue, and may even be more accurate with the CD. But, if the original source was high-resolution in the first place, then some improvement could be heard from the SACD.
Over the years, I have been involved in all manner of recording from direct to disk recordings, pure analog and recordings involving 196Hz/24bit, pure digital. I have listened over high quality studio monitors. As a recording engineer, I will say both are quite good, but analog always has more of a musical quality to it. It is easier to listen to and is less fatiguing. I find this true when listening in my home for my own pleasure. But that's the way for me. Other folks may prefer the digital experience over the fuss it takes to make an LP really sound good. That is one of the great benefits the CD has over the LP.  In the overview, if I compare the playback of an LP to the same downloaded file in 196/24 resolution over my own pristine playback system(s), myself and others who listen will always prefer the LP over the digital.
We are talking two-track here. In two-track land, only virtual surround schemes work. If you wish to explore peripheral surround schemes, then the consumer is stuck with digital. And if you are going to be using digital multi-channel formats, I find that Bluray has a more natural sound than SACD. ~swd  

And God blessed me with the set of ears I got.
Can't tell the differences but I know if I enjoy what I am listening to.

Interesting Stephen - I've heard some prefer DVD-audio to SACD as well for 2 channel.  Have you explored the new digital format, MQS (master quality sound - I'm sure you would take issue with that name!) that does lossless encodes in smaller digital files and then decodes them in 24/194? The different digital encoding/decoding supposedly removes the major sources of "digititis" or digital artifacts in the sound.

COMMENT to Bicyclerider:  I have downloaded and heard. You can do all the upscaling or downscaling you wish. If you like the sound -- go for it. I like analog sound because it seems to be more musical to my ears. Is that because the waveform is complete and not full of holes, I don't know for certain. Ask yourself, what standard is used to ascertain the quality of a digital resolution. If you answer analog, you are correct. Many of the digital schemes or formats try to come as close as possible to analog, but in the final analysis, only come close. Analog is complete, digital is sampled. ~swd

COMMENT to Custom Machine:  Rather than address each of your questions, I would ask you to read a response I posted over at the Steve Hoffman discussion site.  I think it will answer your questions.  Here it is:

---

COMMENT: (In Two Parts -- PART ONE)

By the way my website,     http://swdstudyvideos.com was compromised due to some problem they are having at ipage.com, the people who support the webpage. Somehow an older version of the website became published, which is why some of you cannot access part one of my book (the recording of Sunflower). Been on the phone all morning to correct. I think the website is now working with the “Sunflower” button connecting to Vimeo. Use passcode #1.

 I have read all of your discussion posts about this madness and, if you will indulge me a rather long post, I’ll try to bring some understanding to the situation.

There seems to be some confusion about the terms used here.

 The term “matrix” has several definitions. There is the LP matrix, which refers to the master Acetate disk from which all pressings are made along with the mother, stamper etc. I usually refer to that as the “LP matrix.”

With the advent of quadraphonic sound, the term “matrix” was coined to describe various schemes based on circuitry used to encode 4-channel discrete signals onto the LP V-Groove, which is a two-channel signal.

 When Dolby came onto the scene they took the old quadraphonic schemes, shifted the math 90 degrees, so that the matrix (so-called) for quad of left-right-left rear-right rear, with speakers placed at the four corners of the sound field, became left-center-right-rear, with speakers now placed left/right/center/rear. The surround signal was mono with all rear speakers the listener, but created a center channel. The main objective of Dolby was to provide a stable center channel for dialog in movie sound tracks. Later as various schemes were developed, discrete rear channels were incorporated so that stereo rear channels were possible.

 Today it is common-place to buy a movie soundtrack as 5.1 or 7.1 with all channels discrete, that is, not in a matrix.

 When I recorded Sunflower and was the Beach Boys' engineer, I had a studio to my own, with all the funding, time, talent and equipment I wanted. That was around fifty years ago. Quadraphonic sound would not be invented for several years. I became fascinated with psychoacoustics, but while studying that topic I realized the real reasons for sound doing what it does lies in the brain and brain function. So I began to study neurology with respect to recording stereo and found that microphone arrays were the key to making sound appear to originate outside the normal sound stage. I found that I could get sounds, voices, instrument, effects to image out in the sound field or beyond the two stereo speakers and in some cases, image over your shoulder, and even to behind you. Not all types of sounds could image at all locations, but with practice I identified which types of sound did best to image forward of the speakers, or beyond the two speakers.

 After some time I also developed circuits that created a matrix that could accomplish almost the same effect. Now remember that we are reproducing stereo over two speakers, that was the standard of the day – and in many cases is still the standard today from FM radio, CD’s, LP’s and cassettes.

 I found that I could capture three-dimensional space using just microphone arrays of three or five microphones, matrixed into two channels. The connection of the three or five mics to two channels was done via an electronic circuit, but their inner relationships was acoustic. At first I used transformers connected in a way that generated a matrix, but soon developed circuits to do the same.

 The microphones captured audio in an acoustically related way that can only be achieved through the use of arrays. This generates an x-y-z lattice. In other cases I used circuits to produce an x-y lattice, with the z coordinate being synthetically derived.

 In order to overcome the limitations of stereophonic reproduction over two speakers, I developed a matrix that would generate a sound field in reproduction that today we would call, virtual surround. Back all those years ago, I called it a matrix sound. In today’s language this can cause some confusion.

 You see, your ears and brain were designed to perceive an environment that caressed you with a plethora of sounds encircling 360 degrees to all sides, above and beneath. But note: every sound came from one single source that had a given direction, physical size and distance, all useful to primitive man whether protecting or providing. Your brain evolved to process life's ocean of sounds — what's approaching, what's moving, what's large or small — to save you from harm. The brain was designed for survival — flight or fight — not for entertainment. The fact is . . . the brain has not changed, and how could it? Your body’s ear/brain system has been the same for 60 million years. Around 60 years ago, stereophonic sound reproduction entered into commercial entertainment. Unlike the single-point and constantly varying sound sources of our evolutionary history, entertainment stereo propagates from two widely separated, but stationary sound sources. By using differing signals, two loudspeakers create imagery that seems to emanate mostly between the two sources – an artificial representation of life. Because your brain is not formatted to accurately extract the information from a stereo sound field, it is represented to you as less-then-lifelike. The matrix resolves that limitation by tailoring what you hear from your stereo system so it's compatible with the brain's cognitive methods.

 The design philosophy of the “matrix” is based upon a neural processing model. It is not an HRTF device, nor does it use DTF, IACC or PCA functions or formulas. The bases of the design rests on “perceptual Precedence” as a means of biasing the brain’s auditory spatial perception. Perceptual precedence is a reflex action wherein the mind is nudged to realize an entire auditory pattern by presentation of partial information only, similar to our ability to recognize familiar shapes even if most of the shape may be blocked from view.

 These techniques are based on an understanding of labeled line code, discharge patterns of rapidly and slowly receptor adaptation encoding and frequency and population codes, etc. used by the brain to overcome its big problem, latencies of action-potentials as each synaptic connection is made to the next level of neural processing.

 I realize these are not topics or terms familiar to the average recording engineer, but if you really want to understand how recording and reproduction function, you have to move past sound as something in the air (psychoacoustics). There is no sound, as such, anywhere in reality. In reality all there is is movement of molecules and changes in barometric pressure. Sound becomes meaningful or even identifiable only in the brain. Sound, or what we call “sound” is only a concept. Like music, it is a brain function. An orchestra does not produce sound or music; all it does is move molecules around in the air. By way of brain activity a dog hears the sound of the orchestra and by why of higher brain functions, a human hears the music of an orchestra.
 Science calls this "Conceptual Image Space (from a paper at JPL), which basically states that all perceived reality takes place between our ears, not in the external model that is presented to us as humans. Thus, the reality each of us perceives is unique, personal, and is a representation of reality, not reality itself. You can see how this plays into the recording of sound. The engineer is not capturing sound, rather is ultimately compelling the brain to process the undulations of the two speaker cones in an way that will convince the brain of a produced reality.

 So it all comes back to the human brain. Using applied neuralplasticity the matrix I developed causes new neural pathways to grow, which bring the added dimensions to stereo perception by the brain. This is not like the matrixes used today that are based on psychoacoustics. Those are based on sound as reality in air, whereas neuralplasticity uses the brain as a processor.

 Having said that, Sunflower and all the stuff I recorded for The Beach Boys has within its two channels, a matrix that is musically compatible with regular stereo. That is, all the inter-balance and relationships of elements within the mix offer a compatible listening experience if reproduced in stereo. If however, the matrix is resolved the sound field is expanded and will image well beyond the stereo speakers, in front of them, and in some cases to the rear. This is similar to surround sound but is not the same.

 Today’s surround sound is a perimeter surround. That is, real speakers are placed about the edge of the sound field and create a sound around you, which you hear with your two ears. The matrix used in Sunflower, etc. creates sound around you and also within the sound field using your two ears and your brain as a processor. Under controlled listening conditions, you cannot tell the virtual experience from the real experience. In fact, because the virtual system is based on spectral time shifts rather than amplitude changes, the virtual system can also steer sounds to points within the sound field. Thus, rather than hearing sound around you, the virtual can place violins in front of horns, or the lead singer forward of the group. You can’t do that with multiple speakers, only with two speakers. Two ears; two speakers. Multiple speaker surround sound is very good and works over a large listening area (such as a cinema), but using many speakers in a smaller room can confuse the image with its multiple sound sources all speaking at once. Virtual surround is limited to one or two listeners, but if in the “sweet spot” can mimic the envelopment of the speaker-surround format.

 PART TWO FOLLOWS . . .

COMMENT: PART TWO

As I said, this concept (later to be patented internationally) was thought up when state-of-the-art was the 12 inch LP. The mixes made on Sunflower, etc., where done with NO consideration of anything like a four-discrete-track future release. These mixes are not conceived for reproduction over a multiple speaker surround system. The matrix is meant to be heard over two stereo speakers only. That is the sound the producer has set as a standard.

I will be the first to agree that there is no right nor wrong in art; only preferences. But if the art form is supported by science, then a standard must be applied that represents the producer’s intentions with respect to the science. In this case, the standard is by listening in virtual surround over two speakers.

To make a musically compatible stereo version of the matrixed version, we mixed down while monitoring (listening) through the matrix (resolved), but recording without. The “without” is the stereo version. To get the virtual surround sensation the stereo must be resolved through the matrix. Remember, I was the engineer for a huge group, their market is the stereo LP. So if I’m using an advanced idea, in the end it must become an LP vinyl record. Knowing this, I cut hundreds of Acetates as recording of the songs advanced, correcting many problems. Together with Brian Ingoldsby of Sound Master Studios and using his lathe, we worked out the geometry and ballistics of how to get the cutting stylus to cut a groove that the average consumer could trace. It required the change of two parameters on the cutting lathe. Now I’ve already cut a matrixed version of Sunflower onto an LP using Brian’s lathe. It plays on all varieties of players, poor and great. I played parts of the record for the cutting engineers at Warner. They were impressed with the sound, but not willing to re-adjust the lathe. Even when presented with concrete (or acetate) proof, looking at it through the microscope and the results on the scope – shaking their heads NO, impossible. But yet there it is in the looking glass and being played on their record-player. So we fell back on the master without resolution that is musically compatible with the matrix version. That became what has always been issued; remastered, yes, but always the two-track stereo. When I left the Beach Boys to move on with Zappa, the matrix and the entire studio was discarded as a new console and engineer moved in.

Some years ago I decided to rebuild the matrix and started listening, refineing the design as time let me. No one at Capitol, Warner’s and BRI has shown interest in releasing a matrixed version of Sunflower – even after demonstrations – claiming that other versions would confuse the puplic. When digital came along, I tried to get matrixed versions released – now completely mechanically compatible. But "stay the course" was always the answer.

Finally, I decided to decode many songs that have never been heard that way, doing it under the educational aspects of the copyright law. Only the diehard Beach Boy fan is going to care about listening this way so I provided a playback of the original mastering done with Carl’s (acting producer) and my approval, resolved through the matrix, the one I built to use back then. How much more original do you need. The original mastering, done the way we heard it at playback. To me that is the standard.

By way of a need for education on this subject, you can hear the original intention of the producer at the time of mixdown, by going to my (now working) webpage, and at page 3, click on the “Recording The Beach Boys – part one (Sunflower” button. There you can read part one of the book and hear the album in virtual surround or whatever you wish to call it.

What makes me mad is that after no one was interested in making the virtual surround version available to the public, Capitol licenses all the Beach Boy catalog to AP with the express stipulation not to change or modify, or re-mix anything.

So out of ignorance and arrogance, AP takes it upon themselves to apply a matrix for speaker surround to the virtual surround lattes. To make matters worse, they use a matrix designed for quadraphonic record playback, not recording, is 90 degrees shifted, and intended for four discrete channels as the source. My matrix uses x-y-z coordinance. They used x-y coordinance.

You bet I am mad. I tried over the years, decades, to get the record companies to embrace, what has come to be termed 3D Sound, the Beach Boys would be the first group to offer such a sound, and on a record, but no. Now AP misses the mark entirely, screws up the matrix, makes changes to the standard, and disrespects the terms of their contract (as I understand it).

And it pisses me off that after so much work was put into recording the virtual experience, getting it to cut to an LP, and to be compatible for broadcasting, to have it butchered so openly, is an offence to me and to the memory of Carl Wilson. AS I’ve always said, it’s the music business – emphasis on business. If there’s a buck to be made, they’ll do it. It is such a shame that the original intension of the producer was shoved aside by engineers who have no idea what they are doing. And then shoved onto an unsuspecting audience.

After all, my engineering efforts have been demonstrated to work. Professional Spatializer with its 24 joysticks, was/is used by Warner Pictures (Spelburg used it) MGM, Hans Zimmer bought three, NBC, many major studios domestic and foreign, the Olympic committee bought 11 units broadcasting virtual surround to 2-Billion people, Michael Jackson even put a song on an LP via HIStory. Then the commercial offering of an IC sold over 60 million channels of virtual surround (called 3D Sound). So the concept is well proven. With the advent of 5.1 surround and surround-sound-in-a-box, consumers liked getting real speakers rather than virtual ones and could relate to that. Soon so-called 3D sound was gone.

AP did not do their homework. They should have made a connection between the guy who engineered these albums and his company that made matrixes. After all, my devices, equipment and albums are known. I have written numerous articles and been reviewed and analyzed in the press. The Spatializer product came after The Beach Boy recordings and is more refined, but the Sunflower matrix is based on microphone arrays whereas the chip is not. At least AP could have tried something virtual or contacted me for consultation, or something other than just blindly venturing into a field they evidently know little about. Talk about confusing the public. AP is doing it royally, through misrepresentation. I wonder if they understand how a matrix works? Or does just any ol, one work.

If you disregard the standards of science as an art form, then the bottom line in listening is to enjoy what you hear. If it makes you happy – the entertainment value is high, money will be made, and the hell with the artist.

Let me relate a story to you. When I had my sound research lab in Los Angeles, it was located up in the northern part of the city in the foothills. I lived in the area too. There was a fellow, a retired frail old man who, with his dog, would wonder the neighborhood with a cart full of used radios, speakers, and amplifiers of all sizes and shapes. I learned he was a retired radio repair serviceman. He must have been in his 80’s and had been collecting for a decade. Occasionally I’d give him a piece of equipment no longer needed. Over the years we became friends. I don’t know where he got all his used equipment, but his cart was always brimming with audio things. I always assumed he repaired and sold the stuff, and one day asked him how he was doing with that. To my surprise I learned he did not sell anything, rather he took it home and added it to his collection of working sound devices of all types. Fascinated, I ask if I could see his collection, which was in his home. The day of my visit I found that his home was nestled, or should I say, hidden way back off a small street, behind hedges, bushes, and up against a hill. It was an old house, kinda rundown. Going inside it had that musty smell I remember from my grandparent’s house. I was shown into a rather large room, I guess the living room. Then looking around I could not believe all the speakers, some mounted in enclosures, some just sitting by themselves I could see. There were guitar amps, clock radios, tweeters, PA speakers, and every other type of sound generating transducer you can imagine. They were everywhere, floor to ceiling, left, right, behind me, in corners, shelves, tables – every nook and cranny. An amazing sight. But not as amazing as what happened next. I ask him if this was his stereo system. But he said he didn’t think much of stereo, instead he liked mono and told me that every one of the devices I was seeing was connected to his one turntable. I said, you mean all this stuff is one very large and elaborate sound system? Yes was the emphatic answer. Knowing in my head that this was going against every design fabric in my audio head, I was anxious to hear this gathering of sonic junk. My friend pulled out an LP of symphonic pops and placed it on his old Garrard record changer, fitted with, I think, a mono GE pickup cartridge. Now I had been living with state-of-the-art Tannoy monitors in the lab, so this was going to be an interesting sound, I thought. But was I wow-ed! It wasn’t anything like I was expecting to hear. In fact it wasn’t anything like I had ever heard, or have heard since. The sound was certainly open, and spacious – what with all those separate sources, each with its own sound tonality. Yet it was surprisingly detailed and interesting. You could direct your ear’s attention and hear whatever part of the sound you wished. In that way it was enveloping. As I listened I thought, here is a guy who could not begin to afford one of my lab speakers, and yet, his ingenuity and resourcefulness has put that refined listening experience to shame. Here was something completely different in approach and execution, but it worked and it worked just fine. I could relate to what I was hearing and could see how a person could be quite happy listing in this way. During the next few hours, I was treated to many old and wonderful songs, even some of the early 45 Beach Boy surfing hits. Those were especially enchanting, sounding anything but mono.

 The point of this little story is to illustrate that in art, there is neither right nor wrong, only what you like.

If you wish to buy a re-mastered SACD and have some wrong algorithm re-negotiate the spectral and spatial elements, so that it is no longer near the intentions of the producer, go ahead? If it turns you on, makes you sing along with the music, gets your foot tapping, and leaves you satisfied, that makes it a good listening experience. Or if you just like to collect things, spend your money. I think what you get is the most expensive bootleg of all times. Bootleg because it wasn’t authorized, screws up the sound, and is not what the producer intended to be released, and is sold for profit.

You know the Beach Boy organization paid me a lot of money to keep them at state-of-the-art. Then they sat on the technology until finally releasing it through a bungling mastering house. Now the product Sunflower, etc., is officially released with the wrong matrix in place. This is worse than releasing it, just in Stereo.

For Carl and the rest of the Beach Boys and myself, at the time of release, the sound we liked and set as a standard can be heard at my website, that is, if you are interested from an education aspect in the history of this album, in words and sounds. I suppose you could compare it to the SACD version, but that does not change the original intensions of the artist, as does this latest issue. Not only does the SACD multi-channel change the sound concept of the album(s), but invents tracks that were never there and were never suppose to be there.

If you’re still reading, thanks. I hope I have clarified some of the issues.

Good Listening,[/size] ~Stephen W. Desper

This is a terrific discussion. Thank you for all the info!

I just wanted to add a few points on some issues that came up. Regarding the ability of audiophiles to distinguish between various cables and whatnot, I guess if it keeps them happy in their listening pursuits, then that's one thing.

But what is does do is keep the cable manufacturers and those who market and advertise for them in some serious green. I would love to see more "double blind" tests where various high-priced cables, connectors, etc are compared under strict controlled environments and get the results.

I say this because 30 years ago or so, pre-internet, the guitar magazines had stories about one guitarist who claimed to be able to tell the difference between brands of 9V batteries that powered his effects pedals. I'll leave him unnamed and basically leave that claim at that. But I will say...really?

The guitar accessories market is literally a jungle. I know what demographic they sell to, and to put it bluntly, it's more about disposable income than it is about the music. If they can find a way to sell a coiled 1/4" guitar cable as "vintage" and promote the "classic" sound of th3 coiled cables versus regular cables, then that's what they're paid to do. But to a guy playing classic rock covers in a bar or at a wedding, if using a coiled cable versus a straight cable makes a bit of difference in what the audience hears or pays to see...I'll admit I don't see the point. But if the bar band guy with the $3,995 Les Paul and boutique tube amp that's not a Fender, Marshall, Vox, or Boogie but is trying to "improve" those tones wants to drop 60 bucks on a coiled cable for a classic sound...it's his money.

There are so many variables to hearing and perceiving audio from the physics and acoustics of the room to the position of the listener's ears in relation to the sound source that a consumer who claims to be able to notice which speaker cables or wiring is being used seems a bit overboard. But it sells product.

I wonder if Duracell or Eveready 9V batteries sounded better in an old Phase 90.  :)

Then there's the market for "power conditioners" because the electricity provided to your house is dirty with extraneous surges and noise that affect the sound, and your power cord, and the antivibration pads to put under all your electronics.  Many claim that listening to a streaming 16 bit recording through your computer sounds better than the original CD - it avoids reading and clocking errors I think is the proposed explanation.

Audiophiles are always coming up with tweaks to improve the sound, and many convince themselves they hear a difference.  I truly believe some of these things make a marginal difference that only a brain with the right psychoacoustics, to borrow Stephen's phrase, can detect.  All are dwarfed by the quality of the mastering of the record or CD, including Rez vs. hi Rez, and also dwarfed by the quality of the speakers, source player, and electronics IMO.

COMMENT:  Here's the thing about fancy cables, some of which sell for $1,000 a foot. It's not that one cable is superior to another, rather the cables should be viewed as part of the entire system's sound. Cables, all cables, even $1,000/ft. cables interact with the components at each end. So, if you judge a cable where the input interface or inter-reaction is low, the cable sounds neutral. If the capacitance is low, the cable may sound like it lets more high-end through or may sound clearer. But if you take the same cable and connect it between other equipment, it may react differently. So cable, is a passive, but interacts with active components. Cables must be viewed as a part of the system. There is no accurate or perfect cable.
Even a simple guitar cord can "flavor" the sound of the instrument / headamp-speaker combination. Stick with basic engineering principles, not subjective reviews. If you intend to buy some "designer" cables, be certain that the seller will let you experiment ON YOUR SYSTEM with different brands. Have listening sessions. Sometimes the cheaper brands do better with certain components. Otherwise, it is fun to read all the hype about cable construction and theory. I have one audiophile friend who invested in little stands that elevate his cables off the floor. Something to do with the ground makes elevation the key to better cable sound. AND, not only elevating, but for only $50 each you can buy, not the plastic, but the carved oak elevators. Those seem to sound best.
You see some crazy stuff, but, someone buys it. ~swd   
~swd

Interesting - back in the early days of CD reissues, the label "Digitally remastered from the original master tapes" was supposed to signify a superior product, in that the first-generation "flat" mono or stereo mixdown tape was used, rather than a subsequent EQ'd-and-limited LP "production master", because the whole point of the latter was supposed to be a tape that was modified specifically for the limitations of the LP medium (or, worse, the cassette or 8-track mediums), usually with lots of bottom-end filtered out to prevent the stylus from jumping. Going back to the first-generation mixdown tape was supposed to result in the optimal listening experience, in all its full-dimensional glory. Now, what we're seeing (at least in terms of early '70s Beach Boys productions - including the '72 mastering of Pet Sounds) is a gravitation towards the artist-approved second-generation LP production master, as it is now viewed as the final step in the album's official preparation.

My impression is that artists were more concerned with approving the first generation master tape - that is what they hear back in the studio after mixing as their "final product."  They assume the sound of the master they approve, or the producer approves, will be duplicated as faithfully as possible on vinyl.  Then the cutting engineer comes in and does what he/she thinks they need to do to make the LP playable and defect free, shaving bass, compressing dynamic range, etc., even though as Stephen has stated all that is not really necessary, but it was record company policy, and the artist/producer may or may not like the end result.  George Harrison was horrified when he heard the vinyl test pressings of the US white album and he supervised the re EQing of the tapes.

I think it was rare that the artist and producer took such an interest in the LP production master as Carl and Stephen did, right down to how the album was cut.  Most artists left all that stuff to the record company - like the Stones and Dylan did, for example. 

COMMENT to c-man:  Allow me to add to the points you make above.  The Music Business.  Always remember it is a business.

The source of the LP is a magnetic tape. The LP can copy everything the tape can offer. The CD can copy everything the tape can offer. Magnetic Tape is the weakest link from microphone to loudspeaker. These tape copies marked "LP Master" contained all the last minute tweaks, for EQ, level, limiting, bass blending, de-essing, etc. the artist may request and certainly approves. The stigma comes from "LP" being in the name. If this final mastering tape had been labeled, "Final Master," there would be no stigma attached to the sound.
If you believe the sound of the release should mimic the sound that was on the original LP or 45, the CD can give you that. You don't need to redo anything. Just make a flat copy of the LP Master tape. If however, you think changing the EQ, limiting, etc., from what it was originally intended to sound like would improve the product, then re-master it. It could prove improved.
In either case the CD can handle both.

Why did Sony (the inventor of the CD) think it would replace the LP?  It was cheaper to manufacture, holds more music, doesn't cracker and pop when dirty, no surface noise, cost 7 cents to make not $.50 for the LP, and it was lighter - cheaper to mail.
When introduced, the biggest job would be to make available all the music that had already been released on LP. So if you wanted to keep your job and make money, you had to get on the CD bandwagon. One bonanza was duplicating and the excuse that the CD required re-mastering made a lot of money for mastering houses and mastering engineers. The art departments too, had to re"master" all the LP jacket art down to CD size. Lots of money was to be made.

Not that way today.  For example Capitol Records just had a press release that it will no longer be making any CDs or LPs or cassettes, after 2018. Everything will be sold as a file, on line only. No more CD's from the tower. Will everything now need to be re-mastered for streaming?

The needle only jumps out of the V-groove because of excessive vertical movement of the stylus caused by excessive out-of-phase coordinates in the signal, usually during large orchestral recordings, not popular music. This is easily removed using a blending equalizer. It will sum all signals below 100 Hz, changing the vertical movement of the stylus to lateral swing, the opposite movement to jumping out. This special EQ is applied at the lathe, not on the Master LP tape. So the solution to this problem is not on the final master tape and would not be copied onto a CD.

In short, there is no need to re-master a song unless you want to change it from the original.  ~swd      ~swd

COMMENT to BikeRider:  What you say is a common mis-conception. The CD is not limited by the LP. All the limiting and frequency contours have nothing to do with the medium. All the manipulation is about sales. Limiting the LP or CD makes it sound louder, when compared to other labels. Louder sounds best. Cutting the bass is not about tracking, it's about being able to play the song louder on a player with a small speaker. Compressing dynamic range is not so it fits onto the LP. The LP and the CD have 20dB MORE dynamic range than magnetic tape. Besides, pop music usually has a dynamic range of 15 dB. No challenge for the LP's 100 dB or CD's 120dB. Dynamic range is limited so that the music can be heard in places where there is noise. Even your living room has noise. Limiting dynamic range and then lifting it makes for a more "listenable" record or CD.

A good example of this can be heard on my website at the button "God Only Knows". At that study-video you can hear examples of mastering for a 45 versus an LP.

~swd    http://swdstudyvideos.com

 

Stephen, can you please elaborate on this and provide a source? Thank you.

COMMENT to sparkydog1725:
I read a lot. Between the time I posted about Capitol and now, I've read much stuff. I can't say for certain, but I think it was in STEREOPHILE Magazine. I'll continue to try and find a reference for you. What I remember reading in the article was that Capitol has announced that after 2018 they will not be making hard copies of music. All music will be released on-line as a file.  Although the article did not say, I would assume that hard copies (CDs, LPs, Cassettes,) will be licensed to other businesses to issue. In other words, because of changing market dynamics, Capitol will cease to be a manufacturer of hard copies of music. They will farm that out and only release files of the music to be downloaded for a fee. I'll continue to search for the source. ~swd

Thank you Stephen.

COMMENT to c-man:  I don't know what all the fuss is about, but I appreciate your detailed comments.  If you want a reference go back and play the original LP as mastered by Artisan and issued by Brother Records, Inc.  It is that simple. ~swd

COMMENT:   I was just reading a nice comment about the study-videos. Then went back to comment on a previous post. But, when I came back to the post I was reading it disappeared from the thread. I wish it could be re-posted.

If I recall, the last part of the post that disappeared ask if there was a way to copy the study-video for a collection. AND the answer is yes. It is legal to copy the educational study-videos as long as you use it for personal use and do not make copies to sell for profit.

Look on page three, the buttons at the bottom of the page.  One of them says "how to make copies" or something similar. It will direct you to several websites that show you how to copy from Vimeo to a DVD using your computer. It's a rather simple process.  ~swd

So I'm guessing that all of the digitally only releases aka Keeping an Eye on Summer and the 65' Chicago Concert is Capitol testing the waters for future Digital releases? This could be a good thing! We may finally get to see every take of every song for the hard cores and more various Session Highlight releases.

COMMENT:

UPDATE on the SACD fiasco:

This has now become part of the history of Surf’s Up – and you were part of it.

The posters over at quadraphonicquad.com, have unearthed information that has lead to solving the mystery as to why AP thought it was OK to use the EV4 quad record matrix to create new information for the rear channels of their 4-channel SACD issue.

The tip of the spear, as QQ members reveal, points to an LP insert with a little notice right above my name as chief engineer and mixer, stating:

“This recording has been produced so that it may be enjoyed in stereophonic sound or quadraphonically, using the Dynaco and EV Stereo-4 systems”

One poster provided a photo of the insert, which was in a Reprise/Warner issue of the album with a date of 1971. (Warner—the very company that rejected the album being cut in 3D Sound was now boosting that it could be played through an EV4 decoder for quad sound. How hypocritical is that? !)

I pulled out every copy of Surf’s Up I have, which are all first issues, and also posted a photo of the inserts for my albums at quadraphonicquad.com. Those DO NOT have this quad notice on them and are also dated 1971, but issued from Brother Records Inc., which predates the Warner/Reprise issue. The notice does not appear in any CD booklet.

Comparing the two insert versions, the later one by Warner/Reprise showed some of the other wording on the insert had been shifted in position to accommodate the added notice.

The insert I approved, along with Carl, had evidently been changed after the first run of Surf’s Up to include this quad notice. When we mixed down Surf’s Up, EV4 was yet to be invented, so it would have been impossible to make the album for this quad format. It was made for a virtual format, rejected by Warner.

I have always been under the impression that when artwork is release for an album, it is locked into all future re-issues and all other runs of that album. I can’t remember ever seeing changes to album jackets or inserts after their initial run.

After Surf’s Up was mixed, mastered, and released, the Beach Boys went to Holland and I went to Australia with Frank Zappa. Meanwhile, the quad LP market was expanding. In my opinion, someone at Reprise thought it might increase sales if people, looking to buy quad LPs, were assured that this stereo disk could be decoded by their quad decoders into quad, they would buy the disk, rather than pass over it for some real quad album. So the insert was placed, but no one said anything to anyone or checked the engineering accuracy of the added statement.

I have never had a reason to buy, look into, or wonder about changes to Surf’s Up. As far as I was concern it was a “done deal.” So the change went un-noticed for decades, until technology made it possible to buy 4-channel sound via the SACD.

I apologize to Analogue Productions for assuming they issued the 4-track version without thought or research. AP just followed what they assumed was accurate information on the LP insert and used an EV4 decoder to extract the back channels. I might have done the same.

As I have posted many times on several websites and in my book . . . the album is intended to be heard via a virtual matrix decoder over two-speakers. EV4 is the incorrect decoder and the wrong format, but you can’t blame AP for their mistake, as it remained part of the album’s art, unchanged and unchallenged for all these years. One little erroneous notice, stuck in-between a lot of other stuff on a liner note that is no longer inserted in releases of this album, LP or CD.

It is an unfortunate situation all around. The current offering of Sunflower and Surf’s Up are still not sold in the correct format; confusion abounds. I wish this error had been caught a long time ago, but it has eluded us all. Now it is water under the bridge and the damage cannot be undone.

The only way both albums may be heard as originally intended remains via the educational examples from my book, Recording The Beach Boys. However, the two-channel mastering on the AP SACD is very similar to the sound of the LP and should be considered for purchase as an accurate representation of the stereo master tape version for any Beach Boy fan’s collection.   Good Listening,  ~Stephen W. Desper

I'm unclear what you're referring to in terms of labels. The early/original copies I'm aware of have both Brother and Reprise/Warner designations. For example, this white label promo from 1971 has the Brother logo, the Reprise logo, and indicates it was distributed by Warner Brothers:

(https://img.discogs.com/U7g6Of9JYi_CHRMCKK8r9j55d6Y=/fit-in/410x410/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4546055-1367961869-6651.jpeg.jpg)

Are you saying some pressings have *only* Brother and others have *only* Reprise/Warner?


When exactly was Surf's Up mixed? It was released August 30, 1971, and the Electro-Voice system had been announced in December 1970, over 8 months prior. In addition, Rolling Stone reported on the use of the Dynaco system in October 1970:

Four for the Price of Two
Rolling Stone/October 29, 1970

"LOS ANGELES - If you have a stereo system, you're a lamp cord and two more speakers away from having a quadraphonic (four channel) system.

Brother Records, the Beach Boys' label, discovered the instant conversion system when their director of engineering, Stephen Desper, read about it in a technical magazine, and their first compatible quadraphonic album - quad, stereo, and monaural - should be out next week.

The system, according to Jack Reilly, Brother's director of creative services, was developed by Dynaco, and electronics parts company in Philadelphia, and it enables consumers to bypass new tape equipment and new kinds of records to get the four-channel effect. Brother Records will include an instruction sheet with their next album releases. The first one will be by Flame, the South African band discovered by the Beach Boys in a London cabaret several months ago.

To get the quad effect in a phonograph record, Reilly said, the stereo mixdown "goes through a matrix which electronically combines and properly shifts each of the four tracks into the walls of the groove." When playing the record, the instruction sheet explains, "the stylus in the groove may move one of four says: left-center, right-center, up-center or down-center...but records have never before been mixed down in a way as to take advantage of the full range of movement by the stylus.

The listener converts his stereo amp into four-track by hooking up all four speaker outputs by either speaker wire or lamp cord.

The system, Reilly said, was successfully tested on the recently released Beach Boys' Sunflower album - two tracks, "Cool Cool Water" and "Got to Know the Woman," are actually quadraphonic - and will be used on all future Brother releases. Reilly is hoping other labels will follow.

"The industry," he said, "would just love for all of us to have to buy new equipment to get quadraphonic sound. But the Beach Boys feel it's time one company give the public what they can get without making them spend more money."

So far, most quadraphonic marketing has centered on four-channel tapes and tape systems."

It seems there's more to the story than some boffin at Reprise simply adding a line in the insert by mistake.

COMMENT to lukpac:  I did not cite record labels, I said insert.  Specifically the insert with dried mud. You should checkout the quadraphonic.com board and look at the photos provided there. (You may need to join to see the photos.)

Jack Reilly is not an engineer and could barely operate a toaster. So whatever he said in an interview about engineering can be taken with a grain of salt.  Sunflower and Surf's Up are not quadraphonic and never were.  This is Mr.-know-it-all Jack just talking through his behind. He is extrapolating information he did not understand from one project (the FLAME) to another project (The Beach Boys).  One is not connected to the other.  The matrices are different. BB matrix I used on their albums was a virtual matrix. Flame used a rudimentary quad matrix. One is 90 degrees shifted from the other. The BB matrix uses two speakers and the Flame used four speakers.

This makes me wonder if Jack Reilly is the real culprit here, as I think you are implying.  Did he, in his ignorance, add the line to the Surf's Up insert, when he returned from Holland and I was gone, that has caused all this confusion including AP to use the incorrect matrix for their SACD issue?  I wouldn't put it past him to screw this up, from his grave, like he did so many things with the Beach Boys when he was alive.

You will note that Jack says "Quad effect" and then claims that the Beach Boy songs are four track. Yes, you can get a quad-like effect from any record by application of any number of decoders. So what? You can play a stereo record through a modern Dolby 5.1 algorithm and get five channels, but that is not the intension of the producer or engineer. This is just more Bull Sh-t from the king of Bull Sh-t, Jack Reilly.

Sunflower and Surf's Up were recorded over several years. The tracks on some songs date back further. Release dates and recording dates usually are not the same. You don't record an album in a month and then release it. Read my book!

The EV4 and Dynaco systems were designed to encode a 4-track master into two-channels that were cut on an LP. Then when playing the LP the consumer put the signal into a decoder that outputted four channels that were sent to four amplifiers and four speakers. These systems were for quadraphonic LPs, not recording studio use. In order to use any of the quad systems (and there were several), the studio master must be 4-tracks (hence the Greek word, Quad, meaning four.) The demos you cite were demonstrated to mastering engineers and were of interest to them. Recording engineers making quad recordings would think or engineer in terms of four discrete tracks. These discrete tracks would be used by the mastering house to make the quad LP. Quadraphonic records are not encoded at the recording studio or during the recording or mixdown process. On the other hand, two-channel recordings made using virtual matrices would be encoded in the recording studio with the resolution decoding added at the time of mastering (or playback). Two different animals. In the special case of the FLAME album, I monitored using four speakers at mixdown and cut directly to two-tracks. In effect, the monitoring circuit encoded the rear channels so no separated 4-track was needed. To understand all this may require more dialog. I'm sorry, but I just don't have time to explain it in detail. Technically the FLAME album was a stereo album. In order to hear it over four speakers, the user had to connect two extra speakers to a stereo amp following the diagram supplied with the album The diagram was a decoder scheme. The FLAME album did not have a four-channel master, only a two-channel master that was made (monitored) using four speakers. (Incidentally, I still have the two rear speakers we used. I use them in a bedroom system now.)

Looks like Jack should leave engineering to engineers, and hyping to the ad department. Engineering deals with facts. Hype deals with fiction. Jack Reilly should have known the difference. 

   ~swd

Steve, did Jack have anything to  do with your exit from the BBs production team? Strange times in post-BW leadership era of the 1970s BBs...

Recording The Beach Boys
COMMENT to SMilE Brian:  You will read about it in the second part of my book, Recording The Beach Boys.  Thanks for waiting.  ~swd

Where can i get that?

COMMENT to wingsoveramerica:  Three years ago I launched a website (link below) dedicated to educating the visitor about Beach Boy songs from an engineering and recording point of view.  At the website various songs and albums are examined by selecting them via "radio buttons" labeled with each topic. Some dissect the song and re-assemble it, some look into the history of their creation, some have stories connected to their recording, and all have musical examples to help in the understand of each topic.

The book you ask about was published twice over the years and is no longer in print. However, you can read the book as it becomes available at the website. It is broken into three parts. Part one deals with the recording of Sunflower; The Addendum to Part one deals with songs recorded during this time, but did not make it to either album; and Part two deals with the recording of Surf's Up. It is still under construction. Jack Reilly is written about in Part two, which is greatly expanded from the original publication, adding around 230 pages to Part one and the Addendum.

If you are a diehard Beach Boy fan I think you will find a wealth of information at the site. Most people come away with a new appreciation for the music and a deeper understanding of the recording process.

Hope you can find the time for a visit, and a return visit when Part two of the book Recording The Beach Boys is published.     ~swd

http://swdstudyvideos.com