The Smiley Smile Message Board

Not sure if there's another thread around here for this topic, but I don't see one.  There are incredible-sounding high def versions of almost all the Boys' albums available now on sites like HDTracks, Ponomusic and Prostudiomasters.  Within the next few weeks they'll all be available.  I can't believe how amazing some of these sound, especially Sunflower.  Check 'em out!

Hi-Def?  Nah, no thanks. 

*Ah, sorry for the lack of enthusiasm but these re-releases just become thinner and thinner sounding to me*

Really???  If you're open to the possibility some of these high def remasters might actually sound great, take a few minutes to go to one of the sites I've mentioned (or acousticsounds.com as well) and listen to the samples of Sunflower.  You don't need to listen through an expensive system to hear the difference.  Maybe you'll decide you like what you hear and will enjoy hearing these albums in a way you've never heard them before, as many others are doing.  We're not just drinking the Kool Aid...

If your grabbing High Def files, I would take care re HD Tracks for any of the albums that have been or are planned to be reissued under the current Analogue Productions program.

Anything on the street at the moment that hasn't yet been made available on the A/P site (ie, Sunflower/Surf's Up/Holland) may not be the Kevin Gray remastered items (if that's what you're chasing - and you should be, they're freakin' great).  Take care to make sure you read who is responsible for the mastering.

And remember, the definitive Sunflower listening experiences are on Stephen D's study vid's site!

Hi Alan and thanks for sharing your thoughts about these vs. the AP releases.  I have a few of the AP SACDs and think they sound very good, although not necessarily better then the high def flac files I've purchased of the same titles.  I know some folks are loyal to certain engineers, but what I've been getting at HDTracks and other online stores has been mostly top-rate, regardless of who's getting credit for the mastering.

And thanks for sharing yours re the quality of the high def files, wilojarston!

Yes, the cult of mastering engineer can get in the way of the core thing that unites us all, which is of course, the music. 

I think there will always be a tendency to refer to the A/P reissues as the "Kevin Gray's" as the have the current novelty of coming from original analogue sources (except where they're from digital  :lol).
 
What are your thoughts on the other albums aside from Sunflower? 

Additionally, I haven't ventured much into streaming land for a couple of reasons (including inner-house geography) - how are you playing back (media player, or PC/laptop/device into a DAC)?  I've been rolling my own DVD-As using lplex where the bit rate is supported - cheers - A

COMMENT:

I just don't understand how fans, such as yourself, would rather listen to Sunflower mastered by someone who was a child when Carl Wilson was mastering the album and has no clue concerning the final adjustments that were performed in 1970. Why buy an HD track with a dynamic range of 120dB when the album only requires 30 dB of dynamic range, far exceeded by a standard CD. Why listen to digital in the first place?

If you wish to be true to the original production, buy the original production, including the correct mastering by Carl Wilson -- available on any Artisan Record. That would be analog. That would be the complete waveform, not one made up of samples with a computer filling in the blanks, no matter how highly defined.

I can't provide you with a true analog playback, but I can get you as close as is possible to hearing what Carl and I heard in the mastering sessions for this album. That would include resolution of all the microphone arrays, something about which none of the current "new" offerings have any clue.  Make your own copy of the properly mastered album, or at least listen by visiting >>> http://swdstudyvideos.com.

I can offer no more. ~swd

Hi Stephen and thank you for taking the time to follow this thread and to respond, you are the best possible person to be a part of this thread!  I will follow the link you've provided here and look forward to exploring all you're sharing with the community.

Keeping the conversation in the digital domain for another post, if I may, I wanted to ask a couple more questions.  After comparing this newest digital remastering of Sunflower with previous digital releases I'm hearing details that I've never heard before within these recordings, and they're not all attributable to EQ or dynamic range.  Is it possible this is the first time the first-generation tapes have been used for a digital transfer of this title?  If not, what else might you attribute the upgraded sound to?  The $1,000,000 question for me is how close this version sounds to what you were hearing when mastering the album originally in analog...

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts here, so much appreciated.

Rob

COMMENT:

I just don't understand how fans, such as yourself, would rather listen to Sunflower mastered by someone who was a child when Carl Wilson was mastering the album and has no clue concerning the final adjustments that were performed in 1970. Why buy an HD track with a dynamic range of 120dB when the album only requires 30 dB of dynamic range, far exceeded by a standard CD. Why listen to digital in the first place?

If you wish to be true to the original production, buy the original production, including the correct mastering by Carl Wilson -- available on any Artisan Record. That would be analog. That would be the complete waveform, not one made up of samples with a computer filling in the blanks, no matter how highly defined.

I can't provide you with a true analog playback, but I can get you as close as is possible to hearing what Carl and I heard in the mastering sessions for this album. That would include resolution of all the microphone arrays, something about which none of the current "new" offerings have any clue.  Make your own copy of the properly mastered album, or at least listen by visiting >>> http://swdstudyvideos.com.

I can offer no more. ~swd
[/quote]

Here is an intriguing question: do Vimeo videos upload in a lossless audio format?

‍

COMMENT:

For answers to your questions, I would refer you to my website (http://swdstudyvideos.com). When there, read the book Recording The Beach Boys in which the first part is about Sunflower. If you go through and listen to the entire thing I think you will come away with a greater perspective.

If you can connect the audio of your computer to your stereo system and follow my directions in the study-video, you will be sonically rewarded.

Go to the website, and then take it from there.  ~swd

Digital audio produces a complete waveform, just like analog audio. There are no "blanks" to be filled in. Given a noise floor and a bandwidth limitation, the original audio can be reproduced exactly. While there are issues such as jitter that prevent a "perfect" reproduction, the same is true of analog systems, it's just that the issues are different.

The idea that digital audio "fills in the blanks" and isn't a "complete waveform" is completely false.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep07/articles/digitalmyths.htm

COMMENT:

Thank you for the enlightenment of digital accuracy as pointed out in the 8-year old article by my friends at SOS. I’ve been written about and quoted by that magazine in the past, and find them very professional.

However, all the article did was elaborate on what I said, that analog is the complete waveform and digital is made up of samples with the computer filling in the blanks.  And of course the article points this out, as that is what digital does, and is.

I get a kick out of these “scientific” breakdowns of the digital technique which try to prove there authenticity with lots of numbers and formulas, forgetting that we don’t listen to numbers and formulas.

I would be surprised if you, Mr. Lukpac, have ever heard an analog source reproduced over a reasonably good analog sound system. I would also speculate that you have never heard an analog recording of the Beach Boys reproduced over any reasonably good analog sound system. Only speculation. Maybe you have.
 
Let’s consider a few points together.

Point One) Reality is analog not digital.

Point Two) Analog sound is the STANDARD against which digital sound is measured for accuracy.

Point Three) The human ear/brain mechanism is the final judge.

Point Four) The Analog Vinyl LP is the fastest growing mass distribution system today.

Point Five) Sales of turntables and analog phono pickups exceeds worldwide sales of digital CD players.

Point Six) World Class Recording Studios are World Class because they enable analog multi-track recording and mixdown facilities.

DETAILS:

Point One) Reality is analog not digital. There is no doubt that digital is accurate, since it deals in only two absolutes – on & off. But this makes a problem when dealing with something that is continuously variable. Digital only knows on or off. So it must examine or sample enough instant points of amplitude/time to represent a continuous flow of amplitude/time. However, an algorithm must extract the position of amplitude/time between each instant sample. This is where waveform details become inaccurate as various extrapolation schemes and approaches try to fill in the gaps. Most of the inaccuracies are in the upper frequencies. This is due to the samples being too far apart to capture all the tiny variations that are happening in-between samples.

It may not seem like much, but the ear can hear it, if – an important if – the listener is listening over a quality, first class sound system in a quiet room.

If you scale it down, and look at two watches; analog, digital. The second hand of the analog watch sweeps past each second in one connected, flowing motion. The digital watch advances from second to second with one quick move. The start of each second is accurate to within .0001 of a second. But we are blind to know anything about what is going on until the next second. The analog watch indicates the time as far down as you wish to split a second.
 
Viewed from another point of view, what if you were taken from the continuous analog reality you enjoy now, and placed in a digital reality where you would get a highly accurate view of actuality once per second. Your reality would appear as a jerky series of conceptions. After a time you might get use to it so that you could move around and function. But if you stepped off a curb into what you saw as a clear street, within that missing one second, your life could end after a car, unknown to you, turns the corner just as you step off. Scale this up to music frequencies and you have missing Sonics.
 
Point Two) Analog sound is the STANDARD against which digital sound is measured for accuracy. I once heard a demonstration in which an analog and a digital copy were each made from an original source. Next the copy was electronically subtracted from the original. The result, of course, is what is missing during the duplication. The analog was virtually silent. The digital had a sheen or peaked high-frequency noise that resembled the music. It revealed the veil that is introduced by digital. A powerful demonstration.

Point Three) The human ear/brain mechanism is the final judge. Separated from any esthetic preferences, the human ear/brain mechanism has an analog resolution that far surpasses the best digital resolution by a factor of 1000. It is capable of detecting pressure variations of less than one billionth of atmospheric pressure. The threshold of hearing corresponds to air vibrations on the order of a tenth of an atomic diameter. This incredible sensitivity is enhanced by an effective amplification of the sound signal by the outer and middle ear structures. This is what dynamic range is all about. As HD digital gets closer to the dynamic range of analog, it sounds better. By dynamic range, I’m speaking of micro-dynamic range, not overall dynamic range. Micro-dynamics lay between the samples. Micro-dynamics are what the computer algorithm seeks to recreate by guess. It’s an intelligent guess, but it is not reality. The reality between sample points is only revealed by the analog signal. The truth is in the details. The human ear can hear the details if the resolution of the playback system is good enough.

Point Four) The Analog Vinyl LP is the fastest growing mass distribution system today.  That is to say, the vinyl’s rate of increase is greater than any CD, DVD, or streaming sales, not the overall sales. But it does stress that people who can afford to have a good stereo system soon find that the easiest way to realize a realistic and enjoyable listening experience is by using an analog source such as the vinyl.

Point Five) Sales of turntables and analog phono pickups exceeds worldwide sales of digital CD players. CD’s are fast being replaced by streaming. I believe streaming sales now outpace all other distribution schemes. So, CD players are hard to find. Most of the good ones are available along with turntables and phono pickups from the same distributors who specialize in high-quality source equipment.

Point Six) World Class Recording Studios are World Class because they enable analog multi-track recording and mixdown facilities. Look in the control room of any top studio and you will find a 24-track analog 2” machine. Why? Because they are used. Listening over a professional monitoring system, analog is more musical, less plastic sounding. Analog is preferred.

PERSONAL NOTE:

I have been a professional recording engineer since the days of mono. I watched mono beget stereo beget quadraphonic beget surround sound beget Atmos. Full-track beget 4-track beget 8-track beget 16-track beget 24-track beget 48-track. Stereo Tape beget Stereo LP beget Compact Cassette beget CD beget DVD beget Blu-ray beget 4-K streaming beget 8-k streaming. (always wanted to use that word) And I’m certain it will further evolve – maybe direct-to-brain. I’ve been involved in many analog-digital comparison sessions – some double blind. All were conducted using an excellent high-end system in a quiet room. When I owned Spatializer Audio Laboratories, we did many such analog-digital comparisons under strict scientific requirements, because we were designing and building equipment for recording studios and well as the consumer.  For the most part, our listeners would say that analog is more musical and natural sounding then the digital. The very top-end is sweeter and more listen-able. This has been my listening experience as well. Digital becomes harder to listen to over time. With analog, there is no fatigue. I live with three very good two-channel systems. All are tuned flat and true. One is in an acoustic designed home theater. I listen about 40% digital and 60% analog. There is room for both in my life, but in absolute terms analog is king to my ears.

I hate to bring in esoteric reasoning, but I do believe the way in which each technology stores its information about the music has much to do with the way we react to the final recreation. Analog stores by way of energy, whereas digital stores by way of information.

When a Beach Boy’s vocal cords vibrate, a microphone diaphragm is set into corresponding motion to produce an electrical signal representing the acoustic waveform the vocal cord creates. In analog recording, the actual energy produced by those vibrating vocal cords is reduced and stored. In playback the analog signal is enlarged enough to move a speaker cone, again corresponding to the acoustic waveform. Thus in analog, a Beach Boy originally produced what you hear.

In digital recording, the electrical energy is probed and analyzed by a computer program to extract information representing the waveform and is stored. In playback the information is used by a computer to reconstruct a representation of the acoustic waveform, which is enlarged enough to move the speaker cone. Thus in digital, a computer produces what you hear. The computer mimics the Beach Boy’s vibrating vocal cords, but it is not energy produced by a Beach Boy that we hear as in analog, what we hear in digital is a computer, completely independent and severed from any Beach Boy’s larynx.

I sometimes wonder (and here’s where it becomes esoteric) if there is something more that is also captured and rides along with the energy to be sensed in playback. Is this “something” missing when the computer eliminates the original energy and substitutes its own? Is a connection secured between the artist and the listener by way of hearing the actual energy of those vocal cords? . . . and is this connection severed by digital?

I would say that I have heard more Beach Boy singing than anyone on the planet at this time. I have heard them up close, in concert, in recording, for years and years. When the group is gathered around a microphone in the studio, it is heard over the monitors without any storage system. It is pure analog. Eventually this is recorded, either using analog or digital. This is when you get to hear the best comparisons of the two technologies. Directly comparing the storage technologies to the live sound signal over quality loudspeakers in an acoustically balanced room. I’ve had this privilege for years. I can tell you with all the experience behind me that analog gives a more musical and satisfying or natural playback of Beach Boy vocal cords than digital. It’s fuller, has more small details that gives the harmonic blends a greater realism.

Despite the fact that digital measures better than analog, including distortion components, most engineers would rather listen to analog. Recent research is showing that the human ear actually likes hearing even-order harmonic distortion components with music. It translates into a more musical sound when the distortion is present. This may be the reason some audiophiles are willing to pay $10,000 for a five-watt tube amplifier with 3% harmonic distortion over a solid-state version that produces 250-watts with .003% distortion – and believe it sounds better, is more open, fluid and non-fatiguing AND is willing to back up this experience with some big bucks – not just lip-service!

In today’s world there is certainly a need for what digital can do. For the general listener, digital offers more for less, up to a point. But beyond that point the preferences seem to peak and then go back the other way, toward energy storage technologies versus information storage schemes, especially when high resolution reproductive sound systems are used for the playback. Systems that make what happens in-between the points of the samples hearable, and not just extrapolated or guessed about. Analog lets you hear a Stradivarius, not just a violin; a Zildjian, not just a cymbal, and makes plain the differences between a Martin and a Gibson. Analog brings musicality to Beach Boy harmonies versus a computer-generated facsimile.

Many sample points are good, but continuous is best. This is why I said that if you want to hear the original, listen to the original, and not some computer algorithm filling in the blanks.

With Good Listening, ~Stephen W. Desper

MAN!!!   
I just LOVE when we get a post by someone that really knows their sh*t, explaining it all in minute detail. 

Thanks Stephen!! 
OH! Wish I had heard even a small part of your "fly on the wall" BBs sessions...

You're welcome. Glad to help.


No, it did not. That is an entirely incorrect description of how digital audio works, and also what is written in the article. There are no "blanks" to be "filled in". From the article:

"Let's be clear. When the samples in a digital signal are converted back into an analogue signal, they pass through a device called a reconstruction filter. This is the process that makes the Sampling Theorem work in the real world. If there are enough samples and they are of sufficient resolution, the signal that emerges is not only smooth but virtually identical to the analogue signal from which the samples were originally derived. Of course, it's possible to design a poor reconstruction filter that introduces unwanted changes and artifacts but, again, this is an engineering consideration, not a deficiency in the concept itself."

The entire point of the sampling theorem is that given a bandwidth limited system, and given a sufficient sampling frequency (at least double that of the highest frequency of the system), a finite series of samples can reconstruct a waveform with complete accuracy. There's no "guessing" involved.


The concept of digital sampling is based on numbers and formulas, so it helps to understand what those numbers and formulas are when discussing it. Without understanding those, one can't speak with any authority on the issue.


Entirely incorrect. Please see above.


It may be worth pointing out at this point that Edison cylinders are analog systems. One can go on about "actual energy" until the cows come home, but no sane person would argue that an Edison cylinder is an accurate representation of the original audio, and certainly not more accurate than a CD or even an MP3.

That is to say, the fact that something is analog does not necessarily make it any more accurate than something digital. Often the opposite is true.


Which is why we should all be thankful that there are no "blanks" to be "filled in" with digital audio.


You're welcome. Glad I could be of assistance to you.

COMMENT:  For me to say more is just beating a dead horse. When you start from the premise that reality, that is actuality, is not Analog -- I can make no statement that will make sense to you. What is reality then; sugar cookies and brightly wrapped atoms?

Just because some article in a magazine says there is no difference between analog waveforms and digital waveforms, does not make it so. Buy the real point is that if there are no differences, what the hell are all manner of professional and amateur listeners hearing. Is the difference just so much flubbydust?

Go listen in analog for a few months. Then re-visit all these arguments after the empirical evidence has set into your memories. You might change your mind.

~swd

Nobody has claimed that "reality, that is actuality, is not Analog", so there's no point in starting there.

I currently own two turntables, multiple cartridges and styli, and hundreds of LPs and 45s. I also own a cassette deck and two open reel decks. I've used countless other analog reproducers over the years. To imply that I am unfamiliar with analog reproduction would be grossly incorrect.

But that's entirely irrelevant. The point is that the premises that digital audio is comprised of "gaps" that are "filled in", and that analog reproduction is inherently more accurate than digital reproduction are completely bogus. Some analog systems can be more accurate than some digital systems, just as some digital systems can be more accurate than some analog systems. To suggest otherwise indicates either a gross misunderstanding of the technologies in play, or outright deception/lying.

Can some analog systems sound better than some digital systems? Definitely. Better specifications, better implementation, etc. And regardless of the technicalities, mastering choices can sometimes make recordings that are less accurate more pleasing to the human ear. But that door swings both ways: just as analog can be better (or "better", depending on the situation) sometimes, so can digital.

Also, three words: inner groove distortion.

COMMENT:

Did I read this wrong? 

Point One) Reality is analog not digital.

Entirely incorrect. Please see above.

It's nice to see that you agree with all of my other statements.

COMMENT:  Having trouble with the posting. It did not post my entire entry. Here it is (hopefully). I'm an analog engineer, you know.

COMMENT:

Did I read this wrong?  

          I ask . . . Point One) Reality is analog not digital.

          You replied . . .  Entirely incorrect. Please see above.

I'm very happy to hear that you are into LP listening. But given that background you should have empirical evidence to support my sentiments. If not, try using an audiophile grade of headphones for comparisons.

Yes, it does take a good reproduction system to hear some differences, but this is not about reproduction systems, it's about storage mediums.

Perhaps I've not stated it clearly, but I'm not saying that there is no signal between sampling points, only that  the spaces between the sample points are extrapolated (that's the job of a reconstruction filter) to move forward, based on past movements. Most extrapolations follow analog reality, but some miss the mark and do not. The ear is very sensitive and can hear these differences, if provided to them. Yes, you do need a good sound system.

Both technologies provide a complete waveform. But the analog waveform is a total copy of the waveform, in contrast to the stepped copy of the digital representation. Analog is analog. Digital is never analog. Interestingly, it is almost impossible for analog to be digital.

Of course both analog and digital have their respectable places in today's world. I said I was 40/60 percent in my listening. My rule is this:

If the original recording was analog -- listen using an analog source. If digital, use a digital source. It is the conversion from one to the other where problems occur. But on the other hand, if you do listen to a digital source, it must always be converted to analog before you can hear it. Otherwise it sounds like an old telephone-sent fax. Therefore, analog has the advantage of never being sliced and diced as does the digital. This makes an analog source reproduced in analog truer to the original than if the same analog source is stored in digital and then reproduced in analog. Until we can hear digital signals (bits) I'm afraid there is always to be some type of extrapolation going on and influencing the fidelity with digital reproduction. ~swd


 

No, they are *not* extrapolated. There's no "guessing". This is a fundamental misunderstanding of digital audio. And this is where you continue to get it wrong. The *only* information "lost" is that above highest frequency for the system. For CDs, that's 22.05kHz. For the downloads referenced in this thread, that's 96kHz. There's no "guessing" for sound below those frequencies.


Your first comment is correct. Your subsequent comments contradict that and are incorrect. Digital is not a "stepped copy", nor is it correct to say that "digital is never analog". The output of a digital system most definitely is analog. And an analog waveform is not "a total copy of the waveform". If it was, you could make an infinite number of analog copies with no change to the sound. Can you do that? Is an LP indistinguishable from the master tape? Is a cassette indistinguishable from the master tape? Of course not. But...those are all analog, are they not?

The fact that a particular system is analog does not speak to that system's accuracy.


Again, your comment about extrapolation is entirely incorrect.

And as I've already stated, claiming that something is necessarily better because it is analog is completely absurd. Sounds like an old telephone-sent fax? I'm not sure what faxes sound like, but what would you say sounds more like that? An analog Edison cylinder, or a digital CD? Which is more true to life? Which is a more accurate representation of the original source?

I also have a large collection of 78 records. Why would anyone want to listen to those old scratchy and range-limited antiques of fidelity?  Have you ever listened to an acoustic 78 RPM record over an acoustic horn player?  It is an amazing experience.  I could give a flyingfuck about the fidelity or lack thereof. What you experience is a direct -- DIRECT -- connection with the players. What they do with their instruments or voice is what is making the sound in your living room. There is nothing in-between. Talk about being connected !!  Wow! ((Did you know you can still buy 78's of Good Vibrations? In mono, of course.)) It is impossible to recreate the direct acoustic connection between artist and listener that one can experience with an acoustic player and an acoustic source. Once you introduce any modern storage medium, it never is the same. ~swd

Good luck Luke. Maybe you should mention those "Good Vibrations" 78s were cut from a hi-res digital file. Not saying you have to, but you could.

In the interest of fairness, I should say I respect Mr. Desper's work immensely. It's just the flowery terms used to describe analog playback are a bit much.

That subject has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Per the introduction, it is specifically about "missing or corrupted data". That is, when there is damage to the digital stream.


I said the output of a digital system is analog. Which it most certainly is.


Incorrect. The "stair step" graphics are not an accurate representation of what digital audio is. This does a good job going over how that representation is wrong:

https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell#Stairsteps

"A stairstep is a continuous-time function. It's jagged, and it's piecewise, but it has a defined value at every point in time. A sampled signal is entirely different. It's discrete-time; it's only got a value right at each instantaneous sample point and it's undefined, there is no value at all, everywhere between. A discrete-time signal is properly drawn as a lollipop graph. The continuous, analog counterpart of a digital signal passes smoothly through each sample point, and that's just as true for high frequencies as it is for low.

The interesting and non-obvious bit is that there's only one bandlimited signal that passes exactly through each sample point; it's a unique solution. If you sample a bandlimited signal and then convert it back, the original input is also the only possible output. A signal that differs even minutely from the original includes frequency content at or beyond Nyquist, breaks the bandlimiting requirement and isn't a valid solution."


First of all, no, copying digital over and over will not make it deteriorate. You can make a 1,000th generation copy that is identical to the original. That is, unless the system is broken.


Again, incorrect. Making an analog copy *does* effectively "discard part of the waveform". That noise and distortion you mention is exactly that.


If you copy an Edison cylinder to another Edison cylinder, that's an entirely analog process. But clearly not more accurate than making a digital copy with sufficient resolution (i.e., CD quality).


You don't care about fidelity but you're complaining about the fidelity of digital?

Also, I don't think you're going to convince many people that acoustic 78s are somehow superior to everything that's come since, since they are a "direct connection". Two tin cans and a piece of string comprise a "direct connection". So? All-analog "direct connection" or not, it still sounds bad.

Comment:

Please describe analog playback using your own non-flowery terms. What is a "flowery term" anyway? ~swd

Comment:  I am growing tired of stating scientific data only to have it misunderstood. By way of example, I did not say that that 78 records of Good Vibrations is superior to anything. I only said that you could buy them today. Nor did I say what they were copied from.

This entire discussion is going no where. Just listen and enjoy music however you obtain it. Good Listening to you,  ~SWD  -- end of line.

Mr. Desper needs to master the BBs LPs on analog vinyl! 8)

COMMENT:  I already did that forty-five years ago, but thank you anyway. If you want to hear the original, listen to the original. See: http://swdstudyvideos.com.  ~swd

True that, still kicking myself for not buying that 1st pressing of sunflower from the record store!

I was not attempting to describe analog playback; my point was a statement that analog is more accurate than digital cannot be absolute.

A "flowery term" would be a word, or group of words, to make something more attractive. Which I often hear used when someone attempts to state that analog is always better than digital. A poetic description, if you will. Your comment, "What you experience is a direct -- DIRECT -- connection with the players. What they do with their instruments or voice is what is making the sound in your living room. There is nothing in-between. Talk about being connected !!  Wow!" would be analog playback described in "flowery terms". It sounds great, but is not quantifiable. Such as "direct connection", with "nothing in-between". I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I'm just not a believer in the "no science, use your ears!" stance. Science can, and does, measure audible differences.

And no argument from me on your statement regarding listening to a given medium as it was first intended to be heard on. I like finding, and continue to seek out, a first press of a vinyl record from any era when that medium was going to be the primary listening experience. Including Sunflower and Surf's Up, of which I have both and appreciate your work, and I agree that neither has been properly presented in the digital medium, at least to my taste. The original CD release for each of those titles I never cared for, and Andrew Sandoval, who was part of the team that put together the 2000 Capitol release, has stated they did not have the best tape available for Surf's Up (possibly Sunflower as well, but he stated Surf's Up specifically). The 2012 CD edition has too much upper treble for my liking, and the recent hi-res downloads I haven't truly delved into yet (supposedly they are yet another distinct mastering). In all honesty, I wish you were more pro-digital and would contact the correct people at Capitol or Universal and get involved, so we could have your version appear as a disc or download. I, for one, would be very interested to hear it.

COMMET: Connect your computer to your stereo system and you can hear that very album.

Go to [ http://swdstudyvideos.com ] and find the "Sunflower" button. Follow directions and Click.

~swd

 With all that's gone down here, I just don't see how connecting a digital computer to any stereo system, even an audiophile, is going to reproduce the identical sound as would be derived from listening to the original releases in their original mediums

COMMENT:  Thanks for your detailed explanation. Most appreciated.  Did you read part one of Recording The Beach Boys? Much of this is addressed therein. Part two on Surf's Up has more detail on some of the quandaries you raise. As to being pro or con to digital, as I have stated before on this website, the albums I engineered are analog products. Release them as analog productions. There is no need to do some kind of mastering adjustments to accommodate the CD or any higher resolution. Originally it was and still is an analog recording, start to finish. If the Master LP tape is available, us it. Otherwise the only source you will hear the original and authentic mastering by Carl Wilson and myself is from any album with the Artisan logo stamped between the lead-out grove. In the mastering, last minute adjustments were made and approved by Carl. That is the original . . . without matrix resolution . . . still waiting to be resolved which you can hear at http://swdstudyvideos.com and go to part one of the book.

As to my flower terms (your perception) used to describe what I experience when listening to acoustic recordings: you are right to note that I am not finding words that I am comfortable using, I stumble around. But in defense or rather explanation, this phenomena still persists, no matter the lack of descriptive adjectives.

Let me approach this another way.  I'm certain you have at some time been to an intimate band setting. Maybe a jazz band in a café, or a rock band in a bar. Because you are "connected" in person and directly in the same space-time with the performers. This is called a live experience. Next we displace the time- part to the past by way of an acoustic record. It's all about the energy. All the musicians group around a large horn and perform while a wax disc is engraved. The wax disk is coated with metal and used to press about 50 records. There is no other record or tape. So playing such a record does stimulate something more than a cold scientific explanation. I know that the vocal cord of the singer I hear, moved the diaphragm to move the needle in the soft wax as it past by at 78 RPM. When played, my copy causes a needle to vibrate a diaphragm which is amplified by a horn into the atmosphere. The horn couples to the air with good efficiency. With the addition of the energy I put into the machine via the crank, the energy made by all these musicians and singers is now being used to move my eardrums. In use, you can easily hear the Victrola or Grammaphone anywhere in the house. This is the beginning of recorded music. It's very simple, yet elegant. Perhaps there is some romantic angle you could spin around 78 records made this way. They are direct, organic, certainly analog, a slice of time. Yet, all the history can be had on the Internet, but not the connection made through the energy, or at least a more direct pathway to the performance.

To quantify this experience is akin to quantifying one's taste in art or flavor of ice cream. I guess that's where the need to use "flowery terms" comes in. Another inability to quantify comes from trying to record the actual sound. You can not capture the "connection" experience using modern magnetic tape recording of stereo microphones. It does not sound the same as the actual Victrola. Not by a long shot. No longer can I hear from the throat of the singer to my ear. The acoustic connection is lost, replaced with a series of connections; mechanical, electrical, and magnetic.

Maybe the romance you noted comes from the idea of a direct energy connection with and to the musicians. This is flowery, "It's as if the musicians reached out from history to pluck my very heartstrings."  This is not, "I feel a direct connection with the performers." IMHO.

This is a problem with sound. You can't see it or feel it, it is more of a personal experience. Because it's so personal, people get easily offended with you when you challenge them about sound.  It's hard enough to define what you hear, leave along to defend it too.

Quantifying analog and digital is easy. Make a bunch of relevant measurements. Now you have measurements of quantities. But guess what. It doesn't correspond with our listening. Quantifying listening is a challenge. Since listening is a personal experience, maybe it cannot be quantified. Hearing can be quantified, but listening is so esoteric, I doubt it would be possible.  ~swd

COMMENT:

Then don't listen.  But it's your loss. ~swd

Wow, what an amazing, high-quality discussion here.  Didn't realize my enthusiasm of the new high-res Beach Boys downloads would generate such a discussion.  I appreciate the points brought forth here by everyone, but I think  Mr. Desper is owed a greater degree of respect, whether or not you agree with all of his precepts and conclusions.

There are opinions, and there are facts. Mr. Desper is entitled to his own opinions. He is not, however, entitled to his own facts.

I agree that Stephen is owed a lot of respect, and we are blessed by his participation in this board, but I don't believe anyone is above courteous, fact-based debate.

Lee

Sounds as if you're saying Stephen is lying.
For me, we have a known entity which is Stephen Desper, stating his case.
The other side is lukpac. Do you know anything about this person Lee?
I, personally, know nothing of/about them. I've seen no credentials; nothing that says they're anything more than someone that wants to argue that they''re right and Stephen is wrong.
Put up or shut up I say

I said nothing of the sort Chris.  Don't put words in my mouth.

As a person with a Computer Science / Math / Engineering background who is also a self-proclaimed audiophile (whatever that's worth),  I am interested in both sides of this discussion.  It's 100 times more interesting than the "I Hate Mike Love" threads that normally clog up this board.

Lee

Chris, I know Lukpac from the Hoffman Board and he knows his stuff from everything that I have read over there. Like Lee, I too am interested in hearing both sides in this analog vs digital discussion. As long as it is respectful, I say let them discuss.

I've already posted a number of references in this thread. I could post more if requested, but right now I don't think overloading everyone with tons of links is going to help much. But if you're interested in the topic, search for "nyquist sampling theorem" and "digital audio stair steps".

I would say I've "put up" repeatedly.

Nevertheless, if Stephen prefers vinyl to digital (be it CD or "high resolution"), that's his opinion. It's not an opinion I agree with, but I'm not particularly interested in challenging him on it. That said, claiming it is necessarily better due to false pretenses is something I'm not afraid to respond to. Digital systems can be and are imperfect in various ways, but 1) the same is true of analog systems, albeit in different ways, and 2) most of the explanations given in this thread are simply wrong.

For the record, my degree is in computer science, and I'm a computer programmer by day. Besides simply enjoying music, I usually pay close attention to sound quality ("self-proclaimed audiophile", perhaps?), and as a hobby I do recording and mixing. But regardless of any of that, don't take my claims at face value. Do a bit of research for yourself to verify that I'm not just making this all up.

COMMENT:  It's not about numbers and formulas.  If you want to hear the original, buy the original, available on vinyl LP.


“. . . there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

                         ~ Shakespeare  (Hamlet, act 2, scene 2, page 11)

Maybe we should change Shakespeare’s words to read,

. . .  audio is neither good or bad, but sampling rate makes it so.


If you look at audio or sound in terms of sampling rates, we always hit a point where analog becomes digital. Sound in the air is limited by the size of air molecules. Once the wavelength exceeds the distance each molecule travels to pass sound through the atmosphere it is quantified and not continuous. The LP becomes digital when its continuous nature hits the limit of PVC particle size. Magnetic tape recording has an analog limit placed on it by the magnetic domain size each iron oxide can handle. Electrical signals travel at the speed of light, but chemical-electrical signals, such as used by synaptic connections to relate data throughout the brain are subject to prominent frequency-dependent depression, that is, a delay between stimulus delivery and appearance of the synaptic event. The brain even suffers from what is called “synaptic jitter” and has ways of correcting for it.

What this means is that as synaptic connections approach 1.5kHz (1,500 Hz) they take longer to pass information until they fail. Not very high. Frequencies from the cochlear nerve to the brain overcome this problem by using labeled line codes, discharge patterns of rapidly and slowly receptor adaptation encoding, and frequency and population codes. Not exactly on-off digital, but not analog either. All of these analog and neurological components of reality do place a limit to their resolution and detail. However all are magnitudes above even the most robust systems for detail such as military satellite observation cameras.

I agree with the concept put forth by Michael Baxter, “Existence is digital and reality is analog.  You either exist or you don’t. Nothing in-between. On the other hand, reality seems to have shades, which we like to rank and grade. So we accord analog values through levels of reality. But existence is best expressed as digital.  Either on or off.”  Maybe that’s why I prefer analog sound?

Another way to look at the two is that digital is static-fact whereas analog is perception, contemplation, unfoldment. Digital just is, or is not. No judgment. In contrast analog involves use of the mind to provide a representation of just what is, but in a way that blends with our emergence in life, our experience of living. Analog is subject to bias, and distortion, but is also more akin to our conception of reality – not as static, but fluid and continuous.  Maybe that’s why I prefer analog sound?

Music production and reproduction is an illusion. As an engineer I use objective measurements to make accurate adjustments, but as a mixer I am more subjective. I wonder if that makes my thinking patterns more to analog terms, since I am dealing with an illusion, which is based on perception, which for sound is based on the advancement of time in a continuous fashion. Maybe that’s why I prefer analog sound?

I’ve been trying to put my finger on a word or phrase that would best describe how analog sound makes me feel in contrast to digital listening. I think I’m going with “more live.” Analog sounds closer to the real thing, closer to the actual sound event to me. More alive. That’s just me.

Digital sounds good for sure, but it’s like looking at a TV with the color adjustment too high. It’s surreal in its reality. Sometimes it sounds too real, too honest, too perfect to be true, without any art or esthetics. Since music production incorporates artistic judgment calls, perhaps I relate more to the art than the fidelity of music that I play audio for my own enjoyment. Analog sounds more musical, more toe-tapping and singing-along-with. Analog has life! Digital is music as logical. Analog is music as emotional.  That’s just me.
   
Listening is a personal experience. No one else can do it for you. My experience is as a guy who has worked with sound, in the studio, in the laboratory, in cinema, and on stage. I’ve worked with all manner of sound at all levels. But when I wish to have an enjoyable and satisfying listening experience in my home, I look to the analog vinyl LP first. That’s just me.

Analog or Digital, Good Listening, ~Stephen W. Desper
  

Just checked the Ponomusic site, and a few are still missing: In Concert, L.A. Light, BBs '85, Still Cruisin', and SIP aren't there yet, and neither is a hi-def rendering of TWGMTR, although the standard red book (44.1kHz) version of that one is there. Same with Live - The 50th Anniversary Tour. The Smile Sessions is available in hi-def (88.2kHz), just not super hi-def (192kHz, which the others are in). Don't see MIC in there at all, but there are a couple of interesting-looking curious, like Studio Chatter Vol. 1 & 2.

I recently picked up an original Sunflower US pressing and it's certainly the best I've heard this album, 'Cool Cool Water' truly is an audio achievement.  The only thing bringing it back is your typical vinyl inner groove distortion and sibilance (some of which seems to be in the mix/consistent through all pressings so far) but that's where a better turntable and cartridge comes in handy ;) I have a solid set up.

I'm imagining these High Def downloads that are coming are going to be based off of the 2012 masters which were 'fine' and faithful, but too overdone, especially Sunflower... if they're the upcoming Analogue Productions master then that is very exciting.

The Sunflower & Surf's Up HD versions available now are different to the editions that came out a few years ago, which were hi-res versions of the 2012 CDs, respectively. It's anyone guess if they're going to be the same as the upcoming AP SACDs. But I do believe Holland mentions Kevin Bartley as handling the mastering, so we know that one will not be the same as Kevin Gray's take on the forthcoming Holland SACD. I think these new releases are better than the previous offerings.

If you'd like a Surf's Up first pressing to go along with your Sunflower, make sure you look for THANKS MARILYN in the deadwax.

Oh they're out now? I just checked myself but it looks like they aren't available due to region restrictions (maybe it's not like this in the US). I can't wait to hear what they sound like... spinning my Sunflower LP again.

Almost bought a copy of Surf's Up online, but it was sold before I bought it.. who knows, maybe it didn't have 'Thanks Marilyn', but I'll keep this in mind, thanks you!

For me analog sound has a soul. Or to quote Lenny [Leonard Bernstein] "Music can not be subdivided into zeros and ones."  - his answer to me why he don't like the Compact Disc format and still prefers vinyl.

While waiting for an end to the format wars, for those who dig the dig, Acoustic Sounds are virtually sagging by 20% off BB (Capitol) UME high res downloads:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=results&start=21%20&Coupon=3 (http://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=results&start=21%20&Coupon=3)

Use (LD)Coupeon Code BEACHBOYS20 for Discount.

Came across this while checking if the tranche 2 vinyl status has been updated (nope).

Ponomusic.com still has the best price on all the BB titles currently on sale.

Still waiting for a digital release of Brian's (mono) mix of the Concert album!

 :'(