The Smiley Smile Message Board

I'm going to preface this post, in part to innoculate myself from the scathing responses that will undoubtedly ensue. I am not a musician, engineer, or any other recording industry professional. I teach high school IT classes. So I don't know all the music lingo and am incredibly naive about things like arrangement, instruments, mastering, etc. I understand that production quality and sound can be subjective. Some things sound awesome to some people and awful to others.

Ok, then.

I've been revisiting the Sunflower/Surf's Up era lately and trying to appreciate the music more. And I'm sorry, but to my ears, the various released versions of these albums sound like they were recorded on subpar equipment by amateurs. They're muddy, thin, and lo-fi (not in a good way). This is maddening since so much of the earlier material sounds so much better.

And I need to know why, because a lot of this stuff is so good.

Let's look at This Whole World, one of the most beautiful tracks of this era. The versions of this track, prior to the recently released vocals-only and alternative ending tracks, are a mixed bag. To me, the backing track sounds crisp, clear and rich. The vocals are exactly the opposite.  Carl's lead is so-so, lower fidelity than it seems like it should be. The harmonies are incredibly thin and even very tinny in some spots-- particularly Brian's soaring falsetto on the second bridge(?). That could have been divine. The harmonies in this track sound like cartoons.

This begs the question: why?

Why does, say, Pet Sounds sound so much better? The recently released vocals-only and the Bruce alt ending of TWW sound so much better to me. If it's just a matter of how it was put together back in the day, and Boyd and Linett have good quality original source recordings, why hasn't anybody considered putting together a clean version of this track? How did someone along the production path not listen to this stuff earlier in the process and say, "Guys, we gotta do something about this. It sucks"?

This same sound permeates these two albums. I love Long Promised Road, but it's painful to listen to because I imagine how good it could sound.

Help me out here, guys.

Please be more specific. When you say you are listening to earlier releases, are these CD, LP, MP3 releases?


Perhaps Stephen Desper can chime in with information about the original mastering matrix, because there is some controversy regarding the  digital remastering of these post Capitol albums going back to the original set of Joe Gastwirt remastered CD's in 1990. I've always found there to be a world of difference between the 1990 CD and the original LP pressing that goes way beyond analogue 'warmth'. It wasn't until I heard about the mastering matrix that this made sense. So perhaps it is the lack of the correct mastering matrix which is impairing your listening experience? Try the original LP if that is the case.

It may also be a change in production techniques between the Pet Sounds era and your two contested albums, particularly in relation to spatiality.  Remember that instrumentally, Sunflower and (I think) Surf's Up were recorded in stereo at the source, i.e. each instrument was multi-miked. Pet Sounds, even in stereo, consists of two or three tracks containing all of the instruments captured monaurally. Spatially recorded music does tend to sound thinner, because the sound is being stretched over a stereo field, whereas mono will sound more dense simply because it is. This may account for the difference you are hearing.

A third issue may be changing mixing techniques. With Pat Sounds, the tracks were mixed before vocals were added due to track number limitations. With the luxury of 16 tracks, the vocals and instruments could be mixed concurrently so there is a much different vocal /track balance ratio  when comparing Pet Sounds to Sunflower. Does this account for the 'tinny' sounding vocals?

A fourth possibility, perhaps most importantly, is your listening equipment / environment. Sunflower was an early pioneer in the 'audiophile' field, and  a good listening environment, good reproduction equipment and a correct listening position is vital for full appreciation of the stereo field to occur. Pet Sounds by comparison was created for mono reproduction on AM radio or a teenager's Dansette player. Pet Sounds is going to translate better to modern listening habits which often involve phones, tablets or single speaker devices like the Amazon Echo. Sunflower and Surfs Up are not. If this is the problem, perhaps treat yourself to a good quality second hand hi-fi system to enjoy the new boxed set on!

I appreciate the response, Greg. I don't totally get what you're saying about the change in production technique, but it makes sense that a change in recording/production technique correlates with reduced quality listening experience.

FWIW, I own these albums on CD and mp3, but my primary way of consuming music is Spotify. I understand mp3/streaming is lossy, but my ears can't distinguish between them and CD.  Whether I'm in my living room listening on my decent system, in my car listening on my good stereo, or in my classroom listening on my state of the art sound system-- it's all the same. I once heard the Surf's Up LP playing in a record store and paid close attention. It's all still tinny, thin, cartoony, cold. How do other people not hear this? I'm quite certain the poor quality of these albums has little, if anything, to do with listening format or equipment.

The "remasters" of Surf's Up and Sunflower that have been available for download and streaming for the last 5+ years are atrocious. Every other song has a hiss present in it, making the recording sound muddy, even if it's actually not. I was actually pretty annoyed when I bought the remastered albums from iTunes many years back...This problem wasn't present on previous versions of the albums that I own.

That being said, I see what you mean in terms of what I hear on Surf's Up...take Carl's lead on 'Long Promised Road' - its not at all near as crisp and clear as say Brian's lead on 'Caroline, No', but then again, that could be the effect they wanted to use for that song. But Sunflower is about the most crisp and clear album I've ever heard.

Great response, Greg.

I think what some people hear, particularly on "Sunflower", doesn't have anything to do with the various mastering jobs over the years, nor playback equipment or other issues.

Some of the tracks were recorded and/or mixed in a very sort of ethereal, sort of echoey/reverb-laden fashion. In particular, tracks like "All I Wanna Do" or "Deirdre", and to some degree "This Whole World", don't sound like, say, the more dry, upfront sound of something like "Got To Know the Woman." I think it's perfectly reasonable for some to interpret this as sounding kind of muddy or unclear or low-fi.

The same thing is true of some of the "Smile" tracks for instance. "Do You Like Worms" sounds like it was recorded inside of a can covered in mud with a pillow wrapped around it.

I *think* in most cases these are all things Brian and/or the band and/or the engineers were going for.

Some of this stuff is printed onto the multitracks and there's nothing that can be done, and in other cases more dry, pristine tracks exist on the multis.

I bow to nobody in my love of a track like "All I Wanna Do." "All I Wanna Do" is great in part because of that ethereal sound. But one thing I've *never* said to myself when listening to it is "man, that is the most crisp and clear track I've ever heard!"

There's no question that Sunflower sounds different than earlier BB/BW records. But it's beautifully recorded and intentionally mixed.

I don't think it sounds worse by any definition, but the sound world is distinct. The matrix plays a role, but the vocals are processed differently and sound a bit thinner at times. But again, this seemed to be part of the plan, and nearly everyone in the group was singing and harmonizing differently. (The This Whole World backing vocals, for instance, sound a lot like the mid-90s wall of Brians from the Paley sessions and elsewhere.)

Surf's Up, on the other hand, has always had some acknowledged sonic issues.

I don’t think anyone was singling that one track out as evidence of a muddy sounding track, clearly of all the tracks that one is intentionally dreamy in its production. And even then I’d argue that it is crisp and clear in its own way - yes there is reverb/echo going on, but Mike sounds like he’s right there singing to you, the lead guitar is slightly buried behind the mix but it is prominently distinct.

Outside of the intentional production decisions to make certain tracks or certain parts of tracks more ethereal (Deidre, for instance), I think the mixing on Sunflower is outstanding in how each voice and instrument can be easily picked out from different places in the mix so clearly. I know that is the obvious nature of stereo, but for whatever reason Sunflower does it so fluidly, so naturally. It’s not using stereo solely as a means of separating instruments, but rather using the mix as its own canvas - kinda like Dark Side of the Moon, only a much more down-to-earth version.


You’ve successfully put into words what I’ve been thinking all these years :lol I am still floored that Brian went from creating the sonic masterpiece that is Pet Sounds to recording this. I love the BWPS version not only because it actually has vocals, but because it doesn’t sound at all ragged like the original does.

+1

I really used to have a strong distaste for this track, until I listened to it properly one day and the fact that the doubled (tripled?) leads combined to bring out the vocals in an overlapping, slow evocation (so hard to describe - one channel starts, then the other, then the dance between the two leads) - in some ways it almost achieves what is later done better with the 'reverse echoed' parts on "Feel Flows".

Remember that Pet Sounds is also 'echoey/reverb-laden', so something else is clearly acting on the reverb to create that difference in sound the OP is describing. That 'something' is the spatial recording and mixing techniques carefully employed by Stephen and Carl during the creation of Sunflower, which give these recordings their depth and space. Correctly transcribing and accessing these recordings in the way Stephen and Carl intended is very much a matrix issue I'm afraid to say. This is well demonstrated by Stephen's wonderful study videos, which also give instruction as to the correct way to place your speakers relative to your seating position in order to best appreciate a true panoramic stereo recording. That the CD remasters going back to Gastwirt neglected to use the matrix led to a large disparity between what was originally intended and what has subsequently been presented. I cannot recommend the study videos enough as a way to open up your ears to how this record is supposed to sound.

Whilst there is very much a correct way to access these recordings, there is no wrong way to derive emotional enjoyment from them, even on an Amazon Echo :lol. Just remember that many of the mixing choices were made to create a panoramic scene which is very much dependent on the correct matrix, seating position and playback equipment.

Surf's Up's original pressing is a mixed bag I agree, but the experience may have been further impaired due to the shop environment. As I said in the previous post though, there is no wrong way to derive enjoyment, or non-enjoyment from a recording. It may just simply be that you don't like the sound of a particular album. I'm the same with Joe Thomas's Trinity of Atrocities. I don't think I got further than the fourth track on the 2012 album before switching it off in disgust. The ear likes what it likes.

I like Sunflower and Surf's Up although I think they don't sound as interesting (to me personally) as the records that the band made when Brian was in charge. Their sound changed dramatically after Friends and while subsequent albums did still sound very creative there's a particular originality missing from most of the material. Wild Honey, for example, sounds pretty lo-fi as far as I'm concerned but it still has that sense of originality. It's hard to describe really; to me it feels like Carl's vision of the Beach Boys did not have the same level of energy as Brian's, although he did a tremendous job on those early-70s records, so please don't get me wrong.

I feel the same way often, even if I love a lot of songs from 20/20 thru Holland. Do you feel the energy returned with 15 Big Ones/Love You?

For the most part, yes. I think this is why I love to listen to 15 Big Ones although it is such a flawed record. They lost that energy for good with M.I.U. and the Light Album.

I'd also argue that as beautiful as "Pet Sounds" sounds, much of his peak 65-67 material, including "Pet Sounds", can tend to sound muddy to varying degrees. Brian's bouncing of tracks is a key element in that of course (I think even kids listening to the "Summer Days" album may have noticed how peculiarly pristine and crisp the instrumental "Summer Means New Love" sounded compared to a bunch of the other songs). There are also the myriad of mic-ing and recording techniques, and mixing of course. Which is why something like the stereo mix of "Pet Sounds" allows one to hear much more of those recordings, yet that stuff is never going to be bone-dry and crisp and clear and up-front the way something like the Beatles "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" remixes sound in many cases.

I think sometimes people get into the Beach Boys and Brian's work, the music speaks so intensely to them, that it takes a while to realize that maybe there are characteristics of how Brian and the band worked on the arrangement/recording/mixing side of things that they find to not be ideal. I think it's all about degrees. I enjoy and accept all of the work on its own terms. It doesn't mean I don't occasionally wish a thing here or there was more full-sounding or clear. You don't have to be a heavy metal or even hard rock fan to occasionally wish a BB track here and there had punched up the guitars, or had heavier, more prevalent drums instead of, say, just a snare with nothing else. Having that occasional thought is different than fundamentally just having an issue across the board with how the stuff sounds, in which case one has to start thinking about whether they really like this stuff if they have to complain about it all the time (which nobody in this thread is doing; I'm kind of creating a theoretical here of course).

As far as "Sunflower" and "Surf's Up", I'm aware of the discussion surrounding how it was mixed and the need for the matrix to listen to the stuff in the ideal fashion that was desired. But at the end of the day, like 99.9% of people listening to the stuff back then *AND* to this day are going to do so with some sort of standard set up to listen to stereo mixes. No, this stuff shouldn't be listened to (or at least analyzed) via smartphone speakers or something. But it also shouldn't require anything more than me putting a CD in and plugging some headphones in or listening on normal speakers. If something more than that is required, then that is, arguably, a flaw or at least "issue" with the original recording/mixing methods that is worth pointing out. I absolutely should *not* need a "study video" to hear this stuff as intended. I'm not saying such videos aren't highly interesting and welcomed. But I mean, quad was niche back in the 70s, and this matrix system Desper used is infinitely *more* niche than quad ever was. I'm not trying to be like anti-intellectual when it comes to this stuff; I bow to nobody in my willingness to immerse in the most intense minutiae of it all. But any playback method that requires close attention to "seating position" is and has always been fighting a losing battle when it comes to people needing to hear the stuff exactly as intended.  

And, I have to say, having had the opportunity to hear the stuff in the correct matrixed playback method, while it's a cool way to hear the stuff, the songs still sound *like that*. In other words, I don't think anybody *does* need a special set up if the issues they're having are along the lines of the original poster. I don't think *those* particular issues are stemming from playback method. If someone finds a few of the tracks a bit muddy or low-fi, they still sound that way using proper playback. The proper playback method will give that unique, sort of 3-D stereo spread that is cool to hear, and might side-step some weird sort of phasing issues that the material has when played back in a "normal" fashion.

As I've pored through these responses, I've re-listened to these two albums several times, and I'll refine my critique a bit. The backing tracks on most of them are great. I can tell they were recorded differently, and I like it. A notable exception is Long Promised Road. Interestingly, the best sounding track-- instrumentally-- to me is Take A Load Off Your Feet. So the instrumental aspect of these tracks is mostly great.

It's the vocals. Not necessarily the leads, per se. It's the backing harmonies. Yes there's the distinct hiss that someone mentioned earlier, but that's not necessarily what I'm talking about. Words that come to mind are: thin, anemic, compressed, cartoony, shallow and distant.

In keeping with the track that I used as an example above, which best personifies what I'm talking about, listen to This Whole World, particularly at the 1:22 mark. Listen to Brian's falsetto there. If that nails-on-a-chalkboard sibilance was done deliberately, he's much less of a genius than I thought he was. It sounds like he drove straight under a low-clearance bridge. The rest of the harmonies on the track-- and pretty much everywhere else in material from that era-- dance right around that low clearance.


Yep. I would give anything if somebody would rework This Whole World using a combination of existing recordings and newer harmonies. For fun, I'd add a "Star light, star bright" section featuring a newly recorded Al. I'd take a cleaned-up Carl lead on Long Promised Road with an entirely new backing track. Ideas aplenty that are only pipe dreams


Preach it, brother!

I actually can see what the OP is talking about. There is a lot of stuff in the early 70's that has a similar low-fi sound to it. Carole King's Tapestry album and James Taylor's albums of the same era have a similar sound. It sounds like they were recorded in a studio that was covered with sound-dampening materials on the wall, or something.

^Here we go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uaXCJcRrE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5yK1EpMV0U

Same kind of dampened sound as This Whole World:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPe78FgI9ro

And come to think of it, JA's Volunteers album also has a similar muddled sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxA3Q96a8XE

I'm really not a fan of Bruce's production on LA or KTSA. I have a love-hate relationship with MIU. This is probably a bad way of thinking about it, but when I'm convinced Brian played a bigger role on the album, I enjoy it more. When I'm convinced he was a bystander, I'm less of a fan. Reality isn't in absolutes and the quality of the music shouldn't be impacted by how involved Brian was, but it still kind of matters. As an aside, I have a (maybe twisted) obsession with the Brian's Back era live shows. They're really fun and I like when Brian had a lot of energy out there. 1977, or maybe early 1978 is the last time the Beach Boys feel fun to me. I do think that maybe in the very early KTSA sessions some of that magic might've been there too, I hope we get to see a copyright extension set on that era (the last time Brian and Mike collaborated in a major way, I believe).

Not speaking to the BB's albums, but those specific albums you mentioned were produced deliberately in similar ways in order to capture a more intimate and "close" sound. Very small groups of musicians when it wasn't a solo instrument and voice, and recorded more "dry" so it felt like you were listening to the performer sitting in the room with you. I don't hear those as lo-fi at all, so we'll agree to disagree on that. Tapestry in particular is one of the finest sounding albums of its kind in my opinion, and it was also being EQ'ed for radio airplay, which it obviously got and still gets.

The difference between going into a production with an intimate vibe versus a more spacious, fully-produced vibe can sometimes come down to the sonic illusion you'll create on the perceived size of the performance space where the music is captured. If you add reverb, echo, etc - any of the "space" effects that creates the illusion of depth - it will create sonic space between the listener and the performance, and the hallmarks of the production will come through. If you want to capture intimacy and immediacy, you'll keep the reverb and echo spatial effects to a minimum, keep the tracks dry rather than wet, and only use those effects for smoothing out the overall parts rather than trying to create the illusion of a large room or space overall.

That's why I think in some ways the musicians like Carole and JT and other singer-songwriters had so much success when they did. It went from huge studio sounds down to capturing that intimate personal vibe, and I think a lot of listeners heard it as an elixir of sorts versus some of the bombastic big-scale productions that had been on the radio in the previous 4-5 years.

And the more tracks that became available to use in terms of multitrack tape, the more "dry" and isolated producers and engineers started to record and mix tracks, going to ridiculous lengths such as recording each component of a drum kit on its own separate track. Bleed-through in a live room, which some wanted to avoid even though we now love it, was eliminated by those extreme separation techniques which was supposed to signify a more hi-fi sound overall on recordings. Separation was the key, and records that were hits sounded like that after time, so everyone followed suit.

I'd like to say that aesthetic choices aside, the availability of more tracks was what changed the standards in mixing and production throughout the 70's, and the bleed-through which some of us love that was a key element in a live-sounding studio room in the 60's and generated excitement on the record was eliminated in favor of the dry, isolated sounds.

Not saying that was across the board, but you can hear the sound of records change pretty obviously as the 60's turned into the 70's. The bleed-through used to be a headache, so a lot of times it was eliminated in favor of more control over individual tracks, as more tracks became available.

Just my take.

"Low-fi" may or may not be the best word, but in general I meant that sort-of muddled sound you hear on a lot of those albums of those days.

As an aside, because it's not quite the same thing, but even when I was a teenager I always noticed the huge sonic difference between Sgt Pepper and the White Album. It was like they got an entirely new set of recording equipment at Abbey Road studios between those albums. Clearly there was a lot of new recording engineering stuff that was going on back then.

What you heard is probably the change from 4-track tape machines being standard at Abbey Road to 8-track machines first being used widely on the White Album, apart from the independent studios the band would book outside Abbey Road. The simple fact of having more free tracks to overdub and not have to "bounce" sub-mixes to free up more tracks, or what they called "reduction mixes" in the UK, made the fidelity increase immediately. The more bounces that needed to be done, the worse the sound quality would get as each bounce or reduction mix was done. Every time you mix down and copy three or four tracks over to one, you lose fidelity and control over the overall mix. Whatever you're bouncing down becomes locked in - You have no more control over individual tracks. Even going from 4 to 8 tracks made a difference.

An even more startling change happened with "Abbey Road" when they changed gear and started using solid-state boards and preamps versus the older tube equipment. Listen to the White Album, then put on "Abbey Road". It's a drastic change in fidelity and overall sound.

And there's the conundrum.

Many fans and musicians love-love-love the sounds on the "old" 3 and 4 track sessions, like those for Pet Sounds, the classic Beatles tracks from Rubber Soul-Revolver-Pepper era, etc. The energy and vibe is there to spare, and honestly when you can hear the rough unmixed multitracks, the fidelity is there too, along with leakage between instruments and tracks. Engineers hated that, yet we love hearing it and consider those sounds and records classics.

And as good as Abbey Road sounds, I'd wager most musicians and engineers would automatically choose the old tube gear versus the solid state if given the choice. Yet, you can't deny how fantastic a track like "Here Comes The Sun" sounds...it still sounds somewhat modern and new records can still sound like that, 50+ years later.

When Abbey Road came out originally, 50 year old recordings were records made before Louis Armstrong with or without his Hot 5's and 7's even made his *first recording*. That, to me, is mind-blowing.

Did they?  I'm not comfortable going that far and that universally.

Nothing is universal with these things, but I think we can see photo evidence of sessions from the early 60s compared to the later 60s and early 70s where the later ones after 8 and 16 track machines started showing up are showing much more baffling and more gobos on the studio floor, and more attempts to isolate individual instruments. The engineers wanted more control over individual instruments and tracks especially in the mixing, and isolating the players more if not tracking individually versus as a group gave them that control, aided by more tracks to work with. Drum tracking and drum sounds especially changed drastically too as the 60s turned into the 70s.

Listening to SUNFLOWER and SURF’S UP from the study videos resolved through Desper’s matrix is a whole other listening experience. It opens up the mixes and allows the separation between the vocals and the instruments to really shine.

I also have Artisan Recorders first pressings of both albums and they’re better than any other mastering out there.  I know they’re Mr. Desper’s preferred format as well.

L.A. is a nice listen from time to time but Good Timin' is the only song I find myself coming back to on a regular basis. I'm the same, I definitely prefer it when Brian was actively involved. Most of those songs really stick out, like Funky Pretty which I can't imagine any other member to come up with in terms of arrangement and production. Carl's approach, in comparison, often sounds to me like he was determined to make some solid rock tracks and get everyone to perform really well. That's fine (I'm a big Holland fan) and he did have some very creative ideas too but Brian's approach was more eccentric and more pop at the same time, to my ears anyway, and that for me is the Beach Boys at their very best. Speaking of M.I.U., that eccentricity is what I find is really missing from this album despite Brian's (inconsistent) involvement as a composer. There's nothing too daring or unusual about the arrangements or the harmonies or the bass parts on that album as far as I can tell, so it ends up sounding pleasant but a little boring - sorry, Al. I agree about the live shows, although I'd extend that time frame somewhat into the early 80s depending on the band's overall condition on the given date.

Bonnevillemariner, if I came across as sanctimonious I genuinely apologise. I was trying to answer your question with what I saw, and still see, as a possible answer to your question. Let me reiterate that there is no 'wrong' way to be moved by art.

Going back to Hey Jude's argument quoted above, whilst I am aware I am cherry-picking from your full reply, which was fair minded in its acknowledgement of my points, I do need to take exception to this idea that a system is flawed simply because one needs to meet a certain set of criteria in order for it to work correctly. Something cannot be flawed for working, this is a logical fallacy. Of course one does not need 'study videos', but what these videos instruct is the correct seating position in relation to the speakers. Traditional headphone listening will not work, nor will lying on the sofa with the speakers wall mounted. Let me be VERY clear, I am not saying these listening methods are wrong, merely that they will compromise the illusion of the stereophonic field. To listen to stereo optimally requires effort on the part of the listener, which seems to be what you are criticising. Effort does not equate to a system being flawed.

There are peer reviewed papers documenting research into the stereophonic field going back to the 1930's. The auditory illusion that stereo presents under the correct conditions has been fully explored. This research is still extremely pertinent today, insomuch that EVERY stereo recording you listen to has been mixed and mastered by someone sitting in exactly the position prescribed for correct stereo listening. Logic therefore dictates that in order to fully appreciate the recording, one must adopt the same position. This becomes even more true for a record such as Sunflower, which was really quite an experimental recording when it comes to stereo mixing. I know I am somewhat misrepresenting your argument now, but you should never think of such experimentation as flawed. That way lies the mass homogenisation of music in which we currently find ourselves!

You posit that 99.9% of music listeners want to access music with the minimum of effort. I can neither agree nor disagree with this assertion. I myself can be both audiophile and casual listener, depending on the circumstances. What this assertion would seem to suggest however is there is a sizable disconnect between the way people digest art, and the method that goes into creating that art. The best artists have always understood the science behind what they do, be that perspective in painting or maths in composition. I fully acknowledge that most people don't want to know about the methods that lie behind the art and cultural artefacts they digest. It can destroy the illusion and impair enjoyment when one concentrates too much on the inner workings. I just don't agree this is the case with stereo listening, where an understanding, or at the least an acknowledgment of the science is vital if one wishes to hear exactly what the creators intended.

Before anyone thinks I am some sort of advocate for stereo, I really am not. I'm currently researching how music can be presented in virtual spaces via HRTF through headphones This is a far different beast to stereo. Funnily enough I find myself mixing in mono most days as monophonic sources translate much more convincingly to the illusion that a particular sound is coming from a particular point. As a result I've had to re-educate myself as a mixer after years of working within the stereophonic idiom. We are entering a very exciting time in music mixing actually, as stereo starts to (finally) give way to new mixing paradigms.

Pet Sounds 60 in VR anyone?

I don't want to wade into the rest of the discussion, but in the case of This Whole World in particular, I think it's clear that at least some of the perceived tininess of the backing vocals is an intentional effect. The 2009 remaster of Sunflower is harsh and trebly accross the board. The 2014 AP remaster and 2015 HDtracks remaster (latter is my go-to) sound warmer and closer to Desper's needledrops of the original pressings, but still, it's there to an extent in This Whole World. The vocals apparently just have that unusual EQ right on the tape. In the om-dot-didits, Brian's got Al and Dennis down on the lower parts singing with this pinched, nasal tone that stand out among the harmonies - obviously a specific thing he was going for there for better or worse, accentuated with the recording technique. There are many places on the album with vocals that don't sound like that.

It may have something to do with favoured trends in the moment too. Feet, recorded during the Sunflower period, also has that vocal quality. None of the rest of Surf's Up really does.

Is there any way to listen to Stephen’s study videos? The only link I could find is dead.

Yeah, I think Stephen has his videos up on the Endless Harmony forum…you have to make an account there to see them. Needless to say, many people here won’t be hearing Stephen’s mixes.

I remember going on a wild goose chase to gain access to one of them through this board. It was many years ago and it involved following clues to passwords that would unlock the video or something. I didn't bother trying to find the rest.

No, you didn't come across as sanctimonious at all. I really appreciated your explanations. For me it boils down to this: If the music doesn't sound good in a simple setup or a casual listening environment, there's a problem with the music-- not my method of consumption. Thus, purchasing a specific set of equipment and arranging my listening space just so isn't a real solution. The longer we discuss it, the more I realize there probably isn't a solution...

...aside from the re-record idea that I posited above.  ;D


I fear you may be right, and that is unfortunate. The Boys were known for their rich, lush sibling harmonies. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could have sung most of the harmonies on that track. "Hey, we're infamous for doing this thing. Let's purposely subvert that for this record." So, so stupid. The Beach Boys' later eras are filled with decisions that turned out to be unfortunate.

I find it interesting that Feet was recorded during the Sunflower period. I was not aware of that fact. The backing tracks on Sunflower sound pretty pristine to me, hence my comment earlier about it being the best sounding track, instrumentally, on Surf's Up.

It's kind of an "if you build it they will come" scenario -- I don't think engineers hated having some lack of isolation in the three and four track eras.  Only after the paradigm shift to the idea of having a discrete track (or many discrete tracks) per one instrument did they start to care enough to hate it.

I think it's similar to a lot of these issues, in that it would also be a case of what the goals were in any given project leading up to when the technology met up with the audiences and the genre-specific techniques started to mash up with each other as stereo took over, FM radio became more dominant in rock and pop circles, and the art of making a full album went into all genres. I think any working engineer would want the best sonics possible no matter what the end product would be geared toward, but when they were recording rock and pop groups, mixing to mono with the main goal being getting a single on AM radio, it was a different mindset than those engineers recording projects geared toward the "Hi-Fi" and audiophile audiences who were generally older and had more money to spend on equipment to listen more critically at home versus in a car or on a pocket radio.

One of the examples from the late 50's would be Esquivel. Working with the engineers, Esquivel would write arrangements specifically for recording in stereo, and in those earlier days of stereo mixing, they even went as far as splitting two orchestras into two separate studios and linking them together in order to get the most pure stereo separation, and have more control over the ping-pong effects during the mix. That is a super extreme example, but it shows just how far they would go in the early days to exploit the new "stereo" techniques geared toward those Hi-Fi enthusiasts. The audience was definitely not the teenagers buying pop-rock 45's and listening to AM radio.

Sometimes the frustration in trying to break down and analyze these issues related to the specific time of the mid 60's is that so much seemed to be in a constant state of flux and changes that were literally affecting the entire music and recording industry were happening year to year. Just going from 1966 into 1967-68 in terms of pop music saw a shift from mono being the standard to making dedicated stereo mixes, AM radio being the band to hear pop music and Top 40 shifting to FM stations with more open formats and better sound, the concept of a full album in pop becoming just as important as a single, the rise of TV and movie exposure being a sales-driving factor in marketing new music more than it had been previously, and the rapid developments in recording technology overall, where the availability of more tracks trickled down to more studio facilities and in 5 years the standards changed from 3 or 4 track machines to 16 tracks.

I think the studio photos tell a pretty good version of the story when you see the changes from even '65 to '70, in how they were set up, baffled and isolated, and even in the number of mics they had available to use. I think that element was also a major factor in how things started to sound as the technology allowed for more separation, and instead of limiting a drum track's setup to three mics, they could use 10 on a kit and get a much more present drum sound. The sound of a present, in-your-face kick drum is one thing that we can notice clearly as a difference between 65 and 70, again because more tracks were available to accommodate all those elements.

I don't know if engineers or producers across the board went with the bleed-through because they had to given what they were recording, or if they liked it aesthetically given the limitations they had with 2 3 or 4 tracks, but as soon as more tracks opened up, the separation and even the more dry sound overall seemed to become the norm. If it were aesthetic I'd say more records throughout the 70's would have been done in an open room setup with all the leakage versus trying to baffle and isolate everything.

Yeah, I kinda figured that would be the case ... actually, after I wrote that I read the Wiki article on the White Album and it noted that partway through its recording, the Beatles insisted they start using some new 8-track equipment that had been sitting in the studio unused for several months.

I never noticed that particular change. I'll have to give the 2 albums another listen.

COMMENT to Greg Parry,  The matrix is analog not digital.  If you wish to hear the correct and Carl Wilson approved release of SF and SU, the only source for this today are my Study-Videos. I am sorry that you must deal with passwords and other security things, but this is all required of Copyright Law in the United States. My book comments on these copyrighted recordings as they play and provides resolved versions, mastered by Carl and myself in the best fidelity I can provide. Most fan feedback is positive and comments reflect what I heard when I re-mastered all my recordings for use in the Study-Video series of explanations and experiences during my time as BB engineer.

The above release (via Artisan) and approval of the first pressing issues marked the end of my connection and/or control over any further modifications made to these productions by other mastering houses or individual engineers. Without matrix resolution, the whole (re) issue is kind of like DOA. All these productions were intended to be released in, what today would be called "virtual surround." It's all encoded within the original master, but no one seems to care enough to release the resolved version.

It's very frustrating as an artisan and engineer to create a work of art, but not be able to get it released as it should be. Like painting in color, but only being able to make copies in black and white. So at least you can find a source for these productions in their intended format, even if the record companies are stuck in stereo.
 
At one time the good folks here at Smilesmile hosted the series for several years. It is currently available at one of the other popular message boards. Registration is required there as it was here; part of the copyright law.

 abonnevillemariner -- look for a personal message for more details.  ~SWD

Would you ever make your study videos available here again sometime?

COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF POINTS:


To remark that Stereo Reproduction has been fully explored is paramount to saying, everything has already been invented, so let’s close the Patent Office.  Obviously you have not read my peer reviewed white papers, nor reviewed my four peer reviewed patents on the subject of Stereophonic Sound Reproduction. You may also find interesting technical reviews of the $10.000 ProSpatializer, a two-channel mixing tool that can place any sound within the panorama of the sound stage AND anywhere within the area of the sound field; in effect at any point in any room. This illusion is heard while sitting anywhere within a six foot wide listening space -- about the same as standard stereo. The point being that the field of Stereophonic Sound recording and reproduction advances are far from being finished.

Don’t think for a minute that sound engineers are stupid enough to only get the mix right while listening at the ideal playback spot. We know that our recordings will be heard over a vast variation of listening situations. As such, engineers monitor using near-field, mid-field, and far-field monitoring situations, both high-fidelity and small-speaker situations, and strive to make the stereo illusion as wide as possible. No engineer expects his or her listeners to sit with their heads-in-a-vice in order to hear a stereo recording. The idea in commercial mixing is to make a product that can be enjoyed by a wide variety of people listening in a wide variety of situations. The art of compromise is certainly in play, but remember . . . THIS IS THE MUSIC BUSINESS . . . and in business the goal is to make money. If your audience is limited it’s not good for business. So engineers strive to not limit their product to a small segment of the listening population – with the exception of special audiophile records.

Of course the best listening position is generally agreed to be as far from the speakers as they are apart. That is the standard; not a limit. The human brain is capable of much more than most engineers realize, but commercial requirements and industry standards are hard to advance beyond what already works and makes money.

I was hired by the Beach Boy organization to “take them out of mono and into the full capacity that Stereophonic Sound facilitates.”  That I did. I took them beyond the common everyday stereo sound into the world of virtual imagery. But the record company did not wish to move from the old amplitude stereo format in to the future. Thus, the Beach Boys could have been a major force in the development of Virtual Surround (or 3D sound as it later was called), but was denied that distinction by their parent record company, preferring to stay with the status quo.


I agree. You should not need to do anything special to get the full enjoyment from a virtual surround mix than a conventional stereo mix. And you don’t. This has been proven over and over, the most potent display being one summer Olympic sound, successfully broadcast using equipment of my design, in virtual surround, and heard by two-Billion people – that’s a thousand gold records in sales. Such technically successful technology together with sales of over 60 million channels of virtual surround IC's hardly qualifies as experimental.  Therefore I take issue with your statement that Sunflower was an experimental mix of an album. Maybe not common, maybe cutting edge, maybe an advancement, but not experimental. To hear Sunflower when issued in virtual surround or resolved through the matrix (as I like to say) you only need two normal stereo speakers placed some distance apart -- nothing else -- same as any regular stereo setup. Your brain does the rest.

But when the Beach Boy advanced technology format is rejected and the standard stereo format is released, this engineer was given no alternative but to offer the advanced or virtual surround version in the only format available, Internet streaming of the advanced format via The Study-Videos.  Granted, no one should need to go to a special website just to hear the original mix format, but if the record companies and stuck in regular stereo and refuse to release the preferred and sonically superior advanced format, what do you suggest I do if I want dedicated fans to hear what was actually produced.

Be aware too that I am limited in what I can provide to the fans by the Copyright laws. The study-videos all deal with copyrighted material and exist only by the good graces of The Beach Boy organization and the owner of their copyrights.  

Your comments are welcome.  ~swd

Re: Brian's thin vocals - that's just how his voice sounded at the time, not a mixing issue but a performance one.

COMMENT:  I see. You mean his voice sounded thin on stage?  Of course, unless you are hearing the raw, unamplified voice of Brian Wilson  :bw, any sonic issues could be the fault of electronics and not of his vocal chords. And having many times stood directly in front of Brian as he sang a part or previewed a solo to me, I can tell you that Brian's vocal delivery is quite consistent. Back when he traveled with the Beach Boys, I mixed hundreds of shows with Brian and never found his voice sounding thin.  Of course the man is growing older (as the same rate as us all) and along with that is loss of vocal control and breathing control. Can't hit all those high notes he once could and the lungs don't hold as much air as decades ago. Still the talent shows forth and we all love to hear him sing. ~SWD

Stephen, thanks for the comments. I of course defer to your greater knowledge. I must confess however to being somewhat confused by your relaxed position on equidistant stereo listening, as you have always strongly advocated it's use in your study videos and also in other sources attributed to you. I merely thought I was best defending your work by also advocating it.

Regarding sound engineers, of course I am aware that the whole room, and at least three different sets of monitors are referenced whilst mixing. I usually leave the console room completely to change my perspective of the bass balance. All I meant was that the main listening position is the equidistant one. It is as you say the standard.


I apologise for misrepresenting your work. Is the word pioneering better? I myself work in the experimental field so was not aware there was a negative connotation. Surely it is through experimentation that new standards are set?

As for your papers, I would of course love to read them. I searched the ARSC database but came up empty handed, and your Wikipedia page is very scant. Yet another example of you being overlooked by the industry, this time from its academic wing. This is why I always feel the strong need to defend your work. Please can you provide me with your papers? Perhaps then I can better educate the colleagues in my department, none of whom have heard of you!  

Hopefully your contributions will be well recognised in the boxed-set literature. I'm still sad on your behalf you weren't consulted, and was quite vocal on this matter on the pertinent thread. If it were me I would be very hurt, but you obviously have a thick skin. After all, how else could you ignore all the comments on this thread which basically criticise you mixing choices? At least you put me straight though. :)

As a huge fan of your work, I will continue you sing your praises. Perhaps a little less frequently now as I would hate to feel I were misrepresenting you.

Best wishes, Greg

I'm sure Steve will have way more insight into his papers than I, but to get you started, the main publications I've been able to track down online are these, and both, unfortunately, are behind a paywall.  However, they are worth paying for, especially the AES one as it has to do with the Beach Boys in an indirect way.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98, 2401 (1995)
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.413312 (https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.413312)


JAES Volume 18 Issue 6 pp. 667-670; December 1970
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1457 (https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1457)

Just wanted to offer my opinion. Sunflower sounds pretty damn good even with the couple of things that I miss (Brian vocal on Our Sweet Love as an example). Surf's Up is good but some of the sound is like washed up or dry, you know what I mean? It works sometimes but then again there are some mistakes (SDT).

Stephen,

When I got back into vinyl a couple of years ago, two of the first albums I made the effort to track down were Artisan first-pressings of SUNFLOWER and SURF'S UP. Thank you for ALL of the work, craft and talent you put into those albums! I keep telling fans to track down these pressings before any reissues if they want to hear these albums at their best. Thanks for making the study videos available again.

I remember your original book of Recording The Beach Boys including a home version of The Spatializer. Any thought of making The Spatializer available again?

Best regards,

Jonathan

COMMENT TO Greg Parry,   Over the years I have not only read your comments and found them interesting, but also I have learned details from your posts that I did not know.  That goes for your comments here and on other message platforms . . . you are indeed an informed and experienced fan.

As to the equal-distance-rule EDR;  we are subject to the EDR because of the anatomy of the human body. The engineering is based in physiology.  Head Related Transfer Functions (HRTF) dictate to the brain how to interpret inner-amplitude differences (IAD) and inner-timing-differences (ITD).  The manner in which signals from the tympanic membrane (including timing Cues from the ear Pinna) are analyzed once inside the brain cannot depart from the fact that humans are bilateral symmetric, not only having two ears, but two eyes, hands, feet, lungs, heart chambers, brain lobs, etc.  The brain is binaural. It does not hear stereo sound. Stereo sound is what we call two-channel reproduction wherein the two channels contain related information. Binaural sound is the name we give to how the brain works relative to sound perception. Binaural sound is subject to our physiology, whereas stereo reproduction and the listening position we assume can be anywhere relative to the speakers.

What all this means is that YES -- for the best stereo imaging a listener should be equal distance from each speaker, but this requirement is not some engineering rule set up by an AES committee on standards, but rather the rule has as its genesis in, and is bound by our human shape.  However we must also acknowledge that humans are social beings too. We live, eat, play, worship, plan, fight, together and have families. We also enjoy group entertainment, movies, sports, records, concerts. So at times, more than one person may wish to hear a stereo recording from one stereo sound system at a time. This group listening situation has produced the term "sweet spot" or the best seat in the house. When listening with our binaural hearing, but in a group, the sweet spot is defined as how wide the so-called best seat in the house will hold up with respect to imaging or the stereo image as we move off-center. Usually the sweet spot is about five people wide for a commercial stereo system.

In the case of the study-videos the sweet spot may narrow to two or three people wide. That is because HRTF play a major role in virtual surround reproduction. That is not to say that stereo reproduction also has a limited sweet spot. However, if you wish to take advantage of the virtual surround or resolved matrix presented in the study-videos, you will need to limit your sweet spot to about two to three people wide ... the best being centered; same as stereo. The reason I make such a big deal in each study-video about the EDR is that it has been my experience that many sound systems are not setup correctly, often due to room limits or furniture restrictions. So I wanted to make certain that it was well understood that each study-video was made to produce virtual surround only if the listener conformed to the EDR.  You can't get away from the HRTF phenomenon.

I hope that clears it up for you. 

These differences in terms may interest you:

Stereophonic Sound  -- playback using two related signals from spaced loudspeakers

Monophonic Sound -- playback using one loudspeaker.  (note: combining left and right signals while listening over two speakers is still stereophonic sound. It is monophonic when one speaker only is used for reproduction.)

Binaural Sound --  being aware of the differences in biometric pressure changes to the atmosphere as sensed by the two spaced ears.

Monaural Sound -- being aware of pressure changes to the atmosphere as sensed by one ear only.

     Thanks for the conversation, ~swd

COMMENT:  Over the years and since I signed-off on the release of SF and SU, I too have been disappointed at the many variations of masterings (like 20 or so for Sunflower) that have been released. Some are better than others, but none IMO can stand up to the original mastering by Carl and myself. This mastering was done for the LP format. I can take no responsibility for any disappointments resulting from the modification of the original mastering thereafter.

I do not want you to think I am disrespectful of your opinion, but to make some sound judgement and comment without specifying the listening conditions is meaningless.

Are you listening in digital? If so, any comments as to dullness or brightness is a function of the analogue-to-digital conversion. What type and make of speakers are you using? What are the acoustics of your listening room? Are you even listening over speakers?! What is your age?

Making a comment about the music does not require specification of the listening situation. However, judgements and statements about the mix, mastering, or sound, does -- to be a meaningful opinion.

But I do agree with you, depending on what format and release you are playing and listening to -- some of the product out there does sound dull, some I would even sound like crap. Even more reason to find an Artisan LP or listen to the study-video needle-drops.

We will soon find out if the FF re-mastering has improved conditions. Mark is a smart and able engineer with a good ear. I am encouraged and looking forward to the new masterings. 

~swd