The Smiley Smile Message Board

I just was on the Blueboard and to my surprise a couple of experienced diehards had written that they abhorred the way TLOS is mastered. Is it really such a loud but compressed record? And is there any difference between US and European CDs, and the vinyl?

I have the European three CD Sounds of Summer compilation(released a few years back) and it's the most compressed Beach Boys album in my collection(if that means super loud.)




In fact, about half of my collection was "made in the EU" and they are all fairly loud. I don't think that different masters are used in Europe and US, but I don't know.

Doesn't really bother me.

Haven't received TLOS yet.


No idea what "clipping" is.

duplicate post

I haven't heard the CD as of yet, but to answer your question lance, clipping is where the "volume" goes above 0db, producing what could best be described as a static-like noise.  To avoid this, engineers use compression/limiting to ensure that the sound is as loud as it can be without crossing that threshold.  Depending on how this is done, the overall sound can be quite flat/listless.

For what it's worth, the CD does not appear to have a clipping problem to me. There's compression used, but the overall mix sounds airy and has a fairly decent dynamic range for something released in the 21st century (in other words, it doesn't sound like a Fall Out Boy CD).

With all due respect to those who are sensitive to the issue, but to me it's almost a moot point because the fact is, albums are mastered that way now: they're hot. They're pushed as high as possible, and compressed to hell to allow for it. That's not the choice for many of us, and for some it's downright deplorable, but it's reality. TLOS isn't that bad in that regard in my opinion, relative to its time and place.

 
It is not a moot point because it reduces the dynamic range and introduces digital distortion. Albums are not automatically or necessarily mastered like that. The question is, who made the decision to apply the digital compression and limiting? Brian? Scott? Bob Ludwig? And what was their reasoning for doing so?

Excuse my ignorance, but is this the reason that albums today sound "different" to albums from the 60s/70s?

For me, the best "sound" on record was late 60s-early70s, albums like Neil Young's On the Beach, or Van Morrison's Veedon Fleece. The ambiance, the sound of miked acoustic guitars, the bass notes, the drum fills.

To me, it seems there is a lot more "room" in these old recordings. As much as I love TLOS and Smile 2004, there isn't much "room" or depth, and every instrument seems pushed to the fore.

Interesting discussion so far, thanks guys. Albums with superior sound IMHO:

Van Morrison: 'Inarticulate Speech Of The Heart', 'Sense Of Wonder', 'Common One';
Bruce Springsteen: 'Born In The U.S.A.', 'Tunnel Of Love';
Van Dyke Parks: 'Discover America', 'Moonlighting'

Just a couple of examples. No distortion, fine detail, sounding great at any sound level; and most feature quite complex arrangements and pretty large ensembles.

And: all were originally released on LP. Perhaps that's another reason.

A mutlitude of reasons. Mastering (and the use or non-use of compression and limiting) is the very last step that influences the sound of a release. Most of the sonic characteristics are already determined at the recording and mixing stage, and it is my opinion that albums that were recorded and mixed in analog have a more realistic and pleasant sound. Digital workstations allow more manipulations, edits, overdubs, and effects but it is tempting to overuse digital processing at the mixing stage.

Donald Fagen's Nightfly is a perfect example of an early all-digital album. It has a distinct sound to it, certainly very different to, say, Aja, but still very dynamic and smooth. Another example is Brothers In Arms. Very clean and detailed, a bit flat and technical sounding, but no signs of overused compression, so these do not have any of that harsh, distorted sound that charcterizes victims of the loudness war.

A counter-example is Memory Almost Full, which was terribly overcompressed at the mixing stage and sounds accordingly. It couldn't be saved in mastering because the harm was already done.

The entire machinery of the industry. There are small pockets of people who complain. The effect is nil.

The effect of complaining is NOT nil. I could give you hundreds of examples.

 If it's ever going to change, sometime in the distant future, it's going to be because of consumer complaints and nothing else. Complaining eventually gets things done.
It just takes a while--history is full of examples.


It's a new issue to me! I would like to compare a "hot" mastered thing wtih the same thing mastered differently. Obviously vinyl sounds better for old stuff, but I have only heard of this stuff recently. I have noticed albums getting louder and louder, though.

Maybe, due to audiophiles complaints, in the future companies( or bands or whatever) might issue special "audiophile" versions of albums(usually with a couple of bonus tracks so that normal people will buy it.)

And I don't mean reissued remasters fifteen years later. I mean issued  at the same time, but a sticker on it that says: Audiophile master. Put a sticker on the other that says "HOT master".

Jeez, if they did that the audiophile masters might even sell more than the hot masters.

Just do what my band did with our first ep...

Mastered by: You! With your Master Volume knob!

I am not sure what you are saying. There is no automated "machinery" for mixing and mastering. People are handling the tools, applying the effects and get paid for that. At some stage, someone either ordered digital compression (this would usually be the producer, i.e. Brian or Scott), or applied it by his own decision (this would be the mixing engineer or the mastering engineer). And this person had a motivation for doing so. I am asking, what motivation was this? Because TLOS needs to compete with the newest Kid Rock album and the Mamma Mia soundtrack in terms of loudness?

I'm not sure that's necessarily true though - while I agree with most of what's been said against present day mastering techniques (and agree that a lot of the problems happen in the mixing stage too).

Going back to the 'old stuff' - there have been some fantastic CD masters of old analogue tapes in recent years, which in many ways get the soup out of the old LP compression techniques - well, the original Pet Sounds box is an obvious example. The Beatles' Love CD certainly allowed one to hear things previously masked by mush, which gives some hope (I'm guarded) for the forthcoming Beatles remaster series...

Of course, the other thing about LPs is that you need a reasonable turntable /amp to play them on, otherwise the equipment ends up like your aunt's and uncle's - in the corner underneath the embroidered cloth supporting the aspidistra, never used...

In my experience sixties and seventies stuff sounds better on vinyl. From about 80 onwards I dont hear big differences, though. Some exceptions, I am sure, and as far as remixed stuff goes, you are probably right.

You really can't make such a general statement.

Ah but have you heard Love on vinyl? You can still hear all those things you couldn't hear before...because they have been made more prominent by Messrs Martin's new mix.

And the vinyl issue of the remastered Pet Sounds is almost identical to the DVD-Audio (and yes, I can play the full resolutoin DVD-A).

Mind you, I have a decent turntable too...

There are big issues with the mastering of many current "pop" albums...and some remastered older material.

I am a big Genesis fan, and there are currently a 2nd lot of remasters doing the rounds for that band's older material. And the remasters sound AWFUL...compressed to hell, cymbals crashing around everywhere because the record company thinks that is what "pop" should sound like.

It's a fad, and it will move on....hopefully...

It doesn't help that many CDs today are being mastered on the assumption that we will listen to them in our cars, or hear them in public where they are competing with other sound for our attention. Which is a shame, because such recordings sound horrible, even painful, when listened to in isolation.

Actually, lance was making a completely subjective statement! (and hence, entirely valuable).
However, the problem with this sort of discussion is that people tend to take sides (CD vs vinyl, digital vs analogue etc). Reality is that there's good and bad in both. Some 60s LPs sound horrid, some recent CD remasters sound sumptuous.
Someone mentioned Fagen's Nightfly. Ry Cooder's Bop Till You Drop is another - possibly first ever - early digital rock record which actually sounds very good (though Ry apparently hated it).
I put on BWPS a couple of days ago to confirm all this and, HDCD, valve microphones etc apart, it does slightly batter the eardrums.

I thought you were talking about Arthur Lee for a minute. Of course I had Forever Changes on vinyl years ago!

On the CD though you get a fab song called 'Wonder People' which should have been on the album really. By Love. Not the Beatles.  ;D

Correct, and it was not my intention to criticize his statement. What I meant was:

You can't make a general statememt that sixties and seventies stuff sounds better on vinyl. And I don't claim that lance stated it that way.

Well, I was just saying in my experience, which is pretty limited. And I did say there were probably exceptions. I'm not lookin' to fight and I'm not one of these vinyl snobs(in fact, I own NO vinyl). Just a fact. I had, for example a number of CD's that a friend had on vinyl--the sixties stuff nearly always sounded somehow better--in a way I can't even describe. However, the eighties stuff I had did not sound any better or worse--it just sounded the same to me only with a few vinyl crackles and pops.

It's a general statement based on my limited experience,  but it's not like I'm saying "All Italians are gay" or anything. I mean, it's not that big a deal and I am not married to any ideas......And I'm by no means making any kind of definitive statement about anything...Though I must say my initial statement, qualified as it is with "obviously" does make it seem that way.

Now that would get you into trouble.

Exactly, but now that I wrote it (joking around), I now feel like I've offended gay people and Italians. First I offend the audiophiles...I should stop digging. Apologies to all.(Sincere.)

The Genesis remasters were my first tip off that things were getting ugly with compression.  I love the entire Genesis catalogue dearly, and the first time I heard those remasters I almost cried.  Not only compressed, but completely remixed with every fader at full volume!  Loud parts...LOUD!  Quiet parts...LOUD!  Absolutely zero dynamics.  Not to mention a lot of the later albums have very noticable digital reverb in place of the unique analogue vocal reverb that Phil Collins & Hugh Padgham created for Phil's voice, and subsequently because almost a vocal trademark.  Genesis used to sound very warm and inviting, but in their new remastered form they are cold and sterile, and approved by the band members!  Tony Banks has commented on the backlash for the remasters saying:

"“I went on Amazon and I read five-star reviews, and then I saw one guy giving one of the new versions zero stars, complaining it was too highly compressed! I honestly think there was something wrong with his system.”

Oh dear, talk about misinformation.  The one good thing about this is that awareness is spreading.  I've seen the complaints of over compression on albums trickle down through my various forums over the past years, so at least people are starting to vocalise that they've had enough!

I don't have TLOS yet(waiting for my Best Buy copy), but from the clips I've heard online, it doesn't sound too bad.  Hot, for sure, but it sounds like some dynamics are still present.  And yeah, it's bright, but as Luther said earlier, that's reality.  My two measuring sticks are the new Genesis disc and Macca's "Memory Almost Full".  If it doesn't sound like those abominations, then call me more or less satisfied.

Having spoken with various US friends, it would seem that the troublesome sonics are a European phenomenon - apparently the US pressing is fine.

How is the price point then for the CD-only version of TLOS? I might consider ordering it for better sound.

Andrew -- What's odd about that is that CD mastering should produce identical discs. This isn't like vinyl, where the actual pressing plant could produce analog variations in sound. For what it's worth, my U.S. disc is definitely mastered quite hot, but not as bad as "Memory Almost Full," where some of the compression and loudness actually distorts the audio.

What? The European CD was also mastered by Bob Ludwig according to the credits. Are you saying that Ludwig prepared two masters, one for the US and one for the Europe with additional compression?

I am skeptical about this...what did your US friends exactly say?

I know - most odd. All i know is that the US CDs are apparently fine, and that mine (and those of several friends) have compromised sonics. Rogue pressing ?  Or did someone have a Spinal Tap moment and push all the faders up to 11 ?

Digital compression is more than just pushing up the faders. It would have to be some kind of post-mastering then...but I would like to have more than just a vague description like "apparently fine" before ordering a US disc.

Indeed. My suspicion is that there are just different sets of ears at work.

For what it's worth, I am an American who bought the CD in an American CD shop in the United States of... um... America, I think (may have to double check...)

Seriously, though - I bought the vinyl first and enjoyed it for a coupla weeks max before I was able to get the CD. I made MP3s of the vinyl with my USB turntable, and listened to the album like that on my iPod when I was out. Then I bought the CD a few days before releease, and was disappointed in the mastering, as it was way too harsh. Granted, it is not as bad as Memory Almost Full, and in both cases, I love the albums, so I listen to them... but take it from me, an audio engineer - the U.S. version still has ridiculous mastering. Oh well. Still a fucking great album...

I'd like to add that I have some tracks from BWPS which are pre-masters, at a very high bitrate (large files.) They also sound incredible, and I listen to them in lieu of the actual album sometimes. I am still trying to get her (my friend at Warners) to give me the rest of the album!

b00ts

It doesn't sound so bad to me, and unless you were there in the studio when it was mixed and mastered you can't possibly tell if this was how it made. Professional engineers almost never apply compression before a record is mastered because everyone knows you can't undo it. I think the sound of MAF is more likely to be Macca trying to sound young and groovy than due to incompetence or duff aesthetic decisions. But I agree, it is not as good a sounding record as Chaos & Creation.

I couldn't help but smile when I read this, as if anyone would ever do such a thing! (N.B. All the early BB records were mixed and mastered under Brian's direction for precisely this purpose!!  ;D)

For what its worth, I have a European copy of TLOS and there are no audio problems with it. What bothers me is the awful mixing, which just kills all the background vocals, sucks the life out of them. Its impossible to tell one voice or one note from the next, and for the most part sound like a wall of Taylors. What is so great about the BB bg vox is that when you hear a falsetto you know its a falsetto, but having Taylor Mills in the mix, as well as the dreadful mixing, means that you don't know if you're listening to the 'soaring falsetto' Jeff or whoever of just a girl singing normally. The overall sound is so MOR, and I think that's a shame. 

I wasn't around then but I am under the impression taht early BB records at least were mixed for mono AM radio.
The problem now is that radio stations seem to want to be the baddest, loudest thing out there. Even 20 years ago, across Europe at least, there were many fewer competing sounds. Now everywhere you go there is music (or muzak), phones, people, advertising....lots of noise...for your song to get heard on the radio it seems you require "faders at 11" as Andrew puts it.

Which is a shame, because some of us actually BUY a CD or LP to sit back alone in the quiet and listen. Hell, though I use speakers I know many people actually don headphones.

I've never heard Memory Almost Full on CD, only the vinyl, but it's clearly not as accomplished sonically as Chaos...
However I suspect, where a vinyl master is properly and separately prepared, it will be on the assumption that the listener is a serious music enthusiast...and that the person mastering for vinyl will do the best they can with the material they have.

Just one more reason to spin the old black wax...

OK... OK... this is odd. Most odd.

Just ripped my sonically challenged CD of TLOS to my iPod... and it's a different beast entirely. Is it possible that the thing was mixed and mastered with download in mind ?  Or did someone send the download master to Europe in error ?

What in hell? That's weird, to say the least.

Andrew -- it could depend on the bitrate at which you ripped the CD and the headphones you're listening to it with. If you ripped it as a lossless file (wav or Apple lossless) it should sound precisely the same -- it will be the same data as the physical CD. If you rip it in lower quality (as a 128 kbs AAC, for example), it will sound somewhat different. That lower quality file would be closer in spirit to an AM radio broadcast -- in which compression helps an audio recording "pop" instead of degrading it.

Ripped it at 128, using Sony MDR-V150 cans.

Thing is, none of the other CDs I've put on my iPod have shown any change at all, well, to these ears anyway.

AGD, are you saying the UK TLOS CD sounds better on your ipod?

And are you using the same headphones as your CD player, or using the ipod buds?

Curious.

Never use iPod buds, even though it means the cans are twice the size of my Nano 3G  ;D.

1 - the fidelity is crap
2 - my ears must be a funny shape, they fell out every time I tried.

And yes, for whatever arcane  reason, the CD sounds much better on my iPod. A definite WTF moment. I seriously think it was mastered, if not mixed, for download.

Interesting, as I would assume your ears are quite educated :)

I've never owned an actual iPod, but I have owned a couple of MP3 players and my phone (Nokia N73) is reckoned to be pretty good at MP3 reproduction.

Any time I rip a CD, even at high bitrate, I can notice a difference. One can tweak the settings and produce a reasonable, enjoyable set of MP3 files from a CD...but there are always differences...especially in the top end.

However, AGD's suggestion that maybe TLOS has actually been mastered for download is interesting...and I should think quite possible. By that I mean I am sure it is possible that they made a download master, and perhaps were lazy enough to use it for the CD.

I've not heard the TLOS CD...US or UK version...so I cannot comment further.

Used some audio software on my TLOS - a bit of stereo expander - bought up some intrumental lines wonderfully - gave the BV's better seperation and punch - thus smoothed 'in' the dodgy vocal moments from BW (most noticable on MAD- it's now georgeous) as a unexpected bonus.

Turn Me Up!™ is a non-profit music industry organization campaigning to give artists back the choice to release more dynamic records. To be clear, it's not our goal to discourage loud records; they are, of course, a valid choice for many artists. We simply want to make the choice for a more dynamic record an option for artists.

Today, artists generally feel they have to master their records to be as loud as everybody else's. This certainly works for many artists. However, there are many other artists who feel their music would be better served by a more dynamic record, but who don't feel like that option is available to them.

This all comes down to the moment a consumer hears a record, and the fear that if the record is more dynamic, the consumer won't know to just turn up the volume. This is an understandable concern, and one Turn Me Up! is working to resolve.

http://turnmeup.org/ (http://turnmeup.org/)

I have yet to hear TLOS but am surprised to learn that it sounds better as a non-hi fi 128 rip!

Most people reckon they're smarter than all the rest of me put together...  ::)

That was a very poor piece of writing - of course there's a difference, but it's never something I can't live with (unlike mini-disc, which I could not listen to). The change in the sonics of TLOS is quite remarkable.

I've used a simple type of spatialiser on the CD too, and yes, it sure helps.

Check this great article about over-compression:

http://www.austin360.com/music/content/music/stories/xl/2006/09/28cover.html

And, believe it or not, there's difference between digital pressings. I know a friend who have A/Bed a record like Flaming Lips's Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, the local edition and the US one, and the differences were there. I can say than local pressings of Presley reissues and Macca's Chaos and Creation in the backyard are prone to skip on many cd players.

But you don't have to take it from me. Here's an expert on the matter, Don Was:

(from a mid 90s Bass Player magazine)

How much does the mastering process affect a bass tone?

Tremendously--you can do amazing things when you master records. But it's not just the mastering process that affects it; sometimes what happens after a record is mastered has an even greater effect on the end result. For example: When I helped the Stones reissue their catalog, [engineer] Bob Ludwig spent an incredible amount of time on the remastering, because there weren't any EQed master tapes of those records around. We ultimately found that the best versions to refer to were the original vinyl pressings. Then, after Ludwig went to all this trouble matching the newly remastered versions to the vinyl, we discovered that somewhere in the CD-manufacturing process there's something called "jitter" that can dramatically change the quality of a disc. So even after the remastering, on the discs we got back from the factory all the warmth of the bass had vanished, the high end had become tinny, and the echo had disappeared. The jitter defect had so totally altered the character of the sound that we went to the head of Virgin Records and asked to have the discs recalled. This was all because someone had made a defective part that went unchecked! People used to talk about the erratic nature of vinyl, but CDs are just as uncontrolled in terms of quality.

So all the work you do in the studio can be dramatically changed in the manufacturing process.

It's frightening. When they decide to re-press the new Stones record after the first batch is gone, no one's going to call me and say, "Don, we just ordered a new batch of CDs. Some are being done in Germany, some are being done in Atlanta--we'll send you random samples of all of these to compare." It won't happen. And maybe some schmuck who works in one of those factories will decide he knows better than Bob Ludwig. Maybe it's always bothered him that hi-hat cymbals don't sound as if they were made of tin, so he's going to fix it! He's going leave his thumbprint right on Charlie Watts's forehead! [Laughs.] I'd say if you're going to buy an album, buy it when it's released, because that's what's closest to the truth.

I'm a big 70s Genesis fan and picked up the remixed Trick of the Tail and was really surprised to hear Steve Hackett mixed way down in many cases! I look ahead to the new Gabriel box with dread, though thats the material I love the most.
Memory Almost full was poorly mastered indeed, I didn't think Chaos and creation was as bad as that at all.

I picked up a copy of Trick on CD circa 1991, and it sounded fine. I later managed to get my hands on an original vinyl pressing and gave away the CD to a fellow fan - no need of it for me. I have since heard the remaster and it is horrible. OK so one could argue it is a new interpretation of the original work....but to my mind you can't say it is the same album even if the original recording was used.

I know Tony Banks supposedly dislikes Hackett, but I understand that animosity has reduced a lot in recent years...so I don't think it is Tony deciding Steve should be mixed out or low. Its all a shame, because Steve wrote and played some beautiful stuff on that record.

Chaos wasn't bad at all, it's a pleasant listen. Thing is, I prefer the music on Memory...but the actual album is horribly mastered...another to look out for (especially the very odd bass guitar sound) is Marillion's "Afraid Of Sunlight".

BTW I am talking vinyl all the way with the above...never even heard Chaos or Memory on CD.

Hey MusicLover!

Thanks for the post, I had forgotten about Turn Me Up!

Some other thoughts...

I just wanted to say that some compresssion can be useful and necessary. Vinyl records of classical recordings are often compressed so the music will be playable off the record. The most famous example might be the Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture, which features real cannon fire! Even with some limiting it was not uncommon for the stylus to literally jump out of the record groove due to the tremendous excursion required to reproduce the original sound. Also, even with the best quality vinyl stock, some surface noise was apparent if the recording level was too low. So in the real world, an LP was limited to somewhere in the area of 40 db (40 db = 100 times) dynamic range, i.e., the relationship between the softest and loudest sounds. That doesn't mean it's all used - older rock recordings were often VERY highly compressed. But on the other hand you had companies like Nautilus and Mobile Fidelity (or even CBS!) who remastered rock records with little or no compression, cut the master disc at 1/2 the normal speed (this reduced the power required and therefore the distortion from the cutting head amplifiers), pressed it on to premium vinyl, and produced absolutely glorious sounding records.

The "red book" (standard) CD was once hailed as the solution, the end of the need to compress. With its 90db or better dynamic range it offered the ability to record a range of sounds well beyond even the best vinyl records. True, there was a noise floor in the 30-35 db range (from the electronics), so the usable range was more like 60 db instead of 90, but that was a HUGE increase since the db scale is logarithmic, not linear. That's a roughly 10x improvement over LPs! One disadvantage though - in the digital format exceeding the maximum recording level produces some of the most horrid sounds you may have ever heard. So while the vinyl could be "pushed" a bit, that's a no-no with digital (unless you like intensely loud bursts of noise!). Ensuring the signal never exceeds the max level is a necessity in digital recordings so signal processing of some sort is usually used. But a much better way (IMHO) is to record at a low enough level to not exceed the maximum!!

But what has evolved now - especially but not exclusively in rock/pop recordings - is a generation of recordings with a dynamic range of 10 db or less! If you follow the link on MusicLover's post you'll find it takes you to a bunch more links that do a terrific job of explaining in much more detail why this was/is done; and why it makes things sound the way they do.

Music like BWs deserves better. As an outsider (I'm barely on the fringes of the industry, to put it mildly!) it's not clear to me who has the final say on the amount of compression used.  But for Brian, somebody ought to step in and demand higher quality recordings. His music is great, he has a spectacular band, it needs to be made available to the consumer in the best sound quality the format will allow. And I promise you - if somebody ever remasters the TLOS (calling JVC, calling JVC - we need your  HELP!!) CD and takes full advantage of what the format can offer - well, just prepare to be amazed. Or (fantasizing) a well mastered high bit-rate digital format (SACD or DVD-A).

The CD in circulation in the USA is pretty crappy - which is sad since it could be so much better WITHOUT COSTING BW OR CAPITOL ONE MORE DIME!!

Sorry this was so long, I thought it might be useful.

Wow! What did you use?

Those new audio expanders are digital versions of similar equipment made by dbx in the 70s and 80s, and that was their job - to compress (or uncompress via the expander) music tracks that sounded a bit too hyper-processed.  Has to be done discreetly, of course.

As for Andrew's download issue, 126 kbps is a LOW quality download bit rate for putting an mp3 song on a player.  Just the calculations required to lose all the "extraneous" data to lower the bit rate that far might produce an "Aliasing" effect.  Try ripping the tracks at a higher standard.  I try to use 320 kbps wherever I can, unless whoever supplied the download gives you a lower bitrate (i.e., when you buy an LP and you get a code for a free mp3 download).

Warning to downloaders: unless your iPod or other player is especially tweaky, when one song segues to another you will hear an audible "Burp" as the track changes.  The only way to lose that FX is to rip the entire suite into a sound editing program and paste the whole thing into one continuous track, with no breaks, that will play back with no burps once down-converted to mp3.

Otherwise I was going to write that I got and very  much enjoyed a new US copy of TLOS. I thought it held together much better than I'd thought it would, and it sounded pleasant and punchy and musical through the big speakers.  No HDCD encoding, though, since Mark Linett did not master it, Bob Ludwig did, and he couldn't be bothered with another encoding process.

But since I see the cognoscenti's consensus here on the board is the album bites and the CD sound resembles an iron building collapsing, I will henceforth STFU on music reviews.

I think you're misunderstanding me. When I ripped the CD to my iPod the perceived sound quality increased - it's the CD I have sonic issues with, and in this I'm far from alone.

I think 'perceived' is the operative word here. I have numerous Naxos Historical releases, classic studio recordings from the '30s. They were lovingly restored from collector's shellac 78s. I'd place a safe bet that they don't fulfill today's standards by any criterion, be it dynamics, frequency range, perhaps even some flutter effects, god knows. But man, they sound musical. and better than a lot of today's state-of-the-art material. 'Musical' is also what drove listeners on a budget to NAD amps in the 80s, 90s, and noughties too. I have a NAD set and wouldn't trade it for any other.

OK I did misread AGD's post -- and it helps to recheck the whole thread.  While I have not heard the TLOS UK CD, it is entirely possible it does sound worse than the US version -- but how could that be?  Esp. if they're supposed to use the bit-by-bit copy of Bob Ludwig's final master?  Because, as is noted above, artifacts like extra jitter can creep in -- not just during the duplicating process, but maybe, as one writer noted, someone in the UK plant decided the sound needed "improving."   I know of many alternative artists out here who complain that the manufactured discs they got back from the label or the pressing plant did not match the final master they'd sent to the plant.   I think one recent CD by Steely Dan is one of the more famous examples in the mainstream context.  Though I confess I don't know how using a low mp3 conversion bit rate would improve the overall sound.  Usually that sort of thing makes the sound more brittle, not less.  Can some of the tech-savvy assist us here?

If the UK release is worse than the US you have my deepest sympathy. Because the US CD is the worst CD I've ever heard. I find the US CD literally unlistenable - I'm not using that as a figure of speech either. I can't stand to listen to it. I did listen once, and I never will again. I'll get the vinyl and if it's better I'll throw the CD in the trash. If the vinyl is no better then I'll do without until something I can stand to listen to is available.

It is the audio equivalent of having a 150 watt bulb 6" from your face.

Who in Brian's camp approved that mess? Or was the final product altered after it got approved? If nobody in Brian's camp checked the sound of the final master I'll be amazed. So that means either someone from BW land did approve it - or it was changed after approval. And if THAT's the case somebody needs to hold Capitol accountable for the dreck on that disc...

Here's this terrific piece of music, from a noted and respected composer, possibly the final major work of his career - and once again someone has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Disgusting is the word that keeps coming to mind... >:(

Well, this is just weird.  Both of the discs that I bought at Best Buy (the bonus tracks version and the CD/DVD version) here in Wisconsin sound great.  It is mastered loud, but no louder than most new CDs, and I hear no clipping or harshness.  It's not near as bad as Memory Almost Full, which is almost unlistenable to my ears.  Now, I am 52, and my ears are not what they once were, but I am a musician and I know when something sounds bad. 

Can you Fedex me around 10 cans filled with Wisconsin air then?

Nothing like the smell of cow poopy in the morning to wake you up    :lol

*Wisconsinite but no longer living near any farms*

ETA: so merda is now poopy   That's funny 

Well well well, I don't know, it's a mystery...

The Best Buy version would have to be a separate master from the "un-bonused" version, maybe some further tweaking occurred in that process?  Is that the one that sounds better or worse?

The LP master would presumably have to be checked and adjusted so as not to overload the cutter, and also to place the side break.  That, plus the little bit of high-end roll-off most LP mastering guys use (but won't admit to), would produce a slightly "warmer" sound. 

Is there any metadata in the CD master which might interfere sonically?  Not common things like track info and artwork, but things lke the spyware hidden in the first pressings of Neil Diamond's "12 Songs".

And maybe a further variation could be that discs made in one plant were done with more care than discs made in another.

My brain hurts.

We are entering dangerous territory now. Before we know, we'll be like the Hoffmannites. Bevare, bevare, as Bela Lugosi would have it...  >:D

I bought the CD/DVD combo at Best Buy. So whatever master was used for that is what I have.

Dr. Tim, it's not a frequency response issue, it's that the disc has a dynamic range that is hardly over 5db. And I'd bet (I can't prove it) is has jitter like crazy.

The "glare" is like nothing I've ever experienced, it literally repels me. I can't stand to be in the same room with it.

Hey - maybe I could use the CD as a pest repellent device!   ;)

To throw in my 2 cents to the debate, the mixing and mastering on this record was one of the things that impressed me the most. I think sonically, it sounds great. It has wonderful dynamics (switching from loud parts to quiet) and the full stops where the volume completely drops are done perfectly.

I actually am pretty impressed by this record's production.

I bought the CD/DVD the other day and the sound on the CD is definitely weird.  By now I'm used to overly hot CDs and this one is definitely HOT.  But the thing that I found really bizarre is that it already sounds like a compressed mp3, and not a very good one at that.  Listen to the beginning of MAD to hear the best example of this.  Brian sounds almost underwater; the whole thing has that wishy-washy underwater sound that badly encoded mp3s have.  Does anyone else hear this?

You can always extract the CD on your PC and listen from the files. This eliminates the jitter and all other factors ocurring from the particular pressing quality, and leaves you with nothing else than the recording, mixing and mastering quality. I found it still harsh and compressed.

I hear this very clearly, and it certainly means that Brian's vocals were heavily processed.

It's interesting to compare it with the demo which I prefer, where there seems to be less processing/autotuning, but much more reverb which makes Brain's voice sound even less real. Pick your poison.

We're talking about the same album ? That Lucky Old Sun, now known in my houshold as Everything Louder Than Everything Else ?

Well, have you heard him sing Surf's Up?

:lol

Insects, rodents, or humans?

Yes.

Man, if this is what being an audio expert does to you... I'm glad that I'm cloth-eared enough to know how fantastic this album is!

Cheers,
Jon Blum

...and as someone for whom my pristine vinyl copy of Surfer Girl still sounds as good as anything I can place on my expensive turntable, I'm very glad I haven't bought TLOS. Such a shame.

Well, there's got to be something funny going on here, because as I said earlier, both of mine sound great.  I played it on another system last night, just to see if there was any difference on smaller speakers.  It sounded fine.  The crescendo of the vocals on Midnight's Another Day comes through fine, there's no audible clipping on the louder parts, and it sounds punchy when it needs to.  Really.  Another funny thing is that most of the folks over on the Hoffman board, who are usually very critical of the loudness/compression wars, are saying that the CD sounds fine.  Weird, huh?

First of all, I want to say that I believe you folks that are hearing sound quality issues with the CD.  There are just too many folks reporting the problems for it not to be true.  However, I want you folks to understand that not everyone is hearing these issues.  I just went over to the Steve Hoffman board again, to see if I could dig up some negative comments about the sound quality of the album.  Any of you who are familiar with that board know that they are extremely critical about sonic issues.  One person mentioned brick-walling, and it is the only negative comment about the sonics that I could find as I quickly scanned the thread:

"Sadly, the mastering shows all signs of the usual brickwalling. Why?"

On the other hand, here are some positive comments that were made:

“It sounds really good to me.. You'd never know it was mastered by the same guy that slaughtered "Memory Almost Full." If MAF sounded more like this, I'd play it all the time.”

“Nice production as well I might add.”

“Scott Bennett does a great job on production and MD.”

“For a new release, the sonics are very good.”

“…the album sounds really good.”

“If the production sucked or if Brian's voice was bad I could probably comment on that but the production is actually good.”

“Personally, I find it very warm with a full presence, and the noteworthy use of real chamber reverb, courtesy of Capitol Studios, is very pleasing.”

“I can only give you my opinion and I think it sounds fantastic!
Compared to some other recent releases, the sound quality on TLOS would be considered stellar in my book!”

“It's 'punchy' compared to SMiLE - i.e., a little more modern sounding, a little bumped. But for a new album in 2008 it sounds amazing. A comparison with the new Verve album (same label, released a week earlier) is instructive. I really like the production on this record.”

You conveniently left out my (one sentence) comment. :)

I'm sorry if I missed a few.  Certainly not intentional.  I was scanning fairly quickly.  What was your (one sentence) comment, Andreas?  I'm curious as to what is going on here.  Why do some feel that this is the absolute worst mastering job on any CD, ever, while others are praising the sonics?  :-\

EDIT: I have found the comment from Andreas...I have added it to my post above.

My comment was:
http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=3753508&postcount=600

The discussion is mostly about the material and Brian's solo carreer in general. I would guess that people on the Hoffman board are used to Bob Ludwig's brickwalling mastering style of the last years, so they see it already as an improvement if it is not as horrible as Memory Almost Full. But I can't imagine anyone praising the sonics. The piano in Midnight's Another Day distorts at every note, Brian's voice is processed and autotuned, and the drums sound too thin to be realistic as well.

But that's the thing that I find strange here.  Some people are reporting these kinds of issues, and I really do believe them.  However, the piano in MAD does not distort on either of my copies.  I do hear some auto-tuning on Brian's voice.  That doesn't bother me as much as it does others.  The drums sound punchy and full on my copy.  Could there be mastering problems with some of the CDs, and not others?

That's what I'm thinking.

Amen.

Oddly enough, I think it sounds fine...and I have a degree in audio engineering, so what does that tell you?

And Philips told us in 1982 that CD's were perfect, and all CDs of the same music were identical to each other. Can I sue?

Probably not cos I've  been banging on about how CDs are far from perfect ever since I learned how they are produced (circa 1989).

Still haven't heard TLOS on CD, but  have acquired an....um...unofficial...downolad....mp3....and it doesn't sound too bad, but the dynamic range isn't great and the vocals sound odd...the letter "k" in particular sticks out, and that is a common fault in digital mastering...at least to my ears...

Now...I need to ask myself is that a function of the presumably amateur ripped 192kbps MP3 or is it carried over from the CD?

I dunno. And I am not about to buy the CD to find out....especially as nobody in my town seems to actually be stocking it :(

Why are you taking part in a discussion that does not interest you?

It might be that your system is more forgiving when it comes to harshness and aggressive upper midrange.

A little harsh, aren't we? I didn't say the topic didn't interest me. Just the opposite, in fact. Where did I state otherwise?

That no amount of studying and certificates can make up for a poor ear?

Brian doesn't have any qualifications, but he sure knows how to produce a record. You may know what to do in order to end up with certain characteristics...but can your ears and brain distinguish between them?

Alternatively, it has been suggested that there are both good and bad CDs out there.

On the 192kbps rip that I have (remember I have the vinyl and this rip, not the CD...nobody near me stocks it!!!) the drums have no impact whatsoever. I can hear them, but they have no punch at all...they aren't actually any louder than the rest.

No, that's not it.  However, I'm glad that I am forgiving when it comes to verbal harshness and aggressive attitudes.  Which is why I will respectfully bow out of this conversation now without responding further. 

I hope that is not aimed at me...?

No poopy.  Didn't know I had a "poor ear". Maybe I should change my line of work then, huh?

Calm down, and read what I said.

Well I see the food fight continues.  And my brain still hurts.

(From hitting myself upside the head with discarded metal LP stampers)

Sometimes a better CD player (as well as a better system overall) could allow even the most brickwalled CDs to sound somewhat more musical than on, say, a Best Buy $100 mini-system.  Though the vehemence of the opinions here would suggest that doesn't explain the differences people are hearing.

Can anyone weigh in with a comparison of the brickwalled CD with the LP?  As I said earlier, my surmise is  they just took the Bob Ludwig digital master and rolled it off on top, then placed the side break.  But maybe I'm wrong and the LP got its own special mastering job like Mark Linett did for BWPS?   Do any of our insiders have any insight into that?

I'd say more but I'm too distracted by the ads for sex toys.

My bad. Stressed out because my family & I evacuated for Hurricane Ike, and the damned thing is heading our way anyways as a Cat.3 storm.

The LP is mastered by another individual...I'm at work so I can't look up the name at the moment.


When I compare the CD and LP the difference is obvious...the LP has more dynamic range and detail..more open sound.

Kaput?

I finally got my copy yesterday(made in EU if there's a difference.) It really doesnt sound bad to me at all. It sounds fairly modern, but it doesn't hurt my ears the way my Platinum Collection Sounds of Summer does. I thought it sounded really nice.

I wish somebody would do a simple screendump from a program like Audacity to compare the different cd editions - and perhaps the vinyl too?

(http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll124/ranchonmars/daythatnever.jpg)

The above is a track on the new Metallica album - loud and compressed. No dynamics - apart from the intro!

The better (or more revealing) your hifi set-up the worse it will probably sound.

I tried to post a picture, but always got an error message: "The upload folder is full".

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n_gulliver/California%20Role.jpg)

California Role.

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n_gulliver/Morning%20Beat.jpg)


Morning Beat.

BTW those are from the 192kbps mp3 rip that I have. Might try to do the LP later to compare. I feel those are two quite different tracks. California Role should have lots of dynamics, whereas Morning Beat should be less dynamic...but moreso than the Metallica track above (which must be unlistenable). OK I know this is an mp3 rip, but the dynamics, whilst not the best, are OK.

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n_gulliver/MAD_GH.jpg)

(above) Midnight's Another Day....very nice

(below) Going Home. I said all along I preferred the live rendition. Maybe this is why?

hm, strange, I'll try to find out why...

BillyC - I hope Ike didn't get you. Good luck to you!!

Well, those waveforms aren't bad at all, all things considered. Yes, Goin' Home is extreme, but if any song on the album should look that way, it's Goin' Home.

You have to be careful with these sorts of comparisons of course, as these two images show: 1) Going Home full, 2) Going home but only the first few bars or so.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2854879789_469aab54f2.jpg)

Some songs just don't have much in the way of dynamics, and some have more than diagrams such as these suggest!  :)

Beach Boys fans are the toughest fans walking the earth  ;D

Didn't get me, but it destroyed my apartment and everything in it.

Beach Boys fans are the toughest fans walking the earth  ;D

I bet Bob Ludwig thinks so...
Bob emailed me last week to ask how BW fans were liking the new record.
I sent him links to the Blueboard thinking he might actually want to read the criticism and thinking that was cool of him, etc..

He replied,
 
So that's what I have to contribute to this thread.  I do think BB/BW fans are tough, but good tough.

cheers, phil

...See, comments like that just make me think of something my grandmother said, when I was being a teenage snob about something or other.  "Well," she said, "that just means I enjoy more things than you do.  So I win."  :-)

I do think some people, especially those with a specialist mindset, tend to confuse distaste with discernment.  Me, I can hear a difference in sound and style between "Surfer Girl" and "Morning Beat"; what I don't do is hate one because it's not like the other.

Or in another example, I'm not keen on the jagged-edged vaguely-'80s-ish guitar on "Your Imagination", I much prefer the way "Goin' Home" gets a less-processed hot sound.  But that doesn't make me wish I didn't own "Your Imagination" -- that would be serious nose-cutting-face-spiteing time.  Kinda like dissing Paul McCartney's best-written and -performed album in a decade or two because you can't get past the mixing...

Regards,
Jon Blum

Beach Boys fans:  loud, highly compressed with a limited dynamic range, but still peaking way in the red.  :-)

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Well the comment from Bob Ludwig is very telling.  So are the waveform screenshots.  I loaded tracks into Sound Forge and saw pretty much the same thing you folks see here.  While TLOS may have been cut somewhat "hot", it was not brickwalled.  To my own ears, the sound of the CD did not offend, though it didn't win an audiophile prize either.  It was OK.  I would have preferred an HDCD master, but then I'm a snob.  From what Bob Ludwig tells us (and he is right about this), if he got a hot mixdown from Brian and Scott, he couldn't "cool it down" in the mastering.  He could have made things worse in the mastering process, but he tells us he did not, and there's no reason to doubt him on that.

That doesn't explain the complaints from other posters, though.  Maybe it's something in the final mix rather than the mastering that  bothers?  (Could be).  Or would this record sound better in hi-rez 24/96 format*, which might remove some of the harshness these folks are reporting?  Dunno.  I must say I'm fresh out of surmises.  Interesting that the reports are that the LP sounds fairly smooth. 

*I would not expect EMI to do this, but some labels do sell FLACS of hi-rez masters in downloads that, once decoded,
will be in full hi-rez format.  Also I am assuming that's the format of the TLOS final mixdown.

It sounds more to me like Ludwig is "grading on the curve". His enthusiam for the product is underwhelming, to say the least. It sounds to me like he's saying something like "it isn't that bad - and even if it is, it isn't my fault". That hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement. But since he's declared we are all ignorant and part of the great unwashed masses I guess we've been put in our place. Our opinion doesn't matter.

But the CD sounds like crap to me - I don't care what he says. Who's at fault? I don't know, and frankly I don't care.

BTW, if you want to see the "evolution" of Bob Ludwig's mastering, just follow the link I posted below:

http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/loudness.html

Read this linked page, then look at the images below. Even the "best" of them (MAD) has issues, and Going Home is disgusting. I've heard people say how the BG vocal "swell" was so much more powerful on the demos - well look at the graph and you can see where the level was limited. Some of the power was simply squashed down since there wasn't adequate headroom for it.

Dr. Tim, how can you look at "Going Home" and say it wasn't brickwalled?? I know "brickwalled" is a relative term, but you would have to agree the recording is very heavily limited wouldn't you (even if you don't describe it as brickwalled)?



 

I love this post.

Yeah "Goin' Home" is pretty squashed, it almost qualifies, but there is some residual dynamic there, and more on other tracks.   I guess I set the standard for true brickwalling higher than you:  no let-up, even passages with, say, acoustic guitars are jammed up to 0.0 dB all the way.  Examples:  anything mixed by Tom Lord-Alge (Weezer, Bowling for Soup), that new Metallica, or Fountains of Wayne's "Traffic and Weather" (which is wearying to listen to though I love the songs and arragements dearly).

Listening to TLOS again and paying attention this time I did note a trebliness to the mix which might be what's irritating the rest of you.   A lot of sibillance around 8-9 kHz, especially the percussion.   Was that what sounded good to them?  (Probably yes). Or did it creep in when they downsampled the master to 16 bit/44.1kHz?  (I'm told by the Sterophile people that it sometimes happens in that process). If that's the problem it really isn't a mastering issue in the sense of a deliberate choice; it may be a by-product of preparing the master for CD manufacture.

I love this discussion, both sides of it. Everyone is making valid points. i am learning a lot (mostly about why my old vinyl LPs sound better than modern music).

You might not have heard of Six By Seven, but their last album makes a point of mentioning the mastering:

http://www.sixbyseven.co.uk/symptoms/

Please note: to keep the dynamic of this record, we have not compressed the final mix. This means that your CD will probably be a bit quieter than most other cd’s. We think that too much of the dynamic is sacrificed in order to push the volume up on most CD’s nowadays and leave it up to you to just turn the volume up on your system. We are not in competition with anyone else on the jukebox.When it goes from quiet to loud, we really want you to feel the difference, like you would at a gig!

Me again. I just read the Chicago Mastering article. Fascinating. There's a link on that page to a Rolling Stone article about High Fidelity issues (i didn't know RS did "music" articles anymore...!)

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity

And it had this quote from Kim Deal, that backs up AGD's point:

This is what I think is happening: Everybody has iPods, so you can't get them that loud. So they have a algorithm called a "finalizer" — it's not that new, but the way people are using it is new — and it makes your music sound louder. People will ruin their records and CDs. I was really stunned by the CD the guy gave me when I listened to it at home — it sounded crazy! It was like, abort mission! Supposedly it sounds fine on your iPod, but if you take the CD and put it on your hi-fi CD player you can hear the digital clipping. It's a big news story over in England."
— Kim Deal, on mastering the new Breeders album, Mountain Battles

Even using common software such as Nero....if you make your own audio recordings and use Nero to create an audio CD, it gives you the option of "normalising" all the tracks...basically what it does is look for the peaks and for each individual track boost the peak to make it 0dB. Honestly, has the art of setting faders deserted people? sh*t, I've been able to do that since I was a kiddie.

If we're going to blame a villain, blame the right one.  The "normalize" button is not the villain.  All it does is scan the entire track, finds the loudest peak moment, then raises the volume of that peak to 0.0dB, thereby raising the volume of the entire track by that same amount.  So if the original track's loudest moment was at -2.0dB, normalizing would raise the volume of the entire track by 2.0dB to get to 0.0dB - but the rest of the track levels would remain where they were proportionally.  It's a helpful tool and I use it all the time.

I'd forgotten about that damn "finalizer" button - the Kim Deal quote reminded me.  That is your culprit, and her explanation of why it's so popular makes a lot of (non)sense.  That box is also easy to use, as I recall the TC finalizer has any number of pre-set algorithms in it, all of which can be used to exquisitely ruin your songs so that they all sound just as loud as everything else on your iPod while you're at the Nascar track.

At this point I would like to express a heartfelt thanks to everyone who chimed in with their expertise. I started the thread and could not foresee that there would be so much awesome knowhow in all the follow ups... thanks guys and girls, and please continue in the same vein.

Glad someone does.  :-)  Thanks!

Cheers,
Jon Blum

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n_gulliver/vinyl.jpg)

Top = CD

Bottom = vinyl

Vinyl transcription made by myself...decent equipment...(not a USB turntable!)

Track = Midnight's Another Day.

THANK YOU!

Now I feel safe buying the vinyl. That's much more like it!

fascinating.

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n_gulliver/Going%20home%20with%20vinyl.jpg)

Top = CD

Bottom = Vinyl

Track = Going Home

You my draw your own conclusions.

For the record, the vinyl is a PCM wave file sampled at 96Khz 16-bit. The CD is a rip to PCM-Wave of a friend's CD and not the mp3 file I was working with earlier.

In both cases the waveforms have been normalised at 0.0dB....and this last factoid makes the differences more interesting. Definately no headroom on the CD. Leaves me in no doubt that the CD has been compressed.

To my ears, the vinyl LP is certainly not the best I have heard....but it is a long way from the worst. For a Brian Wilson production it is acceptable...by almost any other artist it would sound great. I didn't get to listen to the CD in ideal conditions but it sounded better than most modern music but not as good as the vinyl....which is what I would expect anyway.

As for someone pointing out that normalising can be useful...yes it can, but if you take a bunch of tracks which were written and played with the intention of some being quieter than others...and then normalise, you are ruining the composer's intentions. Dynamic range exists not only within one song but within an album. Who wants the quiet middle largo movement of a lovely concerto being normalised to 0dB ?

CDs are always compressed. Since when I don't know, but I'd say since some time in the sixties and definitely in the seventies. The mastering process always involves some EQ and some compression, so to say that the TLOS CD is definitely compressed is clearly true.

Normalising can be useful in that it means that the loudest part of your tracks will be the same across your entire album. Audio tracks are more than likely normalised individually long before the mix-down anyway.

I have to tell you - CDs weren't released to the public until the early 80s. You couldn't buy a CD before then. The CD standards weren't even proposed by Sony and/or Philips until 1980. The first CD machines on the consumer market hit in late 1982.

If you'd like to read more about it pick up a copy of Ken Pohlmann's book "The Compact Disc Handbook, 2nd Edition". I think Amazon has it.

So I was thinking - maybe I was just having a bad day when I listened to the TLOS CD the first time. I decided today that to break in a newly restored Citation II tube amp I just finished I'd sit and listen to it again. Maybe it was just me...

I got through Good Kind of Love and just couldn't stand anymore. I skipped ahead to Can't Wait Too Long - and it's a mess. It takes real skill to mess up that piece of music to the point where I had to shut it off.

Of course, to ensure it wasn't the amp, I plugged in another CD -  all was fine.

I'd like to publicly thank everyone involved in making the CD. I now have a great example of how BAD one can sound. It is utter, total garbage, and the people who made it that way should be fired.  Wonderful music, beautifully performed - and then trashed by people who apparently can't differentiate between Brian Wilson and Li'l Kim.


I can't recommend the CD to anyone in good conscience, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Sorry for the rant.

What I mean is that the CD is clearly more compressed than the LP. Given that (theoretically) a Red Book CD could have a greater dynamic range than an LP that is mystifying. Whoever prepared the final CD master has not brickwalled it...but they have compressed more than was necessary. And I imagine anyone with a half decent ear can hear it.

Normalising can be useful. But it can also be awful. I was just using it as an example of a tool available to everyone, and which is probably ill-understood by many. Are you really suggesting that no tracks should be quiet?

[I assume when you say CDs have been compressed for dacades you really mean music recordings...CDs were not available until 1982 so no CDs were compressed in the 70's because they did not exist].

I would say that Can't Wait Too Long is perhaps the most beautiful moment on the LP.

Do yourself a favour...buy the LP....if you have a tube amp you surely have a turntable...

Thanks, that's what I'm going to do - and it's forcing me to finish the work on my new phono preamp too. Right at this second I can't play vinyl - but soon, VERY soon.

I have a very good table, a fully Merrill modified AR (improved motor, acrylic subchassis and armboard, 5 layer plinth, lead coated precision balanced platter with high accuracy machined spindle and spindle bearing, etc.), with a Shure SME 3009 arm; and I use a Shure V-15 type V MR cartridge. Vinyl sounds really good at my house  - when I have a phono pre to play it through!  :'(

I'm no expert, but TLOS does have a very unique sound. In any of Brian's production, there is always a tendency for elements to get buried or appear out of place. In TLOS, everything, from the bass to the percussion to the main vocals and the background vocals, is pushed to the forefront. Everything is big, loud, and crystal clear, which is an accomplishment in a way. It was an interesting approach and I can't say I dislike it, although it definitely deviates from the feel I would associate with BW and other classic rock/oldies productions. Actually, the production reminds me of Van Dyke Parks in a way, especially the way the strings and horns interact with the rest of the mix.

At the risk of interrupting a fruitful and entertaining discussion: I bought the Little Feat anthology 'As Time Goes By' a week ago, it is available in Europe for beer money now (approx. $ 5); it is from 1993, according to allmusic.com, and it sounds utterly fantastic. Perhaps an ever so slight hiss (like an old LP would); but/and (choose your preference) the sound is big and beautiful, and very dynamic (Texas Twister is a case in point, that's the song that borrows a few riffs from 'Get Back').
Is it so good because there was no tampering with the tapes in the first place?

(allmusic says it's not available in the States - your loss, folks).

So basically this thread has proved that the CD sounds OK to people who think CDs sound OK, that people who can't stand how CDs sound can't stand how this CD sounds, and that the vinyl mix sounds quite a bit better to vinylistas.

Glad that's settled, then.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I haven't read this whole thread, but can someone explain to me how good modern vinyl can sound when the original material is recorded digitally?  In some cases, also mastered digitally.  How can it possibly make that much difference?  Especially if you have a low-end turntable or cartridge.  And maybe the rest of your playback setup has modern digital electronics.  I've never bought modern vinyl LP's for that reason, only the older ones that are all-analog. 

No, it's proved that you can take a very capable (if not perfect or the "ultimate") recording medium - the compact disc - and make it sound like crap. The rationale for doing it is that people can't tell/don't care. I think we've proven some people CAN tell and DO care.

Modern vinyl can sound VERY good, in fact it can sound better in many cases than older vinyl.

It all boils down to the care that is put into the process. Careful mastering with very mild or no compression/limiting; proper microphone technique in the studio; top notch mixing consoles; really good monitor equipment - put that together with a really good engineer (like Doug Sax, or Michael Bishop from Telarc) and a desire to make a really good sounding record, not just another loud piece of crap.

Use the best techniques for transferring the recoding to the recording master discs. Or use the "direct-to-disc" technique.

Then press it on to super high quality vinyl (which has been available for almost 30 years - JVC "Super-Vinyl" was available in the late 70s). And don't run so many copies you wear out the stampers.

I don't know if you like any classical music but if you listen to some of the Telarc digitally recorded LPs it'll amaze you. In fact, they pressed a vinyl LP by Papa Doo Run Run called "California Project" - it's all BBs tunes played by PDRR but recorded with the care a classical LP would get from Telarc. It's amazing! See if you can find one in good shape and buy it - you'll be glad you did!

Remember, no matter how bad or good your equipment is at home it can NEVER sound better than the source material.

But it doesn't sound like crap.

The fact that you care, passionately -- some might say excessively -- doesn't make your ears and taste any more of a true objective reality than mine.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I believe I have demonstrated that the vinyl is less compressed than the CD, and has a greater dynamic range.

The point, as far as I am concerned, is that the CD is more compressed than it needed to be.

Yeah, that bit's pretty much an objective fact.

The bit where it starts being subjective is where an individual person leaps from "more compressed" to "bad", "hideous", "unlistenable", et cetera.  It's possible to recognize a difference without thinking it's a very significant one, never mind a catastrophic one!

And after nearly forty years in which we saw that the quality of "Smile" shone through in bootlegs despites all sorts of obvious quality defects, from wobbly tape master speeds to low sample rates to hasty unfinished mono work-mixes, you'd think we'd be able to put all this sort of stuff in perspective...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

But this isn't a boot, it is an official release....and we know the CD SHOULD sould better than it apparently does. We listened to all those unofficial SMiLE recordings because nothing else was available.

It is a disappointment that someone has seen fit to make the recording worse than it could and should have been....the vinyl proves that somewhere exists a relatively uncompressed master...

Technically, CDs don't use compression (unlike MP3 etc). The effect you're describing is 16/44.1 red-book CD's ability to recreate the analogue waveform. Logically, analogue turntables should do this better, but are subject to a huge variety of physical engineering constraints, as well as the RIAA curve. Best to realise that the CD standard was set in about 1980 (as hinted at above), which is the equivalent of asking everyone with a digital camera to be happy with 1.5 megapixels. Also quite amusing to remember that Philips only introduced the CD as a by-product of the failed Laserdisc (video) system - no-one in 1976 wanted to buy pre-recorded films on an optical disc!! The fact that a lot of CDs, on well-designed CD players, sound great, is a miracle!

Okay, we disagree on that. But have you ever heard so many people complain about sound quality/audio fidelity on a BW release? So whether you agree or not, there is something going on here that is an issue for a lot of people.


Don't hide behind the "some might say" stuff, it's no different than any other opinion whether others think it "excessive" or not. And while generally I'd agree about ears and taste - in this case I don't. I make part of my living designing/redesigning/modifying home audio reproducing equipment. I have to have a good sense of what sounds good and sounds not so good.

Let me share a couple quotes about my work, this first was from an exhibitor at the high end audio show (part of the CES) in Las Vegas:

"This week, I’ve listened to a number of amps that are staggering in price. Beyond staggering, an extra zero after staggering… and I honestly believe that the Citation blows them all away. Couple that with the fact that you can run a passive with the Citation, you get a $10k handicap to start! If you are in the market for an amp, talk to Jim McShane."

A few more, from 3 other customers of mine:

"I am past due in my thanks at the outcome of your much appreciated labor. This is without a doubt the finest amp I have ever had in my system and perhaps the best I have ever heard! "Awesome" comes to mind."

"VERY nice sounding. This is a very detailed amp. I put on one of the 192Khz DVD-A's of Mozart... very beautiful full sound, very natural, with very detailed highs, with no harshness at all. Hearing this amp reminds me of when I heard DVD-A in my system for the first time - has the highs and details with more fullness and without the little bit of shrillness of the CDs I own that have good detail up top. Wife agrees about that... Instruments seem to *really* be separable, which I really like! I kind of expected it to be detailed, but it doesn't sound harsh at all. I halfway expected it to have a sort of harsh sound to it in the stock configuration, not so at all I think."

"...there is something about the harmonic balance and sonic structure of the McShane Citation that seems to tower over everything else."

One last quote - note who it's from (he's most famous for his work on the Frank Zappa remastering/authoring):

"... thanks so much for your help. Everything looks great and sounds great... Thanks again. I'll order another kit when I rebuild the other one (Cit II) I've got." Spencer Chrislu, from the Warner Bros. DVD-A group.

I'm not trying to brag, I just want people reading this to understand where I'm coming from. I AM a critical listener, I have to be!

I'm sure in your career field you are much more competent than I. But in the audio reproduction and sound quality fields I think I can speak with more than the average person's background and authority.

Finally, there IS an objective reality here. There are measurements available right on this board that show the corruption of the audio signal on this CD.

So as far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is this CD - while okay for some - is probably the worst sounding CD I've ever heard. I would never try to sell an amp I designed or reworked if it sounded as bad as this CD.

Umm, again I have to correct something. CDs DO use compression, I think you are confusing the process done in the analog domain vs. the digital domain. So while it's done differently CDs do indeed get compressed - as long as you and I agree that compression means reducing the difference between the loudest and softest sounds recorded on the disc.

There are indeed physical issues to wrestle with when translating the movement of the stylus in a groove into a high quality audio signal, but you seem to imply the RIAA curve is bad. Not so! Without the RIAA equalization your vinyl records wold be awful sounding. For those who don't know - when the audio signal is put on a vinyl disc the bass is cut WAYYY back and the treble is boosted WAYYY up. The cut in the bass enables the stylus to track the bass signals -  at full level the sylus could not possibly follow the trace and would literally jump out of the groove!

Part of the job of your phono preamp is to apply an equalization curve that is the exact opposite of the signal on the LP. Your preamp boosts the bass way up, back to the level it was at before it was cut to fit on the record; it also cuts the treble back to the proper level which has the desired side effect of reducing the surface noise present on any LP.

The RIAA curve is the current standard - before the industry standardized on it there were probably half a dozen different curves used - London, AES, LP, 78, and even flat. Part of this was because the magnetic phono cartridge didn't appear for many years after the phonograph record. Before that cartridges had all sorts of diffferent characteristics that had to be compensated for.

You can think of the RIAA equalization as sort of the "red book" of it's day.

The 44.1K 16 bit red book CD standard is quite capable of delivering superb performance. Again, as I said before I have CDs in my collection that will simply blow you away. Yes, the format has some limitations, but especially as compared to MP3s it is a much better medium. MP3s in essence throw away digital bits and attempt to reconstruct them with mathematical derivations called algorithms. MP3s truncate the digital word length to reduce the storage size needed, and in the process there is a loss of fidelity.

Conceptually similar algorithms are used by red book CD players as well. This allows them to reconstruct the audio signal more accurately than would be possible without them.  If you go back and click on the Chicago Mastering link I posted earlier, then click on the "white paper" link you'll see how this works.

JVC claims their XRCD encoding algorithm offers the performance of an 18 bit digital word - that's no small feat!

The people who committed TLOS to CD cannot hide behind the limitations of the format. While the CD format does have limitations, the recording of TLOS is a clear example of how bad CDs can sound. There are hundreds of CDs that are well recorded and are a joy to hear - sadly, this great music made by BW and his band is not, to put it mildly.

Oops, sorry. Hit the wrong button...

Not going to quote your post Jim! Thanks for the reply.

My point about RIAA (i.e. phono equalisation) is that there is a big difference between doing it well and badly - i.e., it's another barrier to the simple reproduction of the stereo LP. As far as physical engineering goes, tomes have been written (and continue to be) on the design of turntables/arms/cartridges and phono stages - it's an ongoing process of continous improvement, even 60-odd years after its invention (the LP that is).

As far as compression on CD, I guess I was referring to CD being a medium which has the potential to remain uncompressed - part of the red book design - which MP3 and some other computer audio, by their nature, don't. (As opposed to 'signal limiting' which is what you're referring to?).

Apropos of very little, but reference to a query above about levels of LP reproduction. I have a Rega P3-24 t/t which doesn't cost a fortune (at least here in the UK), but uses, among other things, an incredibly precise power supply to the AC motor which produces stunningly accurate sound from all ages and types of LP. Sorry to diverge away from the joys of digital compression waveforms... This is not an advert...

You are most welcome!



You won't get any argument from me on what you just wrote! The good thing is that nowadays even a "middle of the road" vinyl setup can be very satisfying to listen to. The level of development of LP reproduction has reached the point where titanic struggles are going on to make tiny improvements. Advancing the state of the art is tough in a field with nearly 100 years of development.

Hey, at least we don't have to listen to old GE or Weathers crystal cartridges!  :lol


It certainly can be uncompressed, or VERY mildly compressed - it has the capability. I think you and I agree on signal limiting or compression - I think we're just using different words to describe the same result.


Rega has made nice tables for a long time. I can't recall what type of motor they use.

If anyone is still reading this thread, here's a nice page on how turntables are driven:

http://www.kabusa.com/ttdrive.htm

I think I've probably made all the points I can make and/or worn out my welcome, so I'll bow out here. Thanks for writing back Chris!!

Thanks for all your informative posts - they're very well written and enjoyable.  8)

But please, PLEASE, don't start a "belt drive or direct drive?" thread! Threads like that have killed thousands of message boards!  ;D   ;)

(that said, I'm pleased to read that my SL1200 mk2 turntable has the best drive system available!  :-D Many people think that SL1200's are only good for DJs, but I personally think that with a good setup it can become a remarkable audiophile turntable, for a reasonable price)

I'm no audiophile nor a vinyl junkie... but the fact is, the first time I listened to my TLOS CD my reaction was "WTF ??  This sounds terrible !" - actually had to stop listening.  Listened to it on different systems from my PC to a friends high-end equipment... and it sucked on all of them.  Since buying my first CD in 1986, I have never heard such a poor sound from a commercial release. Don't care what Bob Ludwig says, don't care what anyone else thinks - there is something very, very wrong with the sonics on this release. The only way I can listen to it is, why I have no idea, on my iPod. It's tempting to contact EMI/Capitol and complain that this product is faulty - because it is. A CD you can't listen to.

...Consider yourself lucky. I've converted the album to 256k mp3s and they still sound crappy on my mp3 player (not an iPod; an Archos). I feel a sudden urge to quote the great Walter Yetnikoff: "I think I've been fudged".  >:(

Thankfully, I also have the vinyl edition, which provides a decent listening experience.

I think the word "corruption" is taking it a bit far. There are some waveforms that show clipping at certain loud points or loud tracks. As has been demonstrated, there are many other CDs that are far worse.

What I wonder is this: What do the waveforms on the other BW CDs look like?

Because as odd as it sounds, my impression was that this was the most "natural" sounding of the BW CD releases. Crazy me. I would just like to see some track to track comparisons with "Imagination," "GIOMH," and "Smile."

Given that Scotty (and Brian and a SB confidant) mixed this (and I assume instructed Ludwig on the mastering), it would seem responsibility should go to him, too.

Use whatever word you like - altered, changed,  whatever. All it meant was "not a faithful reproduction of the tracks as originally recorded".


Beats me, I have no real idea. I'd bet Imagination is pretty heavily squeezed though. I never listen to GIOMH other than Desert Drive so I don't really recall what it sounds like.


As I said earlier - I don't know who is responsible, and I don't care. I feel just like AGD - his exclamation of "WTF" was my sentiments exactly. And this is the only BW CD I feel that way about.

Well, what record is a "faithful reproduction of the sounds originally recorded"?

Certainly a select few classical and jazz records are. But pop records seldom are. And Brian did not produce high-fidelity recordings. The fact that the "California Project" CD was praised on this thread -- as if that CD has any redeeming value other than a drink coaster -- suggests we are leaving certain aesthetic values by the wayside.

I did NOT mention the California Project CD - go back and read the post before you appoint yourself "arbiter of musical taste". I mentioned the LP. Here's the exact verbiage:

"I don't know if you like any classical music but if you listen to some of the Telarc digitally recorded LPs it'll amaze you. In fact, they pressed a vinyl LP by Papa Doo Run Run called "California Project" - it's all BBs tunes played by PDRR but recorded with the care a classical LP would get from Telarc. It's amazing! See if you can find one in good shape and buy it - you'll be glad you did!"

Please show me where I: A. Said anything about the CD, or B. Made any comments OTHER THAN ABOUT SONIC QUALITY about the LP besides identifying the artist and a general description of the content.

Look, I used that LP as an example how how good sonically a digitally recorded LP could be, just in case the poster that asked didn't have any interest in classical LPs. The vast majority of the LPs she was inquiring about were classical, so I mentioned the California Project LP since it might well have been more to her tastes than the Stravinsky Rite of Spring. I don't care if you like it or not, in fact what you think of it is irrelevant and not germane to my reply to Forget Marie after her asking the question.

As far as the wording I chose - I'll choose again:

"The information on the CD has been compressed and/or limited and/or otherwise been altered/changed from the original in-studio perfomances by Brian and the members of his band (and other musicians) in a way that many find to be sonically very unsatisfying."

Happy now? ::)

I can't imagine you didn't know EXACTLY what I meant in my prior posts, the context in which I made the statement was certainly clear. I have no idea what you are trying to prove by playing word police.

You guys might find this interesting reading.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/metallica-s-new-album-sounds-better-in-guitar-hero/1247989


Metallica is not my cup of tea anyway, but here you are...

Jim McShane, if you're still here...

For vinyl, i use my parents' old 1970s Sony HMK-55 (£300 in 1970s money, so it was expensive at the time), with the big speakers it came with. It's one of those old beasts that came with a cassette deck on the side, and looks designed to fit in with then-contemporary furniture.

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion on this system, compared to the kind of things you deal in these days?

BW fans aren't the only ones complaining about compression & mastering.

http://www.nme.com/news/metallica/39816

I'm sorry to say I don't really know much about it, since I focus almost exclusively on tube (valve) gear. But just a couple things to be sure of:

1. Make sure the tone arm is in good condition and the tracking weight is properly set.

2. Be sure the stylus is in perfect shape.

With those covered I suspect it'll play vinyl that'll sound quite nice!

I looked up the Sony HMK-55. Looks like a typical 70's "music centre"...though a Sony would be better than most brands. I've never heard that model, I was familiar with other Sony and Sharp and Sanyo music centres of the same era. I'd prefer a separate turntable but, as Jim says, if set up correctly it should give a fair flavour of the beast. As a kid I had a Sanyo music centre which actually had a pretty nice sounding vinyl section.

My dad used to own a Sony PST-15 turntable, from the time when direct drive was considered the "next big thing" in consumer TT's. It certainly wasn't bad, came with a half decent stylus as standard...but it was very susceptable to picking up vibrations from the music and thence to awful feedback. We ended up sitting it on dampers and you still couldn't crank the bass up.

Anyway...as for the HMK-55, you will quite possibly find that the actual turntable isn't at all bad...is there a way to output it's pre-amped signal to an outboard amp? I'd also strongly consider new speakers.

There are quite a few reasonably priced turntables around, check out the Pro-Ject range or the lower end Regas....or scour eBay for a good condition Systemdek. Just make sure if you use a modern amp that it has a phono input, for reasons already discussed!

If you stick with your Sony, do make sure the cart/stylus are in good shape, a worn stylus or badly tracked arm can permanently damage your records. Back in the day, Sony turntables were not considered the best...but they were cosidered OK.

Thanks for the advice, guys.

I have a relatively new stylus (2 years...), but it wouldn't hurt to get a new one. I haven't much idea what to do with the tracking arm though. And i'm totally lost with pre-amps and outboard amps.

But i like the oldstyle look and it has sentimental value, and i consider the sound to be better than my bose CD player, so that's good enough for me.

I'm going to jump in where others have feared to tread. Brian co-mixed/produced TLOS, right? We know that Brian's hearing is seriously impaired (and must be far more so now than in the 1970s). Er....

If my understanding of the way these things work is correct (and please correct me if I am mistaken)....Brian will have mixed and co-produced the master from which the CD and LP were prepared....but may well have had no further input, other than perhaps being offered CD to listen to and OK....and if he was in one of his "not interested" moods that day.....

The difference between the LP and CD prove that a clean, relatively uncompressed master of some kid exists out there...

Well, that's what the album credits say...  ::)

My CD sounds fine, apart from the dodgy mixing which has Brian too near the front, and EQs the life out of everyone else's background vocals.

Apart from that (and I have read 90 pc of this thread) it sounds OK to me. Maybe I have a lucky CD.

Which I would know, had I bought it!!  >:D Sorry Andrew. Maybe the LP .... some time.

I think AGD is saying he is not 100% convinced the credits tell the truth.

Brother John...That Lucky Old CD :)

I don't think Brian's credits for co-mixing/producing TLOS are completely bogus.  I'm sure he threw out suggestions like "more horns" or "Scott's voice should be louder", and had some say as far as instrumentation went.  I doubt it was like the Pet Sounds sessions by any means, but I don't think his name was just slapped on there to keep up appearances.

From an engineering standpoint, I don't think Brian has enough understanding of digital recording to know a lot of what was done at that stage.  I know he had a good deal of engineering knowledge back in the 60's, but it's hard to say how much of that is still retained.  He probably just isn't that concerned with (what he might consider to be) little details like that anymore, and would rather just focus on the music and leave the nuts and bolts to others. 

I have heard that Brian took a great interest in how digital techniques and in particular pro-tools work during the production of the SMiLE album. I don't remember who said that, possibly Mark Linnet or quite possibly a member of the band...but it's something I have definately both read and and seen in interviews. Brian is said to have been very curious about the new possibilities.

However, my best guess (and it is just that) is that he won't have taken such a hands-on approach for the recording, mixing and production of TLOS. It could even be that he "oversaw" things...that Brian was there while others actually manned the boards/computers....and that he Okayed the production and mix at various stages.

AGD...What do you reckon?

And yet I've heard that Brian stayed away during the mixing portion...

Don't know what the truth actually is, mind you...

With SMiLE there is plenty of video evidence that Brian was there for the recording, and at certian stages he seems to have taken total control of the sessions much like he did in the 60's. As for mixing, it's less clear because nobody was filmed mixing SMiLE. One suspects Mark took control. But having seen the wizardry of Darian's Apple Mac, Brian may well have taken an interest in how it was all mixed my Mark.
 
For TLOS, I don't think anyone involved has publically stated what happened. Brian's name appears on the LP sleeve as co-producer so he must have done something...It doesn't *sound* quite like a Brian Wilson production to me...

In at least one interview conducted during the making of TLOS, the interviewer reported that Brian was anxious to get back to the studio to mix the album. Certainly it is debatable what his actual input is, but it seems that Brian is usually present during all aspects of the production of an album. Back in '98 he even flew back to Chicago to oversee the 5.1 remix of IMAGINATION (he described how he would walk around the mixing room to get a sense of how the instrumentation and vocals were spread across the five channels).

Interestingly, when I listened to the vinyl LP (which I got first, and was all I had for the first week, until the CD came out), I thought IT sounded terrible...very bassy and wooden.  I was gravely disappointed.  Now, this was on my 20-year old Kenwood system, and a fairly new stylus.  When I got the CD, I listened on my really nice 1996 Polk Audios in an acoustically-treated room, and also in my car, and I think it sounds great...provided it's cranked up loud enough, like about 42 dB!  Conversely, the POB/Bambu CDs sound rather dull on the Polk Audios, absolutely great on the Kenwoods, and sorta inbetween in my car (haven't listend to the vinyl on that one yet).  My point is, I think stuff recorded 20 years or more ago sounds better on sound systems from 20 years ago, reagardless if it's on vinyl or CD, whereas anything from the '90s on that was recorded digitally, whether it's on vinyl or CD, sounds better on systems built for reproducing digital sound...and cranked to at least 40 dB.  Which is gonna make us all deaf way before our times, but that's "progress", right?

Are you sure about that? I ask because I'm not sure about that. I thought I read somewhere that Darian and company cut the tracks in a couple of days (four?), and that Brian was not present, only coming in AFTER, which is when those shots were filmed.

All the studio footage of Brian at recording sessions, from Imagination on, is staged.

Here's a question, more of an opinion thing than anything...which of those in your opinion looked the most staged?

I've seen stuff from the Imagination era that I am sure is staged....but remain to be convinced about SMiLE sessions. If that's faked then Brian deserves an Oscar.....and while he has done a modicum of acting work, he always looks/sounds like he is acting and not natural. He looks damned natural in the studio when they're recording SMiLE.

That's not to say that there isn't potential critical and commercial value in persuading Brian was more involved in a record's production than he actually was...

The Imagination sessions, with the Christmas album a close second.

There's outtake footage from those sessions that would make you weep.

Ah f***...one can only wonder....how bad?

TLOS ;D

...I think I'm gonna do the unimaginable and ask you for a source on this.  :-)

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I wish you'd be less cryptic.  What do they do,  not allow him to go to the bathroom or have dinner?  Whip him?  Take out a glass eye and make him look at it?  I always read these tantalizing hints about how all is not how it seems with Melinda Wilson, but how bad is it?  It still surprises me that she's been accused of not only picking out all the songs on "Getting In Over My Head" and forcing them on Brian and the band, but also of being the final mixdown producer(!) on that albm. 

I do not know....but I suspect AGD refers to stuff that didn't make it into any TV show or documentary. The Imagination studio footage that was published *looks* forced, looks as if it is staged. Presumably there's rejected footage where Brian is disinterested, doesn't want to perform for the camera etc.

As I said, there are vested interests in persuading the fans/public that a record was produced by Brian Wilson...even if he did very little.

Hell yeah it looks staged. Probably because it is . The BWPS footage is obviously staged too, what with all the jump edits and all.

It's a shame that this has to be put out like that. Why try to make Brian appear to be someone he's not anymore? Hell, Daniel Johnston's nuttier than a can of cashews (nice guy though, met him several times) but his fans love him anyway (and probably more so for that reason, but that's a whole 'nother subject). Same for Robyn Hitchcock. Brian's better off than both of those guys.

Does anyone know if there is any (free) program that would let me check the waveform graphs of CDs i own?

I am curious to see what has been made 'hot'.

Hitchcock does not suffer from a diagnosed mental illness as do Johnston and Wilson. I've spent some time with him on a couple of occasions and while he can be willfully eccentric (often for his own amusement - and for others who might get the joke), your suggestion that he is "worse off" than Brian is way off the mark.

Eh, didn't mean he was "worse off", more like he has been looked at in that way at time due to his eccentricities, perceived or otherwise.  Probably should've been clearer...my bad.

Adobe Audition is one.

I can't let that one go either. On the one hand, it's good that after 30 years, Robyn is known of by people who aren't die-hard fans. But these remarks are very silly. Robyn Hitchcock is a very clever guy, who's written some brilliant stuff, and has a well-loved line in surreal monologues in concert - I've seen him numerous times and only one audience I can remember didn't 'get it'. He certainly hasn't got serious mental problems!

Interestingly, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care for Brian and the BBs (and I expect the feeling would be mutual). Robyn's musical heroes are Syd Barrett, Lennon and Dylan, with a large side-helping of mid-period Byrds - one of the reasons he is such close friends with Peter Buck. I'm also sure he's pretty comfortable with the little niche he's made in the business. I'm not so sure Brian has been comfortable with his - for a very long time. Anyway, this is a pointless comparison which you should withdraw or there will be pistols at Dawn.  (Point it at Gran)

Sounds like I must seriously check out Robyn Hitchcock....

Sorry about  derailing this thread further, but I'll only add that Hitchcock is no more insane than John Lennon or Graham Chapman,  two performers he greatly admires. Hitchcock was performing in San Francisco the day Chapman died and commented to the audience that as a young man he wanted to join either the Beatles or Monty Python. Combine those two and you get Hitchcock!

I don't know whether Hitchock is a fan of Brian or not, but he has certainly included "Beach Boys"- like harmonies on some of the recordings and his frequent drummer Morris Windsor has been seen wearing a "SMiLE album cover" t-shirt on a number of occasions!

Again, I didn't mean to imply that I thought he was insane, just people who didn't know him may think so, which is true.

In an earlier thread Mark Linett wrote this about the studio footage of Brian producing WIRWFC:

"Saw this thread and felt I should respond as I think calling the video clips "staged" is a bit harsh and unfair.....

Having a camera in your face while recording is extremely distracting for everyone and counterproductive , and even if it were not you would need a lot of cameras and a ton of tape to document a session properly.  Brian , myself and the band were there to make a record 1st and foremost not to perform for the camera.

The single camera video crew was only present at the sessions for a very short time, so some  (but not all) of the video filmed during the making of the Xmas album was done to playbacks. However they do show what the sessions were actually like,  with Brian in total control and very creative during the recording of  the album.

Mark Linett"

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,4415.msg72134.html#msg72134

Just got me a US copy of TLOS - the Best Buy version w/bonus tracks - and it's definitely better as regards the pverall sonics compared with my all-but-unlistenable European pressing.

Audacity is free. Adobe Audition is also a good one, but it costs a buttload of money, unless you download a demo version or pirate a copy.

Isn't "Just Like Me and You," a great song? Could've been on TLOS...

No and yes, respectively.

That's what I thought. I have the US version, and it sounds fine to me.

Maybe someone should show the waveforms for the two versions so we can do an A/B comparison.

Now THAT's a good idea! Anyone...?

Hate to re-open old wounds, but did anyone finally decide whether the UK/Europe version of TLOS was any different from the US version? I've just been listening to my UK version and I have to say that, over and above the dodgy mixing decisions by you-know-who, if the US version sounded any better I'd be surprised/love to hear it!!

Just Like Me and You is a great track, was it part of the TLOS sessions?l

From the sound of it, JLM&Y is from the earlier demo sessions with Scott (06?) that produced most of the songs that were later used on TLOS. The album itself was recorded in early 08, I think.