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

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

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

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

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

Therefore I take issue with your statement that Sunflower was an experimental mix of an album. Maybe not common, maybe cutting edge, maybe an advancement, but not experimental.

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

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

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

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

Best wishes, Greg

Sir, you have cloth ears  

The only thing that hurts is listening to the MOR Muzak produced by that malignant mullet-haired moron.

  Agreed....never listened to them side by side.

In fairness to Wirestone, I think most people find it hard to hear beyond the mastering. The Brian produced track is likely a second gen copy of an unmastered track, which is what I'm imagining sounds lifeless and listless to him. The JT version is mastered, so will sound 'better' to the untrained ear. It's just gloss though.

The first version is full of Brian's inventiveness and mastery. There's plenty going on, but you have to listen. The guitars and piano are doing some interesting little figures, but it's all there to support the vocal, which sits proudly in the centre in glorious thick mono. Hal's drums are there to support the track, providing punctuation without distraction. These are the hallmarks of a classic BW production. It's no God Only Knows for sure, but it's wonderful to hear a mid 90's Brian, chops intact, adding that 'magic dust', that almost undefinable quality that makes you know it's a BW production. It is joyous.

The second track however has that joy sucked out. That is the one which is listless and lifeless, just like all his other productions. That horrible acoustic guitar straight out a daytime soap opera. That tired Lexicon reverb giving it all that 80's power balled feel. Utterly repugnant. 

Hal Blaine, who has played on countless hit records for countless music legends recognised Thomas's sickly gloss for what it was.

Sir, you have cloth ears  

The only thing that hurts is listening to the MOR Muzak produced by that malignant mullet-haired moron.

[there's a certain maturity]

Yeah, the Joe Thomas bag of material may not be *exactly* the kind of music we were hoping for from Brian & the Boys, but I think there's a certain maturity or acceptance that comes in realizing that like him or not, Thomas is a good facilitator and without a doubt helps Brian deliver the goods. Not everyone will agree with me, but I honestly think history will look fondly upon the Wilson-Thomas era, quirks and all, because it gave us so much more music to enjoy from Brian and The Boys, and I treasure every album I listed, even if they aren't perfect. I wouldn't be at all upset if they made a S&S vol 2 (that would never happen) or hypothetically found a lot more tapes from the era to release. I'm a sucker for BB material , I can dig it all. Give me S&S, KTSA, SIP, and C50 Live and I'd still be a happy camper. Maybe I'm just that much of a fan and completely down the rabbit hole 

A certain maturity in accepting albums helmed by a man who has not one iota of understanding about Brian's music and legacy? I think not. Hal Blaine certainly didn't agree either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frTDGpHOY-4
 
(Skip to 3:20 for the pertinent section).

Yes, 'everything I need' to know about that man's nefarious influence over Brian's music is summed up perfectly by Hal. As for him being a great facilitator, other's may well agree with you, but I  would much rather have one recording every five years where Brian has just been left to his own devices than 100 Joe Thomas 'produced' abominations.

For anyone unconvinced, I challenge you to listen to the two versions of 'Everything I Need'.

The first, incorrectly titled as a 'demo', is what happens when Brian calls Hal and tells him he wants to 'make records like we used to make'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRc_ao2NrIk

The second is what happened when Thomas got his claws onto the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR-8OG6v3ac

I'll let the evidence speak for itself. Joe Thomas can 'facilitate' off.

But at the end of the day, like 99.9% of people listening to the stuff back then *AND* to this day are going to do so with some sort of standard set up to listen to stereo mixes. No, this stuff shouldn't be listened to (or at least analyzed) via smartphone speakers or something. But it also shouldn't require anything more than me putting a CD in and plugging some headphones in or listening on normal speakers. If something more than that is required, then that is, arguably, a flaw or at least "issue" with the original recording/mixing methods that is worth pointing out. I absolutely should *not* need a "study video" to hear this stuff as intended. I'm not saying such videos aren't highly interesting and welcomed.

Preach it, brother!

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

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

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

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

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

Pet Sounds 60 in VR anyone?

I'm going to be furious if HMV don't have a copy.

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

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

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

Shady, I've decided to bus the many miles to my nearest HMV next Friday rather than rely on Amazon or their competitors. This is of course after phoning them the day before to check they have it in stock!

The nice thing is, that is reminiscent of how I obtained the GV set back in '93, through phone calls and lengthy bus travel.

I can then peruse the literature on the return journey to really build the anticipation.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

For Pet Sounds' 60th, they really need to just release the multitracks.

Yes, definitely a flute, or flutes.

I have some discreet tracks from GOK which I pulled from the 5.1 mix and subjected to further treatment.

The first clearly demonstrates it is a flute on the fade playing in round with the French horn

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtR_5dVRo40RgYFBrjMY0F-mI13ebw

The second is what I presume is the solo bass track from the 4 track tape. Interestingly enough, some of the other instruments WITHOUT REVERB are also on this track, so you get to hear what the musicians would have heard in the room, without any effects. I have low cut the bass and boosted the track so you can hear it more clearly. The most enlightening is the woodwind flourish on the final verse which can be heard dry. There is another lower part which can't really be heard in the finished track.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtR_5dVRo40RgYFCwDY5Ey59gm3xKg


The third is the same bass track but from earlier in the session where the staccato idea is suggested. Again this is completely dry

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtR_5dVRo40RgYFDCBN008-u8ZTKhA

Two HUGE missed opportunities.

All Dressed up for School

Sandy

In the 1990 twofer liner notes, David Leaf posited that the lecherous nature of the former track may have been behind the decision to shelve it. Judging by the flak California Girls came under recently, that may have been wise in hindsight. However, this track is so dynamic, and I think it could have been a huge hit with a different lyric and title. Of course the song was revisited as 'I Just got my Pay'.

Sandy is another one which was attempted more than once. I still shudder to think of that hideous Joe Thomas version, which just goes to prove that just as a mediocre song can be made great by effective arrangement and production, the opposite is also sadly true. In it's original 1965 form however, there is a masterpiece in the making, a diamond just shy of its finishing cuts. Just imagine this as the single which precedes Pet Sounds, rather than Barbara Ann. It is truly tragic to hear the MIC reconstruction, where the late 70's completion gives way to their youthful voices on the fade. I can only listen to the SOT version.

That these two songs were not released as singles, or even finished, is a crime of Smile-esque proportions!

Behold the Night does indeed sound lovely, albeit in short snippet from.

I love the interplay between the synth and the harpsichord, with Dennis's youthful, double tracked vocal floating over the top.

Same here. Cancelled.

Is this Amazon's way of hiking up the price in a week of so and me not getting my 'Price Guarantee'?

Fantastic.

Yes, I had a great price guarantee, and I won't be re ordering any time soon through Amazon

As I have no record shop anywhere near me, I suppose I'll just be streaming this set. A real shame for those who worked hard on this. Sales are going to be hit.

For what it's worth, Greg, I just argued with Amazon customer service for over an hour and they (very) reluctantly agreed to honour my price guarantee if and when it comes back in stock. I did have to speak to a manager though.

Thanks, I'll give that a try and mention it's been honoured for other people.

Same here. Cancelled.

Is this Amazon's way of hiking up the price in a week of so and me not getting my 'Price Guarantee'?

Fantastic.

Yes, I had a great price guarantee, and I won't be re ordering any time soon through Amazon

As I have no record shop anywhere near me, I suppose I'll just be streaming this set. A real shame for those who worked hard on this. Sales are going to be hit.

My Amazon UK order also cancelled. Very unhappy!

As Carl once said, they put a lot of work into their tags

It was incomplete and taped over. Once something is taped over, it cannot be recovered. Not lost, just erased very soon after it was captured.

Isn’t there some new technology where if the heads weren’t aligned properly, they can recover some “erased” material? Obviously that would still be a long shot, but still it’s something interesting to think about.

As far as I know, when a tape is erased or recorded over, the magnetic particles reconfigure themselves. It would be like kicking over a sand castle, then trying to rebuild it using exactly the same grains of sand in exactly the same positions.

Head misalignment can lead to some interesting artefacts it's true. Tracks can bleed through onto adjacent tracks, which is I believe how the clarinet line on Look  / I Ran was discovered. Audio forensic plugins can extract and boost these ghostlike signals. However, if all the tracks on a multitrack are filled, any bleed through would be erased.

I'm sure that within 50 years, some sort of AI will be able to deduce and infer previous magnetic configurations of tape using, you know, some minimal amount of leftover information.  It'll still be pretty unsatisfying, though.

The other thing about this is that it's pretty much impossible to prove the negative, that nobody ever did a dub.  99.9999% chance they didn't but we can't disprove the 00.0001 chance someone made a copy.  (Even though we know they didn't.). Good times.

I remember watching a science programme once where they suggested it would one day be possible to read and translate sounds which had been imprinted on walls and other surfaces. Apparently all sound waves leave an imprint at the molecular level

They imagined how this could be used to hear the utterances of famous historical figures during famous historical events.

Personally I'd set off with the apparatus in the direction of 1448 Laurel Way, Beverly Hills.

It was incomplete and taped over. Once something is taped over, it cannot be recovered. Not lost, just erased very soon after it was captured.

Isn’t there some new technology where if the heads weren’t aligned properly, they can recover some “erased” material? Obviously that would still be a long shot, but still it’s something interesting to think about.

As far as I know, when a tape is erased or recorded over, the magnetic particles reconfigure themselves. It would be like kicking over a sand castle, then trying to rebuild it using exactly the same grains of sand in exactly the same positions.

Head misalignment can lead to some interesting artefacts it's true. Tracks can bleed through onto adjacent tracks, which is I believe how the clarinet line on Look  / I Ran was discovered. Audio forensic plugins can extract and boost these ghostlike signals. However, if all the tracks on a multitrack are filled, any bleed through would be erased.

GV and the Wild Honey LP

What would the reaction have been if Mike had sent a letter demanding that Carl continue touring?

Whilst I ultimately agree with Brian's statement, it seems clear to me that Mike was acting in what he saw as Carl's best interests here. Whilst he has unquestionably done some crappy things over the years, I don't think trying to get his extremely ill cousin to slow it down a bit is one of them. He just went about it in his typically bullish fashion.

Demanding that someone *continue* touring would be a completely hollow threat; one can't be forced to work.

I think the situation with having Carl on tour would have undoubtedly been difficult for everyone for many reasons. But ultimately, I think approaching Carl and really probing as to whether he felt he should be on the road would be a fair and appropriate thing to do, both for Carl's sake and yes, for the sake of the touring operation. But if Carl wanted to tour and felt he could (which clearly was the case up until some point in August '97), and he wasn't singing or playing in a notably sub-par fashion, then that's where that discussion should end.

I doubt we'll ever know Mike's precise motives. I have no reason to doubt he was concerned for Carl, and probably wanted him with the band if he was up to full strength. (Heck, we know from the Marks/Stebbins book that when Mike was seeking out David Marks in 1997, he was looking into Dave replacing *Al*, not Carl). But it is possible Mike was embarrassed with Carl's condition on stage as the '97 tour wore on, and/or perhaps he felt something not even as strong as *embarrassment*, but just a sense that this was not an appropriate stage presentation? I think that's possible.

Really, out of all the allegations against Mike over the years, both legit and not, even the more nefarious interpretation of his wanting Carl off the tour is not like the *most heinous* allegation lobbed at Mike. Such a position, given the right tact, would not be completely indefensible even if the motive was beyond simply "tough love" for Carl.

Over all these years trying to get the bottom of this (and then finally getting more an answer from Ray Lawlor) was, for me, not about another thing to knock Mike about. I just wanted to get the bottom of the historical record on that. To be clear, I'm well aware that many readings of the situation based on what we know certainly don't make Mike look great either, but for me I think it's just important to document and study what we can find. 

You're right, and you clearly know a lot more about this period than I do. I'm neither a 'Mike knocker' or a 'Mike defender'. I do however believe strongly that if everyone's family and / or spousal arguments were played out in a public arena, then most of us would come across quite questionably at times. I try to see the good in people as much as I can, and that is perhaps influencing my take on Mike's motives in '97. If it were true that Mile had, as you say more nefarious motives beyond concern for his cousin, then that's just really sad.

My point about what the reaction would be if Mike had demanded Carl continue touring, was just to show he was in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. I'm more than willing to retract that though if further evidence as to his motives were to surface.

What would the reaction have been if Mike had sent a letter demanding that Carl continue touring?

Whilst I ultimately agree with Brian's statement, it seems clear to me that Mike was acting in what he saw as Carl's best interests here. Whilst he has unquestionably done some crappy things over the years, I don't think trying to get his extremely ill cousin to slow it down a bit is one of them. He just went about it in his typically bullish fashion.

Thanks for the description William, I'm looking forward to hearing them

Not an invention.

Cut the crap Brian?