Responding to myself, in case anyone else comes along wondering. From The Beach Boys in Concert!: The Complete History of America's Band On Tour and Onstage:

"Ramone, stationed in the Washington Bullets' locker room, taped four of the shows (June 25-28). Alan Boyd, custodian of the Beach Boys archives, stated that in his opinion, these are some of the best live performances by the group that he's heard. Unfortunately, the album was never released due to the legal difficulties that occur when opposing record companies are involved. After many years where their whereabouts were unknown, the tapes of the group's performances are now safely ensconced in their vaults. Boyd noted that they 'are missing the Beach Boys' tracks for the encores. When both bands took the stage, they ended up running a pair of 2 inch machines in sync: the main 24-track deck, and an additional 16 track to record the Beach Boys' vocals and instruments. The Chicago portions of the encores were sent to Warners (along with the tapes of the main shows) as part of an ongoing legal settlement a few years back, but the Beach Boys' 16-track encore reels somehow didn't make the trip...We're not completely sure as to their exact whereabouts, but we think they exist'."

Boyd is apparently slightly off (actually being *two* pair of 2 inch machines, for 4 machines total), but the general idea is correct.

It was recorded at several venues - there's footage of Phil Ramone engineering with two synched 24-tracks -  and a release was tentatively discussed, but the legalistics were apparently horrific.

As for the tapes turning up, some did a few years ago, in Jimmy G's possession... but I'm told they're from just one of the 24-tracks, ergo literally half of the songs are missing - that is, not half of the set, but half of the recording of one song. Where are the other reels ? No idea.

Is there any further information about these recordings, the missing tapes, etc? I ask because here's the documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy7UZ5nYdmU

At 8:41 you can in fact see two multitrack machines, but they aren't being run in sync, they are being run for overlap. That is, two tape machines recording exactly the same content, but with one machine starting a bit later than the other one, so reel changes could be made without missing anything (when the reel on one machine was being changed, the other machine would still be recording). Note how the reel on the machine on the right is being changed while the machine on the left is still recording.

That said, it's very hard to see, but I think there may actually be 4 machines present. There are the two machines shown at 8:41, immediately to the left of the equipment rack, which appear to be Ampex machines. But starting around 6:01, you can see two more machines to the left of those (which are mostly behind people in that shot). It's hard to tell with absolute certainty, but they appear to be 3M M56 16-track machines; note the "Isoloop" transports and meter bridges above the transports. Presumably these were being run in sync with the main 24-track machines to cover the additional mics during the encores?

I guess it's *those* 16-track tapes that were/are MIA? Or have they been located?

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as properly hearing the album via equipment I possess.  Since I was the one and only recording engineer and chief mixer for these albums, what is odd about me now having the one piece of equipment that will properly unlock the embedded codes in the stereo tracks I recorded. Equipment that I designed and Codes that I engineered.

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

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record.

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record.

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

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

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

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

With all due respect etc etc, and departing from the BB's history for the moment, she did recently imply that session musicians played every note on the Buffalo Springfield's records, which is clearly complete balderdash, according to my ears and to the line-up notes on the Springfield box set. It does put people's backs up, whatever the memory problems and chauvinistic environment.

Where did she state that?

This was definitely in the late '90s when I saw the FAQ; the Wayback Machine's archive of her site doesn't go that far back.

The archive of her site goes back to 1997:

http://web.archive.org/web/19970101000000*/https://www.carolkaye.com/

The FAQ first shows up on her page sometime in mid-1999 (link down the page on the right):

http://web.archive.org/web/19991012111716/http://carolkaye.com/

Unfortunately the Wayback Machine doesn't have anything from the original URL (http://carolkaye.com/faq.htm) other than a 404.

The earliest version I can find is from from December 2000:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001213063200/http://carolkaye.com/pages/faq.html

No mention of cables though.

Still digging.

Looking on her site now, I see this:

"Frank Wilson 1965 Motown "Do I Love You" MP3 (with Carol Kaye bass, Earl Palmer drums, cut in Hollywood) This recording auctioned at record $41, 700, is UK soul hit.

Frank Wilson recent phone interview.

Carol was 1 of 9 bass players recording in Hollywood for Motown 1963 through 1968-69, as verified by Motown producers Frank Wilson, Hal Davis, and also by Pres. of Jobete, Lester Sill, others."

It's unclear to me what "This recording auctioned at record $41, 700" is supposed to mean, but I find it interesting that rather than post a well-known hit that she claims she played on (such as I Was Made To Love Her), she posts something that most people have probably never heard of.

FYI, I didn't see anything in the FAQ about Spectra-Flex cables, but you can view the archives here:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.carolkaye.com/www/library/faq.htm

That is, unless there was previously a different URL.

I can't speak for any of the other bolded songs, but least with regards to Good Vibrations, I can't see how a statement made in 1973 that she was heard on that song is out of line. She did play on session(s) for it; nobody had done a forensic examination of the song at that point to know what portions were edited together, so I have no problem believing that SHE believed without a doubt that she played on the released version.

Years later in the face of heavily-researched forensic facts is a different matter of course.

Yes, Good Vibrations falls into the "reasonable doubt" category.

The Motown songs do not, and did not, however.

["Love Child," "I Was Made to Love Her," "Bernadette," "Get Ready," "Do The Jerk."]

Ms. Kaye had to prove herself in a male dominated environment. There is no question that she played on sessions yielding hundreds  of great  recordings. I don't think that her memory is as functional as it once was.  Despite the fiestiness that she has when  people challenge  her memory, I do not think she deliberately  confabulates  her history. As we get older, our memory is cloudy and our patience is shorter. She deserves the respect she demands, if only for the pioneering role she played in making female musicians  a reality in the Sixties.

I disagree. She has been making these claims publicly *at least* since 1987, when Allan Slutsky contacted her while he was writing his book about Jamerson. And he contacted her because he'd heard rumours that she'd been making the claims for years before that.

*Much* earlier. 1973. Rolling Stone interview:

"Carol Kaye is one of the few successful female session musicians, certainly one of Los Angeles' finest and busiest bassists. Her list of credits includes some surprises: Motown hits such as "Love Child," "I Was Made to Love Her," "Bernadette," "Get Ready," "Do The Jerk."

She's played bass for Ray Charles on every session since (and including) "I Don't Need No Doctor." In the rock genre she is heard on several Beach Boys records, including "Help Me Ronda," "Good Vibrations," "Heroes And Villains" and "Sloop John B." She played on Simon and Garfunkel's "Homeward Bound," Joe Cocker's "Feelin' Alright," Nancy Sinatra's bass-heavy "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'," Glen Campbell's "Wichita Lineman."
[...]
"Motown recorded about half here and half in Detroit," she said. "They were saving money because they were a new company, so we played for less than union scale. Hell, we thought they were demos, but when we heard them as hits we demanded scale.""

Rolling Stone, November 22, 1973. Page 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[I could give a flyingfuck about the fidelity or lack thereof.]

Please refer to this A.E.S. paper "A Method for Extrapolation of Missing Digital Audio Data."  It will give you insight into this subject.   >>>>  http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher/publications/maher_aes_1093_3715.pdf

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

Wait a minute!  You did not really mean to say that "digital is analog," did you?  If that's the case, there is no difference. -- end of discussion.

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

Please tell me if you see the stepped representation of the analog waveform in this link. >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/digit.html. The stepping is on the input side of a digital converter, not the output. The output of a digital system is smoothed because of the action of the extrapolation topology. It can be accurate or not, depending on many variables. [/size]

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

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

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

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

I think we are discussing theoretical differences in practical terms. Yes the analog does deteriorate when copied. But so does the digital, otherwise there would be no need for error-correcting-circuits. Copy digital over and over and it too will deteriorate. To make my point, DNA is a digital framework that defines our physical being. The body cells are replicated every day. That is, DNA copies itself over and over. Aging is the name we give to the results of DNA failing to exactly copy itself. Errors creep in.  Without error-correction-circuits a digital copy would never work.

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

Again, we are not discussing systems. We are discussing methods. it's not about one system versus another, this discussion is about whether digital represents analog with fidelity or not. I say I would rather listen to analog if it is the original source. Conversion from analog to digital always introduces a loss of fidelity. Making a copy of an analog source to an analog source is a more accurate copy, since it does not discard part of the waveform. It may add some noise (which is usually below the lowest musical dynamic) and some distortion, but this is musical in nature and not a deviation from a mathematical formula. 

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

If you make a digital CD copy of an Edison cylinder (I have three in my collection) it will be inferior to the Edison cylinder. If you make an analog tape copy of an Edison cylinder, it will contain a more accurate representation of the cylinder than will a digital copy.

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

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

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

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

[the spaces between the sample points are extrapolated]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, your comment about extrapolation is entirely incorrect.

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

Did I read this wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, three words: inner groove distortion.

[the signal that emerges is not only smooth but virtually identical to the analogue signal from which the samples were originally derived]

Thank you for the enlightenment of digital accuracy as pointed out in the 8-year old article by my friends at SOS.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entirely incorrect. Please see above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[buy the original production]

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

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

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

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

We do have in the archives partial vocals for "Good Vibrations," from a copy of an original 4 track master.  This 4 track (which now exists only in a vintage 8 track copy) only had some of the vocal parts, none of them doubled, and was apparently copied to a separate, now missing 8 track onto which Brian would have then added all of the rest of the vocal parts and layers heard in the final mix. 

Thanks for the information, Alan.

Are you saying that tape was actually used for the film? Or just that it exists?

First off, it isn't "universally accepted" that they are better than the older CDs.

Yes, it's universally accepted, you just don't agree.  There was a poll on the Hoffman Forum that asked if the 2009 remasters are better than the original 80s CDs and it was something like 92% yes.  That's unheard of at the Hoffman Forum.  You're obviously in the 8% and therefore discount the rest.  And to all the people crying about NR on those CDs..  they said it was used in 5 minutes of the 10 hour catalog and nobody has been able to tell where those 5 minutes are. 

Last I checked, 92% isn't "universally accepted". And I didn't vote, for what it's worth.

If people prefer the 2009 CDs, good for them. But lots of people don't.

Noise reduction: intro to the 1965 mix of You've Got To Hide Your Love Away on the mono box. It's subtle, but noticeable.

I don't have a problem with "Hard Day's Night" or ANY of the '09 remasters.  Don't like those?  Go listen to Doc Ebbetts or the fan mixes on YouTube.

That's nice. I do.

These are pretty flawed points.  First of all technology does play a big part.  Look at the '09 Beatles remasters.  It's pretty universally accepted that these are better than the '87 issues.  Why?  Nothing was done to them other than mastering with more advanced digital converters, and it's made a big difference.

Actually, no.

First off, it isn't "universally accepted" that they are better than the older CDs.

Second, there was quite a bit of tweaking done to the 2009 CDs, for better or worse. Different EQ, noise reduction, narrowing of the stereo image, limiting the dynamic range, etc. Those are all aesthetic choices that aren't related to technology. Some people like those aesthetic choices, while others don't. The original CDs were mostly flat transfers of the original tapes, for better or worse. The 2009 CDs had a fair amount of processing, again for better or worse.

Third, in the case of the first 4 albums, the 1987 CDs used the mono mixes, while the standard 2009 issues use the stereo mixes (the mono mixes are available, but only in the mono box). So those are an apples to oranges comparison anyway.

Regarding cds mastered in the 80's, there may be a few good sounding ones that got buggered up reissues later on, but then again, there are a lot of really muddy, noisy cds that sound that way because they were rushed out using the heavily compressed and rolled off masters intended for vinyl.  The rush was on to jump on that digital bandwagon and get as much product out on cd in the beginning.

That was certainly true sometimes, but that was an issue with the sources used, not the technology. Which gets back to my original point.

I think your premise is pretty much on the money but the sticking issue is that this whole issue is subjective to the listener.  For example you bring up The Beatles 2009 remasters?  While most agree that they are an upgrade over the 1987 issues, they haven't exactly been the recipient of much praise either.  The stereo issues especially have come into a great deal of flak as far as not representing the original sixties recording accurately alongside a bunch of other complaints.

Exactly. I find A Hard Day's Night in particular to be a dreadful remaster. Many stereo LPs of the album, and even the cuts from Something New and Beatles for Sale in the Capitol box set sound very open and expansive; a joy to listen to. On the other hand, the 2009 CD has been narrowed and EQ'd to the point that it sounds kind of dead and lifeless. Again: nothing to do with technology, everything to do with the choices made by the mastering engineers.