Van Dyke Parks interview on Pitchfork

[Loaf]

http://www.pitchfork.com/news/42269-5-10-15-20-van-dyke-parks/


he arranged the Bare Necessities!?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bare_Necessities

[Jonas]

There's always money in the banana stand, chkchk!

[rab2591]

I would totally buy a Chronicles-style book written by Van Dyke Parks.

Thanks for linking! Great piece!

[Les P]

Great interview!  Thanks for the link!

[WaxOn]

he arranged the Bare Necessities!?!?

Yup.

And I love seeing him dissing the 16bit horror that is CD.
I hope more and more folks help in the resurgence of vinyl, I think it has more potential to keep the "buying physical medium" alive.

But he didn't like Alice? 

[Chris Brown]

Van Dyke always makes for an entertaining and insightful read - thanks for posting!

[Rocky]

There's always money in the banana stand, chkchk!

nice arrested development reference

[OBLiO]

And I love seeing him dissing the 16bit horror that is CD.
I hope more and more folks help in the resurgence of vinyl, I think it has more potential to keep the "buying physical medium" alive.

CD and 16 bit is not the horror... the format isn't the problem. It's the application. CD is storage. It's all the other links in the chain that determine whether or not it sounds good. The "brickwalling" is what is killing the format, amongst other factors. I have heard and have some cd's that blow everything else out of the water. I have a modest playback set-up, but tuned for the best I can hear differences. I made mention of Band on the Run, for instance. I have a 16 bit cd that sonically beats the recent 24 bit version. The 24 bit sounds really good, but not as good as the cd. Why is that? Better source? Better application? Better gear chain? I can't say 100% for certain. I don't want to have to think too much about it... All formats are valid and useful... the format is not the problem. There is a version of "The Point" by Nilsson on cd put out by DCC maybe about 10 years ago or more. It is possible to make hi-fidelty cd's. The medium is still physical.

Great article. Thanks to OP. I like the reference links to the songs and artists Van is talking about. That Dean Martin tune is one of my favorites, too. And I remembered seeing Tony Gilkyson play with X years back after reading. But I have to disagree with his perspective on Vic Chestnutt... "Vic Chesnutt-- that great man and songwriter who was forced to take his own life because of the inhumanity of our government in terms of health benefits"... what is that all about? forced?

[WaxOn]

I have a 16 bit cd that sonically beats the recent 24 bit version.

If you're listening to a redbook CD you're listening to 16 bit audio signal (44.1kHz sampling) regardless. The "24 bit (recorded)" CDs or XRCD are simply encoding 20 bits worth of data onto a 16 bit stream through dithering. The end result is still a 16 bit audio stream with possible benefits in dynamic range at the expense of added noise (IMHO).

If you're talking about the 24/96 Band on the Run download of the WAV file (?), then you've introduced elements in the playback chain where your player may have a distinct advantage over your PC. Your D/A converter is the most important part of any equation be it the one in your player, PC (killer sound card) or outboard device. I think we agree there.

I've got some of those "high res" down-sampled recordings that sound much better than their regular 16-bit counterpart. Some that aren't. Depends on the engineers and how they choose to ruin/enhance or just leave alone. 16 bit blows next to pure analog, and MP3 - even at 44.1kHz doesn't sound as good as straight redbook.

There is almost nothing (on my system) that sounds as good as analog, including SACD (2.8224 MHz sampling). There are a few examples where this doesn't hold up even with plain redbook, and that's always new recordings that they've just happened to release on vinyl. Probably a lousy digital engineering job (and noise wars) to begin with. There is absolutely no contest in most cases, and once I start to spin vinyl - there is no going digital in that listening session!

Having attended a few of the Stereophile A/V shows over the years, I still haven't heard a digital system floor an analog one on the occasions where we can have a proper one on one. So yes, IMHO the format IS the problem, and why so much has been invested by some companies to overcome the inherent weakness of the digital and optical playback medium. Since most folks think MP3 sounds just fine, I don't expect we'll ever see any new formats in the world of audio.

[OBLiO]

I have a 16 bit cd that sonically beats the recent 24 bit version.

If you're listening to a redbook CD you're listening to 16 bit audio signal (44.1kHz sampling) regardless. The "24 bit (recorded)" CDs or XRCD are simply encoding 20 bits worth of data onto a 16 bit stream through dithering. The end result is still a 16 bit audio stream with possible benefits in dynamic range at the expense of added noise (IMHO).

If you're talking about the 24/96 Band on the Run download of the WAV file (?), then you've introduced elements in the playback chain where your player may have a distinct advantage over your PC. Your D/A converter is the most important part of any equation be it the one in your player, PC (killer sound card) or outboard device. I think we agree there.

I've got some of those "high res" down-sampled recordings that sound much better than their regular 16-bit counterpart. Some that aren't. Depends on the engineers and how they choose to ruin/enhance or just leave alone. 16 bit blows next to pure analog, and MP3 - even at 44.1kHz doesn't sound as good as straight redbook.

There is almost nothing (on my system) that sounds as good as analog, including SACD (2.8224 MHz sampling). There are a few examples where this doesn't hold up even with plain redbook, and that's always new recordings that they've just happened to release on vinyl. Probably a lousy digital engineering job (and noise wars) to begin with. There is absolutely no contest in most cases, and once I start to spin vinyl - there is no going digital in that listening session!

Having attended a few of the Stereophile A/V shows over the years, I still haven't heard a digital system floor an analog one on the occasions where we can have a proper one on one. So yes, IMHO the format IS the problem, and why so much has been invested by some companies to overcome the inherent weakness of the digital and optical playback medium. Since most folks think MP3 sounds just fine, I don't expect we'll ever see any new formats in the world of audio.

All excellent points.

If you ever get a chance to compare the DCC Band on the Run to the 24 bit remaster, I'd like to hear your opinion.

Wasn't bagging on you, if it came off that way... more a response to the article, mainly... but I see so many complaints regarding format, when the real argument, as we both pointed out, involves many other factors.
My main point is that it is possible to make a great sounding cd. I'm a musician, btw and I know what the instruments sound like up close, so I lean toward a more natural sound, harmonics, dynamics, air, tone, and so on.

Mp3's... ugh! agree!

[BJL]

I'm no audiophile, but i'm more than a few steps beyond the average, and while I can't stand mp3s, i prefer most CDs to most records.  I collect original Beach Boys vinyl anyway, mainly because I like the idea of owning a copy of the record from as close to the moment it was recorded as possible, but I love the sound of CDs, and CDs are what I grew up listening to.  Where vinyl buffs talk about warmth, I think a CD buff might talk about a certainly clarity, shine, and shimmer that CD's have, and where Vinyl fans tend to remark on the warmth of the bass response, I think CDs have a wonderful quality to the treble when they're produced well.  It's what I grew up with, I'm attached to it.  Frankly, 45 rpm singles sound like sh*t.  If a digital format f***ed with the sound the way a 45 playback does, people would cry to high heaven!  But it's a good kind of sh*t, because when the songs are good, it connects to the time period they came from, and they were produced for the medium.  I'd like to think that producers today are producing for mp3, and that in 60 years a few crazies will still be blathering on about how only mp3 captures the feeling of their youth, even though everyone else is listening to their music on whatever new thing the record companies are trying to push on us in 2050, maybe implanted brain chips or something! 

Also, great interview.

[WaxOn]

Wasn't bagging on you, if it came off that way... more a response to the article, mainly... but I see so many complaints regarding format, when the real argument, as we both pointed out, involves many other factors.
My main point is that it is possible to make a great sounding cd. I'm a musician, btw and I know what the instruments sound like up close, so I lean toward a more natural sound, harmonics, dynamics, air, tone, and so on.

Mp3's... ugh! agree!

I didn't (necessarily) think you were bagging on my. Being a musician puts you into an odd class, and one that has been mentioned numerous times. Musicians are almost to a person never audiophiles. They're happy as a clam with pretty much anything that plays back music. I've seen numerous articles on some true greats, and they're fine with their 30 year old rack system. This is a thread all by itself - but I have some level 10 musician friends who play for symphonies - and are FINE with their little P.O.S. onkyo systems. Here is a great article about this: http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/james_boyk_all-tube_analog/index.html

I can only liken it to me being in visual arts - and I am FAR less critical of video playback (for entertainment purposes) than any of my friends. Of course, I'm far more concerned with my PC monitor's color calibration than if I can see the zit on Dr Who's nose.

I doubt I'll ever get to hear the DCC version of band on the run, since copies are going for insane prices now. Since I've not invested in PC playback (a friend is doing his best to get me there) I wouldn't be able to do a comparison on the 24/96 download of it any time soon. Oddly, I have 2 vinyl versions including the original Apple US pressing, and find it to be rather compressed. One review found that the DCC compares more favorably than the recent 180g vinyl release: http://myvinylreview.blogspot.com/2010/11/paul-mccartney-wings-band-on-run-deluxe.html Not too surprising. The DCC's I do have are pretty nice.

One DISTINCT advantage of digital is that it's a LOT easier to use after you've had a few! 

I'm no audiophile, but i'm more than a few steps beyond the average, and while I can't stand mp3s, i prefer most CDs to most records.  I collect original Beach Boys vinyl anyway, mainly because I like the idea of owning a copy of the record from as close to the moment it was recorded as possible, but I love the sound of CDs, and CDs are what I grew up listening to.  Where vinyl buffs talk about warmth, I think a CD buff might talk about a certainly clarity, shine, and shimmer that CD's have, and where Vinyl fans tend to remark on the warmth of the bass response, I think CDs have a wonderful quality to the treble when they're produced well.

One of the things that us "anolog freaks" love about vinyl is not so much a "warmth", but pacing, rhythm and instrument decay. Granted, you have to start spending well over $1k on an analog playback system to start to get these sorts of returns. But I frequently will start to spin a CD or SACD on a pretty decent front end, and then switch to vinyl. The differences can be astounding. Granted - there can be surface noise or even clicks and pops, but regardless of both having a wide sound-stage and dynamic range; that "staircase" of sound that is digital becomes readily apparent when compared to its analog equivalent.

Funny you should bring up 45rpm, because that sounds far and away better than 33-1/3. The reason being 2-fold. 1) the speed increases the dynamic range 2) on full size disks the grooves are wider allowing more information to be retrieved. I grab 45's whenever I can. While it's a bit of a drag having like, 7 minutes on a side they sound amazing.

Which is why I don't get the Beach Boys releasing those 78's, that's just weird. I think somewhere I might have an old direct-drive crap turntable that will play 78 speed. Pretty much anything out these days requires switching the belt, or for some - there is a switch on the motor.

And it's too bad you never got to grow up with albums! There was nothing like coming back from a record store with a BIG BAG of disks, and looking at the gorgeous artwork contained inside as you spun the music for the first time.

I don't think it has anything to do with "what you grew up with", judging by some young people discovering vinyl (and not for "scratching"). I could say I grew up with solid state too - but I find tubes sound soooooo good! In spite of obviously introduced artifacts. Whoops, that's another issue altogether!

Anyway, analog playback vs digital is a thread all by itself, and I fear we've hijacked the OP's VDP thread! 

[OBLiO]

WaxOn,
 
Thanks for those links... great stuff. I grew up on vinyl and cassette. I got into how stuff sounds when I was around 14. My dad had a great stereo set-up and I was into it. I know how good vinyl sounds, too. I don't think we hi-jacked the thread... I was worried about that, too... but we are addressing Van's comment. Maybe I am an exception, but my group of friends would get together and go buy records together and listen to them together too. Listening sessions.
And we were all musicians. Plus, we incorporated our televisions into our set-up... long before home theatres... my tv sound went through my stereo... but that also illustrates part of the point... you have a mono or stereo lo fidelity output on your tv... but it serves a purpose if you just want it on in the background or whatever... but if you watch a movie... listen through the stereo... been doing that for over 20 years. Both formats serve a purpose.

I am only using the Band on the Run as an example. And I don't want to come off as a commercial for DCC, either.. but I believe they did everything analog until the final stage, which was to store the mastering onto a cd. Musicians work at getting sounds.... the sound engineers are supposed to find the best way to capture those sounds. Van has mentioned he was really into miking techniques... (can't find the reference) and if you listen to Brian in the studio, he is a full-on music director... he gets into how the instruments are played and what sound they make. They put in all that work only to have it screwed up by the presentation? Another thing I have noticed recently. Sound guys at clubs used to be into the sound. Knew how to make a band sound good. These days I see too many guys go in and turn on the board and set basic levels and then go get their free dinner from the kitchen.

You can listen to Pet Sounds and say it wasn't a high fidelity recording, but it has a sound... I think Capitol sent it back initially to have it cleaned up... BUT! it is a sound captured in that studio... that blend of musicians and what Brian directed them to do musically... and can be considered live performances done in takes and stitched together... not like today of endless overdubs and what-not until the whole record is no longer a performance. "Pet Sounds" sounds like a live performance to me and I really love it.... the Audio Fidelity mono version is the best I have heard. I just listened to the "In Living Stereo" SACD of Ferde Grofe's "Grand Canyon Suite"... sounds great! http://www.stereophile.com/news/021306rca/ those cd's are made by RCA... So it is possible and not just one company. I hope Van get's a chance to hear that DCC version of The Point if he hasn't already, though. It's really something.

BJL,

I think it's a matter of how your ears are trained. I've had to do some retraining of my ears. I kind of got lost for a bit there... the turning point which got me back on track was a student. Wanted me to teach him "Mirror in The Bathroom" and he played it to me on an ipod that I ran through a mixer and studio monitors... I couldn't for the life of me hear the voicings in a chord.. drove me crazy... what the hell is that chord? It was an mp3... and that was that.
Plus if you are not in tune with what digital distortion sounds like you won't hear it. You have to listen for it and once you know what it sounds like, you will know when you hear it again... also when listening, if the speakers push me away and I want to turn the volume down, it's no good... but if I feel like I want to turn it up and the speakers engage me and draw me closer, I will listen.

So to sum it all up:
In the year 2050, Dr. Who got a fuzzy zit on his nose after eating brain chips dipped in "happy as a clam" sauce.

[Wirestone]

Granted, you have to start spending well over $1k on an analog playback system to start to get these sorts of returns.

Nothing personal, but this is what bugs me about analogue freaks. If I spent $1,000 on anything I would believe it was awesome. Certainly better than anything cheaper. But guess what -- if you spend a grand on a CD rig, it will probably sound pretty good, too.

I would rather spend that money on some new music. You know, to listen to.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Which is why I don't get the Beach Boys releasing those 78's, that's just weird.

Firstly, The Beach Boys didn't release them: Capitol did. 

Secondly, it wasn't a general release but rather a limited edition special package for a single specific purpose - to promote Record Store Day 2011, to which end it was entirely successful as we've all been talking about it and it's become evident that they could have pressed up twice as many and still sold out. To use a format that's been redundant for decades was a stroke of genius - next year, I'm expecting wax cylinder or 8-track. You can say, with equal justification, that the release of the 7" "DFTS" single is equally wierd.

[bgas]

Firstly, The Beach Boys didn't release them: Capitol did.  

Secondly, it wasn't a general release but rather a limited edition special package for a single specific purpose - to promote Record Store Day 2011, to which end it was entirely successful as we've all been talking about it and it's become evident that they could have pressed up twice as many and still sold out. To use a format that's been redundant for decades was a stroke of genius - next year, I'm expecting wax cylinder or 8-track. You can say, with equal justification, that the release of the 7" "DFTS" single is equally wierd.

What I find odd is Capitol restocking stores with more copies of this release; why hold copies back, when it was meant as a single day item?  

As for DFTS, weird because they release it only on vinyl? weird because they didn't really release it until a few days AFTER RSD? ( which fits perfectly with historical BBs timing)  or??

[rab2591]

Firstly, The Beach Boys didn't release them: Capitol did. 

Secondly, it wasn't a general release but rather a limited edition special package for a single specific purpose - to promote Record Store Day 2011, to which end it was entirely successful as we've all been talking about it and it's become evident that they could have pressed up twice as many and still sold out. To use a format that's been redundant for decades was a stroke of genius - next year, I'm expecting wax cylinder or 8-track. You can say, with equal justification, that the release of the 7" "DFTS" single is equally wierd.

What I find odd is Capitol restcoking stores with more copies of this release; why hold copies back, when it was meant as a single day item? 

If they are selling it at the Record Store Day price then that is quite odd. However, if they've marked the price up so saps like me can walk in and say, wow, that was going for $40 on ebay, I can buy it for $25 here - then it kinda makes sense.

[Mikie]

As for DFTS, weird because they release it only on vinyl? weird because they didn't really release it until a few days AFTER RSD? ( which fits perfectly with historical BBs timing)  or??

I picked mine up a few days before Record Store Day and Al signed it for me.  The "weird" or different part of the 7" vinyl is the small hole in the middle of the record, like a 33 1/3 LP has, instead of a standard single, which has a larger hole that you need an adapter to play on your record player with a spindle.  So this thing plays on record players/turntables on a spindle or with a small spindle adapter.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Apologies for my vague writing - I wasn't trying to imply that "DFTS" was a RSD-only release, although it did get piggybacked onto that day.

[hypehat]

Firstly, The Beach Boys didn't release them: Capitol did.  

Secondly, it wasn't a general release but rather a limited edition special package for a single specific purpose - to promote Record Store Day 2011, to which end it was entirely successful as we've all been talking about it and it's become evident that they could have pressed up twice as many and still sold out. To use a format that's been redundant for decades was a stroke of genius - next year, I'm expecting wax cylinder or 8-track. You can say, with equal justification, that the release of the 7" "DFTS" single is equally wierd.

What I find odd is Capitol restocking stores with more copies of this release; why hold copies back, when it was meant as a single day item?  

Some shops either don't get them in time, or don't sell everything. My local record shop ordered everything for RSD, but didn't get a quarter of it until the following monday. And they're not going to bin high-priced stock if it doesn't go on the day!

[WaxOn]

Granted, you have to start spending well over $1k on an analog playback system to start to get these sorts of returns.

Nothing personal, but this is what bugs me about analogue freaks. If I spent $1,000 on anything I would believe it was awesome. Certainly better than anything cheaper. But guess what -- if you spend a grand on a CD rig, it will probably sound pretty good, too.

I would rather spend that money on some new music. You know, to listen to.

Um, I've spend over a grand on my digital front end too. (and actually, they're making some pretty decent turntables for about half that now)
I'd hate to tell you how much I spent on my amp, preamp, speakers, cable... and it's really "mid-fi".

Even back in the early 90's, my new mid-level turntable sounded very good compared to a then state-of-the-art CD player. And, that old TT still works and the player's dead!

But I digress. I've had a lot of my current rig for a long, long time. I've collected LP's since the very early 70's, and CD's since their inception (bad move ). Software is where I spend my money, and unlike a lot of audiophiles, I'm long past listening to my system and getting the upgrade bug. I think a thousand LP's and even more CD's is a pretty decent (though not staggering) collection! Given the choice between software and hardware, software wins every time. Otherwise - the hardware just sorta sits there!