14 Beach Boys albums coming to vinyl/SACD

[bgas]

HA!!  You've fallen for the trap yet again.... 

Just make up your mind NOT to buy these, as I did!  ( Got to save my $$ for the collectibles I'm missing and will never find)

[drbeachboy]

Received this email moments ago.

Y'know, I love a good remastering just as much as the next audiophile, but this is becoming overkill.  I just re-bought these albums several years ago, and now they're back again with yet another coat of paint?!  Not only that, but this time you have different flavors to choose from (vinyl, SACD, HDTracks, iTunes).  Why don't we just inject these albums into a bullet and be done with it?  Aaarrgh!

That being said my order is on its way.   

No new coat of paint on these babies. These are all the original coats of paint. I will say that the Linett stereo remixes from 2012 are toned down just a wee bit.

[bgas]

Judging by Stephen Desper's most recent post ( in another thread) all but the LPs are a complete waste of time/$$
And those may also be a waste, I leave that to those more knowledgeable than I

[drbeachboy]

Judging by Stephen Desper's most recent post ( in another thread) all but the LPs are a complete waste of time/$$
And those may also be a waste, I leave that to those more knowledgeable than I

My ears are 58 years old, so I'm not too worried about all that (I read that too). For my ears, computers get the analog to digital close enough for me. Besides, digital has spoiled my ears. I really bothers me now whenever an album has loud pops and crackles. Dare I say this, but these AP releases should be my last purchase of these albums.

[bgas]

Judging by Stephen Desper's most recent post ( in another thread) all but the LPs are a complete waste of time/$$
And those may also be a waste, I leave that to those more knowledgeable than I

My ears are 58 years old, so I'm not too worried about all that (I read that too). For my ears, computers get the analog to digital close enough for me. Besides, digital has spoiled my ears. I really bothers me now whenever an album has loud pops and crackles. Dare I say this, but these AP releases should be my last purchase of these albums.

I really need to save your post, where I'll remember and be able to find it easily, when the next big thing comes along and you have to buy those....

Tho, you could invest in a $50,000 analog/turntable sound system and just buy LPs

[drbeachboy]

Judging by Stephen Desper's most recent post ( in another thread) all but the LPs are a complete waste of time/$$
And those may also be a waste, I leave that to those more knowledgeable than I

My ears are 58 years old, so I'm not too worried about all that (I read that too). For my ears, computers get the analog to digital close enough for me. Besides, digital has spoiled my ears. I really bothers me now whenever an album has loud pops and crackles. Dare I say this, but these AP releases should be my last purchase of these albums.

I really need to save your post, where I'll remember and be able to find it easily, when the next big thing comes along and you have to buy those....

Tho, you could invest in a $50,000 analog/turntable sound system and just buy LPs

Ha, ha! Notice that I used "should be" in my last sentence. As Mr. Desper said in the other thread, next I'll be buying them to directly download to my brain.

[Sangheon]

And one more question.
The sound of Drive In and Don't Back Down mono mix on this SACD is bad than 2012 remaster.
The SACD version is sounds like a compressed radio sound to me.
Did Mark Linett remix DI and DBD for mono mix on 2012 remaster?

This is how they sounded on the original masters, which is what we have here. I doubt that Linett remixed those mono tracks, but I'm sure that he found better quality tapes and used those for his remaster series. I have the Japanese U.S. Singles collection and Don't Back Down sounds better there than on the ASL album. I think that may have been more of a Capitol issue than what Brian actually handed in.

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

[drbeachboy]

And one more question.
The sound of Drive In and Don't Back Down mono mix on this SACD is bad than 2012 remaster.
The SACD version is sounds like a compressed radio sound to me.
Did Mark Linett remix DI and DBD for mono mix on 2012 remaster?

This is how they sounded on the original masters, which is what we have here. I doubt that Linett remixed those mono tracks, but I'm sure that he found better quality tapes and used those for his remaster series. I have the Japanese U.S. Singles collection and Don't Back Down sounds better there than on the ASL album. I think that may have been more of a Capitol issue than what Brian actually handed in.

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

[wilojarston]

I don't mean to start an SACD/download war here, but as I mentioned in another thread here recently there are some wonderful-sounding versions of the late '60s/early '70s BB albums on prostudiomasters, pono and hdtracks (which are still on sale).  I don't believe Kevin Gray mastered these, but if you can enjoy the music and not be steered by names you'd likely find these new masterings to be pleasing, as I have.

[Sangheon]

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

I see what you say.
Originally, another master tape (not LP master tape) was used for DBD 45 version?
and what is the error?

[drbeachboy]

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

I see what you say.
Originally, another master tape (not LP master tape) was used for DBD 45 version?
and what is the error?

Listen as the song enters into the last refrain. Mono mix only.

[Alan Smith]

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

I see what you say.
Originally, another master tape (not LP master tape) was used for DBD 45 version?
and what is the error?

Listen as the song enters into the last refrain. Mono mix only.

Any chance you could share the nature of the error here in writing - for any disloyal sods like me who did not buy the ASL 2012 reissue

[branaa09]

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

I see what you say.
Originally, another master tape (not LP master tape) was used for DBD 45 version?
and what is the error?

Listen as the song enters into the last refrain. Mono mix only.

Any chance you could share the nature of the error here in writing - for any disloyal sods like me who did not buy the ASL 2012 reissue

DBD's Mono mix has a drop in sound quality for some reason, it's very noticeable on the very last verse. However, the Mono Mix used on the Singles Collection comes from an original Phono Reel, so it doesn't have the issue.

[Alan Smith]

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

I see what you say.
Originally, another master tape (not LP master tape) was used for DBD 45 version?
and what is the error?

Listen as the song enters into the last refrain. Mono mix only.

Any chance you could share the nature of the error here in writing - for any disloyal sods like me who did not buy the ASL 2012 reissue

DBD's Mono mix has a drop in sound quality for some reason, it's very noticeable on the very last verse. However, the Mono Mix used on the Singles Collection comes from an original Phono Reel, so it doesn't have the issue.

Yea, the Phono Reel - that's what I was thinking/assuming DBD was split off the album master for it's inclusion on the Four by ep.  But that doesn't explain why the other tracks from said ep sound ok.

I have an original mono pressing of ASL from the LA plant, and DBD sounds pretty bad on that baby.

[bgas]

You should know better than to try to listen to ANY early Capitol pressings, even if they're MINT

[Alan Smith]

You should know better than to try to listen to ANY early Capitol pressings, even if they're MINT

I do, that's why I'm getting the A/P reissues, despite mono DBD eating it on any pressing.

[drbeachboy]

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

I see what you say.
Originally, another master tape (not LP master tape) was used for DBD 45 version?
and what is the error?

Listen as the song enters into the last refrain. Mono mix only.

Any chance you could share the nature of the error here in writing - for any disloyal sods like me who did not buy the ASL 2012 reissue

DBD's Mono mix has a drop in sound quality for some reason, it's very noticeable on the very last verse. However, the Mono Mix used on the Singles Collection comes from an original Phono Reel, so it doesn't have the issue.

Also, on the 2012 mono release, at 1:39 it almost sounds like a skip as the song goes into the final refrain. There is a missing vocal.

[Sangheon]

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

I see what you say.
Originally, another master tape (not LP master tape) was used for DBD 45 version?
and what is the error?

Listen as the song enters into the last refrain. Mono mix only.

Any chance you could share the nature of the error here in writing - for any disloyal sods like me who did not buy the ASL 2012 reissue

DBD's Mono mix has a drop in sound quality for some reason, it's very noticeable on the very last verse. However, the Mono Mix used on the Singles Collection comes from an original Phono Reel, so it doesn't have the issue.

Also, on the 2012 mono release, at 1:39 it almost sounds like a skip as the song goes into the final refrain. There is a missing vocal.

I don't hear it....
I might be able to realize what the error is, if I would listen a version without the error.

[drbeachboy]

Thank you, drbeachboy.
The Japanese US single collection is a needle drop, not remastered from master tapes.
Yes I doubt that too. If the mono master tape of Di and DBD was not good condition like this SACD, Mark probably remixed mono DI and DBD for 2012 remaster.

Whether a needle drop or not, the sound quality is better than what was used on the album, which tells me that the 45 used a better quality tape. Therefore it is entirely possible it was what Mark Linett used on the American U.S. singles collection. Now, since the 2012 ASL release has an error on the ending of the song, I am not quite sure what he did there. You might be right that he remixed that one.

I see what you say.
Originally, another master tape (not LP master tape) was used for DBD 45 version?
and what is the error?

Listen as the song enters into the last refrain. Mono mix only.

Any chance you could share the nature of the error here in writing - for any disloyal sods like me who did not buy the ASL 2012 reissue

DBD's Mono mix has a drop in sound quality for some reason, it's very noticeable on the very last verse. However, the Mono Mix used on the Singles Collection comes from an original Phono Reel, so it doesn't have the issue.

Also, on the 2012 mono release, at 1:39 it almost sounds like a skip as the song goes into the final refrain. There is a missing vocal.

I don't hear it....
I might be able to realize what the error is, if I would listen a version without the error.

If you have the GV Box Set or U.S. Singles Collection they both have the mono mix without the small glitch.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Judging by Stephen Desper's most recent post ( in another thread) all but the LPs are a complete waste of time/$$
And those may also be a waste, I leave that to those more knowledgeable than I

COMMENT:  I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I am not some old LP grumpy, but I do cherish the 2,500 vinyl albums in my LP collection.  

I work in digital just like many others. The study-videos are an example. Except for the needle-drop section, everything is sourced from digital -- mastered using analog -- then converted back to digital for the Internet. I use good analog to/from digital converters.

In addition to around 2000 CD's, I have 4-terabytes worth of FLAC , SACD, and FAAC albums in 96/24 and 196/24. Of course I have downloaded my own works, but much of my digital collection is of other bands, both new and old. I also have an extensive number of classical orchestra and pipe organ recordings that were original digital recordings. they don't just sit in the drive, I do listen to both high-res digital (around 40%) and LP's (around 60%).

I have been able to amass three good playback systems.

One is built around my favorite mixing monitor, the JBL 4311. However in my system, the three-way JBL is all Tri-amplified using Bryston amps and Bryston active crossovers. Each element of the 4311 has its own amplifier. This is complimented with by six 10" subs, each separately powered. In addition there is an 18" sub for extreme lows (just for movies, too low for music). Low-freq. accelerometers (bass shakers) on each seat. I use an Emotiva digital controller and D2A converter, but this can be bypassed with one switch for complete analog playback of LP's or tape. The turntable is described in the Sunflower study-video. Digital player is OPPO. This system is housed in an acoustically adjusted home theater room of my design. All of the 7.1 signal paths use 1/3 octave BSS Audio EQ's adjusted to within 1.5 dB of flat at the center chair. The room is large enough to use bass traps to control standing waves and other acoustic elements, necessary since this room has around 20 amplifiers producing a total of 4500 watts. All interconnects are star-quad balanced. All components are professional or audiophile grade. Switched to Analog, it's a two-channel system. Switched to Surround, it's a 7.2.1 system.

The second system is for production use in a smaller room. It uses Tannoy system 8 NFM monitors powered by a Fisher SA-1000 tube amp that was modified by John Hall, a Fellow of AES. This is connected to computers used to make the study-videos. Being near field monitors, the Tannoy's don't need any voicing EQ.

The third system is in a 20x30 foot room using all vintage Acoustic Suspension types of speakers with Fifa tweeters. I have always liked the old AR speakers.  It is powered by an 80 Watt tube amplifier I built while in High-school. Last year I completely updated the circuitry and components. This system uses White 1/3 octave equalizers.

All these systems can be switched to accept any source, computer, turntable, tape deck, digital media servers, tuners, etc, or put another way, any source can be heard over any system.

I'm reveling all this not to brag, but to let you know that I do have the ability to compare and use many sources of sound. Someone said that digital was good enough for them because they are 58 years old. Well, I'm 73 and although my hearing has declined since I was a younger recording engineer, I still can hear to 12k and I know how to listen -- deeply listen to recorded music (and live music for that matter).

Given that I can listen to a wide variety of musical sources over several good playback systems, and given that I also have done much work in the field of recording and playback still does not make me an expert for you. Don't leave your listening tastes to someone else. You are the best judge of what sounds best to you.

I have found that if a recording is first recorded in Analog, it sounds best if reproduced using an analog pathway.  If originally recorded in Digital, use that as a source. Try to stay away from converting from one format to anther. That is why I like LPs for the stuff I did. And also I like LP's for pre-Holland Beach Boy listening because the mastering was by either Brian or Carl. The new offerings discard Carl's judgment and substitute someone else's. That is not to say the new Digital FLAC's are bad, only that if you wish to stay closer to the original, play the original LP. And if you want to get even closer, checkout the offerings at my website. These use matrix resolution to close the gap between what was/is release and what was intended for release.

Good Listening to you be it digital or analog,  ~Stephen W. Desper

http://swdstudyvideos.com
  

[drbeachboy]

Stephen, when I listen to your matrix mix of Sunflower the background vocals seem up a bit higher and are clearer, while all other releases LP or CD seem further back and less clear. Back in 1970 was the matrix meant to sound like that? Could you and Carl hear this difference?

[Custom Machine]

Judging by Stephen Desper's most recent post ( in another thread) all but the LPs are a complete waste of time/$$
And those may also be a waste, I leave that to those more knowledgeable than I

COMMENT:  I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I am not some old LP grumpy, but I do cherish the 2,500 vinyl albums in my LP collection.  

I work in digital just like many others. The study-videos are an example. Except for the needle-drop section, everything is sourced from digital -- mastered using analog -- then converted back to digital for the Internet. I use good analog to/from digital converters.

In addition to around 2000 CD's, I have 4-terabytes worth of FLAC , SACD, and FAAC albums in 96/24 and 196/24. Of course I have downloaded my own works, but much of my digital collection is of other bands, both new and old. I also have an extensive number of classical orchestra and pipe organ recordings that were original digital recordings. they don't just sit in the drive, I do listen to both high-res digital (around 40%) and LP's (around 60%).

I have been able to amass three good playback systems.

One is built around my favorite mixing monitor, the JBL 4311. However in my system, the three-way JBL is all Tri-amplified using Bryston amps and Bryston active crossovers. Each element of the 4311 has its own amplifier. This is complimented with by six 10" subs, each separately powered. In addition there is an 18" sub for extreme lows (just for movies, too low for music). Low-freq. accelerometers (bass shakers) on each seat. I use an Emotiva digital controller and D2A converter, but this can be bypassed with one switch for complete analog playback of LP's or tape. The turntable is described in the Sunflower study-video. Digital player is OPPO. This system is housed in an acoustically adjusted home theater room of my design. All of the 7.1 signal paths use 1/3 octave BSS Audio EQ's adjusted to within 1.5 dB of flat at the center chair. The room is large enough to use bass traps to control standing waves and other acoustic elements, necessary since this room has around 20 amplifiers producing a total of 4500 watts. All interconnects are star-quad balanced. All components are professional or audiophile grade. Switched to Analog, it's a two-channel system. Switched to Surround, it's a 7.2.1 system.

The second system is for production use in a smaller room. It uses Tannoy system 8 NFM monitors powered by a Fisher SA-1000 tube amp that was modified by John Hall, a Fellow of AES. This is connected to computers used to make the study-videos. Being near field monitors, the Tannoy's don't need any voicing EQ.

The third system is in a 20x30 foot room using all vintage Acoustic Suspension types of speakers with Fifa tweeters. I have always liked the old AR speakers.  It is powered by an 80 Watt tube amplifier I built while in High-school. Last year I completely updated the circuitry and components. This system uses White 1/3 octave equalizers.

All these systems can be switched to accept any source, computer, turntable, tape deck, digital media servers, tuners, etc, or put another way, any source can be heard over any system.

I'm reveling all this not to brag, but to let you know that I do have the ability to compare and use many sources of sound. Someone said that digital was good enough for them because they are 58 years old. Well, I'm 73 and although my hearing has declined since I was a younger recording engineer, I still can hear to 12k and I know how to listen -- deeply listen to recorded music (and live music for that matter).

Given that I can listen to a wide variety of musical sources over several good playback systems, and given that I also have done much work in the field of recording and playback still does not make me an expert for you. Don't leave your listening tastes to someone else. You are the best judge of what sounds best to you.

I have found that if a recording is first recorded in Analog, it sounds best if reproduced using an analog pathway.  If originally recorded in Digital, use that as a source. Try to stay away from converting from one format to anther. That is why I like LPs for the stuff I did. And also I like LP's for pre-Holland Beach Boy listening because the mastering was by either Brian or Carl. The new offerings discard Carl's judgment and substitute someone else's. That is not to say the new Digital FLAC's are bad, only that if you wish to stay closer to the original, play the original LP. And if you want to get even closer, checkout the offerings at my website. These use matrix resolution to close the gap between what was/is release and what was intended for release.

Good Listening to you be it digital or analog,  ~Stephen W. Desper

http://swdstudyvideos.com
  

Wow, Stephen, what an impressive set of listening systems! If you're up for positing some photos, it would be very cool to see them, (probably best posted over in the Desper thread).

Out of curiosity, since you have tri-amped your 4311's, did you go with the original JBL crossover points of 1.5 and 6.0 kHz, or change them? Also, how have your LE-25 tweeters held up? Mine have had to be re-diaphramed twice over the years as the voice coils overheated with sections of the copper wiring separating somewhat from the cylindrical backing, resulting in a very slight scraping distortion audible on piano music and some solo vocals, but otherwise masked when listening to the great majority of music. (This tweeter voice coil overheating was the result of my tendency to play music at very high volumes, which has subsided as I've gotten older, although not completely subsided, especially in the car. That being said, it's not an issue when I'm listening to Sirius/XM in the car, since the digital data reduction on satellite radio is so pronounced that the music simply doesn't sound that good at very nigh volumes, not to mention that it really isn't all the great at any volume, but I do like a lot of their programming.)

And thanks again for the study videos. It has been a real treat to delve into the recording process of some of my all-time favorite music courtesy of the engineer responsible for originally recording that music.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Stephen, when I listen to your matrix mix of Sunflower the background vocals seem up a bit higher and are clearer, while all other releases LP or CD seem further back and less clear. Back in 1970 was the matrix meant to sound like that? Could you and Carl hear this difference?

COMMENT:  You will find detailed answers to your questions in Recording The Beach Boys part one. If you haven't read it, I think you may find it interesting.  http://swdstudyvideos.com

A quick answer:  When Carl or Alan or Brian, or Dennis, or Bruce, or Michael decided it was time to stop tweaking the song and time to mix it down for release to the mass market, I used the matrix to resolve imbedded microphone arrays and other spatial effects. It was placed in the monitor line, not the recording line. That gave me a normal mix and a way to get the enhancement as the matrix can be applied before or after the recording, provided you monitor using the resolution of the matrix. Both the stereo and the "matrix" formats are musically and mono compatible.  So, yes, what you hear from the study-video is what Carl and I heard at the time of mixdown.

As to hearing the difference, using the pan pots we could steer sound events outside the panorama or enlarge them, but independent for each track. Not an overall application, but particular to each track or track pair. So yes, Carl was well aware of what was going, at least sonically, not technically.

I hope you enjoy the sonics you hear from the study-videos and that you learn something about the songs, which captures your interest.

~swd     

[drbeachboy]

Stephen, when I listen to your matrix mix of Sunflower the background vocals seem up a bit higher and are clearer, while all other releases LP or CD seem further back and less clear. Back in 1970 was the matrix meant to sound like that? Could you and Carl hear this difference?

COMMENT:  You will find detailed answers to your questions in Recording The Beach Boys part one. If you haven't read it, I think you may find it interesting.  http://swdstudyvideos.com

A quick answer:  When Carl or Alan or Brian, or Dennis, or Bruce, or Michael decided it was time to stop tweaking the song and time to mix it down for release to the mass market, I used the matrix to resolve imbedded microphone arrays and other spatial effects. It was placed in the monitor line, not the recording line. That gave me a normal mix and a way to get the enhancement as the matrix can be applied before or after the recording, provided you monitor using the resolution of the matrix. Both the stereo and the "matrix" formats are musically and mono compatible.  So, yes, what you hear from the study-video is what Carl and I heard at the time of mixdown.

As to hearing the difference, using the pan pots we could steer sound events outside the panorama or enlarge them, but independent for each track. Not an overall application, but particular to each track or track pair. So yes, Carl was well aware of what was going, at least sonically, not technically.

I hope you enjoy the sonics you hear from the study-videos and that you learn something about the songs, which captures your interest.

~swd     

Thank you for the reply. Yes, I heard the difference in the vocals right off the bat when I listened to Slip On Through. I always had a hard time hearing the exact lyric on the background vocals in the chorus. They were very clear on the matrix mix. The "Do love you..." refrain. It was always a bit muffled and lower in the mix on the LP and CDs.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Wow, Stephen, what an impressive set of listening systems! If you're up for positing some photos, it would be very cool to see them, (probably best posted over in the Desper thread). Interesting idea. I'll consider it.

Out of curiosity, since you have tri-amped your 4311's, did you go with the original JBL crossover points of 1.5 and 6.0 kHz, or change them? Also, how have your LE-25 tweeters held up? Mine have had to be re-diaphramed twice over the years as the voice coils overheated with sections of the copper wiring separating somewhat from the cylindrical backing, resulting in a very slight scraping distortion audible on piano music and some solo vocals, but otherwise masked when listening to the great majority of music.

I can only tell you what I did.  I knew the guy who had these speakers. He used them as stands upon which was placed a round glass table top. He used them like that for years. I don't know before that. So he died.    I bought them at has estate sale for $50 the pair. I have moved them three times. This time I used them.

I knew the engineer, Ed May, who designed these speakers and most of the professional monitor line at JBL. I have talked with him about some of the design considerations. Very interesting. I took my 4311 apart. For two years I used them with an updated crossover using better components, but keeping the same X-over points and slopes. Then when I moved to Florida, I built the present system.

First I did research on each element, tweeter, mid-range, & woofer. JBL keep meticulous records. Each element of my 4311 had a serial number. I determined when it was manufactured, in what model used, and (most important) the magnetic material. I found that I had a pair of the best run of the 4311. All the magnets were Alnico!  Not compressed/magnetized iron. The real stuff, outlawed by the government about 15 year ago. An endangered material. (?) So I sent all the elements to a place in Mass. that has this big machine that re-magnetizes magnets. It's an industrial monster. You know, the lights dim when energized. So what these guys do is re-energize the Alnico magnets back up to their effectiveness 40 years ago. All my coils were good and no bug bites or nibbles in the cones or surrounds.

Put everything back together, but with each element having its own lead.

The Bryston crossovers get reviews like, transparent, no influence, high praise.  They are $1500 each.  So I need two. I modified them to exactly duplicate the crossover points of the original, slope, Q, and frequency.

The tweeters and mid-range are each (almost - explain later) directly connected to a 250 Watt Bryston amp. The woofer is powered by a 400 Watt Bryston. These are almost directly connected but for a large cap connected in series. The capacitor exhibits no audible influence, but protects these units from infrasonic artifacts, which could burn them out given the power.

I have designed and built many studio monitor systems, and my general design philosophy is to use powerful amps and fuse the output to protect the speaker. This way the amplifier operates in its liner area and not near to distortion with plenty of "authority."

The tweeters, mids and woofs are all fused to below the point of burning a coil.

By themselves the 4311's sound wonderful. However they are also used for cinema. In that setting and for pop music I needed to use sub-woofers. I used six, three per side. Each 10" with a 150Watt amp. Use of smaller woofers make for a quicker response time. The 18" is connected to a device that duplicates the bass note one octave lower; so (in Hz) 100 becomes 50, 50 becomes 25 and 30 becomes 15. The sub is powered by an 800 Watt Bryston. I also find that tactual response is fun for some action movies. I use AURA bass shakers in all the theater seats. Each has its own amplifier and crosses over at 35 Hz. 

(This tweeter voice coil overheating was the result of my tendency to play music at very high volumes, which has subsided as I've gotten older, although not completely subsided, especially in the car. That being said, it's not an issue when I'm listening to Sirius/XM in the car, since the digital data reduction on satellite radio is so pronounced that the music simply doesn't sound that good at very nigh volumes, not to mention that it really isn't all the great at any volume, but I do like a lot of their programming.)

Could not quite follow all your wrote with respect to 4311',s but it is not too expensive to have a speaker re-coned. Consider that.  After you get them fixed, fuse each at 1 1/4 amp (1.25 to 1.5 amp) value, fast blow. 

And thanks again for the study videos. It has been a real treat to delve into the recording process of some of my all-time favorite music courtesy of the engineer responsible for originally recording that music.
You are most kind,  ~swd