THE BEACH BOYS 1964 KEEP AN EYE ON SUMMER (follow up to The Big Beat 1963)

[Matt Bielewicz]

Right, exactly. As I understand it, there IS no clear-cut way to definitely say 'A is compressed, B isn't'. There are things you can analyse that could be signifiers that compression has taken place, but they're not guarantees. It's a judgement call which can really only be made on the basis of careful analysis of a number of factors.

And I'm not sure I would trust the say-so of a completely free, web-based app to make this sometimes complex judgement. Much less one that simply 'passes' or 'fails' the files you put through it with no indication of how it's reached that conclusion...

EDIT: OK runners, just saw your last post. How do *you* decide if something's compressed? Genuine question, I'm not being snarky. And you're welcome to analyse sections from a couple of the better-quality tracks I got yesterday from the Qobuz version of The Big Beat if you like - I'll put a couple of extracts somewhere you can get 'em. 'Stand by', as they used to say at NASA...

EDIT EDIT: Check your PMs, dood.

[runnersdialzero]

Awright, I've recieved two songs in Apple lossless format (which I promptly deleted after doing these tests). Based on what I'm seeing, they're almost certainly lossless and not transcodes. Here are some examples:

Using my semi-ancient recording software, there's a "Frequency Analysis" tool. I can't claim to know everything about it, but I know enough to generally know what it is and how to use it in terms of identifying lossy/lossless files. Here's what it shows at the one minute mark of "The Big Beat" on the retail lossless version:



Here's the one minute mark of the original retail 320kbps MP3 of "The Big Beat":



If you look to the right on the image, you'll see a sharp dip that is not present on the lossless version - this shows the frequencies that are missing on the lossy version. As you go below 320kbps or a high quality variable bitrate MP3 (which I prefer to 320kbps) - say, 128kbps (the effects of which can be seen here on the same song/same time, for those who are curious) or 192kbps, the "dip" goes further to the left as more frequencies are lopped off. The rest of it looks subtly different between these two images too, but this is due to the frequencies being different than the lossless version. The "dip" I mentioned is the biggest indicator, though.

When I align the files with one another and then invert the lossless version, there's no phasing, only a bit of sound that accounts for the frequency loss on the lossy version, thus confirming that the 320kbps version and the lossless version used the exact same source files.

Here's the frequency analysis on "Mother May I" at the thirty second minute mark, retail lossless version:



And the 320kbps retail lossy version at the thirty second mark, sold in 2013:



You'll again see that, on the right side of the image, there are frequencies missing in the lossy version that are not missing on the lossless version.

From what I can gather, the lossless version of the album is indeed lossless and not just a transcode of the album taken from iTunes or something. I can't say for sure about the Live In Sacramento or the Keep An Eye On Summer albums, but I'd take The Big Beat 1963 appearing to be lossless as a good sign for both releases. Very glad to say so, as I was worried about this because occasionally, lossy files ARE sold as lossless, and the advancement of high quality audio kind of takes a kick to the groin when that sort of thing happens as it can kind of deter folks from purchasing these albums.

So yeah. *thumbs up symbol from MSN*

[Matt Bielewicz]

Runners, you know this anyway, but: you rool.

Thanks!

And now, I'm pondering: *DO* I shill for KAEOS64 from Qobuz? It kinda grates having paid for it from iTunes just last month, but then again...

...then again, I actually DIDN'T pay for it last month. I used an iTunes gift voucher someone gave me a few years back! So now the little devil on my shoulder is going 'come on, buy it lossless. You haven't ACTUALLY paid for it yet, after all...'

The weird thing is, someone on here definitely said that it would be a cold day in hell (or words to that effect) before lossless versions of the KAEOS64 files were released. I can't remember who it was now, but I remember thinking that it was someone with decent connections to the inner circle, and that made me think that we would never get an uncompressed version of the album. And yet, it looks like maybe, just a month later, we have. WTF?

[LeeDempsey]

Awesome analysis, Runners!  Thanks!

[Mikie]

Yeah, best post you've made in months!

[c-man]

There's a flac* version of Live From Sacramento up on Pono music right now (US only - which they forget to tell you til you reach checkout   ) *well it says it is.

https://ponomusic.force.com/ccrz__CCPage?pageKey=product&oId=of%3A5b1ad32586d040ecb41e85e319191d5e&type=Album&artistId=of%3A23503756b6354a23be87384632a4609d  

Still only 44.1kHz/16 bit. Which may not be noticeably better than the mp3 version, based on what Rob (Custom Machine) says above...

44.1kHz/16 bit lossless would be CD quality, i.e. above that of MP3.

That may have been true a year or two ago, but as Custom Machine pointed out earlier in the thread, the NEW, hi-res mp3s are not noticeably lower in quality than CDs. These aren't your granddaddy's mp3s! 

[thetojo]

C-man, I hear where you're coming from, but the graphs don't lie!

Just because they can't notice the difference, won't stop some folk (myself included) stumping up extra cash for a difference they can see.

Heaps of stuff goes on that we don't notice, but doesn't mean it doesn't affect us.

[c-man]

C-man, I hear where you're coming from, but the graphs don't lie!

Just because they can't notice the difference, won't stop some folk (myself included) stumping up extra cash for a difference they can see.

Heaps of stuff goes on that we don't notice, but doesn't mean it doesn't affect us.

Like all the subliminal, subsonic secret message stuff that hypnotized us into our Beach Boys addiction in the first place? 

[drbeachboy]

C-man, I hear where you're coming from, but the graphs don't lie!

Just because they can't notice the difference, won't stop some folk (myself included) stumping up extra cash for a difference they can see.

Heaps of stuff goes on that we don't notice, but doesn't mean it doesn't affect us.

It's not always what the eye sees, but what the ears hear.

[thetojo]

Like all the subliminal, subsonic secret message stuff that hypnotized us into our Beach Boys addiction in the first place? 

I wouldn't quite go that far. But if washing your hands a hundred times a day is a condition, what is shelling out for the Mono LP Christmas album, when you already own it on CD with bonus tracks, without bonus tracks, remastered, Ultimate Christmas, Christmas with The Beach Boys, Christmas Harmonies, because none of them were genuine mono BW mixes.??

[LeeDempsey]

Last week I purchased KEEP AN EYE ON SUMMER as 88.2kHz/24-bit AIFF files from prostudiomasters.com (a couple of bucks cheaper than HDTracks and PonoMusic).  I burned the files to DVD-Audio Linear PCM uncompressed, and I played them back on my Denon DVD-3910 universal player.  My 52-year old eardrums suffer from tinnitus, and I've lost pretty much everything above 14kHz, but I can definitely hear the difference.  Wider and deeper soundstage, more detail, and more realistic decay.  When "Christmas Eve" came on, I thought I was sitting in the middle of a live performance.

Definitely worth the 18 bucks.

Lee

[bgas]

Last week I purchased KEEP AN EYE ON SUMMER as 88.2kHz/24-bit AIFF files from prostudiomasters.com (a couple of bucks cheaper than HDTracks and PonoMusic).  I burned the files to DVD-Audio Linear PCM uncompressed, and I played them back on my Denon DVD-3910 universal player.  My 52-year old eardrums suffer from tinnitus, and I've lost pretty much everything above 14kHz, but I can definitely hear the difference.  Wider and deeper soundstage, more detail, and more realistic decay.  When "Christmas Eve" came on, I thought I was sitting in the middle of a live performance.

Definitely worth the 18 bucks.

Lee

If only someone would release this as a by-god-I-can-buy-this-CD, we'd have world peace.

[Wrightfan]

So...any hopes on what the 1965 release will have? Would love to see the backing track and sessions of "Sandy." I know there's at least that early one floating around. I guess we'd get some Party! outtakes too.

[GoodVibrations33]

So...any hopes on what the 1965 release will have? Would love to see the backing track and sessions of "Sandy." I know there's at least that early one floating around. I guess we'd get some Party! outtakes too.

I hope songs that haven't been released yet from the 1965 Chicago concert with Brian are released in some capacity, especially Please Let Me Wonder from that show!!!!

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,7325.0.html

[37!ws (hint: turn it upside-down)]

Wondering if there even will be a 1965 release. The reason there wasn't a Beatles release is that apparently there's a loophole in the law in which the copyright holder can still claim ownership.

[Rocker]

I finally got the '64 shows from the german amazon. Such a fantastic thing. Thanks Mark and Alan and everybody involved!

I'm always fascinated with the early live years. Imo they were a great live act and performed very well, the harmonies are outstanding. They could rock the roof off of a hall (iirc exactly that happened one time) with "Papa oom-mow-mow" and then turn around to sing sweet songs as "Surfer girl". And it's also interesting to note how much their sound suffered when Brian was not touring. Wish we'd have some recordings of the time Al and Dave played together in the band.



One question though: where do I get the artwork, liner notes etc.?

[Emdeeh]

One question though: where do I get the artwork, liner notes etc.?

Artwork, liner notes, and full credits should be a part of all of these digital releases, imho.

[HeyJude]

If BRI and the band members and Capitol/Universal would get behind any sort of Dick's Picks/Elvis/FTD sort of archival release program, preferably with some short-run physical copies (and digital downloads in perpetuity), then we'd be far more likely to get liner notes.

Obviously, if it needed to go download-only, I'd be plenty happy with that. With or without liner notes.

I commend the team that did "Keep an Eye...."; it truly appears they pushed through as much as they could. It's a travesty that we only get this stuff through weird loophole arguments, kind of half-way having to trick the copyright holders into putting this stuff out.

[Rocker]

One question though: where do I get the artwork, liner notes etc.?

Artwork, liner notes, and full credits should be a part of all of these digital releases, imho.

I just took a look again but they are not in my download. I thought they might be available online somewhere....

[mikeyj]

Sorry to bump this thread but I was just listening to "Christmas Eve" (which I love) and I swear I can hear vocals around 2:24 - am I just hearing things?