High Def Beach Boys Downloads

[Stephen W. Desper]

In the interest of fairness, I should say I respect Mr. Desper's work immensely. It's just the flowery terms used to describe analog playback are a bit much.

Comment:

Please describe analog playback using your own non-flowery terms. What is a "flowery term" anyway? ~swd

[Stephen W. Desper]

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.

Comment:  I am growing tired of stating scientific data only to have it misunderstood. By way of example, I did not say that that 78 records of Good Vibrations is superior to anything. I only said that you could buy them today. Nor did I say what they were copied from.

This entire discussion is going no where. Just listen and enjoy music however you obtain it. Good Listening to you,  ~SWD  -- end of line.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mr. Desper needs to master the BBs LPs on analog vinyl!

[Stephen W. Desper]

Mr. Desper needs to master the BBs LPs on analog vinyl!

COMMENT:  I already did that forty-five years ago, but thank you anyway. If you want to hear the original, listen to the original. See: http://swdstudyvideos.com.  ~swd

[SMiLE Brian]

True that, still kicking myself for not buying that 1st pressing of sunflower from the record store!

[GetHappy!!]

In the interest of fairness, I should say I respect Mr. Desper's work immensely. It's just the flowery terms used to describe analog playback are a bit much.

Comment:

Please describe analog playback using your own non-flowery terms. What is a "flowery term" anyway? ~swd

I was not attempting to describe analog playback; my point was a statement that analog is more accurate than digital cannot be absolute.

A "flowery term" would be a word, or group of words, to make something more attractive. Which I often hear used when someone attempts to state that analog is always better than digital. A poetic description, if you will. Your comment, "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!" would be analog playback described in "flowery terms". It sounds great, but is not quantifiable. Such as "direct connection", with "nothing in-between". I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I'm just not a believer in the "no science, use your ears!" stance. Science can, and does, measure audible differences.

And no argument from me on your statement regarding listening to a given medium as it was first intended to be heard on. I like finding, and continue to seek out, a first press of a vinyl record from any era when that medium was going to be the primary listening experience. Including Sunflower and Surf's Up, of which I have both and appreciate your work, and I agree that neither has been properly presented in the digital medium, at least to my taste. The original CD release for each of those titles I never cared for, and Andrew Sandoval, who was part of the team that put together the 2000 Capitol release, has stated they did not have the best tape available for Surf's Up (possibly Sunflower as well, but he stated Surf's Up specifically). The 2012 CD edition has too much upper treble for my liking, and the recent hi-res downloads I haven't truly delved into yet (supposedly they are yet another distinct mastering). In all honesty, I wish you were more pro-digital and would contact the correct people at Capitol or Universal and get involved, so we could have your version appear as a disc or download. I, for one, would be very interested to hear it.

[Stephen W. Desper]

True that, still kicking myself for not buying that 1st pressing of sunflower from the record store!

COMMET: Connect your computer to your stereo system and you can hear that very album.

Go to [ http://swdstudyvideos.com ] and find the "Sunflower" button. Follow directions and Click.

~swd

[bgas]

True that, still kicking myself for not buying that 1st pressing of sunflower from the record store!

COMMET: Connect your computer to your stereo system and you can hear that very album.

Go to [ http://swdstudyvideos.com ] and find the "Sunflower" button. Follow directions and Click.

~swd

 With all that's gone down here, I just don't see how connecting a digital computer to any stereo system, even an audiophile, is going to reproduce the identical sound as would be derived from listening to the original releases in their original mediums

[Stephen W. Desper]

In the interest of fairness, I should say I respect Mr. Desper's work immensely. It's just the flowery terms used to describe analog playback are a bit much.

Comment:

Please describe analog playback using your own non-flowery terms. What is a "flowery term" anyway? ~swd

I was not attempting to describe analog playback; my point was a statement that analog is more accurate than digital cannot be absolute.

A "flowery term" would be a word, or group of words, to make something more attractive. Which I often hear used when someone attempts to state that analog is always better than digital. A poetic description, if you will. Your comment, "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!" would be analog playback described in "flowery terms". It sounds great, but is not quantifiable. Such as "direct connection", with "nothing in-between". I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I'm just not a believer in the "no science, use your ears!" stance. Science can, and does, measure audible differences.

And no argument from me on your statement regarding listening to a given medium as it was first intended to be heard on. I like finding, and continue to seek out, a first press of a vinyl record from any era when that medium was going to be the primary listening experience. Including Sunflower and Surf's Up, of which I have both and appreciate your work, and I agree that neither has been properly presented in the digital medium, at least to my taste. The original CD release for each of those titles I never cared for, and Andrew Sandoval, who was part of the team that put together the 2000 Capitol release, has stated they did not have the best tape available for Surf's Up (possibly Sunflower as well, but he stated Surf's Up specifically). The 2012 CD edition has too much upper treble for my liking, and the recent hi-res downloads I haven't truly delved into yet (supposedly they are yet another distinct mastering). In all honesty, I wish you were more pro-digital and would contact the correct people at Capitol or Universal and get involved, so we could have your version appear as a disc or download. I, for one, would be very interested to hear it.

COMMENT:  Thanks for your detailed explanation. Most appreciated.  Did you read part one of Recording The Beach Boys? Much of this is addressed therein. Part two on Surf's Up has more detail on some of the quandaries you raise. As to being pro or con to digital, as I have stated before on this website, the albums I engineered are analog products. Release them as analog productions. There is no need to do some kind of mastering adjustments to accommodate the CD or any higher resolution. Originally it was and still is an analog recording, start to finish. If the Master LP tape is available, us it. Otherwise the only source you will hear the original and authentic mastering by Carl Wilson and myself is from any album with the Artisan logo stamped between the lead-out grove. In the mastering, last minute adjustments were made and approved by Carl. That is the original . . . without matrix resolution . . . still waiting to be resolved which you can hear at http://swdstudyvideos.com and go to part one of the book.

As to my flower terms (your perception) used to describe what I experience when listening to acoustic recordings: you are right to note that I am not finding words that I am comfortable using, I stumble around. But in defense or rather explanation, this phenomena still persists, no matter the lack of descriptive adjectives.

Let me approach this another way.  I'm certain you have at some time been to an intimate band setting. Maybe a jazz band in a café, or a rock band in a bar. Because you are "connected" in person and directly in the same space-time with the performers. This is called a live experience. Next we displace the time- part to the past by way of an acoustic record. It's all about the energy. All the musicians group around a large horn and perform while a wax disc is engraved. The wax disk is coated with metal and used to press about 50 records. There is no other record or tape. So playing such a record does stimulate something more than a cold scientific explanation. I know that the vocal cord of the singer I hear, moved the diaphragm to move the needle in the soft wax as it past by at 78 RPM. When played, my copy causes a needle to vibrate a diaphragm which is amplified by a horn into the atmosphere. The horn couples to the air with good efficiency. With the addition of the energy I put into the machine via the crank, the energy made by all these musicians and singers is now being used to move my eardrums. In use, you can easily hear the Victrola or Grammaphone anywhere in the house. This is the beginning of recorded music. It's very simple, yet elegant. Perhaps there is some romantic angle you could spin around 78 records made this way. They are direct, organic, certainly analog, a slice of time. Yet, all the history can be had on the Internet, but not the connection made through the energy, or at least a more direct pathway to the performance.

To quantify this experience is akin to quantifying one's taste in art or flavor of ice cream. I guess that's where the need to use "flowery terms" comes in. Another inability to quantify comes from trying to record the actual sound. You can not capture the "connection" experience using modern magnetic tape recording of stereo microphones. It does not sound the same as the actual Victrola. Not by a long shot. No longer can I hear from the throat of the singer to my ear. The acoustic connection is lost, replaced with a series of connections; mechanical, electrical, and magnetic.

Maybe the romance you noted comes from the idea of a direct energy connection with and to the musicians. This is flowery, "It's as if the musicians reached out from history to pluck my very heartstrings."  This is not, "I feel a direct connection with the performers." IMHO.

This is a problem with sound. You can't see it or feel it, it is more of a personal experience. Because it's so personal, people get easily offended with you when you challenge them about sound.  It's hard enough to define what you hear, leave along to defend it too.

Quantifying analog and digital is easy. Make a bunch of relevant measurements. Now you have measurements of quantities. But guess what. It doesn't correspond with our listening. Quantifying listening is a challenge. Since listening is a personal experience, maybe it cannot be quantified. Hearing can be quantified, but listening is so esoteric, I doubt it would be possible.  ~swd

[Stephen W. Desper]

True that, still kicking myself for not buying that 1st pressing of sunflower from the record store!

COMMET: Connect your computer to your stereo system and you can hear that very album.

Go to [ http://swdstudyvideos.com ] and find the "Sunflower" button. Follow directions and Click.

~swd

 With all that's gone down here, I just don't see how connecting a digital computer to any stereo system, even an audiophile, is going to reproduce the identical sound as would be derived from listening to the original releases in their original mediums

COMMENT:

Then don't listen.  But it's your loss. ~swd

[wilojarston]

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.

[lukpac]

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.

[LeeDempsey]

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.

I agree that Stephen is owed a lot of respect, and we are blessed by his participation in this board, but I don't believe anyone is above courteous, fact-based debate.

Lee

[bgas]

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.

I agree that Stephen is owed a lot of respect, and we are blessed by his participation in this board, but I don't believe anyone is above courteous, fact-based debate.

Lee

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

[LeeDempsey]

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 said nothing of the sort Chris.  Don't put words in my mouth.

As a person with a Computer Science / Math / Engineering background who is also a self-proclaimed audiophile (whatever that's worth),  I am interested in both sides of this discussion.  It's 100 times more interesting than the "I Hate Mike Love" threads that normally clog up this board.

Lee

[drbeachboy]

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.

I agree that Stephen is owed a lot of respect, and we are blessed by his participation in this board, but I don't believe anyone is above courteous, fact-based debate.

Lee

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

Chris, I know Lukpac from the Hoffman Board and he knows his stuff from everything that I have read over there. Like Lee, I too am interested in hearing both sides in this analog vs digital discussion. As long as it is respectful, I say let them discuss.

[lukpac]

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.

[Stephen W. Desper]

COMMENT:  It's not about numbers and formulas.  If you want to hear the original, buy the original, available on vinyl LP.


“. . . there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

                         ~ Shakespeare  (Hamlet, act 2, scene 2, page 11)

Maybe we should change Shakespeare’s words to read,

. . .  audio is neither good or bad, but sampling rate makes it so.


If you look at audio or sound in terms of sampling rates, we always hit a point where analog becomes digital. Sound in the air is limited by the size of air molecules. Once the wavelength exceeds the distance each molecule travels to pass sound through the atmosphere it is quantified and not continuous. The LP becomes digital when its continuous nature hits the limit of PVC particle size. Magnetic tape recording has an analog limit placed on it by the magnetic domain size each iron oxide can handle. Electrical signals travel at the speed of light, but chemical-electrical signals, such as used by synaptic connections to relate data throughout the brain are subject to prominent frequency-dependent depression, that is, a delay between stimulus delivery and appearance of the synaptic event. The brain even suffers from what is called “synaptic jitter” and has ways of correcting for it.

What this means is that as synaptic connections approach 1.5kHz (1,500 Hz) they take longer to pass information until they fail. Not very high. Frequencies from the cochlear nerve to the brain overcome this problem by using labeled line codes, discharge patterns of rapidly and slowly receptor adaptation encoding, and frequency and population codes. Not exactly on-off digital, but not analog either. All of these analog and neurological components of reality do place a limit to their resolution and detail. However all are magnitudes above even the most robust systems for detail such as military satellite observation cameras.

I agree with the concept put forth by Michael Baxter, “Existence is digital and reality is analog.  You either exist or you don’t. Nothing in-between. On the other hand, reality seems to have shades, which we like to rank and grade. So we accord analog values through levels of reality. But existence is best expressed as digital.  Either on or off.”  Maybe that’s why I prefer analog sound?

Another way to look at the two is that digital is static-fact whereas analog is perception, contemplation, unfoldment. Digital just is, or is not. No judgment. In contrast analog involves use of the mind to provide a representation of just what is, but in a way that blends with our emergence in life, our experience of living. Analog is subject to bias, and distortion, but is also more akin to our conception of reality – not as static, but fluid and continuous.  Maybe that’s why I prefer analog sound?

Music production and reproduction is an illusion. As an engineer I use objective measurements to make accurate adjustments, but as a mixer I am more subjective. I wonder if that makes my thinking patterns more to analog terms, since I am dealing with an illusion, which is based on perception, which for sound is based on the advancement of time in a continuous fashion. Maybe that’s why I prefer analog sound?

I’ve been trying to put my finger on a word or phrase that would best describe how analog sound makes me feel in contrast to digital listening. I think I’m going with “more live.” Analog sounds closer to the real thing, closer to the actual sound event to me. More alive. That’s just me.

Digital sounds good for sure, but it’s like looking at a TV with the color adjustment too high. It’s surreal in its reality. Sometimes it sounds too real, too honest, too perfect to be true, without any art or esthetics. Since music production incorporates artistic judgment calls, perhaps I relate more to the art than the fidelity of music that I play audio for my own enjoyment. Analog sounds more musical, more toe-tapping and singing-along-with. Analog has life! Digital is music as logical. Analog is music as emotional.  That’s just me.
   
Listening is a personal experience. No one else can do it for you. My experience is as a guy who has worked with sound, in the studio, in the laboratory, in cinema, and on stage. I’ve worked with all manner of sound at all levels. But when I wish to have an enjoyable and satisfying listening experience in my home, I look to the analog vinyl LP first. That’s just me.

Analog or Digital, Good Listening, ~Stephen W. Desper
  

[c-man]

Just checked the Ponomusic site, and a few are still missing: In Concert, L.A. Light, BBs '85, Still Cruisin', and SIP aren't there yet, and neither is a hi-def rendering of TWGMTR, although the standard red book (44.1kHz) version of that one is there. Same with Live - The 50th Anniversary Tour. The Smile Sessions is available in hi-def (88.2kHz), just not super hi-def (192kHz, which the others are in). Don't see MIC in there at all, but there are a couple of interesting-looking curious, like Studio Chatter Vol. 1 & 2.

[shebelongs]

I recently picked up an original Sunflower US pressing and it's certainly the best I've heard this album, 'Cool Cool Water' truly is an audio achievement.  The only thing bringing it back is your typical vinyl inner groove distortion and sibilance (some of which seems to be in the mix/consistent through all pressings so far) but that's where a better turntable and cartridge comes in handy I have a solid set up.

I'm imagining these High Def downloads that are coming are going to be based off of the 2012 masters which were 'fine' and faithful, but too overdone, especially Sunflower... if they're the upcoming Analogue Productions master then that is very exciting.

[GetHappy!!]

I recently picked up an original Sunflower US pressing and it's certainly the best I've heard this album, 'Cool Cool Water' truly is an audio achievement.  The only thing bringing it back is your typical vinyl inner groove distortion and sibilance (some of which seems to be in the mix/consistent through all pressings so far) but that's where a better turntable and cartridge comes in handy I have a solid set up.

I'm imagining these High Def downloads that are coming are going to be based off of the 2012 masters which were 'fine' and faithful, but too overdone, especially Sunflower... if they're the upcoming Analogue Productions master then that is very exciting.

The Sunflower & Surf's Up HD versions available now are different to the editions that came out a few years ago, which were hi-res versions of the 2012 CDs, respectively. It's anyone guess if they're going to be the same as the upcoming AP SACDs. But I do believe Holland mentions Kevin Bartley as handling the mastering, so we know that one will not be the same as Kevin Gray's take on the forthcoming Holland SACD. I think these new releases are better than the previous offerings.

If you'd like a Surf's Up first pressing to go along with your Sunflower, make sure you look for THANKS MARILYN in the deadwax.

[shebelongs]

I recently picked up an original Sunflower US pressing and it's certainly the best I've heard this album, 'Cool Cool Water' truly is an audio achievement.  The only thing bringing it back is your typical vinyl inner groove distortion and sibilance (some of which seems to be in the mix/consistent through all pressings so far) but that's where a better turntable and cartridge comes in handy I have a solid set up.

I'm imagining these High Def downloads that are coming are going to be based off of the 2012 masters which were 'fine' and faithful, but too overdone, especially Sunflower... if they're the upcoming Analogue Productions master then that is very exciting.

The Sunflower & Surf's Up HD versions available now are different to the editions that came out a few years ago, which were hi-res versions of the 2012 CDs, respectively. It's anyone guess if they're going to be the same as the upcoming AP SACDs. But I do believe Holland mentions Kevin Bartley as handling the mastering, so we know that one will not be the same as Kevin Gray's take on the forthcoming Holland SACD. I think these new releases are better than the previous offerings.

If you'd like a Surf's Up first pressing to go along with your Sunflower, make sure you look for THANKS MARILYN in the deadwax.

Oh they're out now? I just checked myself but it looks like they aren't available due to region restrictions (maybe it's not like this in the US). I can't wait to hear what they sound like... spinning my Sunflower LP again.

Almost bought a copy of Surf's Up online, but it was sold before I bought it.. who knows, maybe it didn't have 'Thanks Marilyn', but I'll keep this in mind, thanks you!

[Scotty]

I’ve been trying to put my finger on a word or phrase that would best describe how analog sound makes me feel in contrast to digital listening. I think I’m going with “more live.” Analog sounds closer to the real thing, closer to the actual sound event to me. More alive. That’s just me.

For me analog sound has a soul. Or to quote Lenny [Leonard Bernstein] "Music can not be subdivided into zeros and ones."  - his answer to me why he don't like the Compact Disc format and still prefers vinyl.

[Alan Smith]

While waiting for an end to the format wars, for those who dig the dig, Acoustic Sounds are virtually sagging by 20% off BB (Capitol) UME high res downloads:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=results&start=21%20&Coupon=3

Use (LD)Coupeon Code BEACHBOYS20 for Discount.

Came across this while checking if the tranche 2 vinyl status has been updated (nope).

[wilojarston]

Ponomusic.com still has the best price on all the BB titles currently on sale.