Sunflower on SACD

[Bill Ed]

This isn't Sunflower. It's essentially a remix of the album into what someone thinks the album should have sounded like. On the insert Stephen W. Desper is credited as Chief Engineer and Mixer, but this is not what he and Carl Wilson submitted to Warner Brothers.

[Bill Ed]

Hasn't anybody else bought this? 

[Sangheon]

I ordered it!
 Is there the mono version on the  SACD?

[Bill Ed]

No mono mix is included. Only what I would call a new stereo mix.

[Sangheon]

Thank you, Bill.
How is the new stereo mix  different?

[HeyJude]

Did they really actually remix "Sunflower?" I'm pretty sure the Analogue Productions series is simply a remastering project, using original mono and stereo mixes and the recent (2012 or whenever the most recent Capitol CDs came out) stereo remixes done by Linett and Boyd where applicable (e.g. albums not originally released in stereo).

I haven't heard the SACD of "Sunflower", but I'm guessing it's just a remaster. Actually remixing the album from the multitracks would be a pretty big deal (and it something I actually would be interested to hear as an alternative), and would go against the whole point/ethos of the SACD reissue campaign from what I understand.

If there are liner notes indicating a stereo remix, I'd be interested to see.

There is no mono mix of "Sunflower", so there's no reason to include on on the SACD.

[yrplace]

The album was not remixed.

Mark Linett

[Bicyclerider]

I haven't heard the SACD yet but I've read reports that both Sunflower and Surf's Up sound somewhat "dark" i.e. not much top end/treble (Murray would turn over in his grave to hear such an assessment of a Beach Boys production!).  Yet my original Reprise/Brother albums have plenty of top end, especially in the backing vocals.  I wonder if that reflects the master tapes and this "dark sounding" lack of top end was addressed in the EQ'ing for the vinyl mastering, and now what people are hearing sounds different without that EQ and so sounds like a different mix.

[Stephen W. Desper]

This isn't Sunflower. It's essentially a remix of the album into what someone thinks the album should have sounded like. On the insert Stephen W. Desper is credited as Chief Engineer and Mixer, but this is not what he and Carl Wilson submitted to Warner Brothers.

COMMENT:  The only place to hear what Carl and I heard at the time of mixdown (and mastering in the case of this book) is by listening to the renditions at the end of my book Recording The Beach Boys - Part One (Sunflower), which you will find at the website below. It's all there.
Good Listening, ~Stephen W. Desper
http://swdstudyvideos.com

[sockittome]

Ok, now this has me wondering....I thought the 2012 sounded ok, at least initially.  But then a lot of people were grumbling that the 2012 sounded a little shrill in the high end...to the point of distortion and other unpleasantness in the treble region.   I at least felt it was an improvement over the Sunflower/Surf's Up twofer, which sounded very flat and rolled off on the highs and lows.

I've been very happy with the SACDs thus far, and I have been anticipating that Sunflower in this set will not be a letdown.

But here we are.  A remix?  Are you sure?

Well, I've got one on it's way to me as we speak.  In a few days I will know for sure.

[Custom Machine]

This isn't Sunflower. It's essentially a remix of the album into what someone thinks the album should have sounded like. On the insert Stephen W. Desper is credited as Chief Engineer and Mixer, but this is not what he and Carl Wilson submitted to Warner Brothers.

You've got me totally confused here, Bill. You are referring to the new Sunflower Analogue Productions hybrid CD/SACD released yesterday, right? Definitely not a remix at all. And it sounds great to me.

As I understand it, during the mastering process to vinyl Stephen Desper and Carl Wilson made some tweaks to the sound coming off the Sunflower master tape, which can only be found on an original Artisan pressed vinyl copy. Stephen, please correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'm assuming those tweaks were related to EQ and levels. Stephen, were notes kept so that these adjustments could be replicated? I'm assuming these adjustments were made from the two track stereo master, after Stephen had made the major adjustments during mix down from the 16 track master to the two track master. Again, any additional info from Stephen Desper would be appreciated.

[Custom Machine]

I haven't heard the SACD yet but I've read reports that both Sunflower and Surf's Up sound somewhat "dark" i.e. not much top end/treble (Murray would turn over in his grave to hear such an assessment of a Beach Boys production!).  Yet my original Reprise/Brother albums have plenty of top end, especially in the backing vocals.  I wonder if that reflects the master tapes and this "dark sounding" lack of top end was addressed in the EQ'ing for the vinyl mastering, and now what people are hearing sounds different without that EQ and so sounds like a different mix.

Haven't listened to the new Surf's UP CD/SACD yet, but there is no way I would characterize the new Sunflower CD/SACD as being dark, although on initial listening I'd characterized the high end on this new release as being somewhat smoother (slightly less bright) than the previous CD reissues, benefitting the listening experience.

Really, the only CD reissue I consider to offer a poor listening experience is the original 1990 CD release remastered by Joe Gastwert, which is way too bright and strident, and lacking in bass as well. The 2000 twofer, remastered by Andrew Sandoval and Dan Hersch, the 2012 CD remastered by Mark Linett in 2009 (originally available only on a vinyl reissue), and the new 2016 CD/SACD remastered by Kevin Gray all provide for a very nice listening experience. I'd have to do some serious comparisons to declare a winner, but from my initial listening sessions today I'd say this new CD/SACD is probably the best sounding of the 4 CD reissues over the years, mainly because of its somewhat smoother high end.

I've seen Mark Linett credited on these new AP reissues as well, so since he's posted in this thread, I hope he'll chime in and explain his role in these reissues, as it pertains to supplying the material to Kevin Gray. I'll also add that Mark used the HDCD process on the 2012 CD. Only a very small number of CD players have HDCD decoding capability (none of mine) and I've heard claims (although not everyone seems to agree) that a HDCD mastered CD played back on a standard player without HDCD decoding will sound brighter, so this could also be a factor when I say that the new AP Kevin Gray CD/SACD sounds somewhat smoother than Mark's 2012 CD.

[Bill Ed]

My sincere apologies to all concerned for the misinformation. I know that the term "remix" has a particular definition in the recording business, and I should not have used it.

And before writing anything else, I should admit to a degree of age-related hearing loss, so please take that into consideration.

The SACD is a letdown for me. To my ears, the "background" vocals are the main casualty of (what I conjecture is) the remastering process. I know there were complaints regarding the "brightness" of the mastering on the 2012 reissue, but to me that release sounds terrific and full of life. The SACD (you might want to factor in my hearing issues) is comparatively lifeless.  The remarkable background vocals are on too many occasions reduced to ghosts of their former selves.  

I have purchased all the AP SACD's, in part to maintain the commercial viability of the Beach Boys catalog and, in particular, to support projects which appeal to the real fan base. The Sunflower SACD is my first disappointment, and I hope nobody takes a pass on buying it based on my assessment.

[Custom Machine]

My sincere apologies to all concerned for the misinformation. I know that the term "remix" has a particular definition in the recording business, and I should not have used it.

And before writing anything else, I should admit to a degree of age-related hearing loss, so please take that into consideration.

The SACD is a letdown for me. To my ears, the "background" vocals are the main casualty of (what I conjecture is) the remastering process. I know there were complaints regarding the "brightness" of the mastering on the 2012 reissue, but to me that release sounds terrific and full of life. The SACD (you might want to factor in my hearing issues) is comparatively lifeless.  The remarkable background vocals are on too many occasions reduced to ghosts of their former selves.  

I have purchased all the AP SACD's, in part to maintain the commercial viability of the Beach Boys catalog and, in particular, to support projects which appeal to the real fan base. The Sunflower SACD is my first disappointment, and I hope nobody takes a pass on buying it based on my assessment.

Thanks for the clarification, Bill Ed. Your experience helps to confirm that not everyone prefers the same degree of equalization on a given recording. For that reason, whenever possible, I've always been into adjusting the bass and treble controls to my liking during a listening session, or using a multi-band equalizer for more serious tweaks. Of course these days a lot of casual listening is done via bluetooth or other wireless speakers with no EQ controls, but for myself I've never been into listening "flat" just for the sake of the playback being "flat". If your listening set up has a treble control you may wish to experiment with cranking it up when listening to the new AP Sunflower SACD and see what you think. (Even better if you have a multi-band equalizer.) I do find it intriguing that my experience was the opposite of yours, as I thought to myself "Wow, this new AP Sunflower release is really nice and smooth in the high end." And I'm a long time fan myself, quite possibly older than you.

[c-man]

I haven't heard the SACD yet but I've read reports that both Sunflower and Surf's Up sound somewhat "dark" i.e. not much top end/treble (Murray would turn over in his grave to hear such an assessment of a Beach Boys production!).  Yet my original Reprise/Brother albums have plenty of top end, especially in the backing vocals.  I wonder if that reflects the master tapes and this "dark sounding" lack of top end was addressed in the EQ'ing for the vinyl mastering, and now what people are hearing sounds different without that EQ and so sounds like a different mix.

Haven't listened to the new Surf's UP CD/SACD yet, but there is no way I would characterize the new Sunflower CD/SACD as being dark, although on initial listening I'd characterized the high end on this new release as being somewhat smoother (slightly less bright) than the previous CD reissues, benefitting the listening experience.

Really, the only CD reissue I consider to offer a poor listening experience is the original 1990 CD release remastered by Joe Gastwert, which is way too bright and strident, and lacking in bass as well. The 2000 twofer, remastered by Andrew Sandoval and Dan Hersch, the 2012 CD remastered by Mark Linett in 2009 (originally available only on a vinyl reissue), and the new 2016 CD/SACD remastered by Kevin Gray all provide for a very nice listening experience. I'd have to do some serious comparisons to declare a winner, but from my initial listening sessions today I'd say this new CD/SACD is probably the best sounding of the 4 CD reissues over the years, mainly because of its somewhat smoother high end.

I've seen Mark Linett credited on these new AP reissues as well, so since he's posted in this thread, I hope he'll chime in and explain his role in these reissues, as it pertains to supplying the material to Kevin Gray. I'll also add that Mark used the HDCD process on the 2012 CD. Only a very small number of CD players have HDCD decoding capability (none of mine) and I've heard claims (although not everyone seems to agree) that a HDCD mastered CD played back on a standard player without HDCD decoding will sound brighter, so this could also be a factor when I say that the new AP Kevin Gray CD/SACD sounds somewhat smoother than Mark's 2012 CD.

Thanks for the insight, Rob - to me, the 2000 Brother-era twofer reissues sound too bassy (although Sunflower itself still sounds really good), while pretty much anything by anybody mastered from, say, 2010 on, sound too bright and shrill. I'm looking forward to a smooth-sounding high end on the new AP [Sunflower/i], hopefully with just the right amount of bottom-end! I find myself raising the bass EQ on the AP Pet Sounds, but at least it isn't as shrill as the 2006 and 2012 remasters. 

FYI, to my point about pre- and post-2010 remasters, the 1994 Virgin remaster of the Stones' Exile On Main Street sounds perfect (as do the other remasters of that series) - and I read (or maybe heard) an interview with Don Was where he explained that the original '72 LP production master was heavily tweaked (as we know to be the case with Sunflower, so to match it, they actually either placed or answered an add in Goldmine. Jagger, Richards, and Was then met up with the two guys selling a mint-condition original pressing - much to the astonishment of those two guys! They then set about matching the sound of that pressing when doing the '94 remaster. By comparison, the 2010 UMe Exile remaster is, to my ears, practically un-listenable - and Was had nothing to do with that (although he did help produce and mix the bonus tracks). It was mastered with iTunes in mind, and brickwalled beyond belief. And, your remark about HDCDs sounding too bright in non-HDCD players makes me wonder if some SACDs suffer from the same problem - like the SACD remaster of Sleepwalker by The Kinks - man, the guitars on that are so bright, they practically make my ears bleed! 

[Custom Machine]

I haven't heard the SACD yet but I've read reports that both Sunflower and Surf's Up sound somewhat "dark" i.e. not much top end/treble (Murray would turn over in his grave to hear such an assessment of a Beach Boys production!).  Yet my original Reprise/Brother albums have plenty of top end, especially in the backing vocals.  I wonder if that reflects the master tapes and this "dark sounding" lack of top end was addressed in the EQ'ing for the vinyl mastering, and now what people are hearing sounds different without that EQ and so sounds like a different mix.

Haven't listened to the new Surf's UP CD/SACD yet, but there is no way I would characterize the new Sunflower CD/SACD as being dark, although on initial listening I'd characterized the high end on this new release as being somewhat smoother (slightly less bright) than the previous CD reissues, benefitting the listening experience.

Really, the only CD reissue I consider to offer a poor listening experience is the original 1990 CD release remastered by Joe Gastwert, which is way too bright and strident, and lacking in bass as well. The 2000 twofer, remastered by Andrew Sandoval and Dan Hersch, the 2012 CD remastered by Mark Linett in 2009 (originally available only on a vinyl reissue), and the new 2016 CD/SACD remastered by Kevin Gray all provide for a very nice listening experience. I'd have to do some serious comparisons to declare a winner, but from my initial listening sessions today I'd say this new CD/SACD is probably the best sounding of the 4 CD reissues over the years, mainly because of its somewhat smoother high end.

I've seen Mark Linett credited on these new AP reissues as well, so since he's posted in this thread, I hope he'll chime in and explain his role in these reissues, as it pertains to supplying the material to Kevin Gray. I'll also add that Mark used the HDCD process on the 2012 CD. Only a very small number of CD players have HDCD decoding capability (none of mine) and I've heard claims (although not everyone seems to agree) that a HDCD mastered CD played back on a standard player without HDCD decoding will sound brighter, so this could also be a factor when I say that the new AP Kevin Gray CD/SACD sounds somewhat smoother than Mark's 2012 CD.

Thanks for the insight, Rob - to me, the 2000 Brother-era twofer reissues sound too bassy (although Sunflower itself still sounds really good), while pretty much anything by anybody mastered from, say, 2010 on, sound too bright and shrill. I'm looking forward to a smooth-sounding high end on the new AP [Sunflower/i], hopefully with just the right amount of bottom-end! I find myself raising the bass EQ on the AP Pet Sounds, but at least it isn't as shrill as the 2006 and 2012 remasters. 

FYI, to my point about pre- and post-2010 remasters, the 1994 Virgin remaster of the Stones' Exile On Main Street sounds perfect (as do the other remasters of that series) - and I read (or maybe heard) an interview with Don Was where he explained that the original '72 LP production master was heavily tweaked (as we know to be the case with Sunflower, so to match it, they actually either placed or answered an add in Goldmine. Jagger, Richards, and Was then met up with the two guys selling a mint-condition original pressing - much to the astonishment of those two guys! They then set about matching the sound of that pressing when doing the '94 remaster. By comparison, the 2010 UMe Exile remaster is, to my ears, practically un-listenable - and Was had nothing to do with that (although he did help produce and mix the bonus tracks). It was mastered with iTunes in mind, and brickwalled beyond belief. And, your remark about HDCDs sounding too bright in non-HDCD players makes me wonder if some SACDs suffer from the same problem - like the SACD remaster of Sleepwalker by The Kinks - man, the guitars on that are so bright, they practically make my ears bleed!
 

And thank you for your comments and insight, Craig. Yeah, now that a lot of classic material has been remastered a number of times it is amazing to hear the variations in EQ that exist. I agree that the high end on the new AP Pet Sounds remaster sounds especially nice, and the overall sound is dramatically better than the original 1966 release. Due to your involvement with ESQ I'm certain that you've read Lee Dempsey's review of the various vinyl Pet Sounds releases where he ranked the new AP Pet Sounds as the best sounding of the lot.

Great story about the '94 Virgin remaster of Exile. That's really the way to do it. Hope Stephen Desper will chime in as to whether he kept notes of the changes he and Carl made during the Sunflower vinyl mastering process. And if not, there's always the original vinyl to refer to, although replicating the changes may not be the easiest of tasks, as I get the impression they varied not only from track to track but also dynamically within each track. Stephen, if you are reading this, hope you can clarify.

Yes, brickwalling is a very unfortunate trend, to say the least, although to the average person "louder" often seems to sound better, but with the downside of a significant loss of dynamic range.

While I've read statements that CDs mastered in HDCD sound somewhat brighter when played on standard players (which these days, as far as I know, is anything other than an Oppo player), to the best of my knowledge the audio on a hybrid CD/SACD should sound identical on both layers as far as EQ is concerned, with the difference being that the SACD layer offers playback at a higher resolution than standard CD (the audibility of which can be debated).

The newest Pet Sounds CDs (twofer and 4 CD, 1 DVD set) do not have the HDCD logo, so I'm thinking Mark has stopped using the process for CD mastering, perhaps because so few playback devices have the ability to take advantage of it.

[gxios]

I listened to the Sunflower sacd last night, and it is clearly the best recreation of the original lp sound I have heard.  I have the original white label promo ( a different cut than the regular release, and slightly inferior), a first week first press, a UK first press, a 1980 Dutch press, the 1990 cd, the twofer cd, the 2009 vinyl, and the original 8 track tape.  The bass tones sound tight and solid on only two versions- the first press and the sacd- all other copies I have have a boomy, indistinct bass.  The high end is smooth and well balanced, and I heard no background vocal problems.  My system is sacd player to tube pre-amp to tube amp to Klipsch Cornwall II horn speakers with the tweeter horns damped by one thickness of toilet paper (I know this sounds silly to some, but it works for me). The sacd does not perfectly match the original lp (I wouldn't expect it to, it was apparently tweaked during cutting), but I recommend it to anyone who has the playback capability, this sounds very carefully done.  I am waiting impatiently for the new vinyl now.

[yrplace]

In reply to an earlier question, I supervised the mastering of all the new reissues.  I recall that Sunflower required a couple of tries to get it to sound like the original vinyl LP which was what I compared the tests of the new version to before it was approved.

Your mileage may vary.

Mark

[sockittome]

Thank you for the positive review there, gxios (and other posters as well).  When I first got into this thread I started to sweat a little as I had recently stuck another $30 on my credit card in hopes of adding the be-all end-all sacd of my close-second favorite BBs album, to my collection.  The thought of being underwhelmed when it arrives is something I don't want to consider, as I patiently stare out my front window at my mailbox at around 11:00 every day this week!  

 

[Custom Machine]

In reply to an earlier question, I supervised the mastering of all the new reissues.  I recall that Sunflower required a couple of tries to get it to sound like the original vinyl LP which was what I compared the tests of the new version to before it was approved.

Your mileage may vary.

Mark

Mark, thank you so much for the info you have provided in this thread. Concerning the remastering process of these new Analogue Productions SACDs and LPs, would it be correct to say that you were in the room with Kevin Gray supervising and approving as he remastered, or did he send you files of his work, which required your approval?

[Bill Ed]

Sangheon, the SACD presentation seems much less "open" to me than what I have grown accustomed to hearing on the earlier CD's. The lead vocals are remarkably clear and strike me as being more prominent than on prior CD 's. I'm in a minority (of one) in thinking that some of the other vocals are too low in the . . . whatever the correct term is. But I no longer doubt that what I'm hearing is true to the original vinyl release. My (low-end) turntable has been in mothballs since I bought a receiver without the required inputs, and I haven't listened to vinyl in many years. So I guess the SACD will become my "vinyl" copy.

Custom Machine, thanks for the advice on experimenting with the equalization. My receiver has a self-calibration feature, and most everything I play sounds good to me as is. The only manual options for the listener are to boost/reduce the bass and treble, and I'm a little afraid to mess with settings. But I do have the option of reverting to the receiver's self-calibration settings, so I might give it a try.

Finally, I'm glad to hear that people are enjoying the SACD version of Sunflower.  I hope someone with more "standing" on this board will start other threads discussing the other recent AP releases. 

[Stephen W. Desper]

This isn't Sunflower. It's essentially a remix of the album into what someone thinks the album should have sounded like. On the insert Stephen W. Desper is credited as Chief Engineer and Mixer, but this is not what he and Carl Wilson submitted to Warner Brothers.

You've got me totally confused here, Bill. You are referring to the new Sunflower Analogue Productions hybrid CD/SACD released yesterday, right? Definitely not a remix at all. And it sounds great to me.

As I understand it, during the mastering process to vinyl Stephen Desper and Carl Wilson made some tweaks to the sound coming off the Sunflower master tape, which can only be found on an original Artisan pressed vinyl copy. Stephen, please correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'm assuming those tweaks were related to EQ and levels. Stephen, were notes kept so that these adjustments could be replicated? I'm assuming these adjustments were made from the two track stereo master, after Stephen had made the major adjustments during mix down from the 16 track master to the two track master. Again, any additional info from Stephen Desper would be appreciated.

COMMENT:  Everything I wish to express about the making of Sunflower is in my book and can be heard and read at the link below. If you are interested in the history of Sunflower, check out my educational website. 

To answer your questions directly -- An LP master tape was generated at the time of the first mastering by Carl and myself. I don't know if it survives or not. Changes to EQ, limiting, and levels were noted, but over the last forty years may have been misplaced. Besides, those mastering tweaks were intended to be made on equipment that has long since been trashed, making such notations irrelevant. I say again, if you wish to hear what Carl and everyone heard at the time of mixdown, go to my website and listen. There you can hear the final mixes resolved through the playback matrix as intended. All other re-masterings do not resolve the master tape and only mimic the commercial release version. If that's good enough for you, then go for it. The current re-issues are part of the history of this album, but in addition you should back up to the mastering supervised by Carl and with the playback matrix resolution applied. The commercial version and the matrix resolution version are two different animals. Read about the history of why this is in my book, Recording The Beach Boys - Part One.  ~swd

http://swdstudyvideos.com 

[c-man]

Careening somewhat off-topic (from the BB to the Stones), but staying somewhat on-topic (modern digital remasters of classic albums):

Regarding the '94 Exile remastering for the Virgin label's reissue:

The interview in question (Don Was interviewed by Pierre Robert for WMMR in Philadelphia) has Was stating the original EQ'd master mixes (meaning, the production master that was made FROM the original UN-EQ'd stereo mixdown tape, and then used to produce the vinyl LPs in '72) had gone missing. They desired it so that it could be used as a point of reference for them to remaster the un-EQ'd mixdown tape for CD in '94, meaning they understood that it was "tweaked" significantly to the taste of the Stones & Jimmy Miller when that production master was made. The un-EQ'd tape, as Jagger pointed out in some interview, was wildly inconsistent in levels and in other ways. Was made the point that subsequent pressings of the album would suffer from some mastering engineer in Germany working the night shift deciding it needed more treble, for instance. They wanted the '94 CD (being mastered by Bob Ludwig) to sound like the '72 LP, but after a previous mastering attempt by Ludwig resulted in a version that sounded "like a modern record in 1994, which was virtually unrecognizable as Exile On Main Street", and the '72 LP production tape missing, they resorted to using a virgin vinyl 1972 LP (bought from someone advertising in Goldmine), and asked Ludwig to "straight copy" it over. Fortunately, said Was, Ludwig had too much pride for that, and ended up creating a new master by matching the sounds. Was' only real comment about the new (2010) version is that you can hear a few things better than before.

As for the 2010 UMe remaster/reissue - here's a review by Michael Fremer:

<<Now, about that sound: first I just played the new reissued double vinyl mastered by Doug Sax at The Mastering Lab. How many times have I heard this record? Probably hundreds. This new re-mastering sounded compacted, spatially flattened, deliberately dynamically compressed and shockingly bass-shy. The horns that are supposed to cut through with a mean edge on “Rocks Off” were limp, Charlie’s signature snare sound was soft. I mean it really sucks on a stereo but probably will sound swell on an iPod played back with cheap earbuds. The mastering gamesmanship does produce the sensation of more detail and greater transparency but it's sham detail and sham transparency. This production has had it's balls cut off.

Switching to the Stephen Marcussen mastered CD produced essentially the same blah results (you can hear the same tape "crinkle" 3 minutes into "Casino Boogie" on both) so blame him not Doug Sax who cut the vinyl from 44.1k/24 bit files and it sounds like it. The added bit depth does make the vinyl sound somewhat more detailed but why bother with the vinyl? Too bad, because the pressing quality is excellent. I have trouble believing this was pressed at United in Nashville. I bet it was pressed at Rainbo in L.A., which has really stepped up to the quality plate.

In fact why bother with this at all when if you play Bob Ludwig’s CD mastering for Virgin years ago, you’ll hear what this record is supposed to sound like, as intended for a real grown up stereo system, with bass, full dynamic range and as much three-dimensionality as redbook CD can manage, which admittedly isn’t much.

I compared original American, Japanese, Polish and German vinyl pressings to this limp noodle and even the Polish pressing, clearly from a copy of a copy of the master at best had more balls, but of course more noise and less detail and even less transparency.

I used to think the German Electrola pressing was the best but now I think it’s the original American, mastered at Artisan in L.A. It’s really the original since the record was mixed at Sunset in L.A. and it has a similar midrange to this latest reissue, but it also has bass and treble and dynamics. The German is hyped up in the presence region and the bottom end, giving the kick drums lots of punch and the horns great edge, but that sucks out the middle where Mick’s already dipped voice resides.

No doubt the Stones approved the test pressings that became the original issue. I certainly don’t think they listened much to this latest reissue before it was approved for release. If they did, what’s their excuse for this sorry sounding, limp noodle?

If it was to make it sound “good” on earbuds, well that’s not good enough and a sorry way to leave it until someone does it right for a future generation interested in getting their butts kicked by good sound. That will happen, I’m sure. Meanwhile, find yourself an original American pressing or Bob Ludwig’s Virgin CD and wait it out.>>

All this just goes to show how much mixdown tapes were often tweaked to produce the sound we remember on the LPs we love, and just how bad modern-day digital remasters can be, if that isn't taken into consideration.

[king of anglia]

This isn't Sunflower. It's essentially a remix of the album into what someone thinks the album should have sounded like. On the insert Stephen W. Desper is credited as Chief Engineer and Mixer, but this is not what he and Carl Wilson submitted to Warner Brothers.

You've got me totally confused here, Bill. You are referring to the new Sunflower Analogue Productions hybrid CD/SACD released yesterday, right? Definitely not a remix at all. And it sounds great to me.

As I understand it, during the mastering process to vinyl Stephen Desper and Carl Wilson made some tweaks to the sound coming off the Sunflower master tape, which can only be found on an original Artisan pressed vinyl copy. Stephen, please correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'm assuming those tweaks were related to EQ and levels. Stephen, were notes kept so that these adjustments could be replicated? I'm assuming these adjustments were made from the two track stereo master, after Stephen had made the major adjustments during mix down from the 16 track master to the two track master. Again, any additional info from Stephen Desper would be appreciated.

COMMENT:  Everything I wish to express about the making of Sunflower is in my book and can be heard and read at the link below. If you are interested in the history of Sunflower, check out my educational website. 

To answer your questions directly -- An LP master tape was generated at the time of the first mastering by Carl and myself. I don't know if it survives or not. Changes to EQ, limiting, and levels were noted, but over the last forty years may have been misplaced. Besides, those mastering tweaks were intended to be made on equipment that has long since been trashed, making such notations irrelevant. I say again, if you wish to hear what Carl and everyone heard at the time of mixdown, go to my website and listen. There you can hear the final mixes resolved through the playback matrix as intended. All other re-masterings do not resolve the master tape and only mimic the commercial release version. If that's good enough for you, then go for it. The current re-issues are part of the history of this album, but in addition you should back up to the mastering supervised by Carl and with the playback matrix resolution applied. The commercial version and the matrix resolution version are two different animals. Read about the history of why this is in my book, Recording The Beach Boys - Part One.  ~swd

http://swdstudyvideos.com 

This is it. The only real version of Sunflower is the DECODED matrix version.

[Jay]

This isn't Sunflower. It's essentially a remix of the album into what someone thinks the album should have sounded like. On the insert Stephen W. Desper is credited as Chief Engineer and Mixer, but this is not what he and Carl Wilson submitted to Warner Brothers.

You've got me totally confused here, Bill. You are referring to the new Sunflower Analogue Productions hybrid CD/SACD released yesterday, right? Definitely not a remix at all. And it sounds great to me.

As I understand it, during the mastering process to vinyl Stephen Desper and Carl Wilson made some tweaks to the sound coming off the Sunflower master tape, which can only be found on an original Artisan pressed vinyl copy. Stephen, please correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'm assuming those tweaks were related to EQ and levels. Stephen, were notes kept so that these adjustments could be replicated? I'm assuming these adjustments were made from the two track stereo master, after Stephen had made the major adjustments during mix down from the 16 track master to the two track master. Again, any additional info from Stephen Desper would be appreciated.

COMMENT:  Everything I wish to express about the making of Sunflower is in my book and can be heard and read at the link below. If you are interested in the history of Sunflower, check out my educational website. 

To answer your questions directly -- An LP master tape was generated at the time of the first mastering by Carl and myself. I don't know if it survives or not. Changes to EQ, limiting, and levels were noted, but over the last forty years may have been misplaced. Besides, those mastering tweaks were intended to be made on equipment that has long since been trashed, making such notations irrelevant. I say again, if you wish to hear what Carl and everyone heard at the time of mixdown, go to my website and listen. There you can hear the final mixes resolved through the playback matrix as intended. All other re-masterings do not resolve the master tape and only mimic the commercial release version. If that's good enough for you, then go for it. The current re-issues are part of the history of this album, but in addition you should back up to the mastering supervised by Carl and with the playback matrix resolution applied. The commercial version and the matrix resolution version are two different animals. Read about the history of why this is in my book, Recording The Beach Boys - Part One.  ~swd

http://swdstudyvideos.com 

I listened to the "matrix resolution" version last night on your website last night. Words can not describe the joy and awe I felt while listening to it. To say it was a revelation is an understatement. Songs like "Add Some Music (To Your Day), "All I Wanna Do", and "At My Window" almost became entirely different songs, with all the little details I had never heard before. Thank you so much for making it available! I wish there was a way to get a copy of the "matrix resolution", along with the proper equipment to play it.