gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 05:36:18 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Sunflower on SACD  (Read 23516 times)
Cool Cool Water
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 485


Don't Edit Yourself


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2016, 12:22:10 AM »

Features:
• Hybrid Stereo SACD
• Mastered by Kevin Gray at Cohearent Audio from the original master tapes or best sources available
• Stereo mixes produced by Mark Linett and Alan Boyd
• Compatible with both SACD and CD players

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-267828-the-beach-boys-sunflower-hybrid-stereo-sacd.aspx
Logged
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2132


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2016, 11:24:01 AM »

I'm not sure why the CD says stereo mixes produced by Mark and Alan - if they are using the two track stereo masters, those were produced by Carl (and Stephen).  Unless they went back to the 16 track multis and remixed the stereo mixes.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2016, 11:37:29 AM »

I'm not sure why the CD says stereo mixes produced by Mark and Alan - if they are using the two track stereo masters, those were produced by Carl (and Stephen).  Unless they went back to the 16 track multis and remixed the stereo mixes.

I think the "produced by Linett and Boyd" notation is a generic notation from the sort of "press release" for the entire series of CDs, and refers to the first-time stereo mixes Linett and Boyd did for the 2012 (or whenever those were) album remasters, which were used where applicable on the SACD series.

Even though that page is a listing for "Sunflower", it appears they've just copied and pasted the press release for the entire series under the production description section and then added some bits about the specific album.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 11:39:35 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2016, 12:44:22 PM »

I'm not sure why the CD says stereo mixes produced by Mark and Alan - if they are using the two track stereo masters, those were produced by Carl (and Stephen).  Unless they went back to the 16 track multis and remixed the stereo mixes.

COMMENT:  It is not possible to re-mix Sunflower or Surf's Up due to the many re-amped tracks used -- unless you want to leave stuff out, which is not what Mark or Alan would want.  I think it means, re-mastered. Refer to my book Recording The Beach Boys for details as to why these albums cannot be remixed -- but mainly it was not the age of computer controlled consoles or unlimited track recording. You are trying to plug modern recording technology into 50-year old recording techniques. It doesn't always work. ~swd
Logged
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2016, 04:26:35 AM »

I'm not sure why the CD says stereo mixes produced by Mark and Alan - if they are using the two track stereo masters, those were produced by Carl (and Stephen).  Unless they went back to the 16 track multis and remixed the stereo mixes.

COMMENT:  It is not possible to re-mix Sunflower or Surf's Up due to the many re-amped tracks used -- unless you want to leave stuff out, which is not what Mark or Alan would want.  I think it means, re-mastered. Refer to my book Recording The Beach Boys for details as to why these albums cannot be remixed -- but mainly it was not the age of computer controlled consoles or unlimited track recording. You are trying to plug modern recording technology into 50-year old recording techniques. It doesn't always work. ~swd

I'm pretty sure the reference to Mark and Alan producing stereo mixes is a straight copy/paste from earlier titles in the series, such as Beach Boys Today!, Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!), and Party!, for which they produced stereo mixes where none had previously existed.
Logged
Awesoman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1830


Disagreements? Work 'em out.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2016, 03:26:59 PM »

I'm not sure why the CD says stereo mixes produced by Mark and Alan - if they are using the two track stereo masters, those were produced by Carl (and Stephen).  Unless they went back to the 16 track multis and remixed the stereo mixes.

COMMENT:  It is not possible to re-mix Sunflower or Surf's Up due to the many re-amped tracks used -- unless you want to leave stuff out, which is not what Mark or Alan would want.  I think it means, re-mastered. Refer to my book Recording The Beach Boys for details as to why these albums cannot be remixed -- but mainly it was not the age of computer controlled consoles or unlimited track recording. You are trying to plug modern recording technology into 50-year old recording techniques. It doesn't always work. ~swd

That would explain why the "vocals" mix of "Our Sweet Love" also contained the string section on the Made In California compilation.  Correct?
Logged

And if you don't know where you're going
Any road will take you there
Bill Ed
Guest
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2016, 07:18:49 PM »

Why didn't someone tell me that this is a multi-channel disc? I found out by reading on another forum (Hoffman's) where people discuss this sort of thing. I've been playing the disc on an Oppo set to default to the multi-channel layer of SACD's while outputting the signal through the 2-channel outputs. So I guess I've been listening to a fold-down of (quadraphonic?) material. No wonder it sounded muddy.

The multi-channel is amazing!
Logged
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2132


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2016, 09:48:36 AM »

Fold-down of a quadraphonic mix - not exactly, the four channels are encoded into the stereo mix as they were into the original vinyl.  The Oppo is sensing and decoding the multi-channel but there are no "discrete" multi-channels in the SACD disc.  Stephen will chime in to explain better I'm sure.
Logged
Bill Ed
Guest
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2016, 06:42:31 PM »

Bicyclerider,

I think you're in for a pleasant surprise.

My disc appears to have three "layers": a 5.0 channel SACD layer, a 2-channel SACD layer, and a CD (Red Book) layer. If I set my player to default to multi-channel, "5.0 channel" pops up on my monitor when I play the disc, and I hear sound from the two front speakers, the two rear surrounds, and the player sends the lower frequency sounds to my subwoofers. I can't detect any sound coming from my center channel. In this mode, my receiver displays "5-channel", so I don't think the receiver is converting the signal to surround sound . If I set the Oppo to default to 2-channel when playing this SACD, sound comes only from the front two speakers, and again the player is routing sound to the subwoofers.

When I first played the disc I assumed that it contained only 2-channel content, so I used the 2-channel output on my player to send the signals to my receiver. However, the player was reading the multi-channel layer, and the effect was most unpleasant. This may explain the comments I've read about Sunflower sounding "dark".

The Surf's Up SACD has a 5.0 channel SACD layer as well. The Holland SACD does not.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong about all of this.  Smiley
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2016, 10:16:59 PM »

Bicyclerider,

I think you're in for a pleasant surprise.

My disc appears to have three "layers": a 5.0 channel SACD layer, a 2-channel SACD layer, and a CD (Red Book) layer. If I set my player to default to multi-channel, "5.0 channel" pops up on my monitor when I play the disc, and I hear sound from the two front speakers, the two rear surrounds, and the player sends the lower frequency sounds to my subwoofers. I can't detect any sound coming from my center channel. In this mode, my receiver displays "5-channel", so I don't think the receiver is converting the signal to surround sound . If I set the Oppo to default to 2-channel when playing this SACD, sound comes only from the front two speakers, and again the player is routing sound to the subwoofers.

When I first played the disc I assumed that it contained only 2-channel content, so I used the 2-channel output on my player to send the signals to my receiver. However, the player was reading the multi-channel layer, and the effect was most unpleasant. This may explain the comments I've read about Sunflower sounding "dark".

The Surf's Up SACD has a 5.0 channel SACD layer as well. The Holland SACD does not.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong about all of this.  Smiley


COMMENT TO Bicyclerider and Bill Ed:

You are correct. There is no 4-channel master to fold down. The Sunflower two-channel Stereophonic Sound Master tape contains both the compatible Stereo sound and (if you apply the playback matrix) the encoded expanded-virtual-surround-sound. There is some similarity between the matrix resolution circuit (patented) and the Dolby algorithm (patented) used in the Dolby 5.1 chip set.
The Oppo uses superior D2A converters, but like all DVD players that must decode a Dolby sound format, Oppo uses a (tightly controlled and patented) Dolby chip set, under license, to realize the surround sound of DVD’s, as described by Bill Ed. The format is patented by Dolby. Part of the chip set includes algorithms to mimic surround sound from stereo tracks using several schemes. One of these is in play for 'Riders’s playback experience. It is taking the two-channels and synthesizing the surround by way of the original matrix cues. These cues do not render a complete resolution in the Dolby scheme, but if you like it, then go for it. To hear an accurate and complete resolution, hook your computer up to your sound system (best using HDMI ports) and play Sunflower tracks from my book via the link below. Of course, both the SACD and Vimeo tracks are digital. To ever hear it all you need a turntable and a black vinyl disc. Perhaps you already have a turntable, but if not, consider spending your money on LPs in place of samples. Rediscover analog.
   ~swd

http://swdstudyvideos.com   Book, Part One (Sunflower)
Logged
Sangheon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2016, 08:01:22 PM »

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.

Bill Ed Thank you for your comments.
My copy finally arrived, and I listened it several times. My impression about lead vocals is similar to yours. those are very upfront compared to the mix of the earlier CDs. and as you said, the background vocals and tracks are little low, thereby it sounds like there is wide range between lead vocals and bg vocals etc.
So, perhaps because of the range, this SACD is little bit of three dimensional-esque sound to my ears.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 08:19:40 PM by Sangheon » Logged
Bill Ed
Guest
« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2016, 07:35:00 PM »

Sangheon,

I hope you're enjoying the disc as much as I am.

My first impression was based on my selecting (by default) the multi-channel disc layer but outputting to only the two front speakers. I guess I was hearing only two of the 4 channels, and the results were disappointing, to say the least. For the most part I now listen to the multi-channel "mix", or whatever we should call it, with 4 speakers in play. It's easily one of the best quad mixes I've ever heard. So if you are set up for surround sound, make sure to listen to the multi-channel layer. And if you listen using two speakers, please avoid my mistake by choosing the the 2-channel layer on the disc.
Logged
sparkydog1725
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 82



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2016, 03:55:40 PM »

Here is a screenshot of the new Sunflower SACD on my system*. It just arrived this afternoon. This is the oddest authoring on a SACD I've ever seen. It is being fed direct with six analogue inputs into my Yamaha receiver, no digital or HDMI inputs in use, no Dolby or other decoding is in use. I'm getting discrete multichannel, no ambience, matrix, Dolby Pro Logic or DTS decoding. The 2fer Sunflower/Surf's Up CD does not do anything like it. WTF. By the way, it sounds really good. Can't wait to hear Surf's Up.
 


*Pioneer Elite DV-79AVi, Yamaha DV-S5860, Polk Audio Monitor 40 Bookshelf Speakers, CSR center channel, Monitor 30 surrounds & PSW10 10" Powered Subwoofer. The Pioneer player defaults to the multichannel layer on SACDs.


Here's how the Summer days SACD defaults:


 
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 04:07:24 PM by sparkydog1725 » Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2016, 11:00:37 AM »

My first impression was based on my selecting (by default) the multi-channel disc layer but outputting to only the two front speakers. I guess I was hearing only two of the 4 channels, and the results were disappointing, to say the least. For the most part I now listen to the multi-channel "mix", or whatever we should call it, with 4 speakers in play. It's easily one of the best quad mixes I've ever heard. So if you are set up for surround sound, make sure to listen to the multi-channel layer. And if you listen using two speakers, please avoid my mistake by choosing the the 2-channel layer on the disc.
COMMENT to Bill Ed.

The bottom line in listening is to enjoy what you hear. If it makes you happy – the entertainment value is high.

Let me relate a story to you.  When I had my sound research lab in Los Angeles, it was located up in the northern part of the city in the foothills. I lived there too. There was a fellow, a retired old man who, with his dog, would wonder the neighborhood with a cart full of used radios, speakers, and amplifiers of all sizes and shapes. I learned he was a retired radio repair serviceman. He must have been in his 80’s and had been collecting for a decade. Occasionally I’d give him a piece of equipment no longer needed. Over the years we became friends. I don’t know where he got all his used equipment, but his cart was always brimming with audio things. I always assumed he repaired and sold the stuff, and one day asked him how he was doing with that. To my surprise I learned he did not sell anything, rather he took it home and added it to his collection of working sound devices of all types. Fascinated, I ask if I could see his collection, which was in his home. The day of my visit I found that his home was nestled, or should I say, hidden way back off a small street, behind hedges, bushes, and up against a hill. It was an old house, kinda rundown. Going inside it had that musty smell I remember from my grandparent’s house. I was shown into a rather large room, I guess the living room. Then looking around I could not believe all the speakers, some mounted in enclosures, some just sitting by themselves I could see. There were guitar amps, clock radios, tweeters, PA speakers, and every other type of sound generating transducer you can imagine. They were everywhere, floor to ceiling, left, right, behind me, in corners, shelves, tables – every nook and cranny. An amazing sight. But not as amazing as what happened next. I ask him if this was his stereo system. But he said he didn’t thing much of stereo, instead he liked mono and told me that every one of the devices I was seeing was connected to his one turntable. I said, you mean all this stuff is one very large and elaborate sound system? Yes was the emphatic answer. Knowing in my head that this was going against every design fabric in my audio head, I was anxious to her this gathering of sonic junk. My friend pulled out an LP of symphonic pops and placed it on his old Garrard record changer, fitted with, I think, a GE pickup cartridge. Now I had been living with state-of-the-art Tannoy monitors in the lab, so this was going to be an interesting sound, I thought. But was I wow-ed! It wasn’t anything like I was expecting to hear. In fact it wasn’t anything like I had ever heard, or have heard since. The sound was certainly open, and spacious – what with all those separate sources, each with its own sound tonality. Yet it was surprisingly detailed and interesting. You could direct your ear’s attention and hear whatever part of the sound you wished. In that way it was enveloping. As I listened I thought, here is a guy who could not begin to afford one of my lab speakers, and yet, his ingenuity and resourcefulness has put that refined listening experience to shame. Here was something completely different in approach and execution, but it worked and it worked just fine. I could relate to what I was hearing and could see how a person could be quite happy listing in this way. During the next few hours, I was treated to many old and wonderful songs, even some of the early 45 Beach Boy surfing hits. Those were especially enchanting, sounding anything but mono.

The point of this little story is to illustrate that in art, there is neither right nor wrong, only what you like.

If you wish to buy a re-mastered SACD and have some algorithm re-negotiate the spectral and spatial elements, it may not be anywhere near the intentions of the producer, but so what?  If it turns you on, make you sing along with the music, gets your foot tapping, and leaves you satisfied, that makes it a good listening experience.

In my present theater setup, I can call upon several (actually many) schemes that will do various things to the sound source I’m playing. I can adjust each channel’s spectral sound using graphic EQ, apply this or that matrix structure to bring out or suppress parts of the overall sound, etc. etc. But in the end, and after all my playing around, I always just like the sound of the LP with matrix resolution the best. It is the most musically satisfying to me – emphasis on “me.” Because, in the end and when all is said and done, it is ME and only ME that counts. I’m the listener. So to all the fans I say, go for whatever makes you, the listener, happy. As for me, I put forth what makes me happy in the study-videos at the link below. What you hear there is what made Carl and me happy many years ago. It set a standard, but a standard in art -- for whatever that's worth.

Good Listening,  ~Stephen W. Desper

http://swdstudyvideos.com   
Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2016, 02:29:02 PM »

My first impression was based on my selecting (by default) the multi-channel disc layer but outputting to only the two front speakers. I guess I was hearing only two of the 4 channels, and the results were disappointing, to say the least. For the most part I now listen to the multi-channel "mix", or whatever we should call it, with 4 speakers in play. It's easily one of the best quad mixes I've ever heard. So if you are set up for surround sound, make sure to listen to the multi-channel layer. And if you listen using two speakers, please avoid my mistake by choosing the the 2-channel layer on the disc.
COMMENT to Bill Ed.

The bottom line in listening is to enjoy what you hear. If it makes you happy – the entertainment value is high.

Let me relate a story to you.  When I had my sound research lab in Los Angeles, it was located up in the northern part of the city in the foothills. I lived there too. There was a fellow, a retired old man who, with his dog, would wonder the neighborhood with a cart full of used radios, speakers, and amplifiers of all sizes and shapes. I learned he was a retired radio repair serviceman. He must have been in his 80’s and had been collecting for a decade. Occasionally I’d give him a piece of equipment no longer needed. Over the years we became friends. I don’t know where he got all his used equipment, but his cart was always brimming with audio things. I always assumed he repaired and sold the stuff, and one day asked him how he was doing with that. To my surprise I learned he did not sell anything, rather he took it home and added it to his collection of working sound devices of all types. Fascinated, I ask if I could see his collection, which was in his home. The day of my visit I found that his home was nestled, or should I say, hidden way back off a small street, behind hedges, bushes, and up against a hill. It was an old house, kinda rundown. Going inside it had that musty smell I remember from my grandparent’s house. I was shown into a rather large room, I guess the living room. Then looking around I could not believe all the speakers, some mounted in enclosures, some just sitting by themselves I could see. There were guitar amps, clock radios, tweeters, PA speakers, and every other type of sound generating transducer you can imagine. They were everywhere, floor to ceiling, left, right, behind me, in corners, shelves, tables – every nook and cranny. An amazing sight. But not as amazing as what happened next. I ask him if this was his stereo system. But he said he didn’t thing much of stereo, instead he liked mono and told me that every one of the devices I was seeing was connected to his one turntable. I said, you mean all this stuff is one very large and elaborate sound system? Yes was the emphatic answer. Knowing in my head that this was going against every design fabric in my audio head, I was anxious to her this gathering of sonic junk. My friend pulled out an LP of symphonic pops and placed it on his old Garrard record changer, fitted with, I think, a GE pickup cartridge. Now I had been living with state-of-the-art Tannoy monitors in the lab, so this was going to be an interesting sound, I thought. But was I wow-ed! It wasn’t anything like I was expecting to hear. In fact it wasn’t anything like I had ever heard, or have heard since. The sound was certainly open, and spacious – what with all those separate sources, each with its own sound tonality. Yet it was surprisingly detailed and interesting. You could direct your ear’s attention and hear whatever part of the sound you wished. In that way it was enveloping. As I listened I thought, here is a guy who could not begin to afford one of my lab speakers, and yet, his ingenuity and resourcefulness has put that refined listening experience to shame. Here was something completely different in approach and execution, but it worked and it worked just fine. I could relate to what I was hearing and could see how a person could be quite happy listing in this way. During the next few hours, I was treated to many old and wonderful songs, even some of the early 45 Beach Boy surfing hits. Those were especially enchanting, sounding anything but mono.

The point of this little story is to illustrate that in art, there is neither right nor wrong, only what you like.

If you wish to buy a re-mastered SACD and have some algorithm re-negotiate the spectral and spatial elements, it may not be anywhere near the intentions of the producer, but so what?  If it turns you on, make you sing along with the music, gets your foot tapping, and leaves you satisfied, that makes it a good listening experience.

In my present theater setup, I can call upon several (actually many) schemes that will do various things to the sound source I’m playing. I can adjust each channel’s spectral sound using graphic EQ, apply this or that matrix structure to bring out or suppress parts of the overall sound, etc. etc. But in the end, and after all my playing around, I always just like the sound of the LP with matrix resolution the best. It is the most musically satisfying to me – emphasis on “me.” Because, in the end and when all is said and done, it is ME and only ME that counts. I’m the listener. So to all the fans I say, go for whatever makes you, the listener, happy. As for me, I put forth what makes me happy in the study-videos at the link below. What you hear there is what made Carl and me happy many years ago. It set a standard, but a standard in art -- for whatever that's worth.

Good Listening,  ~Stephen W. Desper

http://swdstudyvideos.com   


This is a great post - Thank you.
Logged

Bill Ed
Guest
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2016, 09:05:27 PM »

Mr. Desper,

Thanks for the great story. You make your point well, and diplomatically.

In fairness to those involved with the SACD, I want to point out that they apparently took pains to capture the sound of the lp, as the general public has been hearing it, on the 2-channel layers of the disc. The inclusion of the quad mix on the SACD is not even advertised.  So I think of the quad disc as a bonus. Mr. Linnett has on prior occasion stressed that in presenting things in a new format (stereo vs. mono, at the time) he was not attempting to better his predecessors' work. My guess is that is still his philosophy.

Over the last few years I have bought several SACD's containing vintage quad mixes. The results have frequently been disappointing for me. But the quad mix on the Sunflower disc, to my ears, does justice to your excellent work as the recording engineer.

So far I have only been able to listen to the "original intent" album over computer speakers. I intend to borrow a laptop from a friend this week and listen to it properly through my sound system.
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2016, 06:14:52 AM »

Mr. Desper,

Thanks for the great story. You make your point well, and diplomatically.

In fairness to those involved with the SACD, I want to point out that they apparently took pains to capture the sound of the lp, as the general public has been hearing it, on the 2-channel layers of the disc. The inclusion of the quad mix on the SACD is not even advertised.  So I think of the quad disc as a bonus. Mr. Linnett has on prior occasion stressed that in presenting things in a new format (stereo vs. mono, at the time) he was not attempting to better his predecessors' work. My guess is that is still his philosophy.

Over the last few years I have bought several SACD's containing vintage quad mixes. The results have frequently been disappointing for me. But the quad mix on the Sunflower disc, to my ears, does justice to your excellent work as the recording engineer.

So far I have only been able to listen to the "original intent" album over computer speakers. I intend to borrow a laptop from a friend this week and listen to it properly through my sound system.

COMMENT to Bill Ed:  As I have posted over and over, there is no quad mix for Sunflower and you can't re-mix it because so many tracks were re-amped at the time of mixdown. That means all the sounds are not (not) on the multi-track, only (only) on the two-track master. Someone ask engineer Mark if SF was a re-mix or re-master to which he responded in the latter. If you want the complete album sound it's only on the two-track stereo master. Imbedded therein are also the virtual matrix cues. Those can be properly resolved by the matrix as heard on the study-video or improperly, sloppily, or approximately resolved by the algorithm within your playback device.

Since you say you need to borrow a laptop from a friend to hear "the original intent" or as it says in the book, "The Definitive Sunflower," I assume this is because your computer is not in the same room as your stereo player. Let me point out that you could also invest in a long cable to take the output from the same jack that your computer speakers are plugged into, over to your stereo system as a analog signal. Alternately, if you are borrowing a laptop with an HDMI port, you can take that digital signal directly into a modern receiver that has HDMI input ports for a better sound. Alternately, and as some folks are doing, you can make a CD copy of the various offerings on the study-videos for your collection. Unfortunately, I can't offer anything like that due to copyright laws. But as a private person you can make copies. Look for a button on page three of my website for instructions on making copies.

I would urge you to avail yourself of the other offerings at http://swdstudyvideos.com while you have the laptop connected. There are some great versions of Beach Boy songs, including many "Surfing Hits" and the album "Friends." We are working right now on editing and rendering part two of the book that deals with the making of Surf's Up.
~swd
Logged
Dirtyfaz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2016, 08:29:37 PM »

There may not have been a quad mix of Sunflower or Surfs Up but my OPPO player with the SACD set to multi channel sure pulls out a lot of rear channel information.
Logged
king of anglia
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 248



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: August 02, 2016, 04:48:07 AM »

Can anyone give some examples of what's happening in the surround channels?
Logged
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2132


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: August 02, 2016, 06:20:17 AM »

I'm not that familiar with the "authoring" of CD's and SACD's but if there is a separate authored multi-channel area, wouldn't that imply that someone has run the two track master through a multichannel decoder (an EV-4 I believe was what was intended for the matrix decoding of Sunflower) in order to get the four channels separate, and then included those on the SACD?  So that it's not just the receiver creating a multichannel mix from the information coded in the two channel mix, it is a separate discrete multichannel mix?
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 02, 2016, 06:59:00 PM »

I'm not that familiar with the "authoring" of CD's and SACD's but if there is a separate authored multi-channel area, wouldn't that imply that someone has run the two track master through a multichannel decoder (an EV-4 I believe was what was intended for the matrix decoding of Sunflower) in order to get the four channels separate, and then included those on the SACD?  So that it's not just the receiver creating a multichannel mix from the information coded in the two channel mix, it is a separate discrete multichannel mix?

COMMENT TO Bicyclerider:  Where did you get the idea that EV-4 was involved with Sunflower? Sorry, but you are very wrong.  The Sunflower "matrix" is based on microphone arrays that produce x-y-z coordinates. EV-4 is a circuit producing x-y coordinates. The EV-4 scheme is shifted by 90 degrees from the "matrix " of Sunflower. Further, EV-4 is based in physcoacoustics whereas the "matrix" utilizes neuroplasticity concepts. One has nothing to do with the other. As I explained in an earlier post, you are hearing the Dolby algorithm's reaction to the unresolved cues embedded in the dimensional matrix of Sunflower. It's part of the Dolby chip set, required if you wish to manufacture a player that can decipher patented Dolby encoded sound tracks -- which is about every movie. It is not any accurate resolution, but if you like what you hear ... go for it.  The correct or preferred rendition can be found at the link below. Go to page 3, "Sunflower" button.   ~swd
http://swdstudyvideos.com
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 07:05:16 PM by Stephen W. Desper » Logged
lukpac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: August 03, 2016, 11:01:15 AM »

COMMENT TO Bicyclerider:  Where did you get the idea that EV-4 was involved with Sunflower? Sorry, but you are very wrong.  The Sunflower "matrix" is based on microphone arrays that produce x-y-z coordinates. EV-4 is a circuit producing x-y coordinates. The EV-4 scheme is shifted by 90 degrees from the "matrix " of Sunflower. Further, EV-4 is based in physcoacoustics whereas the "matrix" utilizes neuroplasticity concepts. One has nothing to do with the other. As I explained in an earlier post, you are hearing the Dolby algorithm's reaction to the unresolved cues embedded in the dimensional matrix of Sunflower. It's part of the Dolby chip set, required if you wish to manufacture a player that can decipher patented Dolby encoded sound tracks -- which is about every movie. It is not any accurate resolution, but if you like what you hear ... go for it.  The correct or preferred rendition can be found at the link below. Go to page 3, "Sunflower" button.   ~swd
http://swdstudyvideos.com

What is being discussed has nothing to do with running a stereo mix on CD or SACD through a Dolby decoder in a player or receiver. The 4 channel audio exists on the multichannel layer of the SACD. That is being reproduced as-is on people's systems.

It's unclear how the multichannel layer on the SACD was created, but it certainly has nothing to do with what's in people's homes.
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2016, 08:41:25 PM »

Quote
What is being discussed has nothing to do with running a stereo mix on CD or SACD through a Dolby decoder in a player or receiver. The 4 channel audio exists on the multichannel layer of the SACD. That is being reproduced as-is on people's systems.

It's unclear how the multichannel layer on the SACD was created, but it certainly has nothing to do with what's in people's homes.

COMMENT:  Something is wrong -- not you, but the situation.    ...Stand-by.  ~swd
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 05, 2016, 07:15:03 AM »

Quote
What is being discussed has nothing to do with running a stereo mix on CD or SACD through a Dolby decoder in a player or receiver. The 4 channel audio exists on the multichannel layer of the SACD. That is being reproduced as-is on people's systems.

It's unclear how the multichannel layer on the SACD was created, but it certainly has nothing to do with what's in people's homes.

COMMENT:  Something is wrong -- not you, but the situation.    ...Stand-by.  ~swd

COMMENT to SACD users:  There should only be information or data on the two front channels. These represent the sound present on the Two-Track Master that was supplied to the SACD manufacturers.

Here is a quote from an email to Alan Boyd concerning why the rear channels have audio.

"I have no idea - and neither does Mark, or anyone at Capitol. The folks at Analogue Productions who licensed the albums from Capitol weren't authorized by Capitol / UMe to release anything other than previously released stereo and mono mixes (where applicable) and in fact I've been told they were expressly forbidden to do otherwise. They certainly didn't have access to any of the multitracks." Mark and I have "only been involved as consultants on these new releases, and we were never informed about any plans to create or include multi channel "mixes."  I had a meeting with one of the executives at Capitol a few days ago and I brought this up, and it turns out they knew nothing about it. I've asked if someone there could at least look into it, pop it into a player, and let us know just what's on there. But they're so understaffed it could take awhile.

So, if the folks at Analogue Productions followed the terms of their contract, what you are hearing is a function of the Dolby Chipset.  However, if the folks at Analogue Productions created new back channel mixes, they are in trouble and what is on the SACD is not representing the Sunflower master in any way.

We shall see. I'll keep you posted...
   ~swd

Logged
king of anglia
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 248



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 05, 2016, 09:10:33 AM »

Lots of confusion here. As far as I know, this release contains:

- A stereo version - taken from the Two-Track Master
- A discrete four channel surround version - taken from a decoded version of the Two-Track Master

No one knows which method AP used to decode the 2-track into 4 channels. It sounds like it's a different method than a standard Dolby surround. Perhaps they got hold of one your matrix devices Steve.

In any case, this is not a new multi-channel mix. It is a decoded version of the Two-Track Master that was supplied to the SACD manufacturers.

Does that count as "releasing anything other than previously released stereo and mono mixes"? All they've done is decode the previously released stereo mix.

I'd sure like to hear this SACD myself.

« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 09:14:42 AM by king of anglia » Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.52 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!