gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680600 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 05:20:13 AM
*
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 23519 times)
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: August 08, 2016, 04:07:28 PM »

Interesting Stephen - I've heard some prefer DVD-audio to SACD as well for 2 channel.  Have you explored the new digital format, MQS (master quality sound - I'm sure you would take issue with that name!) that does lossless encodes in smaller digital files and then decodes them in 24/194? The different digital encoding/decoding supposedly removes the major sources of "digititis" or digital artifacts in the sound.

COMMENT to Bicyclerider:  I have downloaded and heard. You can do all the upscaling or downscaling you wish. If you like the sound -- go for it. I like analog sound because it seems to be more musical to my ears. Is that because the waveform is complete and not full of holes, I don't know for certain. Ask yourself, what standard is used to ascertain the quality of a digital resolution. If you answer analog, you are correct. Many of the digital schemes or formats try to come as close as possible to analog, but in the final analysis, only come close. Analog is complete, digital is sampled. ~swd
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 08, 2016, 04:27:22 PM »


However, I believe what you will find at my website is as close to the standard set by the producer as you will get. The only thing closer is to play the master tape through the matrix and listen over tube equipment. Unless you come to my house and listen to the LP through the matrix over tube equipment, you will have to settle for what is offered at my website. [/size] ~swd


Stephen, how close would I come to replicating the sonic presentation of Sunflower heard through your matrix device as it exists in it's current form today, when using the 360Surround matrix decoder I received when I purchased your original Recording the Beach Boys book back in 2002?

How about listening utilizing your consumer level Spatializer circuit or your pro Spatializer device?

Also, considering how technology has advanced over the years, how would you characterize the psychoacoustic sound and capabilities of the matrix device you would have used to encode Sunflower on LP back in 1970, compared to your modern matrix device?


COMMENT to Custom Machine:  Rather than address each of your questions, I would ask you to read a response I posted over at the Steve Hoffman discussion site.  I think it will answer your questions.  Here it is:


COMMENT: (In Two Parts -- PART ONE)

By the way my website,     http://swdstudyvideos.com was compromised due to some problem they are having at ipage.com, the people who support the webpage. Somehow an older version of the website became published, which is why some of you cannot access part one of my book (the recording of Sunflower). Been on the phone all morning to correct. I think the website is now working with the “Sunflower” button connecting to Vimeo. Use passcode #1.

 I have read all of your discussion posts about this madness and, if you will indulge me a rather long post, I’ll try to bring some understanding to the situation.

There seems to be some confusion about the terms used here.

 The term “matrix” has several definitions. There is the LP matrix, which refers to the master Acetate disk from which all pressings are made along with the mother, stamper etc. I usually refer to that as the “LP matrix.”

With the advent of quadraphonic sound, the term “matrix” was coined to describe various schemes based on circuitry used to encode 4-channel discrete signals onto the LP V-Groove, which is a two-channel signal.

 When Dolby came onto the scene they took the old quadraphonic schemes, shifted the math 90 degrees, so that the matrix (so-called) for quad of left-right-left rear-right rear, with speakers placed at the four corners of the sound field, became left-center-right-rear, with speakers now placed left/right/center/rear. The surround signal was mono with all rear speakers the listener, but created a center channel. The main objective of Dolby was to provide a stable center channel for dialog in movie sound tracks. Later as various schemes were developed, discrete rear channels were incorporated so that stereo rear channels were possible.

 Today it is common-place to buy a movie soundtrack as 5.1 or 7.1 with all channels discrete, that is, not in a matrix.

 When I recorded Sunflower and was the Beach Boys' engineer, I had a studio to my own, with all the funding, time, talent and equipment I wanted. That was around fifty years ago. Quadraphonic sound would not be invented for several years. I became fascinated with psychoacoustics, but while studying that topic I realized the real reasons for sound doing what it does lies in the brain and brain function. So I began to study neurology with respect to recording stereo and found that microphone arrays were the key to making sound appear to originate outside the normal sound stage. I found that I could get sounds, voices, instrument, effects to image out in the sound field or beyond the two stereo speakers and in some cases, image over your shoulder, and even to behind you. Not all types of sounds could image at all locations, but with practice I identified which types of sound did best to image forward of the speakers, or beyond the two speakers.

 After some time I also developed circuits that created a matrix that could accomplish almost the same effect. Now remember that we are reproducing stereo over two speakers, that was the standard of the day – and in many cases is still the standard today from FM radio, CD’s, LP’s and cassettes.

 I found that I could capture three-dimensional space using just microphone arrays of three or five microphones, matrixed into two channels. The connection of the three or five mics to two channels was done via an electronic circuit, but their inner relationships was acoustic. At first I used transformers connected in a way that generated a matrix, but soon developed circuits to do the same.

 The microphones captured audio in an acoustically related way that can only be achieved through the use of arrays. This generates an x-y-z lattice. In other cases I used circuits to produce an x-y lattice, with the z coordinate being synthetically derived.

 In order to overcome the limitations of stereophonic reproduction over two speakers, I developed a matrix that would generate a sound field in reproduction that today we would call, virtual surround. Back all those years ago, I called it a matrix sound. In today’s language this can cause some confusion.

 You see, your ears and brain were designed to perceive an environment that caressed you with a plethora of sounds encircling 360 degrees to all sides, above and beneath. But note: every sound came from one single source that had a given direction, physical size and distance, all useful to primitive man whether protecting or providing. Your brain evolved to process life's ocean of sounds — what's approaching, what's moving, what's large or small — to save you from harm. The brain was designed for survival — flight or fight — not for entertainment. The fact is . . . the brain has not changed, and how could it? Your body’s ear/brain system has been the same for 60 million years. Around 60 years ago, stereophonic sound reproduction entered into commercial entertainment. Unlike the single-point and constantly varying sound sources of our evolutionary history, entertainment stereo propagates from two widely separated, but stationary sound sources. By using differing signals, two loudspeakers create imagery that seems to emanate mostly between the two sources – an artificial representation of life. Because your brain is not formatted to accurately extract the information from a stereo sound field, it is represented to you as less-then-lifelike. The matrix resolves that limitation by tailoring what you hear from your stereo system so it's compatible with the brain's cognitive methods.

 The design philosophy of the “matrix” is based upon a neural processing model. It is not an HRTF device, nor does it use DTF, IACC or PCA functions or formulas. The bases of the design rests on “perceptual Precedence” as a means of biasing the brain’s auditory spatial perception. Perceptual precedence is a reflex action wherein the mind is nudged to realize an entire auditory pattern by presentation of partial information only, similar to our ability to recognize familiar shapes even if most of the shape may be blocked from view.

 These techniques are based on an understanding of labeled line code, discharge patterns of rapidly and slowly receptor adaptation encoding and frequency and population codes, etc. used by the brain to overcome its big problem, latencies of action-potentials as each synaptic connection is made to the next level of neural processing.

 I realize these are not topics or terms familiar to the average recording engineer, but if you really want to understand how recording and reproduction function, you have to move past sound as something in the air (psychoacoustics). There is no sound, as such, anywhere in reality. In reality all there is is movement of molecules and changes in barometric pressure. Sound becomes meaningful or even identifiable only in the brain. Sound, or what we call “sound” is only a concept. Like music, it is a brain function. An orchestra does not produce sound or music; all it does is move molecules around in the air. By way of brain activity a dog hears the sound of the orchestra and by why of higher brain functions, a human hears the music of an orchestra.
 Science calls this "Conceptual Image Space (from a paper at JPL), which basically states that all perceived reality takes place between our ears, not in the external model that is presented to us as humans. Thus, the reality each of us perceives is unique, personal, and is a representation of reality, not reality itself. You can see how this plays into the recording of sound. The engineer is not capturing sound, rather is ultimately compelling the brain to process the undulations of the two speaker cones in an way that will convince the brain of a produced reality.

 So it all comes back to the human brain. Using applied neuralplasticity the matrix I developed causes new neural pathways to grow, which bring the added dimensions to stereo perception by the brain. This is not like the matrixes used today that are based on psychoacoustics. Those are based on sound as reality in air, whereas neuralplasticity uses the brain as a processor.

 Having said that, Sunflower and all the stuff I recorded for The Beach Boys has within its two channels, a matrix that is musically compatible with regular stereo. That is, all the inter-balance and relationships of elements within the mix offer a compatible listening experience if reproduced in stereo. If however, the matrix is resolved the sound field is expanded and will image well beyond the stereo speakers, in front of them, and in some cases to the rear. This is similar to surround sound but is not the same.

 Today’s surround sound is a perimeter surround. That is, real speakers are placed about the edge of the sound field and create a sound around you, which you hear with your two ears. The matrix used in Sunflower, etc. creates sound around you and also within the sound field using your two ears and your brain as a processor. Under controlled listening conditions, you cannot tell the virtual experience from the real experience. In fact, because the virtual system is based on spectral time shifts rather than amplitude changes, the virtual system can also steer sounds to points within the sound field. Thus, rather than hearing sound around you, the virtual can place violins in front of horns, or the lead singer forward of the group. You can’t do that with multiple speakers, only with two speakers. Two ears; two speakers. Multiple speaker surround sound is very good and works over a large listening area (such as a cinema), but using many speakers in a smaller room can confuse the image with its multiple sound sources all speaking at once. Virtual surround is limited to one or two listeners, but if in the “sweet spot” can mimic the envelopment of the speaker-surround format.

 PART TWO FOLLOWS . . .

COMMENT: PART TWO

As I said, this concept (later to be patented internationally) was thought up when state-of-the-art was the 12 inch LP. The mixes made on Sunflower, etc., where done with NO consideration of anything like a four-discrete-track future release. These mixes are not conceived for reproduction over a multiple speaker surround system. The matrix is meant to be heard over two stereo speakers only. That is the sound the producer has set as a standard.

I will be the first to agree that there is no right nor wrong in art; only preferences. But if the art form is supported by science, then a standard must be applied that represents the producer’s intentions with respect to the science. In this case, the standard is by listening in virtual surround over two speakers.

To make a musically compatible stereo version of the matrixed version, we mixed down while monitoring (listening) through the matrix (resolved), but recording without. The “without” is the stereo version. To get the virtual surround sensation the stereo must be resolved through the matrix. Remember, I was the engineer for a huge group, their market is the stereo LP. So if I’m using an advanced idea, in the end it must become an LP vinyl record. Knowing this, I cut hundreds of Acetates as recording of the songs advanced, correcting many problems. Together with Brian Ingoldsby of Sound Master Studios and using his lathe, we worked out the geometry and ballistics of how to get the cutting stylus to cut a groove that the average consumer could trace. It required the change of two parameters on the cutting lathe. Now I’ve already cut a matrixed version of Sunflower onto an LP using Brian’s lathe. It plays on all varieties of players, poor and great. I played parts of the record for the cutting engineers at Warner. They were impressed with the sound, but not willing to re-adjust the lathe. Even when presented with concrete (or acetate) proof, looking at it through the microscope and the results on the scope – shaking their heads NO, impossible. But yet there it is in the looking glass and being played on their record-player. So we fell back on the master without resolution that is musically compatible with the matrix version. That became what has always been issued; remastered, yes, but always the two-track stereo. When I left the Beach Boys to move on with Zappa, the matrix and the entire studio was discarded as a new console and engineer moved in.

Some years ago I decided to rebuild the matrix and started listening, refineing the design as time let me. No one at Capitol, Warner’s and BRI has shown interest in releasing a matrixed version of Sunflower – even after demonstrations – claiming that other versions would confuse the puplic. When digital came along, I tried to get matrixed versions released – now completely mechanically compatible. But "stay the course" was always the answer.

Finally, I decided to decode many songs that have never been heard that way, doing it under the educational aspects of the copyright law. Only the diehard Beach Boy fan is going to care about listening this way so I provided a playback of the original mastering done with Carl’s (acting producer) and my approval, resolved through the matrix, the one I built to use back then. How much more original do you need. The original mastering, done the way we heard it at playback. To me that is the standard.

By way of a need for education on this subject, you can hear the original intention of the producer at the time of mixdown, by going to my (now working) webpage, and at page 3, click on the “Recording The Beach Boys – part one (Sunflower” button. There you can read part one of the book and hear the album in virtual surround or whatever you wish to call it.

What makes me mad is that after no one was interested in making the virtual surround version available to the public, Capitol licenses all the Beach Boy catalog to AP with the express stipulation not to change or modify, or re-mix anything.

So out of ignorance and arrogance, AP takes it upon themselves to apply a matrix for speaker surround to the virtual surround lattes. To make matters worse, they use a matrix designed for quadraphonic record playback, not recording, is 90 degrees shifted, and intended for four discrete channels as the source. My matrix uses x-y-z coordinance. They used x-y coordinance.

You bet I am mad. I tried over the years, decades, to get the record companies to embrace, what has come to be termed 3D Sound, the Beach Boys would be the first group to offer such a sound, and on a record, but no. Now AP misses the mark entirely, screws up the matrix, makes changes to the standard, and disrespects the terms of their contract (as I understand it).

And it pisses me off that after so much work was put into recording the virtual experience, getting it to cut to an LP, and to be compatible for broadcasting, to have it butchered so openly, is an offence to me and to the memory of Carl Wilson. AS I’ve always said, it’s the music business – emphasis on business. If there’s a buck to be made, they’ll do it. It is such a shame that the original intension of the producer was shoved aside by engineers who have no idea what they are doing. And then shoved onto an unsuspecting audience.

After all, my engineering efforts have been demonstrated to work. Professional Spatializer with its 24 joysticks, was/is used by Warner Pictures (Spelburg used it) MGM, Hans Zimmer bought three, NBC, many major studios domestic and foreign, the Olympic committee bought 11 units broadcasting virtual surround to 2-Billion people, Michael Jackson even put a song on an LP via HIStory. Then the commercial offering of an IC sold over 60 million channels of virtual surround (called 3D Sound). So the concept is well proven. With the advent of 5.1 surround and surround-sound-in-a-box, consumers liked getting real speakers rather than virtual ones and could relate to that. Soon so-called 3D sound was gone.

AP did not do their homework. They should have made a connection between the guy who engineered these albums and his company that made matrixes. After all, my devices, equipment and albums are known. I have written numerous articles and been reviewed and analyzed in the press. The Spatializer product came after The Beach Boy recordings and is more refined, but the Sunflower matrix is based on microphone arrays whereas the chip is not. At least AP could have tried something virtual or contacted me for consultation, or something other than just blindly venturing into a field they evidently know little about. Talk about confusing the public. AP is doing it royally, through misrepresentation. I wonder if they understand how a matrix works? Or does just any ol, one work.

If you disregard the standards of science as an art form, then the bottom line in listening is to enjoy what you hear. If it makes you happy – the entertainment value is high, money will be made, and the hell with the artist.

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 in the area too. There was a fellow, a retired frail 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 think 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 hear 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 mono 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 wrong algorithm re-negotiate the spectral and spatial elements, so that it is no longer near the intentions of the producer, go ahead? If it turns you on, makes you sing along with the music, gets your foot tapping, and leaves you satisfied, that makes it a good listening experience. Or if you just like to collect things, spend your money. I think what you get is the most expensive bootleg of all times. Bootleg because it wasn’t authorized, screws up the sound, and is not what the producer intended to be released, and is sold for profit.

You know the Beach Boy organization paid me a lot of money to keep them at state-of-the-art. Then they sat on the technology until finally releasing it through a bungling mastering house. Now the product Sunflower, etc., is officially released with the wrong matrix in place. This is worse than releasing it, just in Stereo.

For Carl and the rest of the Beach Boys and myself, at the time of release, the sound we liked and set as a standard can be heard at my website, that is, if you are interested from an education aspect in the history of this album, in words and sounds. I suppose you could compare it to the SACD version, but that does not change the original intensions of the artist, as does this latest issue. Not only does the SACD multi-channel change the sound concept of the album(s), but invents tracks that were never there and were never suppose to be there.

If you’re still reading, thanks. I hope I have clarified some of the issues.

Good Listening,[/size] ~Stephen W. Desper
« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 04:34:02 PM by Stephen W. Desper » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #77 on: August 08, 2016, 04:58:54 PM »

This is a terrific discussion. Thank you for all the info!

I just wanted to add a few points on some issues that came up. Regarding the ability of audiophiles to distinguish between various cables and whatnot, I guess if it keeps them happy in their listening pursuits, then that's one thing.

But what is does do is keep the cable manufacturers and those who market and advertise for them in some serious green. I would love to see more "double blind" tests where various high-priced cables, connectors, etc are compared under strict controlled environments and get the results.

I say this because 30 years ago or so, pre-internet, the guitar magazines had stories about one guitarist who claimed to be able to tell the difference between brands of 9V batteries that powered his effects pedals. I'll leave him unnamed and basically leave that claim at that. But I will say...really?

The guitar accessories market is literally a jungle. I know what demographic they sell to, and to put it bluntly, it's more about disposable income than it is about the music. If they can find a way to sell a coiled 1/4" guitar cable as "vintage" and promote the "classic" sound of th3 coiled cables versus regular cables, then that's what they're paid to do. But to a guy playing classic rock covers in a bar or at a wedding, if using a coiled cable versus a straight cable makes a bit of difference in what the audience hears or pays to see...I'll admit I don't see the point. But if the bar band guy with the $3,995 Les Paul and boutique tube amp that's not a Fender, Marshall, Vox, or Boogie but is trying to "improve" those tones wants to drop 60 bucks on a coiled cable for a classic sound...it's his money.

There are so many variables to hearing and perceiving audio from the physics and acoustics of the room to the position of the listener's ears in relation to the sound source that a consumer who claims to be able to notice which speaker cables or wiring is being used seems a bit overboard. But it sells product.

I wonder if Duracell or Eveready 9V batteries sounded better in an old Phase 90.  Smiley
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2132


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: August 08, 2016, 05:56:21 PM »

Then there's the market for "power conditioners" because the electricity provided to your house is dirty with extraneous surges and noise that affect the sound, and your power cord, and the antivibration pads to put under all your electronics.  Many claim that listening to a streaming 16 bit recording through your computer sounds better than the original CD - it avoids reading and clocking errors I think is the proposed explanation.

Audiophiles are always coming up with tweaks to improve the sound, and many convince themselves they hear a difference.  I truly believe some of these things make a marginal difference that only a brain with the right psychoacoustics, to borrow Stephen's phrase, can detect.  All are dwarfed by the quality of the mastering of the record or CD, including Rez vs. hi Rez, and also dwarfed by the quality of the speakers, source player, and electronics IMO.
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #79 on: August 08, 2016, 06:32:29 PM »

This is a terrific discussion. Thank you for all the info!

I just wanted to add a few points on some issues that came up. Regarding the ability of audiophiles to distinguish between various cables and whatnot, I guess if it keeps them happy in their listening pursuits, then that's one thing.

But what is does do is keep the cable manufacturers and those who market and advertise for them in some serious green. I would love to see more "double blind" tests where various high-priced cables, connectors, etc are compared under strict controlled environments and get the results.

I say this because 30 years ago or so, pre-internet, the guitar magazines had stories about one guitarist who claimed to be able to tell the difference between brands of 9V batteries that powered his effects pedals. I'll leave him unnamed and basically leave that claim at that. But I will say...really?

The guitar accessories market is literally a jungle. I know what demographic they sell to, and to put it bluntly, it's more about disposable income than it is about the music. If they can find a way to sell a coiled 1/4" guitar cable as "vintage" and promote the "classic" sound of th3 coiled cables versus regular cables, then that's what they're paid to do. But to a guy playing classic rock covers in a bar or at a wedding, if using a coiled cable versus a straight cable makes a bit of difference in what the audience hears or pays to see...I'll admit I don't see the point. But if the bar band guy with the $3,995 Les Paul and boutique tube amp that's not a Fender, Marshall, Vox, or Boogie but is trying to "improve" those tones wants to drop 60 bucks on a coiled cable for a classic sound...it's his money.

There are so many variables to hearing and perceiving audio from the physics and acoustics of the room to the position of the listener's ears in relation to the sound source that a consumer who claims to be able to notice which speaker cables or wiring is being used seems a bit overboard. But it sells product.

I wonder if Duracell or Eveready 9V batteries sounded better in an old Phase 90.  Smiley

COMMENT:  Here's the thing about fancy cables, some of which sell for $1,000 a foot. It's not that one cable is superior to another, rather the cables should be viewed as part of the entire system's sound. Cables, all cables, even $1,000/ft. cables interact with the components at each end. So, if you judge a cable where the input interface or inter-reaction is low, the cable sounds neutral. If the capacitance is low, the cable may sound like it lets more high-end through or may sound clearer. But if you take the same cable and connect it between other equipment, it may react differently. So cable, is a passive, but interacts with active components. Cables must be viewed as a part of the system. There is no accurate or perfect cable.
Even a simple guitar cord can "flavor" the sound of the instrument / headamp-speaker combination. Stick with basic engineering principles, not subjective reviews. If you intend to buy some "designer" cables, be certain that the seller will let you experiment ON YOUR SYSTEM with different brands. Have listening sessions. Sometimes the cheaper brands do better with certain components. Otherwise, it is fun to read all the hype about cable construction and theory. I have one audiophile friend who invested in little stands that elevate his cables off the floor. Something to do with the ground makes elevation the key to better cable sound. AND, not only elevating, but for only $50 each you can buy, not the plastic, but the carved oak elevators. Those seem to sound best.
You see some crazy stuff, but, someone buys it. ~swd   
~swd
Logged
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #80 on: August 12, 2016, 09:25:22 AM »

Interesting - back in the early days of CD reissues, the label "Digitally remastered from the original master tapes" was supposed to signify a superior product, in that the first-generation "flat" mono or stereo mixdown tape was used, rather than a subsequent EQ'd-and-limited LP "production master", because the whole point of the latter was supposed to be a tape that was modified specifically for the limitations of the LP medium (or, worse, the cassette or 8-track mediums), usually with lots of bottom-end filtered out to prevent the stylus from jumping. Going back to the first-generation mixdown tape was supposed to result in the optimal listening experience, in all its full-dimensional glory. Now, what we're seeing (at least in terms of early '70s Beach Boys productions - including the '72 mastering of Pet Sounds) is a gravitation towards the artist-approved second-generation LP production master, as it is now viewed as the final step in the album's official preparation.
Logged
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2132


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: August 12, 2016, 05:34:31 PM »

My impression is that artists were more concerned with approving the first generation master tape - that is what they hear back in the studio after mixing as their "final product."  They assume the sound of the master they approve, or the producer approves, will be duplicated as faithfully as possible on vinyl.  Then the cutting engineer comes in and does what he/she thinks they need to do to make the LP playable and defect free, shaving bass, compressing dynamic range, etc., even though as Stephen has stated all that is not really necessary, but it was record company policy, and the artist/producer may or may not like the end result.  George Harrison was horrified when he heard the vinyl test pressings of the US white album and he supervised the re EQing of the tapes.

I think it was rare that the artist and producer took such an interest in the LP production master as Carl and Stephen did, right down to how the album was cut.  Most artists left all that stuff to the record company - like the Stones and Dylan did, for example. 
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #82 on: August 13, 2016, 10:02:30 PM »

Interesting - back in the early days of CD reissues, the label "Digitally remastered from the original master tapes" was supposed to signify a superior product, in that the first-generation "flat" mono or stereo mixdown tape was used, rather than a subsequent EQ'd-and-limited LP "production master", because the whole point of the latter was supposed to be a tape that was modified specifically for the limitations of the LP medium (or, worse, the cassette or 8-track mediums), usually with lots of bottom-end filtered out to prevent the stylus from jumping. Going back to the first-generation mixdown tape was supposed to result in the optimal listening experience, in all its full-dimensional glory. Now, what we're seeing (at least in terms of early '70s Beach Boys productions - including the '72 mastering of Pet Sounds) is a gravitation towards the artist-approved second-generation LP production master, as it is now viewed as the final step in the album's official preparation.

COMMENT to c-man:  Allow me to add to the points you make above.  The Music Business.  Always remember it is a business.

The source of the LP is a magnetic tape. The LP can copy everything the tape can offer. The CD can copy everything the tape can offer. Magnetic Tape is the weakest link from microphone to loudspeaker. These tape copies marked "LP Master" contained all the last minute tweaks, for EQ, level, limiting, bass blending, de-essing, etc. the artist may request and certainly approves. The stigma comes from "LP" being in the name. If this final mastering tape had been labeled, "Final Master," there would be no stigma attached to the sound.
If you believe the sound of the release should mimic the sound that was on the original LP or 45, the CD can give you that. You don't need to redo anything. Just make a flat copy of the LP Master tape. If however, you think changing the EQ, limiting, etc., from what it was originally intended to sound like would improve the product, then re-master it. It could prove improved.
In either case the CD can handle both.

Why did Sony (the inventor of the CD) think it would replace the LP?  It was cheaper to manufacture, holds more music, doesn't cracker and pop when dirty, no surface noise, cost 7 cents to make not $.50 for the LP, and it was lighter - cheaper to mail.
When introduced, the biggest job would be to make available all the music that had already been released on LP. So if you wanted to keep your job and make money, you had to get on the CD bandwagon. One bonanza was duplicating and the excuse that the CD required re-mastering made a lot of money for mastering houses and mastering engineers. The art departments too, had to re"master" all the LP jacket art down to CD size. Lots of money was to be made.

Not that way today.  For example Capitol Records just had a press release that it will no longer be making any CDs or LPs or cassettes, after 2018. Everything will be sold as a file, on line only. No more CD's from the tower. Will everything now need to be re-mastered for streaming?

The needle only jumps out of the V-groove because of excessive vertical movement of the stylus caused by excessive out-of-phase coordinates in the signal, usually during large orchestral recordings, not popular music. This is easily removed using a blending equalizer. It will sum all signals below 100 Hz, changing the vertical movement of the stylus to lateral swing, the opposite movement to jumping out. This special EQ is applied at the lathe, not on the Master LP tape. So the solution to this problem is not on the final master tape and would not be copied onto a CD.

In short, there is no need to re-master a song unless you want to change it from the original.  ~swd   
  ~swd
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #83 on: August 13, 2016, 10:21:51 PM »

My impression is that artists were more concerned with approving the first generation master tape - that is what they hear back in the studio after mixing as their "final product."  They assume the sound of the master they approve, or the producer approves, will be duplicated as faithfully as possible on vinyl.  Then the cutting engineer comes in and does what he/she thinks they need to do to make the LP playable and defect free, shaving bass, compressing dynamic range, etc., even though as Stephen has stated all that is not really necessary, but it was record company policy, and the artist/producer may or may not like the end result.  George Harrison was horrified when he heard the vinyl test pressings of the US white album and he supervised the re EQing of the tapes.

I think it was rare that the artist and producer took such an interest in the LP production master as Carl and Stephen did, right down to how the album was cut.  Most artists left all that stuff to the record company - like the Stones and Dylan did, for example.  

COMMENT to BikeRider:  What you say is a common mis-conception. The CD is not limited by the LP. All the limiting and frequency contours have nothing to do with the medium. All the manipulation is about sales. Limiting the LP or CD makes it sound louder, when compared to other labels. Louder sounds best. Cutting the bass is not about tracking, it's about being able to play the song louder on a player with a small speaker. Compressing dynamic range is not so it fits onto the LP. The LP and the CD have 20dB MORE dynamic range than magnetic tape. Besides, pop music usually has a dynamic range of 15 dB. No challenge for the LP's 100 dB or CD's 120dB. Dynamic range is limited so that the music can be heard in places where there is noise. Even your living room has noise. Limiting dynamic range and then lifting it makes for a more "listenable" record or CD.

A good example of this can be heard on my website at the button "God Only Knows". At that study-video you can hear examples of mastering for a 45 versus an
LP.

~swd    http://swdstudyvideos.com

 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2016, 10:56:37 AM by Stephen W. Desper » Logged
sparkydog1725
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 82



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: August 18, 2016, 06:00:35 AM »

For example Capitol Records just had a press release that it will no longer be making any CDs or LPs or cassettes, after 2018. Everything will be sold as a file, on line only. No more CD's from the tower.    ~swd

Stephen, can you please elaborate on this and provide a source? Thank you.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2016, 06:45:27 AM by sparkydog1725 » Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #85 on: August 18, 2016, 08:23:08 AM »

For example Capitol Records just had a press release that it will no longer be making any CDs or LPs or cassettes, after 2018. Everything will be sold as a file, on line only. No more CD's from the tower.    ~swd

Stephen, can you please elaborate on this and provide a source? Thank you.
COMMENT to sparkydog1725:
I read a lot. Between the time I posted about Capitol and now, I've read much stuff. I can't say for certain, but I think it was in STEREOPHILE Magazine. I'll continue to try and find a reference for you. What I remember reading in the article was that Capitol has announced that after 2018 they will not be making hard copies of music. All music will be released on-line as a file.  Although the article did not say, I would assume that hard copies (CDs, LPs, Cassettes,) will be licensed to other businesses to issue. In other words, because of changing market dynamics, Capitol will cease to be a manufacturer of hard copies of music. They will farm that out and only release files of the music to be downloaded for a fee. I'll continue to search for the source.
~swd
Logged
sparkydog1725
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 82



View Profile
« Reply #86 on: August 18, 2016, 09:11:06 AM »

Thank you Stephen.
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #87 on: August 22, 2016, 06:31:51 PM »

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.
COMMENT to c-man:  I don't know what all the fuss is about, but I appreciate your detailed comments.  If you want a reference go back and play the original LP as mastered by Artisan and issued by Brother Records, Inc.  It is that simple. ~swd
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #88 on: August 22, 2016, 06:54:51 PM »

COMMENT:   I was just reading a nice comment about the study-videos. Then went back to comment on a previous post. But, when I came back to the post I was reading it disappeared from the thread. I wish it could be re-posted.

If I recall, the last part of the post that disappeared ask if there was a way to copy the study-video for a collection. AND the answer is yes. It is legal to copy the educational study-videos as long as you use it for personal use and do not make copies to sell for profit.

Look on page three, the buttons at the bottom of the page.  One of them says "how to make copies" or something similar. It will direct you to several websites that show you how to copy from Vimeo to a DVD using your computer. It's a rather simple process.
  ~swd

Logged
branaa09
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: August 23, 2016, 12:23:32 AM »

For example Capitol Records just had a press release that it will no longer be making any CDs or LPs or cassettes, after 2018. Everything will be sold as a file, on line only. No more CD's from the tower.    ~swd

Stephen, can you please elaborate on this and provide a source? Thank you.
COMMENT to sparkydog1725:
I read a lot. Between the time I posted about Capitol and now, I've read much stuff. I can't say for certain, but I think it was in STEREOPHILE Magazine. I'll continue to try and find a reference for you. What I remember reading in the article was that Capitol has announced that after 2018 they will not be making hard copies of music. All music will be released on-line as a file.  Although the article did not say, I would assume that hard copies (CDs, LPs, Cassettes,) will be licensed to other businesses to issue. In other words, because of changing market dynamics, Capitol will cease to be a manufacturer of hard copies of music. They will farm that out and only release files of the music to be downloaded for a fee. I'll continue to search for the source.
~swd
So I'm guessing that all of the digitally only releases aka Keeping an Eye on Summer and the 65' Chicago Concert is Capitol testing the waters for future Digital releases? This could be a good thing! We may finally get to see every take of every song for the hard cores and more various Session Highlight releases.
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: August 23, 2016, 07:51:46 AM »

COMMENT:

UPDATE on the SACD fiasco:

This has now become part of the history of Surf’s Up – and you were part of it.

The posters over at quadraphonicquad.com, have unearthed information that has lead to solving the mystery as to why AP thought it was OK to use the EV4 quad record matrix to create new information for the rear channels of their 4-channel SACD issue.

The tip of the spear, as QQ members reveal, points to an LP insert with a little notice right above my name as chief engineer and mixer, stating:

“This recording has been produced so that it may be enjoyed in stereophonic sound or quadraphonically, using the Dynaco and EV Stereo-4 systems”

One poster provided a photo of the insert, which was in a Reprise/Warner issue of the album with a date of 1971. (Warner—the very company that rejected the album being cut in 3D Sound was now boosting that it could be played through an EV4 decoder for quad sound. How hypocritical is that? !)

I pulled out every copy of Surf’s Up I have, which are all first issues, and also posted a photo of the inserts for my albums at quadraphonicquad.com. Those DO NOT have this quad notice on them and are also dated 1971, but issued from Brother Records Inc., which predates the Warner/Reprise issue. The notice does not appear in any CD booklet.

Comparing the two insert versions, the later one by Warner/Reprise showed some of the other wording on the insert had been shifted in position to accommodate the added notice.

The insert I approved, along with Carl, had evidently been changed after the first run of Surf’s Up to include this quad notice. When we mixed down Surf’s Up, EV4 was yet to be invented, so it would have been impossible to make the album for this quad format. It was made for a virtual format, rejected by Warner.

I have always been under the impression that when artwork is release for an album, it is locked into all future re-issues and all other runs of that album. I can’t remember ever seeing changes to album jackets or inserts after their initial run.

After Surf’s Up was mixed, mastered, and released, the Beach Boys went to Holland and I went to Australia with Frank Zappa. Meanwhile, the quad LP market was expanding. In my opinion, someone at Reprise thought it might increase sales if people, looking to buy quad LPs, were assured that this stereo disk could be decoded by their quad decoders into quad, they would buy the disk, rather than pass over it for some real quad album. So the insert was placed, but no one said anything to anyone or checked the engineering accuracy of the added statement.

I have never had a reason to buy, look into, or wonder about changes to Surf’s Up. As far as I was concern it was a “done deal.” So the change went un-noticed for decades, until technology made it possible to buy 4-channel sound via the SACD.

I apologize to Analogue Productions for assuming they issued the 4-track version without thought or research. AP just followed what they assumed was accurate information on the LP insert and used an EV4 decoder to extract the back channels. I might have done the same.

As I have posted many times on several websites and in my book . . . the album is intended to be heard via a virtual matrix decoder over two-speakers. EV4 is the incorrect decoder and the wrong format, but you can’t blame AP for their mistake, as it remained part of the album’s art, unchanged and unchallenged for all these years. One little erroneous notice, stuck in-between a lot of other stuff on a liner note that is no longer inserted in releases of this album, LP or CD.

It is an unfortunate situation all around. The current offering of Sunflower and Surf’s Up are still not sold in the correct format; confusion abounds. I wish this error had been caught a long time ago, but it has eluded us all. Now it is water under the bridge and the damage cannot be undone.

The only way both albums may be heard as originally intended remains via the educational examples from my book, Recording The Beach Boys. However, the two-channel mastering on the AP SACD is very similar to the sound of the LP and should be considered for purchase as an accurate representation of the stereo master tape version for any Beach Boy fan’s collection.   Good Listening,  ~Stephen W. Desper

« Last Edit: August 23, 2016, 08:01:59 AM by Stephen W. Desper » Logged
lukpac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: August 23, 2016, 08:09:42 AM »

One poster provided a photo of the insert, which was in a Reprise/Warner issue of the album with a date of 1971. (Warner—the very company that rejected the album being cut in 3D Sound was now boosting that it could be played through an EV4 decoder for quad sound. How hypocritical is that? !)

I pulled out every copy of Surf’s Up I have, which are all first issues, and also posted a photo of the inserts for my albums at the Steve Hoffman board. Those DO NOT have this quad notice on them and are also dated 1971, but issued from Brother Records Inc., which predates the Warner/Reprise issue. The notice does not appear in any CD booklet.

I'm unclear what you're referring to in terms of labels. The early/original copies I'm aware of have both Brother and Reprise/Warner designations. For example, this white label promo from 1971 has the Brother logo, the Reprise logo, and indicates it was distributed by Warner Brothers:



Are you saying some pressings have *only* Brother and others have *only* Reprise/Warner?

The insert I approved, along with Carl, had evidently been changed after the first run of Surf’s Up to include this quad notice. When we mixed down Surf’s Up, EV4 was yet to be invented, so it would have been impossible to make the album for this quad format. It was made for a virtual format, rejected by Warner.

When exactly was Surf's Up mixed? It was released August 30, 1971, and the Electro-Voice system had been announced in December 1970, over 8 months prior. In addition, Rolling Stone reported on the use of the Dynaco system in October 1970:

Four for the Price of Two
Rolling Stone/October 29, 1970

"LOS ANGELES - If you have a stereo system, you're a lamp cord and two more speakers away from having a quadraphonic (four channel) system.

Brother Records, the Beach Boys' label, discovered the instant conversion system when their director of engineering, Stephen Desper, read about it in a technical magazine, and their first compatible quadraphonic album - quad, stereo, and monaural - should be out next week.

The system, according to Jack Reilly, Brother's director of creative services, was developed by Dynaco, and electronics parts company in Philadelphia, and it enables consumers to bypass new tape equipment and new kinds of records to get the four-channel effect. Brother Records will include an instruction sheet with their next album releases. The first one will be by Flame, the South African band discovered by the Beach Boys in a London cabaret several months ago.

To get the quad effect in a phonograph record, Reilly said, the stereo mixdown "goes through a matrix which electronically combines and properly shifts each of the four tracks into the walls of the groove." When playing the record, the instruction sheet explains, "the stylus in the groove may move one of four says: left-center, right-center, up-center or down-center...but records have never before been mixed down in a way as to take advantage of the full range of movement by the stylus.

The listener converts his stereo amp into four-track by hooking up all four speaker outputs by either speaker wire or lamp cord.

The system, Reilly said, was successfully tested on the recently released Beach Boys' Sunflower album - two tracks, "Cool Cool Water" and "Got to Know the Woman," are actually quadraphonic - and will be used on all future Brother releases. Reilly is hoping other labels will follow.

"The industry," he said, "would just love for all of us to have to buy new equipment to get quadraphonic sound. But the Beach Boys feel it's time one company give the public what they can get without making them spend more money."

So far, most quadraphonic marketing has centered on four-channel tapes and tape systems."

It seems there's more to the story than some boffin at Reprise simply adding a line in the insert by mistake.
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #92 on: August 23, 2016, 02:33:44 PM »

One poster provided a photo of the insert, which was in a Reprise/Warner issue of the album with a date of 1971. (Warner—the very company that rejected the album being cut in 3D Sound was now boosting that it could be played through an EV4 decoder for quad sound. How hypocritical is that? !)

I pulled out every copy of Surf’s Up I have, which are all first issues, and also posted a photo of the inserts for my albums at the Steve Hoffman board. Those DO NOT have this quad notice on them and are also dated 1971, but issued from Brother Records Inc., which predates the Warner/Reprise issue. The notice does not appear in any CD booklet.

I'm unclear what you're referring to in terms of labels. The early/original copies I'm aware of have both Brother and Reprise/Warner designations. For example, this white label promo from 1971 has the Brother logo, the Reprise logo, and indicates it was distributed by Warner Brothers:



Are you saying some pressings have *only* Brother and others have *only* Reprise/Warner?

The insert I approved, along with Carl, had evidently been changed after the first run of Surf’s Up to include this quad notice. When we mixed down Surf’s Up, EV4 was yet to be invented, so it would have been impossible to make the album for this quad format. It was made for a virtual format, rejected by Warner.

When exactly was Surf's Up mixed? It was released August 30, 1971, and the Electro-Voice system had been announced in December 1970, over 8 months prior. In addition, Rolling Stone reported on the use of the Dynaco system in October 1970:

Four for the Price of Two
Rolling Stone/October 29, 1970

"LOS ANGELES - If you have a stereo system, you're a lamp cord and two more speakers away from having a quadraphonic (four channel) system.

Brother Records, the Beach Boys' label, discovered the instant conversion system when their director of engineering, Stephen Desper, read about it in a technical magazine, and their first compatible quadraphonic album - quad, stereo, and monaural - should be out next week.

The system, according to Jack Reilly, Brother's director of creative services, was developed by Dynaco, and electronics parts company in Philadelphia, and it enables consumers to bypass new tape equipment and new kinds of records to get the four-channel effect. Brother Records will include an instruction sheet with their next album releases. The first one will be by Flame, the South African band discovered by the Beach Boys in a London cabaret several months ago.

To get the quad effect in a phonograph record, Reilly said, the stereo mixdown "goes through a matrix which electronically combines and properly shifts each of the four tracks into the walls of the groove." When playing the record, the instruction sheet explains, "the stylus in the groove may move one of four says: left-center, right-center, up-center or down-center...but records have never before been mixed down in a way as to take advantage of the full range of movement by the stylus.

The listener converts his stereo amp into four-track by hooking up all four speaker outputs by either speaker wire or lamp cord.

The system, Reilly said, was successfully tested on the recently released Beach Boys' Sunflower album - two tracks, "Cool Cool Water" and "Got to Know the Woman," are actually quadraphonic - and will be used on all future Brother releases. Reilly is hoping other labels will follow.

"The industry," he said, "would just love for all of us to have to buy new equipment to get quadraphonic sound. But the Beach Boys feel it's time one company give the public what they can get without making them spend more money."

So far, most quadraphonic marketing has centered on four-channel tapes and tape systems."

It seems there's more to the story than some boffin at Reprise simply adding a line in the insert by mistake.

COMMENT to lukpac:  I did not cite record labels, I said insert.  Specifically the insert with dried mud. You should checkout the quadraphonic.com board and look at the photos provided there. (You may need to join to see the photos.)

Jack Reilly is not an engineer and could barely operate a toaster. So whatever he said in an interview about engineering can be taken with a grain of salt.  Sunflower and Surf's Up are not quadraphonic and never were.  This is Mr.-know-it-all Jack just talking through his behind. He is extrapolating information he did not understand from one project (the FLAME) to another project (The Beach Boys).  One is not connected to the other.  The matrices are different. BB matrix I used on their albums was a virtual matrix. Flame used a rudimentary quad matrix. One is 90 degrees shifted from the other. The BB matrix uses two speakers and the Flame used four speakers.

This makes me wonder if Jack Reilly is the real culprit here, as I think you are implying.  Did he, in his ignorance, add the line to the Surf's Up insert, when he returned from Holland and I was gone, that has caused all this confusion including AP to use the incorrect matrix for their SACD issue?  I wouldn't put it past him to screw this up, from his grave, like he did so many things with the Beach Boys when he was alive.

You will note that Jack says "Quad effect" and then claims that the Beach Boy songs are four track. Yes, you can get a quad-like effect from any record by application of any number of decoders. So what? You can play a stereo record through a modern Dolby 5.1 algorithm and get five channels, but that is not the intension of the producer or engineer. This is just more Bull Sh-t from the king of Bull Sh-t, Jack Reilly.

Sunflower and Surf's Up were recorded over several years. The tracks on some songs date back further. Release dates and recording dates usually are not the same. You don't record an album in a month and then release it. Read my book!

The EV4 and Dynaco systems were designed to encode a 4-track master into two-channels that were cut on an LP. Then when playing the LP the consumer put the signal into a decoder that outputted four channels that were sent to four amplifiers and four speakers. These systems were for quadraphonic LPs, not recording studio use. In order to use any of the quad systems (and there were several), the studio master must be 4-tracks (hence the Greek word, Quad, meaning four.) The demos you cite were demonstrated to mastering engineers and were of interest to them. Recording engineers making quad recordings would think or engineer in terms of four discrete tracks. These discrete tracks would be used by the mastering house to make the quad LP. Quadraphonic records are not encoded at the recording studio or during the recording or mixdown process. On the other hand, two-channel recordings made using virtual matrices would be encoded in the recording studio with the resolution decoding added at the time of mastering (or playback). Two different animals. In the special case of the FLAME album, I monitored using four speakers at mixdown and cut directly to two-tracks. In effect, the monitoring circuit encoded the rear channels so no separated 4-track was needed. To understand all this may require more dialog. I'm sorry, but I just don't have time to explain it in detail. Technically the FLAME album was a stereo album. In order to hear it over four speakers, the user had to connect two extra speakers to a stereo amp following the diagram supplied with the album The diagram was a decoder scheme. The FLAME album did not have a four-channel master, only a two-channel master that was made (monitored) using four speakers. (Incidentally, I still have the two rear speakers we used. I use them in a bedroom system now.)

Looks like Jack should leave engineering to engineers, and hyping to the ad department. Engineering deals with facts. Hype deals with fiction. Jack Reilly should have known the difference. 

 
  ~swd
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #93 on: August 23, 2016, 03:59:38 PM »

Steve, did Jack have anything to  do with your exit from the BBs production team? Strange times in post-BW leadership era of the 1970s BBs...
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #94 on: August 23, 2016, 04:56:55 PM »

Steve, did Jack have anything to  do with your exit from the BBs production team? Strange times in post-BW leadership era of the 1970s BBs...
Recording The Beach Boys
COMMENT to SMilE Brian:  You will read about it in the second part of my book, Recording The Beach Boys.  Thanks for waiting.  ~swd
Logged
wingsoveramerica
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60



View Profile
« Reply #95 on: August 23, 2016, 06:52:21 PM »

Steve, did Jack have anything to  do with your exit from the BBs production team? Strange times in post-BW leadership era of the 1970s BBs...
Recording The Beach Boys
COMMENT to SMilE Brian:  You will read about it in the second part of my book, Recording The Beach Boys.  Thanks for waiting.  ~swd

Where can i get that?
Logged

Jon G.
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #96 on: August 24, 2016, 06:08:45 AM »

Steve, did Jack have anything to  do with your exit from the BBs production team? Strange times in post-BW leadership era of the 1970s BBs...
Recording The Beach Boys
COMMENT to SMilE Brian:  You will read about it in the second part of my book, Recording The Beach Boys.  Thanks for waiting.  ~swd

Where can i get that?

COMMENT to wingsoveramerica:  Three years ago I launched a website (link below) dedicated to educating the visitor about Beach Boy songs from an engineering and recording point of view.  At the website various songs and albums are examined by selecting them via "radio buttons" labeled with each topic. Some dissect the song and re-assemble it, some look into the history of their creation, some have stories connected to their recording, and all have musical examples to help in the understand of each topic.

The book you ask about was published twice over the years and is no longer in print. However, you can read the book as it becomes available at the website. It is broken into three parts. Part one deals with the recording of Sunflower; The Addendum to Part one deals with songs recorded during this time, but did not make it to either album; and Part two deals with the recording of Surf's Up. It is still under construction. Jack Reilly is written about in Part two, which is greatly expanded from the original publication, adding around 230 pages to Part one and the Addendum.

If you are a diehard Beach Boy fan I think you will find a wealth of information at the site. Most people come away with a new appreciation for the music and a deeper understanding of the recording process.

Hope you can find the time for a visit, and a return visit when Part two of the book Recording The Beach Boys is published. 
   ~swd

http://swdstudyvideos.com

 
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 0.526 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!