Beach Boys Hybrid SACD (Acoustic Sounds)

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Jason Manley, Feb 25, 2015.

  1. Andreas

    Andreas Senior Member

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Yes, of course. Nothing was screwed up on the stereo mix, and the surround mix was a non-authorized bonus. To continue to claim that is quite an insult to AP and Kevin Gray.
     
    lukpac likes this.
  2. Hymie the Robot

    Hymie the Robot Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    Neither of which, the stereo portion of both layers of the discs, and the multichannel portion of the SACD layer, are what the two audio engineers along with the band, intended for the audience to hear. They are both second rate imitations, whether you like them or not. Got it?
     
  3. Andreas

    Andreas Senior Member

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    I have very well read and understood what Stephen W. Desper wrote. There is no need for you hammering your "got it" messages on me. Stop it.
     
  4. Hymie the Robot

    Hymie the Robot Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    Your last post didn't sound like you had. Glad we are all up to speed now.
     
  5. Andreas

    Andreas Senior Member

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    My conclusions are different from yours, maybe that's why you are so confused.

    Let me summarize for you again:
    (1) Stereo mix: Perfectly presented on the stereo program on the AP SACD.
    (2) Decoded "matrix" mix on two channels: Never been released so far, can be heard by using Desper's spatializer or on his study videos.
    (3) Surround mix: Newly created by AP as a bonus for us consumers. Not approved by Desper and reportedly not authorized.

    Got it?
     
    Digital-G, PhantomStranger and art like this.
  6. sparkydog

    sparkydog Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kentucky
    Have you heard the "scammy" SACDs on a properly set-up surround system?
     
    tonewheeltom likes this.
  7. Hymie the Robot

    Hymie the Robot Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    Only reviews. My take is the fake quad isn't very good. I will stick to Desper's version from his website. I am a huge fan of all multichannel music and only a casual Beach Boys fan. I had planned on getting the two SACDs in question for the quad, but from the reviews and then realizing the background on them, I will spend my $60 on other multichannel releases like the upcoming Yes Tales...

    How do you like the "hidden" multichannel portion of the SACD layer? Are you running four timbre matched full range speakers?
     
  8. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    The stereo layer is not a "second rate imitation".
     
    art and GetHappy!! like this.
  9. lou

    lou Fast 'n Bulbous

    Location:
    Louisiana
    Very strange take on what has been made abundantly clear above. While Stephen and Carl may have intended at one point for audiences to hear a virtual surround on Sunflower, that was abandoned after resistance from the record company and they in fact both released and approved the standard two channel mix that is on the original LP and which is reproduced digitally in excellent sound on the SACD. Not a second rate imitation at all, unless you are an "analogue only " person who feels any digital version(CD/DVD/SACD) is a second rate imitation of the LP version. I might be in agreement with you there, but then a lot more people than AP people are putting out "second rate imitations."
     
    art likes this.
  10. sparkydog

    sparkydog Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kentucky
    Maybe you should actually listen to it.
    Follow this link about my cheap but adequate setup:
    Pioneer Elite DV-79AVi, Yamaha DV-S5860, All Polk Speakers -- 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.
     
    Shawn likes this.
  11. Stephen W. Desper

    Stephen W. Desper Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida, USA
    COMMENT To lou: No one is questioning the excellence of the two-channel digital rendition by AP of the analog original. It's the contrived 4-Track that is a fake. In fact, I guess that now anyone can take the original and synthesize channels that are additional to the original Stereophonic Master Tape and call it an upgrade. Anyone can do just that by playing the two-track original through a Dolby player and using one of the several available environmental algorithms to come up with two or three extra synthesized channels. I could give you 10 if you want them. You could even play the stereo CD through a Spatializer HTMS matrix decoder, and come up with something that sounds reasonably good over a 5.1 system with all the speakers working. That only speaks to the excellence of the original. But what AP did is take the original and put in through a matrix not designed to give the listener what was intended -- and then claim it to be an "OFFICIAL" or "AUTHORIZED" 4-Track version, sectioned by Capitol. First of all, AP has no idea of what they are doing -- it's as if they said, "if it feels good, do it." updated: "If it sounds good, publish it." No one is challenging anyone's artistic preference, what I am challenging is the nerve of these AP people to sell what they are doing as if correct or meets the producer's standard. As I've previously explained, and if you understand my explanation, you can see why this is so very wrong and a misrepresentation to the Beach Boy fan just to make a buck. I would have thought AP was more professional and ethical than to pass such a sham product onto the unsuspecting public. ~swd
     
    DRM and drbeachboy like this.
  12. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    They are:

     
    art and drbeachboy like this.
  13. Fortune

    Fortune Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    All this talk about the undecoded matrix got me curious, so I ripped the "Desper Approved Resolved Matrix Master" and played it on my system. I compared it to the Kevin Gray AP CD layer (original stereo mix, undecoded matrix and all). Here's what I found--

    Now remember, this is my opinion only, and no offense intended to Stephen Desper but the stereo layer on the new AP absolutely kills the "resolved matrix master" found on Desper's study videos.

    STUDY VIDEO VERSION: very jacked in the treble, which gives the impression of a wider soundstage. All in all, I'm not sure what the "resolved matrix" is, or what it contributes to the actual sound of the master. Again, no offense intended, but that's what I hear.

    AP CD LAYER: Natural EQ, well balanced, mid-range hole is filled. Obviously, this doesn't have the "matrix processing" but it doesn't seem to matter at all. This is THE version.

    Also, all this talk about the surround mix on the AP CD being "unauthorized" and "not what the artists intended"...ugh...the surround is a bonus and should never be considered the true intention, like a Steve Wilson remix. Not sure what Stephen Desper is complaining about. It's just weird. Who cares it was extrapolated from Desper's master to create something new? It never purported to be anything but an unadvertised bonus.
     
  14. Stephen W. Desper

    Stephen W. Desper Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida, USA
    COMMENT: Thanks, I've been waiting for someone to comment as you have. Other comparisons that have been shared with me go the other direction, but that's OK, I'm not competing with anyone. ~swd
     
    bmoregnr and Fortune like this.
  15. Daniel Plainview

    Daniel Plainview God's Lonely Man

    Since your here I just want to tell you, Mr. Desper, that I love your work with The Beach Boys and I think of you as the Nikola Tesla of modern recording. While I don't understand a tenth of any of this scientific stuff you speak of I am in awe of your ingenuity and knowledge. And while I have purchased all the AP vinyl and SACD reissues and enjoyed them thoroughly (the vinyl, of course, moreso) I respect your stance against unauthorized (albeit unadvertised) multi-channel enhancements to your work and hope this is resolved in a way which brings attention to your methods and leads to future implementation of it by the labels.
     
    DRM, Galley, Digital-G and 6 others like this.
  16. rstamberg

    rstamberg Senior Member

    Location:
    Riverside, CT
    I'm curious: Has Analogue Productions actually fessed up and owned the respective "surround layers" on these new SACDs or are they still saying nothing about it? When I discovered the multichannel light on my Cambridge Audio player lighting up and my surround speakers firing when I played SUNFLOWER and SURF'S UP, AP's advertising did not mention any multichannel options for these SACDs whatsoever. Has that changed? Just kinda curious ...
     
  17. drbeachboy

    drbeachboy Forum Resident

    Well here is the thing: These AP releases are supposed to true to the master tapes. The closest thing to the original releases and the SACD layer does not hold true to what was advertised on both Sunflower and Surf's Up. I agree that it is not so bad considering that they delivered on that promise on the CD layer. Now, had the SACD layer delivered the sound with the matrix info already embedded in the master tape, then technically that would hold to the promise, as that was the original intent of Carl Wilson, Steve Desper and the Beach Boys when the album was delivered to Warner Brothers. Decoding using SQ did not live up to that original intent.
     
    Will Harris likes this.
  18. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    FYI, the SACD layer has both the multichannel version and the stereo mix as heard on the CD layer.
     
    tonewheeltom likes this.
  19. drbeachboy

    drbeachboy Forum Resident

    But not decoded correctly on the SACD layer.
     
  20. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    The stereo mix is the same on both layers. CD and SACD.
     
    tonewheeltom likes this.
  21. drbeachboy

    drbeachboy Forum Resident

    So, on the SACD layer you have the choice of choosing stereo or quad? Everyone on here says it is 4 discreet channels.
     
  22. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Unless I'm missing something, it has 3 programs:

    CD stereo
    SACD stereo
    SACD multichannel (5.1/quad/fake quad)
     
  23. drbeachboy

    drbeachboy Forum Resident

    Thank you for that. :) You are the first one who has mentioned this. All that was ever discussed was the multichannel.
     
  24. izgoblin

    izgoblin Forum Resident

    I haven't had a chance to read recent posts but I put on my Surf's Up SACD the other day and was really disappointed with it. I have several LPs to compare it with, and though I'm afraid I was going only by memory (I didn't do an A-B test), I found this new SACD to be pretty dull. There are some good moments of bass response, but something seems missing in the upper frequency range. That said, I've had other experiences where - for whatever reason - I dislike the sound of an SACD and then like it more when I come back to it, so I could change my opinion. But my impression was that not only did it not floor me like I thought it would, it seemed to sound even worse than what I already had. I hope it sounds better to me the next time I pull it out, because right now I'm really regretting the purchase.
     
  25. Fortune

    Fortune Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    Wow. Our experiences differ.

    I thought the new Surf's Up sounded really smooth. Darker than the 2000 remaster for sure, but well balanced and with none of the screechiness of the 2000. That 2000 remaster was bright, with extra NR thrown in for no reason, and what seems like a remixed Til I Die (no slow fade out).

    Compare the phased acoustic guitars on Looking At Tomorrow on both pressings. The new one breathes.
     
    pdenny, art and Simon A like this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine