Fair enough. But have you listened to the original LP? That isn't bright nor does it have digital NR. The 2000 CD wasn't what I was comparing it to.
Wow, now that I've read through the thread, I'll summarize recent posts as such: - Beach Boys fans are thrilled that AP are putting out high quality SACDs of the bulk of the Beach Boys albums - AP decides to do the Beach Boys fans a service and throw a decoded quad-like version on the discs where the original LPs were able to be decoded into quad - AP either realizes they are not contracted for this or figures it doesn't count as a multichannel mix because it really is just a decoded version of the existing mix and protects the consumer (and maybe their own selves) by not advertising it - Beach Boys fans cry to Steven Desper and Capitol because they just MUST ABSOLUTELY KNOW WHAT THIS IS AND WHY AP WAS ALLOWED TO DO IT - and not yet covered in recent posts but surely to be covered later, AP gets screwed, pulls the two "unauthorized" discs and decides to just kill the whole damn campaign Brilliant, guys. Just absolutely brilliant.
Yeah, but they're done with the campaign... unless they were planning on giving us the others at a later date.
All this talk made me go back to the Surf's Up SACD and play the title track and Long Promised Road and compare it side by side with the 5.1 DTS mix from the Endless Harmony soundtrack. The latter sounds like a modern, discrete surround mix; the former sounds like neither a modern or a quadraphonic mix: it is its own thing. It's a lot more subtle and low key but not just reverbed ambient noise either. It just makes the whole room filled with music, almost like playing the stereo through four speakers but not as loud. I like it because I can hear more subtleties than when I listen to the stereo by itself. I agree with some of the last couple of posts: this surround sound layer (not a mix) is just a bonus. Some will like it; others will be nonplused. But as with all the AP SACDs so far, these two albums sound better than previous versions. Again, some individual albums sound only marginally better, but as a whole these are the definitive versions.
COMMENT to Zodiac: Wow you're really into these new issues. You must have quite a collection. I listened to the 192/24 download. When making comparisons between two or more sounds, you can't listen to one and then the other, or A-B them. First you must establish a standard to which you will compare the other two. I decided on using my reference LP, first pressing as a standard to which to compare the 192/24 against the LP, and the study-video against the LP. So you know, for this comparison I'm listening to Tannoy NF-8 studio monitors driven by a beautiful Fisher SA-1000 Tube amp. Sub-woofer is a Focal 12 inch unit from France in a rather large enclosure that extends to 17 Hz, flat. The Tannoys are three feet apart and I sit about that from them. These are near-field monitors and meant to be close to you. The front-end is all discrete solid state audiophile stuff. You can review the turntable and pickup on the studio-video needle drop section. The LP sounded as it always does. The 192/24 sounded damn close to the LP. If you don't own a turntable, this is a good substitute, better than other masterings. But, the LP does give more separation to subtle things like Brian's vocal dueling, where the sheen was more apparent on the LP. Some songs had better separation of background vocals to the lead and the track. I was surprised that the bass went lower on the LP. It was not louder, just lower. Wondering about this, I connected a spectrum analyzer and captured some of the bass notes. In fact, they did excite lower frequencies on the LP. Maybe AP applied a high-pass filter -- don't know why the bass is deeper on the LP as both mediums are capable of equal low end. The study-video version is, as you would expect, wider and presented a staging that was easier to separate, that is, each element was more distinct. You could spin that as less homogenous too, but I prefer to be able to hear into the mix and that is what I heard. Certainly the overall sound is brighter. This is not an artifact of the separation, rather a result of restoring the leading edge waveform, lost in the digital transfer. If you listen to a lot of digital, then you become use to the high-end sounding lackluster, so that when you hear actual analog, the high-end seems like it is overstated. I don't think it is thin, actually there is more bottom end on the study-video than even the LP, but the top does show, on the spectrum analyzer, that the upper-frequencies extend into a higher region, as restored by the leading edge waveform restoration. That mimics what I'm hearing. If you have a picky tweeter it could be annoying, but on a flat system it seems in balance. Compared to the 192/24, it (the download) sounded dull and had a lot more mid-range. Some people prefer that ... sometimes call the AM sound or 45 sound. I like the sparkle I heard from the study-video, but then I'm an older guy. I really wanted to be wow'ed by the high-res download, but after spending the 25 dollars, realized it was for curiosity only. I will probably never listen to the 192/24 again as the LP trumped the download when I play the record through matrix resolution. Trying not to be biased or partial, I still think the matrix resolution of the LP needle-drop section of the study-videos is a more satisfying listen. If you listen to each song (before the needle-drop section) it gets even better -- in my opinion. Sorry, I have yet to hear the extra-track-section that AP is offering, as the correct way to hear Sunflower is via the LP with matrix resolution on two-speakers. Maybe "correct" is not the right term. I guess I should say, my preferred way to hear Sunflower, Surf's Up and all the stuff I recorded is via the matrix/LP playback. That is the way it was recorded, the way I heard it at mixdown, and the best representation I can give to my ears. ~swd
Have you compared the regular CD layer to an LP? It sounds counterintuitive but some think the higher resolution digitization process of SACD futzes somewhat with the sound and at times the CD sounds closer to the analogue LP.
Ok. I meant that the process used to encode the rear channels could be decoded by the EV-4 or Dynaco decoders.
IIRC, the liner notes on the original pressing of Sunflower explained the recording process and the intention of providing "virtual surround sound" that was rejected by the record company. The notes also said that the intended effect could be simulated by adding two speakers and the Dynaco decoder. I am going strictly on memory, but I think that I am close. Also, thanks to Mr. Desper for his insights and contributions.
‘This album was recorded at the studios of Brother Records and utilizes the most advanced recording techniques in the industry today. All original recording was done on a special 3M 16-track tape recorder, supplied by Wally Heider Recording Inc., of Hollywood, using 2-in wide tape. Microphones used include: Neumann U67, U87, KM-85, RCA DX77, DX44, EV 666, and RE-15. A custom-built 30 position mixing console, manufactured by Quad-Eight Corporation, provided extreme flexibility and special effects for this album. Tape to disk transfer was done at Artisan Sound Recorders, Hollywood, using the latest Model Neumann computer controlled mastering lathe, equipped with a Neumann SX-68 helium-cooled, dynamic feedback cutterhead. The songs on this record were recorded in true stereophonic sound; they are not 16 monophonic signals placed somewhere between the right and left speakers blended together with echo, but rather total stereo capturing the ambiance of the room and the sound in perspective as heard naturally by the ear. Although more difficult to perfect, this type of recording is far more satisfying to hear, as will be demonstrated upon playing this album.’
Yes, I really, really, REALLY want Wild Honey (mono and stereo), Friends and 20/20 to be issued. This significant gap (of some favorite albums) in this campaign of AP Beach Boys catalogue releases will wind up driving me crackers!
COMMENT to Sidewinder: Thank you. Sunflower is virtual surround, if you like to call it that. This is where all the misunderstanding is located, even AP does not understand my patented matrix. Please read my long post for clarification (two-parts). The matrix, when decoded or resolved through application of the playback matrix makes audible over two-stereo speakers, so called virtual surround. VIRTUAL means you only need two speakers up front, those and only those cause your brain to process what it hears as if there were real speakers to your back. You don't need anything else, in fact, additional speakers just screw up the imaging due to the multiple propagation pathways set up by the additional sources. Rear speakers will, again, confuse the brain and we're back to non-virtual stereo. Surround schemes such as 5.1 are peripheral systems. The speakers are placed around the listener. In virtual sound the two speakers get a signal that causes the brain to act as processor (or as a neural-decoder ... a brain decoder) by itself. This makes you think you are hearing sounds all around you, but also anywhere in front of the speakers. In some ways it can do things that the peripheral scheme cannot. Everyone wants real speakers to be used, and it isn't designed for that, it is not designed for four real speakers. IT IS A VIRTUAL SURROUND SYSTEM. Two speakers and one listener make it work! That is what is wrong with this AP SACD offering. The encoded signals have always been embedded within the stereo release. I figured out how to put the decoded signals on to the LP itself. Here-to-fore thought impossible. Putting so-called "3D sound" right on the Sunflower LP would have made it listenable by anyone over a two-speaker system NO DECODER NEEDED. Alternately, as the record company decided to do, the stereo with encoded signals unresolved, was released. What they failed to capitalize on was making cheap decoders and selling them. I just wanted the LP to have the 3D sound already decoded, but the record company was not willing to try something new. That's OK, what was released was good stereo. In the meantime you can avail yourself of the "3D" or Virtual Surround experience by visiting my website Stephen W. Desper Study Videos ». Because Sunflower was released when Stereophonic Sound was the standard format, no diagram was enclosed -- as none was needed. The explanation on the jacket says nothing about a diagram, only recorded for good stereo. I think you're confusing Sunflower with the later FLAME album. By the time work started on that album quadraphonic sound was becoming popular. We mixed down the Flame album monitoring through a simple circuit that did use back speakers. It was released in Stereo, but some directional information was embedding in that disk, which the enthusiast could play over his rigged-up extra back speakers. That album beat out everyone of the major studios by several months, becoming the first commercially released quadraphonic LP in history. It was released into a young quad market. A diagram of the extra wire and speakers was enclosed with the LP. If you had two matching speakers and some wire laying around, you could make in work in minutes. The separation was 6dB front to back, and the back speaker separation was 3dB from side to side. The front speaker separation was unaffected. That may not sound like much these days, but 3dB is all that is needed to make the ear think all the sound is coming from the louder source. Thus, if the left speaker is only 3dB louder than the right speaker, the brain will assign the source of sound to the left. Given that story, the little diagram did provide some directionality of the sound to the rear speakers, if you did it right. Those fans that tried it, had a lot of fun listening in this "new" way -- quadraphonic. The Flame album is not virtual surround. Sunflower, Surf's Up and all the rest are not quadraphonic albums. Only the Flame album ventured into quad. Today, you say matrix and everyone thinks of disc decoding schemes of quad days. But, those came later. Sunflower was ahead of its time with regard to directional and dimensional presentation. Unfortunately, no one got to hear it. ...until now. AP blew it. They could have done it right, but they failed. It's done right on my website, part of the 49 year history of this album along with other interesting things, the sight is educational, not commercial, so there are no charges for visiting, and it is me - the engineer - communicating with you, not via a third-party interview. ~swd
Maybe AP "blew it" in this regard. Or maybe not. Nevertheless, AP has hit a Grand Slam with this series. Something no one else has ever done or come close to. These are the best sounding Beach Boys LPs and SACDs ever issued.
You're right! I was confusing Sunflower with The Flame (which is another excellent sounding release). Thanks for the clarification and all of the great information.
I would love for The Flames first album - and unreleased second album - to see an official CD release. Maybe AP could do it and release it in true quad as Stephen intended, with his input?
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that: tracks as in additional ones, not fudging extra channels! The addition of We Got Love on the Holland SACD is welcomed by this here Beach Boys fan.
COMMENT: Sorry, tracks to me, as a recording engineer, means channels to you. Although the SACD has a bonus track at the end, the extra channels on the so-called 4-channel SACD, representing something never part of the original, is my beef. If AP is going to apply a matrix, it should be the correct one. ~swd
Ok man, we get it. You are pissed they did an unauthorized 4 channel version. So what are the odds anyone will ever reissue the album the way you originally intended it? I love the sound of Sunflower. It has a nice warm organic feel. One of my favorite BB albums. I would love to hear this "virtual surround" version you created.
