Possible King Crimson in surround - Page 7

I posted a similar comment about my initial thoughts on The Court on the Quadraphonicquad.com forums.

What an experience! My posting was deleted by a moderator, and the follow-ups moved to another thread. It was only when I reposted my initial comments in the new thread that the moderator restored my original.

It now seems that my account at Quad forums has been deleted or suspended. Certainly no room on that forum for opinions that differ from Jon Urban (despite what he says).

I must admit I was very surprised by the vehemence of the personal attacks, the "fan-boy" attitude, and the hatred for the Hoffman forum which is shown by some posters at Quad.

I would refer you to the Loudness War thread at Quad to see for yourselves, but as I can't access the site I can't give a link nor see whether or not the thread and my postings are still there.

I don't agree with lots of postings on this and the Hoffman forums, but (as long as they are sincere) I think everyone should be able to present their opinions. Clearly those running the Quad forum don't agree.

^^^^^^^^
I don't know what you posted there but I've never encountered that kind of reaction and I wasn't totally positive about Red.

I understand the feeling from other boards about Hoffman though.
A lot of vinyl zealots and people who claim to hear many things that cannot be heard.
There's also the tendency at Hoffman to trash what is new.
Example, the '87 Beatle cds were widely vilified.
The 2009 remasters come out and suddenly many posters like the '87 cd better!?!
I enjoy it though as it is a pretty busy forum with lots of subjects.

I read both threads over at QQ which are still there. I visit QQ whenever I'm researching a prospective title. After reading your remarks and impressions I'm confused why they generated such harsh responses. /Shrugs

Anyway my copy of ITCOTCK arrived yesterday. All new music to me, the title track is the only song I've heard before. Just two quick comments from me as I need to listen to this more than once before coming to any conclusions. After just one play I found the SQ to be excellent over all and the surround mix to be on the mild side. I will spend more time with this over the weekend.

Sorry work got it the way of my listening pleasure.
I've listened to it a couple times now and I'm enjoying it a lot.
I like the inclusion of the different mixes and extra tracks.
I haven't had time to listen and compare them all yet, maybe this weekend.

You know, you really are starting to piss me off Michael. You have been spewing this crap all over the internet that you have been banned from QQ, that this disc is a, to use your words, "A Victim of the Loudness Wars". First you posted that I deleted you post, then you posted that I banned you - both were false posts.

The LOUDNESS observation by you has been disputed and addressed by the people who created the DVD-A, yet you still persisit.

I tell you what I'm going to do. I will gladly delete your account from QQ as soon as I finish creating this post. This way, you won't ever have to submit yourself to such humiliation again.

A few quick observtions ....

First, I am not a particularly big King Crimson fan, but the paucity of music releases in 5.1 means that I buy almost anything that get released - unless I really hate the music. I have never owned Red, Lizard - or any other KC album except In the Court .... Fortunately, that album I am well familiar with!

Second, 'crying compression' is now, officially, my new pet peeve. I'm so sick of folks crawling out of the woodwork with their disengenuous claims of compression, limiting, etc.

Third, I really like the new versions of both Red and In the Court .... I have nothing with which to compare the former, but have spent quite a bit of time with both the current and former releases of the latter. I do not hear any compression-related distortion, nor do I hear any kind of overt reduction in the dynamic range on the album. Indeed, this recording has never sounded clearer or more immediate than this. Wonderful! Everyone will have their own opinions, of course, but if I have any criticism at all it is that there is too much going on in the surrounds. I tend to be in the 'ambiance-only' camp, so my bias is for less in the sourrounds not more.

What DNR is to the video forums, Compression is to the audio forums.
I'll take heed to someone who can show it, but without proof other than "I hear it" it's just an unfounded bias.

oblio98 - I don't know who you are, either JonUrban or dave64 I guess. My account was suspended before you posted the above, so what else are you going to do?

Briefly, I will reiterate my view and go further - The Court IS a victim of the Loudness Wars because in dynamic range, limiting, and EQ it has moved away from natural sound to the less dynamics, more use of limiting, and brighter 'digital' EQ which make up the Loudness Wars.

Of course I'm suggesting that the King Crimson has only done each of these slightly, and is nothing like the travesty of the Genesis SACDs. I will be buying the rest of the series, but I won't be pretending that they are perfect.

I believe Neil Wilkes when he says no compression was done in Mastering. And I agree with him that Steven Wilson is sensitive about compression and uses it less than pretty much everyone else TODAY.

(I think Neil was talking about limiting (ie squashing the waveform) whilst my original post was nothing about limiting but about adjusting the relative volumes of the quiet and loud bits. For example, my guess is the the violin at the start of Providence on Red is louder in this new issue than the first CD issued (I don't have this CD, so cannot compare myself).)

Limiting is normal part of mixing/mastering music, so I would be very surprised if on any recording we get to hear the full dynamics of the multi-tracks.

One of the reasons I had trouble comparing the 1983 CD with the DVD-A was that when I set a bit of the music on each to the same db level on my sound meter, the DVD-A sounded louder. This suggests to me (and I really would love to see some graphs) that more limiting was done on the DVD-A than on the 1983 CD.

I have never said anything other than for most people these DVD-A's will sound great.

One of the reasons I'm posting more about this is that I would like to know more about this (I'm sure some facts will emerge on the Hoffman forums).

I'm preparing a longer post for the Hoffman forums where those interested in perfection can continue the debate. (As well as having some health problems, I've spent the last few days posting on climate change - a slightly more important topic than audio.)

I don't have the technical facilities to give proof. Others (especially on the Hoffman forums) do, and that is what I am waiting for. But if comments on audio quality are only allowed by those with technical facilities, there would be lots less to discuss on these forums.

I would hesitate to equate a slight increase in volume to a "victim of the loudness wars" - the hyperbole has not helped your case at all, especially when you yourself say "the King Crimson has only done each of these slightly"

How loud is it compared to real victims like, say for example, Californication or Death Magnetic?

For those interested, here is a look at "Moonchild" from the DVD-A 5.1 tracks from ITCOTCK. As you can see, it's a very discrete surround mix. These wav's were extracted using DVD-Audio Explorer and have not been retouched. You can clearly see quiet passages, loud passages, no brickwalling, maximizing or applications of "loudness" on these wav's. Of course, you can't "hear" the jpg of wav files, but you can clearly get an idea of their composure.

See, the problem is you are throwing about the term "Loudness Wars" (which is all about compression and brick walls to increase perceived volume of the track) when really what you are commenting on is the perceived increase in volume of some of the quieter parts, which is a function of the mix, not the mastering.

That's why you are getting a negative reaction: you've Godwinned the discussion by saying "victim of loudness wars". The dynamic range of the music has not been reduced, rather the relative level of certain elements of the mix have been apparently altered from what you hear in 2-ch.

If you had said "I don't like the new mix - the more delicate parts are not so subtle any more, as if they have been brought up in the mix" then folks would have had a normal discussion about whether that adjustment to the mix is favorable or not to the enjoyment of the music, and whether it is relevant in light on the fact that there are now 5 channels instead of 2, creating more opportunities to reveal more detail in certain elements without destroying the overall ambiance.

In my experience, when I hear a multichannel mix of something that I am very familiar with as a 2-ch mix, I often hear "new" things and certain elements seem louder. But when I go back to the 2-ch mix and listen carefully, I find that they were there all along, and it is mostly the extra separation of the MCH mix that has made the stuff that had been buried suddenly appear.

If Pink Floyd ever release Wish You Were Here in SACD or DVD-A, I fully expect that Stephane Grappelli's fiddle at the end of the title track will be suddenly clear-as-day, instead of buried so low in the mix I am not even sure it is really there and I'm not just fooling myself.

And btw, I like the new KC MCH mixes, I don't feel there is anything wrong with relative levels of instruments and where they are placed in the mix. But it needs more cowbell.

IMHO, at any rate,

shinksma

oblio98 - Thanks for the graph. (Of interest is that is shows that the mix makes heavy use of the centre speaker.)

The graph clearly shows that the loudest bits of the improvisation of Moonchild are about as loud as the song that starts the piece.

(So far there is no graph allowing us to compare this with the 1983 CD or original vinyl.)

Musically the loudest parts of the improvisation are much quieter than the opening song (and the beginning of Court which is the next track).

So for my taste (but clearly not Steven Wilson’s) the volume needs to be turned down for the improvisation and then turned up again just before In the Court starts.

Those with no interest in esoteric audiophile discussions will probably find the rest of this post irrelevant and boring.

It is too early in the morning to fire up the hi-fi, so here is an experiment / demonstration that I’ll do later today (and post up).

Play a bit of the SACDs of Dark Side of the Moon, Avalon, Trespass, A Trick of the Tail, and the DVD-Audio discs, two Porcupine Tree albums, Red, and In the Court.

For each disc get a feel of:
1- the difference in volume between quiet and loud parts,
2 - the amount of limiting used, and
3 - the EQ (tone) of the sound.

My hypothesis is that Dark Side and Avalon will have dynamics close to or exceeding the original CDs, the least limiting (ie most air), and the most natural sound.

At the other end will be the two Genesis SACDs which have very reduced dynamics, lots of limiting, and a very bright EQ.

I expect (from audio memory) that the Porcupine Tree will sound much more modern than Dark Side and Avalon, and much more audiophile friendly than the Genesis.

I’m expecting that Red and In the Court are going to sound closest to the Porcupine Tree.

Now if the above is the case, why is it that the King Crimson sounds different to Dark Side and Avalon?

It is because even the best quality rock music produced today (yes, I love Steven Wilson’s music) is done with a bit of the modern sound. And the modern sound is created by doing the things that make up the Loudness War.

I wish Wish You Were Here was here. If it comes soon, where will it sit in the sound range? Will it be the Nick Davis (Genesis) sound, the Steven Wilson sound, or the Avalon / Dark Side sound?

what I would do when my disc arrives is fire up the hi-fi, kick back and enjoy the surround mix.

Michael.

I am frankly getting seriously tired of your inaccurate & downright damaging posts about this disc. This is NOT, repeat again in big block letters, NOT a "victim of the loudness wars".

What you are referring to are mix decisions. This is a frickin' REMIX, fer chrissakes.
The Loudness wars, as you put it, are something I have been almost violently opposed to for many more years than people like you have found it fashionable to complain about, and as a professional mixing/mastering engineer I can assure you that I have turned work away rather than overcompress & brickwall to death.

How many more times do I have to repeat this?

Please stop using misleading terminology. You are complaining about a mix decision. That is fair enough, and you are entitled to this opinion. The loudness wars are something entirely different, and this is not even a competitor so kindly stop spouting this everywhere you go. It is getting very boring.

Do not try & tell me what I was talking about.
Limiting is where a compressor with infinity ratio is set, and stops any signal going over a pre determined level. Squashing the waveform is Compression.
NEITHER was done during mastering of this disc.
LOUDNESS WARS are caused by excessive brickwall limiting during mastering. This is where, for example, you take a device like Waves L2, and pull -6dB from the peaks and add this to the floor.
It eliminates dynamics to artificially raise the volume.
This was not done to this disc

What you are referring to are mix decisions. That is fair enough, but this is NOT, repeat for the umpteenth time NOT a "victim of the loudness wars"

Neil,

I posted more today in the Hoffman forums, and I was awaiting comments their before I posted again here.

I’m getting sick and tired that the audio on blu-ray of every new Hollywood blockbuster is now far superior to the music I buy.

Why is this the case? Because they still use wide dynamics, less compression, and more naturalistic EQ.

Of course the King Crimson is a mixing decision. And I’m sure that it is what Steven and Robert want.

Does anyone doubt that the Genesis SACDs were not what the Nick Davis and the band wanted?

But does anyone doubt that the different sound of the Genesis compared to the original releases is due to reduced dynamics, limiting, and enhanced EQ, ie the Loudness War?

Some like this - lucky them, but even they should be able to agree that the sound has changed, and the change in sound which they like, is a result of the Loudness Wars.

As I say on the Hoffman forum, the King Crimson are somewhere between the far superior (in my opinion) sound of SACDs such as Avalon and Dark Side of the Moon, and the far worse sound of the Genesis SACDs.

In my opinion, if it was not for the Loudness Wars, the King Crimson (as well as the Genesis) would sound very similar to Avalon and Dark Side.

They don’t.

They should.

The musical victims of the Loudness War are not just the worst examples (eg the Genesis). They are all the other releases which would sound so much better if the excess of Loudness Wars had not moved the goal posts of what sounds good and bad when it comes to music.

Anyone who has the surround discs I mention can listen and decide for themselves. Play a bit of Avalon and Dark Side, and compare this with say Trespass and A Trick of the Tale by Genesis. Having set the two end points, play some Red and In the Court and decide for yourself where they fit in.

If you have a blu-ray connected to your system, listen carefully to the audio quality of the next movie you play, and compare this with all the music you heard. It is an informative comparison.

Of course, your fixation on "the loudness wars" holds far more weight in this matter than the person who created the DVD-A you have been trashing all over the internet.

Neil,

As to your second posting, I stand corrected about the terminology of limiting and compression.

I have never suggested that any limiting or compression was done in the mastering, and agree that what we hear is a mixing decision.

Having initiated this debate by the issue of the volume differences between the loud and soft parts, I was just trying to use a word other than ‘compression’ for the compression part.

Whilst the major factor of the Loudness Wars is the compression (and sometimes limiting), as a consumer I view the reduced volume difference between the loud and soft parts of the music, and the ‘more impact’ EQ as other parts of the same war.

Oblio98,

Where do you think the sound quality of the King Crimson fits in between Dark Side/ Avalon and Trespass / Trick of the Tail?

If you think that the King Crimson has the same sound as Avalon / Dark Side, then our ears (or perhaps systems) are different.

And if you think the King Crimson sounds different, why do you think this was done?

PS Note that I have not included a personal attack. (And did you notice that two of your posts (and my one reply to you) were thankfully deleted by moderators on the Hoffman forums?)

Yeah Neil, why don't you listen to more blu-ray before making any more comments about sound quality. tsk, tsk....

Just to put a cease fire out there, all I have to say in regards to the Crimson 5.1 remixes, they sound 100% better than what we had on previous remasters. The music has never sounded this good especially In the court. This album has always sounded horrible no matter how good the content was for those days. I have never been a huge fan of this album, but now I can finally here what is going on in the mix Bring on Lizard (one of my favorite Crimson albums)!

....there's a fiddle in Wish You Were Here?!

Sorry, thought I'd jump in and bring it back to the real topic of thic KC thread, namely, that I now have to go listen to my Quad mix of WYWH to listen for fiddle music...


ps. Anybody in Toronto find these locally for a reasonable price, or am I to AZN them?

Michael,

Here's the deal. My whole issue with you is that you have been all over the internet, even the DGM site itself, proclaiming that these releases are a "victim of the loudness WARS".

However, reading you explanations after the declaration, you are basically saying that some parts of the 5.1 remix can be heard more prominently than they were heard in the old stereo mix, which I guess one could cause someone to say that these parts are louder.

What you fail to acknowledge is that when an audio presentation is remixed for a surround release, things that were previously buried in the mix can now get their own space and be heard clearer and louder than ever before.

This change in prominence in the mix has nothing to do with "loudness wars". You have stated that you like the way these sound, but you prefer to turn the volume down during the dream portion of "Moonchild". That's cool and that's up to you. It does create a new, wonderful, surround sound field that the artist wanted to sound different and better than the old stereo mix.

What you or I think about a new disc is really not important to the general scheme of things. What is important is that the current state of pop/rock surround music is virtually non existent. The fact that we are able to get these King Crimson albums in the 5.1 HiRez DVD-A format is unbelievable considering the current state of disc based music. No one is releasing surround discs for pop/rock.

By you proclaiming that these discs are "victims of the loudness wars" here, at SHF, at QQ, at the DGM site and who else knows where, you may cause people to skip over these releases, which in turn would create an even more bleak climate for future surround discs.

This section of AVS is for SURROUND MUSIC. Most folks here love and support surround music and would love to see more. In the remote chance that other artists or labels are watching these KC 5.1 DVD-A's for market acceptance, I would like to see DGM sell a lot of these discs. (I have no financial connection to these releases, and QQ is not a revenue generator, so there is no financial gain for me if they sell or don't sell)

Surround fans got shafted in the '70s by manufacturers who failed to support a single format, released formats that had yet to be perfected, and bailed just when the technology began to do what it was advertised to do in the first place. Again, we got shafted when DTS CD/DVD-A/SACD were plopped out there to fight against each other, with corporate backstabbing and sabotage virtually killing all three formats as far as commercial acceptance goes.

If the last gasp of surround pop/rock music will be these King Crimson releases, it is not fair to label them as "Victims of the Loudness Wars" just because the surround mix sounds different than the original stereo mix, especially when the new mix was created with the original artists input.

That's all I'm saying.

These are my final words on this subject here.

As for the Genesis discs you mention, as I recall, those have a much harsher sound to me but that's my own opinion and I have never posted about those discs, even at QQ, because I was not that thrilled with them - yet I did not want to trash them. As for DSOTM, the SACD and the AP DVD-A both sound great to me.

Not sure what those other discs have to do with the KC discs?

After spending some quality time with ITCOTCK over the weekend I'm very satisfied with this release. I've done a 180 on my initial impression of the surround mix, it is far from conservative. The first track has a splendid surround mix and I Talk To the Wind just enveloped me in sound. I can't say I like every track on this release but they certainly all sound fantastic. I've ordered Red, should be fun.

I

MichaelWH: Loudness Wars, Inconceivable.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

Here's my take:
Of all of the posts I've read here and abroad, only one person is claiming that the KC discs are brickwalled, compressed, etc.
Even though he won't admit it, inserting the term "loudness" implicitly implies brickwalling and all of the other "sins".
I think it's time to move on from this and quit reacting to it.
Even on Hoffman, it's not gaining any traction.
I appreciate Neil's response and I sincerely believe that one person's insistence is not going to damage the reputation that these discs are deservedly reaping.
My only bitch is, when are the rest coming out!
I say let's cut the chit-chat and get the rest of the KC catalog released.
IMO, the best is yet to come!!

I did some limited listening to the MLP Stereo and 5.1 last night and that is what I heard. If things didn't "open up" somewhat or present some parts of the composition in a different way then it would pretty much be pointless to have a a 5.1 mix.

I'm not a big multi-channel fan but from what I heard the 5.1 mix was done extremely well. The focus was still in front of you as opposed to a gimmicky mix where tracks are just isolated and spread around you with no sense of realism.

I can't wait for Lizard. IMO it's one of the best engineered/recorded early recordings and I'm looking forward to hearing it on DVD-A.

larry

Burning Shed shipped Lizard today!

I've been working on climate change for the last day or two, hence my silence.

And as I've said my opinion, everyone can make up their own mind.

But, to correct the record:

* I have not posted any comments at the DGM site about these releases in the past few weeks.

* I think that that decreased dynamics and 'more impact' EQ are almost as much a part of the Loudness War as well as the excessive use of compression.

I encourage anyone interested in sound quality to compare for themselves the sound quality of recently released music to the very best of surround (such as the oft mentioned Dark Side and Avalon) and to that of blu-ray movies.

Back to climate change ...