King Crimson in 5.1?!

[scorgiman]

We NEED these releases, the natives are getting restless

It seems that people are begining to loose the plot with no way of getting a hit of new quality surround releases at the moment. I look forward to the day when I check this thread and am presented with some actual news or some constructive discussion regarding these releases.

I have been holding off on listening to any King Crimson music for quite a while now so I can experience them for the first time when these new mixes come out. Based on the opinions of some people on here and some other friends I have no doubt that the music is going to be excellent. Based on the people who are heavily involved with the remastering and remixing of these albums, I have no doubt that the final product will contain the best possible sound that can be achieved today for these albums. The specs of these discs will be the result of highly educated and deliberate choices with the aim of the best possible listening experience. I'm going to really savour these albums once they are released.

 

[liposuctionguide]

Excellent! One of my favorites.
King Crimson's Lizard to be released in 5.1 surround, March 2009 ... Blu-ray does have 5.1 and 7.1 audio capability, just like standard DVD

 

[kap'n krunch]

I really do not give a rat's ass if it's not 96 or 48 as long as it's in surround,

Even if it's 44.1/24 dts or SQ encoded LP -
heck ,I'll even settle for CD-4 in spite of me not having a demod...

¿comprendeis?

 

[Almen]

Wow, this thread quickly turned into... somethin' else. I hope i was not the one instigating this. I do think though, that there might be a place for discussions of this kind in a thread like this.

Anyway, I just wanted to get some words from the horse's mouth, so to speak, thank you very much for that, Neil. I'll keep directing the center channel to the fronts until I can afford an equivalent speaker in the middle. I agree with most of what jeffty said, having listenend to a lot of great-sounding 4.0 material, and 5.1-material in 4.0 with a nice and stable phantom center.

That said, I am sure that a well-mixed center channel played over a sufficiently good speaker can sound better than the phantom one.

if the content below 80 Hz never exceeds that above 80 Hz in level (or if by a small amount), no LFE channel is needed, right?

I would simply say "What?"
If there is content below 80 (some might say below 60Hz, as a setting of 80Hz for the LPF of the LFE can cause an unwanted booming effect) then why should it not be fed to the LFE as well? It's a simple mixing decision.

Well, because the reason to have an LFE is to be able to raise it up to 10 dB more than the other channels. So if the bass content is not higher in level than the rest, no LFE channel is needed. Assuming you have fullrange fronts, of course.

 

[Ge Someone]

Well, because the reason to have an LFE is to be able to raise it up to 10 dB more than the other channels. So if the bass content is not higher in level than the rest, no LFE channel is needed. Assuming you have fullrange fronts, of course.

Well there is no real reason to have a LFE channel for music anyway if the main speakers go down to very low frequencies. But it can help to provide some low end that the other speakers can't handle (below 50 or 60 Hz). If done (and calibrated) right, it might make your main speakers sound a size bigger than they are. Done wrong, you're forced to turn down the LFE channel

 

[Almen]

But if the main speakers can't handle the low end in the front channels, then you just direct that information to the SW channel. You don't need an LFE channel for that.

 

[neil wilkes]

Wow, this thread quickly turned into... somethin' else. I hope i was not the one instigating this. I do think though, that there might be a place for discussions of this kind in a thread like this.

Anyway, I just wanted to get some words from the horse's mouth, so to speak, thank you very much for that, Neil. I'll keep directing the center channel to the fronts until I can afford an equivalent speaker in the middle. I agree with most of what jeffty said, having listenend to a lot of great-sounding 4.0 material, and 5.1-material in 4.0 with a nice and stable phantom center.

That said, I am sure that a well-mixed center channel played over a sufficiently good speaker can sound better than the phantom one.

BUT - by feeding centre channel to L/R, you are not only skewing the mix balance & image completely, you're also interfering with the levels in L/R relative to Ls/Rs as well, by adding additional volume to the front against the rear. What you're hearing is going to be nothing like what the mixer intended you to hear - it's a sort of downmix in a way, and a stereo downmix is never as good as a crafted stereo mix, so would a downmixed LCR > LR sound as good as the original LCR? Suppose that each channel has a peak of -0.3dBFS with an RMS level of somewhere around -18dB. Sum these into a 2-buss, and you alter everything. L/R gains in level quite dramatically, possibly clipping the outputs - if not clipping then some form of automatic attenuation must be occurring. Either option is bad news IMHO.

Well, because the reason to have an LFE is to be able to raise it up to 10 dB more than the other channels. So if the bass content is not higher in level than the rest, no LFE channel is needed. Assuming you have fullrange fronts, of course.

Sorry, but this doesn't sound correct. I'm certain that the +10dB is for DVD-Video, and if content is mixed to the LFE channel, then that is where it needs to be reproduced from - otherwise yet again, what you hear is not what was intended.
The reason to have an LFE is to extend the frequency response of the system to lower than what you would otherwise expect to have. Not to pump it by an additional 10dB. And when it is utilized by the mixer, it should be heard - otherwise (again) you risk skewing the balance, the levels, the relative dynamics & the mix image.

 

[Ge Someone]

.. L/R gains in level quite dramatically, possibly clipping the outputs - if not clipping then some form of automatic attenuation must be occurring. Either option is bad news.

Valid points, it depends however on the amplifier/receiver. The Onkyo's e.g. have (what they call) Non-Scaling configuration and this turns out not to be a problem. For optimal results with (modern) 5.1 material (even more so for movie) a 5.1 setup should be obviously the best.

 

[Almen]

BUT - by feeding centre channel to L/R, you are not only skewing the mix balance & image completely, you're also interfering with the levels in L/R relative to Ls/Rs as well, by adding additional volume to the front against the rear. What you're hearing is going to be nothing like what the mixer intended you to hear - it's a sort of downmix in a way, and a stereo downmix is never as good as a crafted stereo mix, so would a downmixed LCR > LR sound as good as the original LCR? Suppose that each channel has a peak of -0.3dBFS with an RMS level of somewhere around -18dB. Sum these into a 2-buss, and you alter everything. L/R gains in level quite dramatically, possibly clipping the outputs - if not clipping then some form of automatic attenuation must be occurring. Either option is bad news IMHO.

The automatic attenuation a la DD is an abomination, I agree. But there is no risk for clipping as long as you know your 0 dB level and have sufficient power in the amp.

I'm certain that the +10dB is for DVD-Video

...and for DVD-A, DTS, and SACD (should be, anyway), acording to the specs.

The reason to have an LFE is to extend the frequency response of the system to lower than what you would otherwise expect to have. Not to pump it by an additional 10dB.

I have the opposite understanding.

And when it is utilized by the mixer, it should be heard - otherwise (again) you risk skewing the balance, the levels, the relative dynamics & the mix image.

Yes, but if you have OK front speakers you just direct it to them. Better with LFE in good front speakers than in a half-assed sub.

(If the genereal opinion is that this is way too OT, then maybe some kind moderator could move the relevant parts to a new thread?)

 

[neil wilkes]

Yes, but if you have OK front speakers you just direct it to them. Better with LFE in good front speakers than in a half-assed sub.

No.
All 5 speakers should be same make & model, and if the mix is a 5.1 then you should use it & not redirect it, or you are not hearing the mix as intended.

 

[EMB]

Exactly. Just as summing a stereo signal to mono is at best dubious--there were dedicated mono mixes for a reason--so too taking a 5.1 signal and reducing it to stereo makes little sense, and serves no purpose other than to create an alternate stereo mix that will probably be unbalanced and cluttered at best, or really weird and unlistenable at worst.

ED

 

[ArnoldLayne]

For a humble system like mine, I'd say main advantage with LFE is decreasing workload for small speakers. Same goes for bass management. Despite the possible degradation with BM, my bookshelf frontal distort much less when they don't have to deal with drums and bass. So I think it's a wise decision to edit the KC albums according to current HT standards. And after all, we all do benefit from these formats being brought to a broader public.

I keep checking DGM and other shops almost every day but still no news there. Does anybody know if there is any confirmed dates yet and if there will be pre-orders for these fine releases somewhere?

 

[simonwagstaff]

I have found Amazon.com to not be that reliable in terms of release date. Best I can suggest is do what I do, check this forum and there is also a spot on the DGM shop website that is titled "dvd-audio". I just check that about, oh 8 times a day......

 

[silvahalo007]

Even so, wouldn't Amazon have Red and Lizard posted for pre-orders by now? I'm starting to doubt we will see these for June. There isn't enough info out there...

 

[Almen]

All 5 speakers should be same make & model

That could be debated. Some argue that a multitude of smaller speakers well can be used for surround, and even is the better solution.

if the mix is a 5.1 then you should use it & not redirect it, or you are not hearing the mix as intended

I think you should utilize your speakers optimally according to size and power capability, and the bass should go to the speaker with best bass capability. If you don't have sub, that could be the front speakers, the surround speakers, or all of them. If you have a sub, you might direct the bass content of the front and surround speakers in a 4.0 mix to the sub, even if that is not "hearing the mix as intended".

 

[Almen]

taking a 5.1 signal and reducing it to stereo makes little sense, and serves no purpose other than to create an alternate stereo mix that will probably be unbalanced and cluttered at best, or really weird and unlistenable at worst.

I agree.

 

[EMB]

I do know this much: if any of the KC 5.1's see release, all our systems will get a workout!

ED

 

[Almen]

I do know this much: if any of the KC 5.1's see release, all our systems will get a workout!

ED

Yes, and our brains as well!

This is definitely the surround release I look forward to the most.

 

[neil wilkes]

That could be debated. Some argue that a multitude of smaller speakers well can be used for surround, and even is the better solution.

I think you should utilize your speakers optimally according to size and power capability, and the bass should go to the speaker with best bass capability. If you don't have sub, that could be the front speakers, the surround speakers, or all of them. If you have a sub, you might direct the bass content of the front and surround speakers in a 4.0 mix to the sub, even if that is not "hearing the mix as intended".

My last comment on this, I think.
Smaller speakers are not better. They have been created by companies who are trying to screw you, and are suitable - barely - for film listening where C channel is non critical as far as full range goes as it is fed dialogue almost exclusively, ditto the rears where it is effects in the majority of mixes. Music is - and should be - treated differently.
5.1 music is mixed & mastered for all 5 main channels being full range on same make & model, or as close to full range as possible. A minimum of 50Hz for the Low cutoff point is recommended by the RPG, and is what all albums are mixed to. Small speakers require the .1 to become a subwoofer as opposed to an LFE, as it will end up carrying the majority of the bass.
Redirecting a 5.1 setup to a Quad type setup is simply going to result in something that was not what the mixer intended. Please try to remember a subwoofer is not the same thing as an LFE.
Still, it's up to you & I am not going to waste my time arguing the point any longer as I feel it is futile in this case.

 

[Almen]

My last comment on this, I think.
---
I am not going to waste my time arguing the point any longer as I feel it is futile in this case.

OK, no use answering, then.