King Crimson in 5.1?!

[Almen]

Wow, this sounds almost too good to be true. Maybe we'll get a remix that is actually better soundwise than the original!

 

[Ge Someone]

This is good news. I'm sure SW will make something good of this but I find this information a bit worrying "these original tracks don’t quite run in sync, so Steven had to cut them into parcels."
I would hope there are better ways to re-sync those tracks, like ndiamone has suggested.

 

[rusinurbe]

This is good news. I'm sure SW will make something good of this but I find this information a bit worrying "these original tracks don’t quite run in sync, so Steven had to cut them into parcels."
I would hope there are better ways to re-sync those tracks, like ndiamone has suggested.

Fripp has a way with words which while conveying a way of doing things dont always convey it it the actual way they happen.

I love his diarys just for the insight into the lives of Fripp and the Minx the fictional town of Brendonbrough, Mr cheese the builder, and the absolitly criminal way various record companies teat musicians rights !!

 

[timbre4]

I would hope there are better ways to re-sync those tracks.

It may be the only way to go; monkey with the pitch and then it's out of tune. It's a matter of either reducing or adding dead space or removing it altogether and slding the parcels into time.

The enemy is the reels being down on a different machine and therefore the time elapsing between the track events is off.

 

[neil wilkes]

This is good news. I'm sure SW will make something good of this but I find this information a bit worrying "these original tracks don’t quite run in sync, so Steven had to cut them into parcels."
I would hope there are better ways to re-sync those tracks, like ndiamone has suggested.

This is a misrepresentation of what has occurred.
The problem, as anyone who uses old tape based systems will be very well aware of, is that not all tape machines run at exactly the same speed. So, when we look at the 24/96 stereo masters (straight out of the archives and re-digitized at this resolution especially for this release series) and try to achieve sync with the new multichannel mixes, we see immediately that some tracks are running at slightly different lengths. I have to state categorically that there are no discernible pitching issues here and trying to fiddle with the timing (utilizing a time stretch algorithm, followed by a pitch algorithm) will run an unacceptable risk of actually introducing a problem (artefacts) where there was no problem before.

Let's move on to the statement about "cutting into parcels".
In actuality, the transfers have been cut into separate tracks. In this manner, once I get the streams from steven I can sync up to the stereo masters by recreating the gaps & crossfades in the original stereo masters so that the start points of every track match perfectly - this has to be done, or else the authoring will not be done properly to spec unless a downmix is added to the surround mixes (never on my watch) because any group in an Audio_TS must be capable of being presented in stereo.
We achieve this by utilizing PGC Block authoring, which works by doubling up on the tracks in every group - importthe multichannel mixes as stream #1, then the stereo tracks as stream #2, then the track imagery & menus will work on both sets of mixes without having to either double up on menu assets or group assets.
Why is this necessary? Simply because every group has to be playable in stereo, or else we could well get the situation where a stereohead will attempt to play a muyltichannel mix, and as a result (if there is no downmix, or no dedicated stereo stream included in that group) will hear just L & R, missing out completely on any information in the C, LFE, LS/RS channels which is clearly not what is needed.

The solution?
Mix each track as a separate item, and crossfade to the original PQ marks in the stereo streams. So far out of 5 multichannel mixes delivered, we have been able to achieve this withoutresorting to time stretching or pitch shifting - and I defy anybody to tell the difference, pitch-wise. The differences really are negligible - we are talking seconds across a 15 minute track.
AGain, there are other things going on here too. How many of you own "Lizard" on CD? Did you know it is actually a 5 track album, yet when you load it into a player you will find much more than 5 index marks on the disc.
This is because several of the tracks follow the old "Prog Rock" habit of having subsections, almost like an opera does.
So Lizard looks like this on the sleeve:
1 - Cirkus
2 - Indooor Games
3 - Happy Family
4 - Lady Of The Dancing Water
5 - Lizard.
The mixes as supplied look like this:
1 - Cirkus
2 - Indoor Games
3 - Happy Family
4 - Lady Of The Dancing Water
5 - Prince Rupert Awakes/Bolero
6 - The Battle of Glass Tears
7 - Big Top
The indents on the actual disc look like this:
1 - Cirkus
2 - Indoor Games
3 - Happy Family
4 - Lady Of The Dancing Water
5 - Lizard (comprising)
5a - Prince Rupert Awakes
5b - Bolero - The Peacocks Tale
5c - The Battle Of Glass Tears (comprising)
5ci - Dawn Song
5cii - The Last Skirmish
5ciii - Prince Rupert's Lament
5d - Big Top

In summary, what appears to be just a 5 track album is supplied as 7 mixes, yet broken down on the disc indents to many more than this.
Check your CD - it will have marks at all these points. On this particularly long stream, you will see that because we are trying to match the stereo to the surround (out of necessity) the component sub-tracks in "Lizard" (the track, not the album) would have gone off-sync by around 15 seconds by the time of "Big Top" - which is not nearly long enough to make any audible difference on playback. On the DVDA the start times are all properly synced, yet anyone who does rip the tracks & try to align them up will notice the start points are all in sync, but the ends of the tracks rarely are - although I really cannot stress enough there is no audible difference at all.

Hope this allays any fears that anyone has.
This is one hell of an ambitious project, and we are all putting an awful lot of time & effort into ensuring that it will be as good as it is possible to be - for both stereo & multichannel fans alike.
ITCOTCK aligned up with very little difficulty at all - total loss of sync is under 3 seconds at the worst case, and again, all start points are perfectly aligned. If old multitrack tape machines had been crystal locked for speed, then none of this would have happened. That ain't the way it is though, and exactly the same problems will have been faced many times over in the past. I seriously doubt that Abbey Road have the same machines that were used for the original Beatles sessions - so that remastering programme will have faced the same problems.
Going back - finally - to the sessions that Robert is talking about, I guarantee that all you will think is "Fuck me, this sounds great"

 

[JohnA]

Looking forward to these babies...


:banana:

:banana:


:banana:

 

[Almen]

This is one hell of an ambitious project, and we are all putting an awful lot of time & effort into ensuring that it will be as good as it is possible to be - for both stereo & multichannel fans alike.
---
Going back - finally - to the sessions that Robert is talking about, I guarantee that all you will think is "Fuck me, this sounds great"

And we are eternally greatful for this!

...the situation where a stereohead will attempt to play a muyltichannel mix, and as a result (if there is no downmix, or no dedicated stereo stream included in that group) will hear just L & R, missing out completely on any information in the C, LFE, LS/RS channels which is clearly not what is needed.

Is there going to be an LFE channel?

 

[neil wilkes]

Is there going to be an LFE channel?

Of course there will be.

 

[Quadzilla]

This is very cool Neil. Thanks for keeping us posted. I was thrilled when they announced the 2-channel Crimson King SACD, which did not materialize; but this is way better. Cheers, Mike.

 

[Analogueghost]

I know it's a pretty highly regarded album, but I've never had the pleasure of hearing ITCOTCK. I can't wait to hear it in surround though - this re-issue sounds amazing!

 

[timbre4]

I for one never had any fears about this! Gets more exciting every day...

 

[Quadzilla]

I know it's a pretty highly regarded album, but I've never had the pleasure of hearing ITCOTCK. I can't wait to hear it in surround though - this re-issue sounds amazing!

My MFSL LP copy is one of my favourites.

 

[Almen]

Of course there will be.

Oh, ok. I would have thought that there were no sounds on it to require that, but maybe it is standard also on music productions on DVD-A? 4.0 is not that uncommon, is it?

 

[konoyaro]

Thank you, Neil for taking the time to explain the part of the process to bring the surround mixes to fruition and confirming that the discs will be DVDA. I know that it's been alluded to in the past that they will DVDA, but it's nice to have it publicly stated.

I'm really looking forward to these. :banana:

Thanks again!

 

[user 1679]

I'd love to hear a collection of Steven's middle of the night goofing around bizarro mixes.

 

[neil wilkes]

Oh, ok. I would have thought that there were no sounds on it to require that, but maybe it is standard also on music productions on DVD-A? 4.0 is not that uncommon, is it?

Some of the Mellotron sounds definitely go down well below 60Hz.
4.0 these days is rare, as there is generally something in the centre channel, albeit very little on some titles - making them very close to old Quad, but without the 90 degree speaker setup.
These mixes have substantial Centre channel content though, and there is more than you might think going on in the bass end too.

 

[timbre4]

There should probably be a dynamic range for the uninitiated, warning that Larks Tongues In Aspic part 1 will eventually present a sudden system challenge with that massive blast of the full band kicking in hard.

Perceptually, this is one of the loudest sounds I've ever heard and always thought it amazing the stylus could stay in the groove given this assault. If the fine engineering is carried through transparently, I expect to take it carefully until I know the limits.

 

[BananaSlug]

OK, I'm starting to get pretty interested here. I'm not really familiar with KC, but have heard some of their records as many of my friends over the years have been big fans. A while ago I scrolled through this thread looking for release information, but now I've forgotten. Can someone tell me what the latest info is on the releases? Thanks!

 

[Almen]

Some of the Mellotron sounds definitely go down well below 60Hz.
4.0 these days is rare, as there is generally something in the centre channel, albeit very little on some titles - making them very close to old Quad, but without the 90 degree speaker setup.
These mixes have substantial Centre channel content though, and there is more than you might think going on in the bass end too.

Thanks, really appreciate your answers, here.

But all channels are full range, aren't they? I thought that the .1 channel is only for extremely loud outbursts in the lower frequencies, and not a general "low frequency channel".

And about the center channel - if it is not needed for the 2-ch stereo, then why is it needed for the surround mix?

 

[neil wilkes]

Thanks, really appreciate your answers, here.

But all channels are full range, aren't they? I thought that the .1 channel is only for extremely loud outbursts in the lower frequencies, and not a general "low frequency channel".

This is not really correct. The LFE = Low Frequency Effects.
What is piped into this is dependant on what the mixer wanted to do, pure & simple. All 5 channels are indeed full range as well.

And about the center channel - if it is not needed for the 2-ch stereo, then why is it needed for the surround mix?

Come again?
Stereo = 2 channels, Left & Right.
Surround in the current era = 5.1 channels, Left Front, Right Front, Centre Front, Left Rear, Right Rear, LFE.
Why would we not use the centre channel? It allows dedicated feeds to a centre along with phantom centre and as a result, gives a much better & stabler image.
I really don't understand the question. Sorry.