Supertramp - CRIME OF THE CENTURY - Where is it?!

[Bob Romano]

Personally, I'm not interested in live performances...

I have this show on Blu-ray and the performances are really great. Very faithful to the originals.

 

[steelydave]

There were no quad mixes done while I was there (until 1979). I'm sure the Trident A-Range mix console was capable, but there were no 4 track tape machines setup, at least during my time there. When I was doing much of my work at Farmyard Studios in the '80s, when I started there was a Trident desk, but even when they upgraded to an early SSL which would have been quad capable, there was no demand for quad at that time.

So I never mixed anything in quad, my first surround experiences were from the early 2000's - at that time mostly mixing to accompany video for DVD etc....

SWT

Very interesting indeed - it seems like even though quad was a relatively quick failure in the '70s, nearly every major (and often, minor) studio upgraded their hardware and monitoring "just in case" and then subsequently had little or no use for it (he says weeping, as a lover of quad mixes). It sort of reminds me of an anecdote I once read about the Klondike Gold Rush of the late 1890s - very few people actually became wealthy from striking gold, and instead the entities that did well were the outfitters who provided pickaxes, sieves and other equipment to the hopeful prospectors. I think if anyone did well off quad it was the equipment manufacturers, not only on the professional but consumer side too - if you want proof of that look no further than eBay, where it seems like there are more four-channel reel-to-reel decks available for sale than there are desirable tapes. We may occasionally complain about the quality of multichannel mixes today, but we certainly can't say we're not spoiled for choice.

What you've said also echoes what some other engineers have told me - Mike Butcher, who did the brilliant quad mix of Black Sabbath's Paranoid at Morgan Brussels (on a beautiful CADAC console) said he'd only ever done one other quad mix ("of some French accordion music") and when I asked Stuart Epps about Gus Dudgeon's Mill Studios being quad-equipped, he told me they'd built it with the intention of remixing all of Elton's albums in quad, but by the time it was done quad was so dead that it never happened, and that the only "catalog" type of remix ever done at the studio was the stereo remixes for the Superior Sound of Elton John compilation nearly ten years later.

I do appreciate your weighing in here too (even if my pipe-iest pipe dream hopes of a Mahavishnu Orchestra Lost Trident Sessions quad mix now lay in smithereens) because there are so many of your colleagues from the short "golden era" of quad that I'd love to question but who are no longer around to tell us how and why they did things. I think we take for granted that knowledge is always available, but my experience in researching a niche subject like quad says that the answers to some questions are lost forever, so the simple act of writing things down can mean that information (sometimes the importance of which we don't even realise) can endure in perpetuity.

 

[inspclouseau]

Very interesting indeed - it seems like even though quad was a relatively quick failure in the '70s, nearly every major (and often, minor) studio upgraded their hardware and monitoring "just in case" and then subsequently had little or no use for it (he says weeping, as a lover of quad mixes). It sort of reminds me of an anecdote I once read about the Klondike Gold Rush of the late 1890s - very few people actually became wealthy from striking gold, and instead the entities that did well were the outfitters who provided pickaxes, sieves and other equipment to the hopeful prospectors. I think if anyone did well off quad it was the equipment manufacturers, not only on the professional but consumer side too - if you want proof of that look no further than eBay, where it seems like there are more four-channel reel-to-reel decks available for sale than there are desirable tapes. We may occasionally complain about the quality of multichannel mixes today, but we certainly can't say we're not spoiled for choice.

What you've said also echoes what some other engineers have told me - Mike Butcher, who did the brilliant quad mix of Black Sabbath's Paranoid at Morgan Brussels (on a beautiful CADAC console) said he'd only ever done one other quad mix ("of some French accordion music") and when I asked Stuart Epps about Gus Dudgeon's Mill Studios being quad-equipped, he told me they'd built it with the intention of remixing all of Elton's albums in quad, but by the time it was done quad was so dead that it never happened, and that the only "catalog" type of remix ever done at the studio was the stereo remixes for the Superior Sound of Elton John compilation nearly ten years later.

I do appreciate your weighing in here too (even if my pipe-iest pipe dream hopes of a Mahavishnu Orchestra Lost Trident Sessions quad mix now lay in smithereens) because there are so many of your colleagues from the short "golden era" of quad that I'd love to question but who are no longer around to tell us how and why they did things. I think we take for granted that knowledge is always available, but my experience in researching a niche subject like quad says that the answers to some questions are lost forever, so the simple act of writing things down can mean that information (sometimes the importance of which we don't even realise) can endure in perpetuity.

Well written Dave~

Black Sabbath ~ War Pigs​

 

[JediJoker]

...even though quad was a relatively quick failure in the '70s, nearly every major (and often, minor) studio upgraded their hardware and monitoring "just in case" and then subsequently had little or no use for it...

SSL were still making quad-capable, music-focused consoles as late as the early '90s with the 4000G+ series. I suppose that was more for LCRS mixing?

 

[HomerJAU]

Pulled from Ken Scott’s post on the David Bowie Ziggy Stardust Atmos poll today after being asked about Crime of the Century:

Oh my my, Crime. I agree wholeheartedly about Crime in ATMOS. All I can say is it is in discussion. I was being a little flippant when I suggested writing to Universal as they are the decision makers. The band, management and I are all for it, the label hopefully moving in the right direction. I got to listen to an original tape of Crime the other week with Miles Showell, hint hint, and I have to say I was blown away by how good it sounded after living with the less than great versions released over the years.

 

[JulesRules]

Pulled from Ken Scott’s post on the David Bowie Ziggy Stardust Atmos poll today after being asked about Crime of the Century:

Wow, I didn't know Ken had signed up on this forum. Fingers that this works out. And hopefully neither Rick nor Roger will put stupid spanners in the works - as much as I love both as writers, singers and players, their involvement in reissues seems to have been a hindrance so far. Reminder Rick wanted to shelve the Paris DVD, Roger objected to its release after the other three members had finished it, Rick supposedly has high quality footage from later tours but never bothered to turn it into a DVD or Blu-Ray. (I see Ken said the band and management are all for it, so maybe I'm being too pessimistic.)

We also desperately need the original studio versions of "Land Ho" (pre-Crime single; the version on Retrospectacle is a previously unreleased remix done for possible inclusion on Crisis? What Crisis?) and "You Started Laughing" (Crisis era b-side) on CD... Both were also produced by @Ken_Scott so hopefully, if nobody else is talking about that yet, he can achieve something there as well...

 

[jaybird100]

Pulled from Ken Scott’s post on the David Bowie Ziggy Stardust Atmos poll today after being asked about Crime of the Century:

I'd be happy to see any of Supertramp's albums issued in Atmos, BUT... they would need to include a proper 5.1 mix, too. That way, we could have the album in hi-rez sound, since the Atmos mix would most likely not be.

 

[himey]

BUT... they would need to include a proper 5.1 mix, too. That way, we could have the album in hi-rez sound, since the Atmos mix would most likely not be.

It is the mix and mastering that is by far the most important, and not the format. SHF 101.

 

[jaybird100]

It is the mix and mastering that is by far the most important, and not the format. SHF 101.

I don't know that I can quite agree with your statement, Himey. I don't believe the Atmos mixes properly mix down to 5.1, or 4.0, artifact-free. And since Atmos is generally not hi-rez, having at least one format on the disc, besides stereo, is important, regardless of format.

 

[minimumtumbleweed]

I don't know that I can quite agree with your statement, Himey. I don't believe the Atmos mixes properly mix down to 5.1, or 4.0, artifact-free. And since Atmos is generally not hi-rez, having at least one format on the disc, besides stereo, is important, regardless of format.

Well, the "official" definition of "high-resolution audio" is anything greater than standard CD quality, i.e., 44.1 kHz and 16-bit. So, yes, Atmos is "hi-rez". Whether it folds down to a proper-sounding 5.1 is up to how it is mixed and mastered, but has nothing to do with "artifacts".

EDIT: Didn't mean to come across as snarky, although the quotations kind of make it look that way. Was just trying to say that the concept of hi-rez is a bit ambiguous, but even by the accepted definitions of hi-rez Atmos definitely falls within that category.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

And since Atmos is generally not hi-rez...

So you don't consider lossless 24/48 high res enough, apparently. Would a dedicated 24/48 lossless 5.1 mix meet your needs?

 

[himey]

I don't believe the Atmos mixes properly mix down to 5.1, or 4.0

That is what nearly every 5.1 mix is if the Blu-ray includes an Atmos mix. It is just done in the DAW rather than just playing the Atmos Dolby TrueHD track and ignoring the Atmos metadata. Rarely will the studio pay for two separate new mixes. It is just easier to export the 5.1 from the Atmos session.

 

[jaybird100]

So you don't consider lossless 24/48 high res enough, apparently. Would a dedicated 24/48 lossless 5.1 mix meet your needs?

Actually, yes. A mix that's specifically intended for 5.1 would make a big difference for those of us who don't want, or need, Atmos. My listening room is great for 5.1, but in an apartment with thin walls (and ceiling), and being really small, it's not feasible.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Actually, yes. A mix that's specifically intended for 5.1 would make a big difference for those of us who don't want, or need, Atmos. My listening room is great for 5.1, but in an apartment with thin walls (and ceiling), and being really small, it's not feasible.

Although I don't have any Atmos releases to announce just now (I actually have been creating them for some time now), I must say that having become so comfortable creating 5.1/surround mixes, I go ahead and do that first and then extend and expand them into the Atmos picture - rather than start at Atmos and expect it to downmix. I would always suggest offering both options for any projects I am involved with. I still see 5.1 as a very particular important presentation.

I also am very attached to Binaural versions!

SWTx

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Actually, yes. A mix that's specifically intended for 5.1 would make a big difference for those of us who don't want, or need, Atmos. My listening room is great for 5.1, but in an apartment with thin walls (and ceiling), and being really small, it's not feasible.

So it's not the Atmos standard 48kHz sample rate you have an issue with. It's the lack of a dedicated 5.1 mix. I agree with you. I think they should all come with a dedicated 5.1 mix to satisfy everyone. But like @himey said, no one wants to pay for 2 mixes.

For the record, prior to installing the Atmos add-ons in my system, I spent months playing Atmos tracks mixed down to 5.1. My AVP did the mixdown from 7.1 to 5.1 (ripped files only, I don't play discs anymore) I thought the results were quite good. What artifacts are you hearing? What device performs the mixdown in your system? How can you compare without having an Atmos system to compare to?

 

[Thonolan]

So it's not the Atmos standard 48kHz sample rate you have an issue with. It's the lack of a dedicated 5.1 mix. I agree with you. I think they should all come with a dedicated 5.1 mix to satisfy everyone. But like @himey said, no one wants to pay for 2 mixes.

I'd happily pay more just to have the opportunity to hear two different dedicated mixes. I have a great Atmos system, but I always listen to the 5.1 mix with equal interest too if both are present. I'm glad that Steven Wilson and Bruce Soord keep including both 5.1 and Atmos in their projects - and they are often clearly different presentations.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I'd happily pay more just to have the opportunity to hear two different dedicated mixes. I have a great Atmos system, but I always listen to the 5.1 mix with equal interest too if both are present. I'm glad that Steven Wilson and Bruce Soord keep including both 5.1 and Atmos in their projects - and they are often clearly different presentations.

Again I agree. But the reality is the labels/bands aren't willing to pay more.

Sometimes the 5.1. is just as good a presentation as the Atmos.

Wilson and Soord, like @Stephen W Tayler, use the 5.1 mix as a starting point for the Atmos. And if the mix already exists, why not include it? Many others don't start their projects that way.

A 5.1 mix now has become a bonus of sorts.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

While so may original analogue tapes have the respect of being digitised at 96k 24bit, or even 192k (which is impossible for remixes) - so many albums were originally recorded digitally at 48k (sometimes 44.1k) and at 16 bit for multitrack - so - when it comes to working digitally in the box for a remix - do you expect it to just be upgraded to 96k? As far as I am concerned 48k is a high rez mixed at 24 bit, even if the multitracks might have been at 16bit (and even originally mixed to DAT in 16bit.)

Maybe if you can run your mix through an analogue console and process through genuine analogue workflows it might be worth upscaling - but I however have to work inside the box for all the projects I am involved with. So worth sticking to the appropriate format.

For me it is definitely all about creating the best mix - so yes, the format is important, but just upscaling for the sake of it is not really necessary.

 

[steelydave]

I don't think anyone's going to 'not buy' an remix because it's at 44.1 or 48kHz if that's the original recording resolution, but I think there is a case for upscaling.

IMO the best solution is that for anything under 48kHz that you work at double the original resolution, and 24bit, so for 44.1kHz original material, work at 88.2kHz and for 48kHz original material, work at 96kHz. Because it's a simple mathematical calculation (multiply by 2) you negate (more or less) the chances of introducing any artifacting - like I wouldn't go 44.1kHz to 96kHz for this reason.

The benefit to working in double resolution of the original 44.1 or 48 isn't really any improvement to the original multitracks (in my opinion) it's that all the subsequent effects, EQ and post-processing is rendered at twice the accuracy. I've always felt that reverb tails for example, are noticeably better and more natural sounding in 'true' hi-rez (ie DSD64 or 88.2/24 or higher PCM) and I'm sure there are other instances like this too.

At the end of the day, in today's world hard drive space is cheap, computer processing is fast, and these things continue to trend in that direction over time. Even a 192/24 5.1 mix wouldn't even occupy 1/4 of a BD-25 Blu-Ray disc - a 96/24 5.1 mix of a 45 minute album is only about 3gb, so I don't see any point in working in 48/24 to halve that size to 1.5gb in a world where we measure our hard drives in 1,000-gigabyte terrabytes. With zero drawbacks or limitations to working in 88.2/24 or 96/24 I see no reason not to do it, even if the sonic improvement yielded was only 1 or 2 percent.

 

[jaybird100]

Although I don't have any Atmos releases to announce just now (I actually have been creating them for some time now), I must say that having become so comfortable creating 5.1/surround mixes, I go ahead and do that first and then extend and expand them into the Atmos picture - rather than start at Atmos and expect it to downmix. I would always suggest offering both options for any projects I am involved with. I still see 5.1 as a very particular important presentation.

I also am very attached to Binaural versions!

SWTx

Then you're doing it right! Good to know.