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

[jimfisheye]

So there was this one app (maybe a couple) back 20 some years ago that did a really poor artifact riddled job of sample rate conversion. GoldenWave or a similar name. Popular in sharing and concert recording sharing circles in the early days. And now forever more... 44.1k sucks, all conversions suck, 16 bit automatically sucks...
48k? Wait... that's smaller than 96k... yeah ok, that sucks too!

That's one of the bits. The other is simply wanting to hear an intentional mix as opposed to something generated or upmixed or downmixed. If someone doesn't have the extra Atmos channels yet, well any Atmos mix is automatically sour grapes. Guaranteed to just suck, right?
But a downmix from that? Oh, hell no! I digress but wanting an intentional mix that someone made while listening to it on the same speaker array over something downmixed by algorithm is pretty straightforward and reasonable.

What were we talking about again? Sample rate crimes of the century?
Yeah, if there's any way to settle down the musicians involved here (which doesn't look good) a surround mix of this album and a few others would be pretty great!

 

[kfbkfb]

Here's my off-the-wall idea for a surround sound version of Crime of the Century:

Run the best stereo copy through a Surround Master decoder (using the Sansui QS decode mode) to derive a 4.0 version.

Run the best stereo copy through a Hafler/DynaQuad decoder to derive a 4.0 version (LB and RB would have the same content since H/D only derives 1 surround channel).

I suggest this because A/V receivers built since 2014 don't have Dolby Pro-Logic decoders, putting the stereo + QS derived + H/D derived versions on one disc would give listeners without good ways to derive surround sound from stereo a way to hear Crime of the Century in surround sound.


Kirk Bayne

 

[panamac]

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.

Agreed, Wilson and Soord mixes are different in 5.1 than ATMOS, and in most instances I prefer the ATMOS. Closure/C and It Leads to This are both AMAZING in ATmos

 

[CymruQuad]

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

Delighted with this news, I have always regarded Crime their finest work, I hope this works out.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

I got hold of the stereo Blu-ray disc when it came out some ten years ago. I'd be interested to know what people thought about this release?

 

[madscot]

I got hold of the stereo Blu-ray disc when it came out some ten years ago. I'd be interested to know what people thought about this release?

I love it, I upmix it using the dts-neural option on my Denon avr and it does a good job of a fake 5.1

 

[marcb]

I got hold of the stereo Blu-ray disc when it came out some ten years ago. I'd be interested to know what people thought about this release?

Terrible stereo mastering.

 

[jimfisheye]

Well there's a snapshot of subjectivity and different agendas!

 

[The Rang]

I got hold of the stereo Blu-ray disc when it came out some ten years ago. I'd be interested to know what people thought about this release?

I thought it was fine. Not great, not terrible

 

[himey]

I thought it was fine. Not great, not terrible

Same here.

 

[marcb]

Maybe I should have phrased it differently. It’s the worst version I’ve heard - vinyl and digital (although on second thought the MFSL vinyl with it’s tipped top and bottom typical of 80s MFSL vinyl might be right there; the MFSL CD on the other hand is very good). I have not heard a more recent mastering though (if there even is one).

 

[fourml8r]

I got hold of the stereo Blu-ray disc when it came out some ten years ago. I'd be interested to know what people thought about this release?

i ended up returning. it i did not hear any significant difference between the bluray and the MFSL CD that i have. Not good, not bad, just not worth spending the money on it for me.

 

[inspclouseau]

Actually, yes. A mix that's specifically intended for 5.3 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.

And any Atmos surround played in our 5.3 system sounds like SH**. We purchase zero music surround titles with out a dedicated properly done 5.1 mix. Fortunately, it would seem that 5.1's are still in most. DTS MA hopefully. Pretty happy about that!

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

And any Atmos surround played in our 5.1 system sounds like SH**. We purchase zero music surround titles with out a dedicated properly done 5.1 mix. Fortunately, it would seem that 5.1's are still in most. DTS MA hopefully. Pretty happy about that!

Personally I'd prefer all 5.1 mixes to be in LPCM...

 

[inspclouseau]

Personally I'd prefer all 5.1 mixes to be in LPCM

Personally I'd prefer all 5.1 mixes to be in LPCM...

All good with that!

 

[mutant_matt]

Terrible stereo mastering.

I need to re-listen to this to offer an opinion, TBH!

However, I WILL say this, they massively cleaned up some of the "glitches" that were on the original, so it walks all over the original release for that reasona alone, IMHO!!! (which was a pretty low bar to beat, however...sadly... )

 

[par4ken]

So there was this one app (maybe a couple) back 20 some years ago that did a really poor artifact riddled job of sample rate conversion. GoldenWave or a similar name. Popular in sharing and concert recording sharing circles in the early days. And now forever more... 44.1k sucks, all conversions suck, 16 bit automatically sucks...
48k? Wait... that's smaller than 96k... yeah ok, that sucks too!

That's one of the bits. The other is simply wanting to hear an intentional mix as opposed to something generated or upmixed or downmixed. If someone doesn't have the extra Atmos channels yet, well any Atmos mix is automatically sour grapes. Guaranteed to just suck, right?
But a downmix from that? Oh, hell no! I digress but wanting an intentional mix that someone made while listening to it on the same speaker array over something downmixed by algorithm is pretty straightforward and reasonable.

What were we talking about again? Sample rate crimes of the century?
Yeah, if there's any way to settle down the musicians involved here (which doesn't look good) a surround mix of this album and a few others would be pretty great!

GoldWave is a excellent and free program I used it for years. Regarding sample rate conversion, I don't know; back then with my old computer and soundcard I was recording at 48 or more often 44.1k so I didn't normally have to convert.

I don't understand the obsession with listening to a recording exclusively via the number of channels that it was "intended" for. As I understand it Atmos is supposed to be channel neutral. It is designed to be presented over differing number of speakers depending on the listeners setup. Downmixing should be very straightforward, only complicated if perhaps the mix contains phase irregularities either intentional or unintentional. Likewise up-mixing.

Back in the day it was talked about that RM (not QS) was a kernel rather than a matrix system. In other words it could be decoded via any number of speakers and as well could be properly decoded for speakers placed at odd positions. The idea of actual "channels" was thrown out. The same was true of Ambisonics. As I visualise it the same is true of Atmos. And by the way I almost never listen to stereo or even mono through less than four speakers!

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

GoldWave is a excellent and free program I used it for years. Regarding sample rate conversion, I don't know; back then with my old computer and soundcard I was recording at 48 or more often 44.1k so I didn't normally have to convert.

Personally, I use a really old Window based software called WaveWizard. Which looks like this: -

 

[jimfisheye]

I don't understand the obsession with listening to a recording exclusively via the number of channels that it was "intended" for.

It's simply wanting to hear a performance (ie the mix) as originally intended and delivered. It's not always obsession worthy. Sometimes I make personal altered masters too. I do like to hear stuff as delivered initially. An obsession to hear someone's creation! I thought that was what this was all about? Try the food before salting it first, right?

Atmos playback is supposed to be consumer convenient with different speaker arrays. There's still the original system the thing was mixed on and thus an origin story.

Maybe someone is flipping between different speaker arrays behind the board? Making intentional compromises as you go? I bet most aren't. Would be good liner notes to have!