King Crimson in 5.1?!

I'm a little surprised by the news that surround mix will be "only" 48KHz. With reservation for being a layman and listening through a humble equipment, the albums I find sounding best are all 96/24 and I cannot think of any 48/24 that has stunned me in terms of sound quality. Why has 48KHz been chosen for these long-awaited releases?

It's not a matter of being a layman or having humble equipment -- it's that audible difference due to 48kHz and 96kHz SR at the delivery end is going to be at best hard to authenticate and at worst utterly imaginary.

If no '48/24' has ever stunned you, maybe it's because of the mastering, or maybe you're just prejudiced against the smaller number. The least likely reason is the sample rate.

The reason why it sounds better I don't know but I know 96/24 sounds better to me.

neil wilkes said:

Yes and Yes.
Basic content (the main albums) will essentially be as they are for the Porcupine Tree releases, IE 24/48 5.1 mixes, as well as DTS of course.
Stereo streams will be 24/96 in the Audio_TS, and 24/48 in the Video_TS.

Could have a rant about system design (loudspeakers, anyway) but this is not the right thread for that.

Click to expand...

Hi Neil:

Is that the same sampling rates that you refer to for Porcupine Tree, as used for the Talking Heads brick DVDA and Doors Box DVDA for the stereo mixes?

Can we talk about the new King Crimson releases please? This thread has gotten way off track. I am really looking forward to these, and my eyes are starting to roll back in my head wtih all this geek-speak. Neil has been trying to steer this one back on topic, but nobody is picking up on it.

It's about the MUSIC y'all!

Quadzilla said:

Can we talk about the new King Crimson releases please? This thread has gotten way off track. I am really looking forward to these, and my eyes are starting to roll back in my head wtih all this geek-speak. Neil has been trying to steer this one back on topic, but nobody is picking up on it.

It's about the MUSIC y'all!

Click to expand...

Ya, maybe the techno talk can carry on at www.whogivesashit.com

Quadzilla said:

It's about the MUSIC y'all!

Click to expand...

I agree!! However, there isn't any music to talk about yet. Maybe just a new thread would do it (I'm sure there are some that give a shit.)

neil wilkes said:

Stereo streams will be 24/96 in the Audio_TS, and 24/48 in the Video_TS.

Click to expand...

I hope this isn't a stupid question (and off topic...sorry), but when I play back PT releases in stereo on my Denon they are coming out at 24/48 (pressing the "Audio" button on the remote tells me this).

Yet you say they are also available at 24/96?

Quadzilla said:

Can we talk about the new King Crimson releases please? This thread has gotten way off track. I am really looking forward to these, and my eyes are starting to roll back in my head wtih all this geek-speak. Neil has been trying to steer this one back on topic, but nobody is picking up on it.

It's about the MUSIC y'all!

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Sorry about that.

wavelength said:

You are absolutely right. Sorry about that.

Click to expand...

No apology necessary. A lot of us are really looking forward to these releases. I have still yet to listen to all of the latest Genesis SACDs, so I can hold out a bit longer. Neil, any more news?

Sorry, just saw this. Though it is pointless to try to discuss this I believe that I CAN hear the difference and respectfully disagree.

There are some test results that would back me up. With SACD there appears to be some issue around 1khz that is inherent to the format. I can't find the link right now.

Double blind listening tests have also been demonstrated to not demonstrate too much.

As for bit depth and sampling frequency, I can easily tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. You could too I bet, once you know what to listen for.

And I can hear the difference between 64kps MP3 and VBR MP3, and dolby digital, 16 bit and SACD and DVD-A, though I will say it is difficult to differentiate SACD from DVD-A though I still think the midrange and vocals are smoother and more 3-D with DVD-A.

So I guess we can at least agree that I am not an average listener!
:banana:

24/48 will be fine for me for the King Crimson DVD-A surround mix. I am pleased that it is DVD-A rather than SACD.


Now just release the things!!!

ssully said:

To get into a debate, AFAIK, there is no way for the average listener to determine this, and it certainly has not been demonstrated in any formally published way. For starters you'd have to be absolutely sure that both the mastering and playback chains were equivalent. (One could, I guess, redigitize the output of the SACD as DVD-A, using Chrome or somesuch..and then compare then double-blind)

And as I often do upon seeing such sentiments, I would wager that you would not be able to tell the difference between high-quality DTS transfer, and the other two formats, in a fair blind test. So from my POV, it's not something to worry about (indeed, you may actually get more correct bass management with DTS than with DVD-A or SACD, depending on your system)

People seem to have a bias against lossy formats because they are lossy. What they don't take into account is that DTS, Dolby Digital, mp3 ets are perceptual encodes, based on sound psychoacoustic principles -- not just simple indiscriminate data-reductions.

Click to expand...

Quadzilla said:

Can we talk about the new King Crimson releases please? This thread has gotten way off track. I am really looking forward to these, and my eyes are starting to roll back in my head wtih all this geek-speak. Neil has been trying to steer this one back on topic, but nobody is picking up on it.

It's about the MUSIC y'all!

Click to expand...

This thread and most of the threads on QQF aren't about the music per se. We don't generally discuss the structure of the songs , the lyrics, and whatnot, nor the emotional impact of various chord progressions or melodies. Nor is it mainly about how great one band is compared to another, or one album to another, or one performance compared to another.

We mainly discuss the sound and the technology behind particular recordings, generally multichannel ones, and for that reason discussing the mixing and mastering choices is totally on-topic.

simonwagstaff said:

Sorry, just saw this. Though it is pointless to try to discuss this I believe that I CAN hear the difference and respectfully disagree.

There are some test results that would back me up. With SACD there appears to be some issue around 1khz that is inherent to the format. I can't find the link right now.

Click to expand...

Too bad. It would help your argument.

Double blind listening tests have also been demonstrated to not demonstrate too much.

Click to expand...

By whom, exactly? As they are in common use in audio research, this news that they don't demonstrate much would be stunning and important news to the scientific community.

On the other hand what has been demonstrated well is that 'sighted' comparison and evaluation of sounds is prone to errors. This, in fact, is why DBT methods are used in audio science.

As for bit depth and sampling frequency, I can easily tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. You could too I bet, once you know what to listen for.

Click to expand...

Sure, I could, if I listened to very quiet parts of recordings at levels that would be ear-splitting during the loud parts. For normal levels of listening, you'd have to provide some blind-test results to authenticate your claim.

And I can hear the difference between 64kps MP3 and VBR MP3,

Click to expand...

That is a somewhat incoherent, apples-to-zebras claim, but I don't doubt at all a 64kbps CBR MP3 could be easily differentiated from a great many other sorts of audio, including the ~190VBR setting that I use whenever I need to make an MP3 (I use the LAME codec). It'd be more interesting to see if you could distinguish the higher bitrate MP3s from source via an ABX test.

and dolby digital, 16 bit and SACD and DVD-A, though I will say it is difficult to differentiate SACD from DVD-A though I still think the midrange and vocals are smoother and more 3-D with DVD-A.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you're hearing a difference between the formats there at all, actually. And with all due respect, there is no plausible reason why you should.

So I guess we can at least agree that I am not an average listener!

Click to expand...

Your claims for being an above-average discriminator of audio difference are very typical of audiophiles...as is the lack of good evidence.

ssully said:

This thread and most of the threads on QQF aren't about the music per se. We don't generally discuss the structure of the songs , the lyrics, and whatnot, nor the emotional impact of various chord progressions or melodies. Nor is it mainly about how great one band is compared to another, or one album to another, or one performance compared to another.

We mainly discuss the sound and the technology behind particular recordings, generally multichannel ones, and for that reason discussing the mixing and mastering choices is totally on-topic.

Click to expand...

If it hadn't been me Sully, you wouldn't have said a word. I will consider myself bitch-slapped again. Well done.

ssully said:

Too bad. It would help your argument.


By whom, exactly? As they are in common use in audio research, this news that they don't demonstrate much would be stunning and important news to the scientific community.

http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial

Sure, I could, if I listened to very quiet parts of recordings at levels that would be ear-splitting during the loud parts. For normal levels of listening, you'd have to provide some blind-test results to authenticate your claim.


I don't believe you're hearing a difference between the formats there at all, actually. And with all due respect, there is no plausible reason why you should.

Your claims for being an above-average discriminator of audio difference are very typical of audiophiles...as is the lack of good evidence.

Click to expand...

Ho Hum, I think we have been down this road before. As I said before, this is not an argument either of us will "win". I CAN hear a difference, others can hear a difference, you apparently cannot along with many others. If you don't think that hi rez audio is worth it for you then why be concerned with these releases? You have your "lame" audio codec a which is good enough for you and a lot of other people.

"Too much of everything is just enough"


I believe that there is an audible difference, a worthwhile difference and since this is a forum for discussing the technology, as you stated in a previous post, I believe hi rez audio technology be it SACD or DVD-A is worthwhile and worth supporting.

5 seconds of googling would have found lots of folks who don't seem to think that double blind listening tests are the be all and end all of audio science.

Sorry, are you shocked?

Quadzilla said:

If it hadn't been me Sully, you wouldn't have said a word. I will consider myself bitch-slapped again. Well done.

Click to expand...

You give yourself either far too much, or far too little, credit here, I can't decide

Either way, I'm not monitoring your posts specially, regardless of what you think.

simonwagstaff said:

Ho Hum, I think we have been down this road before. As I said before, this is not an argument either of us will "win". I CAN hear a difference, others can hear a difference, you apparently cannot along with many others.

Click to expand...

No, I DO hear differences but I DON'T automatically ascribe the causes to them that you do. Ho hum, I guess you'll never understand why.

If you don't think that hi rez audio is worth it for you then why be concerned with these releases?

Click to expand...

Because they're in surround. Silly me, on a forum called Quadraphonic Quad, I thought that would be enough to merit concern.

You have your "lame" audio codec a which is good enough for you and a lot of other people.

Click to expand...

Jokes depending on LAME's name, are lame.

"Too much of everything is just enough"

Click to expand...

"Obesity epidemic sweeps America. News at 11."

I believe that there is an audible difference, a worthwhile difference and since this is a forum for discussing the technology, as you stated in a previous post, I believe hi rez audio technology be it SACD or DVD-A is worthwhile and worth supporting.

5 seconds of googling would have found lots of folks who don't seem to think that double blind listening tests are the be all and end all of audio science.

Click to expand...

Even less time would be required to find lots of people who believe in astrology or think the world was created 6,000 years ago.

Your point?

Sorry, are you shocked?

Click to expand...

That there are poorly-informed people on the interwebs who insist they aren't? Not hardly.

Alrighty then! Can't wait for these King Crimson releases to come out. I am equally looking forward to the surround mixes in 24/48 as well as the stereo mixes in 24/96. I anticipate a nice improvement in soundstaging and smoothness of the midrange, if not, I will imagine it hard enough to be real. Perhaps soon there will be a surround MP3 format, I am sure it would be "good enough" for most people.

I am not one of them.

Oh wait, that's DTS.

ssully said:

You give yourself either far too much, or far too little, credit here, I can't decide

Either way, I'm not monitoring your posts specially, regardless of what you think.

Click to expand...

Bravo, another Sully put-down. May I have another sir?

We NEED these releases, the natives are getting restless