King Crimson in 5.1?!
- Thread starter elroy
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I didn't know that. I always thought that a phantom centre was only used in stereo because, obviously, you have no choice. Very interesting.
The current plan is to release two discs per month starting in June with Lizard and Red. I have not seen a detailed release schedule yet, so it's not clear to me when a specific title (e.g. Islands) can be expected though I believe that Court will be released in Oct for it's 40th anniversary.
BananaSlug
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Thanks!
To my knowledge there has been no mention of a box set. Since the 30th anniversary editions weren't boxed in their initial release, I wouldn't expect one from DGM this time either.
The Japanese market might be different but I don't know.
neil wilkes
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
First Two are definitely going to be Lizard & Red.
ITCOTCK will be ready for the anniversary as well.
I know these have been put back/delayed, but there are very good reasons for this called "Additional Content" - these are going to be much more than the original plus a 5.1, with all manner of bonus content, alternative mixes, out-takes, stuff that has not been heard since the original sessions, all manner of goodies are being included.
Obviously I cannot say too much right now, but I will post what I can when I am allowed to do so.
As far as box sets go, there are currently no plans to do these as a box (although it would be a really cool idea to produce a certain number of empty boxes that can be used for those who want to buy the complete set - that would be cool) and the reason for this is that it might put off a lot of potential buyers.
Crimson have had several line ups, and not all people like all incarnations - so the cost of doing this even as 2 or 3 boxes might put some off.
It's a heck of a lot of discs, as the project doesn't stop at the first 10..........(how's that for a tease?)
ITCOTCK will be ready for the anniversary as well.
I know these have been put back/delayed, but there are very good reasons for this called "Additional Content" - these are going to be much more than the original plus a 5.1, with all manner of bonus content, alternative mixes, out-takes, stuff that has not been heard since the original sessions, all manner of goodies are being included.
Obviously I cannot say too much right now, but I will post what I can when I am allowed to do so.
As far as box sets go, there are currently no plans to do these as a box (although it would be a really cool idea to produce a certain number of empty boxes that can be used for those who want to buy the complete set - that would be cool) and the reason for this is that it might put off a lot of potential buyers.
Crimson have had several line ups, and not all people like all incarnations - so the cost of doing this even as 2 or 3 boxes might put some off.
It's a heck of a lot of discs, as the project doesn't stop at the first 10..........(how's that for a tease?)
>>> It's a heck of a lot of discs, as the project doesn't stop at the first 10..........(how's that for a tease?)
That's a hell of a GREAT tease!!!
That's a hell of a GREAT tease!!!
better get me some more storage space and a better job to pay for this !!!
Looking forward as always to more news from Neil and more teases along the way.
i note that in his diarys Robert Fripp is writing sleeve notes at the moment should be fun !!.
Looking forward as always to more news from Neil and more teases along the way.
i note that in his diarys Robert Fripp is writing sleeve notes at the moment should be fun !!.
project? surely you really meant to say projeKct
That's great to hear. I think I may have said way back at the beginning of this thread that the Thrak era double-trio stuff would be awesome. There's so much going on in that band and the added dimension of 5.1 would only make it even more awesome.
lonster
Senior Member
neil wilkes
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
project? surely you really meant to say projeKct
And if I had thought of it, I would have!! Great call.
Almen
500 Club - QQ All-Star
Yes, and 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?neil wilkes said:
Well, a lot of classical recordings sound great in 4.0, so I thought that you could go for that when the contents allow. Maybe studio recordings in general are different?
I sit and listen in my sweetspot with a stable phantom centre, but the centre channel might come in handy with several listeners, I guess.
Ge Someone
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
As you probably know the Center (dialog) channel and the LFE are introduced for cinemas. Now they are here, it's up to creative people to use them for the better.
BTW the .1 for music should be called Low Frequency Enhancement (there are not really effects in music like there are in movies). It is often used as a half-baked pre-configured bass management, to help people with a sub-woofer make some use of it. (this sounds more negative than I meant it.)
The center can be a bit harder, but in my opinion Steven Wilson used it very well so far. There are other 5.1 mixers that don't know what to do with it and just turn it down or very low.
(maybe we should not even discuss this in this thread)
neil wilkes
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Fair call, Ge. It should be called Low Frequency Enhancement.
In actuality, it does a indeed get complicated. There is a huge difference between an LFE used as an LFE and a Subwoofer (or "half-baked bass management" system, as you so eloquently put it!). How it is used in Audio land is entirely down to the mixer. There are ways & ways, and in answer to Almen when he states that
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.
This is not the thread for this discussion though.
In actuality, it does a indeed get complicated. There is a huge difference between an LFE used as an LFE and a Subwoofer (or "half-baked bass management" system, as you so eloquently put it!). How it is used in Audio land is entirely down to the mixer. There are ways & ways, and in answer to Almen when he states that
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.
This is not the thread for this discussion though.
re: phantom stereo vs. center channel use - I am willing to bet that many of our 5.1 surround systems started out as 2.0 stereo systems, perhaps with a hefty percentage of the value put into the main speakers; this is how mine started. When I added a couple of surrounds, a powered subwoofer and a center speaker (all from the same manufacturer to minimize timbre differences as my limited funds would allow) I found that the center speaker which sounded so articulate with movie dialog could not match the musical quality of my two larger and more expensive (albeit older) main stereo speakers. There is a certain midrange emphasis (or is it lack of more outlying frequency's) from the center speaker with its smaller drivers that gives music and vocals localized to this speaker a certain timbre that makes me wish for these localized parts to be at least duplicated in the main front speakers to even out the tone quality. My center speaker can sometimes just sound kinda "honky".
With some surround mixes (Alan Parsons anyone?) that eschew the center speaker entirely I find that I don't miss sound coming from that center speaker at all. The phantom center works just fine for me and the overall timbre remains more consistent. There are other mixes where using the center sounds really good and adds to the overall impact of the playback. I can't help but wonder if knowing that a certain percentage of existing 5.1 systems would be similar in composition to mine might drive the desire to minimize center speaker use in certain mixes. Of course for those of you with 5 matching speakers this would not be an issue but I doubt that I'm the only one with a more varied setup. Just my $0.02...
With some surround mixes (Alan Parsons anyone?) that eschew the center speaker entirely I find that I don't miss sound coming from that center speaker at all. The phantom center works just fine for me and the overall timbre remains more consistent. There are other mixes where using the center sounds really good and adds to the overall impact of the playback. I can't help but wonder if knowing that a certain percentage of existing 5.1 systems would be similar in composition to mine might drive the desire to minimize center speaker use in certain mixes. Of course for those of you with 5 matching speakers this would not be an issue but I doubt that I'm the only one with a more varied setup. Just my $0.02...
In a 5.1 setup, all the speakers are important. I don't think there is a good argument for saying that there are situations where it would be okay to use the center speaker less. On some albums it is used less but I think this represents a missed opportunity. The center speaker is key to obtaining a moving 5.1 mix. All of the great 5.1 mixes use the center channel to it's full potential.
neil wilkes
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
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.
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?
I would think this is being asked because in the past, Neil has sympathized with the view that dedicated LFE content is typically unnecessary for music releases (as opposed to movie soundtracks) -- and including it can even as many problems than it solves, due to erratic bass management practices among player and AVR manufacturers.
As for 3.0 vs 2.0, (LCR vs LR) that's been known to provide more stable imaging and soundstage since the earliest days of home audio, back in the 1930's IIRC. The adoption of two channels home delivery formats was always more a nod to convenience and customer acceptance, than audio science. Certainly unless you are considering just a single listener always listener always rooted in the 'sweet spot', a center channel will provide a better 'stereo' experience for listeners.
Of course using a center loudspeaker with a different timbre/frequency response from the L/R -- one that is more 'honky' for example -- can degrade the benefit.
