King Crimson 2009 re-issues CD / DVD stereo/5.1 all inclusive thread

Actually, I was posting my first impressions about the dynamics of In the Court, so even I retain the right to look into it further and change my mind. So I’m not claiming to be right.

Of course I do think it appropriate to post and discuss my views.

Jon is the Board Operator of the Quadraphonicquad.com forum, and I posted a similar initial posting on that forum.

A moderator initially deleted my posting, and moved the follow-up comments to another thread (titled Loudness Wars). It was only when I reposted my initial comments that he said the initial deletion was a mistake, and reinstated my comments in the original thread.

I must admit I was very surprised by the vehemence of the personal attacks, the “fan-boy” attitude, and the hatred for this forum which is shown by some posters.

If you want to see why Jon has given up on this thread, have a look at the thread in Quadraphonicquad.com

By the way, even though I question the dynamics, both Red and In the Court are otherwise excellent. The surround mix is done very well.

 

WRONG!

I did NOT delete your post. If you took the time to read the messages over there, you would see that daved64 originally moved your posts to a thread about loudness, then restored them back to the King Crimson review thread when he realized that he should have left the original post there.

I did nothing but refute your claim of loudness, which I still refute.

Before you go around forums claiming that I have done something, you should check your facts.

As the board operator of QQ, the only threads I delete are from spammers, and if you think that I would delete a post or thread that disagreed with one of my opinions, then you are completely and totally clueless.

No brag, just fact......................FACT!

I have nothing left to say about this matter.

 

Jon is right that it was dave64 who deleted my post (and then restored it once I reposted it in the other thread).

I actually realized that it was not Jon who was the original moderator just after posting, and immediately corrected this.

Jon is commenting on what I first wrote, but his quote of my post already includes my correction.

(Edit - Well it did last time I looked, but now his quote of my post is the original version with the mistake included. Anyway, the mistake is fixed now.)

 

^^ I think you should keep your arguments about activity on another forum to pm's or the forum in question..

Im sure the majority of members here, don't want to read about your QQ experiences!

 

Yikes...as much as we're made fun of in some other forums, that (the exchange in the Quadwhatever) was truly bitter! I like it here, it's safer!

 

You could do a lot of damage to a small company's product by being incorrect about the levels of this remix. It is a big investment to remix six or seven, or 10 albums and master them to DVD-A with additional audio and visual layers. I would tread slowly with these findings in order to be sure before posting anything.

 

Well, for me during the early/mid-Seventies, they certainly were more than that! I was a huge champion for the band, in an area where everybody else thought I was a geek for liking them.

Even today, hearing Court, Wake, Lizard, Starless etc. is an entrancing experience. I can't wait to hear the (DVD?) stereo re-mix Wilson did.

 

Actually I was hoping that by posting my initial feelings someone would be able to post graphs of comparing the 1983 CD with the DVD-Audio and either prove me right or wrong. I am not able to do this.

It is certain that I would prefer the quiet bits of the DVD-Audio mix to be slightly quieter. And I'm equally certain that most people (especially those younger than me) will not agree with my taste.

Though I'm suggesting that this mix may not be perfect (or may not be perfect for my taste), I am overall extremely happy with the surround mix and the quality of the sound.

And for me this music is MUCH more enjoyable than The Beatles.

So I still highly recommend that fans, or those just curious, buy these discs.

I'll be buying the rest of the series, and I suspect that for each album the surround mix will become my preferred version.

But just because these discs are my music highlights for the year does not mean that I need to pretend that I think they are perfect.

Cheers,
Michael

 

Thanks very much for checking this

 

Oh, we agree, my friend... but I was merely condensing what I thought was JonUrban's main point, not my own...
I, like you, haven't heard the new Court yet...

I must admit that MichaelCPE has made me a bit scared now... Court is one of those albums I hold in the highest esteem and I wouldn't like to experience what he has reported...

At the same time, I'm also looking forward to hearing the hi-rez stereo and all the bonus goodies...

 

Javimulder,

Don't be scared. The rewards of this new release far outweigh my one complaint.

The disc does still contain differences in volume between loud and soft, and the extra clarity from the hi-rez, the surround mix, and the first use of the original tapes is amazing.

Compared to the Genesis SACDs the King Crimson is perfection.

With the Beatles remasters we only got a CD remaster, if you want to hear the mono you need to buy a whole box, and if you want mono and stereo you needed to buy both.

With the King Crimson you get the CD with the new 2009 stereo mix, plus bonus tracks.

And the DVD includes the album in surround (hi-rez and DTS), plus the 2009 stereo remix (in lossless 24/96 and PCM stereo 24/48), plus the 2004 stereo version, the bonus tracks, and an alternative versions of the whole album, all also in lossless 24/96 and PCM stereo 24/48.

So compared to other releases this is heaven sent.

 

If anybody's still interested at this point (the thread seems to have degenerated a bit -I didn't follow all of it), here's my review of the 40th Anniversary Red remix, 24/96 stereo track:


It is a very respectful remix by Mr. Wilson there. I must say I was prepared to be blown away as soon as the first chords of the track "Red", but in fact wasn't. I was more 'pleasantly surprised'. My appreciation of the work done really grew as the album went on. IMO, the track that benefits the most from the remix is "Providence". "Fallen Angel" and "One More Red Nightmare" are wonderful, "Starless" is great too, and "Red" is very good. In short, every track sounds excellent.
I don't usually pay much attention to stereo placement, so I don't know if it was kept like the original. It felt so. Weirdly, I felt that the right channel was more used, but that could just be me.
The remix is much in the style of Steven Wilson's previous work with P-Tree. Yes, the quieter bits are louder, but the tracks are still dynamic. I think the brass instruments could have used a little more ambiance around them as they appear very dry, but that's a personal preference. The drums have good stereo spread but usually remain in their corner. There is much rawness and impact, which is good for this album, and depth, presence and separation are increased, at the expense of sounding more 'digital': the original analog mix made things gel a bit better, but was less clear. In that sense, the original E'G CD from the 80's stays number one and remains the best alternative.
The stereo mastering was done by Simon Heyworth, and again his style is recognisable. I prefer my masterings warmer, as he tends to emphasize the top of sounds, but not distastefully so. Deep bass is very present and will shake your floor.
As a note, the CD mastering was not additionally compressed; it keeps all the dynamics present in the DVD-A mastering and sounds almost totally the same (it just has less resolution and realism).
The extras blew me away. The 3 bonus tracks are essential. My favorite version of "Fallen Angel" is now the Trio mix. It sounds gorgeous, too. The videos from the French TV exceeded my expectations. The picture is clean as can be, the sound is excellent, well balanced. Thanks to the INA (Institut National des Archives) for preserving these old SECAM video tapes. Even the directing is original and interesting, and not too kitschy, which is very surprising.

My notes:
8,5/10 for the mix
7,5/10 for the mastering
9/10 for the extras and DVD authoring
(10/10 being perfection, and I'm very critical!)


I will definitely buy the other reissues as I am very, very happy with this one. I am curious to hear what Steven Wilson has done with more subtle albums such as Lizard, The Court and Larks' Tongues.

 

Nice review Plan9, I hope to get my copy of Red in the mail today It's been a week and I'm getting antsy...

 

Wasn't it stated that the stereo mix of the 40th Anniversary is taken from 30th Anniversary, and 24/96 stereo track is also re-transferred from old mix, which were never touched by SW? Sorry if I missed something.

 

I just finished listening to the new Red set and I am very impressed with what Steven Wilson has done. The 5:1 DVD-Audio mix is really tasteful and never gets gimicky. I think that Bill Brufford's drums have gained a clarity that has always been missing from the complex and dense stereo mix. He really shines on the surround mix. Just to be clear, this is a 2-disc set with the original stereo mix on a redbook CD. Steven Wilson has remixed the music for the DVD-Audio including a hi-res 5:1 mix and a new hi-res stereo mix, at least that's how I read the liner notes with the DVD.

 

The ending is much louder than the rest. And the bass is much heavier. To the point where my wife thought the nails in the wood floor above my soundroom where going to start to come out. It's pretty much the strongest bass I have heard or maybe it just hits the resonance of the wood for a long period of time.

 

The DVD-A 5.1 of both RED and ITCOTCK were revelations to me. They both sound great and I have heard stuff in there I have never heard before. The mixes are tastefully done. I can't wait for Lizard to arrive and I am in for all of them as they become available.

 

Ok, please don't laugh but I don't think I have ever heard King Crimson. Is there any other band that you could compare them too? And what one album should I start with?

 

That sounded funny

Cheers for your review/explanation...

Thanks for your review, Plan9...

However, I must say I am under the impression that the new mix is the surround mix, and stereo is the old mix... I have just taken another look at the booklet and also at king-crimson.com and there's nothing there that says otherwise...

I may have misunderstood though, so if anyone has better info and/or a definite answer, do chime in...

Court and Lizard DO come with a new stereo mix, though... That was clearly stated...

 

You know what? I think you're right. I have been deceived by my lust for a new stereo mix it seems! I was so sure when I ordered the new reissue it was a remix, just like In The Court and Lizard! So, what I was actually reviewing was the original mix in HiRes... No wonder it sounded "respectful" to me. And it is not even a new mastering? I know I haven't heard the 1999 remaster in a long while, but gosh...

Don't mind me, I'll go and hide under a chair or something. Sorry everybody, I'm a tool.

 

Speaking as the DVD Author - and mastering engineer for the 5.1 mixes, I think there are some misconceptions that need to be cleared up here.
1 - LFE levels on DTS stream. There is no difference between the 2. Both streams were encoded from the same 5.1 master PCM file, to both MLP & DTS using the DTS-HD MAS system, version 2.whateveritis and the Meridian MLP encoder. Any differences in level between the 2 streams in the LFE is down to either
A - Bass Management settings, or
B - your DTS decoding setup, or
C - the way your DVD player handles Video_TS output & Audio_TS output.
Some players boost Video_TS LFE by +10dB, which is wrong.
Each stream is exactly the same, from the same masters.

Michael.
What you seem to misunderstand here is that the 5.1 mix cannot & should not be compared to the old stereo mix. They are different, from different generation tapes (some of the parets you refer to are second & third generation on the original stereo mix, due to the 8 track technology in use at the time requiring multiple bounces.
The new stereo mix was done by Steven & Robert, and according to Robert is much closer to what he wanted to achieve than the original.
Comparing the 2 stereo mixes is valid, but trying to compare a first generation 5.1 mix to an old, bounced stereo mix is akin to adding apples & oranges and trying to express the answer in bananas.

I take serious umbrage with the original claim that this disc is a victim of the loudness wars. Sorry, but this is pure ignorance. What you are hearing is a remix, and a different interpretation of the original music. Believe me, both Steven & myself are very sensitive to overcompression (there were no compressors used in mastering whatsoever, as it happens) and I have argued that overcompression is destroying music for many more years than is currently fashionable to do so.
This kind of claim does nobody any favours, and is seriously wide of the truth.
Again - and this cannot be overstressed - what you are hearing is a REMIX into 5.1, and as such certain parts are definitely not going to sound the same as they do in the original stereo.

Finally, a few words about the stereo mixes on offer.
The RED album has no new stereo mix. The stereo version IS the 30th anniversary edition remaster of the original mix, as done by Simon Heyworth.
ITCOTCK has the 30th anniversary remaster from the original masters - the so-called "HDCD" 30th version as opposed to the first 30th version, which was from a different master and was not HDCD encoded. This is here at 24/96, 24/48 & Red Book.
What was done in mastering I do not know, allI can tell you is I received the 24/96 & 24/48 streams separately from Simon at SAM.
The new stereo mix was done by Steven & Robert. The decision to edit Moonchild for the new stereo was also taken by Robert, and the full length "2009" version is in the extras, and on the CD too for completeness.

 

Many thanks to you, and kudos for this very exciting edition.
I love it when I read mastering engineers taking a strong stand against compression... and I appreciate that you take the time to clear possible misunderstandings. The word compression is a bit the Anti-Christ here, and some people use the word more and more freely.

 

Thank you Neil Wilkes for clearing things up and thank you also to everyone involved for such a good work on Red, which I've been playing everyday this week... Greatly looking forward to Lizard and Court!

 

Thank you!

This thread filled up quick with a boatload of mix and/or master misinformation.

Not to mention reckless speculation without having even heard (or analyzed) the discs. That kind of projection too often leads to an impression taken as fact.

Can't wait for these to show up in the bins.

 

Neil, do you know why the later stereo masterings for these weren't used (The ones done circa 2004, Original Master Edition or whatever it was called)?