Getting To The Bottom of King Crimson On CD

I've posted some very telling clips, folks.

Feel free, while they are still good.

I won't be uploading any more because there hasn't been as much interest in actual comparisons as it takes to motivate me to continue to split .wav files up and upload, etc.

 

Yes, you're looking mainly at EQ. Frequency graphs aren't the best way to show compression, which is a change in dynamic range.

But what interests me is how closely the curves of your various graphs track each other (albeit at relatively low resolution -- 1024 FFT size), until they get to the very upper limit (where noise reduction is applied, for example). I wonder how many of these use the same source?

 

I'll be checking them out tonight if I have time, or this weekend.

Like I said, I kind of don't want to know. Pathetic isn't it?

 

I can't, but as I say, they sound pretty flat.

LP production tapes almost always have top end boost in my experience.

The complaint about the EGs seems to be that they were warm but "dull," not harsh or strangely EQd. Again, not a common sign of EQd production tapes.

As discussed, both Larks and Starless sound like they may have been from production tapes to me. I hear some top end boost on those. I sort of prefer the 30ths in these cases, but I'm interested in the DEs.

 

Not at all. I felt the same way about Crimson for a long time. I thought they might be one of the few artists I enjoy where I could just own the remasters and be done with it. But once I actually spent some time doing some comparisons, well, there you go...

I have to admit I was surprised at how great the EG disc of In The Court sounded compared with the OME. I really thought the OME would smoke it. On the OME, Giles drums were just butchered from midrange boost. While I have no proof, I find it highly illogical for anyone to argue that the master tapes have drums that sound paper thin, while a CD supposedly from a high gen production tape has much more oomph and tight power in the drum sound. It's the common problem: Inferior source that was probably just left alone sounds better than a superior source that was tampered with.

 

And those Holland mini-lps look so cool.

 

I prefer the Japanese minis, since they are much better replicas of the original albums, but I hear ya. Plus, great photo booklets for the 30ths.

 

In the case of Red, as with most of the KC HDCDs, HDCD decoding lowers the peak by 6 dB, without peak extension. (sorry about the bad formatting below, but I can't figure out how to make it look good without tedious manual editing)

30th Red, undecoded:
Left Right
Min Sample Value: -29543 -29544
Max Sample Value: 29545 29545
Peak Amplitude: -0.9 -0.9
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: 0 0
Minimum RMS Power: -88.58 -88.65
Maximum RMS Power: -8.27 -7.7
Average RMS Power: -14.4 -13.98
Total RMS Power: -14.16 -13.71
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms

peak - average: 13.5 13.08


//
30th Red, decoded with hdcd.exe:
HDCD detected
Peak extend: not enabled
minimum gain: -4.0 dB
maximum gain: 0.0 dB

Left Right
Min Sample Value: -14771.5 -14772
Max Sample Value: 14772.5 14772.5
Peak Amplitude: -6.92 -6.92
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: 0 0
Minimum RMS Power: -98.13 -98.15
Maximum RMS Power: -14.3 -13.72
Average RMS Power: -20.42 -20
Total RMS Power: -20.18 -19.73
Actual Bit Depth: 20 Bits 20 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms
peak - average 13.5 13.08


Note that the 'dynamic range' (peak - average') stays the same, as expected when there's no peak extension. In fact, when you peak-normalize the two .wav files to the same value, then do invert/mixpaste to show the differences between the two, you get a flat line in waveform view and extremely faint traces in spectral view; frequency scan shows these components to be below 6 kHz and above 17kHz, with none rising above -96 dB, suggesting that any frequency differences between the decoded and nondecoded are inaudible at normal listening volumes.

 

Point taken and I do apologize for being rude. Your post Nr. 153 is well put, informative and subjective, however I got a little carried away with your remarks regarding the "objective" side of listening and that being some kind of
dogma making all discussions obsolete - and I positively hate that killer argument of "have you heard the master tapes" - like "how do you know Christ got crucified? Were you there??"
Again, I'm sorry for the "unnecessary roughness" on my side

 

Agreed. I don't see how your posts prevents any other poster from reading Dr. M's posts.

 

You can't say that, either, unless you mean that they have even frequency response over the entire audible range (which no music files have), but that's not the meaning of flat you're using -- you mean, flat transfer, and you simply can't know that for sure without more information.

Compared to what?

But possibly sign of high-generation tape sources...or poor alignment of playback head...or....

 

Now English is only a second language to me, but what you are doing seems to be putting words in Jeff's mouth - He said they "sound pretty flat (transferred)" to him and you make that "you can't know that for sure (that the master tape was used)" - No he cannot, but that is not what he said, now is it?? Being overly anal on semantics is for lawyers, I know, but if one cannot state his subjective opinion using words like "flat" or "warm" without being posted into submission seems a little too harsh .....

Anyway thanks for taking the time and labour and bringing this thread to us, Jeff

 

Excellent job, thanks! That's very interesting.

 

Ah, yes, always the literalist.

However, I fail to see where I mentioned ever knowing anything "for sure."

The original EG disc sounds better than the OME to me. This, of course, is subjective.

My use of the term "pretty flat," in this instance, simply means that the original EG CD sounds like it has much less harsh EQ moves than many other CDs I've heard where LP production tapes were used. This again, is subjective, based on personal conclusions and listening experiences. It is not possible to prove in any literal sense.

However, it should be noted that (and this favors your logic) we can't know that the original EG CD issue of In The Court was even made from a production tape.

 

If you examine Jeff's chain of inferences, you'll see that 'flat' always refers back to a master tape...that hasn't been heard (or reported about, from the people who have heard it). So 'sounds flat' presumes what it intends to prove, no matter how it's phrased.

People have been proven dead wrong about such inferences enough times here, for caution to be the watchword, don't you think?

 

Okay, but curiously...

1. What do you think of the samples I posted from Schizoid Man?

2. Do you suspect the Original Master Edition was rolled flat by Heyworth and Fripp, or would you guess that EQ was applied in the mastering process?

Of course, we all realize you can't know the answer to #2, but your impressions would be interesting to hear about.

 

Once again,Fripp says that "nth generation" copies were used, correct?Fripp is much closer to the situation than anyone on this forum.He said that the original cds were mastered flat.Unless,anyone here has heard the mastertape OR knows someone who has, then let's let this rest.If someone knows Fripp , Arnold or a former EG employee let them post this ultimately.Saying that we can't know that a production tape used is like saying the same thing for half of the product that claims "Original Mastertape Mastering"!Only people close to the situation know.So speculation is irrevelant,if one likes a 3rd generation copy of a tape that has no mastering moves so be it!Some people might call it warm,others might call it muddy and noisy!In addition,someone's equipment may color their judgement as to how wonderful something might sound regardless of soundwaves,compression and technical information.

 

Although he didn't use the word "flat" in the conversation I had with him, I'm sure RF used that term negatively to mean that someone just pressed a button to do the transfer. His main point has always been that he was not involved in the original transfer but had to pay for them out of royalties.

 

Agree totally.

 

My point that we can't know a production tape was used was related to SiriusB's comments. I'm quite comfortable with the possibility that one was.

Whatever the source tape, it sounds better than the 'Original Master Edition' to me. The main difference is in the sound of the snare drum and cymbals. The OME sounds harsh in this respect.

To point out that this and other opinions I have about these CDs is subjective would be like adding a note to my posts that the sun rises in the East. Even my suspicion that the EG disc was made from a tape with little or minimal EQ is ultimately speculation. To me, this seems obvious and should be assumed during these types of discussions.

 

Interesting observations, Donald. I am inclined to agree with everything you have noted. For me, I guess the sound of the drums on the OME outweighs the clear benefits of the master tape source.

 

Just listened to the 21st samples and my comments (through the comp speakers) are as follows:
the main problem with the EG sample is the spray can sound of the choked hi-hat. The 30th seems to clear that up and add small details to ensure it doesn't sound like an amorphous hiss. I also prefer the bass sound on the 30th - less uneven and sounds more like a real person playing to me. Now the snare is very bright on the 30th, but it always was bright. This album is no audiophile dream - try In The Wake Of Poseidon for an audiophile revamp - and the first 3 albums seem to concentrate on the snare's skitter for a time keeper, whereas Ian Wallace added the first decent bottom end rhythm (whether that is due to the better recording of Islands or a different drummer is harder to assess)