Caravan - In the Land of Grey and Pink - Deluxe Edition remixed by Steven Wilson

Never heard a single note of Caravan's music and not being a huge fan of Tull
both of these reissues have my interest solely for the fact you've done the work
on them Mr. Wilson.

 

I've used LPLEX before, which is a free program. It worked well, but I was just burning high res stereo. Not sure if it works for multichannel.

 

+1

 

For those that have not brought this because the 5.1 is only Dullby, shame you are missing out on a supurb surround mix, which does sound good we know it can sound better maybe the 50th anniversary will see that.

Buy this great album and immerse yourself in the surround, thats the only reason i bought this album again.

 

Hi Steven,
Just to let you know this is the way I enjoy your great work with the 5.1 KC mixes.
1) DVD-A goes into computer and the 5.1 mix is extracted and converted to 5.1 FLAC files
2) My PC connected via HDMI sends the FLAC files to the receiver.
3) DVD-A is never played again (unless there is a nice video section).

I haven't even got a DVD-A player, so having the high-rez files available for download would actually make my life easier and I would not need to extract the files from the disc myself. (I like good packaging too but in reality I play FLAC files, not CDs or DVDs).

Keep up the good work...

PS: I'd love to visit your studio... would you invite me?

 

Both albums were released in 1971 and are superb. I think you will be happy with the content as well as the mixing and mastering that Steve adds to the sound.

Put me down as someone who is not too put off by the lack of a high resolution 5.1 mix. I suspect that in a blind test my ears could not differentiate between the 2 formats without some real training on what to listen for.

 

Totally agree.

 

Completely agree. The same I noted with the Mike Oldfield remixes of "Hergest Ridge" and "Ommadawn". Also DVD-Video only, but soundwise very good.

I am the last person who would not be looking for good hi-rez MCh music (owning 800+ SACDs and 200+ DVD-As), but rather a good compressed mix than a failed hi-rez remix.

 

I can see the point in choosing DVD-V. It is a universally supported format (while DVD-A is not) and it also supports uncompressed stereo up to 96/24. However not including a DTS 96/24 option for the 5.1 mix is just sloppy. All the DVDs issued by Mute for Depeche Mode and Nick Cave have 5.1 DTS mixes so EMI could have done the same for Mike Oldfield and now for the Caravan.

 

Looking forward to this mix and title. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1H0R99BBAA14VZHWG4EW

Of course DVD-Audio can and does have a DVD-V layer including 24/96 DTS and Dolby if done correctly. Uncompressed stereo could also be included depending on length of material. It would be interesting to know what the record companies thinking is in regard to costs.

Other options for the future to get Hi-Rez Stereo/Multi-Channel would be titles with the files in a "ROM" folder on the standard DVD, if the record company won't do DVD-Audio and there is enough room. Computer streaming should not be a problem and folks hip can create discs. If the record company was willing to do DVD-Audio, but disc cost is an issue, author the DVD-A disc and offer as .ISO file download for sale or as an extra that goes with the title. Burning a DVD-Audio from an .ISO is very simple, as anyone could do this no problem. The recent Tom Petty BR title has provided download extra's with purchase.

Another option is the record company might have a relationship with HDtracks already and the Hi-Rez Stereo/Multi-Channel tracks could be released here. https://www.hdtracks.com/

Many options to experience music are being used now of course and there is also not just one way to get music out there. The record companies need to IMO think of themselves as not only a distributer of music, but also a service provider of different formats for what is wanted and needed. Different technologies for an individuals needs. Not just one way, but a plus, + way of thinking. After all, I listen to "Dark Side of the Moon" for instance in SACD 5.1, DVD-Audio Quadraphonic, stereo CD and even MP3 depending on situation, device and needs.

 

I really hope that the Aqualung reissue will have DVD-Audio, or at least DTS 96/24, and I hope that the success of this reissue will inspire Ian to have you do a 5.1 remix of Thick as a Brick.

Do you know when the next Crimson reissues will be released? Larks' and Starless & Bible Black are next right?

 

EMI could have but the Carvan and Mike Oldfield disca are on Universal labels.

If you look at the last EMI edition I ahve where they went back to the original Quad mix Barclay James Harvests Once again EMI relased it with DTS96/24 surround and 2 versions of the stereo (Original Stereo and Quad downmix) album in 96/24 PCM. So EMI seem to have got that one as close to right as possible without the MLP streams.

Stand Up by Jethro Tull came with a very tame 5.1 mix of the Carnegie Hall concert in DTS

So fingers crossed

 

Yes, they work. However when today you have the chance to release in the original quality/resolution (heck, Dolby and DTS have new HD codecs out, which surely is a clue as to what companies/labels should be using) why are we getting these inferior products?

I'm sorry but a compressed DD5.1 track, even at 640kbps is poor compared to a lossless encoding. That is like just over 100kbps per channel. That is not acceptable. And yes, you can hear a difference (not everyone does, but people can hear it), especially on a mid-high range system. If a company must use a lossy codec it should be DTS 1.5mbps. Now that can be hard to tell between the lossy and lossless because of the high bitrate. However if you have decent equipment you can hear the difference.

However in 2011, all audio should be authored lossless. There is no excuse at all. I've got plenty of DVD-A discs that have DD5.1 for those with old systems and then a lossless MLP or PCM track for those who want to hear the master quality. There is choice. If you only include 1 version then where is the choice?

The chance is there for artists to release music in the original quality (or as close to) now, especially with blu-ray. Fans can finally hear how the track sounded in it's original recorded form.

Just look at all the Steven Wilson mixes out there, all the PT stuff, King Crimson, No-man, etc. They are stunning to listen to. To hear depth and detail, to really feel like the music surrounds you. It's something special. I only wish more labels/artists, etc followed suit.

What really baffles me is that for years people have said how 5.1 (dvd-a, sacd) is a niche product. Well, I suppose it is but there is still a big 'underground' market for them (they are just not mainstream). Then why are these labels releasing subpar editions? Because surely they are losing the people that these are aimed at?

Anyway, sorry to go slightly off topic.

 

The reason we get these inferior products is i'd imagine the people at the labels don't think they'd get enough ROI to make it worth spending what they'd have to to do them in hi rez.....now if we could convince enough people to buy the hi rez version[let's say round 50,000-300,000]then maybe they'd be more willing to do so in the future.

 

Well said...and the delivery method doesn't have to be DVD-A / SACD for audio. There's always Blu-Ray. But anyway, as you say, vanilla DD is not acceptable in this day and age, especially when there are so many lossy codecs available as options.

 

Lossless!!!

 

Except, the bits are not distributed evenly across channels at any given moment. And even if they were, you are assuming that 100 kbps means the same thing in terms of artifects, for every codec. It does not. DD and DTS are different codecs, and different from mp3 (though DD and mp3 are related by history).

Certainly lossy compression artifacts can be audible, but for DTS and DD with music in a 5.1 setup the chances are much, much less than when using, say, test signals in a monophonic or 2channel headphone setup.

If you are trained to hear lossy artifacts, perhaps. But not likely. Proving it definitely for a given listener would of course require level matching and a double-blind setup, I hope you agree.

Actually I agree that there should be a lossless OPTION (for those of us interesting in archiving our purchases), though I'm sure the companies will have a financial/cost excuse for omitting it, as Mr. Wilson alludes to.

What I am calling ridiculous is the pre-emptive decision to boycott a new mix simply because it is only offered in DD or core DTS.

 

The labels read lack of sales as lack of interest in the material, and they stop putting out that type of material. They will certainly not get any kind of message from silence, but they sometimes react positively to a letter or email. Try it.
Pouting in a corner gets you nothing.

 

Ordered this a while back without thinking twice about it. One of my favourite albums. I am disappointed to hear that the package doesn't live up to the promise of the King Crimson remasters. Probably wouldn't have bothered had I known - already got the vinyl and first two cd's.

Can anyone please cheer me up by telling me that there is at least a hirez stereo mix?

 

an artwork question

as Land of Grey and Pink cover art has particularly sentimental value for me, a question for those who've received product: is the FSK ratings label on this one printed into the cover art (arggh), or is it stickered?

 

It's not really ridiculous. If a label cannot be bothered (or being cheap) to give it's core audience the choice of hi-res then they lose business. Simple as that really.

I'm still amazed at how this can (and still does) happen with surround/hi-res releases. The main target audience are audiophiles, yet they release an inferior lossy product.

When will these clowns learn?

Sorry to rant a little but it really is frustrating at times. Just like with the 'loudness war' going on, it's ruining music for many people.

 

I see... I made the assumption because Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells was famously the first Virgin record and the Virgin catalogue was bought by EMI years ago.

 

No cheer thats Dulby as well

 

You mean even the stereo mix is not PCM? So they are not cheap, they are just incompetent. There is no money saving argument for using Dolby instead of PCM for the stereo mix.

 

I know One wonders how much more inept record companies can become then it happens.
Universal seem to be on a rollercoaster of ineptitude at the moment, and its the little things which can make a big difference:
Ditching the plastic covers for a sticky band and calling it a deluxe edition. (if tehy just put a sticker on a celphane cover you would not live in fear of ripping the cover and leaving sticky deposts on the cover)
Placing the third disc unprotected in the card sleeve in this case, rather than a separate digi tray.
For Rush's Moving Pictures album the put the booklet in the sleeve in such a way that it had to be bent right back to get at it rather that in the foldout.
Consistently considering Dullby Digital (Stereo and 5.1) as a good format for music. At least use PCM for the Stereo and DTS for the surround.