• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not request or offer for sale or trade copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

Chris Squire - FISH OUT OF WATER [DTS DVD]

Rate the DTS DVD of Chris Squire - FISH OUT OF WATER

  • 8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1: Poor Content, Surround Mix, and Fidelity

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5

rtbluray

Hi-Res Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
7,762
Likes
4,300
Location
Middle TN
#1
Please post your thoughts and comments on this 2018 reissue from Esoteric Records of the classic solo album "Fish Out Of Water" by former Yes bass player Chris Squire.
This deluxe edition contains a new 5.1 surround mix of the album mixed by King Crimson's Jakko Jakszyk, along with a host of extra visual and audio material.

(y):)(n)


 

ssully

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,287
Likes
291
Location
in your face
#4
I actually managed to find a rather huge flaw in the mix without even listening to the whole album.

Queue up 'Safe' in the original mix (remastered) , in 2.0 remix and 5.0 remix versions, for comparison.

Skip to about 12:20 seconds in...where Squire's huge depth-charging bass lead comes in on top of the full orchestra. A mighty moment.

Or at least, it's supposed to be.

On the remixes, it's gone. The whole lead bass part that normally continues to the big final chord, is gone. (It's there on the remaster of course.)

JJ strikes again?

Someone please verify what I'm hearing.
 
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
186
Likes
59
#5
I'm not a big fan of 2.0 remixes for the above reason. Sometimes key sounds that we are so used to hearing are just gone. It's stupid.
 

ssully

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,287
Likes
291
Location
in your face
#6
Now as for the rest...

The news is good! (this is for the 5.1 mix )

1) this is the drum sound Bruford should have had on his boxed set (though the bass drum level is maybe a *bit* aggressive)
2) right away (Hold Out/You By My Side) you can tell that the 'top' on Squire's bass has been dialed back, and several of the mixes have him less prominent than before...disconcerting at first but you can still always hear him. Ditto with the vocals, which seem a bit back in the mix sometimes.
4) Silently Falling is a stone cold tour de force. Jakko nailed this one.
3) Lucky Seven is almost whole new tune, new parts flown in , it's now revealed as an amazing prog homage to string-driven Motown/Stax tunes of the same era (think 'Papa Was A rolling Stone' or 'Theme from Shaft'). The original mix left Squire highly exposed, highlighting the drum/bass interplay (consistently excellent) ; now he's a player in a much busier mix, and the whole thing grooves. Both mixes work.
4) Safe is a mixed bag, it's often slamming, and he works hard to make repetitious parts sound fresh, but the orchestra here and elsewhere sounds more 'fake' than on the original mix, due to Jakko adding more reverb. He also seems to favor horns over strings. And then there's the huge gap where a bass lead should be , near the end. But....Bruford's drums flying around in circles! How can that not be awesome?

In the booklet Jakko says that one of his aims was to highlight some 'hidden' parts, and for the most part it works well. There's one part where you can tell he was like , 'you have GOT to hear these insane backing vocals Squire is doing right here'. It's fun.

Overall a worthy alternate mix to a classic.

The 2.0 remaster (by Paschal Byrne) of the original mix, btw , sounds quite fresh too. DR10/11 according to that meter thing, so it's not been smashed . It has been boosted in the treble a bit, I think. What's remarkable is that some parts actually emerge that are rather hard to hear on the original mix, like the very low bass tone (organ) at the start of Hold Out Your Hand. So perhaps this is really a lower-generation source tape than my go-to version (the early 1990s Japanese CD)
 
Last edited:

ssully

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,287
Likes
291
Location
in your face
#7
I'm not a big fan of 2.0 remixes for the above reason. Sometimes key sounds that we are so used to hearing are just gone. It's stupid.
It's gone in the 5.1 mix too. I hoped I made that clear. It's either a JJ screwup, or the part was lost or wasn't tracked separately (e.g., if it was added 'live' to the 2-channel mixdown).
 
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
186
Likes
59
#8
It's gone in the 5.1 mix too. I hoped I made that clear. It's either a JJ screwup, or the part was lost or wasn't tracked separately (e.g., if it was added 'live' to the 2-channel mixdown).
Sorry, didn't realize that you mentioned it was missing on both 2.0 and 5.1.

Maybe it was a conscious decision on JJs part? Dumb to exclude it? Yes. But maybe on purpose.
 

ssully

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,287
Likes
291
Location
in your face
#9
Sorry, didn't realize that you mentioned it was missing on both 2.0 and 5.1.

Maybe it was a conscious decision on JJs part? Dumb to exclude it? Yes. But maybe on purpose.
Could be. Terrible decision if so. Now the section really is just repetition with not a lot of variety. It needs a lead part, and sounds like it was written with one in mind..
 

4-earredwonder

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
6,689
Likes
7,288
#10
Could be. Terrible decision if so. Now the section really is just repetition with not a lot of variety. It needs a lead part, and sounds like it was written with one in mind..
I know Steve Wilson prefers to have the participation of the artists when he remixes their albums into 5.1.....and now we know WHY.

Unfortunately Squire wasn't around to oversee this remix and apparently, this is what happens.

And for the price they're charging [with a lossy DVD~V 5.1 remix], it's really quite a pity.

I always 'love' how the labels will spring for a LOSSLESS Stereo remix but not extend that 'courtesy' for the 5.1 remix. Asinine, IMO, since there's enough real estate on a DVD to accommodate lossless codecs for BOTH!

And even MORE asinine, a single Blu ray disc could've accomodated both a LOSSLESS stereo/5.1 remaster and the visual content of BOTH DVD~Vs contained within this set!
 
Last edited:

4-earredwonder

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
6,689
Likes
7,288
#14
Where's the "unlike" button?..not for you but for the stupidity of it all!!!
The Stupidity of it ALL refers to a LOT of recent 5.1 remastered BOX SETS which for all the HYPE are NOT definitive in my book because they refuse to give us the FULL MONTY.......meaning LOSSY 5.1 codecs and LOSSLESS Stereo remasters.

MOST of these albums were recorded at 15 or 30 ips and then are reduced to 48/16 bit 5.1 DVD~V. Excuse me, but when I'm asked to pay upwards of $80, 90 or 130 for a boxset JUST to get a 5.1 remix, I'm disgusted that they cannot include a BD~A with 96/24 5.1 AND Stereo remasters instead of the elaborate hard covered books, posters, and a huge box to hold the contents.

And this seems to be an alarming trend. Screw the record buying public.......and charge whatever you want and as far as quality, ANYONE on this forum who is tickled pink just to have a 5.1 remaster and really doesn't care how the remaster is presented really doesn't care about the word DEFINITIVE remaster. Because in my book, DEFINITIVE should be a 1:1 copy of the original multitracks and not a dumbed down LOSSY version on a technology created in the 1990's for 480p motion pictures....or, at the very least, give us MLP DVD~A 96/24 if you want to stick with DVD!

24 BIT is NOW, BD~A is NOW, UHK 4K is NOW. So lets live in that here and NOW and stop giving the public LOSSY f*ckin' CODECS!
 
Last edited:

kap'n krunch

organ of Corti junkie
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
5,585
Likes
2,025
Location
Several miles from Red Rocks...
#15
The Stupidity of it ALL refers to a LOT of recent 5.1 remastered BOX SETS which for all the HYPE are NOT definitive in my book because they refuse to give us the FULL MONTY.......meaning LOSSY 5.1 codecs and LOSSLESS Stereo remasters.

MOST of these albums were recorded at 15 or 30 ips and then are reduced to 48/16 bit 5.1 DVD~V. Excuse me, but when I'm asked to pay upwards of $80, 90 or 130 for a boxset JUST to get a 5.1 remix, I'm disgusted that they cannot include a BD~A with 96/24 5.1 AND Stereo remasters instead of the elaborate hard covered books, posters, and a huge box to hold the contents.

And this seems to be an alarming trend. Screw the record buying public.......and charge whatever you want and as far as quality, ANYONE on this forum who is tickled pink just to have a 5.1 remaster and really doesn't care how the remaster is presented really doesn't care about the word DEFINITIVE remaster. Because in my book, DEFINITIVE should be a 1:1 copy of the original multitracks and not a dumbed down LOSSY version on a technology created in the 1990's for 480p motion pictures....or, at the very least, give us MLP DVD~A 96/24 if you want to stick with DVD!

24 BIT is NOW, BD~A is NOW, UHK 4K is NOW. So lets live in that here and NOW and stop giving the public LOSSY f*ckin' CODECS!

Preacher...choir!!!
 

ssully

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,287
Likes
291
Location
in your face
#17
wait..so the MCH is only Dullbee?

Yes, and it sounds absolutely *terrible* because as smart people know, that's what Dolby Digital does. It dulls the sound. You can even see it in EQ analysis, if you look really carefully and wear special glasses and a hat made of thin aluminum.

So make sure you do not buy it. (Even though there is a DTS choice and it says 'DTS 96/24' when the disc is playing, it's all lies)

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

ssully

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,287
Likes
291
Location
in your face
#18
I believe it's DTS, Kap, but nonetheless, it's NOT MLP DVD~A 96/24, that's for SURE! But the Stereo remaster IS!
None of the items on the DVD are 'MLP DVD~A'. That would require a DVD-A player to play them. The disc is a DVD-V disc. The two stereo versions (remix and remaster) of the album are 96/24 PCM.

(NB: the bonus tracks are not on the DVDs)
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
186
Likes
59
#20
The whole lossy VS lossless thing really means nothing to me. Can the human ear even really hear the difference? Probably not. Same with all the bit rate wars like 16bit VS 24bit. It may look better in some stupid spectiral analyis graph but does it really sound better? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! And it takes up too much storage space.

The one thing I can say is that when comparing the 5.1 DD to the DTS, the DTS always sounds better to me. So that's all I need.
 
Last edited:
Top