HiRez Poll Yes - CLOSE TO THE EDGE [DVD-AUDIO/BLU-RAY]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the DVD-A/BDA of YES - CLOSE TO THE EDGE


  • Total voters
    143
Well I'm certainly very familiar with the album, it's just that the surround mix sounds identical, almost certainly due to issues with my setup. I suppose my expectations were more in line with the following description from earlier in the thread:
I've had the MFSL vinyl for years. Always thought this album was extremely well done considering the level of ambition. I'm sure the 24/192 transfer of the stereo master sounds just that little bit better without the vinyl generation (well done as it was by MFSL) but I honestly haven't listened to it yet with this amazing 5.1 remix here. I'm usually not a fan of remixes in any way shape or form but Mr Steve Wilson is a big exception. Mr. Wilson, your perception is really amazing!

I always knew this music was over the top ambitious but now you can hear every last detail of that. All the individual layered keyboard parts... Little electric sitar parts I hadn't heard before... The orchestration is huge. This mix simply could not be done in stereo - way beyond the confines of 2 channels.
However there's another post somewhere in the thread that claims there isn't much difference between the surround mix and the MFSL LP - again I know the quality of the vinyl pressing, turntable setup, and his surround setup etc but the difference in opinion is curious nonetheless.
I'm still confused by what you are trying to explain. Do you mean the exact same sound is coming out of 5 speakers?
 
Not exactly. I can hear that different sounds are positioned in different speakers, but the content is identical to the stereo mix.
 
Not exactly. I can hear that different sounds are positioned in different speakers, but the content is identical to the stereo mix.

Well that makes sense because both the stereo mix and the surround mix were made from the same multi-track master. That's a good thing. Both mixes are coming from the best possible source. The multi-track master is the source of truth. Anything else could never be as good. Note: I'm not a super techie audio guy but I think what I said is true. If anyone else here feels a need to correct my post please do so.
 
Well that makes sense because both the stereo mix and the surround mix were made from the same multi-track master. That's a good thing. Both mixes are coming from the best possible source. The multi-track master is the source of truth. Anything else could never be as good. Note: I'm not a super techie audio guy but I think what I said is true. If anyone else here feels a need to correct my post please do so.

I tried to suggest that he was listening to the same source in the "New Members Only" Thread. At least, this is what I was understanding he was trying to tell us. Separating the vocals and instruments into more than two loudspeakers lets you hear instruments clearer, more distinct and more enveloping. (y):)
 
This is exactly the point I'm trying to make - the stereo mix does sound the same as the surround mix on my system, which I'm sure is set up incorrectly. My expectation is that since the 5.1 mix was done from first-generation multitrack tapes it should reveal what was on the mulitrack tapes before they were mixed down to stereo. The album was recorded on a 16 track console and to free up tracks for more overdubbing, whole groups of tracks had to be "bounced down". That is, if you have a guitar in one track, keyboards in another and vocals in another, all three tracks can be 'bounced' into one. In doing so, fidelity is lost each time a track or group of tracks is bounced down. By the time the mixdown to stereo is done, a great deal of what was recorded will be inaudible. In other words, the more overdubbing done during the recording process, the less of the original recording (ie what was one the multitrack tapes) one is able to hear.

If you read interviews with the members of Yes and Eddie Offord, the producer, it's apparent that there was an enormous amount of of overdubbing. In the following interview Eddie Offord says that it took 1000 tracks to create the intro for Close to The Edge !!

http://www.nfte.org/interviews/eo234.html
 
That is all quite true, and still given the "opening up" for want of a better term of the mix in 5.1, you should be able to glean some small details that are buried in the stereo mix. Since there was no separate quad mix done back in the day of Close To The Edge's recording, there is no "different" quad mix as sometimes occurred when a group would sometimes add completely new vocals or instrumentation to their quad recordings that were not found on the mass market stereo versions. So, the stereo and the new 5.1 mix are both starting from the same batch of master tapes. Are the mixes "different"? Yes, they are. Are there different vocals or instrumentation? No, there is not. Off the top of my head, a good example of an LP that had very different content was Jefferson Airplane's "Volunteers", more knowledgeable quaddies could give you better examples I think. John

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make - the stereo mix does sound the same as the surround mix on my system, which I'm sure is set up incorrectly. My expectation is that since the 5.1 mix was done from first-generation multitrack tapes it should reveal what was on the mulitrack tapes before they were mixed down to stereo. The album was recorded on a 16 track console and to free up tracks for more overdubbing, whole groups of tracks had to be "bounced down". That is, if you have a guitar in one track, keyboards in another and vocals in another, all three tracks can be 'bounced' into one. In doing so, fidelity is lost each time a track or group of tracks is bounced down. By the time the mixdown to stereo is done, a great deal of what was recorded will be inaudible. In other words, the more overdubbing done during the recording process, the less of the original recording (ie what was one the multitrack tapes) one is able to hear.

If you read interviews with the members of Yes and Eddie Offord, the producer, it's apparent that there was an enormous amount of of overdubbing. In the following interview Eddie Offord says that it took 1000 tracks to create the intro for Close to The Edge !!

http://www.nfte.org/interviews/eo234.html
 
Are the mixes "different"? Yes, they are. Are there different vocals or instrumentation? No, there is not. Off the top of my head, a good example of an LP that had very different content was Jefferson Airplane's "Volunteers". John

My most different examples would be Mike Oldfield's Crises and Five Miles Out. Lots of different takes in the 5.1s compared to the stereo.
 
It's not a matter of hearing 'new' vocals or instrumentation, it's about hearing what was originally on the multitracks before they were mixed down to stereo. This is what's so utterly confusing about the discrepancies in opinion on this release. Some like yourself claim there are small differences in what can be heard, others say it is almost like hearing a completely different recording from the original. I can only put this down to differences in quality of equipment, and possibly issues with settings, but since I'm new to this I really wouldn't know for sure.

But according to Eddie Offord they had to 'cram' (and I'm quoting now) the recording onto 16 (or was it 24 ?)tracks. So given the amount of overdubbing, it's safe to assume that any stereo mix is a serious compromise on the original recording.
 
I don't know but.....for me at least. Moving from 2 channel stereo to a 5.1 system was night and day. (especially in the world of high resolution formats) So much so, that I almost cannot stand to listen to stereo any longer...it all feels so "close" and restrained and boring....
 
I don't know but.....for me at least. Moving from 2 channel stereo to a 5.1 system was night and day. (especially in the world of high resolution formats) So much so, that I almost cannot stand to listen to stereo any longer...it all feels so "close" and restrained and boring....

I used to love the snot out of stereo! Imaging done right is fantastic. Then once worked at an FM station the all niter and discovered more great stereo music than I ever knew was available. I have heard stuff that blew me away in imaging. Especially the stuff that was done early 70's.
Then I heard dvd audio and yes it was a revelation. Not so much that there was rear speaker information that is very cool to say the least-but the presence associated with placing and splitting instruments up into separate channels, just like (to me) discovering, at 10, what my dundoolee was for.
 
Well I'm certainly very familiar with the album, it's just that the surround mix sounds identical, almost certainly due to issues with my setup. I suppose my expectations were more in line with the following description from earlier in the thread:
I've had the MFSL vinyl for years. Always thought this album was extremely well done considering the level of ambition. I'm sure the 24/192 transfer of the stereo master sounds just that little bit better without the vinyl generation (well done as it was by MFSL) but I honestly haven't listened to it yet with this amazing 5.1 remix here. I'm usually not a fan of remixes in any way shape or form but Mr Steve Wilson is a big exception. Mr. Wilson, your perception is really amazing!

I always knew this music was over the top ambitious but now you can hear every last detail of that. All the individual layered keyboard parts... Little electric sitar parts I hadn't heard before... The orchestration is huge. This mix simply could not be done in stereo - way beyond the confines of 2 channels.

However there's another post somewhere in the thread that claims there isn't much difference between the surround mix and the MFSL LP - again I know the quality of the vinyl pressing, turntable setup, and his surround setup etc but the difference in opinion is curious nonetheless.

After several posts, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Our experiences are quite different. I have no idea what's going on with your setup, that got you to this place.


Because I know the original mix so well, the surround mix is *obviously* different sounding from Offord's, to me. And different too from the SW 2-channel remix (though less so, for understandable reasons). (Btw, it's also obviously different from 2ch rendered as 5ch via DPL IIx which I use pretty much all the time)

This doesn't necessarily mean there are 'new parts' (though I'm pretty sure there is at least one place where Offord edited, and SW did not) . It means the *mix sounds different*. Different emphases, different EQs on the instruments, different placement in the 'soundstage'. Some of these differences might seem slight, but again, familiarity with the original makes them 'obvious' to me.
 
That is all quite true, and still given the "opening up" for want of a better term of the mix in 5.1, you should be able to glean some small details that are buried in the stereo mix. Since there was no separate quad mix done back in the day of Close To The Edge's recording, there is no "different" quad mix as sometimes occurred when a group would sometimes add completely new vocals or instrumentation to their quad recordings that were not found on the mass market stereo versions. So, the stereo and the new 5.1 mix are both starting from the same batch of master tapes. Are the mixes "different"? Yes, they are. Are there different vocals or instrumentation? No, there is not. Off the top of my head, a good example of an LP that had very different content was Jefferson Airplane's "Volunteers", more knowledgeable quaddies could give you better examples I think. John

A Yes example would be the DVD-A surround mix of Fragile and 'America'. Parts of 'South Side of the Sky' are simply missing in the new mix, while 'America' adds some new parts.
 
This is one of the best surround mixes I have heard. For one thing there is so much more to hear than on the original master. Not only is this terrific for the surround mix but this is really an audiophile's treat. Good dynamics, plenty of headroom, easy on the ears EQ. I have read complaints about the bass (too much, too little) but I just don't see it. It sounds just right to me for this 1972 outing. If someone expects to be shaken out of their seat, then this is not the disc. But if you are a fan of this material, it is a wonderful surround experience with top notch sonics. It compares well with the King Crimson remixes and is similarly priced, both pluses.

Hopefully this should clarify my expectations
 
Hopefully this should clarify my expectations

At this point I think you're just being rather ridiculously literal in your readings of such posts, and therefore in your expectations.

It's very common for listeners to enthuse this way even about remasters, as well as remixes -- ''oh, I'm hearing stuff I never heard before!'.

It's a function of several things, 1) degree of familiarity with the original; 2) audio memory ; 3) mix/mastering choices that really do bring formerly 'background'/low-level parts into sharper relief, or add/subtract parts ; and 4) understandable surround mix fanboyism on a board by and for *surround sound enthusiasts*

*To me*, the CttE surround mix -- like every surround mix -- sounds different from its original 2-channel mix. There is not 'so much more', *to me*, but it is undeniably a fresh way to hear it. That tends to be the case *for me* with any surround release of a recording that I *know extremely well*. And that's actually good, I don't really want radically 'more' parts. I'm not even crazy about some of the things that other are liking about CttE 5.1 -- the rebalancings that brings some parts 'up' or 'down' in the mix more than they are in the original. (And I really don't like how SW mixed the big multi-Moog cadenza closing 'I Get Up I Get Down').

But I do get how some might hear 'so much more'.
 
Sorry, I don't mean to be facetious, but if one were that skeptical about every post made here, there wouldn't really be much point in a thread like this. I agree that you have to take what people say in this type of discussion with a grain of salt . However, the poster in the previous example I gave seemed fairly straightforward in what he was saying, in that he wasn't really using much emotional language to describe what he was hearing, which, from previous experience is one way to distinguish fanciful 'fanboy' posts from more objective ones.
 
This remix is just hands down fantastic!
I've had the MFSL vinyl for years. Always thought this album was extremely well done considering the level of ambition. I'm sure the 24/192 transfer of the stereo master sounds just that little bit better without the vinyl generation (well done as it was by MFSL) but I honestly haven't listened to it yet with this amazing 5.1 remix here. I'm usually not a fan of remixes in any way shape or form but Mr Steve Wilson is a big exception. Mr. Wilson, your perception is really amazing!

I always knew this music was over the top ambitious but now you can hear every last detail of that. All the individual layered keyboard parts... Little electric sitar parts I hadn't heard before... The orchestration is huge. This mix simply could not be done in stereo - way beyond the confines of 2 channels.

People are having trouble with the stand-alone hardware disc players? That does seem like a clumsy way to listen to media nowadays...
I ripped the blu-ray to flac files and hit play on Songbird. The overall balance and attention to sonic detail is just over the top good. This mix certainly requires the monitor system to be balanced with no shenanigans going on with wrong bass management settings, etc. which is often difficult/confusing/clumsy on the stand-alone players. I didn't preview it nor will I but I would expect to the lossy dts version to fail miserably.

Squire's bass sound was a bit woolie on the original mix and often obscured as a result and that was handled really well here. The mix retains the basic size and shape and hits the same as the original throughout with everything magically expanded and all detail right there to hear. Except a few liberties with the vocals... To put it another way - the vocal production is finished now.

The attention to detail... Listen to how he disguised tape hiss in parts as amp noise (for one example) in his noise reduction work.

So according to you, a post like this is really just an exaggeration ? Seems fairly concrete to me....
 
So according to you, a post like this is really just an exaggeration ? Seems fairly concrete to me....

When one listens to a good surround mix after many years of hearing only the stereo version (as in the example Yes's CTTE), instruments often pop out of the mix in different locations and in different sound stages. Just as often, they seem to take on an enhanced detail and clarity when isolated like this. One begins to wonder if a given sound was actually on the original stereo mix at the same relative level, and in the extreme, one can even question whether it was ever there at all. It has happened to me many times. After going back and listening to the stereo presentation again, I can always hear the passage or instrument in the mix, but it is sometimes much more deeply buried due to the restricted layering in the 2 channel presentation. Besides an enhanced clarity, a change in location itself makes sounds stand out more than they otherwise might. Consider something like double tracked vocals. When presented from a single speaker they tend to blend and bleed together and only careful and focused listening by a casual listener will reveal the double tracked technique. Set those two voices up so they come from 2 different corners of the room, and it becomes much more obvious for a casual listener to realize they are hearing two voices. When someone praises a piece of music by saying they "hear things they've never heard before", I fully understand what they mean. Like I said, its happened to me lots of times. Other examples I can think of offhand are Queen: Bohemian Rhapsody (vocals), Pink Floyd: Time (percussion), Elton John: Honky Cat (horns).
 
One begins to wonder if a given sound was actually on the original stereo mix at the same relative level, and in the extreme, one can even question whether it was ever there at all. It has happened to me many times. After going back and listening to the stereo presentation again, I can always hear the passage or instrument in the mix, but it is sometimes much more deeply buried due to the restricted layering in the 2 channel presentation

I think that the more overdubbing there is the more this applies. I guess my point is if one is familiar with the stereo mix then listens to the surround mix, one should be able to pinpoint fairly specific differences as you said. In the case of CTTE, to me the stereo version is very sparse sounding (with the possible exception of IGUIGD) and posts like the one by jimfisheye I quoted above, coupled with some knowledge about how the album was recorded, seem to suggest that lot of musical information is absent from the stereo mix in the sense that, for all intents and purposes it is not audible (even though technically, it may be there). What I'm referring to is the dramatic differences people are reporting and given the reasons outlined above, this seems to make sense to me. Consider the following quote from Eddie Offord regarding the recording of the album:


TM: What about recording synthesizers? I know some of the parts are at least triple tracked like Rick's Moog section before the big organ solo.

EO: I'm sure there was, there were six or seven tracks sometimes. Remember there was no polyphonic synthesizers either. Anything like a string section or a brass section or whatever was done note by note. It meant recording lots of tracks and bouncing down, doing lots of backing vocals and bouncing them, just to try and cram that thing onto twenty-four tracks.
Here's the full interview:http://www.nfte.org/interviews/eo234.html

So in light of what one actually hears on the original (or 2013) stereo version, it's very likely that any stereo mix is a serious compromise on what was actually on the multitracks.
 
Back
Top