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

Finally got a chance to listen to my blu-ray copy of this last night. As I did years ago with DVD I bought several discs before I ended up with a proper player. As it happens I lucked into an old Blu-Ray player with analog outputs at a thrift store last week thereby saving myself $475 (for the entry-level Oppo I was considering). Anyway - I have been a longtime fan of CTTE (since playing the daylights out of it on 8-track!). So, of course the music is an instant "10" for me. Yet, like others have mentioned here - as amazing as the new 5.1 mix is (and it is ripping fun indeed!), I don't think it "bests" the original stereo mix. For that reason alone I gave the rating of "9" but only for that overly-picky reason. Any Yes fan worth their salt needs this fantastic release - no question about it. The work that Steven Wilson has done with so many classic releases (along with his own great work) is nothing short of astounding. The CTTE blu-ray is more of the same absurdly high quality work he has become renowned for. I honestly don't understand how he does it all. Brilliant stuff yet again!
----------- Chris

webofsound said:

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

Click to expand...

Someone with this prejudice:

"I didn't preview it nor will I but I would expect to the lossy dts version to fail miserably."

is not an authority I would go to uncritically.


But otherwise, basically he's saying he hears more detail. So?

webofsound said:

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:



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.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, when you bounce down tracks a lot in analog, you lose some fidelity, due to adding one extra layer of tape noise with each bounce, for one (on top of the noise already in each track). That wouldn't be an issue with digital remixing. But you also lose the ability to target an individual 'voice', once it's been mixed down with others into a single track, and that still applies with digital.

As to whether there are parts that were so far down as to be *inaudible* on the original mix, or even on the 2013 2ch mix, and how many such parts there are now revealed in the 5.1 mixe, why don't you just listen and compare and decide for yourself?

Someone with this prejudice:

"I didn't preview it nor will I but I would expect to the lossy dts version to fail miserably."

is not an authority I would go to uncritically.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that because he's yet to (and won't) listen to the DTS version his description of what he has heard is invalid ? Not a particularly convincing argument.

But otherwise, basically he's saying he hears more detail. So?

Click to expand...

Yes, he is saying he hears more detail, but the point is he's not referring to subtle differences:

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.

Click to expand...

And there are many other reviews of this release that describe the same general impression : The surround mix reveals a great deal of detail, to the extent that it is almost like listening to a different recording.

Well, yes, when you bounce down tracks a lot in analog, you lose some fidelity, due to adding one extra layer of tape noise with each bounce, for one (on top of the noise already in each track). That wouldn't be an issue with digital remixing. But you also lose the ability to target an individual 'voice', once it's been mixed down with others into a single track, and that still applies with digital

Click to expand...

This is exactly my point, the original stereo mix was mixed down from multitrack tapes that already contained 'mixdowns' of whole groups of tracks on each track. The advantage that SW had was that he was able to go back to the slave reels, therefore all the sounds heard in the 5.1 mix should be from first generation tape. And of course, any stereo mix is limited by the restriction of two channels. If you consider the fact that it was a struggle for Yes and Eddie Offord to contain the whole recording on 24 tracks, and you listen to how sparse most of the stereo mix is, the idea that there is a lot of musical information missing from the stereo mix is almost academic, really.

As to whether there are parts that were so far down as to be *inaudible* on the original mix, or even on the 2013 2ch mix, and how many such parts there are now revealed in the 5.1 mixe, why don't you just listen and compare and decide for yourself?

Click to expand...

I intend to, (once I get my system properly set up). It's just interesting that there seems to be such vast differences in what people are hearing.

webofsound said:

So you're saying that because he's yet to (and won't) listen to the DTS version his description of what he has heard is invalid ? Not a particularly convincing argument.

Click to expand...

There's likely many things you and I disagree about.

I intend to, (once get my system properly set up). It's just interesting that there seems to be such vast differences in what people are hearing.

Click to expand...

Not *that* interesting. Bye.

Not *that* interesting. Bye.

Click to expand...

Hahaha, touché

Incredible disc. I am playing the blu ray on a PS3 and can't seem to access "America" in DTS 5.1. It just defaults to MLP. Does anyone know how to access it?

I'll answer my own question. Pressing the red button on the remote as the track starts switches to DTS. But anyway, I gave this disc a solid 10. I really enjoyed the new surround mix. I hope "Tales" eventually gets the Steven Wilson treatment it deserves.

Music is OK. Mix is better than the music, but my overall enjoyment of this one is only 7.
By the way, I do like The Yes album, and fragile, I voted 10 on those.

MIDIQ said:

Music is OK. Mix is better than the music, but my overall enjoyment of this one is only 7.
By the way, I do like The Yes album, and fragile, I voted 10 on those.

Click to expand...

WHAT???
Music is...OK????

IT'S BRILLIANT!!!!!...

Interesting...this is a "I'll have to buy an extra copy" kind of disc for me...

Well..different strokes ....

MIDIQ said:

Music is OK. Mix is better than the music, but my overall enjoyment of this one is only 7.
By the way, I do like The Yes album, and fragile, I voted 10 on those.

Click to expand...

Different Strokes indeed. CTTE is the highest peak in the Yes range to me.
Looking forward to TFTO though, which was a longtime grower.

Revisited this surround mix tonight, hoping to like it more.

But the drums are so muddy, esp on 'side two'...surely could have used a bit more snap? And there's at least one big lost surround opportunity -- that bit near the end of Siberian where they twirled a microphone around in the studio while recording the guitar part...Wilson stuck it all in the front.

And the remix of 'America', with even *more* reverb is just...bad. Really bad. : <

ssully said:

Revisited this surround mix tonight, hoping to like it more.

But the drums are so muddy, esp on 'side two'...surely could have used a bit more snap? And there's at least one big lost surround opportunity -- that bit near the end of Siberian where they twirled a microphone around in the studio while recording the guitar part...Wilson stuck it all in the front.

And the remix of 'America', with even *more* reverb is just...bad. Really bad. : <

Click to expand...

I'll have to give this another listen this weekend, time permitting, with your comments in mind. When drums are buried or muddy, I also tend toward disappointment. If the spinning microphone on Siberian Khatru is true, I sure would have liked to hear that.

Hmmm, yep...I always hear my old stereo CD.
The surround mix is nothing special.
But I expected not too much when it was released, because I always thought it will be very hard to do
a good 5.1 mix with all that sounds together.
When songs are more "open" it is much easier.

I'm sure that Fragile will get a very good mix.
TYA is the best til now, also because the recording has some "air".

Cibola said:

If the spinning microphone on Siberian Khatru is true, I sure would have liked to hear that.

Click to expand...

That would likely have been recorded to a single mono track, so...

Plan9 said:

That would likely have been recorded to a single mono track, so...

Click to expand...

Does Mr.Wilson's studio have a crazy pan pot joystick device thing so he can do Quad- esque crazy pan pot type 360 degree spins for just this kind of situation..?

fredblue said:

Does Mr.Wilson's studio have a crazy pan pot joystick device thing so he can do Quad- esque crazy pan pot type 360 degree spins for just this kind of situation..?

Click to expand...

Of course, what I meant is that it wasn't part of the original concept, and that if he didn't do it, it was by choice, or taste. If not, why not have every solo swirl around the room on every track? I mean, I'm not 100% adverse to that, but if it doesn't fit... don't do it.

Plan9 said:

That would likely have been recorded to a single mono track, so...

Click to expand...

so it would not be hard to pan it around 5 channels....

No one said 'every solo' should swirl around the listener (and this isn't a *solo* I'm talking about here...it's the backing guitar part behind the vocal 'da da's sung in Stravinsky-like rhythm, while Squire hammers on A in the bass...the vocals are the focus here). That's a straw man argument. I'm sauying *this* part, if mixed to traverse all channels would 'fit' very well with the 'original concept': the idea of a swirling, Leslie-like sound.

I'm also saying it seemed an obvious opportunity, that SW chose not to exploit, but then again SW seems rather conservative in his surround remixes; he seems wary of being accused of 'gimmickry', so he's leaving surrounds mostly for backing vocals (which on the CttE album 6ch remix, are really too loud).

So much so that I wonder if he'd have kept the sequencer part at the end of 'Karn Evil 9' static, out of deference to 'the original concept' .

ssully said:

I'm also saying it seemed an obvious opportunity, that SW chose not to exploit, but then again SW seems rather conservative in his surround remixes; he seems wary of being accused of 'gimmickry'

Click to expand...

After talking with Steven about how he feels about such things, it seemed to me that it was just down to his personal taste. He seems to feel that, usually, crazy panning doesn't bear repeated listenings. I sometimes encourage him to be a bit bolder with his remixes, sometimes the contrary, but in the end, it's his call.
It's true he wants to stay as close as possible to the original mixes, the original experience (since you seem to be hung up on the term 'concept') the fans have come to know and love*, and I sometimes disagree, but in the end, as I said, it's his call.
When mixing you have to make choices, and you can't please everyone. But Steven surely has a positive record on that matter.



*Your last remark made me think of the distortion on John Lennon's voice during his scream on She's So Heavy that was "corrected" on the 2009 remasters. To me doing so made the track lose a lot of its charm. Just to be clear, I have no opinion on the Karn Evil 9 issue.

Absolutely not knocking Steven Wilson's surround mixing modus operandi for one moment.. but I feel an occasional round the room pan in the right context can be pretty effective at reinforcing your message..

..the old quad guys pulled some crackers out the bag back in the day that are more than just gimmicks.. and some imho have stood the test of time..

very cleverly some are pans of mere sound effects, or at least appear to be at first, like the cash registers in Pink Floyd's "Money" or the galloping horses in Aerosmith's "Back In The Saddle".. but they're more than just "oh cool..!" moments,
they propel the music, engage the senses more than the stereo ever could and both (I feel) very niftily emphasise/reinforce/enhance the lyric and the vibe of the music..

taken a stage further, the O'Jays Classic "For The Love Of Money" 360 pans are a real masterclass in how it should be done, I reckon, there's an eerie processed effect on the "For The Love Of Money" vocal refrain that pans from one speaker to the next encircling the listener creating a sinister almost claustrophobic atmosphere that taps into the greed and general all round unpleasantness of the songs' story. Love it. Just sayin'.. :spot