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
Late to the party on this one, why? CTTE was never a favourite of mine,Ie not in top 5, picked it up for a good price from Burning Shed & as I live close to them picked it up myself, so saved on the postage. Wow this is something else, SQ & clarity just perfect, nearly jumped when I first heard Wakeman's intro trill to his solo on the title track, just keep playing it over & over it's like a newly discovered album, if nothing else this is why we listen in surround for such discoveries. It's a 10 folks, now I understand the beauty.
 
This is why Steven Wilson matters. He took an iconic record where most of us spent hours inside the Roger Dean world with the band, and brought it cleanly, clearly and enjoyably into beautiful surround.

I noticed differences from the album mix and I just didn't care because they were good and new and everything I wanted to hear was there and with plenty of breathing room. If you love CTTE, just go ahead and buy it and love this.
 
This is why Steven Wilson matters. He took an iconic record where most of us spent hours inside the Roger Dean world with the band, and brought it cleanly, clearly and enjoyably into beautiful surround.

I noticed differences from the album mix and I just didn't care because they were good and new and everything I wanted to hear was there and with plenty of breathing room. If you love CTTE, just go ahead and buy it and love this.
Good points, and I would say that about all five of his Yes album mixes.
 
Good points, and I would say that about all five of his Yes album mixes.
I can't think of a 5.1 mix where I believe Steven really dropped the ball on. He didn't perform on most of them but the quality of the multich sound he brings to us is limited only by the quality of the original recording.
Thanks Steven!
 
There are many SW mixes to love including all the Yes ones for sure, but Heavy Horses by Jethro Tull is just so good. All the acoustic instruments spaced around and plenty of action in the surrounds w/o feeling gimmicky. That's a sitting in the studio live room with the band mix and I am always happy after I put it on.
 
I had been sleeping on this one for a while, but decided to finally give this one a shot today.

I used to be a bit turned off by the prog wankery in the begging, but when that quiet section hits...... MAN... It all made sense. This record is totally a classic for a reason and is absolutely stunning with Steven's 5.1 mix.

9/10
 
Just wanted to chime in here on this nicely aged thread and say how thankful I am for this forum. Yesterday I fired up CTTE and was ready for a full mind-meltdown but found myself (once again) critiquing my system and my setup because something just seemed off.

I was wondering if I had inadvertently hit a compression setting or something, because some of the dynamic “slam” of certain hits during the title track just seemed watered down... but then I went through a lot of thinking that this thread confirmed for me... would it feel better loud? Yes. Was some of this probably due to limitations in the source recording? Yes. Was it still enjoyable and a masterpiece, and this was just another way to enjoy it with its own subjective differences from what I know like the back of my hand? Yes. Could I put in another disc that I know is a mind-blower with no adjustment and still get “the feeling”? Yes.

That calmed me down considerably and let me go back and listen again to confirm that yeah, this is indeed darn enjoyable and hard to fault - I’ve just got decades of expectations and preprogramming to move past. But again, seeing others here navigating the same narratives was SO helpful and confirming. Thank you all!
 
some of the dynamic “slam” of certain hits during the title track just seemed watered down...
(y)
I had a similar critique to the bass @RustyStatic
Boosting the subwoofer volume didn't really get the results I wanted. The mid bass was still a little thin.
Then I used the bass tone control and added +3db. This helped a lot.
 
Just wanted to chime in here on this nicely aged thread and say how thankful I am for this forum. Yesterday I fired up CTTE and was ready for a full mind-meltdown but found myself (once again) critiquing my system and my setup because something just seemed off.

I was wondering if I had inadvertently hit a compression setting or something, because some of the dynamic “slam” of certain hits during the title track just seemed watered down... but then I went through a lot of thinking that this thread confirmed for me... would it feel better loud? Yes. Was some of this probably due to limitations in the source recording? Yes. Was it still enjoyable and a masterpiece, and this was just another way to enjoy it with its own subjective differences from what I know like the back of my hand? Yes. Could I put in another disc that I know is a mind-blower with no adjustment and still get “the feeling”? Yes.

That calmed me down considerably and let me go back and listen again to confirm that yeah, this is indeed darn enjoyable and hard to fault - I’ve just got decades of expectations and preprogramming to move past. But again, seeing others here navigating the same narratives was SO helpful and confirming. Thank you all!


Instead of all those mental gymnastics to convince yourself that everything's a-ok, the thing to do would be to directly compare SW's 2-channel remix to your favorite non-remixed mastering of the album. Match the playback levels closely as possible -- replaygain can help there --, then compare (ideally, blind, using something, like foobar's ABX comparator to switch between them). Is the 'slam' there in one but not the other? Then it's due to the different mixing/mastering. If they both sound equally good to you, salud.

I find SW's CTTE's remix pretty unengaging.
 
Leaving aside the issue with interpreting a DR meter reading on a 6 channel source where two channels tend to be very much lower in level than the other four, dynamic range is not necessarily what people are missing here.
 
Leaving aside the issue with interpreting a DR meter reading on a 6 channel source where two channels tend to be very much lower in level than the other four,
If true then the average of the 6 channels should result in a lower combined measured DR but Steve's measure higher, while some listeners are claiming missing dynamics, slam, drive, etc??? I can supply DR numbers for just about any of the "The Yes Album" masters. None are higher than the 13 I posted and a few are much lower?
dynamic range is not necessarily what people are missing here.
So what is it they are missing then? A simple subjective (I heard X Y Z) is not evidence of anything but a individual listeners impression and highly unsupportable? I don't anything wrong with it.
 
If true then the average of the 6 channels should result in a lower combined measured DR but Steve's measure higher, while some listeners are claiming missing dynamics, slam, drive, etc??? I can supply DR numbers for just about any of the "The Yes Album" masters. None are higher than the 13 I posted and a few are much lower?

No, because to a rough approximation lower 'summed' level favors a higher DR reading, just as high levels tend to result in a lower DR reading. They are inversely correlated. If you have 'loud' front channels' and 'quiet' other channels, the quiet channels offset the contribution of the louder channels in the DR calculation. This does not match perception. In actual hearing, the front channels dominate, along with bass. Because center, surround, and sub channels are used so variously by different mix engineers, you're almost better off just comparing the front L/R channels of 6 channel mixes, in terms of 'DR'.

Anyway, the problems of using a DR meter naively with 6 channel mixes has been covered elsewhere on QQ.
 
Last edited:
It also depends on how closely a DR meter follows the audio standard because it has multi-channel provisions in the algorithm. If I can find the source again I'll link to it.
 
My complaint with the title track (and to be clear, it's the only one I really have issues with on this disc) isn't so much one of dynamics, but rather spectral balance. Early on I noticed a lack of "presence" in the sound compared to all the previous stereo mixes I've heard down through the years. I've since determined that there is a pretty large dip in the spectral content in the area of 5 KHz. This would not only correlate with what I'm hearing, but since this area of the spectrum is where our ears tend to be extra-sensitive. it might also explain the feeling of a lack of dynamics that some have expressed. That last part is just speculation though.

I've been working on & off on an idea for comparing the spectral balance of these recordings, in an effort to construct a difference graph to aid in possible corrections. I'll try to get that done here in the next few days, and report back here if/ when I come up with anything.
 
Anyway, the problems of using a DR meter naively with 6 channel mixes has been covered elsewhere on QQ.
I won't debate the math here, it's not my area of expertise. LOL
But I still don't hear anything wrong with the mastering, better then anything else I've heard, and it's got 6 channels! :51QQ

BTW, over 50% of the members including me have given it a 10, add in the 9s and it's goes over 75%, pretty dang good. ;)
 
Back
Top