Yes "Fragile": DVD-A/BluRay Out October 30th (Remixed by Steven Wilson)

[ssully]

My overall point is that many people (including myself and SW) feel that a proper remix and reissue of "Tales" could help to give it a reappraisal amongst both its' fans and harshest critics.

I dispute the need for a 'proper' remix. Eddie Offord was no slouch....IMO, he was something of a genius, actually.

Plus because many (including myself and SW) feel that it's not as good of a stereo mix to begin with, more liberties can be taken when remixing it that wouldn't be needed or appropriate for albums that already sound very good to begin with, like "The Yes Album" and "Close to the Edge".

I strongly disagree. Typically when SW has taken 'liberties' in the Yes remixes, I've found them to be cause for regret.

If he ever gets around to remixing Yes albums that I think *were* direly mixed in the first place -- starting with GftO -- I'll look forward to liberties.

Finally, if anyone thinks the original mix is great as is and doesn't need to be improved upon, it's always there to listen to instead of the forthcoming remix.

SW's stereo remixes are entirely secondary to me, in every case so far. I'm really only ever interested in the 5.1 mixes.

 

[rtbluray]

I dispute the need for a 'proper' remix. Eddie Offord was no slouch....IMO, he was something of a genius, actually.
I strongly disagree. Typically when SW has taken 'liberties' in the Yes remixes, I've found them to be cause for regret.
If he ever gets around to remixing Yes albums that I think *were* direly mixed in the first place -- starting with GftO -- I'll look forward to liberties.
SW's stereo remixes are entirely secondary to me, in every case so far. I'm really only ever interested in the 5.1 mixes.

I think we've said about all we can say on this for now.
I propose we get back on topic (discussing the upcoming reissue of "Fragile") and continue this discussion on "Tales" when the remix is released, and we all have a chance to listen to the new mixes and discuss its pros and cons vs the original mix, OK?

 

[Plan9]

You sure those aren't the squashed masters as prepared for the CD releases (possibly before the final format conversion to 44.1/16 - or worse, upsampled from 44.1)?
[...]

I don't believe those are really HD transfers of the masters but I'd love to be proven wrong! It would make me spend money actually.

What is available on HDTracks & co. is the exact same flat transfers of the master tapes in true Hi-Res you get on the DVD-A/Blu-Rays. None of them are upsamples.
They were done by the Yes camp a couple of years ago.
Only 90125 isn't from the original masters, and Fragile is the old squashed mastering.

The Audio Fidelity SACD for Going For The One has no compression added and is from the master tapes.
Same thing for their 90125 (it sounds much different from the original Ludwig mastering we are used to hear).

 

[Plan9]

BTW, stay away from the Japanese SACD boxset from 2013, called "High Vibration". They are the most compressed and smiley-faced versions of the Yes albums to date.

 

[jimfisheye]

No one (well, not me anyway) is suggesting Eddie Offord's mixes were anything less than FAR ahead of a great many releases both then and now.

More of a case that the music these guys recorded was so far ahead of what the equipment and stereo format could do that between the 5.1 format and the ability to work with the source material on a digital workstation that doesn't do permanent damage to the source with every listening pass, the original work can be taken to the next level. Or perhaps - closer to the original vision. As we've heard so far, Eddie was able to make raw recordings that greatly surpassed what the equipment would let him mix down to.

I have to say, as one who typically loathes remixes done after the period, SW's perception of and attention to the original mix nuances is like no one else's work I've ever heard. I don't necessarily agree with every one of his liberties that stray from the original either (like the outtake guitar lines mixed into LTIA pt1 on the Crimson remix). But some of them I do! Also note the inclusion of the original stereo mixes on these releases and the fact they are delivered absolutely untouched. These bluray releases are just as much if not more about delivering the original mix in full quality (and literally for the first time ever in such quality). The 5.1 remix is a pretty sweet bonus track. (That work better for you?)

So what I'm trying to say about the masterpiece that is Tales is that there is further possibility to get closer to the original impossible vision and I think SW is the guy to do it.

And I know a lot who love Tales and Relayer and think Going for the One was a decline in quality from those. (shrug)

And what I'm saying is I believe the tracking recording is just as well made (if not better as they've all honed their craft over the years) and the mix just as well done. The combination of declining vinyl quality at the time combined in a mix that was almost certainly too advanced for the formats is where the problem lies. Like Relayer but even more so.

Back to Fragile...
With all that anticipation for Tales bouncing around in my head, when I heard they were releasing this first I realized... you know what? Fragile has just as much room to expand. This is going to be pretty sweet to hear with a fresh SW 5.1 mix!

Fragile is another one we had very exceptional vinyl copies for (which sound closer to the master tape than any 16 bit CD release to date) so the original mix in HD will be great to finally hear but won't be a shocking revelation like the Relayer album was. Same story as CTTE.


What is Eddie doing these days? Is there controversy?

 

[jimfisheye]

Here the Audio Fidelity 'Parallels'. This is old school mastering; there's just one maximum peak (at about 4:55 in the top channel); no evidence of added compression or limiting.

Hmmm...

Perhaps I'm missing out then.
I probably started dismissing all the so called Yes remasters with all the garbage put out in the past. (How about that SACD box set that sounds for all the world like mp3 copies?)

So suspicious...

Do you see audio content above 24kHz which would prove it's a HD tape transfer and not an upsample of a previous lower def digital release?

 

[Plan9]

Hmmm...

Perhaps I'm missing out then.
I probably started dismissing all the so called Yes remasters with all the garbage put out in the past. (How about that SACD box set that sounds for all the world like mp3 copies?)

So suspicious...

Do you see audio content above 24kHz which would prove it's a HD tape transfer and not an upsample of a previous lower def digital release?

I agree the Rhino remasters from 10 years ago were awfully trebly and compressed. The Japanese SACD boxset is similarly awful.

However I have tested the Audio Fidelity GFTO SACD and it is true Hi-Res and a unique mastering.

 

[jimfisheye]

What is available on HDTracks & co. is the exact same flat transfers of the master tapes in true Hi-Res you get on the DVD-A/Blu-Rays. None of them are upsamples.
They were done by the Yes camp a couple of years ago.
Only 90125 isn't from the original masters, and Fragile is the old squashed mastering.

The Audio Fidelity SACD for Going For The One has no compression added and is from the master tapes.
Same thing for their 90125 (it sounds much different from the original Ludwig mastering we are used to hear).

OK. Thanks for that!

I just may have to jump the gun on the GFTO bluray and go for that HDTracks stereo offering.


Sorry for apparently forgetting what thread I'm in too!

So... how is it that arguable their most popular album (I'm back in this thread now) with arguably their most popular song ends up getting the low budget blow off treatment all these years? Complete with being singled out in 2002 for that awful DVDA that comes across for all the world like a bootleg release?

Specifically TYA, Fragile, & CTTE had exceptional vinyl versions available. To the level that all the digital releases (low def PCM and DSD anyway) were mighty embarrassing. (And I have plenty of lowly CD's that sound magnitudes better than any vinyl version of the same before anyone want's to accuse me of being a delusional vinyl lover. Loved the format in the cases where it worked. Felt cheated about 85% of the time.)

 

[rtbluray]

BTW, since this is a thread on "Fragile" has anyone heard Yes' live attempt last year at "Five Per Cent For Nothing"? Bloody awful it is (IMO)
It's like they're playing "Who's tempo is it anyway?"

Thankfully from what I've heard (including snippets of the new live album from Mesa, AZ) they were more successful with most of the other songs off that album.

 

[paligap]

I think we've said about all we can say on this for now.
I propose we get back on topic (discussing the upcoming reissue of "Fragile") and continue this discussion on "Tales" when the remix is released, and we all have a chance to listen to the new mixes and discuss its pros and cons vs the original mix, OK?

Every thread for every Yes reissue invariably devolves into a discussion of other Yes albums. There has to be an scientific explanation for this phenomenon.

 

[rtbluray]

Every thread for every Yes reissue invariably devolves into a discussion of other Yes albums. There has to be an scientific explanation for this phenomenon.

Going off topic from discussing one Yes album to another one is at least not as bad to me as a thread that starts off talking about Donna Summer and disco and then ends up at Black Sabbath, Procol Harum, and Thin Lizzy, lol
That post you quoted was more of just a way for me to end the back-and-forth between myself and ssully on "Tales" and everything surrounding it that we might not necessarily see eye-to-eye on.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Looking forward to SW's Fragile in 5.1, but with some trepidation. I am probably in the vast minority, but I don't love the 5.1 or new stereo mix for CttE.
I feel it's a bit too "revealing" in some ways, especially for vocal harmony blends. On the original mix, harmonies sound nice n' tight to me, while on SW's mixes they feel too separated, to the point I can detect some pitchiness occasionally from certain parts. It's minor gripe, as so much instrumentation is given so much more room and clarity, that the mix is still very interesting and worthwhile. It's just, to these ears, he didn't exactly nail it.
I'll be holding on to my Fragile SACD, at least until I hear what's up with this new version!
I'm tepid on Tales, but I'll give it a go. It's more interesting, musically, than Relayer and I went in for that, so...
Would love to hear GFtO and The Ladder in surround! Drama too. Don't care too much for any of their other records that aren't already in surround.

 

[ar surround]

...SW's mixes they feel too separated, to the point I can detect some pitchiness occasionally from certain parts. It's minor gripe...

Multichannel music is more revealing of the various components within the mix, so it's not surprising that the 5.1 version of CTTE may reveal characteristics that are not obvious in the stereo version. With the super-discreet Quadio version of Chicago Transit Authority, one can easily isolate a channel and find that a certain performance on an instrument does not sound as "perfect" as it does when blended in with the rest of the mix. These examples make me further appreciate the skill and artistry that goes into mixing a good record.

 

[paligap]

That post you quoted was more of just a way for me to end the back-and-forth between myself and ssully on "Tales" and everything surrounding it that we might not necessarily see eye-to-eye on.

Yep, I meant my post as more of an observation than a criticism. I forgot to use a

 

[ssully]

No one (well, not me anyway) is suggesting Eddie Offord's mixes were anything less than FAR ahead of a great many releases both then and now.

More of a case that the music these guys recorded was so far ahead of what the equipment and stereo format could do that between the 5.1 format and the ability to work with the source material on a digital workstation that doesn't do permanent damage to the source with every listening pass, the original work can be taken to the next level. Or perhaps - closer to the original vision. As we've heard so far, Eddie was able to make raw recordings that greatly surpassed what the equipment would let him mix down to.

(sigh) Nonsense. That's not what I've heard so far. In fact I've hearrd things achieved with that old mixdown equipment (and Eddie's tape cutting/splicing) that SW so far hasn't been able to replicate. What SW (and any digital mixer) has done that EO couldn't , was avoid tape generation noise.


Anyway, never mind. We aren't going to agree.

 

[ssully]

Hmmm...
Do you see audio content above 24kHz which would prove it's a HD tape transfer and not an upsample of a previous lower def digital release?

I couldn't care less. so long as the content between 20-20K is faithfully represented.

 

[ssully]

So... how is it that arguable their most popular album (I'm back in this thread now) with arguably their most popular song ends up getting the low budget blow off treatment all these years? Complete with being singled out in 2002 for that awful DVDA that comes across for all the world like a bootleg release?

Fragile has appeared in at least three fine digital versions I know of:

The Joe Gastwirt gold disc mastering (then became the standard Atlantic silver CD issue until the Rhino remaster)
Audio Fidelity's (digital download)
Mobile Fidelity CD

It's far from neglected.

 

[Plan9]

Audio Fidelity's (digital download)

That's actually a link to the HDTracks version, which is the same as the DVD-A mastering.

 

[ssully]

My mistake. I assumed it was a digital version of the AF LP mastering....which I have.

 

[jaypfunk]

This is gonna be awesome. The original is DVDA is a weird ass mix.