YES News: Relayer goes 5.1 Next(Steven Wilson)

[Jeremy Bender]

Yeah, but ironically, part of Relayer's charm is how it sounds. It shows where the band were at the time. Completely brilliant, pushing the envelope and maybe trying to do things recording-wise which were out of their grasp.

It might have helped the sound of the album to not record it in Chris Squire's garage, with an increasingly unreliable Eddie Offord using a new-to-him mixing desk.

This is easily my favorite Yes album, but unless there's interesting bonus tracks, I won't bother buying this. It's never going to sound recording-wise as good as Fragile or Close To The Edge, to pay the money just to hear the drums which are buried in the mix at the end of Sound Chaser .0001% better isn't really worth the money to me.

[Crystal Plumage]

I wonder if Relayer will get the Audio Fidelity treatment as well?

[man2god]

If he finds a way to add more clarity to the 'battle sequence' during "Gates", I'll be happy.

[trurl]

I tend to agree that I'm generally not on board with these remixes for the reasons stated- he generally goes for a copy of the original mix but it's generally lacking something. I would really rather hear someone literally mix these projects like they just got the tapes and had no previous reference point and were mixing it for today with today's tools. Hearing reverb? Stick it on there. Add some effects. Go nuts. I'm genuinely interested to hear what can be done with the raw Relayer tracks- In my mind the best thing that can happen apart from maybe some eq will be better stereo placement and separation.

[Rand Kelly]

I am hoping he'll do Tales From Topographic Oceans next.

[trurl]

That could be sweet. I don't really mind the sound of TfTO though- the dead drums are the worst part and there's little that can likely be done about that.

[Nearfest2]

Chad, GIYF.

He uses a hybrid Pro-Tools/Logic Pro setup. Here is a picture of his studio. If there is a 24-Track mixing desk there, it is hiding admirably. This picture is a few years old but I hear nothing in his work to indicate he has changed his methods and acquired an analog console like the major players in the surround game. He does digital remixes. People can like them or not. That's what he does.

Attachment 4119

Thanks.

And there's this:

"Wilson: It’s one of the most complex mixes I’ve ever done, yeah. I was trying to recreate two things: First, all of the performance aspects of the mix, and second, emulating the reverbs, delays, and echo effects. On “Close to the Edge,” especially in that middle section, there are sounds that are just drenched in old-fashioned plate reverb. And I’m very much a stickler for trying to make things have the same signature of the original effects units. Working in the digital domain, it’s very possible now to get very close to it, because we have fantastic emulations of those old analog effects units."

And his mixing philosophy:

"Wilson: Analog has this top-end rolloff, this inherent murkiness where all of the harmonies kind of get distorted, but in a pleasing way. In a sense, the music feels more like it’s glued together. Whereas when you work in the digital domain with pure beautiful transfers and you’re combining all of the instruments, you’re not going to get those kind of natural harmonic distortions. Some people use this word “clinical,” which I don’t agree with, but certainly there’s separation there that you simply won’t get in analog tapes. But there are extremes."

From http://soundbard.com/total-5-1-mass-...urround-sound/

[JeffCarney]

While I didn't care much for the EL&P remixes, I think Lark's Tongue in Aspic and Lizard are revelations. Really enjoying Passion Play and Power and the Glory as well. I don't have the Hawkwind or Caravan, but pretty much all of the others and think they are all improvements. Let's not forget it all depends on what it is he has to work with.

I think it's far more about taste than what he has to work with.

You take a mix which hasn't been treated well on CD (IE: Larks) and he'll probably have an easier time impressing. But the bigger point is individual sonic taste. I think the original Larks and Lizard mixes blow Wilson's digital remixes out of the water. So using your examples it's clear that our taste is just different.

I've said it before but I'll repeat it: I think it's wonderful if what he is doing in any way helps put these amazing, often underrated albums he has worked with get back into the spotlight.

But I think far too often the original engineering work done on these albums is being dismissed and that's a shame, IMO. How many people even know who George Chkiantz is, for example? Well, I think his original engineering on S&BB should be regarded far more highly than Wilson remixing it on his computer forty years later. It's far more significant what he captured and his end result was far more impressive anyway.

Something about these remixes strikes me as totally out of whack. These albums don't need Steven Wilson or anybody else to somehow "bring them to life." The fact that so many people care about albums that are 40 years old says that they clearly had the life already. I think many people would be well served to listen to the original mixes a bit more attentively before thinking there are somehow "corrections" or "improvements" which need to be made.

[marblesmike]

I'm sorry, but I think his remixes of Aqualung and Benefit severely improve on the originals. I'm a vinyl guy, but both remixes on vinyl beat the hell out of the original pressings.

He's rather faithful to the original mixes, but I also get how some people might hear his remixing as sounding clinical, especially when compared to murky original mixes.

I also get that some of you are purists and are partial to certain mixes or versions. I'm only 28, so I grew up mostly listening to crappy remasters upon remasters of many of these classic albums. So perhaps my attachment isn't the same.

[JeffCarney]

I'm sorry, but I think his remixes of Aqualung and Benefit severely improve on the originals. I'm a vinyl guy, but both remixes on vinyl beat the hell out of the original pressings.

He's rather faithful to the original mixes, but I also get how some people might hear his remixing as sounding clinical, especially when compared to murky original mixes.

I also get that some of you are purists and are partial to certain mixes or versions. I'm only 28, so I grew up mostly listening to crappy remasters upon remasters of many of these classic albums. So perhaps my attachment isn't the same.

I thought his Aqualung mix was maybe his best work. But I think it worked better for the rock tracks than the folk tracks. The acoustic stuff lost some of its charm, IMO. Some subtleties were lost. Overall I still like the original mix better. The remix also lost a lot of the midrange but I realize that might be more to do with the mastering which was done after it left his hands.

In fact, I think he has stated that he wasn't necessarily happy with the mastering which was being done to his work after the fact. I believe he then wanted his stuff left "as is" and I admire this about him. Unfortunately, I don't find it has made much difference. I think his ELP remixes were the first to be left alone after they left his hands and apparently he ran the tracks flat without additional EQing. But those remixes sucked, IMO. Dead fish remixes.

Some of the things he cites in the quotes which Chad referenced are problems as I hear them. Trying to use software plugins to emulate what decisions were made on an original mix insofar as reverb, for example, strikes me as extremely problematic. And, IMO, his thinking about top end roll-off in analog is confused. After all, what "hi-res" is largely endeavoring to accomplish is to capture the higher frequencies of analog which many say cannot be captured by standard redbook.

[marblesmike]

Well I certainly appreciate your dedication to analog. I think I get what he is saying about top-end roll off. I recently switched to an integrated tube amp in my home stereo setup and instantly noticed that surface noise was decreased and the highs being a little more natural sounding rather than detailed. I think the 'warm' sound that people characterize with analog/vinyl does entail rolled off highs. I'm not saying that I believe that, but I can see where that assumption could be made.

Speaking of his stereo mixes, have you heard the new Opeth album? His mix seems very warm to my ears, but it is also a well-recorded album. I have seen a few isolated fan reviews around the internet suggesting they don't love the mix, but I think it's the tits.

Oh, and it should be known that Peter Mew butchered the mastering on the first two Tull remixes on the digital versions. SW even posted about it on the Steve Hoffman forums. However, all of his Tull remixes sound FANTASTIC on vinyl from what I've heard. It's not even close compared to the CD versions.

[NorthNY Mark]

I think it's far more about taste than what he has to work with.

You take a mix which hasn't been treated well on CD (IE: Larks) and he'll probably have an easier time impressing. But the bigger point is individual sonic taste. I think the original Larks and Lizard mixes blow Wilson's digital remixes out of the water. So using your examples it's clear that our taste is just different.

I've said it before but I'll repeat it: I think it's wonderful if what he is doing in any way helps put these amazing, often underrated albums he has worked with get back into the spotlight.

But I think far too often the original engineering work done on these albums is being dismissed and that's a shame, IMO. How many people even know who George Chkiantz is, for example? Well, I think his original engineering on S&BB should be regarded far more highly than Wilson remixing it on his computer forty years later. It's far more significant what he captured and his end result was far more impressive anyway.

Something about these remixes strikes me as totally out of whack. These albums don't need Steven Wilson or anybody else to somehow "bring them to life." The fact that so many people care about albums that are 40 years old says that they clearly had the life already. I think many people would be well served to listen to the original mixes a bit more attentively before thinking there are somehow "corrections" or "improvements" which need to be made.

Hear, hear! I'll add that what some have called "murkiness" in many of these mixes do not sound murky at all on well-balanced systems, but rich and nuanced, at least in my experiences. Now, I have not heard the Tull remixes that others praise, but I have heard several of the KC remixes, and find that they all pretty much define "clinical" in relation to the original mixes. Oddly, I loved what SW did for both Fish and Marillion back at the turn of the millennium, and think his own works sounds fine in relation to contemporary standards--yet it just does not work for me with these vintage mixes (and I'm only addressing stereo here--I have no idea how his multichannel work sounds).

Now, a truly "murky" mix that benefited from a clarifying remix, IMO, was the original mix of Days of Future Passed. But in that case, the remix was also done in the analog realm.

[bondegezou]

Should prove to be an excellent release, although I'm still crossing my fingers for a surround mix of Tales.

Wilson has already described working on Tales. I'm sure it will appear in due course. Indeed, everything from Time and a Word to Going for the One seems inevitable to me and I've heard of preliminary work happening on several of those. (Beyond that does not appear to have been decided, but I imagine the stronger sales are, the more incentive there will be to keep going and do all the Atlantic albums.)

Not a fan. In short: Remixing analog recordings on a PC renders a sound which is clean but without much life. I've yet to hear him improve on a single mix he's done. The surround mixes, I understand (although I wish he'd buy an actual board and do them in analog ala surround mixes of Pink Floyd albums). But what people are drawn to when he does nothing but save a couple of generations of tape and just re-assembles a stereo mix on his PC is something which eludes me.

Yeah, but ironically, part of Relayer's charm is how it sounds. It shows where the band were at the time. Completely brilliant, pushing the envelope and maybe trying to do things recording-wise which were out of their grasp. What can be done to it? Rhino tried by making it much bassier and removing a lot of top end, but many people thought it sounded wonky. Would you lower Howe's Tele in the mix? Bring up the keys?

Doing nothing but saving a couple of generations of tape seems to me like a very good thing. Reducing the noise does not sound "cold, clinical and sterile" to me, but something that gets me closer to the warm embrace of the music. I hear more life in Wilson's mixes of the Yes albums so far because I can hear more going on. Relayer (as Going for the One) is a great album that was recorded in a lousy way. If Wilson can fix that, that will be OK with me.

Henry

[Plasmatopia]

Maybe SW will employ some drum replacement software.

I do agree (can't remember who said it) that I'd like to hear a more radical remix. Something completely different that would likely annoy some Yes purists. And throw in the normal type of SW remix as well (since I'm just writing on a forum and can so easily demand having my cake and eating it too with little consideration for practical realities).

[chalkpie]

I haven't heard most of his remixes, but Aqualung is now my go-to. That album always smelled like rancid beaver, now it smells GOOD.

Overall I think this guy has a keen set of ears and he likes to go for a polished, balls-out presentation. I don't think it works all of the time necessarily, and its just one approach, but I overall I respect what he does. I do agree with Carndog - I would like to see what he could do with a proper analog desk instead of PC based mastering. It's no secret that I generally find most modern digital recordings akin to a gorgeous woman: stunningly beautiful on the outside, but with little personality on the inside. Contrarily, I find that modern digital seems to work wonders for classical/chamber music as opposed to analog - of course there are exceptions and I love some classic analog symphony records - see Fritz Reiner/Chicago Bartok RCA Victor, etc etc.

As for SW doing these remixes - why not? Others have given a go at them - why shouldn't he be able to do the same? Don't like? Don't buy.

[Phlakaton]

A lot of this is also dependent on the stereo or playback devices used. If I have to use some specific equipment to make something sound great - fail. Naturally I would want something pretty nice speaker or amp-wise - but if having top notch equipment is the difference I dont bother. The Police made some amazing records that sounded killer on just about any set of speakers. They just nailed it in every way on almost all of their albums. No remix required there.

[Staun]

All this cooking and re-cooking, heating and re-heating. These great albums came out predigital which is a fact alot of us still understand. You can update, if you will, the life right out of something. Because you can do something, should you? I remember these albums sounding a certain way and yes, the play back equipment used can make a world of difference. I don't know. I've heard some of the new mixes and in a way, they just don't sound or feel the same. Like colorizing a classic black and white movie, for me, it just loses something in the translation. But most certainly, to each his own.

[Facelift]

Because you can do something, should you?

As long as it sells, that's all that matters.

[Grimjack]

I think it's far more about taste than what he has to work with.

You take a mix which hasn't been treated well on CD (IE: Larks) and he'll probably have an easier time impressing. But the bigger point is individual sonic taste. I think the original Larks and Lizard mixes blow Wilson's digital remixes out of the water. So using your examples it's clear that our taste is just different.

I've said it before but I'll repeat it: I think it's wonderful if what he is doing in any way helps put these amazing, often underrated albums he has worked with get back into the spotlight.

But I think far too often the original engineering work done on these albums is being dismissed and that's a shame, IMO. How many people even know who George Chkiantz is, for example? Well, I think his original engineering on S&BB should be regarded far more highly than Wilson remixing it on his computer forty years later. It's far more significant what he captured and his end result was far more impressive anyway.

Something about these remixes strikes me as totally out of whack. These albums don't need Steven Wilson or anybody else to somehow "bring them to life." The fact that so many people care about albums that are 40 years old says that they clearly had the life already. I think many people would be well served to listen to the original mixes a bit more attentively before thinking there are somehow "corrections" or "improvements" which need to be made.

Jeff, I really do understand and appreciate your point-of-view which is really well expressed--it's all a matter of taste. Yours and mine clearly differ.

IMNSHO, if anyone has the credibility to take a swing at remixing Yes, Crimso, Tull et all, it's Steven Wilson--a prog fan who faced certain similar challenges in his own music making. What do you do when you have 96 tracks worth of ideas in your head but only have a 4-track recorder at your disposal? Record, bounce, record again…loop, bounce, record. Lather, rinse, repeat. Improvise, adapt, overcome. Not that those artists were in the EXACT same position back in the day, but they had the same artistic challenge--music in their heads that went beyond the limitations of the technology available to them at the time. Technology has since taken several giant leaps forward since 1974 and Wilson came of age as a musician and producer equally comfortable with a computer mouse in his hand as he was a guitar pick--his take on what can be done with a mix now is viewed through a very different lens. Furthermore Wilson's teenage immersion in those classic prog albums primed him to listen with the ears of fan as well as studio professional...this isn't just a job to him. As he's stated in interviews repeatedly, he only works on albums he really likes. It's personal.

From my perspective, he has a preternatural understanding of the character of each musician, instrument and their combined context in the overall piece and Wilson's work has changed my listening experience of these albums for the better. I like the clarity and separation of the instruments that his mixes provide. Does that deviate from the original as it was released? Sure. Does it deviate from the INTENT or desired outcome of the original? Unanswerable. In certain cases, the artist might look back and wish they had more time, different equipment, a mistake that they wish had been fixed etc etc...issues which may in fact be corrected or at least addressed with digital technology. Revisionist history? Perhaps (again, I'm referring to original artistic intent here) but the good news is that there is a robust market for second-hand discs that allow most people to buy and enjoy whichever version they like best. And these new deluxe packages do include flat transfers of the masters which hopefully will placate those who prefer to hear it as it originally was.

Relayer is the album I was most excited about getting "the Wilson treatment". Fusion's influence, the presence of the jazzier Patrick Moraz and perhaps some collective band aggression due to post-Wakeman/post-Topographic fallout created an interesting structural twin to 'Close to the Edge', though these two albums sound nothing alike. 'Close to the Edge' was Yes at their most epic, 'Topographic' their most spiritual but 'Relayer' set a new bar in songcraft, musicianship, and visceral impact. But sonically, I always found 'Relayer' to be a mess...thin, shrill and so much going on in a muddled mix that listening was often the experience of admiring the work rather than immersing myself in it. 'Relayer' 2.0 with an expansive 5.1 mix and a cleaner stereo mix will change that. Much as Mr. Wilson managed to accomplish with King Crimson's 'Lizard' and to a degree with 'A Passion Play', 'Relayer''s place in Yes history is likely to be reevaluated with this release.

I don't agree that what is being done with these releases in any way diminishes the work of the engineers that managed to do incredible things back in the day with recording/mixing technology that had a LOT of limitations...I would argue that their legacy is only enhanced by these reissue campaigns...as you rightly point out, getting these albums in the spotlight is a win for all.

All this said, the key point which you've made and which I hope I've underscored is that this is all a matter of TASTE. There's no right and wrong here. I think Wilson is a hero and his work as a remixer and solo artist is rather genius. I think there are plenty of folks who agree with that point-of-view but who are dismissive of yours and that's not cool...all they've accomplished is to create a pretty vocal anti-Wilson faction which isn't doing any good either. Better that everyone approach with open ears/open mind and some respectful discourse. Oh...wait a minute...this is the Internet.

[Staun]

As long as it sells, that's all that matters.

Pressures of the market place as Roger Waters reminded us some years ago. But these albums are legend and should be beyond all this market place wreckage. I know, keep milking a dry cow.

[JeffCarney]

Jeff, I really do understand and appreciate your point-of-view which is really well expressed--it's all a matter of taste. Yours and mine clearly differ.

IMNSHO, if anyone has the credibility to take a swing at remixing Yes, Crimso, Tull et all, it's Steven Wilson--a prog fan who faced certain similar challenges in his own music making. What do you do when you have 96 tracks worth of ideas in your head but only have a 4-track recorder at your disposal? Record, bounce, record again…loop, bounce, record. Lather, rinse, repeat. Improvise, adapt, overcome. Not that those artists were in the EXACT same position back in the day, but they had the same artistic challenge--music in their heads that went beyond the limitations of the technology available to them at the time. Technology has since taken several giant leaps forward since 1974 and Wilson came of age as a musician and producer equally comfortable with a computer mouse in his hand as he was a guitar pick--his take on what can be done with a mix now is viewed through a very different lens. Furthermore Wilson's teenage immersion in those classic prog albums primed him to listen with the ears of fan as well as studio professional...this isn't just a job to him. As he's stated in interviews repeatedly, he only works on albums he really likes. It's personal.

From my perspective, he has a preternatural understanding of the character of each musician, instrument and their combined context in the overall piece and Wilson's work has changed my listening experience of these albums for the better. I like the clarity and separation of the instruments that his mixes provide. Does that deviate from the original as it was released? Sure. Does it deviate from the INTENT or desired outcome of the original? Unanswerable. In certain cases, the artist might look back and wish they had more time, different equipment, a mistake that they wish had been fixed etc etc...issues which may in fact be corrected or at least addressed with digital technology. Revisionist history? Perhaps (again, I'm referring to original artistic intent here) but the good news is that there is a robust market for second-hand discs that allow most people to buy and enjoy whichever version they like best. And these new deluxe packages do include flat transfers of the masters which hopefully will placate those who prefer to hear it as it originally was.

Relayer is the album I was most excited about getting "the Wilson treatment". Fusion's influence, the presence of the jazzier Patrick Moraz and perhaps some collective band aggression due to post-Wakeman/post-Topographic fallout created an interesting structural twin to 'Close to the Edge', though these two albums sound nothing alike. 'Close to the Edge' was Yes at their most epic, 'Topographic' their most spiritual but 'Relayer' set a new bar in songcraft, musicianship, and visceral impact. But sonically, I always found 'Relayer' to be a mess...thin, shrill and so much going on in a muddled mix that listening was often the experience of admiring the work rather than immersing myself in it. 'Relayer' 2.0 with an expansive 5.1 mix and a cleaner stereo mix will change that. Much as Mr. Wilson managed to accomplish with King Crimson's 'Lizard' and to a degree with 'A Passion Play', 'Relayer''s place in Yes history is likely to be reevaluated with this release.

I don't agree that what is being done with these releases in any way diminishes the work of the engineers that managed to do incredible things back in the day with recording/mixing technology that had a LOT of limitations...I would argue that their legacy is only enhanced by these reissue campaigns...as you rightly point out, getting these albums in the spotlight is a win for all.

All this said, the key point which you've made and which I hope I've underscored is that this is all a matter of TASTE. There's no right and wrong here. I think Wilson is a hero and his work as a remixer and solo artist is rather genius. I think there are plenty of folks who agree with that point-of-view but who are dismissive of yours and that's not cool...all they've accomplished is to create a pretty vocal anti-Wilson faction which isn't doing any good either. Better that everyone approach with open ears/open mind and some respectful discourse. Oh...wait a minute...this is the Internet.

I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't feel that people are being dismissive of my opinion here at all. This thread feels quite balanced, actually. I'm enjoying it.

I don't get involved in these types of discussions as often as I used to but I don't give a hoot if most people dismiss my comments because I know from experience that I reach some people. That's all one can hope to accomplish.

When the Genesis remixes came out I was a lone wolf. People thought I was hearing things and the remixes were outstanding. I had maybe one or two "supporters." Those remixes are now routinely described here as "awful." Sometimes, time plays an important role in shaping more fully formed opinions on this kind of stuff.

Insofar as some of your other comments: I fundamentally disagree with your premise that "technology has come so far since 1974." I think mostly things are easier now, but I do not confuse that with better or improved.

The "record, bounce, record, bounce" thing happened more in some cases than in others, but I believe it's more something you are being told. Its significance is a way to sell you a product which you already purchased. Most of the albums Wilson has remixed were recorded on state of the art equipment. And I think nearly all of his work struggles to capture the qualities of that equipment. So much for technology having lept forward. To my ears, things sound worse today, not better. I'd argue that most commonly used recording technology is different but inferior in terms of the final sonic rewards. Wilson renders these albums sounding like they were recorded on Pro-Tools. Personally, I couldn't give a shit less if I notice that Chris Squire was slightly off-key in his vocal harmony of Verse 2. This perceived advantage of "detail" is just that. I care about how something feels. How I become lost in it with mind, body and soul. Digital recording has demonstrated time and time again that it doesn't cut it in this respect. It can be decent when truly used well, but one need only look at albums that are still regarded as sonic masterpieces to understand that all of this "technology" which we are being told is "improving" things isn't.

And saving a generation or two of tape is overrated, IMO. Most of the albums Wilson is doing were recorded on consoles which employed Dolby A. The "hiss" factor was minimal. Relayer was always hissy so there might be some advantage in this specific case, but far important than saving a little tape hiss is how it sounds when you have to use software plugins to guess at what kind of reverb treatments were used on a mixdown. When you render an overall sonic landscape to be little pieces of art flung across the wall. Detail? Listen to some of the SACDs coming out of Japan recently. These absolutely slay Steven Wilson's remixes. Using an analog stereo master and capturing it in hi-res is all you need. Plenty of "detail" and you don't strip away at the life of the mix by piecing it back together in a PC. Sure, you might get a better signal to noise ratio if you get a flute overdub that was bounced on the original straight into the mix, but this is such nonsense to worry about. I think this is where Wilson fails. Worrying about details is understandable and important but the final, overall sound is what matters most. That's the most IMPORTANT detail!

And why are back catalogs like Pink Floyd's handled with huge, analog consoles? Is this something that could be done on a PC with software plugins and they are just wasting time and money? You can read about this stuff should you desire, but I guarantee you that people like Doug Sax, James Guthrie and Andrew Jackson have heard the results that come from trying to do surround mixes of old, analog recordings in digital. They know that it doesn't provide an optimal sonic experience. Suffice it to say that it's just not treating this music with the ultimate care it deserves to do it in this manner. And I suspect that the record companies love that many will accept these Wilson remixes. It's one hell of a lot cheaper than actually using somebody who assembles surround mixes on a real mixing desk.

[ronmac]

As long as it sells, that's all that matters.

Well, maybe if money is all that matters. I would like to think that the preservation and integrity of the of art carries some weight.

[profusion]

I do agree (can't remember who said it) that I'd like to hear a more radical remix. Something completely different that would likely annoy some Yes purists. And throw in the normal type of SW remix as well (since I'm just writing on a forum and can so easily demand having my cake and eating it too with little consideration for practical realities).

This. Completely this.

I don't see the point of going to all the trouble of unpacking the multitrack parts if the purpose is just to recreate something that already exists, even if a little fine-tuning goes on. The mix on Relayer is TERRIBLE. I have much interest in seeing what someone else 40 years removed from the sessions can do with the thing. I love this music almost more than any other, and I'd love to hear a truly alternate mix of it.

And remember, the package will include the original mix, too, in probably a much better master than the over-compressed Rhino version.

I'm also very intrigued by what could be done with Tales. I've long suspected that there must have been extensive sub-mixing going on during the sessions in order to cram all those keyboard and vocal parts onto 24 tracks. The drums are uncharacteristically dull and subdued for an Eddie Offord production, which makes me think they were mixed down to stereo in order to free up tracks for other instruments. If so, it would be interesting to know if copies of the raw tracks still exist--the album could be put back together without submixes and possibly sound much better than it ever did before.

On the other hand, maybe it's just some bad drum recordings...

[Staun]

Well, maybe if money is all that matters. I would like to think that the preservation and integrity of the of art carries some weight.

I like this here wordage.

[Crystal Plumage]

But altering the art to maintain it's integrity seems like contradictio in terminis to me...