Close to the Edge Panegyric-Wilson reviews

[Brian Griffin]

The run thru is unique to this version, so are the instrumentals! Catch up!

LOL - you've inspired me to dig further

I have had this studio run through version of the CttE run through for years, (from a boot), when I ripped the Rhino disc I added this along with the other bonus things that CD had so I was confused

This version sounds better for sure in retrospect

Speaking of which, I think that the Khatru and And You and I run through's are the same as the Rhino bonus tracks, though I'd have to a/b

BG

[flatliner]

A little late to the party here, but I had an issue with my Blu-ray version of this: It would not play on my LG BD390. LG is no longer offering firmware upgrades. I was really bummed! But during Cyber Monday Amazon offered an incredible deal on a Panasonic 500 Blu-ray player for $149! So I bought myself a Christmas present! Got it set up yesterday and immediately put CTTE Blu-ray in. No issues! Whew!

I listened to the LPCM 5.1 version. I can say without a doubt, this is the BEST version of CTTE out there!!!! (Only heard the song CTTE so far). To me, there is NO missing bass anywhere. From Get Up Get down to the end is just mind blowing!!!! There are vocals I've NEVER heard, plus the church organ sounds fantastic! I'm thinking (and it may have already been discussed) that this is a completely different recording than original release? Especially the backing vocals in Get Up....These weren't just missing from the original. They are additional lyrics I never heard before.

I've always thought YES CD's sounded pretty harsh, and I have both the original Atlantics and the Rhino's. But this Blu-ray has to be the best sounding remaster (and 5.1 mix) I've ever heard! Can't wait to hear the rest!

Also can't wait for TFTO in 5.1, my favorite YES album........Next year is going to be another great one for progressive rock!

[calyx]

Especially the backing vocals in Get Up....These weren't just missing from the original. They are additional lyrics I never heard before.

They were mixed out on the original release, but these additional words ("thru the duty...") were in the lyrics sheet all along.

[Tim35]

Every time I play the song Close To The Edge in surround 5.1 using DTS the song stops playing just shy of the 8 minute mark. I am so bummed. The other songs play fine.
Has anybody else experienced this problem?

By the way, I was the one who said I didn’t listen to surround with a center speaker. I got feedback that listening to it like that wasn’t very good. I was curious and hooked the center speak back in. Wow: I was blown away by all of the Close to the Edge album. At least the parts that will play. It sounds a lot better with the center speaker hooked up. I am not sure why I thought it would sound better in the sweet spot without a center channel. Thanks PE people.

[flatliner]

Glad you hooked it back up.....as you found out, the center channel is VERY important in surround sound. It's a dedicated channel just like the rest, in fact I find I don't have to be worried so much with the sweet spot listening to surround.

As for your disc, sounds like it is bad. You need to swap it out.....

Also, if you can possibly listen to the LPCM 5.1 version, you will be blown away!!! It just can't get any better than that!

[Jubal]

After hearing the DVD-Audio 6 times, I have a genral conclusion of this mix versus the better stereo mixes. First, it brings out greater detail in some individual parts, but usually there is at least one musician's part that has as much less detail at the same time. Fro example, there are times when Bruford's cymbal work almost jumps out at you. Usually, that is at the expense of Steve's nuances. The timbre of Steve's playing also often suffers during the first main section, priamrily to bring out much greater detail in Jon's singing. The musician that probably gets the least detail treatment in the mix (except when soloing) is Rick.
The result of this approach is that the overall mix does not process in my mind as much a single performance of 5 musicians meshed together. Bringing out detail in a mix is good to a point, but the intention should not be so much to illuminate the individual cogs of the machine, but rather show how well those cogs mesh together.
The general balance should be between detail (which is often associated with the high end) and depth (or warmth, often assosciated with low end). Too much low end can seem warm, but the individual parts tend to get buried. Too much high end (or even upper mid range) can result in a thin, almost lifeless sound.
I've been one who has often praised the virtues of 5.1, and especially how it can increase both detail and warmth of the music. I have also had high praise for most of Steven Wilson's 5.1 mixes. He has done a fantastic job on most everything I've heard him mix.
Unfortunately, I can only say that I believe this mix does not fully meet the same levels of excellence as his PT & KC mixes. Am I saying he did a bad job? No.
I have read numerous interviews about the initial recording of CTTE. I also know there were numerous problems with finding the source multi-track tapes. There was a huge amount of editing and splicing that went into that album. Putting that puzzle together with tapes that probably were not labeled in a systematic manner must have been frustrating.
I can tip my hat at the amount of detail Mr. Wilson brought out in this mix. Unfortunately, it leaved me wanting the breadth and depth of the various stereo mixes I have heard. While the individual musicianship of each member on this album is top notch, the individual parts can not match the grandeur of the Yes machine meshing together in its full integrated splendour.
For me, the best mix of this album now belongs to the 96/24 HD Tracks stereo mix.

[Firth]

After hearing the DVD-Audio 6 times, I have a genral conclusion of this mix versus the better stereo mixes. First, it brings out greater detail in some individual parts, but usually there is at least one musician's part that has as much less detail at the same time. Fro example, there are times when Bruford's cymbal work almost jumps out at you. Usually, that is at the expense of Steve's nuances. The timbre of Steve's playing also often suffers during the first main section, priamrily to bring out much greater detail in Jon's singing. The musician that probably gets the least detail treatment in the mix (except when soloing) is Rick.
The result of this approach is that the overall mix does not process in my mind as much a single performance of 5 musicians meshed together. Bringing out detail in a mix is good to a point, but the intention should not be so much to illuminate the individual cogs of the machine, but rather show how well those cogs mesh together.
The general balance should be between detail (which is often associated with the high end) and depth (or warmth, often assosciated with low end). Too much low end can seem warm, but the individual parts tend to get buried. Too much high end (or even upper mid range) can result in a thin, almost lifeless sound.
I've been one who has often praised the virtues of 5.1, and especially how it can increase both detail and warmth of the music. I have also had high praise for most of Steven Wilson's 5.1 mixes. He has done a fantastic job on most everything I've heard him mix.
Unfortunately, I can only say that I believe this mix does not fully meet the same levels of excellence as his PT & KC mixes. Am I saying he did a bad job? No.
I have read numerous interviews about the initial recording of CTTE. I also know there were numerous problems with finding the source multi-track tapes. There was a huge amount of editing and splicing that went into that album. Putting that puzzle together with tapes that probably were not labeled in a systematic manner must have been frustrating.
I can tip my hat at the amount of detail Mr. Wilson brought out in this mix. Unfortunately, it leaved me wanting the breadth and depth of the various stereo mixes I have heard. While the individual musicianship of each member on this album is top notch, the individual parts can not match the grandeur of the Yes machine meshing together in its full integrated splendour.
For me, the best mix of this album now belongs to the 96/24 HD Tracks stereo mix.

If your system has a flat response on a per channel basis (ignoring the subwoofer which is separate) restoration of dynamic range will increase the impact of cymbal crashes and big bass notes. I found the original and new stereo mixes as a mash of things, there is too much going on to come from only 2 channels. Now if the environment that the 5 speakers exist in has too many reflections at loud volume level, stereo may be better from an interference standpoint. For me the greatest disappointment has been the weakness of the bass drum and tom toms in the mix. The guitar and voices seem appropriate. I disagree that there is a trade between detail and depth. First, if the frequency response provides the lower mid range, and the time response provides the delayed acoustics of the recorded environment, then there will be depth. Warmth is about lower mid range which why I think folks who like vinyl are more about liking their phono cartridge coloration than vinyl.

[JKL2000]

The booklet shows an ad for the album where Bruford's photo is replaced by Alan White. I assume this is because Bruford left the band and was replaced by White, but that seems pretty wrong to put White in instead of Bruford for an album ad, no?

[Progatron]

The booklet shows an ad for the album where Bruford's photo is replaced by Alan White. I assume this is because Bruford left the band and was replaced by White, but that seems pretty wrong to put White in instead of Bruford for an album ad, no?

Wouldn't be the first time they did something like that!

[calyx]

The booklet shows an ad for the album where Bruford's photo is replaced by Alan White. I assume this is because Bruford left the band and was replaced by White, but that seems pretty wrong to put White in instead of Bruford for an album ad, no?

I guess this was all part of the nasty settlement Bruford had to accept from manager Brian Lane as retaliation for leaving. I seem to remember White got half of Bruford's royalties on the album, despite not playing on it, because Bruford wouldn't fulfill his promotional "obligations" for the album. And since it was White people attending the shows would be seeing, it kind of made sense to show him rather than Bruford on the ads.

Actually, Bruford initially offered the do the 1st leg of the tour (USA) as there were factors preventing the new King Crimson from beginning live work until October 1972, but it was decided (again, probably by Brian Lane) that it should be White drumming from the start of the tour. Too bad - I wish there were live versions with Bruford of the "CTTE" tracks (rather than just the ABWH versions with those horrible electronic drums).

[JKL2000]

I guess this was all part of the nasty settlement Bruford had to accept from manager Brian Lane as retaliation for leaving. I seem to remember White got half of Bruford's royalties on the album, despite not playing on it, because Bruford wouldn't fulfill his promotional "obligations" for the album.

Wouldn't the contract, which I imagine laid out Bruford's obligations, also specify the penalty(ies) if he didn't meet certain obligations? I doubt giving up half his royalties from the album would be one of them. All was it all just a gigantic fustercluck back then?

[Brian Griffin]

Revisited the DTS 96/24 this evening to start my weekend

I'm not a big fan of a lot of SW mixes, but man, he nailed this pretty hard

Any word on what Yes is next?

Hoping for Tales, or possibly Relayer

BG

[N_Singh]

Tales would be EPIC!

[yesman1955]

Henry mentioned (a while back) that he thought Tales would be up next.

[jim1961]

After listening to the CttE stereo remix, I've concluded that most people must listen for different things in a mix than I do. The praise being heaped upon this new mix would certainly suggest this to be true. And even a couple of people whose ears and judgment I value highly have been impressed by this mix. Some have even claimed the new stereo mix to be "improved." I can't share such a viewpoint.

"Clarity" is important. Sure, it's nice to notice that a vocal sounds more "clear" or a guitar line previously a bit "lost" in a mix is now more prominent. But I think these are only things that hold deep interest for a listen or two because one is so fully familiar with the music at hand. Hence, a certain excitement ensues when new discoveries are made within that music. But, for me, in the final analysis, the overall "feel" of a mix is more important. It's not just a cliché, feel is a part of the music listening experience. Recent scientific studies even confirm this with music being found to reduce Chronic Pain, for example. And I suspect "Bridge Over Troubled Water" helping someone feel a little more comfortable didn't come from noticing an extra piano fill they hadn't heard before. I use this example only to illustrate the point that a mix is many things. Details are significant, but certainly no more important than the emotional responses is generates.

I think what most people want from these remixes is detail. They want the instruments to "stand out" more. To that extent, this remix is a complete success. I've long believed that this is why "remastering" was such a successful marketing weapon for the industry. Compress the signal a little, bring out some detail and the average listener feels that he has a made a wise buying decision in purchasing the same music again. Brilliant, really. The same principle applies here, but achieving that result is being done in a way where the original dynamics can remain intact or even slightly improved.

But what is the overall goal of a mix? Clarity? Crisp, detailed sound?

Or is there a certain, intangible quality that comes from a mix that helps it get inside of us and move our emotions?

Where this new mix fails miserably is in taking an analog mix and turning it into a Pro-Tools mix that sounds like it was recorded yesterday. And, IMO, this is simply not an improvement. It's different, even "fun," but the overall intensity and depth is inferior to the original Eddie Offord mix. So when I hear people discuss it as "better" than the Offord original, I can only assume they measure sound "quality" by whether they can hear Jon Anderson's voice a little more clearly or think Squire's bass being picked sounds a little more like it is "in the room" with them. Or maybe they prefer the improved soundstage. But there is a "dryness" in the new mix that only serves to show off just how impressive the original mixing decisions were. The original reverb decisions made by Yes and Eddie Offord seemed just about perfect and found a fantastic balance between clarity and ambience, but those are now gone. Everything is right up front, crystal clear, brilliantly clean, and yet, the mix lies there like a dead fish. It brings your ears in, but your body can't compute why you just don't feel anywhere near the same sense of emotional involvement that the original mix invoked from your soul on so many occasions.

As I have previously suspected as regards the work of Steven Wilson, I just don't think taking an analog mix and digitally remixing it is an approach which yields a result that has the "life" that was there to begin with. I truly believe that for digital recordings, this approach would yield far more satisfying results. But the difference in analog master tape sound and a digital remix is far too severe and the latter pales in overall character and "warmth." IMO, no amount of added "clarity" can make up for this fundamental shortcoming. And anyone who thinks Steve Howe's acoustic guitar on "And You And I" has a sound within a country mile of the "flat" transfer presented on the Blu-ray version of this very same release simply has a very forgiving set of ears.

I basically agree with you here Jeff. The things that you point out that are missing compared to the Offord version I am not sure show up in all listening situations and conditions, so some of the posters may not be aware of these things in the first place, therefore dont miss what wasn't present in the first place to their ears.

Perhaps not my preferred version, I do find the Wilson versions worth keeping around as an alternate take.

Given it wasnt out yet as of the time of your post, how does the Audio Fidelity version stack up to the Blu-ray IYO?

[jim1961]

Interesting points, Jeff, I think there's a lot to that- and more. For me, at least, I heard this at an age when it probably literally affected the wiring of my brain. It stimulated neurons and created pathways and when I hear CttE I expect those same neurons to fire. Now, I enjoy remixes for the very reasons you say- it's interesting to hear clarity in things in a new way, it's cool to hear a different balance in things but for me it's interesting in a clinical, academic way. The true listening satisfaction still comes from the old mixes, not because they are "right" or empirically better but because they are familiar. I don't have this release yet, and I plan to get it and I expect I will thoroughly enjoy it, but the new mix will never replace the old one in the long run for me. I haven't even heard it and I already know.

I like the distinction you make regarding there not being a "right" version, but merely the one stamped on our brain. For those that have never heard the material before, ever, I wonder which version such a person would like being removed from the brain stamping.

[Firth]

I like the distinction you make regarding there not being a "right" version, but merely the one stamped on our brain. For those that have never heard the material before, ever, I wonder which version such a person would like being removed from the brain stamping.

Those who are brain stamped to the point where a different version is never appreciated are handicapped. Thus incapable if appreciating a live concert which in the case of Yes has all ways sounded less compressed to me, for whatever reason. I don't think the original production of CTE is very good. The faults in that production were not fixed in the remix. Perhaps because of the paranoia associated with overcoming the brain stamps.

[Brian Griffin]

I've had the LP since the 70's, and have 10 or so different CD versions and have probably played the album more than a thousand times over the years

From where I sit, the original Atlantic CD is definitive, as it's most like I remember the LP to have sounded

That being said, I flat out love the 96/24 DTS, because it is so different

My mantra has always been that in these situations, the "everyday" CD version should be as faithful to the LP as possible, and the surround needs to be the one that reveals the new layers, nuances, and hidden things we hadn't heard before

BG

[Crystal Plumage]

I recently bought an original Atlantic and compared it to my Rhino. From those two I love the Atlantic! And I'll keep the Rhino for the extras.
A good lesson to learn here is: never get rid of your originals!

[jim1961]

Those who are brain stamped to the point where a different version is never appreciated are handicapped. Thus incapable if appreciating a live concert which in the case of Yes has all ways sounded less compressed to me, for whatever reason. I don't think the original production of CTE is very good. The faults in that production were not fixed in the remix. Perhaps because of the paranoia associated with overcoming the brain stamps.

Nobody goes to a live show expecting it to sound like the studio album. That is silly.

[Doctor Flang]

For stereo, the Gastwrit's 1994 remaster is my first choice. As with The Yes Album, it's the 5.1 mix why i even bothered to buy yet another version of Yes catalogue. And the title track of CTTE is one of the best 5.1 mixes i've ever heard.

[Blah_Blah_Woof_Woof]

I have been unemployed for two years so I haven't the money for these Wilson 5.1's. Always liked what Wilson did with the PT 5.1 mixes. Can't wait to get the Topographic Oceans remix!!

Which, in your opinion, is the most 'immersive', detailed, trippy surround sound remake of all the Yes, Crimson, Tull or Gentle Giant releases so far?