Yes-Close To The Edge goes to SACD Finally! :)

[Arkangel3]

I usually avoid a lot of Friday Music's "remasters", as I have been assaulted by a a high end that could make a pack of wolves lie over and beg for mercy on a few of their albums. Perfect example: Kansas' Vinyl Confessions, which was remastered by Friday AND by CBS when they released the Kansas catalog in that mini-box set from last year. There's no comparison; the CBS remaster blows Friday's out of the water. It's perfectly done, imho and Friday's had WAY too much high end cranked. And if Jeff is reading this and sees I'm complaining about highs, it's a pretty good bet that the remaster is horrible (I tend to like mids/highs naturally). They did release a Renaissance Live at Carnegie Hall anniversary edition a few years ago that sounded excellent. They did a good job on Starcastle as well. Otherwise, I tend to stay away from Friday Music.

[JeffCarney]

On the negative side, I really am able to tell that the miking on guitars on And You and I could have been better. The guitar sounds pretty boxy and almost behind a curtain.

I find this statement utterly perplexing.

You cannot be talking about the acoustic guitar.

[enpdllp]

For any folks considering the purchase of any Yes downloads from HDtracks, there is a 15% discount available until midnight March 24 if you use the promo code "YES15".

[Jubal]

I find this statement utterly perplexing.

You cannot be talking about the acoustic guitar.

Yes, I am. I have owned and played acoustic guitars for over 35 years. In fairness to Mr. Offord, acoustic guitar miking techniques were generally not very good back in the early 70s. Take a listen to William Ackerman's "Passage" album if you want to hear a properly miked acoustic guitar. The difference in the resonance quality is astounding.
Ackerman mostly used 5 mics on his guitar. Most were AKG pencil condensers. The positioniing is also key. You don't just do an X/Y position very close to the soundhole. Ackerman's technique involved a wider angle, one of the mics DOWN and nearly parallel to the fretboard, another pointed at the bridge (again at a shallow angle). Then he had a more basic pencil pair X/Y about 2 feet out. The 5th mic is about 7-10 feet out and above.
Not a simple technique, but it is definitely able to capture the true sound of an acoustic guitar as heard in a normal manner in a live situation.

[JeffCarney]

Yes, I am. I have owned and played acoustic guitars for over 35 years. In fairness to Mr. Offord, acoustic guitar miking techniques were generally not very good back in the early 70s. Take a listen to William Ackerman's "Passage" album if you want to hear a properly miked acoustic guitar. The difference in the resonance quality is astounding.
Ackerman mostly used 5 mics on his guitar. Most were AKG pencil condensers. The positioniing is also key. You don't just do an X/Y position very close to the soundhole. Ackerman's technique involved a wider angle, one of the mics DOWN and nearly parallel to the fretboard, another pointed at the bridge (again at a shallow angle). Then he had a more basic pencil pair X/Y about 2 feet out. The 5th mic is about 7-10 feet out and above.
Not a simple technique, but it is definitely able to capture the true sound of an acoustic guitar as heard in a normal manner in a live situation.

I think there's a difference between saying you think that it is the "best recording of an acoustic guitar you have ever heard" and talking about it being "behind a curtain."

[trurl]

Good Lord *lol* The acoustic on CttE sounds fine. They aimed a mic at it. A pretty nice one, probably. No, they didn't go nuts trying to make the most pristine audiophile recording of an acoustic in history (btw, wold I be right in assuming the Ackerman is a solo recording, not in a mix?) but it sounds good. Ian Anderson's acoustic on the Tull albums was the same way. Sounds like a Martin- sounds like Ian's Martin.

[Mister Triscuits]

Sounds like a Martin- sounds like Ian's Martin.

As opposed to Martin's Martin?

[Crystal Plumage]

Since I mentioned it earlier I wanted to say that I received the German Atlantic CD and I love it!
No need for me to buy an expensive SACD which I can't play anyway.

[enpdllp]

Since I mentioned it earlier I wanted to say that I received the German Atlantic CD and I love it!
No need for me to buy an expensive SACD which I can't play anyway.

FWIW, the Audio Fidelity CTTE SACD is a hybrid. One layer can be played on any CD player, the other layer is only playable on players with SACD reading capability.

[Rand Kelly]

5.1 or Bust.

[Crystal Plumage]

I know it's a hybrid, but to pay over €30 for it is a bit too much for me. The Atlantic cost me €5.

[Jubal]

Rand, it's a bust. Some of the multitracks are missing. Best sounding version is the 96/24 HD Tracks file (or the 192/24 if you want to store it as a 2.45 G wave file.

[tullman]

For everyone's information Steve Hoffman said the following about the tapes used.

"There is only one master tape on this album. The one I used. Everything else in the world is a copy of that."

[JeffCarney]

For everyone's information Steve Hoffman said the following about the tapes used.

"There is only one master tape on this album. The one I used. Everything else in the world is a copy of that."

I think he means the one that Stephen Marsh used, but I guess that's "nitpicking."

Apparently Hoffman gave his EQ suggestions to Marsh for the AF version which was mastered at Marsh's studio. I would assume that obviously HDtracks just got a flat version that was also transferred there. Hoffman's version is very similar to the HDtracks but has a little more bass and midrange. They both sound like they were taken from the exact same source, though I suspect that Hoffman will find some reason to suggest otherwise in order to make sure his "fans" only buy his version.

[jbaker]

For everyone's information Steve Hoffman said the following about the tapes used.

"There is only one master tape on this album. The one I used. Everything else in the world is a copy of that."

Why has Audio Fidelity not responded to my email asking about the source used? Why does Audio Fidelity no longer put "from the original master tapes" on their packaging?

I expect his post to vanish into thin air.

[Rand Kelly]

Rand, it's a bust. Some of the multitracks are missing. Best sounding version is the 96/24 HD Tracks file (or the 192/24 if you want to store it as a 2.45 G wave file.

I guess I'll have to decide between the HD and the Hoffman. Eventually, I will get one of those. Thanks to everyone who bothered to compare all these new ones.

[tullman]

I think he means the one that Stephen Marsh used, but I guess that's "nitpicking."

Apparently Hoffman gave his EQ suggestions to Marsh for the AF version which was mastered at Marsh's studio. I would assume that obviously HDtracks just got a flat version that was also transferred there. Hoffman's version is very similar to the HDtracks but has a little more bass and midrange. They both sound like they were taken from the exact same source, though I suspect that Hoffman will find some reason to suggest otherwise in order to make sure his "fans"
only buy his version.

I do know what you are referring to, but it is more rumor/sour grapes by Shawn Britton, IMO.

SH said that he worked very hard on the mastering. Surely more than some EQ suggestions. I mean come on Jeff, SH has been mastering for decades. I am pretty sure he has learned his way around the studio a little bit. No doubt Stephen Marsh was involved, especially with the transfer.

I don't know what happened to you over at SH, but you sure seem to have it in for SH.

BTW, I concur with your assessment of the SACD of CTTE.

[tullman]

Why has Audio Fidelity not responded to my email asking about the source used? Why does Audio Fidelity no longer put "from the original master tapes" on their packaging?

I expect his post to vanish into thin air.

I understand that AF cannot discuss source tapes for CTTE due to contractual restrictions.

AF no longer puts "from original master tapes" on their packaging because some of the titles are not from the original master tapes. I think that is just being honest. People that purchase AF titles can take that into consideration.

[Rand Kelly]

So, is it $25 better than my Diaments?

[enpdllp]

I understand that AF cannot discuss source tapes for CTTE due to contractual restrictions.

I really don't understand why there was a need for a non-disclosure agreement between the holder of the tapes and Hoffman on the condition and/or source of the tapes. Makes you wonder if this is just a fancy way for Hoffman to avoid answering that the ones used for CTTE were not the master tapes.

[JeffCarney]

I do know what you are referring to, but it is more rumor/sour grapes by Shawn Britton, IMO.

SH said that he worked very hard on the mastering. Surely more than some EQ suggestions. I mean come on Jeff, SH has been mastering for decades. I am pretty sure he has learned his way around the studio a little bit. No doubt Stephen Marsh was involved, especially with the transfer..

Hoffman doesn't use compression, no-noise, stereo enhancement or any of that nonsense, so what else would he have done?

Making EQ moves is a mastering decision. I'm not criticizing that aspect of it at all, just saying that I've read that he didn't deal with playback of the tapes, so his comment sounded a bit silly.

I don't know what happened to you over at SH, but you sure seem to have it in for SH.

I don't "have it in" for Hoffman. I think the guy is "one of the good guys" in terms of sonics overall and he stands for something and sticks to it, but I think he exaggerates so greatly whenever he masters something that it gets ridiculous and does a disservice to the "movement" of people interested in actual comparisons instead of hyperbole. Any title he does, he essentially implies that nearly every previous version was done from an inferior source by people who didn't know what they were doing.

As far as "what happened," I thought most everybody who knew me over there knew the story, but here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1RDC15...=&nodeID=&tag=

[enpdllp]

As far as "what happened," I thought most everybody who knew me over there knew the story, but here it is

Pretty interesting read on the link you provided. Was not aware you had any issues with the Hoffman forum.

Could you provide a link to the Amazon.ca review?

Thanks in advance.

[JeffCarney]

Pretty interesting read on the link you provided. Was not aware you had any issues with the Hoffman forum.

Could you provide a link to the Amazon.ca review?

Thanks in advance.

http://www.amazon.ca/review/RBM1N492...#RBM1N4923UTA0

[tullman]

Hoffman doesn't use compression, no-noise, stereo enhancement or any of that nonsense, so what else would he have done?

Making EQ moves is a mastering decision. I'm not criticizing that aspect of it at all, just saying that I've read that he didn't deal with playback of the tapes, so his comment sounded a bit silly.



I don't "have it in" for Hoffman. I think the guy is "one of the good guys" in terms of sonics overall and he stands for something and sticks to it, but I think he exaggerates so greatly whenever he masters something that it gets ridiculous and does a disservice to the "movement" of people interested in actual comparisons instead of hyperbole. Any title he does, he essentially implies that nearly every previous version was done from an inferior source by people who didn't know what they were doing.

As far as "what happened," I thought most everybody who knew me over there knew the story, but here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1RDC15...=&nodeID=&tag=

Thanks for info.

So you were banned for the Amazon review or was it the thread about Rumors? Did you post on that thread? I missed the show. I am sorry you were banned. You do have passion for music/recordings. I like that, even though I don't always agree with you.

I've had plenty of posts deleted over there. I really don't mind. It is SH's website, so he can do whatever he wants. I really don't blame him for not wanting negative posts about his work. It's kind of like going over to someone's house for dinner and insulting the cooking. Ego is sometimes a double edged sword. Ego can drive one to excellence and give one confidence. Most pro athletes have huge egos. Ego can also piss people off.

[Mr Class & Quality?]

I prefer the CD layer on the new SACD over the SACD layer which sounds too bright on my system.