Originally Posted by trurl
As if there's no choices for sound between Tormato and GftO?
Maybe it would sound like Tales. Maybe it would sound like Relayer. Or Close to the Edge.
And it's not all recorded live in a church....but the reverb is still there. That was added in production. That reverb is mid-70s fake-arena-rock-sound fashion (thank you Boston, Foreigner, blechh) , just like gated drums were early 80s fashion.
It would sound like Tormato. The basic engineering of the two projects is very similar. And I know it wasn't all recorded in a church, I think the idea was to give the whole recording that kind of sonic signature. You can't have a church organ with a 10 second reverb living next to dry studio instruments, it wouldn't be homogenous. Well, you could, but if I was producing I'd do what they did. Yeah, reverb goes in and out of style. Right now the kids are into it. I like it myself. I like that Enya sound.
BTW I personally wouldn't hold up either Tales or Relayer as production models to emulate, especially Relayer. But they are what they are, and I love them too.
Does anyone besides me actually own this SACD?
Henry, as someone who has long admired your balanced and mature approach to discussions of Yes-related topics,I'm having a hard time here figuring out whether you're mocking an interest in sound quality in general (since an audiophile is nothing more than someone for whom sound quality is an important consideration), or claiming to be interested in sound quality but just disagreeing with others (who claim to be audiophiles) as to what versions sound best. It just sounds sort of contradictory to imply that you're not an audiophile, but nevertheless to make sonic recommendations (in this case, for the Rhino versions). The way you worded your post sounds a bit like someone saying, "Personally, out of what's out there, I think Tormato and Big Generator are the safe bets for Yes albums, while Fragile and CttE are not, in my experience, generally regarded as their best work, but you can always find "Yes fans" out there who will say otherwise. But then "Yes fans" actually believe that the band's early 70s material had a magic to it that just can't possibly be reproduced. I'm right at this moment listening to Union--God knows what the "Yes fans" will think of me for doing that)."
My response to your post is similar to how I suspect you would respond to someone posting the above: if you believe that the Rhino CttE and Going for the One are the best sounding digital versions, and sonically better than those of Audio Fidelity, you are certainly welcome to that opinion, but it never hurts when making recommendations to explain the basis of the recommendation (for example, do you find the prominence of the bass more to your liking on the Rhino, or too much distortion on other versions?). If you really aren't carefully comparing the sound among the various versions, but have merely concluded that the Rhino sounds fine to you and you like the bonus tracks, it would make sense to make that clear and not get into phrases like "definitive digital version." In any event, though, basing your argument on characterizations of those with whom you apparently disagree does not seem like the most productive way to engage in dialogue.
Last edited by NorthNY Mark; 07-01-2013 at 12:34 PM.
I wish I did. I intend to order it the next time I make a music purchase, as I was really impressed with the Audio Fidelity CttE. For me, that is the best sounding digital version available (as it has a really natural tonal balance on my system and an almost eerily lifelike vocal presence that I've never heard on any other version, digital or vinyl). Can't wait to hear this version of GftO.
I don't associate the reverb on GFTO with arena rock and I say that as someone who can quite happily listen to Boston or Perry era Journey with no shame whatsoever. I associate that sound more with new age (Enya like you said) and early 90s dream pop. Anyway, it's an album from the late 70s so why shouldn't it sound like one? Who gets to decide what sounds cool, retro and vintage and what sounds dated anyway? If you take a record from the 70s and mix it according to 2013 sonic values then it's just going to sound "dated" once again somewhere down the line. IMHO far better to just leave it be and let the 70s be the 70s and the 2010s be the 2010s.
Just on the basis of engineering (in other words, not taking into account songwriting, arrangement, or even instrument choices), I think Tormato sounds much better than GftO, so perhaps I would prefer the latter in a less reverb-drenched version. Hard to say without hearing it. I don't dislike reverb in general, but there is something very odd and unnatural about the particular type of reverb I hear on "Turn of the Century," which absolutely does not sound to me like it was recorded in a reverberant cathedral, but more like a giant tin can. I would be interested in hearing the beautiful performance presented more in the direct manner of "Madrigal," perhaps. While not a fan of Wilson's approach to stereo remixes at all, I would probably listen to what he would do with this particular album with more anticipation than just about anything else he might remix, because it is a rare case of what I consider to be a very unsatisfying original mix on a major prog album from the 70s.
Steve Hoffman posted this on his forum. I guess in response to somebody who wasn't nuts about the new SACD. I found it interesting even if I can't be certain as to the truth of some of the comments. Posting it below ...
I'll say this one time. Sorry you didn't like this. You can sell to a Forum member if you wish, I'm sure there will be a taker.
This is the MASTER TAPE you are hearing. Not the EQ'd LP cutting master that other versions used that have been thinned out on the bottom and jacked in the upper mids and top. This is the actual mixed tape, untouched. The one the band and their producer, engineer, etc. heard in the studio when they said "We have an album!"
Would I have mixed it like this? No, but no one asked me in school back in the day to sit in, sad to say. But it's my job to reproduce what has been mixed to give an accurate representation of what they were going for at the time. We didn't boost anything, we didn't add anything, we just presented the original mix using the full bandwidth in both the DSD/SACD and CD section, screwing around with none of it.
To me, after years of hearing the bright versions, hearing what the master tape actually sounds like is liberating. Of course, if one is used to the EQ dub tape sound, this might be harder to get used to. Can't help you there. I can say that the members of YES have heard (and approved) our new version and they dig the full sound.
That being said, anyone is entitled to their opinion but we went the extra mile on this one, getting the real deal tapes and making sure not to f*** the sound up. Those of you who like it, I'm glad. Those of you who don't like it, I'm sad. But, we did our best and we wouldn't change a thing about the mastering.
Our version is the purest representation of what the master tape sounds like that any YES fan will ever hear.
Wow ...
Just got mine and this is really interesting to hear the album like this. A bit less top end.
One thing is that the reverb isn't quite as prominent. I suspect that if Hoffman was right about the amount of treble boost on many versions out there that this was a big factor in the reverb being so overwhelming. Adding treble to the EQ would have brought that out more than it was likely heard on the studio monitors.
I'm happy with this. Whatever anyone thinks about Steve Hoffman, the dude knows his brand and his customers. This is very faithful to the original sonics but just makes the album a little bit easier on the ears. Maybe that was achieved by simply finding the right source, or maybe he did a little EQing, but this is the best I've ever heard this album. It's still harsh, but this I can deal with better and just hear this as a sort of "final word" on GFTO.
Recommended.
I really have to ask though- and I promise this is in earnest and not an attempt to be snarky- is there anything going on that can't be replicated simply by taking the old original release and turning your system's treble control down a couple db??
Very good to hear, Jeff! Thanks for the review.
There are some bass frequencies in there that I don't think would be easy to replicate.
I don't know ... I mean, I have only just received it, but twenty bucks to at least hear "Awaken" in what is supposedly pristine, master tape quality is pretty much a no-brainer.
The phrase "definitive digital version" was Frum B's and I was only using it in responding to his post. I make no claim that any release is the definitive digital version. Different people will like different versions for understandable reasons.
Henry
Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/
What is your thinking on the Hoffman CTTE? I have enough Amazon rewards points to get that and GFTO for free.
"It was a cruel song, but fair."-Roger Waters
On the one hand I think Hoffman is kind of an ass. On the other hand, I have the DCC of Pet Sounds and have spent time with a lot of versions of Pet Sounds including the stereo remix. Hoffman's mastering is basically the only one I ever play.
"It was a cruel song, but fair."-Roger Waters
It is? You know this how? They were recorded in completely different settings, by different engineers. And even the band dynamic was different by then.
Close to the Edge, had many a section of dry instruments followed by a 'wet' section (even one section with organ). So it's not like Yes had never done that, successfully.And I know it wasn't all recorded in a church, I think the idea was to give the whole recording that kind of sonic signature. You can't have a church organ with a 10 second reverb living next to dry studio instruments, it wouldn't be homogenous. Well, you could, but if I was producing I'd do what they did. Yeah, reverb goes in and out of style. Right now the kids are into it. I like it myself. I like that Enya sound.
Personally.. I would take the production of either of those -- including the 'wet' bits -- over the production mess that is GftO. "Parallels" was probably the worst-produced track in their catalog to that point.BTW I personally wouldn't hold up either Tales or Relayer as production models to emulate, especially Relayer. But they are what they are, and I love them too.
That would be an anachronism. The reference point in 1976-77 was clearly not Enya or 90s dream-pop....
I remember quite well when 'that sound' -- the reverby arena-rock sound -- started appearing on records. It was the mid 70s. Yes of course didn't go whole hog with it on GftO -- that didn't happen until 90125 -- but the influence seemed clear.
I do. So do you. It's preference, not dogma.Anyway, it's an album from the late 70s so why shouldn't it sound like one? Who gets to decide what sounds cool, retro and vintage and what sounds dated anyway?
As I've said, 'that sound' could work better as a surround remix, where the reverb could behave more like real reverb.If you take a record from the 70s and mix it according to 2013 sonic values then it's just going to sound "dated" once again somewhere down the line. IMHO far better to just leave it be and let the 70s be the 70s and the 2010s be the 2010s.
'Treble' controls on home audio gear typically affect a wide range of high frequencies, whereas with an EQ board you can home in on just 'problem' frequency bands. And the original release -- in vinyl --probably had its own EQ added , which would not be on the original master tapes (which Hoffman says he used as the source). So matching the EQ between, say, Hoffman's version and the old LP might involve more than just adjusting treble.
Might want to wait.
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=WPCR-14663
I have a different reference point in that I didn't hear GFTO until 91-92 after hearing "Awaken" performed on the Union tour. While I agree that there are threads of influence that run from Yes to arena rock, there are also threads running from Yes to new age and, less obviously, to 80s-90s dream pop...a trebly mix washed in reverb with floaty, ethereal vocals. I think Yes albums like GFTO may have partially played a role in inspiring that.
Anyway, that sort of thing is why I'm wary of remixing and mucking around with the historical context of these recordings. Something you change or take away in the name of making improvements could well be something that mattered to something else that happened 5-10-15 years later.
There's also the IMHO thorny matter of trying to use modern software to recreate and simulate vintage effects from the original releases that were added during mixing back in the day, but aren't present on the multitracks.
Last edited by Frumious B; 07-02-2013 at 10:38 AM.
So you think remixes are a terrible idea, but you're all excited about a radically different remaster...?
Henry
Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/
In remasters that I personally tend to like most the differences tend to be subtle, not radical. "Radically different" to me means someone forcefully asserting his/her own vision on a older recording after the fact enough to be blatantly noticeable or someone just outright screwing something up, brickwalling, using the "single" mix or edit instead of the "album" mix or edit of a track or things like that. I might be a great many things, but radical isn't one of them. And who's excited? Excited means preorder, hit the store on release date, "camp out" for tickets and that sort of thing. It doesn't mean being curious enough about a release after the fact to consider snagging it for, basically, free.
"It was a cruel song, but fair."-Roger Waters
Who said anything about a "radically different" remaster? Looking at Jeff's review above, I only see descriptions like "a bit less top end," reverb "not quite as prominent," and "This is very faithful to the original sonics but just makes the album a little bit easier on the ears." The point here is that--unlike the typical remaster that jacks up the treble and/or bass and squashes the dynamics--this remaster stays very close to the sound of the master tapes, making only subtle adjustments here and there. Hoffman's reputation is based on his relatively "old school" (read "subtle") mastering principles in an era of what truly tend to be radical sonic revisions in typical remasters. It seems to me that you are letting disagreements with Frumious in other threads, on very different topics, affect the way you are responding to this one.
Agreed. This is one the things that has sounded "wrong" on some of Wilson's remixes to my ears.
And on the other side, when the original reverb ideas seem to not even be "reproduced," the first ELP album sounded positively bone dry. Keith's organ sounded almost like it was recorded yesterday on Pro-Tools. How anyone could reach for that remix over Eddie Offord's original mix, which had what I'd rate as a perfect amount of ambience, just about boggles the mind. But as we can see from this thread, people's tastes on this stuff vary so greatly ...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks