DVD/DTS Poll Chris Squire - FISH OUT OF WATER [DTS DVD]

[rtbluray]

Please post your thoughts and comments on this 2018 reissue from Esoteric Records of the classic solo album "Fish Out Of Water" by former Yes bass player Chris Squire.
This deluxe edition contains a new 5.1 surround mix of the album mixed by King Crimson's Jakko Jakszyk, along with a host of extra visual and audio material.

 

[ssully]

I actually managed to find a rather huge flaw in the mix without even listening to the whole album.

Queue up 'Safe' in the original mix (remastered) , in 2.0 remix and 5.0 remix versions, for comparison.

Skip to about 12:20 seconds in...where Squire's huge depth-charging bass lead comes in on top of the full orchestra. A mighty moment.

Or at least, it's supposed to be.

On the remixes, it's gone. The whole lead bass part that normally continues to the big final chord, is gone. (It's there on the remaster of course.)

JJ strikes again?

Someone please verify what I'm hearing.

 

[jaypfunk]

I'm not a big fan of 2.0 remixes for the above reason. Sometimes key sounds that we are so used to hearing are just gone. It's stupid.

 

[ssully]

Now as for the rest...

The news is good! (this is for the 5.1 mix )

1) this is the drum sound Bruford should have had on his boxed set (though the bass drum level is maybe a *bit* aggressive)
2) right away (Hold Out/You By My Side) you can tell that the 'top' on Squire's bass has been dialed back, and several of the mixes have him less prominent than before...disconcerting at first but you can still always hear him. Ditto with the vocals, which seem a bit back in the mix sometimes.
4) Silently Falling is a stone cold tour de force. Jakko nailed this one.
3) Lucky Seven is almost whole new tune, new parts flown in , it's now revealed as an amazing prog homage to string-driven Motown/Stax tunes of the same era (think 'Papa Was A rolling Stone' or 'Theme from Shaft'). The original mix left Squire highly exposed, highlighting the drum/bass interplay (consistently excellent) ; now he's a player in a much busier mix, and the whole thing grooves. Both mixes work.
4) Safe is a mixed bag, it's often slamming, and he works hard to make repetitious parts sound fresh, but the orchestra here and elsewhere sounds more 'fake' than on the original mix, due to Jakko adding more reverb. He also seems to favor horns over strings. And then there's the huge gap where a bass lead should be , near the end. But....Bruford's drums flying around in circles! How can that not be awesome?

In the booklet Jakko says that one of his aims was to highlight some 'hidden' parts, and for the most part it works well. There's one part where you can tell he was like , 'you have GOT to hear these insane backing vocals Squire is doing right here'. It's fun.

Overall a worthy alternate mix to a classic.

The 2.0 remaster (by Paschal Byrne) of the original mix, btw , sounds quite fresh too. DR10/11 according to that meter thing, so it's not been smashed . It has been boosted in the treble a bit, I think. What's remarkable is that some parts actually emerge that are rather hard to hear on the original mix, like the very low bass tone (organ) at the start of Hold Out Your Hand. So perhaps this is really a lower-generation source tape than my go-to version (the early 1990s Japanese CD)

 

[ssully]

I'm not a big fan of 2.0 remixes for the above reason. Sometimes key sounds that we are so used to hearing are just gone. It's stupid.

It's gone in the 5.1 mix too. I hoped I made that clear. It's either a JJ screwup, or the part was lost or wasn't tracked separately (e.g., if it was added 'live' to the 2-channel mixdown).

 

[jaypfunk]

It's gone in the 5.1 mix too. I hoped I made that clear. It's either a JJ screwup, or the part was lost or wasn't tracked separately (e.g., if it was added 'live' to the 2-channel mixdown).

Sorry, didn't realize that you mentioned it was missing on both 2.0 and 5.1.

Maybe it was a conscious decision on JJs part? Dumb to exclude it? Yes. But maybe on purpose.

 

[ssully]

Sorry, didn't realize that you mentioned it was missing on both 2.0 and 5.1.

Maybe it was a conscious decision on JJs part? Dumb to exclude it? Yes. But maybe on purpose.

Could be. Terrible decision if so. Now the section really is just repetition with not a lot of variety. It needs a lead part, and sounds like it was written with one in mind..

 

[4-earredwonder]

Could be. Terrible decision if so. Now the section really is just repetition with not a lot of variety. It needs a lead part, and sounds like it was written with one in mind..

I know Steve Wilson prefers to have the participation of the artists when he remixes their albums into 5.1.....and now we know WHY.

Unfortunately Squire wasn't around to oversee this remix and apparently, this is what happens.

And for the price they're charging [with a lossy DVD~V 5.1 remix], it's really quite a pity.

I always 'love' how the labels will spring for a LOSSLESS Stereo remix but not extend that 'courtesy' for the 5.1 remix. Asinine, IMO, since there's enough real estate on a DVD to accommodate lossless codecs for BOTH!

And even MORE asinine, a single Blu ray disc could've accomodated both a LOSSLESS stereo/5.1 remaster and the visual content of BOTH DVD~Vs contained within this set!

 

[kap'n krunch]

wait..so the MCH is only Dullbee?

 

[4-earredwonder]

wait..so the MCH is only Dullbee?

I believe it's DTS, Kap, but nonetheless, it's NOT MLP DVD~A 96/24, that's for SURE! But the Stereo remaster IS!

 

[kap'n krunch]

I believe it's DTS, Kap, but nonetheless it's NOT MLP DVD~A 96/24, that's for SURE! But the Stereo remaster IS!

Where's the "unlike" button?..not for you but for the stupidity of it all!!!

 

[4-earredwonder]

Where's the "unlike" button?..not for you but for the stupidity of it all!!!

The Stupidity of it ALL refers to a LOT of recent 5.1 remastered BOX SETS which for all the HYPE are NOT definitive in my book because they refuse to give us the FULL MONTY.......meaning LOSSY 5.1 codecs and LOSSLESS Stereo remasters.

MOST of these albums were recorded at 15 or 30 ips and then are reduced to 48/16 bit 5.1 DVD~V. Excuse me, but when I'm asked to pay upwards of $80, 90 or 130 for a boxset JUST to get a 5.1 remix, I'm disgusted that they cannot include a BD~A with 96/24 5.1 AND Stereo remasters instead of the elaborate hard covered books, posters, and a huge box to hold the contents.

And this seems to be an alarming trend. Screw the record buying public.......and charge whatever you want and as far as quality, ANYONE on this forum who is tickled pink just to have a 5.1 remaster and really doesn't care how the remaster is presented really doesn't care about the word DEFINITIVE remaster. Because in my book, DEFINITIVE should be a 1:1 copy of the original multitracks and not a dumbed down LOSSY version on a technology created in the 1990's for 480p motion pictures....or, at the very least, give us MLP DVD~A 96/24 if you want to stick with DVD!

24 BIT is NOW, BD~A is NOW, UHK 4K is NOW. So lets live in that here and NOW and stop giving the public LOSSY f*ckin' CODECS!

 

[ssully]

wait..so the MCH is only Dullbee?

Yes, and it sounds absolutely *terrible* because as smart people know, that's what Dolby Digital does. It dulls the sound. You can even see it in EQ analysis, if you look really carefully and wear special glasses and a hat made of thin aluminum.

So make sure you do not buy it. (Even though there is a DTS choice and it says 'DTS 96/24' when the disc is playing, it's all lies)

 

[ssully]

I believe it's DTS, Kap, but nonetheless, it's NOT MLP DVD~A 96/24, that's for SURE! But the Stereo remaster IS!

None of the items on the DVD are 'MLP DVD~A'. That would require a DVD-A player to play them. The disc is a DVD-V disc. The two stereo versions (remix and remaster) of the album are 96/24 PCM.

(NB: the bonus tracks are not on the DVDs)

 

[DuncanS]

wait..so the MCH is only Dullbee?

There are DTS & DD 5.1 options.

 

[jaypfunk]

The whole lossy VS lossless thing really means nothing to me. Can the human ear even really hear the difference? Probably not. Same with all the bit rate wars like 16bit VS 24bit. It may look better in some stupid spectiral analyis graph but does it really sound better? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! And it takes up too much storage space.

The one thing I can say is that when comparing the 5.1 DD to the DTS, the DTS always sounds better to me. So that's all I need.

 

[ssully]

Hmm, am I really having the last word on the mixes of this? Surely someone else has heard it by now and has things to say, beyond mountain/molehill carping about formats?

 

[Ninecats]

I wish, but not a priority since the only way to get the 5.1 mix is to pay for a lot of other things that I’m not crazy about.

The Barclay James Harvest editions were perfect in that regard.

 

[rtbluray]

A very generous QQ member sent me the 5.1 mix as FLAC files while I wait for my copy to arrive (which should be next week) and I digested the mix in the car for about a week, but I'm still not quite ready to vote.

It's a great album (always has been) but the mix does not blow me away as much as I thought it would.
I like hearing certain things I never heard before, but I miss certain parts that have now been mixed down.
Fidelity is very good (much better than that terrible Bruford set) so I think DTS DOES make a difference!

I'm torn between an 8 and a 9 on this one, so I'll have to listen to it a little more once my set comes in to see where I finally land!

 

[ssully]

Fidelity is very good (much better than that terrible Bruford set) so I think DTS DOES make a difference!

sigh. That's bad logic.