Close TO The Edge in Atmos

[ssully]

If using 'lame' to describe an otherwise well-received mix, I'd say you are very obliged to explain yourself (or at least post a link to a previous explanation?).

Hmm, no, that's not how it works.

I'm not 'obliged' to do any such thing, as I couldn't care less how 'well received' a mix is, particularly by a bunch of randos whose familiarity with the album ranges from 'not at all' to 'loved it since 1972'.

You're just as obliged to look up my previously expressed views on Wilson's mixes on QQ.

Just goes to show you, that no matter how good something is, there is someone out there to tell you that it sucks

By the same token, no matter how much of a stinker something is, there's always someone who adores its aroma.

 

[ssully]

After 145 votes, the average score on the poll is 9.20, with more than half of the voters (74) having gone for 10. So it's obviously a well received mix.

I've expressed my amusement at the preponderance of high ratings on QQ's polls before.

Really, a release has to be a complete botch to rate much less than 7s here by the majority.

The upshot is, QQ users are very, um,....forgiving?

Personally, I don't think it's among SW's most impressive mixes. There are some sections in the album (e.g. the organ part in the title track, the mellotron parts in "And You And I") that don't sound nearly as immersive as I was hoping, and actually have a better impact in the original stereo mix IMO. But it's a very good sounding mix, very dynamic, it's discrete but holds together well at the same time,

Not to me.

 

[GOS]

He cut the balls off Keith's organ

 

[ssully]

Steve Wilson's terribly lame ELP s/t and Tarkus mixes were really bad. He cut the balls off Keith's organ. There is a better Tarkus upmix floating around. I had it but it got a scratch on it and I tried to polish it out but was too aggressive and broke the disc!

The few tracks of s/t that he was able to do, sound OK to me. Tarkus is awful though.

 

[ssully]

Funny you say that, I see it a lot in online sports discussion. "So and so sucks" (as a player, manager, GM). Then it requires defensive contrary opinions to be posted and often arguments ensue. All this triggered by a minority voice that was often at best an incorrect outlier ('hot take'). The mere reason for discussion gives validity to the outlier and makes the reasoned majority voice appear pedantic, when it should be the other way around.

For an athlete or GM you at least have objective performance metrics to argue from.

For art, nope, unless you count critical 'reception' , which is both an aggregate of purely subjective takes, and subject to vast change over time.

 

[Thonolan]

I've expressed my amusement at the preponderance of high ratings on QQ's polls before.

Really, a release has to be a complete botch to rate much less than 7s here by the majority.

The upshot is, QQ users are very, um,....forgiving?

I have to agree with that. To me, a 7 means it's still a pretty good mix overall. But, in my experience, a release rated as 7 (average) over here means most probably it's a stinker. But that's just the way I see it. The beauty of this site is that you get to know so many different opinions on the same thing, although it's obvious that the rating system varies a lot from person to person.

 

[jimfisheye]

I've expressed my amusement at the preponderance of high ratings on QQ's polls before.

Really, a release has to be a complete botch to rate much less than 7s here by the majority.

The upshot is, QQ users are very, um,....forgiving?

This is just weird to begin with too. 7 of the 10 points are supposed to be for packaging, price, if you even like the music and shipping experience or something. And if you vote less than 7 you get trolled. Read the poll comments instead.

I still really like the sound of Bill's drums in the 5.1 remix.

 

[ssully]

The 10 point rating system is unrealistically over-resolving, and at the same time, few apply it as intended. As I've noted before.


There's good reason ratings of things are commonly limited to '5 stars'

 

[Marplot]

The comments are generally worth more than the ratings.
Over time I have found some QQers who rate similar to myself which also helps.
But yeah, with the current system a POS at a good price can easily pull a 6 or 7.

 

[par4ken]

I have to agree with that. To me, a 7 means it's still a pretty good mix overall. But, in my experience, a release rated as 7 (average) over here means most probably it's a stinker. But that's just the way I see it. The beauty of this site is that you get to know so many different opinions on the same thing, although it's obvious that the rating system varies a lot from person to person.

There are a number of reasons for that. Because we are voting not just on the mix but the performance the sound quality and even packaging, things tend to average out. If I really hate a selection It's unlikely that I will buy it and therefore will not be voting. If I do get a copy of something that I don't like, is it fair to cast a low vote if the mix and sound quality are great?

Why do some get so hung up on ratings? Personally I only look at ratings right after voting myself. The beauty of the poll threads are reading the comments, not some very arbitrary poll number!

There are a few (very few) Quadios that I didn't vote on because I really didn't like them. I suppose that it wouldn't hurt to cast a lowish vote on them based on content.

I did cast a very low vote twice based solely on really hating the mix, even though I loved the performance and the sound quality was fine, excellent in fact. On several other occasions I voted a bit higher than I should have based on loving the performance. So take ratings with a grain of salt! The rating system can vary not only from person to person but from selection to selection as well.

It is nice that we can change our vote at any time. That tends to push numbers up as people develop a fondness or appreciation of a selection that they didn't have first go around.

 

[IMachine]

Most people vote too early and want to justify the money they spent!

 

[SomethingAnything]

I woke up this morning to find many explanations overnight (I'm in Oz land) for S/T -- Self-titled.

Thank you, lovely, helpful people.

 

[sjcorne]

The section of the album I'm looking forward to hearing in Atmos the most is the "I get up, I get down" one. Although it already sounds really good in the 5.1 mix (at least the vocal part - as I said, I was a bit disappointed with the immersiveness of the organ), it's still a bit two-dimensional.

Not saying you’re wrong, but I’m also not sure what could’ve been done to make it more immersive? It sounds like the organ was captured on a stereo pair, which he placed in-between the front and rear speakers. I don’t think it would’ve worked to put it completely in the front or completely in the rear.

(as riveting as this debate about poll threads is, just trying to get the thread back on track…)

 

[andyp]

“Take A Pebble” in 5.1 on the S/T DVD-A sounds amazing.

Yes, I agree but that doesn't me make up for the rest of the album. Lucky Man is very weak compared to the version released on the original BSS Warner release.

 

[andyp]

There are 2 5.1 of Brain SS one is Jakko and I think the other is a Razor and Tie release and I can’t remember if the artwork tells you who mixed it. If I remember right the Jakko version is the one that sucks

Yes, Jakko did a terrible job also.

 

[Thonolan]

Not saying you’re wrong, but I’m also not sure what could’ve been done to make it more immersive? It sounds like the organ was captured on a stereo pair, which he placed in-between the front and rear speakers. I don’t think it would’ve worked to put it completely in the front or completely in the rear.

Precisely I've been listening to the album today again, and playing special attention to that part. I think it's nicely distributed in the surround field, but to me it has always sounded as if the overall volume of the organ was lower, compared to the other sound elements, than in the original stereo mix. That lessens the impact. I haven't checked levels - it simply has always sounded like that to me, both on my previous and on my current system. I always get the impression that the low end isn't as commading as it could be, too.

Additionally, it wasn't my intention to compare (I did it without thinking about it at all), but I played the Atmos mix of The Yes Album right afterwards. Then, I noticed something very obvious: the vocal harmonies of Close to the Edge (5.1) don't sound nearly as good as those of The Yes Album (Atmos). The former seem kinda disjointed and thin in comparison, forming a triangle around you (from the center channel to the rears). The latter are so much more immersive and coherent, at least to these ears and on my system. It really made me realize how impressive the Atmos mix of The Yes Album is. I wouldn't change a single thing about it and I consider it to be basically flawless. The 5.1 mix of CTTE, while still very good, really pales in comparison.

I'm confident that SW's Atmos mix of CTTE will correct those "flaws".

 

[stoopid]

Hmm, no, that's not how it works.

I'm not 'obliged' to do any such thing, as I couldn't care less how 'well received' a mix is, particularly by a bunch of randos whose familiarity with the album ranges from 'not at all' to 'loved it since 1972'.

You're just as obliged to look up my previously expressed views on Wilson's mixes on QQ.

We'll just file your comments under "angry drunk uncle with an axe to grind" then.

 

[stoopid]

I've expressed my amusement at the preponderance of high ratings on QQ's polls before.

Really, a release has to be a complete botch to rate much less than 7s here by the majority.

The upshot is, QQ users are very, um,....forgiving?
...
Not to me.

I rarely rate anything lower than 7 or 8. Most end up rating higher. Even if I'm not sold 100% on the music, just being objective about the methodology/execution of the surround elements and overall fidelity usually results in a fairly high grade, mostly because true stinkers don't seem to be making it to release anymore. I haven't bought a truly bad surround disc in a while. I also don't buy every single thing released, and my tastes seem to follow with producers and artists who give a damn about the final product so that factors in as well.

The takeaway is that even mediocre surround mixes, by today's standards, are objectively 'good' mixes. An engineer would have to trip over themselves pretty hard with all the tools available for making good mixes, to release something truly atrocious.

I save my outrage for things truly deserving.

 

[Petr Kropotkin]

There are 2 5.1 of Brain SS one is Jakko and I think the other is a Razor and Tie release and I can’t remember if the artwork tells you who mixed it. If I remember right the Jakko version is the one that sucks

The other one was done by John Kellogg for the 2000 Rhino DVD-A release. That one was praised by QQers for its surround mix (9.2/10 average from 157 votes); and yes, nobody had anything good to say about Jakko's.