Yes The Yes Album HDTracks

[bdiament]

Hi Kenny,

 

If those original UK pressings were made from tapes anything like what I was given to use, the highs weren't sliced off - they never made it to the tape. If that is the case, I'd be more inclined to think subsequent masterings with more highs had their treble boosted, rather than the original having had it cut.

 

As I've written elsewhere, it was all too common at the time in certain quarters of the recording world to believe "the VU meters don't matter". One well-known producer said it to me in as many words. (!) Based on the audible evidence, I quickly came to feel otherwise: the VU meters are your *friends* and they're doing they're best to try and help you. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[bogdan101]

Hi Kenny,

 

If those original UK pressings were made from tapes anything like what I was given to use, the highs weren't sliced off - they never made it to the tape. If that is the case, I'd be more inclined to think subsequent masterings with more highs had their treble boosted, rather than the original having had it cut.

 

As I've written elsewhere, it was all too common at the time in certain quarters of the recording world to believe "the VU meters don't matter". One well-known producer said it to me in as many words. (!) Based on the audible evidence, I quickly came to feel otherwise: the VU meters are your *friends* and they're doing they're best to try and help you. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

 

Hi Barry,

 

Like others have said, it's great to have access to the thoughts of a pro on these matters; thank you!

 

It seems incredible that at the recording sessions for a major act like Yes something like this might happen ( treble response being cut off). Don't they listen to what they put on tape afterwards?

 

Cheers,

 

Bogdan

[kennyb123]

If those original UK pressings were made from tapes anything like what I was given to use, the highs weren't sliced off - they never made it to the tape. If that is the case, I'd be more inclined to think subsequent masterings with more highs had their treble boosted, rather than the original having had it cut.

 

Thanks for providing your perspective on this Barry. Much appreciated!!

 

Who makes the ultimate call as to how much the highs should be boosted with respect to the reissues? Was that left up to your discretion for the Yes material you mastered?

 

And in terms of the more profound bass on the MoFi reissue, was this likely also the result of MoFi boosting the bass? Or might it be that MoFi is just passing on what's there on the tape whereas the bass was dialed back on original LP?

 

I recall reading an interview with Yes where it was mentioned that Chris Squire often pushed to have the dials turned up so that his bass was more prominent on their recordings than was the norm at the time. This was in reference to their second album in particular, though I imagine he might have kept that pressure up.

[bdiament]

Hi Kenny,

 

Thanks for providing your perspective on this Barry. Much appreciated!!

 

Who makes the ultimate call as to how much the highs should be boosted with respect to the reissues? Was that left up to your discretion for the Yes material you mastered?

 

And in terms of the more profound bass on the MoFi reissue, was this likely also the result of MoFi boosting the bass? Or might it be that MoFi is just passing on what's there on the tape whereas the bass was dialed back on original LP?

 

I recall reading an interview with Yes where it was mentioned that Chris Squire often pushed to have the dials turned up so that his bass was more prominent on their recordings than was the norm at the time. This was in reference to their second album in particular, though I imagine he might have kept that pressure up.

 

Who makes the call will vary from project to project and from mastering to mastering.

On most of the projects I've mastered, including all the CDs I mastered while at Atlantic, it has been just me.

(There *was* one post-Atlantic incidence where the producer said to me "You can't put on enough treble for me to say there is too much." !! Happily, I didn't need to test him on that project as we were both pleased with the final product -- perhaps surprisingly given that statement, the mixes were quite nice and natural sounding.)

 

Most of the time, a mastering engineer will be selected because the producer/artist/A&R person or label knows and likes what they've heard before. With this in mind, more often than nont, they will tend to let the mastering engineer make the calls. There are exceptions.

 

I can't speak to the MoFi as I haven't heard that version. If they used the same sources I was given and there is noticeably more bass on the MoFi (*after* levels have been precisely matched), I would think it had been boosted in that mastering. I can't speak for the vinyl mastering either but I *can* say that I did not cut any bass at all for the CD master I created.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi Bogdan,

 

Hi Barry,

 

Like others have said, it's great to have access to the thoughts of a pro on these matters; thank you!

 

It seems incredible that at the recording sessions for a major act like Yes something like this might happen ( treble response being cut off). Don't they listen to what they put on tape afterwards?

 

Cheers,

 

Bogdan

 

Unfortunately, I find myself asking that last question (and others like it) about way too many records of music I love.

("Didn't they notice the clipping?!?", "I wonder how xxxxx [the drummer] felt about how distorted his drums sound.", "What made them, after listening to *that*, say 'okay, wrap it up, we're going home'?" etc.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[chriss71]

I can't speak to the MoFi as I haven't heard that version. If they used the same sources I was given and there is noticeably more bass on the MoFi (*after* levels have been precisely matched), I would think it had been boosted in that mastering.

 

No offend, Barry, but as I know the first one who use the original master tape was Joe Gastwirt on his 1994 release (correct me if I am wrong). So, I would say, that the MoFi is a different source than yours.

[bdiament]

Hi Chriss,

 

No offend, Barry, but as I know the first one who use the original master tape was Joe Gastwirt on his 1994 release (correct me if I am wrong). So, I would say, that the MoFi is a different source than yours.

 

No offense taken.

At the time, I was told the originals were lost. If that was true and if some other tapes have resurfaced since I was at Atlantic, it is certainly possible Joe indeed got to use the originals. Since I wasn't present, I can't say one way or the other. I only know what Atlantic had in its possession during the many years I was there. Perhaps something has changed in the interim.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[chriss71]

Thanks for your informative post, Barry!

[fredhammersmith2]

With a maximum peak at -2.38, I'm wondering if that is actually from the CD master I created.

It is *possible* insomuch as peak readings in those days were arrived at by staring at the meters on the Sony 1630 A-D converters for the duration of the program. (They did have a peak hold feature but no finer than 1 dB increments.)

The reason I question it is that in those days, I always made sure the max peak used all the "real estate" on the meters, i.e. the highest LED below the "overload" was lit.

 

The replication facility (i.e., "pressing plant") *should not* change anything. I just find it odd the max peak isn't higher than this. Still, with all that said, -2.38 is still using all the *digital* "real estate". (Anything with max peak at -6.02 or greater is using that top bit.)

 

To some folks, a recording that has its original dynamic range 100% intact (i.e., no peak limiting or any other form of compression) is going to sound "low" in level. In my opinion, if all the digital real estate is being used and the dynamics left intact, it would be the other versions that are *loud*, not this one being "low".

 

Further, if the source is the same and the one with the -2.38 peak contains the full dynamics of that source, the only way to create a version that is more than 2.38 dB louder would be to limit the dynamic range (or allow "over"s, which would effectively be the same thing). Again, this assumes the same source. It is possible *another* source, with less dynamic range, could be used without further compression to create a louder version. (It is also possible that a very "hot" analog source, if not brought down in level for analog playback, could engender compression in the playback cards of the analog deck - along with an increase in harmonic distortion.)

 

As it was a quarter century ago, I can't say for sure with regard to the level. Another possibility is that after I'd left Atlantic, someone there made a clone of the CD master to send to a new replication facility and inadvertently did not have the level for the copy set to 0. (The fader on the Sony DAE-1100E editor, used during the copying process, might have been loose. Once again, I wasn't there so I don't know but it *is* within the realm of possibility. I've always paid a lot of attention to the max peak level when mastering. This is why I'm a but suspicious of the -2.38 peak.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

Left Right

Min Sample Value: -23258 -22490

Max Sample Value: 22672 24908

Peak Amplitude: -2.92 dB -2.34 dB

Possibly Clipped: 0 0

DC Offset: -.452 -.367

Minimum RMS Power: -53.55 dB -52.57 dB

Maximum RMS Power: -13.66 dB -15.3 dB

Average RMS Power: -20.83 dB -21.86 dB

Total RMS Power: -19.96 dB -21.23 dB

Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits

 

 

Using RMS Window of 50 ms

 

This is what I got, feeding Adobe Audition with SD-19131-2 Starship Trooper.

Very dynamic recording!

[Julf]

Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits

 

So this was the CD, not the HDTracks download?

[chriss71]

Values from the MFSL (Track 3 Starship Trooper)

 

Links Rechts

Spitzenamplitude: -0,09 dB -0,58 dB

Echte Spitzenamplitude: -0,09 dBTP -0,52 dBTP

Max. Messwert: 31376 29553

Min. Messwert: -32417 -30651

Möglicherweise geclippte Samples: 0 0

RMS-Amplitude insgesamt: -12,54 dB -13,53 dB

Maximale RMS-Amplitude: -4,99 dB -6,17 dB

Minimale RMS-Amplitude: -80,13 dB -76,71 dB

Durchschnittliche RMS-Amplitude: -17,03 dB -15,84 dB

DC-Offset: -0,02 % -0,03 %

Gemessene Bittiefe: 16 16

Dynamikbereich: 75,14 dB 70,54 dB

Verwendeter Dynamikbereich: 67,10 dB 62,70 dB

Lautstärke: -10,26 dB -9,92 dB

Wahrgenommene Lautstärke: -8,38 dB -8,44 dB

ITU-R BS.1770-2 Lautstärke: -10,57 LUFS

 

HDTracks Download

 

Kanal1 Kanal2

Spitzenamplitude: -0,96 dB 0,00 dB

Echte Spitzenamplitude: -0,96 dBTP 0,02 dBTP

Max. Messwert: 29338,23 32760,77

Min. Messwert: -27872,68 -32744,00

Möglicherweise geclippte Samples: 0 0

RMS-Amplitude insgesamt: -16,21 dB -15,94 dB

Maximale RMS-Amplitude: -8,65 dB -9,23 dB

Minimale RMS-Amplitude: -92,99 dB -93,28 dB

Durchschnittliche RMS-Amplitude: -20,46 dB -17,94 dB

DC-Offset: 0,00 % 0,00 %

Gemessene Bittiefe: 24 24

Dynamikbereich: 84,34 dB 84,04 dB

Verwendeter Dynamikbereich: 65,00 dB 56,40 dB

Lautstärke: -13,82 dB -12,30 dB

Wahrgenommene Lautstärke: -12,03 dB -11,29 dB

ITU-R BS.1770-2 Lautstärke: -13,36 LUFS

 

So, once again, my ears were right, the MFSL sounds compressed and IS compressed (I believe Rob LoVerde that he has make no compression on it, maybe it was his tape were the compression is on)

[fredhammersmith2]

It is Barry's remastering.

[firedog]

It is Barry's remastering.

 

From Barry, above:

 

At the time, I was told the originals were lost. If that was true and if some other tapes have resurfaced since I was at Atlantic, it is certainly possible Joe indeed got to use the originals. Since I wasn't present, I can't say one way or the other. I only know what Atlantic had in its possession during the many years I was there. Perhaps something has changed in the interim.

 

So actually we don't know that for sure. It could have been, or it could be from another tape, as Barry also mentions above. As he says, it's been a long time since he was there, and he doesn't know what tapes they have access to now and are using.

[bdiament]

Hi Fred,

 

It is Barry's remastering.

 

It *might* be.

Or it might have been *sourced* from a master I created.

As I mentioned above, I'm a bit suspicious in view of the max peak.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[fredhammersmith2]

Understood.

Peak levels, according to EAC:

\01 - Yours Is No Disgrace.wav

Peak level 78.4 %

 

02 - Clap.wav

Peak level 55.3 %

 

03 - Starship Trooper- a. Life Seeker - b. Disillusion - c. Würm.wav

Peak level 76.0 %

 

04 - I've Seen All Good People- a. Your Move - b. All Good People.wav

Peak level 81.3 %

 

05 - A Venture.wav

Peak level 75.9 %

 

06 - Perpetual Change.wav

Peak level 92.1 %

[sullis02]

Yes. That old Atlantic was cut way too low. Typical of the era and equipment.

 

 

Could be low because this is just one track from an album. There may well be a higher peak on another track. Back in those days, ME's didn't normalize every track to 0, like they often do today.

 

edit : and I see that there is, from post #40 -- Perpetual Change is the track that set the 'peak value' on that CD version. 92% of fullscale , which I think equates to about -0.7 dBFS. So it wasn't cut way too low, it was just cut the way LPs used to be: only one 'peak' on an album.

[bdiament]

Hi Fred,

 

Understood.

Peak levels, according to EAC:

\01 - Yours Is No Disgrace.wav

Peak level 78.4 %

 

02 - Clap.wav

Peak level 55.3 %

 

03 - Starship Trooper- a. Life Seeker - b. Disillusion - c. Würm.wav

Peak level 76.0 %

 

04 - I've Seen All Good People- a. Your Move - b. All Good People.wav

Peak level 81.3 %

 

05 - A Venture.wav

Peak level 75.9 %

 

06 - Perpetual Change.wav

Peak level 92.1 %

 

Is this still the Atlantic you believe could be mine?

If so, the 92.1 on the last band would translate to ~-0.4 dBFS (or slightly higher) which would be more in line with what I'd expect on a CD master I created.

 

Then, I wonder if the graphic in post #10 is the whole album (which I took it to be) or less than the whole album.

If it is the whole album, it is clearly different (i.e., lower in level) than what you are describing.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[chriss71]

Then, I wonder if the graphic in post #10 is the whole album (which I took it to be) or less than the whole album.

 

No, this is track 3, as stated on my post 10:

 

Waveform 1 shows Starship Trooper

[bdiament]

Hi Chriss,

 

No, this is track 3, as stated on my post 10:

 

Doh! My mistake. (I read that too.... "How quickly they forget" ;~}

 

With Fred's readings of the whole album, I'm no longer questioning whether it is from the master I did.

 

To be clear, for a minute there, I thought the -2.38 reading was for the whole album. As long as there is a peak *somewhere* on the album that is reaching closer to 0 dBFS, it would not be unusual --in my work-- for a song that does not get as loud to have a lower reading. I master albums as whole units and not by the song. Doing the latter (e.g., making all the songs peak close to 0) can make the quieter songs sound *louder* than the louder songs.

 

As an aside: In the early days of CD, the "common knowledge" was to try and maximize resolution by ensuring the loudest peak(s) reached 0 DBFS, without of course, going over that. So, it is common for many CDs from that era to have max peaks at 0. (Then again, the meters on the old A-D converters did not resolve finer increments than 1 dB. By the end of the '80s, we started seeing computer-centered "workstations" that did allow for finer level control.)

 

Nowadays, most engineers I know understand that a little more "headroom" is required because of "intersample peaks" -- a reconstructed analog signal containing peaks that are higher than the samples on either side of the peak. With most material, I won't let the level exceed -0.3 dBFS. Sometimes, a bit more headroom is needed.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[hvbias]

I haven't heard the HDTracks version, but I do have the MFSL gold cd and an original UK plum vinyl of The Yes Album. My findings were similar to yours chriss71, I was really surprised (going by memory I don't think I've heard compression in other gold/SACDs from the new MFSL) to find the MFSL CD sounded much more compressed than the UK vinyl. Dynamic contrasts were blunted on the MFSL reducing the impact of the soft to loud transitions.

[hvbias]

As for the validity of the "amateur online programs" I've seen Pyramix open a 24/96 file and the waveform looked exactly like Adobe Audition's. This was not for The Yes Album.

[sullis02]

To set the record straight (versus erroneous theorizing on this thread), here is what Rob LoVerde himself wrote (on a long-deleted Facebook page) about his mastering process for Mofi's 'Yes Album' (bolding is mine):

 

"Since its release a few years ago, the MFSL Gold CD of “The Yes Album” seems to have created a rather polarized set of opinions among our customers. Some have said that it’s the best version of the album they’ve ever heard, some say they prefer previous versions of the album – and some said they loved our version…that is, until they saw waveform graphics of the audio contained on the disc. This message is being written mainly for them in the hope that I can clarify what seems to be some misunderstanding.

When I heard that we had secured the license for “The Yes Album”, I was absolutely thrilled because not only is it an incredibly good album, but one that I grew up listening to quite often. As with all MFSL projects that I work on, I became obsessed with mastering this album correctly. Once the masters had been obtained, I set about auditioning them as I would with any other master tapes. These were in absolutely perfect condition. Everything about them was just as I would hope except one thing: no calibration tones. This is very common in recordings up to the mid-1970s and usually doesn’t represent a serious issue. Unless, that master is Dolby-encoded. Unfortunately, “The Yes Album” was one such instance. As many of you probably know, the interaction between the tape machine’s reproducing amplifier and the Dolby decoder is especially important. Both the output of the tape machine and the input of the Dolby are ideally set to unity gain (zero in = zero out) or “neutral” in order to mimic how the tape was encoded to achieve accurate decoding and playback.

“The Yes Album” master tapes were mixed at Advision Sound Studios in the UK and utilize the CCIR playback EQ curve. Given the absence of calibration tones, the puzzle became figuring out what level these mixes were recorded onto the tape at. Enter critical, time-consuming, analysis mode. Rather than bore you, the reader, with a long story of that analysis, I will simply jump to the conclusion. After many hours spent getting (nearly) nowhere, I called MoFi’s analog guru, Tim de Paravicini. To use the typical phrase of saying that Tim has forgotten more about analog than I’ll ever know is flattering, but inaccurate – he hasn’t forgotten a thing. He is the greatest source for knowledge on the subject that I know and is always there to help. Tim informed me that, back then, the UK reference fluxivity standard for recording onto magnetic tape was 320 nWb/m (nanowebers per meter). This standard was actually invented in Germany, but the UK adopted it, as well. However, though they thought they were recording at 320, it was later discovered (by Magnetic Reference Laboratories) that the calibration tapes used in Germany and the UK at that time were actually 290 nWb/m…a difference of about a dB. To help its customers needing CCIR alignment at the true standard reference fluxivity of the day, MRL manufactures a tape they label G320, or German 320. As you can probably figure out, the tones on this calibration tape are recorded at 290 nWb/m. So, now I’ve got the tape machine output level puzzle solved. But, what about the input on the Dolby? Once again, Tim to the rescue. He told me the proper input level setting required for Dolby input when playing back CCIR at 290. Hanging up from my transAtlantic telephone call with Tim, I stepped back into the mastering suite to see what his expert instructions would yield.

Unsurprisingly, everything fell into place. After a frustratingly long amount of time, I finally was hearing “The Yes Album” master tapes played back properly, which is immediately apparent if you know what mis-calibrated Dolby decoding sounds like. Once I heard a full playback of the correctly-decoded masters, I determined that the tapes needed nothing more on my part to create a wonderful ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING. Just straight wire playback of the incredible sounds that Yes and producer/engineer Eddy Offord had put onto tape in 1971.

I will now address the main concerns that I’ve heard voiced since our version became available to the public. One concern has been bass content. Some listeners feel that there is simply too much bass on our version. Of course, they have a right to this opinion. I will simply state that the bass quality and quantity on the MFSL Gold CD of this album is a verbatim of the master tape. Nothing added,nothing removed. I liked what I heard and left it the way it is. The other primary concern that has been brought to my attention a number of times over the years is compression. Once consumers began seeing waveform graphics on the Internet, they either changed their previously positive opinions to negative or voiced their opinions based solely on the graphics, never having actually heard the product. I have never, nor will I ever be inclined to apply compression to a MoFi product. The practice of mastering music with full dynamic range intact has been an MFSL cornerstone since the company’s inception in 1977. We have maintained that practice, always. There would be no reason for me to stray from that practice now, and certainly not for a recording like “The Yes Album”. Unfortunately, some consumers believe that waveform graphics tell the whole sonic story. They can be highly informative, if they are understood. Waveform graphics use level to illustrate the basic information of the audio. Since equalization is basically frequency-selective level control, EQ plays a part in waveform graphics, as well. In other words, some have seen waveforms for “The Yes Album” and feel that compression has been applied due to their “thick”, “dense” or “plump” characteristics. That is actually a representation of the extended bass content. In fact, if I had added high-end to the transfer during the mastering process, the peaks in the high-end section of the frequency spectrum would have been exaggerated, causing the treble peaks to rise higher in level and actually causing the waveform to appear more dynamic. I hope by now I’ve explained how waveforms surely don’t replace ears for true audio analysis.

I also hope that I have sufficiently explained how this great album was mastered here at MFSL. Of course, I don’t expect to change the minds among our customers that are already made up. But, if I cause even one person to re-evauate how they perceive audio – and how they perceive audio in these modern times using video – then that’s good enough for me."

[TubeLover]

Has anyone compared the MoFi version with the far more recent remixed version by the much lauded Steven Wilson? 

 

JC

[tmtomh]

I love the Wilson remix (I love all of his remixes, in fact), and I prefer it to the MoFi. I do find the MoFi too bassy, a bit bloated-sounding. I totally believe LoVerde that it's just the sound of the master tape, and I don't blame him at all for the sound - in fact I think the MoFi is very good. In fact, I think most MoFi masterings are very good.

 

But unless you are a hardcore Yes fan who's heard the album 100s of times and would find it disturbing to hear any tiny variation from the original mix, then I'd say go for the Wilson - his remixes are true to the originals (albeit of course by definition they cannot be 100% identical-sounding) and the sonics are second to none.

[esimms86]

I fully agree that the Steven Wilson remixes are uniformly spectacular. Compare them to the provided needle drops(US and UK) and there is no contest.