

Rush Remasters
#1
Posted 03 March 2010 - 02:50 PM
I'm most interested in the getting the remastered 80s albums the most, so suggestions from that era would be most helpful as to which ones are worth buying.
#2
Posted 03 March 2010 - 03:01 PM
#3
Posted 03 March 2010 - 04:28 PM
The Atlantic remasters... are another story. I've seen some around here say there is some difference, but I don't hear anything different - at all. To make it worse, the actual CDs look exactly the same, and I'm not 100% sure I haven't accidentally mixed them up.
#4
Posted 03 March 2010 - 04:44 PM
#5
Posted 03 March 2010 - 04:47 PM
#6
Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:06 PM
When will they remaster "Vapor Trails?" No one ever talks about that on here.

#7
Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:24 PM
#8
Posted 03 March 2010 - 07:19 PM
#9
Posted 03 March 2010 - 07:40 PM
#10
Posted 03 March 2010 - 10:10 PM
#11
Posted 03 March 2010 - 10:12 PM
QUOTE (Afterimage71 @ Mar 3 2010, 03:24 PM) |
Shm baby, that's all you need |
AMEN!

#12
Posted 03 March 2010 - 10:18 PM
I'm not that tech-minded at all.
Is that yet another format?
#13
Posted 04 March 2010 - 12:42 AM
QUOTE (Mr. Krinkle @ Mar 3 2010, 10:18 PM) |
What is SHM? I'm not that tech-minded at all. Is that yet another format? |
SHM is a SHAM from JAPAN
#14
Posted 04 March 2010 - 12:57 AM

#15
Posted 04 March 2010 - 01:42 AM
QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Mar 3 2010, 10:42 PM) | ||
SHM is a SHAM from JAPAN |
HAHAHAHA!! Been down that Sham Road! I know that one liner very well! SHAM! SHAZAM!!
Still as an audiophile nut I have listened to all of the different pressings of RUSH cds from over the decades. The SHM pressings RULE thus far.
If you have the proper stereo system then you can slightly tell the difference.
The Rush SHM remasters are like having them pressed on gold cd by MFSL back in the Eighties and Nineties.
They have a bit more warmth to the tunes, and also have a bit more oomph on the back end.
It is what it is, but remember, those badass Rush SHM cds come in LP style replica cardboard sleeves.
Worth every penny.

Signed,
Obi Strip Wan Ben Kenobi

Johnny Blaze knows what I'm talkin' about!

#16
Posted 04 March 2010 - 01:54 AM
#17
Posted 04 March 2010 - 02:03 AM
#18
Posted 04 March 2010 - 12:00 PM
QUOTE (Show Don't Tell @ Mar 3 2010, 07:19 PM) |
I always found the Mercury/Anthem remasters to be too bright sounding. A little harsh on the ears at high volumes. The remasters basically just add EQ, compression, and loudness to the recordings. The only one I've really thought was better than the original is Caress Of Steel. The reason being that the original seems to be sourced from a higher gen tape, and is a victim of print-through. |
I pretty much agree. I have COS and it does sound great and improved.
As for the others, I think Rush pretty much got right the first time. The exception being VT which sounds like mud, and I don't see where a remaster is available for purchase.
Of the newer batch of remasters the only one I have is Presto. It has noticible more botton end, which I like because I am a bass player. I don't know that it sounds better, it just has more bottom.
I have a gold Mofi of PerWaves. It sounds good, but don't see what all the rave is about.
#19
Posted 04 March 2010 - 12:12 PM
#20
Posted 04 March 2010 - 12:37 PM
QUOTE (Pags @ Mar 3 2010, 04:28 PM) |
IMO - ALL Mercury releases are well worth the upgrade to the remastered version. I'm saying from Rush through Hold Your Fire, there is an astounding difference - just like what you've heard on Signals. The Atlantic remasters... are another story. I've seen some around here say there is some difference, but I don't hear anything different - at all. To make it worse, the actual CDs look exactly the same, and I'm not 100% sure I haven't accidentally mixed them up. |
This is exactly right based on my experience.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users