ak2112

Looks like the 30th Anniversary is winning out on here. Just wonder if all those who have voted have actually heard all the listed versions I put up on the poll. If not, it would be pretty much impossible to make a judgement.

QUOTE (Todem @ Apr 11 2011, 10:16 AM) MFSL is the very best for this album. Hands down no comparison. The original Mercury pressing (the red disc) is also very good. But if you want the very best sonic quality on a high end home system or a great car stereo the MFSL is the champion release. Now the 5.1 BD version to my ears sounds amazing. A totally new way to listen to the album. But I am talking about a true PCM stereo mix. Shouldnt the BD and DVD-A versions be identical in terms of sound quality? I'm not as up on the features of all the various sound options but it seems if the DTS-HD and DVD-A are both losless 24bit/96kHz they should pretty much be the same, right? If I'm wrong please let me know as I'm woefully ignorant on this matter. Even worse, if they are different, that means I'll need to buy the BD version as well even though I already have the DVD-A!

If its in mint condition, the MFSL of the Wall can go for several hundred dollars as well!

QUOTE (Terrapin @ Apr 10 2011, 08:09 PM) ak2112, Are you high dude? The 5.1 remaster is fab. I'm not entirely sure what you are on about, but you appear to be a cloth-eared cretin, searching for 15 minutes of cyber attention... So, you're an "Audiophile" eh? Because you say so? Based on what credentials? Please engage your ears before typing in future... You'll find two of them on either side of your head. Um, Ok. You dont know me but presume that I'm using some kind of mind-altering narcotic and call me a cretin searching for 15 minutes of cyberfame. Why? Because I dare to question the audio quality of this particular release? Have you seen the thread that I started here where I compared several different versions of Moving Pictures and gave my admittedly personal opinions of the plusses and minuses of each? And yes, I consider myself an audiophile. Why? Based on what standard? Websters defines an audiophile as: "a hobbyist who seeks high-quality audio reproduction via the use of specialized high-end audio electronics. Audiophiles prefer to listen to music at a quality level that is as close to the original performance as possible using high-fidelity components". So, its basically a person who tries to get the best possible sounding medium for music using specialized equipment. Based on that definition ANYONE can be an audiophile. I never claimed that I had some specialized training. Any of my views on this or any other album are just that, MY OPINION. What I can tell you is that I've spent the better part of the last 20 years collecting the best possible versions of my favorite albums (I now have 7 different masterings of Moving Pictures for instance) and putting together the best possible stereo system I could buy with my limited means. So yes, I feel I do have the experience and the equipment to give my own personal views on a given mastering of albums that I have knowledge of. I never said anywhere that people were not entitled to their own opinions. You like the new 30th Anniversay edition of Moving Pictures? Great. I mysself do not and for very specific reasons that I've already mentioned. Why you think the best retort to my postings is simply to be insulting to me is beyond me to understand, but it says more about you than it does me. Please feel free to ignore me in the future. You can be sure I will return the favor.

Interesting to see zero votes for the SHM-CD. I know many say the whole SHM thing is snake oil and that may be true but I do know that the SHM of Moving Pictures is a unique master so it does sound different from the other versions. I dont feel its one of the better versions, but it does sound better to me than the 97 remaster, though that wouldnt be too hard to accomplish. The art work is first rate though and they are all now out of print so they're probably a neat thing to have from a collectors point of view. My 2 cents....

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 10 2011, 03:08 PM) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 10 2011, 01:54 PM) No, it isn't worth it if you don't have a good system. Much of the differences between masterings is subtle and will not be very apparent if you don't have the right equipment. Thought so. I'm glad I'm not burdened with this degree of detail quite honestly. That might sound convenient, but it seems to be this unhappy place that a lot (not all, clearly) of audiophiles seem to dwell in. I saw one guy who really dug the new Whitesnake album really compliment the crap out of the songs, calling it an excellent collection of songs....but gave it a one-star because he wasn't fond of the engineering. Now I'm not saying that's unimportant or isn't a character, not unlike the songs themselves, but in the end isn't the material more important? Poor engineering can be disappointing, but to listen to this bloke he seemed more put off by an average sounding great album than the other way around. Clearly this fellow put the BULK of the emphasis on HOW it sounds versus the songs. I think if you've reached this point of discretion, you've lost the forrest for the trees just a bit. Just my opinion. You raise a legit point certainly. Clearly the material on Moving Pictures is more important than the engineering within. However, if you DO own a good system then the differences in sound quality are very clear and something like the 97 remasters can be quite annoying to listen to after a very short period of time. It's grating and the distortion is very unpleasing to the ears. If you can get the same album but with a proper master with full dynamic range and great detail, why not get it? This is especially true if you have a nice stereo system. If all you're doing is listening to it on an ipod whilst you mow the lawn, then it probably doesnt make much of a difference. If, however, you're sitting in your living room with a nice, properly calibrated stereo system, then you WILL notice a difference. The MFSL of Moving Pictures is the way to listen to this album IMHO and if others dont agree thats fine. I do think its sad though, that the quality of a an albums production is now an afterthought. It wasnt always so.

No, it isn't worth it if you don't have a good system. Much of the differences between masterings is subtle and will not be very apparent if you don't have the right equipment.

Sure, like I've said, I find the 5.1 remix to be fun to listen to and I was one of the first in Anchorage Alaska to pick this up at BB I have no doubt. That being said, my only gripe about it (and to be clear about this it is MY OPINION, not to be taken as saying I think its fact) is that the audio quality is not nearly as good as it could have been. Does Alex have an absolute right (a long with Geddy and Neil) to decide how their albums should soun when remastered/remixed? Of course. They should have the right of first refusal when deciding what is good enough for release or not. I'm just saying that there are other companies out there (MFSL in particular) that have released versions of Rush's albums that blow versions produced by the band out of the water in terms of warmth, detail and dynamics. Moving Pictures is one of those albums. The 5.1 is a real kick to listen to and I'm glad I bought the DVD-A release. I'm just saying it could have been SO much better quality of a release. I hope for better results when the release the other albums and even though I'm bummed about the sound quality of this new release, I'll still be first in line when the other albums are re-released. Why? Because I love Rush!!

QUOTE (fordgt99 @ Apr 9 2011, 05:08 PM) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 9 2011, 03:18 PM) My goodness. Someone actually voted for the 97 remaster? Do you have ears? Good Lord!! Please. Just because you think the remaster is the worst release doesn't mean it's THE truth. While the 5.1 might be the best, I don't have it yet nor do I have a 5.1 setup. Therefore based on what I've heard I rate: 1. Vinyl rip 2. 97 remaster 3. SHM (I honestly thing this a gimmick but the artwork IS better) The 97 remaster is certainly the loudest, no question. If loudness = quality, then no version will ever touch it.

QUOTE (Todem @ Apr 9 2011, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 9 2011, 04:54 PM) How many versions of this album do you have? Have you ever taken the time to compare this new release to a truly top notch master like the MFSL? If you havent then, how can you say anything I've commented on regearding this release is nonsense? Calling me some name is one thing, but proving your opinion is another. Hey, I'm open to being proven wrong, so tell me why you think what I'm saying is nonsense. I'm all ears (tinny though they may be). On the remaster CD I agree with you. MFSL is the best version superbly warm. But I think your really off the mark on the BD 5.1 It is a totally new and fresh way to enjoy this legendary album. That is a subjective opinion through and through. But of course, every opinion is, by definition, subjective. I've said it before as well that I find the 5.1 DVD-A fun an neat to listen to but it is by no means an audiophile quality release. Other than the previously mentioned Gaucho, check out Fleetwood Macs Rumours, Beck's Sea Change, or the Eagles Hotel California if you want to hear what a really amazing audiophile DVD-A can sound like. If you can listen to any of the above mentioned albums and then tell me that the new Moving Pictures is in the same class, then nothing will ever change your mind. I only ask you to try it before you bash what I'm saying. We can play nice hear. There's no reason to be harsh about it folks!

How many versions of this album do you have? Have you ever taken the time to compare this new release to a truly top notch master like the MFSL? If you havent then, how can you say anything I've commented on regearding this release is nonsense? Calling me some name is one thing, but proving your opinion is another. Hey, I'm open to being proven wrong, so tell me why you think what I'm saying is nonsense. I'm all ears (tinny though they may be).

QUOTE (D3strukt @ Apr 9 2011, 03:29 PM) Just use the Rock Band masters, and make your OWN 5.1 mix. Piece of shit this release is. Agree 100% with on this assessment. The realy sad thing is, I think this is the same quality we'll be getting for any future remasters as well. Lets just hope the source tape for the other albums was better recorded than Moving Pictures. I just wish Alex and Rich Chycki would NOT be involved in the process. The hearing on both guys appears to be shot from the sound of this new release. Just awful!

QUOTE (jmdyyz @ Apr 9 2011, 03:04 PM) listen to the album via bluray!!!! I have the DVD-A version, which is identical to the bluray and again, the mix i for shit. Way too loud and distorted at high volumes. Almost as bad as the 97 remasters which someone should be in jail for doing!

My goodness. Someone actually voted for the 97 remaster? Do you have ears? Good Lord!!

I have all the above versions except for the 25.8P, which I hear is stunning. To my ears, the MFSL is the best, followed closely by the Original US Atomic. Please note, this poll is for CD verions only, not vinyl. Thanks!

QUOTE (Hear Again @ Apr 9 2011, 08:53 AM) QUOTE (shail @ Apr 9 2011, 09:38 AM) I don't get it. Plopped it in my PS3 and cranked up the sound system. Played camera and vital a few times. Am I missing something? Audio is shit. The surround sound mix has some of the synth parts mixed way in the background to the point where you can't hear them. Intro parts mostly. There's no balls to it. Want my money back. Like the album the way it is without this remix in 5.1. Yuck. Well... It's not that bad. Fills up the room evenly with the instruments. That's always nice. Could have been done better. Anyone know where you can get a better 5.1 of MP? Sounds like your system is not calibrated correctly........ Take Care No, his system is calibrated just fine. The truth is, this new master is for shit; it just is. Its almost as loud as the criminally loud 97 remasters. The 5.1 mix is fun to listen to but they REALLY missed a chance to put out the definitive version of this album. I have other DVD-A discs that blow this one out of the water (see Steely Dan's Gaucho or Beck's Sea Change on DVD-Audio to hear what a truly audiophile DVD-A can sound like). The truth is, Alex just likes his music brickwalled and compressed to hell and we're never going to get a truly audiophile quality version of any Rush album. Since most people out there aren't audiophiles and coud care less about sound quality, there really isnt a market force out there to force them to make a good quality sounding master. Most people equate loudness with quality. Very sad....

I just love that you put The Fountain of Lamneth as your #1 song! Although I dont agree, this winter I revisted Caress of Steel and it really grew on me. It used to be my second least favorite album (after VT), but now its right up there with some of my favorites. Sadly, I dont think VT will ever gain ground. Just a horrible record in my opinion. Every song from VT would be at the bottom of any list I would make.

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Mar 9 2008, 04:01 PM) I really enjoy VT, despite the mastering...but S&A is their best album since Signals. Agree on that one. S&A is awesome. I'm sorry but I cannot listen to any song on VT all the way through. Their worst album by FAR IMHO...

Excuse the mis-print. I meant "Original Master Recording"!

It is indeed the MFSL version. You can always tell a MFSL by the "Original Mater Recording" printed at the top. The price listed on ebay is a few dollars cheaper than what I paid for it by ordering directly from Mobile Fidelity.

QUOTE (Gilbertk @ Nov 29 2010, 12:58 PM) QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Nov 29 2010, 11:00 AM) Looks like I'm hitting this "very special" Los Angeles show. Wonder what that means.....not like Rush to do something extraordinary for one show....could they have a special guest? Maybe Aimee Mann on Time Stand Still??? I had thought that that would be pretty cool if they did that just once. That would be VERY special! Perhaps Ben Mink... but I'm not sure what he would play seeing he was involved in none of the songs in the Time Machine set. Boy I'd love it if Ben Mink was a special guest cause that might mean they'd finally play my all time favorite Rush song "Losing It"'live!!

I still dont have thhe MFSL of Moving Pictures so I cant make a blanket statement yet about all of the Rush MFSL's but let me tell you, the MFSL of Signals is something to behold. I always thought of this album as kind off "tired" for lack of a better term. I'm not sure why but it just wasnt one of my favorites. This MFSL though has made it an all new album for me. It's so warm and dynamic and the "alternate" version of the weapon is fantastic! Losing It has always been my all time fave Rush song but other than that I never really gave the album much attention. This MFSL is like hearing it for the first time every time I give it a spin. Every Rush fan owes it to themselves (especially if you have a nice stereo system) to get this version of the album. The others that I own are the best versions as well but there's something about Signals that just really grabs me. Fantastic!