StellarJetman

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Jan 9 2012, 09:13 AM) I did a side by side (by side by side ) critical review a few years ago my verdict? > the MFSL sounds the best > followed very closely by the W. German '89 CD (2nd) > the SHM-CD (3rd) > the '97 Remaster (dead last - worst of the worst) here's a link to the full review, if you're interested in my take Well, I was actually hoping for louder guitars and a brighter sound overall. I really can't stand the way that the original sounds and I almost always listen to it with treble-shifted equalization. You say, "The MFSL does the best job of taking the original song and 'improving' on the foundation (bass guitar, snare sound, guitar) without changing the original intent or mix," but I honestly hate the "original intent". I'll be getting the remaster now for sure.

Blu-Ray.

I think that I'll go with the '97 remaster, then. The Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab version is out unless I'm outrageously lucky and find it for under twenty bucks, and, since rushgoober loves Signals so much, I'm inclined to trust his judgement here.

Why is Presto on here instead of Power Windows? I voted for it.

Because of their reputation for undue loudness and distortion, I've always avoided the '97 remasters, but I really hate how muddy and cloudy Signals sounds (in the uncharacteristically apt words of Rolling Stone, "the band tends to sound like it is trapped in wads of lint"), and I've heard that its remaster adds a lot of clarity and depth. Is this true?

Moving Pictures, but Signals has really grown on me lately.

Moving Pictures, with Presto and Hemispheres following it.

QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Dec 1 2011, 08:00 PM)Well define "weak link". Wait, you're actually pulling the Clinton "defense"? For real? QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Dec 1 2011, 08:00 PM)As far as my subjective listening goes everything is still going strong in the band, none of the links are "weak". Well, let's see here: Geddy, Alex, and Neil are all still playing at the top of their game. Geddy's vocal range has decreased. Which of these elements is weaker than the others? Even if you don't think that his voice is weak as a voice, he's still incapable of the kind of stuff that he was doing even as late as Vapor Trails, while all of the band's other aspects are just as strong as they ever were. How do you not get this? Rush fanboys scare and bewilder me in equal measure.

I don't care one way or the other about them. And they aren't that clever; they aren't even real anagrams.

There's a fine line between love and illusion, A fine place to penetrate The gap between actor and act, The lens between wishes and fact.

I feel bad about bumping my own thread like this, but I hadn't expected it to just fizzle out after three replies.

I've been meaning to start this thread for a while now. "Neo-prog" and the like are welcome, if you're into that kind of thing. If you can't rank the albums, alphabetize them! I'll start: The Dark Side of the Moon, by Pink Floyd Fragile, by Yes The Grand Wazoo, by Frank Zappa Hemispheres, by Rush I Robot, by The Alan Parsons Project In the Court of the Crimson King, by King Crimson Masque, by Kansas Red, by King Crimson (again, because they deserve it) Selling England by the Pound, by Genesis Thick as a Brick, by Jethro Tull

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Jul 7 2011, 08:15 PM) The word is RE-donkulous not RI-donkulous The claim is IN-defensible. http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-smug.gif Here: Ridere (Latin) -> Ridicule -> Ridiculous -> Ridonkulous (Not actually a word, but whatever.) (I can't believe that I'm actually posting this.)

QUOTE (hobo73 @ Jul 7 2011, 03:22 PM) and does it really matter how it's spelled? it's not even a real word! lmao you knew what I was saying, correct? Off-topic here, but, being derived from a real word ("ridiculous"), the part of it that's the same should be spelled the same. TL;DR: spell it with an I.

That "girl" was Cozy Toes.

QUOTE (LyndseyG @ Jun 15 2011, 02:11 PM) Great stuff! Xanadu is one of my favourites! Same here; I just got into it after realizing that my initial reaction to "Natural Science" was 100% right (cool first half, completely unnecessary second half, nice ending) and going back to "Xanadu" to see if it would be a fitting replacement as a favorite. I don't know why, but I always thought of it as just another "Jacob's Ladder" - thank God that I saw how wrong I was!

I don't watch too much TV, but I've always loved Mystery Science Theater 3000.

QUOTE (USB Connector @ May 21 2011, 08:14 PM) See, this is where we have a problem. You ask for the opinions of OTHERS, while you are simultaneously subtly pushing your own opinion as FACT. I thought all of those points of the movie were great. You cannot pass a subjective view as fact, even when talking about the final frontier. I'm not "pushing" it on anyone. I was explaining why I included it on the poll. And plenty of other people hate it, too.

Just remembered that I was going to put an "Other" option to account for this kind of thing. I have no clue how I forgot. http://i.imgur.com/0rlLi.gif

Too 2004.

QUOTE (Kenneth @ May 21 2011, 01:55 PM) Well it seems we all have different opinions and the poll should have catered to them. Not this is a big deal, but imagine I started a "Worst Rush Epic" Poll and discluded 2112. The difference being that Rush's music is of a far more consistent level of quality than the Star Trek movies are, and practically all of the "different opinions" are featured in the poll anyway. Even the one guy who said that he'd vote for First Contact (which I don't actually like all that much, although I wouldn't call it bad) admitted that he didn't really have a good reason for it. Wait a minute; you're the guy...

QUOTE (Kenneth @ May 20 2011, 10:35 PM)I don't get this, why didn't you list all of the movies? Because I didn't want The Wrath of Khan, First Contact, etc. cluttering up the poll with empty space. Unless you actually think that they would have gotten (or even deserved) votes? QUOTE (KenJennings @ May 20 2011, 10:46 PM)I would like to know why Generations is on this list though. Certainly middle-of-the-pack, but not bad in the slightest. The entire Enterprise-B section of the movie, with its awful, Voyager-quality technobabble "story", schizophrenic characterization (hello, Dr. Leonard Chekov!), and boneheaded resolution (the captain goes down to fix the ship while the engineer stays on the bridge). Stupid subplots like Data's emotion chip (which could have been decent if they hadn't run it into the ground) and the spy camera in Geordi's visor. Stupid details like the Deep Space Nine uniforms, Soran's gun, and anything in the missile launch sequence. Absolutely brainless use of time travel to set up a painfully contrived fight sequence with an even more contrived ending. The idea that there was a need to "pass the torch" (I'm beyond sick of reading this phrase in conjunction with this movie) from the original series when The Undiscovered Country was a perfectly decent send-off. Re-used effects and repurposed models. Ugly yellow lighting. I watched it expecting something at least passable, like The Search for Spock. It didn't even live up to those lowered expectations. QUOTE (USB Connector @ May 21 2011, 07:26 AM)Seriously dude, why did you put Star Trek 11 up there and NOT put all of the movies. If anything, it is one of the best, if not THE best one so far. It's on the list because of its brainless, coincidence-driven plot, awful character derailment, idiotic details (Sulu's collapsible katana, the Corvette scene, the brewery set, Scotty's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-style pipe ride, the Phantom Menace-y monster chase, etc.), contrived references to the series and previous movies, overwrought effects, shaky cinematography, general disregard for the Star Trek ethos, and lens flares. No, sir, I did not like it.