Mushfan

QUOTE (Tombstone Mountain @ Jul 13 2012, 10:38 AM)QUOTE (Gompers @ Jul 13 2012, 10:32 AM) QUOTE (Tombstone Mountain @ Jul 13 2012, 10:47 AM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jul 13 2012, 09:45 AM) QUOTE (trenken @ Jul 13 2012, 09:34 AM)QUOTE (Tombstone Mountain @ Jul 13 2012, 09:33 AM) QUOTE (trenken @ Jul 13 2012, 09:30 AM) QUOTE (Tombstone Mountain @ Jul 13 2012, 09:27 AM) QUOTE (Gompers @ Jul 13 2012, 09:26 AM) QUOTE (Tombstone Mountain @ Jul 13 2012, 10:02 AM) I hope the band produces every album from here to eternity with Nick--he got the best out of them!!! What did collins bring to the albums he produced? what quality does he bring out of Rush that makes his productions superior to Nicks? It is almost universally agreed that CA is the bands best release since the early 80's...why is that? Nick had A LOT to do with it. Just ask the boys. Anyway...someone tell me about Collins and his upside please He brought Caveman to Rush. OK, but what did Collins do for the band??? Caveman isone thing. what does Collins do that is so special??? He helped creat really crisp and dynamic sounding albums, Rush's best sounding albums IMO. CA is a muddy mess. The drums sound completely dead in it. Rush deserves better than this. Nick is a hack producer who only gets hired by garbage mainstream rock bands. Why do some of the more creative and revered bands out there not work with stock producers like him? Hmmm I wonder... sorry sir, you are in the wee minority on this. everyone else in the world is wrong and your right? Best album since the early 80's is THE consensus. Anyway...have a nice day dude! Utterly Flawless Um, have you read the threads on this board about the sound of this album? Yeah pretty sure Im not alone. You're too busy with your joke review threads to even realize how many people dont love the mix of this album. I have, and most folks don't have a beef with it. A lot wish it sounded better, sure, but it's not a major issue with most regular posters here. thank you lerxter. it is a minority of people who have a problem with sound. I think the CD sounds awesome in a car, a boom box, or a $3000 stereo! I think you are very lucky to be able to either A.) ignore the poor mix B.) not know the difference. It doesn't stand out to me. Now, admittedly I am no audiophile though I have a deep respect for the quality of sound in music and film. I just don't get it. People in my office who listen to this music with me don't understand the hubbub as well. Give me an example of where this music falls short in your ears please. In laymans terms if you don't mind. Example: The title track...listen to how Peart's snare disappears during the first chorus. It gets totally buried and then slowly comes back up front. There's no way this should have been left like this. It tells me that the person mixing it (and the band) didn't pay full attention when listening to every song before it was sent off to mastering. I heard that Nick was mixing another album during this time also..which could explain the mistakes. Still an awesome album though!!!

QUOTE (bluefox4000 @ Sep 13 2012, 11:17 AM) QUOTE (Mushfan @ Sep 13 2012, 10:44 AM) So I guess when Peart's snare disappears in the title track or when Alex's acoustic is too loud in the Garden, or when Geddy's vocals get buried, it's just part of the "modern" sound. Sorry man, a bad mix is a bad mix...regardless of the era. That's why i'm Dying for a live release. Cause the albums a sonic mush. Mick I saw them in Bristow, VA Sunday and it was so nice to hear CA live. It sounded great.

So I guess when Peart's snare disappears in the title track or when Alex's acoustic is too loud in the Garden, or when Geddy's vocals get buried, it's just part of the "modern" sound. Sorry man, a bad mix is a bad mix...regardless of the era.

QUOTE (Toasted Ghost @ Jun 27 2012, 07:54 AM)QUOTE (bytored @ Jun 26 2012, 08:43 PM) And I had my CC out......even thought I just received the UK fan pack days ago Totem natural male enhancement? This is a real bargain...where do you come up with this stuff? I can't stop thinking big

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 15 2012, 04:21 PM) QUOTE (Mushfan @ Jun 15 2012, 02:12 PM) On a side note, did anybody notice the issue with Neil's snare on the first chorus of Clockwork angels? It's missing, all you hear is the room mics and then it finally comes back. i definitely hear it during the slow bluesy section but I'm certain it is intentional. Yes, I think that part was intentional. They were trying to get the blues club sound I believe. I'm going to check the title track again to make sure I'm correct. I believe it's the beginning of the first chorus where the snare kinda drops out. Anyway, I LOVE this album, even with the mix issues. We all know it could have been worse (VT).

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 15 2012, 03:59 PM) QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 15 2012, 03:44 PM) As someone who earns a living as an audio person I can say that part of it is the way things are recorded, part of it is mixing less than stellar recordings and finally part is mastering for iPods. I have recently been a part of an audio engineering forum that has turned me around many degrees where recording is concerned. I have been working in the digital domain since the 90's and with music especially (sound effects are my main trade) I have struggled to come close digitally to even poorly recorded analog recordings I have done on cassette 4 track. The main culprit is the digital medium itself. We've had discussions like this in the MMM section (where I moderate for some of you who don't recognize me). Digital recording is inherently flawed because of how it works, especially when all of humanity is used to hearing analog recordings. This is a fundamental recording issue but it effects things that are frequency dependent like EQ and modulation effects (phase, flange, chorus etc; oh and drums and cymbals and guitars...) because not all frequencies are "created equal" due to fixed sample rates. Higher frequencies lose out the lower the sample rate while lower frequencies are always represented much more closely t their analog equivalent. So when you play back something that wasn't recorded as well as we are used to hearing, then mixing it with other "inferior" recorded material, then smashing it to be as loud as possible there is little wonder why we don't like what we're hearing. There will always be a new technological "advances" that will take us to the next tier. Neil Young is working on a new digital format that will allegedly deal with some of this, but I will believe when I hear it. How come Jazz albums still sound great? I got Marcus Miller's new album the other week and it sounds perfect, no brick wall effect whatsoever, it sounds sharp, crystal clear, with amazing dynamics and it's still big and powerful. Jazz records sound great because there's less instrumentation, so there's room to breathe. They also arrange VERY well. Proper arrangement it SO important for mixing. I think part of the issue today is the virtually unlimited tracks available. Back in the analog days, they were limited to 24 or 36 tracks,etc. So guys like Alex Lifeson couldn't do 17 guitar tracks back then. On a side note, did anybody notice the issue with Neil's snare on the first chorus of Clockwork angels? It's missing, all you hear is the room mics and then it finally comes back.