CygnusX-1Bk2

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 14 2012, 09:55 AM) While I'm very happy with the overall sound and mix of CA, it's isn't without a few minor issues. First, let me say that the "mix" is there, meaning everything is audible and the levels are mostly fine. After deciding the mix was there, I realized some of the instruments weren't coming through as well as they should be. Hmmm, what could cause this? Being an audio and mastering engineer I was able to determine fairly quickly the cause. It's an slight EQ issue, especially in the top end, and the amount of low end on the recording was getting in the way of the clarity. So I dumped a song into my mastering program just to see what was going on. Sure enough, the recording lacked some highs (just some specifically), and the low end (sub lows only) were a bit much, causing the highs to get lost. So it just lacked a bit of clarity in the top end, which is a direct result of the low end, and is easily fixed. If you have audio editing software, Try This: (I used "The Anarchist" for my tests - .wav file) Multiband EQ: -5.0dB cut from 50Hz - 20Hz -2.5dB @ 140Hz (Q=50) +2.1dB @ 4400Hz (Q=50) +2.2dB @ 6450Hz (Q=50) +1.9dB @ 13350Hz - 20000Hz Multiband Compressor: -1.7dB cut from 46Hz - 20Hz -0.7dB cut from 500Hz - 707Hz Master Output: -0.40dB Left and Right With these settings the (sub) low end gets tamed down and the high end is pushed slightly, only at specific frequencies. Subtle changes, but fairly effective. Plus, the average overall volume (RMS) is reduced from -8.5dB to -10dB, making it not quite so loud. This seems to give the mix a bit more clarity, to my ears. Try it out, or listen below. Don't have audio editing software? Listen to the result: The Anarchist - Remaster (320kbps Mp3 file) *since everyone here has the album, I don't have a problem posting this file. Don't abuse it. You more than anyone here should know you shouldn't have to remaster a freshly mastered recording! You should just put it on and it should sound good. We know that compression impacts frequency. I would be interested in the dynamic range as well.

Hmm, I listened to Caravan and BU2B ("single versions") maybe a couple times, the exception being the shows I went to. I even skipped them on the Time Machine DVD. Same for Headlong, maybe 3 times before the release. Two of those were on my laptop, once over my home theater. The lack of listening to these doesn't make my appreciation for the album any higher. I have said all along I want to hear them in context. Now that I have I can agree that the first two songs are almost separate from the rest of the album. But there is a sameness to the majority of the album that sort of follows in their footsteps. Still hasn't impacted me emotionally as I would like. Too bad I was really looking forward to hearing this album. I wish I could get more worked up about it.

Having only listened to my fanpack CD several times now (I refused to download any leaked version) I can honestly say I have some issues with the new album. I don't think it's horrible or another HYF (the lowest ranked album for me personally) I do not think it's great either. While supplemental listens have helped there are just some things going on that I feel are just a little off the mark. I have listened on both my studio monitors (which are more revealing and harsh) as well as my car (which is where I listen to mixes for translation as well as music for "enjoyment" purposes) which is more pleasing. Ever since HYF I have resisted getting my hopes up with each release. Partially to not let my hopes get too far up but also to remain as objective as possible upon the first listen. Having lived with Caravan and BU2B for a couple years or whatever did not exactly help. Those songs have their merit and I have felt since hearing them live that they work better in concert than on the initial recording. When I first heard them I kind of felt like they were a bit of a let down from S&A which to me is extremely strong. S&A resonated with me immediately, which is rare for Rush releases since Presto. I love most of Presto. In fact there are only 3 songs that don't do it for me on that one and it took a bit to sink in. RTB also needed to sink in a bit for me. That one has sold well but I prefer Presto and CP. TFE took a while for some songs while others had impact immediately. The material on VT resonated with me despite the production. I am finding CA to be closer to TFE for me personally which for their catalog is somewhere in the middle. Part of my issues are production related and some is definitely material. The mix is a bit too smashed for me again. A step back from S&A. There is a lot of compression that doesn't do much other than to make everything louder. The new mix of BU2B is particularly grating. The guitars are either a washy undefined mass or punchy and clear, mostly the former. I like the bass tones quite a bit. The snare drum sounds mushy during much of the album except when the drums have little music surrounding them. When you just hear the drums they sound really good then everything else comes in the they sound puny. I am also hearing some rehashed ideas in the material. I have not yet committed the song names to memory so forgive me for that. But I am hearing a reworking of Half The World in one song, Virtuality in another and the one that sounds like the Byrds (and some other tunes as well). I think the most passionate playing from Alex is in Headlong Flight (which has elements of Bastille Day) but aside from that I get a "this is me playing guitar" feeling. Not sure how that statement comes off but I guess I am used to hearing him play with so much intention and purpose. Speaking of HF; to me it sounds like Geddy's playing is kind of meandering and "general" rather than playing as disciplined as he has been more recently; ie playing fewer notes with more emphasis and meaning. When I think of some of the playing from Hemispheres or Permanent Waves there are a lot of notes, but there was intentional variety and structure going on there. I think I hear a lack of "Rush Structure" on CA too. Neil being conducted rather than writing out every last stroke is not what I have come to enjoy about his playing. Vocal lines seem esoteric and abstract at times. I really haven't given much time to the "story" elements in the lyrics but the lyrics themselves don't take me through the story the way that 2112 or Hemispheres do. Even The Fountain seems more easy to follow. I get the feeling once the idea of a concept was agreed to that it affected the result. I feel that S&A was strong because they wanted to make each and every one of those songs with a burning desire and one thing inspired the next. This time I feel like they had an idea that they fleshed out. Those are two totally different approaches and I think that's how I hear music. Music made like one's life depends on the making of it will impact me emotionally considerably more even if it doesn't sound great than an intellectual exercise which is how I hear CA. This just dawned on me but this album is one idea where as others are a bunch of ideas. Listening to CA for the second and third times I kind of felt as though this were a film soundtrack without the film. I think visuals will definitely enhance the material as far as conveying the story element. However some of the material doesn't jump out at me but just sort of lays there for the most part. I feel like the playing is solid as we would expect. Perhaps because of their age they just don't have the same desire as even 5 years ago, not that they don't care just that they don't have the same energy. So in conclusion (yes, I know you are glad if you have read thus far) I think it is an ok Rush album. Not bad but not great. I hold Rush (and everybody else) to a high standard. They will always be my favorite band, but that doesn't mean I gotta "drink the Kool-Aid" as it were. They are guys who make excellent music, but not everything they do is perfect because how I feel about them is more realistic than when I was younger. Perhaps it's my age too. Perhaps it's other more sonically pleasing recordings I have been listening to recently. Perhaps I am jaded and can no longer be impressed. Who knows? But I think I am probably only going to hit one show this tour, especially if they play CA in it's entirety.

I haven't heard the mp3s, I am going from my CD in the fan pack. I listened to it again in my car. It sounded better there than over my studio monitors. The guitars are a wash for the most part still and the whole thing sound overly compressed, not as bad as VT but the early part of the album is hard to listen to for me. There is NO space, just a dense wash. I like the bass tone for the most part. There is a a jam quality to just about every song. That might be great for the Greatful Dead, but this is Rush. I think some things will come across better live but much of this stuff sounds forced or just sort of lays there. The material has a sameness to it, perhaps that's the concept. Shortly after listening in my car Sun and Moon came on my iPod and it was like night and day. There is more punch and intention in that recording than CA. There is so much going on in every track that it is hard to hear what the intention is. When I think about how strong S&A is the new album lacks the same intensity. It sounds jammy and lacks focus. It sounds more like they a "trying" rather than "doing" compared to much of their catalog. Case in point: the fact that Neil used the same technique of being conducted by the producer as he had done for his guest spot on whatever album he guested on. That is not Neil Peart as I have come to appreciate him. Sure, he's entitled to take a different approach and it is cool that he did, but I do not feel the end result is as good as when he works every last note down to the last rest. That is one way in which CA lacks focus. It doesn't have Neil's usual attention to detail. I may be in the minority, but I don't feel the need to "blow them" as it were nor feel that everything they do is "awesome" because even they would say that it isn't. They're in their late 50's now and while I appreciate their artistic efforts not everything they do is great and the new album falls into that category. The mix is particularly harsh where S&A is open, despite having some dense moments. CA is smashed and shoehorned so for me this is a step back, not forward. It's not like I work in audio professionally or anything...

After my initial listen yesterday I must say that CA is nowhere near as focused as S&A. It is much more meandering. There is a disconnect between much of the vocal lines and the supporting music. There is no real sense of cohesion. There are some great textures and some parts are intriguing but I think the strongest tracks are the first two and the Wreckers, which is the least Rush like track on the album. It has the most impactful melody. For the most part there is a wash of guitars. I like the the really rare instances of bare, punchy guitars which only happens occasionally. I would say it doesn't suck, but it's not great. But that's me. I expect a lot from Rush. I rank it higher than HYF which is really the only bad Rush album.

Oh and Rush are not metal, they are Rush. Leave categorization to radio morons.

Hocus Pocus is one of the greatest songs ever! I remember hearing it on the radio when a was a little kid and listening as closely as I could. Great guitar and drums. Great stuff. Not real familiar with the rest of their stuff. You go Earl!

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 09:00 PM) I see that a few of you have fallen into the 'popularity = better' trap if you can, dig yourself out of that one and rethink your posts (I'd love to keep kicking it around) Popularity has little to do with it. There is a reason the Beatles are the greatest artists of recorded history (and recording history). The reason they became and have remained popular is because of how good they were. They are part of the public consciousness in the same way that Star Wars is. Yes was a great band at one time but they are not a cultural phenomenon. There is something about Beatle music that reaches humanity on a fundamental level to the point that people will be listening to and studying Beatles music into the indeterminable future. I wish I could say the same about Yes. This has nothing to do with popularity, for neither the Beatles nor Yes are on the cutting edge of popular culture, yet when anything Beatles happens it is a global event. That is cultural, not popularity. Millions of young people still discover the Beatles everyday. You may as well ask which is better; the Sun or the Moon? Ok that may not be exactly congruent but close enough for rock and roll.

Oh wait... You like Dream Theater too. That explains a lot right there.

DT is unlikeable. I have tried too. It's ok though.

QUOTE (staunchally @ Sep 14 2011, 01:36 PM) This is why drugs are bad. Pithy responses are not exactly a cogent rebuttal to what was said. Please feel free to articulate as to why, if you can. If you disagree with what I say then please illuminate us all. Drugs or no I am certain I can prove my point more concisely than someone who's only responses are dull attempts at humor Mr. 31 posts. And if it weren't for drugs we wouldn't have many Beatle or Yes tunes to enjoy. So there.

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 10:30 AM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Sep 13 2011, 08:07 PM) QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 13 2011, 03:14 PM)QUOTE (Lerxster @ Sep 13 2011, 12:22 PM) ...the main thing is, he feels The Beatles revolutionized rock and roll, so you two are on the same page as far as that goes indeed! Not that I agree with you. There's too much talent there to call it an accident... the talent isn't what's accidental, though what's 'accidental' is the revolution The Beatles didn't get together in grammar school and say, "right, then - let's revolutionize rock and roll" and even if they did, their first five albums are evidence enough to the contrary I'm not debating their incredible talents or their revolutionary influence (no one legitimately could) but so much of their influence and impact is 'after the fact' - as we look back, in retrospect, etc. Yes' 'revolutionary' impact was real-time - they were challenging/being challenged by their contemporaries practically week to week and they showed just about everyone the door for a solid seven years (1971-1977) of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion - like who you like personally? I can't see how anyone can objectively give The Beatles the nod, here So do you play music or just listen? One can learn just about everything one needs to know about music from learning Beatle songs. And that is just the music. Granted the Beatles did not set out to change anything or start a revolution. George has stated that society used the Beatles as an excuse to go wild. They did what they did and society followed suit with obsession still not seen since. There were many factor and that is well documented. Yet their impact upon society as a whole cannot be disputed nor denied. The music industry changed drastically because of the Beatles and no one else. Definitely not Elvis Presley. There were no arena shows before the Beatles. There were no foldback monitors before the Beatles (or unfortunately during their touring years). Artists were not given artistic control until the Beatles. The Beatles broke rules as they made others. Now let's talk progressive. The Beatles were the first real progressive band. There is an incalculable growth in their songwriting and production unmatched by any other artist, due in large part the Beatles themselves, George Martin, Geoff Emerick and the other various engineers who worked on their records. The Beatles haven't even been a band for 41 years and two of them are dead and they still sell more recordings than any other artist living or dead. Could the Beatles perform Close To The Edge? Perhaps not the same way as the Yes that recorded it, or any other iteration of the band including when they toured with 8 guys. There is no objectivity when it comes to the Beatles and that is kind of my point. There was no Yesmania and there never will be. Despite how good a band they have been.

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 10:09 AM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Sep 14 2011, 11:53 AM) QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 12:03 AM) McCartney's pretty f***ing talented. Even still at his advanced age. But at his height he was easily as good a guitarist as Steve Howe (Taxman and The End guitar solos, Blackbird, etc.), as good or better a bassist as Squire (ask Squire, plus listen to Something, Don't Let Me Down or just about anything else or play Beatles Rock Band on Expert Bass), as good a keyboardist as Tony Kaye (listen to Penny Lane, Let It Be or the Abbey Road medley), as good a drummer as Alan White (both were good enough for John Lennon) and easily as good or better singer than Anderson with a wider range. Just saying... What?! don't worry, kid he's just funnin' (and it is funny) That ain't "funnin'" that is the truth. Dispute one thing I have stated here. I didn't say anything about Wakeman nor Bruford because I think those two are virtuosic on their instruments and McCartney on his best day couldn't play like Wakeman or Bruford. But the others easily. Keep in mind I have studied both these bands very seriously and extensively. A good friend of mine has written the definitive biography of Yes and I am sure he would agree with me. More than half of the Wings material is McCartney and not the hired hands who toured with him. McCartney was the most talented Beatle easily. I would put any of his basslines against any of Squier's. Squier is great, but he's no McCartney, Entwistle, or Geddy Lee. Just because McCartney writes "pop" music doesn't mean he has less talent than someone who writes more progressively. Especially when you consider that the Abbey Road medley is largely a McCartney masterpiece. That is a pretty progressive "side". Plus the whole Sgt. Pepper thing was his idea, stringing the album together as if it were another band putting on a show. All of this before Yes came into being. Then when one considers that McCartney is THE MOST successful songwriter in recorded history I think that kind of seals the deal. (Yesterday is the most recorded song ever).

You are a beautiful human being my friend!

The album cover is from their final official photo shoot. I think "Hey Jude" was released between Abbey Road and Let It Be. All tracks except for the first two are on Past Masters, as you should know. So who has played Beatles Rock Band besides me? (Not trying to hijack)

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Sep 13 2011, 06:56 PM) QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 13 2011, 06:42 PM) QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Sep 13 2011, 06:04 PM) Wet Dream Theater Brilliant! Why thank you sir. How's life? I'm hangin' in there! Thanks for asking. Glad to see you still "here." On a related note: AC was the first show I ever saw at the Pavilion in 1980 with Y&T opening. Flush the Fashion tour. Davey Johnstone from Elton John's band was the guitarist. Saw Alice again a couple years back between Queensryche and Heaven and Hell. Eric Singer is his drummer when KISS is off. Still a great show!

McCartney's pretty f***ing talented. Even still at his advanced age. But at his height he was easily as good a guitarist as Steve Howe (Taxman and The End guitar solos, Blackbird, etc.), as good or better a bassist as Squire (ask Squire, plus listen to Something, Don't Let Me Down or just about anything else or play Beatles Rock Band on Expert Bass), as good a keyboardist as Tony Kaye (listen to Penny Lane, Let It Be or the Abbey Road medley), as good a drummer as Alan White (both were good enough for John Lennon) and easily as good or better singer than Anderson with a wider range. Just saying...

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Sep 13 2011, 06:04 PM) Wet Dream Theater Brilliant!

Ask Yes what they'd say and it would be Beatles. I do like their take on Every Little Thing. Couldn't have Yes without the Beatles but they are very different types of bands. Love 'em both of course.

I first heard Nigel on Misc. Debris before hearing the XTC version and actually prefer the Primus version because of the energy.

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Sep 13 2011, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 13 2011, 07:38 PM) One of my favorite Beatle "albums" as a boy was an American compilation called "The Beatles Again" but also known as "Hey Jude" because of the song's inclusion. Ah, the Hey Jude album! I wore that sucka out growing up. It's just a collection of songs, fantastic songs. Indeed. Even at a tender age I really got into the heavy version of Revolution. Old Brown Shoe and Don't Let Me Down too. Had the classic green Apple label for side one with the obligatory cut open shot for side 2, for those of us who remember records. Since no one really releases singles not featured from an album (well now they do with iTunes) I felt like including the Past Masters because there is a lot of material that is too good not to include.

Sgt. Pepper is the album by which ALL albums are gauged by. It is the definitive album by the most influential artist in history. I have been listening to this album since I could listen to records. I was born during it's recording (actually my birthday was their first day off for the holiday break). I used to listen to this album at my grandparents' house on headphones. It was an original Capitol pressing. Sgt. Pepper was the most innovative record of it's time, despite overcoming the limitations of four track recording available at Abbey Road Studios at the time (EMI didn't want to spring for the 8 track machine, and when they did they wouldn't pay for the power supply). More time was spent recording Sgt. Pepper than any other recording to that time, 500 plus hours; 10x the time spent on the Beatles' first album. Headphones is still the best way to listen to this album. A Hard Day's Night (Parlophone, not Capitol) was this first Beatle album with all original compositions and no covers. The Capitol release in America included orchestrated version of the movie songs that were included in the film where the Parlophone English release was all Beatle recordings (Capitol released all Beatle albums until Sgt.Pepper with fewer songs on them, generally 12 instead of 14 then compiled the remainder with single releases for American releases such as Yesterday & Today and Beatles VI, etc.). It is the first Beatle album to feature George's new Rickenbacker 360-12 12 string guitar. Great rock and roll record. Revolver is to Sgt. Pepper for the Beatles as Permanent Waves is to Moving Pictures for Rush. It is the precursor to a new direction. This was a catalyst in many ways for Sgt. Pepper (as was Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys). Revolver is the last album for which the Beatles toured. It is when the Beatles went from being ritual dance music to music to be listened to. It also includes the first forays into psychedelia with Tomorrow Never Knows and the "Dental Incident" inspired Dr. Robert documenting John and George's first LSD encounter. This is also the record where heavy compression worked its way into the production process. Please Please Me is the Beatles first album recorded in just around 55 hours over four days (2 in November 62 and 2 in February 63). It is pretty much a live performance with some overdubbed vocals. You can really hear the room of Abbey Road Studio 2 on this record. When John died I got my first copy of this album and again gave it the headphone treatment. It captures the Beatles at the height of their performing era. One of the greatest records of all time. One of my favorite Beatle "albums" as a boy was an American compilation called "The Beatles Again" but also known as "Hey Jude" because of the song's inclusion. Because of that I will include the Past Masters as my fifth entry. It covers the entire Beatles career and made up of all non album releases (with the exception of Magical Mystery Tour which was released in America as the album stands today but was in fact an EP featuring the tracks that are "side 1" on the album release. Side 2 is single releases from the same time). Songs like George's Old Brown Shoe and the George guitar solo version of Let It Be are part of Past Masters. Not so much of a cohesive album as a collection of good songs.