marblesmike

Seeing them in Philly tonight. I wonder which variation of the setlist we'll get tonight. The 2004 Philly show on the Marbles tour was one of the very best concerts I've ever been to. I know the band has friends/family from the Philly area so maybe they always give us that extra push. Regardless I'm looking forward to a great show.

QUOTE (invisible airwave @ Jun 15 2012, 01:27 PM) The same critic on Entertainment Weekly who gave Bieber's new album a B+ gave this album a C. I suddenly feel like Luke Wilson in a certain Mike Judge cult classic. This is a sign of how our country/culture/society is in trouble.

QUOTE (mandydog @ Jun 15 2012, 01:39 PM) QUOTE (marblesmike @ Jun 15 2012, 12:34 PM) QUOTE (mandydog @ Jun 15 2012, 01:27 PM) QUOTE (marblesmike @ Jun 15 2012, 12:25 PM) QUOTE (mandydog @ Jun 15 2012, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (marblesmike @ Jun 15 2012, 10:53 AM) CD has a DR6 rating, as does the HDTracks version, so no less compression. The vinyl has a DR11 rating. Where are these ratings and what do they mean? The amount of dynamic range. Dynamic range is the amount of space between the loudest and softest parts of the music. To my ears, more dynamic range is better as it gives the music room to breathe and build up from quiet soft passages to booming loud ones instead of being mostly loud the whole time. Where did you get these ratings? And does this mean that the vinyl sounds twice as good as the cd? There's programs, such as Foobar, that can measure the DR in an audio file. It means there's less dynamic compression on the vinyl. According to some people here I'd be a troll if I told you that mean the vinyl sounded better, so it depends on how you like to hear your music. OK. So this program rates the CD files and the HD files as a 6 out of what? And the vinyl is an 11 out of what? It's not 6 or 11 out of anything. The higher the number the more dynamic range there is.

QUOTE (mandydog @ Jun 15 2012, 01:27 PM) QUOTE (marblesmike @ Jun 15 2012, 12:25 PM) QUOTE (mandydog @ Jun 15 2012, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (marblesmike @ Jun 15 2012, 10:53 AM) CD has a DR6 rating, as does the HDTracks version, so no less compression. The vinyl has a DR11 rating. Where are these ratings and what do they mean? The amount of dynamic range. Dynamic range is the amount of space between the loudest and softest parts of the music. To my ears, more dynamic range is better as it gives the music room to breathe and build up from quiet soft passages to booming loud ones instead of being mostly loud the whole time. Where did you get these ratings? And does this mean that the vinyl sounds twice as good as the cd? There's programs, such as Foobar, that can measure the DR in an audio file. It means there's less dynamic compression on the vinyl. According to some people here I'd be a troll if I told you that mean the vinyl sounded better, so it depends on how you like to hear your music.

Signals MP PeW GUP AFTK PoW Hemi 2112 CwA (still early though) HYF CP FBN SNA VT CoS RTB T4E Rush Presto Feedback

QUOTE (mandydog @ Jun 15 2012, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (marblesmike @ Jun 15 2012, 10:53 AM) CD has a DR6 rating, as does the HDTracks version, so no less compression. The vinyl has a DR11 rating. Where are these ratings and what do they mean? The amount of dynamic range. Dynamic range is the amount of space between the loudest and softest parts of the music. To my ears, more dynamic range is better as it gives the music room to breathe and build up from quiet soft passages to booming loud ones instead of being mostly loud the whole time.

QUOTE (losingit2k @ Jun 15 2012, 11:55 AM) This is a true and untold and yet undiscovered story. As a teenager Nick was a huge fan and he would always crank up his beloved band in his car as he was travelling anywhere. Well Nick would just hate when he would be stopped at a red light and some younger kid in a faster sports car would pull up next to him cracking his Bee-Bop rap, bass amplified music and rattle his car and drown out his beloved which he was so enjoying. Well after many years of this torturous activity he sat there in his car listening to this overpowering bass shaking his windows and he vowed: "One day I'm going to become a producer and I'm going to produce a album thats going to blow all these teenie -boppers and their fancy car stereos away!" The rest is history! Where do you come up with this stuff?

QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 15 2012, 11:55 AM) $20? Not even close to worth it to me for a difference you'll only barely notice on an expensive system. I'd have to probably agree. The vinyl is the only way you'll notice a more open mastering and mix, and even that is debatable. I have a lossless vinyl rip I've made and it still gives me ear fatigue after 20 minutes or so of listening. But it is noticeably (to my ears at least) clearer sounding than the cd.

CD has a DR6 rating, as does the HDTracks version, so no less compression. The vinyl has a DR11 rating.

QUOTE (Gompers @ Jun 15 2012, 10:39 AM) QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Jun 15 2012, 10:38 AM) QUOTE (losingit2k @ Jun 15 2012, 10:36 AM) I can't believe this thread is still going. Why the long face? As the OP, shouldn't you be proud it got to 11 pages? Maybe he is beginning to see how silly his state of euphoria was. It looks like a TRIPLE rainbow!!!

QUOTE (Pound of Obscure @ Jun 15 2012, 10:15 AM) QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 15 2012, 08:15 AM) ATTENTION ALL PLANETS: Here's the deal. I provided this remaster only as a test and somewhat of a solution for those who feel the record has sound issues. As I've said, the album sounds just fine the way it is but could use a little tweaking. I'm not going to remaster the whole record, it doesn't need it. As CygnusX-1Bk2 points out, you shouldn't have to remaster a freshly released cd. I've already received many messages asking me to "do the whole record". And I've already provided solutions on how to "fix it yourself", with editing software OR with simple treble/bass controls on your stereo. If everyone thought the record sounded bad then I might provide a complete remaster, but it's just a small percentage. The editing settings I tried and provided here took me 5 minutes to dial-in. They are very minor, (with the exception of cutting over 6dB of sub lows). Those with editing software can tweak until it sounds good to them. For the rest, just Reduce the Bass and Boost the Treble on your stereos. There is no doubt that the cd is bass heavy and treble light. Again, this can be fixed with the bass and treble knobs on your stereo. Recordings are never "one size fits all". One observation I've noticed is, this album sounds great at low to mid volumes, but becomes rough at loud volumes. This is something that none of us can fix. My settings really help it at lower volumes, but could possibly make it worse at higher volumes. It is what it is. Is there any downloadable sound editing software to go this myself that you recommend. I know nothing about this stuff or how to do it for that matter. So sound editing for dummies would be right up my alley. Audacity.

QUOTE (ScottT67 @ Jun 15 2012, 10:22 AM) As I bask in the euphoric light of new / unknown Rush material, and it metamorphoses into known Rush material, I would bet my Hostess Donettes that they tour with an Orchestra. That being said, is there any doubt that the Manhattan Project will be in he set list! What other Rush songs with strings will they put in the setlist, with a touring orchestra? Anyone??? Anyone??? I am really savoring each bite of this album. They are in fact still evolving - still improving! Truly amazing! We are all so fortunate to be influenced by these guys! God I hope they don't tour with an orchestra. I will be paying hard money to see Rush, aka the Holy Trinity. I'm not paying to see an orchestra. If Rush's music was more symphonic then I could see it, but for the most part they're a hard rock band. Bad, bad idea in my humble opinion.

OP, great first post although I might not agree with all of it. I wouldn't mind some more keyboards. Signals is my favorite Rush album but I think their best balance of hard rock and keys came on PeW and MP, but as trenken said, I don't think the same kind of intensity is still there. Ever hear about how they made albums back then? It seems like they take a more comfortable and relaxed approach own then they did then, as they should... After all they're pushing 60! With that said, I think CwA might be the best album you could get from them now. It sounds fresh, but still has lots of Rush idiosyncrasies we've all come to love from the band, whereas everything since and including T4E sounded like a band unsure where they wanted to go with their sound, at least to my ears. In regards to the sound quality, you can find my thoughts on that topic all over the last few days' threads. In short, it's not the worst sounding contemporary rock record I've heard, but it has plenty of room for improvement.

QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 14 2012, 02:13 PM) QUOTE (Earthshine @ Jun 14 2012, 02:29 AM) Don't know. But I can't help but wonder what this music would sound like with the production as on Power Windows: big, full, balanced and not so compressed. I would much rather prefer a bigger drum sound. Maybe Neil needs to get rid of those DW's and go back to Ludwig, which are the best sounding drums he ever had. The red Tamas sounded great too. But the white Ludwigs were the best. The Power Windows production is just amazing. So crisp and dynamic I have a vinyl rip of it that I've used to test my car stereo after installing new components. Great sounding album.

Brickwalled: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SIifrT-siyE/ST3OeU0X5TI/AAAAAAAABX8/4tfP_GZLIkY/s320/noise.jpg Not brickwalled: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2479/4018672400_69ebd89499.jpg CwA isn't really brickwalled, but it's pretty close. It sounds like the individual tracks were compressed a lot before being mixed and mastered. Here's the famous example of Metallica's Death Magnetic album, where the Guitar Hero tracks sounded wayyyy better than the actual cd. Top is cd, bottom is Guitar Hero: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Metallica_My_Apocalypse_waveform.png/640px-Metallica_My_Apocalypse_waveform.png

QUOTE (losingit2k @ Jun 14 2012, 01:52 PM) QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 14 2012, 12:49 PM) QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Jun 14 2012, 10:45 AM) QUOTE (D3strukt @ Jun 14 2012, 12:08 PM) I do feel this way. I listen to these records via a 3k 7.1 Bose sound system, records, not CD's. There's no punch. The bass is just an undefined rumble, not a KICK, especially in the drums once again. I am listening on a fairly nice system too, and the bass rumbles so much in The Anarchist, you can't hear much else, let alone Geddy's bass line. I think its the Taurus pedals. You cant really hear the tone, it's just a bunch of added bottom end. damn, I said I'd shut the f**k up Nope, You're right The Anarchist is the song where this is most common. True, but even low-frequency Taurus Pedals can sound clear without over saturating the sound field. Check out the last verse of Genesis's Back in NYC (and NOT on the recent remix either). That's the first one that comes to mind.

QUOTE (D3strukt @ Jun 14 2012, 01:08 PM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jun 14 2012, 12:03 PM) QUOTE (D3strukt @ Jun 14 2012, 10:59 AM) How can anyone like the mix on 2112, and COS at all? Both are extremely thin sounding, especially in the drums. They lack punch. All of the 70's albums do, barring PeW. I'm sorry, you can't possibly feel that way. Trenken has already told us that there were no sound issues before VT. Between your list and my list that pretty much covers everything. Just kidding, Trenken. I do feel this way. I listen to these records via a 3k 7.1 Bose sound system, records, not CD's. There's no punch. The bass is just an undefined rumble, not a KICK, especially in the drums once again. I LOVE them, I do love the sound of them. But they do leave a bit to be desired, sometimes. They sound much more powerful live. Hemispheres is probably the best sounding record out of all of them. Do you get what i'm trying to explain, in my messy way of explaining myself? Sorry, but IMO that is part of your problem then. I do think 2112 sounds better than CoS, but that it doesn't sound as good as AFTK or Hemi.

QUOTE (Running Rebel @ Jun 14 2012, 12:20 PM) But, I think despite the accusation that this isn't Neil's voice, I kind of think it actually is. When he was young and angry, and "right" and unreasonable because he felt he knew everything, a trademark of a true "Randian". He obviously goes much darker with it in the story, but as he said about the line, I consider myself a partial "Randian" or "Randroid" and that is the furthest thing from the truth. A true Randian only thinks they know everything about what they want in life, not everything in general. Gotta love the common misconceptions about what Rand was all about. If you were to read any of her stuff and compare it to what's going on economically and globally you'd be astounded at how prophetic she was in a lot of ways. To each his own. I'm not going to waste time trying to convert someone, but it never ceases to amaze me what everyone assumes they know about Objectivism. Another thread, another day. I do hope that someone can post this interview somewhere. It sounds very interesting. And I for one hope they don't tour with an orchestra. That sort of defeats the purpose of Rush for me, but whatever.

Cool thanks! What software did you use?

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jun 14 2012, 12:59 PM) QUOTE (marblesmike @ Jun 14 2012, 10:53 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jun 14 2012, 12:50 PM) Well, I didn't mean everything from the last 20 years sounds exactly the same, there are definitely relative differences between rock albums. But overall everything has gotten much more saturated and louder and more dense and that factor alone is a turnoff to many older fans even when one is done better than another. To me S&A sounds much, much better than VT (what doesn't?) for instance but that still doesn't mean that S&A sounds like something from the 70s. It's still incredibly "thick" relative to any older albums. That's all I meant. Gotcha. It isn't all or nothing. Just because CwA doesn't sound sonically great doesn't mean it is as bad sounding as VT. Exactly. I'm still waiting on my fan pack so I don't even have the CD yet to test on my stereo but from what I can tell it sounds like it's between VT and S&A in terms of clarity. The HD stereo version is available now and I'm going to get it soon. I haven't seen anybody else comment on it and I'm curious if it helps any. I'd hold out on the high-res version. Same dynamic compression as the redbook version. Vinyl seems to have the least amount of compression.

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jun 14 2012, 12:50 PM) Well, I didn't mean everything from the last 20 years sounds exactly the same, there are definitely relative differences between rock albums. But overall everything has gotten much more saturated and louder and more dense and that factor alone is a turnoff to many older fans even when one is done better than another. To me S&A sounds much, much better than VT (what doesn't?) for instance but that still doesn't mean that S&A sounds like something from the 70s. It's still incredibly "thick" relative to any older albums. That's all I meant. Gotcha. It isn't all or nothing. Just because CwA doesn't sound sonically great doesn't mean it is as bad sounding as VT.

QUOTE (losingit2k @ Jun 14 2012, 12:44 PM) QUOTE (MarKo @ Jun 14 2012, 11:40 AM) Been listening to the CD in the car for a week or so now and I'm definitely in the "it's muddy" corner... Been turning it up and down all the time in between sections... However, I ripped it into Itunes and popped it onto my iPod and that seems to have improved things as far as "too loud" and losing the vocals goes... The bass has also been pushed back a little... Obviously it has reduced the overall quality but that's what I'll be listening to CA on for the forseeable.... Shouldn't have to do this though..... And yes.....we should complain if we're not happy, otherwise nothing will change. I pay a lot of money to support my favourite band.... You know what's going to change? That is going to stop producing albums! I don't think they'll stop making albums if we complain about sound quality. They'll stop when they don't have the fire and desire to see what they can come up with next. If hearing people complain about them was going to stop them they would have hung it up longgggg ago.

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 14 2012, 10:46 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jun 14 2012, 07:43 AM) QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 14 2012, 08:19 AM) Lol best album since the early 80s. Gotta love when people pass their opinion off as fact. And sound quality has ALWAYS been important. Problem is before VT, none of the albums had any particular sound problems, so there was nothing to discuss in that area. VT obviously was a disaster that could not be ignored, and this album has a bit of a cloudy or hazy sound to it, like it wasnt mastered well. The drums really lack punch, and the guitars dont sound very crisp to me. You cant blame that on technology or anything else other than it just wasnt mixed or mastered well. That's just reality. Seriously?! It was never an issue? Signals and ESL were so bad and muffled and dead-sounding I thought there was something wrong with my cassettes back in the 80s when I first bought them. And even though they don't bother me too much most people constantly rag on how bad Presto and RTB sound. The first Rush album sounds like it was recorded on some Fisher-Price console. Many people think GUP is horrible-sounding, too because it's so cold and brittle. I grew up with 70s and 80s rock so the louder mastering style still bothers me too but this issue has nothing to do with anyone doing a "bad" job, most people simply think this is the way rock is supposed to sound. Every band forum I go to for older bands with older fans has the same ongoing problem. And everybody thinks their band just didn't do a good job. I think what's happening is you've got a group of old fans for all these classic bands who quit listening to new rock at least 20 years ago except for the specific bands they follow and so they keep comparing their newer albums to the old albums instead of comparing them to what everyone else has sounded like for 20 freaking years now. So when I go to the Van Halen forum I see: ADKoT Production - Brickwalled Dynamics http://www.vhlinks.com/vbforums/adkot-prod...led-t54364.html And if I go to Chickenfoot's forum I see: Chickenfoot Albums and Brickwalled Production http://www.vhlinks.com/vbforums/showthread.php?p=1508400 And if I go to ZZ Top's forum I see: Good songs but that is the most horrible brickwalling I have heard in ages. And on and on and on for every old band. This has nothing to do with Rush or people screwing up, music has changed over 20 years and many fans just are either in denial or oblivious. Again, I'm not saying we should pretend to like it, I wish stuff still sounded like the 70s and 80s too but it's just a different world. I'm 44 and my youngest sister is only 27 and some of her friends that I know are even in their early 20s and they only listen to music through their ipods or phones or whatever or maybe computer speakers. None of them own stereos. The younger guys in her group think older music sounds wimpy. So that's all there is to it. It's changed and it's not going back. I'm just amazed that for every single release for every one of these older bands for 20 years there's been the same shock that "things don't sound like they used to". Bunch of shut-ins. I really dont think thats the case. I listen to alot of current rock. I personally think the first mix of Caravan was perfection. I think this album is a step backward in overall production. I'm in my mid-20s, and listen to plenty of classic rock and modern rock (amongst other genres). There are still contemporary acts that mix/master their albums well, so it isn't just a dated-factor.