Irenicus

Try classical. But then you risk getting bored with everything else more or less, including progressive rock.

Is it just me or is TRF like the spammiest message board ever?

Nobody mentioned the greatest of all: Hal 9000

Lots of dynamics? More like no dynamics. >>> http://dr.loudness-w...lbum/view/71503 I'm not talking about the DR values of the mastering. I'm speaking of dynamics in the traditional sense. Can't agree on that either. I think they were playing it pretty safe with this album. Very traditional songwriting, hardly any challenges taken, whether compositionally or instrumentally. But then again they haven't really been ambitious for decades, with the slight exception of Vapor Trails. That was different, that wasn't just Rush like usual, they took a risk to change their sound again. Sure, it's not a masterpiece or anything, but at least it was fresh and modern sounding, not like an old band doing a throwback album like Clockwork Angels. That never works, because it's never as great as the classics.

Even if the original VT has a more organic sound, it is completely ruined by the brickwalling and clipping. It just sounds completely flat, muddy, noisy... gives me a headache. So for me it's the remix any day, because I care about my ears and I want to be able to differentiate between the instruments and hear details.

...it's an unparalleled masterpiece of epic proportions. Fact. NOT :laughing guy: :laughing guy: :laughing guy: Seriously, more like the worst song on S&A.

Lots of dynamics? More like no dynamics. >>> http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/71503

Still as overrated as ever. Only a few really good songs there.

Don't let yourself be fooled, Polaris, these are not their heaviest albums, not even close. They just have that modern "wall of sound" with lots of layers and compression, which some people funnily perceive as heaviness. In fact there are only very few songs on these album that can be considered somewhat heavy as in heavy metal or hard rock heavy. Their heaviest albums would be Caress of Steel, 2112 and Hemispheres, but of course they never really played metal. Otherwise I agree with Lucas' recommendation. I would also include Caress of Steel.

It may have worked for you, but that doesn't mean it would for others too. Personally I can only say, chance is very high I would have never listened to anything else of Rush after hearing Stick It Out or for that matter the whole Counterparts. I think people should always start with the classic stuff, generally for any band, because that's the stuff that got them famous, which usually happens for a reason.

I think it sucks. Glad they went with the actual one.

Weird to see so many voting yes here. I thought it's pretty common to listen to music while you're surfing the internet, I do it every time.

That was a joke, I guess?

Didn't take the test. I'm not at home atm and don't have access to decent audio gear here. Gonna get back to on that at the weekend. I would not necessarily except to score 6/6 though. Why? Because of the Katy Perry and Jay Z (and probably Coldplay too) samples. As I said before, it also depends on the kind of music whether you need higher quality. Modern mainstream music (like those two examples) is usually produced in a way that takes a lot of life from the music. A lot of compression, so called brickwalling takes all the dynamics away. On top of that most simple electronic beats have barely any richness or depth of sound which means there is not much information to be lost when converting to lossy audio files. So yeah, people who mostly listen to Top40 stuff don't really need to bother with lossless audio and hi-fi gear. People who listen to classical, jazz or ambient (for examle) however, absolutely yes! Another thing is, the human ear just like any other sense can be trained and improved. Professional musicians usually have better hearing than most other people for a reason. But that doesn't mean you need to be a musician, you can also train your ears by listening to higher quality recordings and with better equipment, so that your ears adjust to all the subtleties. To put it more simply, if you're used to listen to 128 kbs mp3s on cheap speakers/headphones, you can't expect to easily tell the difference between 320 kbs and lossless from one minute to another. Also, a question to you: What kind of audio gear did you use for the test? I'm guessing standard pc speakers?

You definitely need higher end audio gear to tell a clear difference between 320 kbs mp3 files and lossless audio. Most people don't have that, which is why most people don't need lossless audio. However, even with low-end equipment, to me mp3 always sounds somewhat flat and less dynamic. But it also depends on the music, because some music needs higher bitrates and some not. But then, some people may just not have the best hearing, so they wouldn't hear the difference anyway.

How is anything from Presto to Test for Echo a synth album while Signals isn't? The former albums are all guitar based and barely have synth parts and if anything then they are background (with some exceptions). Signals on the other hand is full of synth which is often very dominating. Some people just don't know what they're talking about, if you ask me. Synth period: Signals to HYF, very obviously

Trying to improve audio quality from a mp3 rip? That's like trying to improve video quality from a bad vhs cassette rip.

The most overrated Rush album by far. A few good songs, the rest is meh or decent at best.

Wrong. Technically CD has much higher possible dynamic range, but with most popular music it's not utilized at all, because it's compressed and brickwalled. Classical music does utilize it to its full potential.

Feel free to donate us the money for flight and hotel then. Not everyone is rich.

Did everyone else notice that the setlist is in reverse chronological order? I guess I'm just stating the obvious right?

What do you guys think, what are the chances of them bringing this to Europe? I mean, they came here on every tour since R30, so why not this time? They can't do an incredible set like this and ignore Europe wtf...

I think you need to learn the difference between fan and fanboy.

Of course Tombstone Mountain is happy about the setlist, after all he's a deluded CA fanboy :P I don't believe the setlist is real though. Camera Eye again? Hemispheres AND Cygnus X-1? Nah... In general there are too many epics in there for it to be legit. Also GeminiRising79 is absolutely right. Having standards and not praising Rush for everything they do is not in any way whining. Try harder, fanboys...

Now that is ludicrous. Both Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures still had a lot in common with 70s Rush. The guitar riffs, the song structures, even the sound. Signals was the album that sounded completely different, and of course the following albums even more so...