Irenicus

Clarity with instruments? I own the arguably best dynamic high-end headphones with easily the best stereo-imaging and soundstage on the market (Sennheiser HD 800) driven by what's considered the best DAC on the market (Benchmark DAC2) and I'm baffled by this statement. I have a CA vinyl rip which is an improvement over the CD version, but it's still a muddy wall-of-sound mess. Granted, original VT is worse, but that's not saying much exactly. I really don't know how anyone can talk about clarity with CA, especially compared to old Rush like Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures. Now THAT is clarity, my friend.

One of their worst albums along with Roll the Bones and Test for Echo. Very bland, generic songwriting and a lame attempt at alternative rock which doesn't suit Rush at all. Only hearing this album you may never be quite sure why people consider Rush in any way musically ambitious or for that matter, more interesting than the popular grunge/alternative rock bands.

That has to be a joke. Even if you equal technical skill with talent, they aren't close to the best.

GUP clearly. GUP vs. Signals would be more interesting, I think.

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

No, it's the year of release, nobody questions that Permanent Waves was released in 1980, because that's a fact. People question whether the music "belongs" to the same year simply because it was publicized on record then. I mean, what if an album gets recorded in, say, 1975 but (for some reason) only gets released 10 years later in 1985? Does it belong to the 80s then just because it was shelved until then? Not really. It would be a product of the '70s because that's when it was created. Just like Permanent Waves. In the end though, this is really quite pointless.

Another prime example of American's arrogance and ignorance of other cultures.

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.

Seriously? I think that song doesn't show one bit of the awesomeness Rush usually have... But then again I don't think much of Counterparts in general.

Working Man R30 live version on Youtube, someone in another band forum had the link in his signature.

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?

What numbers? The numbers in the polls disprove it obviously. And I posted the RYM link, that should be enough ratings for you, plus it's not just Rush fans. But you just don't want to realize that you're living in a dream world where CA is a classic album, so you're ignoring the facts. ;) Oh feel free to show us those recordings.

And if Tombstone wants more votes, check RYM: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush It's pretty much the same there as here, except Power Windows is below CA. If I remember correctly, even S&A was much higher regarded at first, same probably with Vapor Trails.

More like your continuing hype of CA is laughable. This poll is indeed a good representation of the mass of fans, whether young or old. You just can't deal with it, that's all. The more time passes, the less is CA regarded actually. I still remember how almost everyone hyped it at first. But now? Not so much anymore compared to other albums (real classics). The novelty effect wears off.

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?