Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'remaster'.
Found 2 results
-
I'm intrigued by Rush's upcoming 2015 re-re-re-releases of all the Mercury-era albums ('75-'88), specifically about the Hi-Res format. Sony's been aggressively marketing and getting lots of press about their recent attempt to push the format to the mainstream. I know that "high definition" audio (anything over 44.1 / 16-bit audio - CD quality) has been around pretty much as long as the CD itself, but in this day and age, nobody seems to care. While I do think that the iTunes era isn't as detrimental or bad to the listening experience as people seem to overdramatize, there is somewhat of an appetite for the next step. I've noticed over the years there have been countless Rush re-releases and special editions on albums released in SACD, High definition audio, 5.1 surround mixes, the Sectors box set... The original CD releases back in the 80s were a bit before my time, I bought every single 1997 Rush Remasters CD. But, people say these ones are WAY better than the rush remasters, or any recent remasters. I was a sucker though and wanted the original artwork (which was missing on the older 80s CDs) and thought, hey if its remastered, its GOTTA be better (to my ears it was just louder). Never bothered to get the Sectors box set, although the samples i've heard, they sound good, if not almost no difference (to me) compared to the 1997 remasters. So ANYWAYS - does anybody have practical, first hand experiences outlining the differences between all of them? Or perhaps some of the lesser mainstream, audiophile specific releases? Such as those on HDtracks.com, the SACDs, DVD audio , etc?
-
So being bored on a Friday night and a lack of Rush news was wondering if the powers that be managed to produce a 5.1 mix of Signals how come they never did a proper stereo remix. If you play the 5.1 mix in stereo from the Sector 3 boxset you get this weird version as though the engineer had one too many reefers.
