Majestyk Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Many sources state the original CD's can be cranked higher without getting distorted but when you get right down to it, I think the differences people hear are from the different equipment they have. The only RM, at present, that I can say doesn't sound very good is Permanent Waves. This week I'm going to compare the RM of Farewell to Kings vs the original Canadian Anthem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 QUOTE (Majestyk @ Jan 6 2011, 09:50 AM) Many sources state the original CD's can be cranked higher without getting distorted but when you get right down to it, I think the differences people hear are from the different equipment they have. The only RM, at present, that I can say doesn't sound very good is Permanent Waves. This week I'm going to compare the RM of Farewell to Kings vs the original Canadian Anthem. True, that's the reason for most of the different perceptions right there. People have different ears and different listening equipment and environments. The same audio source is going the vary wildly based on that. If your preferred method of listening to music is in the car with the top down so the music has to compete with road noise, wind noise, and engine noise then there's no point in caring about details in the music (I mean, hey, I like doing that too but that's not the main way I enjoy music). Buying a higher quality version of an album and then just listening to it on low bit rate mp3s on an ipod is not exactly doing anything for you. It would be like hooking up a Bluray player to an old 14 inch 4:3 TV from the 70s and then saying it's no better than Betamax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappa_da_bass Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jan 6 2011, 10:43 AM) QUOTE (Majestyk @ Jan 6 2011, 09:25 AM) Here's a good thread on the remastered vs original CD's and it even gets detailed as to which exact CD's to get...None of which are the remasters. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=213809 I appreciate that but sometimes I trust my ears more than graphs. Some of the remasters like Caress of Steel, Hemispheres, and Signals are night and day better than the original flat and dead sounding cds to my ears. Although I do think the Signals Gold cd is even better than the remastered version (but also has the missing lyrics on The Weapon). I don't know, everybody hears things differently but I couldn't go back to my originals cds. With poor speakers or headphones, this is always true; a remastering that "unnaturally" emphasizes certain parts of the frequency signature will sound "punchier" or "warmer" or just "better" than an original recording which will sound "flat", because it covers over the deficiencies in how the poorer-quality equipment reproduces sound. However, with quality equipment, the "flat" recording will always be more appreciable because all the fine nuances are retained from the original recording (usually). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 QUOTE (slappa_da_bass @ Jan 6 2011, 12:45 PM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jan 6 2011, 10:43 AM) QUOTE (Majestyk @ Jan 6 2011, 09:25 AM) Here's a good thread on the remastered vs original CD's and it even gets detailed as to which exact CD's to get...None of which are the remasters. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=213809 I appreciate that but sometimes I trust my ears more than graphs. Some of the remasters like Caress of Steel, Hemispheres, and Signals are night and day better than the original flat and dead sounding cds to my ears. Although I do think the Signals Gold cd is even better than the remastered version (but also has the missing lyrics on The Weapon). I don't know, everybody hears things differently but I couldn't go back to my originals cds. With poor speakers or headphones, this is always true; a remastering that "unnaturally" emphasizes certain parts of the frequency signature will sound "punchier" or "warmer" or just "better" than an original recording which will sound "flat", because it covers over the deficiencies in how the poorer-quality equipment reproduces sound. However, with quality equipment, the "flat" recording will always be more appreciable because all the fine nuances are retained from the original recording (usually). Well, except that I've got a very expensive stereo with high quality speakers. Again, it's mostly subjective but there is no question that for me the remasters are better. I would never tell someone else they shouldn't prefer the originals though. I'm just glad that we have the options. Lots of first pressings of cds were inferior to the original albums though to me, the remasters correct that. And it's not always that they're just "louder". I much prefer the TFE remaster because the original had a slight fuzziness there that's gone now to my ears. Oh well, like I said, the only thing that frustrates me is for people to say there's no difference. Clearly some prefer one over the other and that's fine but I think anyone who pays attention will know that there is a difference between the remasters and the originals. Or the gold cds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun3701 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 As much as I'd love to have a high-end stereo to blast my Rush CDs on, I'm not currently able to afford one so I'm stuck listening on tiny computer speakers or my car stereo. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have thousands to blow on stereo equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun3701 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Speaking of the PeW remaster, has anyone purchased this: http://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Waves-Omr-...94364434&sr=8-3 I think I'm going to buy it. It came out in 2008 but I don't remember hearing anything about this release at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappa_da_bass Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jan 6 2011, 02:28 PM) QUOTE (slappa_da_bass @ Jan 6 2011, 12:45 PM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jan 6 2011, 10:43 AM) QUOTE (Majestyk @ Jan 6 2011, 09:25 AM) Here's a good thread on the remastered vs original CD's and it even gets detailed as to which exact CD's to get...None of which are the remasters. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=213809 I appreciate that but sometimes I trust my ears more than graphs. Some of the remasters like Caress of Steel, Hemispheres, and Signals are night and day better than the original flat and dead sounding cds to my ears. Although I do think the Signals Gold cd is even better than the remastered version (but also has the missing lyrics on The Weapon). I don't know, everybody hears things differently but I couldn't go back to my originals cds. With poor speakers or headphones, this is always true; a remastering that "unnaturally" emphasizes certain parts of the frequency signature will sound "punchier" or "warmer" or just "better" than an original recording which will sound "flat", because it covers over the deficiencies in how the poorer-quality equipment reproduces sound. However, with quality equipment, the "flat" recording will always be more appreciable because all the fine nuances are retained from the original recording (usually). Well, except that I've got a very expensive stereo with high quality speakers. Again, it's mostly subjective but there is no question that for me the remasters are better. I would never tell someone else they shouldn't prefer the originals though. I'm just glad that we have the options. Lots of first pressings of cds were inferior to the original albums though to me, the remasters correct that. And it's not always that they're just "louder". I much prefer the TFE remaster because the original had a slight fuzziness there that's gone now to my ears. Oh well, like I said, the only thing that frustrates me is for people to say there's no difference. Clearly some prefer one over the other and that's fine but I think anyone who pays attention will know that there is a difference between the remasters and the originals. Or the gold cds. Expensive doesn't = quality. But of course, each person is different in what they "like", so the discussion is pretty much moot, I'm just saying a non-compressed recording with a lot of dynamic range almost invariably sounds better to most people given quality equipment with a flat frequency response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertrobyn Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jan 6 2011, 08:41 PM) Speaking of the PeW remaster, has anyone purchased this: http://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Waves-Omr-...94364434&sr=8-3 I think I'm going to buy it. It came out in 2008 but I don't remember hearing anything about this release at all. I have this. It is called the MFSL gold disc. Mobil Fidelity Sound labs and it is worth every penny. That is a killer price since EPAY is way in the 30's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 All the Rush MFSL CD's rock! I have all of them except MP. Just gorgeous sounding masters, especially if you have nice speakers. All the SHM-CD's sound fantastic as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestyk Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The MFSL Permanent Waves is much better than the remaster. My listening test lasted 10 seconds for me to tell the difference. I was kind of disappointed that it didn't last longer. It was nice to hear the MFSL was not louder, which tends to make people think that's a good thing. I have read, in some instances, that the original is even better than the MFSL. I'm going to try and snag a copy and I'll compare. 2112 MFSL is supposed to be the worst of the four. I've read way too many comments (on this and other forums) stating that it's too bright and shrilly sounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jan 6 2011, 07:36 PM) As much as I'd love to have a high-end stereo to blast my Rush CDs on, I'm not currently able to afford one so I'm stuck listening on tiny computer speakers or my car stereo. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have thousands to blow on stereo equipment. No, of course not. I still can't afford the HDTV/HD cable/Bluray stuff that I want either. I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing people for not having the right equipment, my point was simply that if you don't have the equipment or the ears to appreciate the difference in sound quality (whichever version you prefer) you shouldn't say that it's a waste of money for other people who can tell the difference. I hear the same thing about HD video. I've heard lots of people tell me that Bluray is a waste of money because they can't tell much difference between that and regular dvd or else they just don't care. That's fine. But there is a difference and for the people who can appreciate it it is worth the money. By the way, I wasn't saying you were saying any of these things, I just mean people in general. Most people don't need or even want high end stuff anyway, I've still got a rather ancient cell phone that my friends make fun of but it's all I want. All I want is to punch in the phone number and talk. Other people can't live without iphones. That's why it's great to have options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merely Space Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jan 7 2011, 09:52 AM) QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jan 6 2011, 07:36 PM) As much as I'd love to have a high-end stereo to blast my Rush CDs on, I'm not currently able to afford one so I'm stuck listening on tiny computer speakers or my car stereo. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have thousands to blow on stereo equipment. No, of course not. I still can't afford the HDTV/HD cable/Bluray stuff that I want either. I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing people for not having the right equipment, my point was simply that if you don't have the equipment or the ears to appreciate the difference in sound quality (whichever version you prefer) you shouldn't say that it's a waste of money for other people who can tell the difference. I hear the same thing about HD video. I've heard lots of people tell me that Bluray is a waste of money because they can't tell much difference between that and regular dvd or else they just don't care. That's fine. But there is a difference and for the people who can appreciate it it is worth the money. By the way, I wasn't saying you were saying any of these things, I just mean people in general. Most people don't need or even want high end stuff anyway, I've still got a rather ancient cell phone that my friends make fun of but it's all I want. All I want is to punch in the phone number and talk. Other people can't live without iphones. That's why it's great to have options. Oh, good Lord! Stop talking sense! This is the internet, ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (Merely Space @ Jan 7 2011, 08:59 AM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jan 7 2011, 09:52 AM) QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jan 6 2011, 07:36 PM) As much as I'd love to have a high-end stereo to blast my Rush CDs on, I'm not currently able to afford one so I'm stuck listening on tiny computer speakers or my car stereo. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have thousands to blow on stereo equipment. No, of course not. I still can't afford the HDTV/HD cable/Bluray stuff that I want either. I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing people for not having the right equipment, my point was simply that if you don't have the equipment or the ears to appreciate the difference in sound quality (whichever version you prefer) you shouldn't say that it's a waste of money for other people who can tell the difference. I hear the same thing about HD video. I've heard lots of people tell me that Bluray is a waste of money because they can't tell much difference between that and regular dvd or else they just don't care. That's fine. But there is a difference and for the people who can appreciate it it is worth the money. By the way, I wasn't saying you were saying any of these things, I just mean people in general. Most people don't need or even want high end stuff anyway, I've still got a rather ancient cell phone that my friends make fun of but it's all I want. All I want is to punch in the phone number and talk. Other people can't live without iphones. That's why it's great to have options. Oh, good Lord! Stop talking sense! This is the internet, ya know. Sorry! I forgot the proper etiquette. Or lack thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (Majestyk @ Jan 7 2011, 04:26 AM) The MFSL Permanent Waves is much better than the remaster. My listening test lasted 10 seconds for me to tell the difference. I was kind of disappointed that it didn't last longer. It was nice to hear the MFSL was not louder, which tends to make people think that's a good thing. I have read, in some instances, that the original is even better than the MFSL. I'm going to try and snag a copy and I'll compare. 2112 MFSL is supposed to be the worst of the four. I've read way too many comments (on this and other forums) stating that it's too bright and shrilly sounding. Absolutely not true about the MFSL of 2112. I own it and it is hands down the best master of the album. I don't get those who call it shrill. For gods sake, it's Geddy Lee in 1976! Shrill, by definition was how most people heard his voice back then. No, the 2112 MFSL is like all the others, a stunner. If they would master all of Rush's albums, I'd buy them all; they're that good!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordgt99 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 VT will probably be the only one I'd get, depending on if it sounds any better than the original cd. I finally got all of the Mercury studio remasters this summer. I didn't bother with the remasters of Presto-Test For Echo and I don't have Exit Stage Left or All The World's a Stage yet. Don't see a need in re-buying the catalog again. What I have sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestyk Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE Absolutely not true about the MFSL of 2112. I own it and it is hands down the best master of the album. I don't get those who call it shrill. For gods sake, it's Geddy Lee in 1976! Shrill, by definition was how most people heard his voice back then. No, the 2112 MFSL is like all the others, a stunner. If they would master all of Rush's albums, I'd buy them all; they're that good!! I'm not just talking about Geddy's voice, but everything including symbols. In any case, I've read over 20 posts from people saying they hated the MFSL 2112 and that's enough for me to stay away. I'm very picky about sound and I know my ears will pick up what they are reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revizx Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Please make vinyl boxsets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todem Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (Majestyk @ Jan 10 2011, 01:33 AM) QUOTE Absolutely not true about the MFSL of 2112. I own it and it is hands down the best master of the album. I don't get those who call it shrill. For gods sake, it's Geddy Lee in 1976! Shrill, by definition was how most people heard his voice back then. No, the 2112 MFSL is like all the others, a stunner. If they would master all of Rush's albums, I'd buy them all; they're that good!! I'm not just talking about Geddy's voice, but everything including symbols. In any case, I've read over 20 posts from people saying they hated the MFSL 2112 and that's enough for me to stay away. I'm very picky about sound and I know my ears will pick up what they are reporting. Don't knock it till you try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnals Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 If these are remastered in 5.1, I'll be very interested in buying them. If not, just the VT remaster would be purchased by me then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Slipperman Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 At one time I had all the Rush MFSL's (2112, Signals, Moving Pics)... the only one I kept was Moving Pictures. I found the 2112 MFSL to be too bright for my tastes. Probably best to test for yourself and see how you feel about it. Oddly enough, after upgrading to all the last round of Remasters, I wound up going back to the originals for nearly everything. The remasters in general have more bass and more treble. If you like that sound, more power to you. I don't. I went back to the originals, where (in general) I liked the EQ balance much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun3701 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Why does everyone seem so certain we're getting a VT remaster? I was under the impression these would only be Rush - HYF remasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jan 10 2011, 09:28 PM) Why does everyone seem so certain we're getting a VT remaster? I was under the impression these would only be Rush - HYF remasters. Why would you be under that impression when the only actual news tidbit we've gotten specifically states it's the entire catalog through Vapor Trails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun3701 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jan 10 2011, 11:37 PM) QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jan 10 2011, 09:28 PM) Why does everyone seem so certain we're getting a VT remaster? I was under the impression these would only be Rush - HYF remasters. Why would you be under that impression when the only actual news tidbit we've gotten specifically states it's the entire catalog through Vapor Trails? It does? Is there a link or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jan 10 2011, 10:51 PM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Jan 10 2011, 11:37 PM) QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jan 10 2011, 09:28 PM) Why does everyone seem so certain we're getting a VT remaster? I was under the impression these would only be Rush - HYF remasters. Why would you be under that impression when the only actual news tidbit we've gotten specifically states it's the entire catalog through Vapor Trails? It does? Is there a link or something? I already posted the source of the info with the original quotes and the only follow up we've had in the middle of the first page of this thread. Edit: Ok, well now that I reread it it's a little ambiguous. Ed's follow up comment that specifies that it's everything through VT is from only a few days ago and he's on the money the vast majority of the time. But the original magazine blurb doesn't say that like I thought it did. I guess the bottom line is that we just need to wait for an official announcement from the band. This part is the only reference in the article: ... Rush's back catalogue will be the subject of a major reissues campaign in 2011 ... Here's the link with the magazine scan: http://www.rushisaband.com/display.php?id=2168 And this was Ed's comment in his year end wrap up: Something else we could potentially see in 2011 is another reissue of Rush's entire back catalog. This was mentioned briefly in a Prog magazine article earlier this year but no details were given. From what I've been hearing lately, this will coincide with the release of Clockwork Angels and include Rush's entire catalog up through and including Vapor Trails. Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oracle Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I could definitely see this happening. Would definitely be my major music purchase of this year. However, why not make a huge box set of all the albums (including live) like Genesis did a few years back? Make a box set of remastered albums, add in a DVD which contains the album in a Dolby 5.1 and DTS mix along with any promotional videos/live stuff and maybe a few interviews about the process into making that album. For those of us plebeians who would be unable to buy this huge collection, release the remastered albums individually with said extra DVD with the same features. Of course, it doesn't have to be something as big as this. Releasing them in a standard CD or SACD format is just as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.