WCFIELDS Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todem Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 QUOTE (Todem @ Apr 9 2011, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 9 2011, 04:54 PM) How many versions of this album do you have? Have you ever taken the time to compare this new release to a truly top notch master like the MFSL? If you havent then, how can you say anything I've commented on regearding this release is nonsense? Calling me some name is one thing, but proving your opinion is another. Hey, I'm open to being proven wrong, so tell me why you think what I'm saying is nonsense. I'm all ears (tinny though they may be). On the remaster CD I agree with you. MFSL is the best version superbly warm. But I think your really off the mark on the BD 5.1 It is a totally new and fresh way to enjoy this legendary album. That is a subjective opinion through and through. But of course, every opinion is, by definition, subjective. I've said it before as well that I find the 5.1 DVD-A fun an neat to listen to but it is by no means an audiophile quality release. Other than the previously mentioned Gaucho, check out Fleetwood Macs Rumours, Beck's Sea Change, or the Eagles Hotel California if you want to hear what a really amazing audiophile DVD-A can sound like. If you can listen to any of the above mentioned albums and then tell me that the new Moving Pictures is in the same class, then nothing will ever change your mind. I only ask you to try it before you bash what I'm saying. We can play nice hear. There's no reason to be harsh about it folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todem Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Hunter Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Maybe I shouldn't have pre-ordered it... I'm a little surprised about the 97 remaster comments, only because compared to the other bands I listen to the 97 MP is considerably quieter when on the same volume. So if this new one is quieter than that, it'll be all good for me! Plus, regardless of whether it's audiophile quality or not, I'm still really excited to hear MP in 5.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Sure, like I've said, I find the 5.1 remix to be fun to listen to and I was one of the first in Anchorage Alaska to pick this up at BB I have no doubt. That being said, my only gripe about it (and to be clear about this it is MY OPINION, not to be taken as saying I think its fact) is that the audio quality is not nearly as good as it could have been. Does Alex have an absolute right (a long with Geddy and Neil) to decide how their albums should soun when remastered/remixed? Of course. They should have the right of first refusal when deciding what is good enough for release or not. I'm just saying that there are other companies out there (MFSL in particular) that have released versions of Rush's albums that blow versions produced by the band out of the water in terms of warmth, detail and dynamics. Moving Pictures is one of those albums. The 5.1 is a real kick to listen to and I'm glad I bought the DVD-A release. I'm just saying it could have been SO much better quality of a release. I hope for better results when the release the other albums and even though I'm bummed about the sound quality of this new release, I'll still be first in line when the other albums are re-released. Why? Because I love Rush!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Hunter Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 9 2011, 10:32 PM) Sure, like I've said, I find the 5.1 remix to be fun to listen to and I was one of the first in Anchorage Alaska to pick this up at BB I have no doubt. That being said, my only gripe about it (and to be clear about this it is MY OPINION, not to be taken as saying I think its fact) is that the audio quality is not nearly as good as it could have been. Does Alex have an absolute right (a long with Geddy and Neil) to decide how their albums should soun when remastered/remixed? Of course. They should have the right of first refusal when deciding what is good enough for release or not. I'm just saying that there are other companies out there (MFSL in particular) that have released versions of Rush's albums that blow versions produced by the band out of the water in terms of warmth, detail and dynamics. Moving Pictures is one of those albums. The 5.1 is a real kick to listen to and I'm glad I bought the DVD-A release. I'm just saying it could have been SO much better quality of a release. I hope for better results when the release the other albums and even though I'm bummed about the sound quality of this new release, I'll still be first in line when the other albums are re-released. Why? Because I love Rush!! Regardless of what it could have sounded like, how does IT sound. No comparisons to other MP releases, no comparisons to other 5.1 releases and all the could've beens and should've beens, give us all a plain review of what we'll have(possibly) in our hands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Here's my question. I don't have a good home theater set up at all....so would it still be worth getting really? I'm also not an audiophile and think the remastered CD sounds pretty good (some hate it). Given that, is it still something I should pursue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrapin Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 ak2112, Are you high dude? The 5.1 remaster is fab. I'm not entirely sure what you are on about, but you appear to be a cloth-eared cretin, searching for 15 minutes of cyber attention... So, you're an "Audiophile" eh? Because you say so? Based on what credentials? Please engage your ears before typing in future... You'll find two of them on either side of your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micgtr71 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I believe that they already released the definitive version of this album. It came out 30 and a couple of months ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbirdsong Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I got the Blu Ray version and I like it. I will say that the new CD sounds better than the 1997 remaster, but beyond that I just want to enjoy the album when I feel like listening to it. What do all you folks who hate the new version want? What is the ideal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I bought the DVD version of this, as I didn't think it was worth paying extra for the same audio on a Bluray, but apparently, the Bluray is the only one with DTS sound, and that is often preferable to DD5.1 or DVD-Audio. I've now ordered the Bluray as well, so will reserve judgement until I hear it, but I have to admit to being slightly disappointed with the DVD version. I was really hoping for some window rattling bass at the start of Tom Sawyer, and it would have been a nice touch if the synths at the start of TCE went around the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Well, I think it sounds fantastic. We set up our Surround system, all 4 speakers, and played the DVD audio. It was great from the first but when Limelight came on, it was like Al's guitar was filling the room - so expansive! Also outstanding, IMO, was Witch Hunt and Vital Signs. The Surround really made us feel as if we were in the center of the performance. It's all terrific in my (and my engineer Hubby's) opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todem Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxxiStarr Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I got the BD version today - it's amazing. Each instrument sounds clearer. Witch Hunt especially is gob smacking. I already said this on Facebook but to me it's like having listened before on 2D and this version is like 3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
third hand grace Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 BluRay DTS was better than the DVD by far IMO. My worry (and I'll have to listen again to be sure because I have not yet seen anyone confirm this) is that the bass and drums are not as defined as the guitar/synths, etc. It was awesome hearing the "bells and whistles" but I really struggled to hear the separation of the low end. (Tannoy 5.1 speakers/speakercraft sub.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shail Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 what about witch hunt. in the beginning the drum part with the cow bell. lots of tom tom hits. there is one electronic drum at the end of the phrase that is missing. you can hear it but barely. the cow bell is in the right rear speaker. they placed it there. the tom hits are moved around the speakers. but the last tom tom hit that comes every other bar is missing almost. why oh why did they miss this. also why is the synth in camera eye way way way in the background? in all other mixes it's in your freaking face! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 QUOTE (Terrapin @ Apr 10 2011, 08:09 PM) ak2112, Are you high dude? The 5.1 remaster is fab. I'm not entirely sure what you are on about, but you appear to be a cloth-eared cretin, searching for 15 minutes of cyber attention... So, you're an "Audiophile" eh? Because you say so? Based on what credentials? Please engage your ears before typing in future... You'll find two of them on either side of your head. Um, Ok. You dont know me but presume that I'm using some kind of mind-altering narcotic and call me a cretin searching for 15 minutes of cyberfame. Why? Because I dare to question the audio quality of this particular release? Have you seen the thread that I started here where I compared several different versions of Moving Pictures and gave my admittedly personal opinions of the plusses and minuses of each? And yes, I consider myself an audiophile. Why? Based on what standard? Websters defines an audiophile as: "a hobbyist who seeks high-quality audio reproduction via the use of specialized high-end audio electronics. Audiophiles prefer to listen to music at a quality level that is as close to the original performance as possible using high-fidelity components". So, its basically a person who tries to get the best possible sounding medium for music using specialized equipment. Based on that definition ANYONE can be an audiophile. I never claimed that I had some specialized training. Any of my views on this or any other album are just that, MY OPINION. What I can tell you is that I've spent the better part of the last 20 years collecting the best possible versions of my favorite albums (I now have 7 different masterings of Moving Pictures for instance) and putting together the best possible stereo system I could buy with my limited means. So yes, I feel I do have the experience and the equipment to give my own personal views on a given mastering of albums that I have knowledge of. I never said anywhere that people were not entitled to their own opinions. You like the new 30th Anniversay edition of Moving Pictures? Great. I mysself do not and for very specific reasons that I've already mentioned. Why you think the best retort to my postings is simply to be insulting to me is beyond me to understand, but it says more about you than it does me. Please feel free to ignore me in the future. You can be sure I will return the favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorshooter Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Absolutely. All that really matters is how good it sounds to YOU. Any views I've posted about it are my own personal opinions. shocking that some dislike my opinion so much that they find it necessary to be insulting about it. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cygnus_thegodofbalance Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Is it just me or do the vocals sound SUPER quiet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The main thing that irritates me about this release is that it's been advertised as a high Rez 24 bit/96kHz remaster when in fact it is not. It is an upsampled 16 bit/44.1kHz master. Now, many on here might not care about this kind of thing but myself and many others do since it is false advertising, bordering on fraud. It may be 5.1 folks, but it is not high Rez. Very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 13 2011, 04:23 PM) The main thing that irritates me about this release is that it's been advertised as a high Rez 24 bit/96kHz remaster when in fact it is not. It is an upsampled 16 bit/44.1kHz master. Now, many on here might not care about this kind of thing but myself and many others do since it is false advertising, bordering on fraud. It may be 5.1 folks, but it is not high Rez. Very sad. How does one find this kind of information out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioc Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 13 2011, 03:23 PM)The main thing that irritates me about this release is that it's been advertised as a high Rez 24 bit/96kHz remaster when in fact it is not. It is an upsampled 16 bit/44.1kHz master. Now, many on here might not care about this kind of thing but myself and many others do since it is false advertising, bordering on fraud. It may be 5.1 folks, but it is not high Rez. Very sad. Woah, woah. Hold the phones. It's not 24/96??? Sources, I need sources. Please spill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.