Best sounding version of Moving Pictures

[ak2112]

I have all the above versions except for the 25.8P, which I hear is stunning. To my ears, the MFSL is the best, followed closely by the Original US Atomic. Please note, this poll is for CD verions only, not vinyl. Thanks!

[ak2112]

My goodness. Someone actually voted for the 97 remaster? Do you have ears? Good Lord!!

[presto123]

Wonder what the vinyl rip flac files sound like?

[fordgt99]

QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 9 2011, 03:18 PM)

My goodness. Someone actually voted for the 97 remaster? Do you have ears? Good Lord!!

Please. Just because you think the remaster is the worst release doesn't mean it's THE truth. While the 5.1 might be the best, I don't have it yet nor do I have a 5.1 setup. Therefore based on what I've heard I rate:

 

1. Vinyl rip

2. 97 remaster

3. SHM (I honestly thing this a gimmick but the artwork IS better)

[ak2112]

QUOTE (fordgt99 @ Apr 9 2011, 05:08 PM)

QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 9 2011, 03:18 PM) My goodness.  Someone actually voted for the 97 remaster?  Do you have ears?  Good Lord!! Please. Just because you think the remaster is the worst release doesn't mean it's THE truth. While the 5.1 might be the best, I don't have it yet nor do I have a 5.1 setup. Therefore based on what I've heard I rate:   1. Vinyl rip 2. 97 remaster 3. SHM (I honestly thing this a gimmick but the artwork IS better) The 97 remaster is certainly the loudest, no question. If loudness = quality, then no version will ever touch it.

[hughes&kettner]

QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 9 2011, 03:10 PM)

I have all the above versions except for the 25.8P, which I hear is stunning. To my ears, the MFSL is the best, followed closely by the Original US Atomic. Please note, this poll is for CD verions only, not vinyl. Thanks!

True Dat!!

 

but my original 1981 vinyl LP still sounds better than all that digital stuff!!

 

[Presto-digitation]

Asked this in another thread, so pardon the repetition:

 

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?

 

 

 

[ak2112]

No, it isn't worth it if you don't have a good system. Much of the differences between masterings is subtle and will not be very apparent if you don't have the right equipment.

[Passage2]

Are any of the above options poncey names for the original vinyl? That's what would get my vote.

[Mara]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 10 2011, 12:31 PM)

Asked this in another thread, so pardon the repetition: 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?

Same here, except in addition to not having high-end equipment, I also have shitty hearing. The remaster sounds fine to me. But so does the original.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 10 2011, 01:54 PM)

No, it isn't worth it if you don't have a good system. Much of the differences between masterings is subtle and will not be very apparent if you don't have the right equipment.

Thought so. I'm glad I'm not burdened with this degree of detail quite honestly. That might sound convenient, but it seems to be this unhappy place that a lot (not all, clearly) of audiophiles seem to dwell in. I saw one guy who really dug the new Whitesnake album really compliment the crap out of the songs, calling it an excellent collection of songs....but gave it a one-star because he wasn't fond of the engineering. Now I'm not saying that's unimportant or isn't a character, not unlike the songs themselves, but in the end isn't the material more important? Poor engineering can be disappointing, but to listen to this bloke he seemed more put off by an average sounding great album than the other way around. Clearly this fellow put the BULK of the emphasis on HOW it sounds versus the songs. I think if you've reached this point of discretion, you've lost the forrest for the trees just a bit. Just my opinion.

[Mara]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 10 2011, 04:08 PM)

QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 10 2011, 01:54 PM) No, it isn't worth it if you don't have a good system. Much of the differences between masterings is subtle and will not be very apparent if you don't have the right equipment. Thought so. I'm glad I'm not burdened with this degree of detail quite honestly. That might sound convenient, but it seems to be this unhappy place that a lot (not all, clearly) of audiophiles seem to dwell in. I saw one guy who really dug the new Whitesnake album really compliment the crap out of the songs, calling it an excellent collection of songs....but gave it a one-star because he wasn't fond of the engineering. Now I'm not saying that's unimportant or isn't a character, not unlike the songs themselves, but in the end isn't the material more important? Poor engineering can be disappointing, but to listen to this bloke he seemed more put off by an average sounding great album than the other way around. Clearly this fellow put the BULK of the emphasis on HOW it sounds versus the songs. I think if you've reached this point of discretion, you've lost the forrest for the trees just a bit. Just my opinion. My first serious BF in college was an audio engineering genius (no really - he started college at 15) and yes, he was ALWAYS fiddling with the sound system, no matter where we happened to be. Then again, he also designed and built me some speakers that at the time were pretty much as good as anything Polk or Klipsch had on the market. So dating him had its perks.   I suppose it's like being an expert on anything - knowing too much can ruin the experience if you let it.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Mara

[ak2112]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 10 2011, 03:08 PM)

QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 10 2011, 01:54 PM) No, it isn't worth it if you don't have a good system. Much of the differences between masterings is subtle and will not be very apparent if you don't have the right equipment. Thought so. I'm glad I'm not burdened with this degree of detail quite honestly. That might sound convenient, but it seems to be this unhappy place that a lot (not all, clearly) of audiophiles seem to dwell in. I saw one guy who really dug the new Whitesnake album really compliment the crap out of the songs, calling it an excellent collection of songs....but gave it a one-star because he wasn't fond of the engineering. Now I'm not saying that's unimportant or isn't a character, not unlike the songs themselves, but in the end isn't the material more important? Poor engineering can be disappointing, but to listen to this bloke he seemed more put off by an average sounding great album than the other way around. Clearly this fellow put the BULK of the emphasis on HOW it sounds versus the songs. I think if you've reached this point of discretion, you've lost the forrest for the trees just a bit. Just my opinion. You raise a legit point certainly. Clearly the material on Moving Pictures is more important than the engineering within. However, if you DO own a good system then the differences in sound quality are very clear and something like the 97 remasters can be quite annoying to listen to after a very short period of time. It's grating and the distortion is very unpleasing to the ears. If you can get the same album but with a proper master with full dynamic range and great detail, why not get it? This is especially true if you have a nice stereo system. If all you're doing is listening to it on an ipod whilst you mow the lawn, then it probably doesnt make much of a difference. If, however, you're sitting in your living room with a nice, properly calibrated stereo system, then you WILL notice a difference. The MFSL of Moving Pictures is the way to listen to this album IMHO and if others dont agree thats fine. I do think its sad though, that the quality of a an albums production is now an afterthought. It wasnt always so.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Mara @ Apr 10 2011, 03:12 PM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 10 2011, 04:08 PM) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 10 2011, 01:54 PM) No, it isn't worth it if you don't have a good system. Much of the differences between masterings is subtle and will not be very apparent if you don't have the right equipment. Thought so. I'm glad I'm not burdened with this degree of detail quite honestly. That might sound convenient, but it seems to be this unhappy place that a lot (not all, clearly) of audiophiles seem to dwell in. I saw one guy who really dug the new Whitesnake album really compliment the crap out of the songs, calling it an excellent collection of songs....but gave it a one-star because he wasn't fond of the engineering. Now I'm not saying that's unimportant or isn't a character, not unlike the songs themselves, but in the end isn't the material more important? Poor engineering can be disappointing, but to listen to this bloke he seemed more put off by an average sounding great album than the other way around. Clearly this fellow put the BULK of the emphasis on HOW it sounds versus the songs. I think if you've reached this point of discretion, you've lost the forrest for the trees just a bit. Just my opinion. My first serious BF in college was an audio engineering genius (no really - he started college at 15) and yes, he was ALWAYS fiddling with the sound system, no matter where we happened to be. Then again, he also designed and built me some speakers that at the time were pretty much as good as anything Polk or Klipsch had on the market. So dating him had its perks.   I suppose it's like being an expert on anything - knowing too much can ruin the experience if you let it. And in all fairness, enhance it. I suppose the other side of never being too put off by the '97 remaster of MP is also never fulling "getting" that supposed fine tuned audio brilliance of the new release. It just seems like a ) a quality I don't possess and b ) a lot of money to spend that I don't have.   All that said I hear what people are talking about with an album like Vapor Trails. What I don't hear is when people say that's no different than what you're hearing with the '97 MP remaster. I still hear that with much more brilliance and clarity than the mud fest that was VT. I don't think you need to be too fine tuned to notice that Vapor Trails is in a Rush category all its own.   (Or is it?? Maybe I just wouldn't know)

Edited April 10, 2011 by Presto-digitation

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 10 2011, 03:15 PM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Apr 10 2011, 03:08 PM) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 10 2011, 01:54 PM) No, it isn't worth it if you don't have a good system. Much of the differences between masterings is subtle and will not be very apparent if you don't have the right equipment. Thought so. I'm glad I'm not burdened with this degree of detail quite honestly. That might sound convenient, but it seems to be this unhappy place that a lot (not all, clearly) of audiophiles seem to dwell in. I saw one guy who really dug the new Whitesnake album really compliment the crap out of the songs, calling it an excellent collection of songs....but gave it a one-star because he wasn't fond of the engineering. Now I'm not saying that's unimportant or isn't a character, not unlike the songs themselves, but in the end isn't the material more important? Poor engineering can be disappointing, but to listen to this bloke he seemed more put off by an average sounding great album than the other way around. Clearly this fellow put the BULK of the emphasis on HOW it sounds versus the songs. I think if you've reached this point of discretion, you've lost the forrest for the trees just a bit. Just my opinion. You raise a legit point certainly. Clearly the material on Moving Pictures is more important than the engineering within. However, if you DO own a good system then the differences in sound quality are very clear and something like the 97 remasters can be quite annoying to listen to after a very short period of time. It's grating and the distortion is very unpleasing to the ears. If you can get the same album but with a proper master with full dynamic range and great detail, why not get it? This is especially true if you have a nice stereo system. If all you're doing is listening to it on an ipod whilst you mow the lawn, then it probably doesnt make much of a difference. If, however, you're sitting in your living room with a nice, properly calibrated stereo system, then you WILL notice a difference. The MFSL of Moving Pictures is the way to listen to this album IMHO and if others dont agree thats fine. I do think its sad though, that the quality of a an albums production is now an afterthought. It wasnt always so. Well-stated and I'll concede that with the proper set up and equipment I'd be open to realizing that difference. I'd sure admit it if I noticed a big one. I'm not merely an iPod while mowing the lawn guy (although that reference is well taken), but I also don't have that luxury of sitting in my living room and just EXPERIENCING an album in full sonic glory either...partially due from the company I keep, the neighbors I have, and equipment limitations. Mostly I'm a "guy in a car driving" fellow, which probably is only a step up from the lawnmower dude, truth be told.   However if you want to invite me over, I'll bring a bottle of wine and would be glad to hear it for myself.

[ak2112]

Interesting to see zero votes for the SHM-CD. I know many say the whole SHM thing is snake oil and that may be true but I do know that the SHM of Moving Pictures is a unique master so it does sound different from the other versions. I dont feel its one of the better versions, but it does sound better to me than the 97 remaster, though that wouldnt be too hard to accomplish. The art work is first rate though and they are all now out of print so they're probably a neat thing to have from a collectors point of view. My 2 cents....

[drbirdsong]

Last night I was looking around and finally found a rip of the MFSL that is an exact copy (WAV files). I know this still isn't the same as the real thing. You can get an unopened copy on ebay for like $600.

 

Anyway this morning I thought I would give the 2011 CD and this one a quick comparison to see if I noticed anything.

 

The details didn't change much at all to my ears, but the warmth of the MFSL lives up to its reputation. The 2011 CD is louder, no doubt on that one.

 

The new one would probably be a good choice for your car and the MFSL a good choice for when you are alone in a room and just want to experience the album and have it be about as close the original vinyl as you can get.

 

I deleted the files because copies are never as good as the real thing and it is stealing no matter how you rationalize it to yourself. If someone wants to send me their copy of the MFSL just let me know.

[briremo]

I found the new 5.1 to be unimaginative on the channel mixing. Resolution was great, if not too great. It was extremely revealing on Ged's voice, which to me sounded strained on some songs.

 

I do have a fairly higher end system.

[Babycat]

I went for the 97 remaster as I don't know anything about the others listed.

[Todem]

MFSL is the very best for this album. Hands down no comparison. The original Mercury pressing (the red disc) is also very good. But if you want the very best sonic quality on a high end home system or a great car stereo the MFSL is the champion release.

 

Now the 5.1 BD version to my ears sounds amazing. A totally new way to listen to the album.

 

But I am talking about a true PCM stereo mix.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Todem

[fordgt99]

QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Apr 11 2011, 08:28 AM)

Last night I was looking around and finally found a rip of the MFSL that is an exact copy (WAV files). I know this still isn't the same as the real thing. You can get an unopened copy on ebay for like $600. Anyway this morning I thought I would give the 2011 CD and this one a quick comparison to see if I noticed anything. The details didn't change much at all to my ears, but the warmth of the MFSL lives up to its reputation. The 2011 CD is louder, no doubt on that one. The new one would probably be a good choice for your car and the MFSL a good choice for when you are alone in a room and just want to experience the album and have it be about as close the original vinyl as you can get. I deleted the files because copies are never as good as the real thing and it is stealing no matter how you rationalize it to yourself. If someone wants to send me their copy of the MFSL just let me know.

Well here's a MFSL copy "cheap" on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Rush-Moving-Pictures-C...3#ht_2058wt_698

 

Otherwise, I don't think "acquiring" a flac version of this disc is as bad as those wanting $299 or $399 for it. I want to say these discs were $30 at the most when originally released. Nice mark-up there (or more like fantasy land pricing )

 

Geez, maybe I ought to see what I'd get for my MFSL copy of The Wall?!?!

[ak2112]

If its in mint condition, the MFSL of the Wall can go for several hundred dollars as well!

[ak2112]

QUOTE (Todem @ Apr 11 2011, 10:16 AM)

MFSL is the very best for this album. Hands down no comparison. The original Mercury pressing (the red disc) is also very good. But if you want the very best sonic quality on a high end home system or a great car stereo the MFSL is the champion release. Now the 5.1 BD version to my ears sounds amazing. A totally new way to listen to the album. But I am talking about a true PCM stereo mix.

Shouldnt the BD and DVD-A versions be identical in terms of sound quality? I'm not as up on the features of all the various sound options but it seems if the DTS-HD and DVD-A are both losless 24bit/96kHz they should pretty much be the same, right? If I'm wrong please let me know as I'm woefully ignorant on this matter. Even worse, if they are different, that means I'll need to buy the BD version as well even though I already have the DVD-A!

[ak2112]

Looks like the 30th Anniversary is winning out on here. Just wonder if all those who have voted have actually heard all the listed versions I put up on the poll. If not, it would be pretty much impossible to make a judgement.

[drbirdsong]

QUOTE (fordgt99 @ Apr 11 2011, 11:04 AM)

QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Apr 11 2011, 08:28 AM) Last night I was looking around and finally found a rip of the MFSL that is an exact copy (WAV files).  I know this still isn't the same as the real thing.  You can get an unopened copy on ebay for like $600. Anyway this morning I thought I would give the 2011 CD and this one a quick comparison to see if I noticed anything. The details didn't change much at all to my ears, but the warmth of the MFSL lives up to its reputation.  The 2011 CD is louder, no doubt on that one. The new one would probably be a good choice for your car and the MFSL a good choice for when you are alone in a room and just want to experience the album and have it be about as close the original vinyl as you can get. I deleted the files because copies are never as good as the real thing and it is stealing no matter how you rationalize it to yourself.  If someone wants to send me their copy of the MFSL just let me know.  Well here's a MFSL copy "cheap" on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Rush-Moving-Pictures-C...3#ht_2058wt_698   Otherwise, I don't think "acquiring" a flac version of this disc is as bad as those wanting $299 or $399 for it. I want to say these discs were $30 at the most when originally released. Nice mark-up there (or more like fantasy land pricing )   Geez, maybe I ought to see what I'd get for my MFSL copy of The Wall?!?! Yeah I found that listing, but I wasn't going to mention it until after the auction in case I won. It's gone from $10 to $40 in one day with about a week to go. We'll see.