1 of the 7 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 And yet, when you Google it (I was wondering if I was spelling it right myself, for the reason you mention), the version with an "e" comes up more readily. Maybe the misspelling was intentional to add to the nonsensical nature of the word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Sawyer Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The word is RE-donkulous not RI-donkulous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarJetman Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Jul 7 2011, 08:15 PM) The word is RE-donkulous not RI-donkulous The claim is IN-defensible. http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-smug.gif Here: Ridere (Latin) -> Ridicule -> Ridiculous -> Ridonkulous (Not actually a word, but whatever.) (I can't believe that I'm actually posting this.) Edited July 8, 2011 by StellarJetman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Cocky Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jul 6 2011, 11:04 AM) Alex needs to redo the guitars with sound he has now and then remix the entire record That might actually make it palatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo73 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Jul 7 2011, 11:17 PM) QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Jul 7 2011, 08:15 PM) The word is RE-donkulous not RI-donkulous The claim is IN-defensible. http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-smug.gif Here: Ridere (Latin) -> Ridicule -> Ridiculous -> Ridonkulous (Not actually a word, but whatever.) (I can't believe that I'm actually posting this.) lmao i think we're delving too far into a fake word's origins! LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harperspace Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) OK, as promised... My Audio Fidelity remaster of 90125 by Yes turned up, so I've had a chance to compare with the other versions I have (original Atco European CD & Rhino remaster). Let me say first of the bat that I'm not a musician or audio expert. I just know what I like! I tend to play most of my CDs on my fairly ancient Cambridge Audio separates system. My 'Go to' version of 90125 has until now been the original Atco CD, and I think that the Rhino remaster just doesn't sound anywhere near as good to me. On the occasions where I've bought newer CD equipment, I have always taken a copy of 90125 with me to use as a test CD. Mainly because it still sounds so fresh, 25 or so years on. The Audio Fidelity edition doesn't sound a million miles away from the Atco CD. However, I do think it is a definite improvement. It's difficult to put my finger on it exactly, but the detail and instruments just sound that bit sharper. Even the voice samples (e.g those on 'It Can Happen') are clearer than I remember them. Nice bottom end too...a very warm sound overall. Of course Horn's exquisite production means that it's really difficult to make this album sound bad, but Steve Hoffman's remaster takes me back to when I first listened to this album on vinyl shortly after it was released. It also makes me realise just how crap the Rhino edition is. Were it not for the inclusion of the bonus tracks & remixes I would throw it away right now! In short, the Audio fidelity wins over the original CD & Rhino for me. A quick word about the packaging. The gold CD comes in a standard jewel cae with the original LP artwork nicely replicated in the booklet, housed in a numbered slip case. All in all, a very nice package. I notice that Audio Fidelity have also released editions of other favourite albums of mine, namely Bad Company's Straight Shooter & Asia's self-titled debut. Based on the strength of this release I will also be picking those up along with the remaster of Roll The Bones. I'm not sure whether this will help anyone make up their mind about purchasing Audio Fidelity's Roll The Bones remaster, or simply muddy the waters even further. Edited July 19, 2011 by Harperspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liddybuck01 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Has anyone received this yet? My husband wants it but wants to know if the sound is an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bard Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) I got mine yesterday from Amazon. As an audiophile myself, I can attest that gold pressing CDs are almost uniformly better mastering than original mixes. ALMOST. Not always. Sometimes the remastering tends to spice up the high end and fails to equalize the deep end in commensurate measure. Particularly with the newer venture Audio Fidelity, which I don't quite understand since Hoffman did such stellar work with DCC offerings. That said, I have several of the AF discs because I'm a gold CD whore, basically...it's ALWAYS warmer on gold than aluminum (for best results, stick with 180 gm vinyl and a top of the line modern turntable with a diamond needle). As far as RTB...well, they punched up the treble for sure, it's crisp no doubt, in fact in parts Neil's snare is too spiked and it sounds more electric than it ought to. Last AF releases I picked up were the Doors' Morrison Hotel and Yes' 90125, and neither of those discs suffered from bass mud. RTB does, alas. But still....it's a Rush gold CD. Rare they are. If given a choice, I'd always prefer an MFSL edition, they're consistently the best at what they do (i.e., Permanent Waves). Seeing as how you can only get 2112, MP, PW, Signals, and now RTB in gold...I'm holding out hope for an MFSL remastering of GUP, myself. Edited July 22, 2011 by Van Squalen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbirdsong Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I got mine today. My first copy was a cassette when it was new. The only CD I've ever had is the 1997 remaster. This one wins easily. It is quieter so I cranked it up and I haven't noticed any distortion. I have what was once a high end system with enormous Cerwin Vega speakers. I know what I like and it sounds good to me and it sounds good loud. If you are an audiophile and like gold CDs then I recommend it. If you never liked Roll The Bones you probably will not now. Those hair metal guitars Alex was playing in the 1980s and 90s are never going to be Gibsons or Fenders. Geddy's bass, on the other hand, is just wonderful. Bravado sounds better than it ever did. I always loved his bass on this album and it is warmer, deeper and has more dynamic range. Neil's drums sound about the same to me, but as I said, it all sounds better. My only real complaint is the packaging. Whoever was in charge of producing the booklet is just a plain asshole. I can't think of a nicer way to say it. It looks like they scanned it and then printed it on a home printer. The problem with everything being produced on computer these days is that a computer screen has light behind every image. What looks great on screen will darken on paper. The pages with the band portraits are just terrible compared to the original. It is also printed on cheaper paper than the 97 remaster so the black ink bleeds and thickens on the white pages. Some color blind dick put way too much blue into everything. The elephant is no longer grey. Yeah I'm ranting at random and just plain insulted with this effort because I'm in the business and I am more than certain that I could have done a better job at half the price. If I wanted a cheap knockoff of the original I can get one from China. Sorry, aside from the booklet I'm pumped about it. I'm listening to it again as I type this and Ghost Of Chance sounds great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I agree with drbirdsong about the booklet. It does look like shit and I'm surprised by such a half assed attempt at recreating the booklet. However, what really matters here is the music and it sounds better than it ever has. I have the original US CD release from 1991 to compare it to. The original CD is about 3 to 4dB louder than the new AF version but thats a good thing. What that means is that this new gold CD has plenty of dynamic range and you can really crank it without having to worry about distortion. This CD is a good example of why most of the 97 remasters suck ass: lack of dynamic range, brickwalled to ear bleeding standards and fatiguing on the ears. This new version of RtB is none of that. It is warm and organic and lacks the cold sterility of the original release. Geddys bass has never sounded better and even the drums finally have some life to them. The original CD makes the drums sound lifeless and dead. No more! This AF gold CD is now the definitive version of this album in my opinion and it reminds me of why I got into audiophile quality releases. It's a triumph. Go out and get a copy now because these might sell out and, after all, they are a limited edition release so I suspect they'll become very valuable collectors items years from now (mine is CD No. 250). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ytserush Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I was going to wait and see if I could pick this up in the used bin, but I caved. I only had time to listen to the first three songs once. Initial impressions of those three were that I didn't like what was done with Dreamline but did like Bravado and Roll The Bones a little better. So, in my case the jury is still out until I have the chance to dig in a little deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuiaba Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (Harperspace @ Jul 19 2011, 07:30 AM) OK, as promised... My Audio Fidelity remaster of 90125 by Yes turned up, so I've had a chance to compare with the other versions I have (original Atco European CD & Rhino remaster). Let me say first of the bat that I'm not a musician or audio expert. I just know what I like! I tend to play most of my CDs on my fairly ancient Cambridge Audio separates system. My 'Go to' version of 90125 has until now been the original Atco CD, and I think that the Rhino remaster just doesn't sound anywhere near as good to me. On the occasions where I've bought newer CD equipment, I have always taken a copy of 90125 with me to use as a test CD. Mainly because it still sounds so fresh, 25 or so years on. The Audio Fidelity edition doesn't sound a million miles away from the Atco CD. However, I do think it is a definite improvement. It's difficult to put my finger on it exactly, but the detail and instruments just sound that bit sharper. Even the voice samples (e.g those on 'It Can Happen') are clearer than I remember them. Nice bottom end too...a very warm sound overall. Of course Horn's exquisite production means that it's really difficult to make this album sound bad, but Steve Hoffman's remaster takes me back to when I first listened to this album on vinyl shortly after it was released. It also makes me realise just how crap the Rhino edition is. Were it not for the inclusion of the bonus tracks & remixes I would throw it away right now! In short, the Audio fidelity wins over the original CD & Rhino for me. A quick word about the packaging. The gold CD comes in a standard jewel cae with the original LP artwork nicely replicated in the booklet, housed in a numbered slip case. All in all, a very nice package. I notice that Audio Fidelity have also released editions of other favourite albums of mine, namely Bad Company's Straight Shooter & Asia's self-titled debut. Based on the strength of this release I will also be picking those up along with the remaster of Roll The Bones. I'm not sure whether this will help anyone make up their mind about purchasing Audio Fidelity's Roll The Bones remaster, or simply muddy the waters even further. Appreciate your thoughts on 90125 by AF. Very helpful as I was looking at this CD too. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Didn't know it was out yet. Those who already have it.... is the bass drum sound better? It always sounded so puny to me -- like a "pop" instead of a "boom." Better on this? Edited August 3, 2011 by HowItIs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuiaba Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I've listened to this quite a bit, and I really enjoy AF's version. It is super clean, and it's very easy to focus on just one instrument and hear the clarity, or just enjoy it as a whole. I agree with prior posters about the packaging - it's not worthy of the price or a gold disc release ( or any CD release for that matter), but the sound quality is indeed excellent, at least to my ears! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ytserush Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 QUOTE (HowItIs @ Aug 3 2011, 02:36 AM) Didn't know it was out yet. Those who already have it.... is the bass drum sound better? It always sounded so puny to me -- like a "pop" instead of a "boom." Better on this? Definately a subtle improvement even over the Atlantic remasters. Might not be enough of an improvement for some, but I'm liking what was done to it. (except for the poor job on the artwork and liners) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 QUOTE (ytserush @ Aug 16 2011, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (HowItIs @ Aug 3 2011, 02:36 AM) Didn't know it was out yet. Those who already have it.... is the bass drum sound better? It always sounded so puny to me -- like a "pop" instead of a "boom." Better on this? Definately a subtle improvement even over the Atlantic remasters. Might not be enough of an improvement for some, but I'm liking what was done to it. (except for the poor job on the artwork and liners) Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LerxstLuthier Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I hope they are not smashing the CDs to typical 2011 single digit dynamic range masters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdyourfireal Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 How does this compare to the new remaster from the Atlantic Years box set? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdyourfireal Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ytserush Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Don't know, but I like it better than the original and the 2004 remaster. Not getting the box at current prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdyourfireal Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Don't know, but I like it better than the original and the 2004 remaster. Not getting the box at current prices. So, it sounds a lot better & is worth buying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ytserush Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Don't know, but I like it better than the original and the 2004 remaster. Not getting the box at current prices. So, it sounds a lot better & is worth buying? It was for me, but the 2004 Remaster isn't horrible though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now