StellarJetman Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Because of their reputation for undue loudness and distortion, I've always avoided the '97 remasters, but I really hate how muddy and cloudy Signals sounds (in the uncharacteristically apt words of Rolling Stone, "the band tends to sound like it is trapped in wads of lint"), and I've heard that its remaster adds a lot of clarity and depth. Is this true? Edited January 8, 2012 by StellarJetman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Jan 8 2012, 02:53 PM) Because of their reputation for undue loudness and distortion, I've always avoided the '97 remasters, but I really hate how muddy and cloudy Signals sounds (in the uncharacteristically apt words of Rolling Stone, "the band tends to sound like it is trapped in wads of lint"), and I've heard that its remaster adds a lot of clarity and depth. Is this true? People will disagree with your assessment, but not me. One of my least favorite RUSH albums in terms of production. I'll be interested to see what others think of the original vs the 97. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbirdsong Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 The 1997 remaster was the best of that bunch. I like the one in the Sector 3 box best of all. The gold MFSL version is also quite good and preferred by a lot of folks, but it can be hard to find for a good price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 IMHO, the 97 remaster sounds MUCH better than the original AND the MSFL version. A significant improvement in clarity and punch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog_Bro Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I don't think you will find a absolute concrete answer as everyone has different things they look for Personally I love the MFSL because it has a lot of dynamics that are closer to the original but with the punch and energy of the 97' remaster - best of both worlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarJetman Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) I think that I'll go with the '97 remaster, then. The Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab version is out unless I'm outrageously lucky and find it for under twenty bucks, and, since rushgoober loves Signals so much, I'm inclined to trust his judgement here. Edited January 8, 2012 by StellarJetman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate2112 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 8 2012, 04:01 PM) IMHO, the 97 remaster sounds MUCH better than the original AND the MSFL version. A significant improvement in clarity and punch. I've only ever heard the 97 remasters of T4E and CP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog_Bro Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 At the Steve Hoffman forums (audiophile forums filled with many, many audiophiles) the general consensus is that the 97 remasters are the worst of any mastering. Most prefer the original or the MFSL regarding Signals http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=213809 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordgt99 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Jan 8 2012, 07:28 PM) At the Steve Hoffman forums (audiophile forums filled with many, many audiophiles) the general consensus is that the 97 remasters are the worst of any mastering. Most prefer the original or the MFSL regarding Signals http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=213809 Jeez a page or two of that thread is all I could take. Can't believe there are so many different versions and people are actually tracking them down! I like what I have (97 remaster) but the MFSL would be a neat collectible. I would suggest the "seek and you will find" routine but there are a few reasonable priced ones on ebay ($25-$30 range). One example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rush-Signals-Mobil...=item27c21bbb30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarJetman Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Edited January 9, 2012 by StellarJetman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (Analog_Bro @ Jan 8 2012, 05:28 PM) At the Steve Hoffman forums (audiophile forums filled with many, many audiophiles) the general consensus is that the 97 remasters are the worst of any mastering. Most prefer the original or the MFSL regarding Signals http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=213809 I consider myself an amateur audiophile. I have decent audiophile equipment, if on the somewhat lower end due to cost, and still I disagree. I've done an A/B side by side test of the original CD and the MFSL CD, and I could discern absolutely NO difference. The only difference is that one vocal line missing from The Weapon on the MFSL version, which is cool, but hardly worth paying $30 for unless you absolutely have to everything in the universe by Rush. The remaster has the dynamics I was always missing from Signals, and I must have owned 3 or 4 different versions of the cassette prior to the 2 versions of the CD I had before the remaster came out. Obviously YMMV, but that's my take. I've yet to hear the box set version or the Japanese version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog_Bro Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 All of this stuff can get pretty insane lol Obviously the best choice would be to get ahold of every version and be able to compare because everyone ultimately will have their own opinions and things they look for in CDs, but unfortunately some are harder to get than others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USB Connector Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 So far I've only heard the 97 remasters, frankly I don't see what's so bad about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostworks Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Jan 8 2012, 02:53 PM)Because of their reputation for undue loudness and distortion, I've always avoided the '97 remasters, but I really hate how muddy and cloudy Signals sounds (in the uncharacteristically apt words of Rolling Stone, "the band tends to sound like it is trapped in wads of lint"), and I've heard that its remaster adds a lot of clarity and depth. Is this true? Signals is by far my favorite Rush album I did a side by side (by side by side ) critical review a few years ago my verdict? > the MFSL sounds the best > followed very closely by the W. German '89 CD (2nd) > the SHM-CD (3rd) > the '97 Remaster (dead last - worst of the worst) here's a link to the full review, if you're interested in my take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarJetman Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (ghostworks @ Jan 9 2012, 09:13 AM) I did a side by side (by side by side ) critical review a few years ago my verdict? > the MFSL sounds the best > followed very closely by the W. German '89 CD (2nd) > the SHM-CD (3rd) > the '97 Remaster (dead last - worst of the worst) here's a link to the full review, if you're interested in my take Well, I was actually hoping for louder guitars and a brighter sound overall. I really can't stand the way that the original sounds and I almost always listen to it with treble-shifted equalization. You say, "The MFSL does the best job of taking the original song and 'improving' on the foundation (bass guitar, snare sound, guitar) without changing the original intent or mix," but I honestly hate the "original intent". I'll be getting the remaster now for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostworks Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Jan 9 2012, 11:11 AM) QUOTE (ghostworks @ Jan 9 2012, 09:13 AM) I did a side by side (by side by side ) critical review a few years ago my verdict? > the MFSL sounds the best > followed very closely by the W. German '89 CD (2nd) > the SHM-CD (3rd) > the '97 Remaster (dead last - worst of the worst) here's a link to the full review, if you're interested in my take Well, I was actually hoping for louder guitars and a brighter sound overall. I really can't stand the way that the original sounds and I almost always listen to it with treble-shifted equalization. You say, "The MFSL does the best job of taking the original song and 'improving' on the foundation (bass guitar, snare sound, guitar) without changing the original intent or mix," but I honestly hate the "original intent". I'll be getting the remaster now for sure. there you go! I love the original production, so for me my dream version would be one that retains that 'cotton envelope' of sound, but with more presence and definition to the individual tracks - the MFSL accomplishes that, and I'm glad if your 'dream version' is to step away from the original production as much as possible, the '97 remaster is absolutely where it's at - it's most perfect for people under 25 and those who regularly attend concerts without hearing protection ...glad I could help ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbirdsong Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analog guy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 That's my favorite album and favorite sounding album.... go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick66 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Edited January 10, 2012 by Nick66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostworks Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Edited January 11, 2012 by rushgoober Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Cocky Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Jan 8 2012, 03:53 PM) Because of their reputation for undue loudness and distortion, I've always avoided the '97 remasters, but I really hate how muddy and cloudy Signals sounds (in the uncharacteristically apt words of Rolling Stone, "the band tends to sound like it is trapped in wads of lint"), and I've heard that its remaster adds a lot of clarity and depth. Is this true? I think that this remaster is absolutely stellar. Signals really benefited greatly in terms of a remaster.....it's tons better than the original pressing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I finally picked this up for $5.99 new a couple of months ago and think it's much better than the original CD release, haven't heard any of the fancier releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordgt99 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Regarding the shm discs, I assumed they were the same mastering as the 97 discs since the Kiss ones from what I've read are. Maybe, maybe not. I checked out a couple and the only big difference I saw was in the packaging. If you want to add another version into the mix, the great pbthal just posted a vinyl rip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 The MFSL and the Japanese 25.8P are the best sounding versions to me. The 97 remasters are garbage. 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