Gedneil Alpeart Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Which albums stand out the most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Oh man... honestly, I'd do a search here and check out a couple of old threads. Some very (very) vocal people are adamantly against the Sectors releases because they don't like the new mixes. Other people (the majority, I think - and I'm not just saying that, I objectively think it's the majority) approve of them. I like them. I don't think any one album stands out on the whole for me (maybe Signals), but I love what they've done with some specific songs, like Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Dont waste your money. They're all brickwalled to hell and have no dynamic range. Now, if you like albums that are mastered so loud they make your ears bleed, then the Sector remasters are for you. If you want the best sounding versions on CD, look for the original unremastered CD's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas7 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 To confirm that check out the versions on Rush Rock Band, why are these versions better than The Sectors versions? The Signals songs are way better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Sawyer Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 21 2012, 07:56 PM) Dont waste your money. They're all brickwalled to hell and have no dynamic range. Now, if you like albums that are mastered so loud they make your ears bleed, then the Sector remasters are for you. If you want the best sounding versions on CD, look for the original unremastered CD's. OP, this is the very vocal minority Daniel was talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunosamppa Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Apr 21 2012, 06:56 PM) Dont waste your money. They're all brickwalled to hell and have no dynamic range. Now, if you like albums that are mastered so loud they make your ears bleed, then the Sector remasters are for you. If you want the best sounding versions on CD, look for the original unremastered CD's. Indeed totally These boxes remastered by Andy VanDette are pure shit. Compressed dynamic range, pure headache and ear fatigue. Rush destroyed!. I have the MSFL versions, The 1997 digital mastering versions and the original first pressing editions. The best are the originals http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=703 http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17889 Edited April 22, 2012 by brunosamppa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadianice Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 QUOTE (danielmclark @ Apr 21 2012, 06:36 PM) Oh man... honestly, I'd do a search here and check out a couple of old threads. Some very (very) vocal people are adamantly against the Sectors releases because they don't like the new mixes. Other people (the majority, I think - and I'm not just saying that, I objectively think it's the majority) approve of them. I like them. I don't think any one album stands out on the whole for me (maybe Signals), but I love what they've done with some specific songs, like Mission. I agree, i really enjoy the Sectors sets. I don't understand the bashing that they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFIELDS Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I notice a pretty big difference in HYF and ESL.....both sound quite a bit better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossedSignals Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Apr 21 2012, 08:22 PM) I notice a pretty big difference in HYF and ESL.....both sound quite a bit better... Hmm, I'd love a better-sounding version of HYF. I like the album, but the mastering always sounded totally flat/dull/lackluster.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFIELDS Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 QUOTE (CrossedSignals @ Apr 21 2012, 07:24 PM) QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Apr 21 2012, 08:22 PM) I notice a pretty big difference in HYF and ESL.....both sound quite a bit better... Hmm, I'd love a better-sounding version of HYF. I like the album, but the mastering always sounded totally flat/dull/lackluster.... The sectors version? To me it sounds better. I really like the way the bass cones through.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossedSignals Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Apr 21 2012, 08:26 PM) QUOTE (CrossedSignals @ Apr 21 2012, 07:24 PM) QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Apr 21 2012, 08:22 PM) I notice a pretty big difference in HYF and ESL.....both sound quite a bit better... Hmm, I'd love a better-sounding version of HYF. I like the album, but the mastering always sounded totally flat/dull/lackluster.... The sectors version? To me it sounds better. I really like the way the bass cones through.. No, I meant the original version. I haven't heard the Sectors version yet.... I bet it does sound better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan2712 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Brickwalled? definitely not. Louder? duh. every CD thats mastered nowadays is louder just to be competitive. It's inevitable. that doesn't mean that they're "brickwalled". Vapor Trails is brickwalled, Death Magnetic is brickwalled. listen to the sectors versions of La Villa Strangiato or a Farewell to Kings and tell me thats "brickwalled". they're louder, clearer and warmer (in my opinion) than recent CD mixes, but NOT "brickwalled". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunosamppa Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Dylan2712 @ Apr 22 2012, 02:18 AM) Brickwalled? definitely not. Louder? duh. every CD thats mastered nowadays is louder just to be competitive. It's inevitable. that doesn't mean that they're "brickwalled". Vapor Trails is brickwalled, Death Magnetic is brickwalled. listen to the sectors versions of La Villa Strangiato or a Farewell to Kings and tell me thats "brickwalled". they're louder, clearer and warmer (in my opinion) than recent CD mixes, but NOT "brickwalled". YYZ: Exit... Stage Left - The Rush Remasters 1997 YYZ: Exit... Stage Left - Sector Box 2011 Edited April 22, 2012 by brunosamppa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Exit Stage Left sounds better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monger Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 QUOTE (brunosamppa @ Apr 22 2012, 08:35 AM) YYZ: Exit... Stage Left - Sector Box 2011 Holy shit, that's about as bad as any brand new music available today! I was considering getting those Sectors sets, but now forget it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan2712 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I'd like to see the scale on which those waveforms are based, otherwise they mean nothing. If they are comparable, then obviously they are louder. like i said, all music mastered today is made to be loud so that "common folk" like it. But that doesn't mean its "brickwalled". to clarify, this i what i mean by "brickwalled"; "I call something brickwalled when there are no dynamics left in the music. Everything is so limited and compressed that all passages of the music are the same volume. Songs mastered this way are perceived to be LOUD LOUD LOUD! Also, when viewing a waveform in an audio editor, the waveform of something that is brickwalled doesn't have peaks and valleys, and instead look like a two by four." key words: NO DYNAMICS, ALL PASSAGES are the same volume. Again, while your example clearly shows the sectors to be louder, there are still dynamics in the music. This is brickwalled: Top: Earthshine (Vapor Trails) Bottom: Earthshine (Retrospective 3) http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/the27man/Earthshinecompare.png Clearly you can see that at the same passage, one waveform is maxed out at -0.1 dB, while the other is significantly lower, probably around -3dB. BUT THE WAVEFORMS LOOK SIMILAR!!!! Hold on cowboy, since when did music mean looking at a waveform? I thought you listened to music with your ears? Here is Working Man, top: "Gold", bottom "Sector 1-Rush" http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/the27man/WorkingManCompare-1.png Clearly the bottom is louder, but neither is brickwalled. To me, the Sectors version of "Rush" sounds clearer and crisper, but thats just my opinion. I don't own any of the Rush 97 remastered albums, so i can't completely say that the Sectors discs are the best, but they are much better than the "Gold" compilation disc i have (especially the songs from Rush to A Farewell to Kings). If any of you like the 97 remasters or original CDs compared to the sectors versions, it doesn't make any difference to me. I just wanted to say that while LOUDER, the sectors disc are definitely NOT "brickwalled". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunosamppa Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Compressed music is shit. DR Scale: Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Transition 8 9 10 11 12 13 Good 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Exit...Stage Left - Sector http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17884 Exit Stage Left - Original http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=16153 Hemispheres - Sector http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17879 Hemispheres - Original http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17786 2112 - Sector http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17876 2112 - Original http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17787 Caress of Steel - Sector http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17875 Caress of Steel - Original http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17275 Power Windows - Sector http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=17889 Power Windows - Original http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=18799 Some more here: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?...h&search_album= The problem is not volume, the problem is COMPRESSION. Lacks dynamic range. The money is your and ears too. If you like this... go enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan2712 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 QUOTE (brunosamppa @ Apr 22 2012, 01:06 PM) Compressed music is shit. DR Scale: Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Transition 8 9 10 11 12 13 Good 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -------------- The problem is not volume, the problem is COMPRESSION. Lacks dynamic range. The money is your and ears too. If you like this... go enjoy 1) you must not listen to music at all then, because every passage of music has compression on it in some form. Compression is a tool, use it well and you get a good mix, use it bad and you get a bad mix. to say that "compressed music is shit" is ridiculous. 2) that scale is laughable. "Bad", "Good" -it's completely subject-able. 3) Are you basing your view on these sectors on research that you've done with your own ears, or just through waveforms and online numbers? Im not trying to change your view, clearly you don't like how they sound, And im not arguing that they aren't louder or they don't use compression. Even if they are louder, there is can still be dynamic range and i think they did a good job remastering the box set for a "new era". My background is that i am an audio engineering student, so i am constantly learning about mixing music properly and i make it a case to avoid over compression for my mixes. My range of hearing is approximately between 30Hz and 18kHz, I have a wide range of musical tastes and i listen to all music objectively. That being said, i am still learning and i enjoy discussions like this because sometimes i pick up on something i missed before. But i firmly believe that if you're gonna review a remastered set and say it's bad because it is louder, you had better have listened to it. if you can tell there's compression by using your ears, then you have a case. but if you just go by some online database and someone else's words, then i think you should re-evaluate your opinion. but i don't know if you've listened to them, have you? i mean no disrespect; i'd like to take you on your own words rather than a colourful number chart someone else made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 QUOTE (brunosamppa @ Apr 22 2012, 02:06 PM) Compressed music is shit. Since you're the one coming in here all full of bluster and putting things down, tell us what you think of this, and then I'll tell you what it is. http://qaqn.com/images/outbound/quiz-song.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordgt99 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 If you don't have the catalog then sure. Another option would be to track down the remasters that are now going for $5 at some places (Walmart & Best Buy). Can't recommend blowing money on the MFSL versions UNLESS you can find them for a reasonable price. I'll just say that I've compared the Moving Pictures MFSL disc along with the remaster and Pbthal's vinyl rip. The MFSL sounded the worst to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas7 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 What versions of the songs were used on Rush Rock Band because to my ears they have a better dynamic range than the versions on the Sectors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunosamppa Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Ok, Dylan2712 You are audio enginering student. I am a audiophile and rush fan. Different point of views... you have a flag But i believe the music is made to the public in general and fans, not engineers. I have all editions of Rush Catalogue... Originals CD press., MFSL, Audio Fidelity, 97 remasters, SHM-CD (that edition uses mixed masters, some originals and 97 remasters) e some Vinyls. Well, i know what sounds good for me. The visual representantions in waveforms and meters is paramet for quality? No, but is VERY representative, and very serious thing I know the mastering process, compressors, EQ an all that things. Yeah, an album need a mastering, but not these terribles digital compressors bringing the music lacks and more lack of dynamic range. sorry my poor English, i feel limited to explain more... Quality over all. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostworks Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 QUOTE (brunosamppa @ Apr 22 2012, 07:17 PM) Quality over all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadianice Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 People can put up all the pretty pictures and graphs and charts they want.To my ears Sectors sound fantastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ytserush Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (canadianice @ Apr 23 2012, 04:26 PM) People can put up all the pretty pictures and graphs and charts they want.To my ears Sectors sound fantastic Just picked up Sector 3 recently (mostly for the Hold Your fire remixes) and so far I like them much better than the 1997 remasters, but not as much as the orginal Atomic CDs and the vinyl. 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