For those with the actual CD

[Gedneil Alpeart]

There have been scattered comments here and there in various threads about the CD sound, but before I get my CD on Tuesday, I would like to know in one thread to what extent the sound has improved compared to the leaked mp3s, if you listened to those. Of course the sound will be better.....I just want to get opinions of how much. Im really, really anxious to get the actual CD and hear it in best possible sound. I know there have been 1 or 2 people who claim to have the CD but still have sound issues. I dont want this thread to become a sound bitching container either.

[Presto-digitation]

I'm almost certain some will argue the leaked MP3s sound better than the CD. Watch.

[Merely Space]

My cd sounds really good to me. Lots of space. Good separation of the instruments. I think Rich & Nick did a very nice job with this project.

[Presto-digitation]

How is the audio compared to the S&A CD's audio?

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 10:22 AM)

How is the audio compared to the S&A CD's audio?

Exactly. I think asking if the CD is better than the mp3 is the wrong question, because obviously it will sound better. No offense.

 

The real question for me is, does it sound as good as S&A, which sounded pretty darn good, or even Counterparts, which sounded REALLY good.

[treeduck]

Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet?

 

[Merely Space]

To me, it sounds slightly better than S&A. And I thought S&A was the best sounding album since PoW.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:33 PM)

Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet?

I do not. Just the MP3 download and NOT the FLAC version either.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Merely Space @ Jun 10 2012, 12:34 PM)

To me, it sounds slightly better than S&A. And I thought S&A was the best sounding album since PoW.

That's good news to me. Thanks.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:33 PM) Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet? I do not. Just the MP3 download and NOT the FLAC version either. Lossless?

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:33 PM) Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet? I do not. Just the MP3 download and NOT the FLAC version either. Lossless?   Apparently. I think Slim on the TNMS board has a lossless copy.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:36 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:33 PM) Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet? I do not. Just the MP3 download and NOT the FLAC version either. Lossless?   Apparently. I think Slim on the TNMS board has a lossless copy. To be honest I don't have a clue about FLAC and lossless. I hear people talking about this and the words amuse me probably because they have no meaning to me and yet people appear to froth at the mouth over it all...   LOSSLESS....

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 10:33 AM)

Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet?

The CD? No, not yet. And I'm NOT happy about that fact.

 

I have the lossless file, but that's it.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:38 PM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:36 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:33 PM) Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet? I do not. Just the MP3 download and NOT the FLAC version either. Lossless?   Apparently. I think Slim on the TNMS board has a lossless copy. To be honest I don't have a clue about FLAC and lossless. I hear people talking about this and the words amuse me probably because they have no meaning to me and yet people appear to froth at the mouth over it all...   LOSSLESS....   My only real experience with this (also no audiophile here) is a FLAC version of the Guitar Hero versions of Metallica's Death Magnetic and they truly are better than the CD. You can crank them quite loudly without distortion.   Death Magnetic may be the most obviously (and painfully) brick-walled album I've ever heard. The FLAC rips from guitar hero were noticeable improvements. I actually threw away the CD. And again, I'm not audiophile.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Presto-digitation

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 12:39 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 10:33 AM) Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet? The CD? No, not yet. And I'm NOT happy about that fact.   I have the lossless file, but that's it. I have no CA CD either...   And no lossless...

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:42 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:38 PM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:36 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 12:35 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 10 2012, 12:33 PM) Hey Digi and Goober, do you two have a copy of CA yet? I do not. Just the MP3 download and NOT the FLAC version either. Lossless?   Apparently. I think Slim on the TNMS board has a lossless copy. To be honest I don't have a clue about FLAC and lossless. I hear people talking about this and the words amuse me probably because they have no meaning to me and yet people appear to froth at the mouth over it all...   LOSSLESS....   My only real experience with this (also no audiophile here) is a FLAC version of the Guitar Hero versions of Metallica's Death Magnetic and they truly are better than the CD. You can crank them quite loudly without distortion.   Death Magnetic may be the most obviously (and painfully) brick-walled album I've ever heard. The FLAC rips from guitar hero were noticeable improvements. I actually threw away the CD. And again, I'm not audiophile. Luckily I'm not a Metallica fan. I threw the Master of Puppets album away in 1986 and that was vinyl! I'm no audiophile either!

[InvisibleAirwaves13]

I got my Fan pack yesterday and have had only time to give the CD a 1-time through listen. Overall, sound quality is excellent. Very rich texture, good separation and Geddy's vocals sound great. Geddy is on fire on this album...the bass lines are amazing. Neil is bang on. His drumming feels a little more organic to me and more alive and Alex has continued to some degree the kind of sound he developed on CA...sort of the wall of sound thing that really fills up his space. Solos are very good with a couple of moments of epic greatness. I need to listen a few more times but I think this will be well received by most Rush fans. A very well done album. You can really get the sense that it is meant to be played from beginning to end to hear the "Story". I like it but can see coming to love it in time.

 

[Dylan2712]

Nerd warning!

 

 

The files that are burned onto CD are always 16-bit, 44,100 khz .Wav files. the size of these files are usually larger than 40MB per 3 minute song. their "kbps" speed is usually around 1400 kbps.

 

Lossless and FLAC files are close to half the size of .Wav, however there is virtually no quality loss as these are usually still above 1200kbps.

 

MP3's vary depending on what speed you decide to go with. there is 320kbps, 256 kbps, VBR (variable bit rate), 192kbps, 128kbps and i've seen as low as 56kbps.

 

obviously the lower the bit rate is, the smaller the file. MP3's use codecs to compress the file to a much smaller size (around 8MB or lower) which unfortunately crush the peaks in the audio and actually cut higher frequencies out of the song!

 

i asume the reason it cuts the high frequencies is because around they time we turn 20 years old, our ears can no longer hear above 16,000khz. im 19, and i can still hear 18,000khz.

 

however, most people can't tell the difference between 320 mp3's and 1411 kbps FLAC or .Wav's on their computer or stock car audio systems. However, if you are in a treated balanced room with high end monitors, the difference is very clear.

 

This is a spectrogram of a song in Apple Lossless format ripped from CD with itunes.

http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eLossless-1.jpg

 

and this is the same song ripped as 128kbps MP3 with itunes. (this was the itunes store standard two years ago).

http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eenageMP3-1.jpg

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Dylan2712 @ Jun 10 2012, 11:44 AM)

Nerd warning! The files that are burned onto CD are always 16-bit, 44,100 khz .Wav files. the size of these files are usually larger than 40MB per 3 minute song. their "kbps" speed is usually around 1400 kbps. Lossless and FLAC files are close to half the size of .Wav, however there is virtually no quality loss as these are usually still above 1200kbps. MP3's vary depending on what speed you decide to go with. there is 320kbps, 256 kbps, VBR (variable bit rate), 192kbps, 128kbps and i've seen as low as 56kbps. obviously the lower the bit rate is, the smaller the file. MP3's use codecs to compress the file to a much smaller size (around 8MB or lower) which unfortunately crush the peaks in the audio and actually cut higher frequencies out of the song! i asume the reason it cuts the high frequencies is because around they time we turn 20 years old, our ears can no longer hear above 16,000khz. im 19, and i can still hear 18,000khz. however, most people can't tell the difference between 320 mp3's and 1411 kbps FLAC or .Wav's on their computer or stock car audio systems. However, if you are in a treated balanced room with high end monitors, the difference is very clear. This is a spectrogram of a song in Apple Lossless format ripped from CD with itunes. http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eLossless-1.jpg and this is the same song ripped as 128kbps MP3 with itunes. (this was the itunes store standard two years ago). http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eenageMP3-1.jpg

One thing people forget, is even if you're listening to a "lossless" file, you're generally still listening using an mp3 player, or your computer with crappy sounding computer speakers. Even if your computer is connected to good audiophile speakers, it's nowhere near the same as a CD on a good audiophile system. Every part of a system makes a difference - the amplifier, the preamplifier (or integrated amp), the CD player, the connecting cables, the speaker cables, the speakers, the subwoofer, etc. You have to spend at least SOME decent amount of money to really hear things in great quality.

 

Of course this will sound like gobbledygook to many people, but then again, most people who love the convenience of mp3's listened to on their ipods or through computer speakers have NO idea what they're missing, and maybe that's a good thing. If they truly heard most recordings the way they were meant to be heard, they'd be horrified with the sound quality they usually put up with.

[Gedneil Alpeart]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 01:52 PM)

QUOTE (Dylan2712 @ Jun 10 2012, 11:44 AM) Nerd warning! The files that are burned onto CD are always 16-bit, 44,100 khz .Wav files. the size of these files are usually larger than 40MB per 3 minute song. their "kbps" speed is usually around 1400 kbps. Lossless and FLAC files are close to half the size of .Wav, however there is virtually no quality loss as these are usually still above 1200kbps. MP3's vary depending on what speed you decide to go with. there is 320kbps, 256 kbps, VBR (variable bit rate), 192kbps, 128kbps and i've seen as low as 56kbps. obviously the lower the bit rate is, the smaller the file. MP3's use codecs to compress the file to a much smaller size (around 8MB or lower) which unfortunately crush the peaks in the audio and actually cut higher frequencies out of the song! i asume the reason it cuts the high frequencies is because around they time we turn 20 years old, our ears can no longer hear above 16,000khz. im 19, and i can still hear 18,000khz. however, most people can't tell the difference between 320 mp3's and 1411 kbps FLAC or .Wav's on their computer or stock car audio systems. However, if you are in a treated balanced room with high end monitors, the difference is very clear. This is a spectrogram of a song in Apple Lossless format ripped from CD with itunes. http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eLossless-1.jpg and this is the same song ripped as 128kbps MP3 with itunes. (this was the itunes store standard two years ago). http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eenageMP3-1.jpg One thing people forget, is even if you're listening to a "lossless" file, you're generally still listening using an mp3 player, or your computer with crappy sounding computer speakers. Even if your computer is connected to good audiophile speakers, it's nowhere near the same as a CD on a good audiophile system. Every part of a system makes a difference - the amplifier, the preamplifier (or integrated amp), the CD player, the connecting cables, the speaker cables, the speakers, the subwoofer, etc. You have to spend at least SOME decent amount of money to really hear things in great quality.   Of course this will sound like gobbledygook to many people, but then again, most people who love the convenience of mp3's listened to on their ipods or through computer speakers have NO idea what they're missing, and maybe that's a good thing. If they truly heard most recordings the way they were meant to be heard, they'd be horrified with the sound quality they usually put up with. And to some, maybe sound quality is not something they really value when it comes to musical experience. Some just care about the music and lyrics and how they feel with sound not having a major contributing factor to them.

[Dylan2712]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 11:52 AM)

One thing people forget, is even if you're listening to a "lossless" file, you're generally still listening using an mp3 player, or your computer with crappy sounding computer speakers.  Even if your computer is connected to good audiophile speakers, it's nowhere near the same as a CD on a good audiophile system.  Every part of a system makes a difference - the amplifier, the preamplifier (or integrated amp), the CD player, the connecting cables, the speaker cables, the speakers, the subwoofer, etc.  You have to spend at least SOME decent amount of money to really hear things in great quality. Of course this will sound like gobbledygook to many people, but then again, most people who love the convenience of mp3's listened to on their ipods or through computer speakers have NO idea what they're missing, and maybe that's a good thing.  If they truly heard most recordings the way they were meant to be heard, they'd be horrified with the sound quality they usually put up with.

I know i was horrified when i compared 256 kbps MP3 with Apple Lossless files!!! i've never gone back. Apple devices such as my iPhone will play lossless files, but you have to be careful because there's a setting that may be clicked when you sync your music that automatically down-converts all your music to smaller mp3s.

 

don't get me wrong, mp3s are very confient for their size alone. i used to be able to fit upwards of 1200 songs on my 16 GB iphone... i have since bought or re-ripped most of those songs and now i can only fit 600 songs -only half of those being lossless files!!!

 

as for my systems, i don't have anything substantially expensive.. my monsoon computer speakers and sub are less than ideal, my room is a big rectangle encompassed in concrete. I used to listen through my Mom's Bose car audio system, but now that i've moved, i bought my own car that has also has a less than idea system.

 

however, that all doesn't matter because i've got these bad boys:

 

https://www.topchoiceelectronics.com/upload...elefon-sort.jpg

 

also, my schools KRK and MNK systems in the recording studio control room -where i plan to bring Clockwork Angels in to listen to for the first time!

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Gedneil Alpeart @ Jun 10 2012, 12:05 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 01:52 PM) QUOTE (Dylan2712 @ Jun 10 2012, 11:44 AM) Nerd warning! The files that are burned onto CD are always 16-bit, 44,100 khz .Wav files. the size of these files are usually larger than 40MB per 3 minute song. their "kbps" speed is usually around 1400 kbps. Lossless and FLAC files are close to half the size of .Wav, however there is virtually no quality loss as these are usually still above 1200kbps. MP3's vary depending on what speed you decide to go with. there is 320kbps, 256 kbps, VBR (variable bit rate), 192kbps, 128kbps and i've seen as low as 56kbps. obviously the lower the bit rate is, the smaller the file. MP3's use codecs to compress the file to a much smaller size (around 8MB or lower) which unfortunately crush the peaks in the audio and actually cut higher frequencies out of the song! i asume the reason it cuts the high frequencies is because around they time we turn 20 years old, our ears can no longer hear above 16,000khz. im 19, and i can still hear 18,000khz. however, most people can't tell the difference between 320 mp3's and 1411 kbps FLAC or .Wav's on their computer or stock car audio systems. However, if you are in a treated balanced room with high end monitors, the difference is very clear. This is a spectrogram of a song in Apple Lossless format ripped from CD with itunes. http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eLossless-1.jpg and this is the same song ripped as 128kbps MP3 with itunes. (this was the itunes store standard two years ago). http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eenageMP3-1.jpg One thing people forget, is even if you're listening to a "lossless" file, you're generally still listening using an mp3 player, or your computer with crappy sounding computer speakers. Even if your computer is connected to good audiophile speakers, it's nowhere near the same as a CD on a good audiophile system. Every part of a system makes a difference - the amplifier, the preamplifier (or integrated amp), the CD player, the connecting cables, the speaker cables, the speakers, the subwoofer, etc. You have to spend at least SOME decent amount of money to really hear things in great quality.   Of course this will sound like gobbledygook to many people, but then again, most people who love the convenience of mp3's listened to on their ipods or through computer speakers have NO idea what they're missing, and maybe that's a good thing. If they truly heard most recordings the way they were meant to be heard, they'd be horrified with the sound quality they usually put up with. And to some, maybe sound quality is not something they really value when it comes to musical experience. Some just care about the music and lyrics and how they feel with sound not having a major contributing factor to them. Understood, but really people literally have NO idea what they're missing. Yeah, you can enjoy the music and lyrics in lower quality, especially if that's all a person has ever known, but most don't know that they could be hearing it DRAMATICALLY better. I'm not denying that people enjoy their music, but they could be enjoying it SO much more. It's like night and day. If these people ever get a chance to hear a CD (or better yet something they only know via mp3) on a really high quality audiophile system, they'll be deeply, deeply shocked at what they've been missing for so many years. Even a very modest audiophile system like I have is a ridiculous improvement of sonic clarity and enjoyment.

[Gedneil Alpeart]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 02:14 PM)

QUOTE (Gedneil Alpeart @ Jun 10 2012, 12:05 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 01:52 PM) QUOTE (Dylan2712 @ Jun 10 2012, 11:44 AM) Nerd warning! The files that are burned onto CD are always 16-bit, 44,100 khz .Wav files. the size of these files are usually larger than 40MB per 3 minute song. their "kbps" speed is usually around 1400 kbps. Lossless and FLAC files are close to half the size of .Wav, however there is virtually no quality loss as these are usually still above 1200kbps. MP3's vary depending on what speed you decide to go with. there is 320kbps, 256 kbps, VBR (variable bit rate), 192kbps, 128kbps and i've seen as low as 56kbps. obviously the lower the bit rate is, the smaller the file. MP3's use codecs to compress the file to a much smaller size (around 8MB or lower) which unfortunately crush the peaks in the audio and actually cut higher frequencies out of the song! i asume the reason it cuts the high frequencies is because around they time we turn 20 years old, our ears can no longer hear above 16,000khz. im 19, and i can still hear 18,000khz. however, most people can't tell the difference between 320 mp3's and 1411 kbps FLAC or .Wav's on their computer or stock car audio systems. However, if you are in a treated balanced room with high end monitors, the difference is very clear. This is a spectrogram of a song in Apple Lossless format ripped from CD with itunes. http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eLossless-1.jpg and this is the same song ripped as 128kbps MP3 with itunes. (this was the itunes store standard two years ago). http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq250/t...eenageMP3-1.jpg One thing people forget, is even if you're listening to a "lossless" file, you're generally still listening using an mp3 player, or your computer with crappy sounding computer speakers. Even if your computer is connected to good audiophile speakers, it's nowhere near the same as a CD on a good audiophile system. Every part of a system makes a difference - the amplifier, the preamplifier (or integrated amp), the CD player, the connecting cables, the speaker cables, the speakers, the subwoofer, etc. You have to spend at least SOME decent amount of money to really hear things in great quality.   Of course this will sound like gobbledygook to many people, but then again, most people who love the convenience of mp3's listened to on their ipods or through computer speakers have NO idea what they're missing, and maybe that's a good thing. If they truly heard most recordings the way they were meant to be heard, they'd be horrified with the sound quality they usually put up with. And to some, maybe sound quality is not something they really value when it comes to musical experience. Some just care about the music and lyrics and how they feel with sound not having a major contributing factor to them. Understood, but really people literally have NO idea what they're missing. Yeah, you can enjoy the music and lyrics in lower quality, especially if that's all a person has ever known, but most don't know that they could be hearing it DRAMATICALLY better. I'm not denying that people enjoy their music, but they could be enjoying it SO much more. It's like night and day. If these people ever get a chance to hear a CD (or better yet something they only know via mp3) on a really high quality audiophile system, they'll be deeply, deeply shocked at what they've been missing for so many years. Even a very modest audiophile system like I have is a ridiculous improvement of sonic clarity and enjoyment. I value sound so I agree with you.

[Ghostnotes]

I posted in another thread that this cd/album will TAX even a high end system. But what i mean is there is a lot going on in some of these tracks, some of them are pretty subtle and might get washed out. Sound quality though, is in my opinion superb. Dynamic range is huge,ranging from Neil's high hats to floor rattling lows.

 

My system is not super high end but can hold it's own.

 

But no matter what if you play it with WMP it will sound like crap on any system.

[losingit2k]

I have Lossmore....Hair off my scalp! I think I'm going bald!

 

 

Where have I heard all this before? Oh Yeah when S & A was released!

 

Can we just enjoy this great album that these aging Gods have present us mere mortals without all this trivial crap! Who the Flack cares! It sounds great (The Mp3 sounds great, The CD sounds Great ) Nick and Rick know what they are doing! If you guys are such great musical engineers what the hell are you doing here?....Move on and Get a Life!

 

Edited June 11, 2012 by losingit2k