Great Songs...but..

[Two0neOneTwo]

Been a long time!

I realize that I'm not a regular poster so I hope you all take it easy on me.

 

Let me say first off, I LOVE CA. I think the music is some of the best Rush has done.

My dismay is really not about the music at all. Its about the production, mix of it.

 

I have the cd and I have a dedicated audio room with an HK receiver plus a couple of bryson amps. Paradigm Studio 60's as my fronts for stereo listening so I'm not listening on crap.

 

To me, CA is the same (as others have mentioned) WALL OF SOUND that the previous 4 Rush albums had.

 

Neil loves to talk about how Gruber taught him how to let a song "breath". He did apply that to his drumming but the record does not do the same.

 

Its the same over compressed smash in the face.

 

You know why the Garden is such a great song on CA? For me, its because the song itself allows one to appreciate the intricacies and "for a moment" forget about the WALL of SOUND that the rest of the album is.

 

I dunno, I would LOVE to see what Terry Brown and some older equipment could do with this album if re-done.

 

Maybe thats why Rush is so much better Live in Concert. Their songs loose that "Wall of Sound" and take on a new dynamic life.

 

Don't get me wrong, the songs are fantastic.

I just wish we had a mix that allowed the songs to "breath" a little bit.

 

To me it sounds like every instrument and effect and "Twang" is at the same levels mix wise.

Its really hard (For this guy) to get a bead on anything. Your awash is so much sound it renders the riffs and intricacies as bland.

 

Its just so difficult to get across what i mean.

 

Oh well. Maybe one day someone will come up with a Filter that can take any rush album and process it using any other alums "Sound".

For example, what would CA sound like if it were recorded using Signals master mix? Or Moving Pictures? .....whatever.

Clearer Drum Parts? Less muddiness? Less compression?

That would be interesting.

 

For this guy, New Rush is better than old Rush song writing wise and technical playing wise.

However, Old Rush kills New Rush's overall sound on a record.

 

New Rush just doesn't give a song a chance to breath.

 

Thats about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[losingit2k]

Yeah , Yeah, We've heard this all before. (Its bassy) we know.

 

[Lerxster]

It's not overcompressed. Just turn the bass down a hair. Adjust your sub down a bit. Fiddle with the sliders. Turn a knob. It's actually not that bad. There's a thread or three here that intelligently speak to this.

[Tombstone Mountain]

QUOTE (Two0neOneTwo @ Jun 19 2012, 12:58 PM)

Been a long time! I realize that I'm not a regular poster so I hope you all take it easy on me. To me, CA is the same (as others have mentioned) WALL OF SOUND that the previous 4 Rush albums had. Its the same over compressed smash in the face. I dunno, I would LOVE to see what Terry Brown and some older equipment could do with this album if re-done. Don't get me wrong, the songs are fantastic. I just wish we had a mix that allowed the songs to "breath" a little bit. Clearer Drum Parts? Less muddiness? Less compression? That would be interesting. For this guy, New Rush is better than old Rush song writing wise and technical playing wise. However, Old Rush kills New Rush's overall sound on a record. New Rush just doesn't give a song a chance to breath.

I've read so many posts about the quality of the mastering, the mixing, everything technically possible to complain about...so this isn't the first thread I've read with personal tastes not being sated.

 

It sounds great to me...what are you implying in terms or muddiness or quality...where are these spots?

[Stormtron]

The vinyl sounds a lot better to me. Listening to it right now, and I'm noticing some things I don't remember hearing on the CD. Seven Cities sounded so much better to me it's almost like a different mix.

[Rushman14]

if you browse the forum, you see alot of similar posts. I have issues with the final master as well, but unlike VT it is mostly fixable with some proper EQing.

 

edited to say it sounds pretty damn good in headphones.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Rushman14

[EveryNerveAware]

Pay the $19.99 for the high definition FLAC lossless master copy of the LP if you are that much of an audiophile.

[Flying Finn]

Listened avant garde metal from 2012 and now old prog classics from 70s. Guess which one sounds better? Modern production makes me sad.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

There is no implication. The thing is over compressed. Do people not know what this means? Apparently so.

 

The thing about digital recording is that is capable of a wider dynamic range than analog recording with less signal to noise ratio. What this means is that the span from the quietest level to the loudest level is significantly wider than that of analog recording which also has a higher signal to noise ratio. One reason audio compression developed was to compensate for the inherent noise level of tape so the "noise floor" (the quietest level) was raised, but in order to do that the highest level must be reduced and the over all level made up for. So what is happening in the quietest point is being raised up while the loudest level is being reduced and thus the signal is compressed. These days this is not as necessary yet in order to make music seem louder a lot of compression is applied to be competitive with other music in the marketplace. The biggest problem is the damage done to the stereo image and frequencies when over compression occurs, or worse as in the case of VT the transients are essentially destroyed (loud peaks, such as snare and bass drum). When looking at an over compressed waveform it begins to resemble a brick instead of what a waveform should appear and sonically this is not good. Experienced ears hear this immediately and there is no getting around it.

Edited June 19, 2012 by CygnusX-1Bk2

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (EveryNerveAware @ Jun 19 2012, 11:18 AM)

Pay the $19.99 for the high definition FLAC lossless master copy of the LP if you are that much of an audiophile.

That will only make a higher resolution of a crappy waveform. It doesn't work that way.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 11:07 AM)

It's not overcompressed. Just turn the bass down a hair. Adjust your sub down a bit. Fiddle with the sliders. Turn a knob. It's actually not that bad. There's a thread or three here that intelligently speak to this.

Yes it is overcompressed and all the EQing in the world will not rectify it.

[Two0neOneTwo]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 19 2012, 01:15 PM)

if you browse the forum, you see alot of similar posts. I have issues with the final master as well, but unlike VT it is mostly fixable with some proper EQing. edited to say it sounds pretty damn good in headphones.

Honestly, I haven't read the other posts regarding this.

If others are saying the same things in other posts then obviously others are getting the same impression as I am.

 

Like I said, I love the songs, just don't get the why the overall sound has to be so harsh/Hot/.

So.....produced.

 

I find this same thing with ALL new stuff. Not just Rush.

 

Maybe I just don't like the "perfectness" that the new technology offers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 11:23 AM)

There is no implication. The thing is over compressed. Do people not what what this means? Apparently so. The thing about digital recording is that is capable of a wider dynamic range than analog recording with less signal to noise ratio. What this means is that the span from the quietest level to the loudest level is significantly wider than that of analog recording which also has a higher signal to noise ratio. One reason audio compression developed was to compensate for the inherent noise level of tape so the "noise floor" (the quietest level) was raised, but in order to do that the highest level must be reduced and the over all level made up for. So what is happening in the quietest point is being raised up while the loudest level is being reduced and thus the signal is compressed. These days this is not as necessary yet in order to make music seem louder a lot of compression is applied to be competitive with other music in the marketplace. The biggest problem is the damage done to the stereo image and frequencies when over compression occurs, or worse as in the case of VT the transients are essentially destroyed (loud peaks, such as snare and bass drum). When looking at an over compressed waveform it begins to resemble a brick instead of what a waveform should appear and sonically this is not good. Experienced ears hear this immediately and there is no getting around it.

just when I was getting over my disappointment with the sound...

 

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 01:25 PM)

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 11:07 AM) It's not overcompressed. Just turn the bass down a hair. Adjust your sub down a bit. Fiddle with the sliders. Turn a knob. It's actually not that bad. There's a thread or three here that intelligently speak to this. Yes it is overcompressed and all the EQing in the world will not rectify it. Well your mod buddy launchpad would disagree with you. It is mainly EQ. You sound a little snooty, and your reliance on waveform seals the deal. You're probably wrong.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

No I haven't actually looked at the waveform but describing what it looks like when viewed. I don't have to see it to hear it. Launch said that EQing improved the sound a little to his taste which is different than claiming it "fixes" the problem. It made it more listenable to him. He also likes things brighter than I do which is also a taste thing. Overcompression is occurring regardless of what anyone here says about it. You can disagree all you like but this album is overcompressed, more so than S&A but not as much as VT. It does things to the mix that weakens the overall aesthetic. I don't need to see a waveform to hear it.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 11:52 AM)

No I haven't actually looked at the waveform but describing what it looks like when viewed. I don't have to see it to hear it. Launch said that EQing improved the sound a little to his taste which is different than claiming it "fixes" the problem. It made it more listenable to him. He also likes things brighter than I do which is also a taste thing. Overcompression is occurring regardless of what anyone here says about it. You can disagree all you like but this album is overcompressed, more so than S&A but not as much as VT. It does things to the mix that weakens the overall aesthetic. I don't need to see a waveform to hear it.

If it sounded like S&A I would be happy. I kinda wish Rich would have just mixed this album as well.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

I thought he did.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Again the over compression usually happens at the mastering stage which is AFTER the mix is done. If compression is used as part of the recording process (as an effect) then compressing in the mastering stage will only make matters worse. Which is why when you turn it up the snare drum gets mushy and the guitars become a wash.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 11:57 AM)

I thought he did.

for some reason it was decided Nick would mix this album. just compare the 2 Caravans. I prefer Rich's mix.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Rushman14

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 01:52 PM)

No I haven't actually looked at the waveform but describing what it looks like when viewed. I don't have to see it to hear it. Launch said that EQing improved the sound a little to his taste which is different than claiming it "fixes" the problem. It made it more listenable to him. He also likes things brighter than I do which is also a taste thing. Overcompression is occurring regardless of what anyone here says about it. You can disagree all you like but this album is overcompressed, more so than S&A but not as much as VT. It does things to the mix that weakens the overall aesthetic. I don't need to see a waveform to hear it.

Well I'm not an expert, so I would never disagree just to disagree. Launchpad started a thread about the sound issue and indicated more or less that in his proffessional opinion it was mainly an EQ issue. He never mentioned overcompression. I'm just relying on people in the know. It doesn't sound as good as S&A, so maybe you're partially right. And maybe I 'm back to not really knowing then.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

The liner notes in the fanpack edition are so damned small I just glanced at them but I thought I saw Rich's name in there.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 12:16 PM)

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 01:52 PM) No I haven't actually looked at the waveform but describing what it looks like when viewed. I don't have to see it to hear it. Launch said that EQing improved the sound a little to his taste which is different than claiming it "fixes" the problem. It made it more listenable to him. He also likes things brighter than I do which is also a taste thing. Overcompression is occurring regardless of what anyone here says about it. You can disagree all you like but this album is overcompressed, more so than S&A but not as much as VT. It does things to the mix that weakens the overall aesthetic. I don't need to see a waveform to hear it. Well I'm not an expert, so I would never disagree just to disagree. Launchpad started a thread about the sound issue and indicated more or less that in his proffessional opinion it was mainly an EQ issue. He never mentioned overcompression. I'm just relying on people in the know. It doesn't sound as good as S&A, so maybe you're partially right. And maybe I 'm back to not really knowing then. I value launch's opinion and we are both professionals. I posted in his thread a couple times. Most notably that he of all people here should know that a freshly mastered disc shouldn't require fixing and that we both know that compression impacts frequency (EQ) and that I would be interested to see what the dynamic range looked like. He agreed with my point but he never mentioned what the dynamic range looks like. At least from what I've read in that thread.   I am not trying to be snooty I just want to hear a decent sounding Rush record for a change. We shouldn't have to go back to the 80's for such a request.

Edited June 19, 2012 by CygnusX-1Bk2

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 02:22 PM)

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 12:16 PM) QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 01:52 PM) No I haven't actually looked at the waveform but describing what it looks like when viewed. I don't have to see it to hear it. Launch said that EQing improved the sound a little to his taste which is different than claiming it "fixes" the problem. It made it more listenable to him. He also likes things brighter than I do which is also a taste thing. Overcompression is occurring regardless of what anyone here says about it. You can disagree all you like but this album is overcompressed, more so than S&A but not as much as VT. It does things to the mix that weakens the overall aesthetic. I don't need to see a waveform to hear it. Well I'm not an expert, so I would never disagree just to disagree. Launchpad started a thread about the sound issue and indicated more or less that in his proffessional opinion it was mainly an EQ issue. He never mentioned overcompression. I'm just relying on people in the know. It doesn't sound as good as S&A, so maybe you're partially right. And maybe I 'm back to not really knowing then. I value launch's opinion and we are both professionals. I posted in his thread a couple times. Most notably that he of all people here should know that a freshly mastered disc shouldn't require fixing and that we both know that compression impacts frequency (EQ) and that I would be interested to see what the dynamic range looked like. He agreed with my point but he never mentioned what the dynamic range looks like. At least from what I've read in that thread.   I am not trying to be snooty I just want to hear a decent sounding Rush record for a change. We shouldn't have to go back to the 80's for such a request. Alright, thanks

[launchpad67a]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 11:42 AM)

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 01:25 PM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 11:07 AM) It's not overcompressed. Just turn the bass down a hair. Adjust your sub down a bit. Fiddle with the sliders. Turn a knob. It's actually not that bad. There's a thread or three here that intelligently speak to this. Yes it is overcompressed and all the EQing in the world will not rectify it. Well your mod buddy launchpad would disagree with you. It is mainly EQ. You sound a little snooty, and your reliance on waveform seals the deal. You're probably wrong. NO...I do not disagree with Cyg. He is correct, it is over compressed, just like most modern rock records. I have learned to accept this as "the norm" now days, so I didn't dwell on the compression. Do I like it? No. I accept it, but can overlook this because the songs are strong.   My suggestions in other posts are only a means for reducing the low end and brighten up the top a bit. No amount of fixing, eq or otherwise, can correct the compression of the recording. It is what it is.   Cyg knows his shit, 100%.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Rich was the recording engineer.