Great Songs...but..

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 12:34 PM)

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%. Thank you sir!   I'll go with 90 something %. There is always room to learn...

[Two0neOneTwo]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 02:37 PM)

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 12:34 PM) 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%. Thank you sir!   I'll go with 90 something %. There is always room to learn... The MIX.   Maybe thats where I'm wrong. If as you all say the mix is good but the mastering is "typical of modern day records" then I point my finger to the mastering process.   Its sucks. There is no reason at this point in the game that Rush needs to "adhere" to modern day rock/pop records. They are STILL not going to get the radio play that those other records were mastered for. Air play.   Enough with the "Well that's what everyone does" aspect to mastering.   Blah.

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 02:34 PM)

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%. You all-cap a NO just for me? Well geez, sorray dude. I went back to your thread. You said a couple times how happy you were with the sound, and that it was an EQ issue. I see where Cyg mentioned compression, but you never did, and you didn't seem to indicate any agreement with him on compression. Apparently I misunderstood your thread's intent.

[launchpad67a]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 01:08 PM)

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 02:34 PM) 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%. You all-cap a NO just for me? Well geez, sorray dude. I went back to your thread. You said a couple times how happy you were with the sound, and that it was an EQ issue. I see where Cyg mentioned compression, but you never did, and you didn't seem to indicate any agreement with him on compression. Apparently I misunderstood your thread's intent. It's cool man, I wasn't blasting you at all. Just making a point that I don't disagree with Cyg at all about the compression. As I said in this thread, I didn't bring compression into the other discussion because there's nothing we can do about it. Not many people were talking about compression in that thread, they were saying how much low end there was and a lack of clarity on the top. Those are the 2 things I was trying to address.   Yes, I do like the record, and the mix. And yes, I think it sounds fine. Not great or good, just fine. I've just come to terms with over compression on modern cd's so I don't mention it anymore. No worries, I respect everyone's opinions.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 12:35 PM)

Rich was the recording engineer.

yes, i think this is in response to my post

Edited June 19, 2012 by Rushman14

[Pound of Obscure]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 01:07 PM)

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.

This does help some, but only some.

[Gedneil Alpeart]

I too would much prefer the 70s and 80s sound with more open ness and dynamic range, but I have come to accept that this is the way it is done today. It does not take away my enjoyment of the album, while VT's sound did.....now that was a mess.

 

I do hear walls of sound in CA, but I also hear a lot of breathing room and stripped down sections in most songs too, thankfully.

[mazyyz]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 02:07 PM)

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.

[Lerxster]

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (Pound of Obscure @ Jun 19 2012, 04:07 PM)

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 01:07 PM) 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. This does help some, but only some. Glad it helped some. That advise is straight from Launch's thread here: http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=74989. That's a thread I inferred about in my post above as being intelligent.

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 03:26 PM)

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 01:08 PM) QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 02:34 PM) 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%. You all-cap a NO just for me? Well geez, sorray dude. I went back to your thread. You said a couple times how happy you were with the sound, and that it was an EQ issue. I see where Cyg mentioned compression, but you never did, and you didn't seem to indicate any agreement with him on compression. Apparently I misunderstood your thread's intent. It's cool man, I wasn't blasting you at all. Just making a point that I don't disagree with Cyg at all about the compression. As I said in this thread, I didn't bring compression into the other discussion because there's nothing we can do about it. Not many people were talking about compression in that thread, they were saying how much low end there was and a lack of clarity on the top. Those are the 2 things I was trying to address.   Yes, I do like the record, and the mix. And yes, I think it sounds fine. Not great or good, just fine. I've just come to terms with over compression on modern cd's so I don't mention it anymore. No worries, I respect everyone's opinions. I may have gotten short. I certainly respect your opinions and by not mentioning compression in that thread, I assumed that was a non-issue and it was an EQ thing. But I got a feeling last night that something still wasn't quite right.. when everything gets loud. It doesn't seem to be as good as S&A sounded. I just want to understand why it isn't at least as good as S&A. I think it does sound okay.. alright. Like I voted in that one poll, it's not great but I don't really have a beef with it.   Much appreciate all your contributions to this Forum.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 19 2012, 02:00 PM)

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 19 2012, 12:35 PM) Rich was the recording engineer. yes, i think this is in response to my post Indeed it was.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 04:53 PM)

It doesn't seem to be as good as S&A sounded. I just want to understand why it isn't at least as good as S&A.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself but Rich Chycki mixed S&A, and Nick mixed CA. I think that's what it comes down to. My issues with the sound are not only with the mastering, but with the actual mixes. In fact, I finally looked a the wave form for CA today and it did not look extremely brick walled.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Rushman14

[Two0neOneTwo]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 06:53 PM)

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 03:26 PM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 01:08 PM) QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 02:34 PM) 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%. You all-cap a NO just for me? Well geez, sorray dude. I went back to your thread. You said a couple times how happy you were with the sound, and that it was an EQ issue. I see where Cyg mentioned compression, but you never did, and you didn't seem to indicate any agreement with him on compression. Apparently I misunderstood your thread's intent. It's cool man, I wasn't blasting you at all. Just making a point that I don't disagree with Cyg at all about the compression. As I said in this thread, I didn't bring compression into the other discussion because there's nothing we can do about it. Not many people were talking about compression in that thread, they were saying how much low end there was and a lack of clarity on the top. Those are the 2 things I was trying to address.   Yes, I do like the record, and the mix. And yes, I think it sounds fine. Not great or good, just fine. I've just come to terms with over compression on modern cd's so I don't mention it anymore. No worries, I respect everyone's opinions. I may have gotten short. I certainly respect your opinions and by not mentioning compression in that thread, I assumed that was a non-issue and it was an EQ thing. But I got a feeling last night that something still wasn't quite right.. when everything gets loud. It doesn't seem to be as good as S&A sounded. I just want to understand why it isn't at least as good as S&A. I think it does sound okay.. alright. Like I voted in that one poll, it's not great but I don't really have a beef with it.   Much appreciate all your contributions to this Forum. Just a sec.....I think we're getting off point here.   My main beef is that for the last 5 or 6 albums there is a constant drone of sound that threads throughout the whole of the recording.   As an example I give you an experiment I did with my 22 year old son (who, like moi, has played all their life) and I am in no way suggesting that I'm an engineering guru or anything. I just know whats easy on the ears and whats not.   What I did was simple, you can all do it.   I played a few cuts off Caress of Steel, I cranked it, and asked him if it was hard on his ears or was the music confusing or blending "together" at those high volumes. He said; no way!, sounds great. Every single moment all instruments clearly distinguishable, easy to listen too.   Then I played some cuts off Clockwork.....(Had to turn down the volume quite a bit). I asked him during Caravan and Headlong Flight how was the experience? What did it sound like comparatively speaking?   He immediately said, Noisy, Harsh, Hard to listen to. The music? Fantastic. The listening experience?...not great.   That is the point. Its not the music itself. If you take all the mastering fuckedupness out of the equation and let the songs breath and ebb and flow dynamically, put some QUIET back in, you'd have a nice easy to listen to record.   I realize many here disagree, but i feel thats because we've all grown used to the "new way". Making sure an album sounds good on a crappy system is unfair to those of us who want Quality, not some Homogeneous effort.   Oh well.   I didn't have to buy it right? lol.

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (Two0neOneTwo @ Jun 19 2012, 07:55 PM)

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 06:53 PM) QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 03:26 PM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 01:08 PM) QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Jun 19 2012, 02:34 PM) 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%. You all-cap a NO just for me? Well geez, sorray dude. I went back to your thread. You said a couple times how happy you were with the sound, and that it was an EQ issue. I see where Cyg mentioned compression, but you never did, and you didn't seem to indicate any agreement with him on compression. Apparently I misunderstood your thread's intent. It's cool man, I wasn't blasting you at all. Just making a point that I don't disagree with Cyg at all about the compression. As I said in this thread, I didn't bring compression into the other discussion because there's nothing we can do about it. Not many people were talking about compression in that thread, they were saying how much low end there was and a lack of clarity on the top. Those are the 2 things I was trying to address.   Yes, I do like the record, and the mix. And yes, I think it sounds fine. Not great or good, just fine. I've just come to terms with over compression on modern cd's so I don't mention it anymore. No worries, I respect everyone's opinions. I may have gotten short. I certainly respect your opinions and by not mentioning compression in that thread, I assumed that was a non-issue and it was an EQ thing. But I got a feeling last night that something still wasn't quite right.. when everything gets loud. It doesn't seem to be as good as S&A sounded. I just want to understand why it isn't at least as good as S&A. I think it does sound okay.. alright. Like I voted in that one poll, it's not great but I don't really have a beef with it.   Much appreciate all your contributions to this Forum. Just a sec.....I think we're getting off point here.   My main beef is that for the last 5 or 6 albums there is a constant drone of sound that threads throughout the whole of the recording.   As an example I give you an experiment I did with my 22 year old son (who, like moi, has played all their life) and I am in no way suggesting that I'm an engineering guru or anything. I just know whats easy on the ears and whats not.   What I did was simple, you can all do it.   I played a few cuts off Caress of Steel, I cranked it, and asked him if it was hard on his ears or was the music confusing or blending "together" at those high volumes. He said; no way!, sounds great. Every single moment all instruments clearly distinguishable, easy to listen too.   Then I played some cuts off Clockwork.....(Had to turn down the volume quite a bit). I asked him during Caravan and Headlong Flight how was the experience? What did it sound like comparatively speaking?   He immediately said, Noisy, Harsh, Hard to listen to. The music? Fantastic. The listening experience?...not great.   That is the point. Its not the music itself. If you take all the mastering fuckedupness out of the equation and let the songs breath and ebb and flow dynamically, put some QUIET back in, you'd have a nice easy to listen to record.   I realize many here disagree, but i feel thats because we've all grown used to the "new way". Making sure an album sounds good on a crappy system is unfair to those of us who want Quality, not some Homogeneous effort.   Oh well.   I didn't have to buy it right? lol. Well I'm not sure I agree whole heartedly with you but I hear what you're saying. I think Counterparts especially and T4E sound great. VT's issues are well documented. S&A sounded great. CA only sounds alright. That's me though. I think each album has progressively gotten louder, except for CA which I think is dialed down a bit but it's still loud.   So, I agree that old Rush sounds ultimately better. Back then it was an audiophile world of sorts. Now it's all earbuds and itunes driven. I agree with you there.   And man, you had to buy it, didn't you? I mean.. it's so f***ing great

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 19 2012, 07:50 PM)

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jun 19 2012, 04:53 PM) It doesn't seem to be as good as S&A sounded. I just want to understand why it isn't at least as good as S&A. Sorry if I'm repeating myself but Rich Chycki mixed S&A, and Nick mixed CA. I think that's what it comes down to. My issues with the sound are not only with the mastering, but with the actual mixes. In fact, I finally looked a the wave form for CA today and it did not look extremely brick walled. Yeah I know Nick did CA. I just don't understand what happened. You'd expect he'd be competent. I know our resident professionals think it's compression, so I suppose that's a big part of it. Or maybe all of it. But it makes sense that a waveform will not look brickwalled- CA isn't as loud as the last two albums. Seems to me waveforms are a loudness meter and have no other value as far as determining sound quality. That's why I hate it when they're brought into a discussion about sound quality. It is possible for an album to be loud and still sound great.

[MUSICinTheABsTrAcT]

QUOTE (Two0neOneTwo @ Jun 19 2012, 01:58 PM)

[....]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. [....] 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 agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, however the last two minutes of The Garden are brick-walled/compressed more than any other part of the entire Clockwork Angels album, unfortunately.

 

I agree however that up and including the guitar solo there is plenty of dynamic range and space in the music. After that, it is a different story.

[pedro2112]

QUOTE (MUSICinTheABsTrAcT @ Jun 19 2012, 07:32 PM)

the last two minutes of The Garden are brick-walled/compressed more than any other part of the entire Clockwork Angels album, unfortunately.

I agree, and that's too bad because it is a stellar ending to a stellar song.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (Two0neOneTwo @ Jun 19 2012, 05:55 PM)

Just a sec.....I think we're getting off point here. My main beef is that for the last 5 or 6 albums there is a constant drone of sound that threads throughout the whole of the recording. As an example I give you an experiment I did with my 22 year old son (who, like moi, has played all their life) and I am in no way suggesting that I'm an engineering guru or anything. I just know whats easy on the ears and whats not. What I did was simple, you can all do it. I played a few cuts off Caress of Steel, I cranked it, and asked him if it was hard on his ears or was the music confusing or blending "together" at those high volumes. He said; no way!, sounds great. Every single moment all instruments clearly distinguishable, easy to listen too. Then I played some cuts off Clockwork.....(Had to turn down the volume quite a bit). I asked him during Caravan and Headlong Flight how was the experience? What did it sound like comparatively speaking? He immediately said, Noisy, Harsh, Hard to listen to. The music? Fantastic. The listening experience?...not great. That is the point. Its not the music itself. If you take all the mastering fuckedupness out of the equation and let the songs breath and ebb and flow dynamically, put some QUIET back in, you'd have a nice easy to listen to record. I realize many here disagree, but i feel thats because we've all grown used to the "new way". Making sure an album sounds good on a crappy system is unfair to those of us who want Quality, not some Homogeneous effort. Oh well. I didn't have to buy it right? lol.

Excellent post!

 

You even chose the Rush disc with the widest dynamic range. The beginning of the Necromancer is extremely quiet but by the meat of the song the volume is pretty good but sounds quiet compared with current mastering "techniques."

 

Now trying to listen to Caress in a car is difficult because it is difficult to hear the Necromancer in particular above car and road noise.

 

But this illustrates the situation very well. Because there is little "self-noise" on a digital recording the quiet parts can be really quiet and the loud parts can be very loud and the difference between them can be very wide. The problem is the "industry" purposefully and actively squeeze popular music so that dynamic range is almost non existent thus nullifying the potential benefits from digital recording.

 

However things can go too far the other way too. I used to work for a Lucas company and I was told a story about how quiet they had gotten the edit suites at Skywalker Sound that when they put a film in a real theater some things could not be heard because of the crowd and the AC in the theater. They ended up creating a noise generator that would simulate these conditions so their mixes could translate better and be what they intended the audience to hear.

 

[bytored]

QUOTE (MUSICinTheABsTrAcT @ Jun 19 2012, 08:32 PM)

QUOTE (Two0neOneTwo @ Jun 19 2012, 01:58 PM) [....]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. [....] 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 agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, however the last two minutes of The Garden are brick-walled/compressed more than any other part of the entire Clockwork Angels album, unfortunately.   I agree however that up and including the guitar solo there is plenty of dynamic range and space in the music. After that, it is a different story. YOu know I couldn't agree more about "The Garden". While this is my favorite song so far of CA I have noticed that as soon as the guitar solo starts there is this sort of buzz or hiss that is attached to it. When Alex's notes diminish so does the buzz. Also here this or something very similar after the solo and I think it is keyboards but its hard to tell exactly what instrument it is.

[malnar]

So, any thoughts on the mastering of the vinyl version of CA from those that have heard it?

 

The compression issues on these newer albums are so frustrating to me, because I think they feature some of the best music they've ever made. I can't think of a reason why a band of Rush's stature can't say "NO" to this sort of industry practice and do it their own way.

Edited June 20, 2012 by malnar

[Two0neOneTwo]

QUOTE (malnar @ Jun 20 2012, 05:13 AM)

So, any thoughts on the mastering of the vinyl version of CA from those that have heard it? The compression issues on these newer albums are so frustrating to me, because I think they feature some of the best music they've ever made. I can't think of a reason why a band of Rush's stature can't say "NO" to this sort of industry practice and do it their own way.

This is exactly the kind of question I would like the Rush camp to answer.

Nick, Rich, the guys.

 

I mean seriously, they obviously listened to this thing a million times before the release.

Did NO ONE say, "Hey, thats kinda noisy isn't it?" No one??

 

Of course, I'm only one fan and have no right to demand an answer, (Its their creative work after all) but I can tell you that if a next album comes out I won't be supporting it by buying it. Not if the same practices are used again.

 

Its just so frustrating.

 

 

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (Two0neOneTwo @ Jun 20 2012, 08:37 AM)

I mean seriously, they obviously listened to this thing a million times before the release. Did NO ONE say, "Hey, thats kinda noisy isn't it?" No one??

right? I've asked myself this question 100 times.

[Two0neOneTwo]

The more I listen to CA, I find I am realizing some things.

 

I noticed one thing in particular. ALEX's parts may be a huge contributing factor here. Not sure if its mastering issue or maybe just a mix issue.

 

On Clockwork Angels.......at the 33 sec mark. That into chord Alexs plays causes EVERYONE I've played this album for to cringe and flinch...a fast forward moment.

I also notice the same cringe occurs ALL OVER this album once Alex starts playing some of his "sculpting parts".

Not his solo's. Its the fills that cause this reaction in quite a few people I've played this for.

 

Now at the risk of sounding circular, I point to The Fountain of Lamneth off Caress. "The fountain"

 

The chords Alexs plays here, no matter how loud you crank it, do not induce the "cringe" effect even though, its a pretty intense part.

 

Edited to add.....

 

Listen to "Cut to the Chase" off Counterparts. Some pretty intense strumming there as well, but somehow, its easy to listen to (at any volume)....doesn't make anyone cringe.

 

Hummm.....

 

I do love these songs though. I am also in that camp that thinks this is a "masterpeice of music" even if it doesn't go down the ear canal that way.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Two0neOneTwo

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (Two0neOneTwo @ Jun 20 2012, 11:28 AM)

On Clockwork Angels.......at the 33 sec mark. That into chord Alexs plays causes EVERYONE I've played this album for to cringe and flinch...a fast forward moment. I also notice the same cringe occurs ALL OVER this album once Alex starts playing some of his "sculpting parts".

yeah, lowering the mids kinda helps.