Great Songs...but..

[Tick]

Just remember, shitty music can't be tweaked by turning a knob. Thankfully, the music is freakin awesome!

 

I think all the talk about the mix is way over the top, imo! Put on your IPod and listen. It sounds f***ing great!

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 22 2012, 01:11 PM)

QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 22 2012, 09:54 AM) QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Jun 22 2012, 10:39 AM) QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 21 2012, 10:09 PM) I think the worst part of it for me is when they released Caravan and BU2B they sounded pretty good. caravan and bu2b never sounded good to me. The quality of them never sounded good, or the songs themselves? 2 different things really.   Im just commenting on the sound. They did sound better before when you compare them, especially when you blast them. The original versions had a cleaner sound, more punch to them. Just listen to the bass drum in the originals which was powerful, then its weak as hell in the new versions, and all throughout the rest of the songs.   They definitely changed something during the recording of the other songs, realized the other 2 dont match anymore and tweaked them to fit the rest. Trenken, for the first time I think we actually agree on something. It's a Christmas miracle! I definitely agree that the originals were a bit more 'crisp' if you will. I noticed a change.   But...I do really like the addition of the acoustic intro to BU2B.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Jun 22 2012, 10:40 AM)

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 22 2012, 01:11 PM) QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 22 2012, 09:54 AM) QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Jun 22 2012, 10:39 AM) QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 21 2012, 10:09 PM) I think the worst part of it for me is when they released Caravan and BU2B they sounded pretty good. caravan and bu2b never sounded good to me. The quality of them never sounded good, or the songs themselves? 2 different things really.   Im just commenting on the sound. They did sound better before when you compare them, especially when you blast them. The original versions had a cleaner sound, more punch to them. Just listen to the bass drum in the originals which was powerful, then its weak as hell in the new versions, and all throughout the rest of the songs.   They definitely changed something during the recording of the other songs, realized the other 2 dont match anymore and tweaked them to fit the rest. Trenken, for the first time I think we actually agree on something. It's a Christmas miracle! I definitely agree that the originals were a bit more 'crisp' if you will. I noticed a change.   But...I do really like the addition of the acoustic intro to BU2B. for some reason I like BU2B better now, I'm not sure if it's listening to it in context of the album or what.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (Tick @ Jun 22 2012, 10:38 AM)

Just remember, shitty music can't be tweaked by turning a knob. Thankfully, the music is freakin awesome! I think all the talk about the mix is way over the top, imo! Put on your IPod and listen. It sounds f***ing great!

agreed Dimi. I do most of my listening on headphones at work, and it rocks

[ILSnwdog]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 22 2012, 12:42 PM)

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Jun 22 2012, 10:40 AM) QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 22 2012, 01:11 PM) QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 22 2012, 09:54 AM) QUOTE (ReflectedLight @ Jun 22 2012, 10:39 AM) QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 21 2012, 10:09 PM) I think the worst part of it for me is when they released Caravan and BU2B they sounded pretty good. caravan and bu2b never sounded good to me. The quality of them never sounded good, or the songs themselves? 2 different things really.   Im just commenting on the sound. They did sound better before when you compare them, especially when you blast them. The original versions had a cleaner sound, more punch to them. Just listen to the bass drum in the originals which was powerful, then its weak as hell in the new versions, and all throughout the rest of the songs.   They definitely changed something during the recording of the other songs, realized the other 2 dont match anymore and tweaked them to fit the rest. Trenken, for the first time I think we actually agree on something. It's a Christmas miracle! I definitely agree that the originals were a bit more 'crisp' if you will. I noticed a change.   But...I do really like the addition of the acoustic intro to BU2B. for some reason I like BU2B better now, I'm not sure if it's listening to it in context of the album or what. Me too. When they were first introduced, I liked Caravan better, and I though BU2B was not as interesting.   Now listening to them on CA, I'm digging BU2B more. Perhaps I like it more now because I'm appreciating the heaviness of the song. Perhaps it's nothing more than the fact that I played Caravan more when they first came out, and BU2B is a little fresher to my ears.   Regardless...both songs kick major ass.

[-D-RocK-]

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Jun 22 2012, 11:45 AM)

Regardless...both songs kick major ass.

You said it right there bro.....

 

 

[Tick]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 22 2012, 01:43 PM)

QUOTE (Tick @ Jun 22 2012, 10:38 AM) Just remember, shitty music can't be tweaked by turning a knob. Thankfully, the music is freakin awesome! I think all the talk about the mix is way over the top, imo! Put on your IPod and listen. It sounds f***ing great! agreed Dimi. I do most of my listening on headphones at work, and it rocks WHY YOU DO THIS TO ME!!!!

[ILSnwdog]

QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Jun 22 2012, 12:50 PM)

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Jun 22 2012, 11:45 AM) Regardless...both songs kick major ass.  You said it right there bro.....

[Two0neOneTwo]

QUOTE (vespa2112 @ Jun 22 2012, 11:33 AM)

Usually, I can listen to any Rush song three times in a row; 1) listen to drums, 2)listen to bass, 3) listen to guitar.  So I tried listening to the drums to learn the parts in my head, visualize Neil playing, etc...and found it just so hard.  I couldn't separate it from the rest of the noise.  I agree with what other said, did someone not have the balls to say "Hey, this is noisy, can we get some clarity here?"  I imagine, they have some pretty good equipment on hand when mixing and mastering.  If Nick is such the super-fan, then WTF?

Exactly, this is what those of us outlaws have been whining about.

 

Sonic separation. Quiet! The ability to easily differentiate between the 3 of them without a wall of "effects" "noise" "compression" that renders what made them great to listen to for 25 years is now GONE. Has been for quite some time.

 

Its a shame. Its a shame because the reason for it is NOT unavoidable. It is not something that "just can't be done any longer".

 

Really, I think CA IS a modern day Rush Masterpiece. It just doesn't "sound" like one.

 

I cannot play CA with my wife around, yet she enjoys Caress of Steel? WTF?

I asked her why?

She said the same thing my son said. CA is too noisy, too harsh, etc......

However, She loves the Garden. Why? Because its the one song that (at least until the end) brings some ear relief combined with a great song.

 

grrrrrrr

Edited June 22, 2012 by Two0neOneTwo

[Rushman14]

[Two0neOneTwo]

[vespa2112]

Can we get someone who has CA on vinyl (or any of their albums in the last 10 year on vinyl) to chime in on this subject? I have read that the mastering is different due to the different media formats making the vinyl version actually sound more dynamic. Is this true?

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (Rushnutrick @ Jun 21 2012, 09:31 PM)

I happen to like the "balls" given to this album. Granted, I have to dial down the bottom end a bit. I am always tinkering with my EQ with any music these days. As for CA, I LOVE the album! I got the fanpack from CLassic Rock mag. IMO, these guys have yet to dissapoint me. Cheers.

This album would have balls if it had dynamic range. The balls are being cut off by overcompression.

 

I got CA the same day I had bought some used CDs for my iTunes Library, mostly 50's and 60's stuff like Jerry Lee Lewis, Dion and the Bellmonts, Little Richard and the like. Listening to this much older music recorded with all tube gear the differences were astonishing. Those old recordings are vibrant and punchy. The JLL stuff was probably the most inferior sounding of the bunch having been recorded at Sun records. Recording techniques are so much different now (thanks in a great deal to the Beatles and Geoff Emerick, Ken Scott and George Martin; et al) but with old recording especially you can really get a sense of the room they recorded in. Stereo mixes are so much more lively and almost 3D.

 

The Beatles were the first band to use heavy compression on recordings, but the compressors and limiters they used were made from vacuum tubes not transistors or some plugin to replicate the characteristics of the actual gear used way back.

 

Since the "brickwall" software limiter came into existence (which is supposed to be a mastering tool), the L2 in particular has done more to damage the quality of audio in all areas of production. I have used the L2 myself and even have the updated L3 which is not quite as harsh, but it must be used sparingly and in specific situations but not applied to entire mixes as is being used by too many recording and mastering engineers. The mixing console that Rush recorded Moving Pictures with was an SSL (now owned by Peter Gabriel) which was one of the first consoles to have compression as part of each channel as well as a "Master Buss" compressor for the main out. That master buss comp is still considered one of the great compressors of all time and one reason MP sounds the way that it does. It is more even handed when applied to a mix and brings out subtlety and clarity when used appropriately, but it too can smash the crap out of a signal in the wrong hands.

 

I wish modern engineers would compare mixes and masters to older recordings rather than new ones. Not gonna happen...

[vespa2112]

I wish modern engineers would compare mixes and masters to older recordings rather than new ones. Not gonna happen...

I just dont get it. Modern engineers don't listen to any older recordings from over 15 years ago and say "man... that sure sounds nice and punchy"? They have to realize what they are doing. Does the band not have a choice in the matter due to record companies wanting to only put out cd's that are within some range to make them louder. I could see that being the answer with larger companies like Atlantic, but Roadrunner Records?

 

I just found this quote from Marketwire.com:

""CLOCKWORK ANGELS" has been mastered specifically for iTunes format in mind, ensuring the delivery of the music to listeners with increased audio fidelity, more closely replicating what the artists, recording engineers, and producers intended. "

 

Are they f-ing serious?

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/ru...ong-1648190.htm

Edited June 22, 2012 by vespa2112

[Two0neOneTwo]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 22 2012, 01:33 PM)

QUOTE (Rushnutrick @ Jun 21 2012, 09:31 PM) I happen to like the "balls" given to this album. Granted, I have to dial down the bottom end a bit. I am always tinkering with my EQ with any music these days. As for CA, I LOVE the album! I got the fanpack from CLassic Rock mag. IMO, these guys have yet to dissapoint me. Cheers. This album would have balls if it had dynamic range. The balls are being cut off by overcompression.   I got CA the same day I had bought some used CDs for my iTunes Library, mostly 50's and 60's stuff like Jerry Lee Lewis, Dion and the Bellmonts, Little Richard and the like. Listening to this much older music recorded with all tube gear the differences were astonishing. Those old recordings are vibrant and punchy. The JLL stuff was probably the most inferior sounding of the bunch having been recorded at Sun records. Recording techniques are so much different now (thanks in a great deal to the Beatles and Geoff Emerick, Ken Scott and George Martin; et al) but with old recording especially you can really get a sense of the room they recorded in. Stereo mixes are so much more lively and almost 3D.   The Beatles were the first band to use heavy compression on recordings, but the compressors and limiters they used were made from vacuum tubes not transistors or some plugin to replicate the characteristics of the actual gear used way back.   Since the "brickwall" software limiter came into existence (which is supposed to be a mastering tool), the L2 in particular has done more to damage the quality of audio in all areas of production. I have used the L2 myself and even have the updated L3 which is not quite as harsh, but it must be used sparingly and in specific situations but not applied to entire mixes as is being used by too many recording and mastering engineers. The mixing console that Rush recorded Moving Pictures with was an SSL (now owned by Peter Gabriel) which was one of the first consoles to have compression as part of each channel as well as a "Master Buss" compressor for the main out. That master buss comp is still considered one of the great compressors of all time and one reason MP sounds the way that it does. It is more even handed when applied to a mix and brings out subtlety and clarity when used appropriately, but it too can smash the crap out of a signal in the wrong hands.   I wish modern engineers would compare mixes and masters to older recordings rather than new ones. Not gonna happen...   Excellent!

[Two0neOneTwo]

I wish modern engineers would compare mixes and masters to older recordings rather than new ones. Not gonna happen...

I just dont get it. Modern engineers don't listen to any older recordings from over 15 years ago and say "man... that sure sounds nice and punchy"? They have to realize what they are doing. Does the band not have a choice in the matter due to record companies wanting to only put out cd's that are within some range to make them louder. I could see that being the answer with larger companies like Atlantic, but Roadrunner Records?

 

I just found this quote from Marketwire.com:

""CLOCKWORK ANGELS" has been mastered specifically for iTunes format in mind, ensuring the delivery of the music to listeners with increased audio fidelity, more closely replicating what the artists, recording engineers, and producers intended. "

 

Are they f-ing serious?

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/ru...ong-1648190.htm

This is such a load of crapola its pathetic. (Not your comments vespa, the article)

 

Sorry but, A decent rip of Caress Of Steel played through an Ipod with ear buds STILL sounds sonically better.

 

The excuses proliferate.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Two0neOneTwo

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Record companies pay for recording costs, publishing, manufacturing, distribution, etc. You bet they have absolute say in what happens after the artist is finished recording. There are some exceptions and variables of course.

 

There are some engineers who make really good sounding records these days but they are few and far between and unfortunately the records they work on don't get the same kind of push as others. It's an unfair game and always has been.

 

With the advent of the iPod and iTunes (or what have you) CD sales have been in a nose dive. Audio engineers no longer make the same kind of money because no one really buys full albums anymore. An engineer gets paid for what he does and his royalties are often based on unit sale for a whole disc. Things are changing so that they get "points" from artists willing to give them up. By that I meant a percentage of the writing royalty. Many audio engineers have also been impacted by the Digital Audio Workstation that anyone can own. So to remain competitive they need to compromise and the record companies have the most say in how the pie is divided.

 

It is an unfair game.

[Two0neOneTwo]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 22 2012, 02:00 PM)

Record companies pay for recording costs, publishing, manufacturing, distribution, etc. You bet they have absolute say in what happens after the artist is finished recording. There are some exceptions and variables of course. There are some engineers who make really good sounding records these days but they are few and far between and unfortunately the records they work on don't get the same kind of push as others. It's an unfair game and always has been. With the advent of the iPod and iTunes (or what have you) CD sales have been in a nose dive. Audio engineers no longer make the same kind of money because no one really buys full albums anymore. An engineer gets paid for what he does and his royalties are often based on unit sale for a whole disc. Things are changing so that they get "points" from artists willing to give them up. By that I meant a percentage of the writing royalty. Many audio engineers have also been impacted by the Digital Audio Workstation that anyone can own. So to remain competitive they need to compromise and the record companies have the most say in how the pie is divided. It is an unfair game.

Wow......

 

What happened to Neils little speech about " We are gonna do what we want and No we don't care if you like it".....

 

Ala this:

 

20 seconds in, listen.....

 

Speech

 

What happened to this attitude?

Edited June 22, 2012 by Two0neOneTwo

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

I am sure they have a certain amount of control over the mix, as they are usually present for that, but that is rare as well. I know of many mix engineers who do not want the artist anywhere near a mix session because of the "more me" syndrome.

 

The "we're gonna do what we're gonna do" applies more to the material and not so much the product that is the CD. I am sure that the record company was less than thrilled at the idea of a band in their late 50s making a concept album 30+ years after their last one. Other artists do not get this kind of consideration.

[Two0neOneTwo]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 22 2012, 02:29 PM)

I am sure they have a certain amount of control over the mix, as they are usually present for that, but that is rare as well. I know of many mix engineers who do not want the artist anywhere near a mix session because of the "more me" syndrome. The "we're gonna do what we're gonna do" applies more to the material and not so much the product that is the CD. I am sure that the record company was less than thrilled at the idea of a band in their late 50s making a concept album 30+ years after their last one. Other artists do not get this kind of consideration.

Good point.

 

But still.....

 

blah.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Her's an image from the Loudness Wars site depicting the dynamic ranges of various albums over the past 40 years. Green is good, red is bad obviously.

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7209/6960369151_f449d37678_b.jpg

[vespa2112]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 22 2012, 02:39 PM)

Her's an image from the Loudness Wars site depicting the dynamic ranges of various albums over the past 40 years. Green is good, red is bad obviously.

And check out where CA appears on the DR chart. Note that vinyl version looks MUCH more promising.

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=Rush

Edited June 22, 2012 by vespa2112

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Ooh good catch. You'll notice that the HD version is also quite in the red.

[Jomboni]

The vinyl version definitely SOUNDS a lot better to my ears but I also have a decent stereo. Maybe one day I will plug my phone into it and play the mp3s and see how they sound on a nice stereo instead of in my car.

[vespa2112]

Maybe we'll learn something in part II of the interview with Geddy and Billy Corgan at Music Radar.

"In the upcoming Part Two, Lee and Corgan discuss the mastering 'loudness wars,' concept albums, the importance of jamming and their signature vocal styles."