Before you flame me, I've been a Rush fan since the 3rd grade, maybe sooner! I'm 40 now and grew up with this band. As far as content goes, I love most of their work, but it seems to me that a band with such talent and range in their genre, would have better recordings.
So what is it then? Are their studio arrangements to complicated to capture correctly, budget restrictions, record company interference, bad production, engineering or mastering? The word "thin" comes to mind, with a few exceptions. The recording sound better in a car than a high-end system, and maybe that was the objective all along. My vinyl record of the opera Carmen has better definition and scale! Granted, all my Rush records are in CD format. Maybe that's part of the problem?
I think there are a few Rush records that sound OK: Hemispheres, Permamant Waves, Roll the Bones and Counterparts. The last two, Vapor Trail and Snakes and Arrows again, great tracks, mediocre recordings.
What are your thoughts on this topic, if you are a Rush fan. Is there a gem I'm missing? One friend said 2112 sounds good. For such a large production, I think it's weak. Same friend has the new Blu-Ray of Moving Pictures. He said it's not much better than the original...I was upset to hear that news.
Please list any recording you think have merit.
Please save the Geddy vocals critiques. We know, we know...
Here's your chance to comment. Go!
Vince
So what is it then? Are their studio arrangements to complicated to capture correctly, budget restrictions, record company interference, bad production, engineering or mastering? The word "thin" comes to mind, with a few exceptions. The recording sound better in a car than a high-end system, and maybe that was the objective all along. My vinyl record of the opera Carmen has better definition and scale! Granted, all my Rush records are in CD format. Maybe that's part of the problem?
I think there are a few Rush records that sound OK: Hemispheres, Permamant Waves, Roll the Bones and Counterparts. The last two, Vapor Trail and Snakes and Arrows again, great tracks, mediocre recordings.
What are your thoughts on this topic, if you are a Rush fan. Is there a gem I'm missing? One friend said 2112 sounds good. For such a large production, I think it's weak. Same friend has the new Blu-Ray of Moving Pictures. He said it's not much better than the original...I was upset to hear that news.
Please list any recording you think have merit.
Please save the Geddy vocals critiques. We know, we know...
Here's your chance to comment. Go!
Vince
Last edited:
simple...compression!
You are right it's made to sound good in mediocre setup ( car ).
A really good set-up will show it's time-domain limitations ( stage, definition, depth.....).
I very famous figure got rich with this concept " wall of sound "....shallow, compressed bandwidth....just right for lousy systems.
You are right it's made to sound good in mediocre setup ( car ).
A really good set-up will show it's time-domain limitations ( stage, definition, depth.....).
I very famous figure got rich with this concept " wall of sound "....shallow, compressed bandwidth....just right for lousy systems.
Yup, dynamic compression. (Note that this is very different from lossy compression like mp3, same name, different thing altogether.)
That being said, the ridiculous over-compressing that's in use now only became popular in the late-90's.
Look for original recordings, not "remasters". (And regarding their newer stuff, you are SOL, or get it on vinyl)
Compression of music on CD is also my theory on why some people prefer vinyl over CD, since vinyl records are mastered with a lot more care and attention but also the amount of compression used on CD is physically impossible with vinyl.
That being said, the ridiculous over-compressing that's in use now only became popular in the late-90's.
Look for original recordings, not "remasters". (And regarding their newer stuff, you are SOL, or get it on vinyl)
Compression of music on CD is also my theory on why some people prefer vinyl over CD, since vinyl records are mastered with a lot more care and attention but also the amount of compression used on CD is physically impossible with vinyl.
This is a good point. Some of my Rush CD are Remasters.
There are people in my audio group that look at what "release date" a CD is before buying, especially older 80's and early 90's CDs. For Example, most Police recordings suffer from the same compression. One of the group members prefered to listen to a BMG reissue of a Police CD because he thought it sounded better with less compression. I think it still sounds awful!
Do you think this compression takes place in the mastering stage or earlier? Just curious.
It's a shame that CD has good dynamic range, yet to 'blend' the sound they compress the hell out of it, making it two dimensional.
Last edited:
It's post mastering, supposedly the master tapes are non-compressed ( i won't bet though ) but it makes sense that the studio should have a base copy that can be treated ( compressed, etc ) for the LP, CD masters.
These later ones are for sure compressed, the CD's more so, which makes no sense if you consider the potential of the format.....other than comercial strategy for greater sales: ie: target mid-Fi !
The last statement is just false. Most of the compression (actualy to much peak limiting) is now done in the mix (so everyone can hear the end results (the record company) before the product is manufactured), so an LP wont be much different than the CD (except for the LP flaws). The mastering guy may or may not add some more, mostly not.
I think all thier records from 1980 and earlier SOUND EXCELLENT (100% analog)
Thier 1984 album "Grace under pressure" is also 100% analog AND THIER LAST ANALOG RECORD!!
The concert record they put right after MOVING PICTURES is also I believe 100% analog but the sound quality sucks!! (Its hard to hear thier vocals,etc)
Moving pictures (1981) and Signals (1982) were both digitally mastered BUT THEY ARE BOTH ANALOG RECORDINGS!!!! (Both are done on analog tape)
I love this album (Moving Pictures) so I went to find a copy of the record THAT WAS NOT "DIGITALLY MASTERED" by Peter Jensen!!
I found a Korean copy (1986) which is not (SEL RP-748) AND IT SOUNDS 1000% better than the US pressing (SRM-1-4013) that was.......)
Its too bad they started using all that SYTH stuff that doesnt sound as good anyway although I will say GRACE UNDER PRESSURE (1984) is excellent!!!!!
Thier 1984 album "Grace under pressure" is also 100% analog AND THIER LAST ANALOG RECORD!!
The concert record they put right after MOVING PICTURES is also I believe 100% analog but the sound quality sucks!! (Its hard to hear thier vocals,etc)
Moving pictures (1981) and Signals (1982) were both digitally mastered BUT THEY ARE BOTH ANALOG RECORDINGS!!!! (Both are done on analog tape)
I love this album (Moving Pictures) so I went to find a copy of the record THAT WAS NOT "DIGITALLY MASTERED" by Peter Jensen!!
I found a Korean copy (1986) which is not (SEL RP-748) AND IT SOUNDS 1000% better than the US pressing (SRM-1-4013) that was.......)
Its too bad they started using all that SYTH stuff that doesnt sound as good anyway although I will say GRACE UNDER PRESSURE (1984) is excellent!!!!!
Last edited:
could be a combination of factors at play.
1. You've changed and your memory of Rush' has remained fixed in your mind at unrealistic heights compared to what music you've been recently listening to, so a let down occurs.
2. Lots of newer music is mixed louder so it sounds more punchier compared to older recordings. kinda like when feeding on a diet loaded with MSG, whence returning to normal foods, finding suddenly taste blander.
1. You've changed and your memory of Rush' has remained fixed in your mind at unrealistic heights compared to what music you've been recently listening to, so a let down occurs.
2. Lots of newer music is mixed louder so it sounds more punchier compared to older recordings. kinda like when feeding on a diet loaded with MSG, whence returning to normal foods, finding suddenly taste blander.
Their best quality recording is Caress of Steel, IMO. Farewell to Kings and Permanent waves are also pretty good. Fly by Night and their self titled are fairly poor, although geddy's voice is without reverb on rivendell and the drum solo on bytor sounds good at full volume...
Just about any release from any "popular" band that has been "remastered" since around 2000 has been compressed to sound loud at low volumes, which perhaps paradoxically leads to lifelessness.
Just about any release from any "popular" band that has been "remastered" since around 2000 has been compressed to sound loud at low volumes, which perhaps paradoxically leads to lifelessness.
when WE had tone controls tone controls are verboten now, who took them and why?I agree with Dude111, Grace Under Pressure is a decent recording.
Most of their recordings sound too lean to me but we had tone controls when the majority of it was released so maybe quality was less important
I think they are just as useful esp. in todays small systems. believe me a lot of tweaking still goes on, more under the covers perhaps.
haha weird, or the stuff audiophiles buy into E.g. bass is weak, i'll have to go buy different components.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.