 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.17.190.132
RUSH fans - a deluxe reissue in stunning 5.1 surround sound and stereo
audio in 96kHz/24-bit high-rez The mix was supervised by Alex Lifeson using the original multi-track analog master tapes.
No affiliation - just a fan.
Happy listening!
-B-
Follow Ups:
I just picked up the cd/dvd version and have been comparing it to my original cd version. Dynamic range compression to me is like a gummy bear stuck to a theater screen. Once I see it, I can't help focus on it and it drives me nuts. That's how I feel about dynamic range compression. I found that the snare on the DVD-A version doesn't "POP" quite as much as it does on the original cd. Some people mentioned that the bass is a little tighter... possibly. I think it's a trade off with the compression personally. If compression doesn't bother you, then you'll probably be completely happy with this release.
I took a screen shot of the waveforms so you can see the 2 of them. Original Tom Sawyer is on the top, 24/96 Tom Sawyer is on the bottom.
Do you have a graph that compares the new CD included with the DVD-A? I don't prefer the sound of the CD that much myself, was a bit disappointed actually. The sound is not bad but sounds restricted compared to the BD (stereo or surround). Somehow I thought the CD and BD stereo mixes would be very similar, except for bit format of course. The difference I heard is not explained just by that, there is more going on, so perhaps the new CD is more compressed too.
Rush mentioned they recorded the BD at lower volume (than typical movies etc.) so they could get more dynamic range. I say nonsense, this BD is recorded like 10dB louder than a typical movie/TV BD is these days (15-20dB louder than WB lol) based on my regular listening level setting for DTS-HD MA (caught me quite off guard). There is still plenty of room for dynamic range, and I actually think Rush did this fairly right level-wise, it's the movie studios who sometimes record at ridiculously low levels and don't even nearly use the available DR.
The remastered cd is on top, the dvd-a is on the bottom. I agree that the cd sounds restricted, even though the waveforms look very similar. Like rlw, I'm also frustrated with the whole compression nonsense. "Hey look, increased dynamic range on this format! Now let's compress the dynamic range." Huh?!?
After reading this thread it wet my appetite for yet another version of Moving Pictures. Playing the Mobile Fidelity version over the years made me wonder if a new remaster could sound better. It does. This double disc set contains a very clear and detailed CD version. Where the Mobile Fidelity sounds tame in comparison. I like the new one better in all ways. Some of you shy away from the dose of compression but in all reality it is not over the top. The waveform shots show that the loudest amplitudes may be cut off and the bulk of the music has limited dynamic range taking into consideration this is a rock album. The sound of the new disc overall is more lively and in a good way. Plus it is not as compressed as most current remasters these days.I don't know what it was about early Mobile Fidelity CDs, since they didn't add much compression, for the lame sounds of Supertramp's Crime of The Century is a prime example of underutilized compression. Funny how that album from MFSL on vinyl is supreme but the cd is a waste.
Edits: 05/17/11
Further compressing the CD medium is a bad thing. If that's your cup of tea, so be it. But nonetheless, it's a bad cup of tea that you so enjoy.
RUSH is not some boy band nor are they some new pop sensation. They're three very talented musicians, especially in the areas of musicianship and complexity. They have assended to a music echelon in which very few groups have risen, one in which the whole truly is greater than the sum of its parts. As fans, musicians and audiophiles who recognise this and support their continued contribution to recorded and live music, we deserved and do deserve better. Period.
hogwash!Not just Rush but all bands would greatly enhance our musical pleasure if they meticulously mastered their pressings.
As for Mr. Joe Murphy Jr's generalized statement that 'further compressing the cd medium is a bad thing" is not just a personal statement but one bereft of any conclusive information and that taking his advice is fraught with disclaiming many good sounding cds. Try this Joe, play the mofi gold version of Moving Pictures. Do the same with a later remaster and do the same with the current 30th anniversary double disc's cd version. Which one sounds better to YOUR ears? Your answer will say a lot about your judgement, which at the moment is premature.
And you are wasting your time with the 'boy band' lecture. Sounds like you are more full of yourself than sure of yourself. I await your listening results with open arms.Like I earlier mentioned compared to many other band's discs this new one from Rush is not all that compressed. What compression is there greatly enhances information available on the disc and not at the cost of piercing sound.
Until you try that little experiment above keep your generalizations to yourself.
Edits: 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11
I own many versions of Moving Pictures: the initial CD release, the CD Remaster, the MFSL CD, the just released Deluxe Edition Blu-ray/CD and the initial album release, so I can do what you ask and more.
And as one who owns numerous versions of Moving Pictures, in my opinion, with regard to audio quality, the MFSL Gold CD of Moving Pictures is the release to own. Period.
Just because what they did "compared to many other band's discs this new one from Rush is not all that compressed" doesn't make it right. You must be a groupie, because no self-respecting fan, musician or audiophile would say such assinine crap. Next time you go to a live concert, make sure you tell the engineer on the board to boost the bass, jack up the highs and kick in some compression so the band sounds like the sub-par CD they released. I hope they tear up the ticket in your face after they boot your sorry ass out the door.
Have a nice day.
so you did the test? Good. Unfortunately someone is being dishonest here. I am confident in my judgement for I don't need someone to tell me how something sounds. I do that for myself. I don't need a panel of slides to move, buttons to push or sound waves to measure. Why? Because I just heard the best Moving Pictures on cd and it is the 30th Ann. Edition. Period!So what does our discrepancy make of our results Joe? You being the senior member at AA and me a newb. I'l tell you what to make out of it.
A) you really did not listen to the 30th anniversary edition
B) you did and you are obstinate for a reason
C) you are deluding yourself
D) you have poor listening skills.Now if you think this version of the cd is fraught with boosted bass, jacked up highs and compression you may or may not be right. All is relative. BTW, I have fun at concerts Joe. I've been to tons. Going into my fifth decade I don't need some anonymous Joe to tell me about music. Nor do I appreciate your attempt at insults. If you can't carry on a mature and decent conversation without Ad hominem attacks than keep your disrespectful behavior to yourself and away from this topic.
We are talking about one record and one record only. Stop deviating and generalizing. In fact those who do are seldom sure of themselves instead they are full of it. If you have to then let's do it apples to apples - I believe that the MFSL gold cd of 'Permanent Waves' is the best sounding cd available. I will also state that the best sounding 'Signals' is also the one from MFSL.
This guy here also agrees with me about Moving Pictures. Not that it means anything because I am not him:
http://musictap.net/2011/04/18/review-moving-pictures-2011-remaster-cddvd-30th-anniversary-deluxe-edition-rush/
Edits: 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11
regarding overly compressed cds try Wall of Voodoo's - Index Masters(2005) or Van Halen's - Best of Both Worlds (2004). Good tunes but horrendously loud. In those there is no dynamic range since the soft passages are just as loud as the boisterous ones. In comparison the latest Moving Pictures is sane.and this is what I'm trying to say. For me there is a limit where compression is bad and where it is not. Most every rock recording is compressed anyway. Even LP's. The difference is in the amount.
Edits: 05/19/11
The wife was out shopping whilst I was in electronics class today. Came home to her showing off her new summer shoes, and a gift for me!
I love my tall(er than me), shapely audiophile wife (and serious Rush fan as well)!!!
Gonna be playing the hi-rez stereo track tonight (no surround setup yet). That makes four different versions of this that have been through my household-
1. Robert Ludwig Masterdisc LP (how many of you know that this was originally cut from a Sony/Beta PCM F-1 digital tape?).
2. Original Anthem CD when it came out ( Can't remember, but I think it was also from the F-1 digital tape, as the old SPARS code said it was ADD. It was traded away when I got the Rush Remasters Series CD)
3. Rush Remasters series CD (more detail and space than the LP, IMHO- cut from Analog master- go figure!).
4. This new 30th Anniversary Version, DVD-A/CD set. As yet to hear what the 24bit/96k transfer of the master sounds like or the vanilla CD. I'm also wishing I could hear the new surround mixes Lerxst did! I bet they'd be pretty killer! but alas, no surround sound setup for the DVD-A at the moment...
"If the audio industry built gear that sounded as good as it did 50 years ago, there would NEVER be a need to re-issued anything!"
I have the original CD, the Remaster and the Mobile Fidelity Gold CD. I would rate them 2, 3 and 1. The original sounds better than the Remaster, as the Remaster sounds like it was EQed by someone with a hearing disability (the treble alone must have been boosted 10dB compared to the original). The MF release has more detail than the other two, which is obvious even with the lower master volume on the disc.
If Alex had any say with the remastered Remaster of Moving Pictures, I doubt I will like it. Still, I may buy the CD + Blu-ray Deluxe Edition for the extras that will be included.
And what's up with the Vital Signs video never being released? I have the studio version on laserdisc (Through the Camera Eye) and the concert version on laserdisc and DVD (Grace Under Pressure Tour).
There's not really that much video on it, which they mention on the cover too, I guess to warn people if they were expecting something like the more recent BD concert releases. I am ashamed to say I have NO other version of Moving Pictures to compare with... The DVD-A version has become a bit hard to get around here, even amazon.ca seems sold out now. Oh well, next week...Edit: a friend directed me to a discussion of this at AVS (I didn't even know they did music discs there...). Most people there have the DVD-A it seems. Some complaints about "low bass" (do they forget this isn't an effects movie?, AVS after all). Not to worry, definitely not the case with the BD (all audio versions), in fact I thought the bass was the only part of the mix that seemed a bit off; it had great clarity/presence/etc., but a little over-prominent IMO and easily adjusted in an mch system (no means in my stereo system!). In case you were wondering, the surround mixes definitely do use the surrounds quite well and to some good effect without sounding overly "forced" or cheesy, adds some more space and depth. Edit-edit: I must have been too tired the first couple nights I listened to this. The bass on (particularly) Witch Hunt and Vital Signs (my 2 new favorites from this album, when in surround) seemed crushing when I was tired. Last night it seemed about just right...so I retract my niggling "complaint".
One thing: please use an "old guy" (e.g. somebody from Rush) to size the text displays. It's not like there's massive lengthy lyrics, and there's plenty of screen space. A 60" display at 9' was not too big for viewing the tiny text/lyrics. Not that red text on black bg is an optimal presentation either for some of it. My usual "music disc display" is a 19" HD at 7.5' and this was difficult to read, but it did make the low res videos look better (actually less bad). Never saw a double-necked acoustic guitar before... Edit-edit: sorry, it was the text for the on-screen liner notes that was really tiny, not the lyrics etc. Nice notes BTW, they're in the booklet too.
Yesterday I did manage to find the DVD-A, but now no BDs in the local stores lol. The Rush popularity resurgence (increase?) gathers steam...the apocalypse approaches... One thing that really sticks out about this album, now that I get to listen to it complete/in order and not in a concert setting: it hasn't aged at all, in any way, IMO. Could have been made yesterday.
04/16/11 Edit: I don't know if anybody else cares about this, but the BD does put out an S/PDIF signal when played on an Oppo BDP-83. The PCM stereo track @48kHz, sorry I can't verify the output bit depth. Some BDs do this, some don't, might depend on the player. Anyway, I remember saying somewhere in this forum (so many places where BD music can "fit", never sure where to discuss it...) that I usually like to get the Rush DVD(-A)s so I can get a signal to put into my better-sounding "analog" stereo system. So in this case I don't really need the DVD-A after all, unless somebody verifies the DVD-A allows 96kHz S/PDIF output...
Edits: 04/10/11 04/10/11 04/11/11 04/16/11
.
It's my first continuous listening to MP, previously it was scattershot on various CD/DVD/BDs. Wish I had the LP now, I have tried numerous times to get a good original one but always failed, in demand it seems. The surround BD is decent; the way it was put together shows some attention to detail/user-friendliness beyond what most DVD-As have even though they are technically capable. Anyway, I think this is my first rock disc where I actually prefer the surround sound overall compared to the stereo. Hope there are more of these BDs from Rush and I hope sales are significant enough to make other rock "worthies" take notice.
I'll be getting the Moving Pictures CD/Blu-ray combo when it's available on Amazon (5/3). I need to order something else from them and this will get me over the $25 minimum for the free shipping (my cheap ass ain't in no hurry).
:-)
I too seem to remember the video for Vital Signs too. Weird?
Regarding the DVD-A sound quality- I played the two channel tracks last night (which is mastered from the analog stereo master tape) and then compared to a downmix of the surround, just to compare the overall frequency balance of the two. Then I played a track or two of the CD version.
Of note- the DVD-A two channel sounds pretty darn good! The first thing the wife said to me during Tom Sawyer was "where is the top end??" I had to concur, as we listened, the two channel didn't have a top end boost to it. It sounded warm and yet at the same time, "tighter". Stops and starts, accents in the rhythm, and reverb tails are more noticeable. Geddy also has a presence (both vocally and with his bass tone) that I had not heard before. I guess one could say it has the best PRAT of the 4 versions I've heard so far (wish I could have heard the MoFi for comparison).
The surround version's balance kinda sounds (frequency-wise) like they've tried to mimic the balance of the Remaster Series CD (of course, I couldn't listen in surround, oh well). The dynamics seem a little less powerful than the DVD-A two channel master.
I haven't compared this release's CD to the Remaster CDyet, but against the DVD-A two channel, it pales, and not by a narrow margin again...
Again, YMMV
"If the audio industry built gear that sounded as good as it did 50 years ago, there would NEVER be a need to re-issued anything!"
I agree with your observations on the 2 channel stereo layer: very tight and very clean w/ seemingly less highs than previously-released CD's. After a few listenings I'd rephrase my description of the highs on the new DVD-A ---- it's not that they've been reduced, but that they are now less immediate and more organic sounding. Personally I welcome this version of the treble notes as I've found many of the Rush CD's to sound brittle and harsh in the high end.
Wile the highs on the new DVD-A aren't as immediate as previously-released CD's, the overall sound is not muffled, or flat, or bass heavy. Sure, there's plenty of low end (and it seems to have been tightened up) but it's well-balanced with the mid's and high's. I did find the stereo layer to have a lower volume than I was expecting, and I had to crank up my amp a little to get to my usual listening level. Perhaps this volume issue contributes to the perception of a reduction in highs?
Nice sound on this one and very glad to see a new hi-rez release....
"I did find the stereo layer to have a lower volume than I was expecting, and I had to crank up my amp a little..."
Perhaps Rush is trying to make amends for the "full steam ahead" style mastering approach of the last three efforts (Vapor Trails, Feedback and Snakes and Arrows)? LOL!
"If the audio industry built gear that sounded as good as it did 50 years ago, there would NEVER be a need to re-issued anything!"
I would say that the DVD-A stereo tracks (which I haven't heard) are more along the lines of the Mobile Fidelity release. I base that on your "added detail" comment and your description of the top end, which would seem much lower if your reference was the Remaster CD. That moves me more in the direction of buying.
There was no analog master, Moving Pictures was ADD: the main track was analog, all of the mixing/editing was digital and the master was obviously digital.
Regarding which master was used- my understanding is that TWO masters were made during the MP mixdown sessions- one to analog tape (as a backup! haven't found any information about WHAT machine was used), and another master to Sony PCM F-1. The physical format of storage for the F-1 was a Beta video tape. That's what Peter Jensen and Robert Ludwig used to cut the original Anthem release.
Unless Lerxst comes forward about this (he probably won't), I doubt much more from the Rush camp will come out about this issue. I will continue to assume that the DVD-A stereo and new CD edition of this were cut from the analog master, as I understand ...
Just to clarify- the SPARS code had issues right from the start- we know that the multitrack tapes were analog (the First "A"), the second letter, "D", denotes that a digital tape was used during the MIXDOWN (hence stereo mix), and the final "D" in the SPARS code is the CD medium itself... kinda redundant... Not like this would be any guarantee of quality!
"If the audio industry built gear that sounded as good as it did 50 years ago, there would NEVER be a need to re-issued anything!"
Over on the Hoffman forum it seems the concensus is that the hi rez stereo files were upsampled from the pcm stereo master. If true, and I am not saying it is, it really stinks. there is still some question where the surround tracks came from. Hi rez has a hard enough time gaining acceptance without iffy provenance. Sort of like inferring that the Stones on HD trax are from a new transfer when they are from the DSD transfer done for the SACDs...
Chris Connaker posted the screenshot above of Tom Sawyer 24/96 via Audacity (a free software program that does frequency spectrum analysis). If you look at the great majority of the screenshots in the thread linked below, you'll see frequency spectrum plots which not only go beyond 20 - 22kHz, but are spread out for the real HD audio releases. As long as the content gets near 30kHz or so, it's real HD audio. And notice the intensity of the red in the 15kHz and up range? That's not natural -- it's from re-EQing the original digital master (eg, boosting the highs). Run Audacity on Tom Sawyer from the original CD and you won't see that much red.
Here's an interesting comment from a member of that forum on the compression factor:
"Chris. I am a great fan of rush so I evaluated this High Res files into more detailed and also listen to it. Basically this was an 44.1 SR file. Do doubt about it. So this is another fake High Res file that is sold, to earn more money, with selling again and again the same content to the customer.
When I dig a little be deeper into this file, to understand the behavior above 20 kHz I came to the following conclusion. The Original 44.1 SR Master File must have been sent to an analog compressor and the output of this compressor is sampled with 96 kHz. What does this mean?
1. The new High Res File has lower dynamic range as the original file. I have "Moving Pictures" on Vinyl and on CD and both sounds better, more realistic than this new High Res version. The High Res version sound louder, sure, but less dynamic and more front in the face.
2. Whenever the hardware compressor doesn't have to limit the output, then the spectral content goes only till 22 kHz. But whenever the compressor / limiter has to work, it is a sort of clipping (limiting) so the output has content above 22 kHz and whenever a hard snare drum has to be limited, then the limiter does clipping and creating content up to 48 kHz. This clipping creates an artificial shot of the snare, so untrained ears may mistake this with higher dynamic range but trained ears will recognize that this is a cheap trick and that the High Res sound much more flatter than the Vinyl or CD.
It is really a shame that we, the customer, have to check every time, what type of files the High Res stores are selling to us.
Juergen
PS: There is also a static 28.8 kHz signal in the file. Normally I do see this type of spectral lines only, when a 48 Volt phantom power supply is made out of a switched mode power supply and when the phantom voltage is not symmetrical enough on both lines on a symmetrical cable. But this in an minor mistake compared to the fake."
If you're interested in more of the discussion about HD audio not being real HD audio, click the link
I've been suspecting that a lot of DTS-HD MA audio on "catalog" movie BD titles is just upsampled and manipulated DD 5.1 (e.g.) source. But...it does sound better to me, almost always. Smoother anyway, which is nice for old ears...not that I don't still like the crunchy stuff when it's supposed to be crunchy.
"I've been suspecting that a lot of DTS-HD MA audio on "catalog" movie BD titles is just upsampled and manipulated DD 5.1 (e.g.) source."
I don't think it's anything like that. With movies, there's either an analog master (for older films) -- a PCM digital master has to be created for the encode to DVD or Blu-ray -- or a PCM digital master (for newer films). I doubt anyone's taking the Dolby Digital mix, decompressing it to PCM and then re-encoding to DTS-HD MA. That would be doing more work only to end up with with an inferior product.
Just my suspicious nature based on following the hi-rez music sagas here...
I know nothing about film production methods, just a user who buys/watches way too many...
.
Thanks for the spectrum plot and for keeping your post civil. I appreciate the discussion regarding the presented high resolution file that appears to be upsampled from cd. However, not once I have mentioned the audible qualities of the DVD-Audio disc in the 30th anniversary set or have I praised any other high resolution files on Moving Pictures. You can go back and re--read my posts they are all in praise of the CD disc only. That is it. I also like the Mofi version of the same album just not as much, it sounds a bit too homogenous than the new remaster. The new remaster sounds louder, which is a vice, but I will take that shortcoming in exchange for better sound.
If upsampling took place, there won't be any useful material above 20kHz when looked at in one of the computer audio analysis programs. Now, if they went back to those mythical analog originals, there will be be audio info beyond 20kHz. And for it to be believable, it would have to be music spectra at least out to 28kHz. Either the DVD-A or the Blu-ray audio would be needed for the analysis.
Edits: 05/16/11
April 5 release is
Moving Pictures 30th Anniversary
Deluxe Edition (CD + DVD)
Just FYI,
There is also a
Moving Pictures 30th Anniversary
Deluxe Edition (CD + Blu-Ray)
to be released on May 3
it's on sale too. No affiliation - just an old Rush fan. I am LOVING the DVD version (no Blu yet at my place).
Happy listening...
-B-
I went and bought the Blu ray version today and it's quite good imho.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
