Best versions of Rush - Moving Pictures and 2112?

you know, i hear a lot of people say that about 2112 (mfsl), but it seems fairly warm on my system. perhaps my aging ears are going though.

 

I think nobody mentioned this version (or i missed it), is this the original US pressing?

 

Yes, original or early US pressing. Yours has the "03" in the matrix code, so I don't know if yours is the same as or different than the very highly regarded WG Atomic "03". I had a US silverface, and it had a different (and inferior IMO) mastering than the WG Atomic 03.

Can you post EAC (peak) numbers for it?

 

I have a WG Atomic 03 version of Moving Pictures. Is this considered the best version?

 

Second best IMHO. Best is the 25-8P-5076. No missing intro to Tom Sawyer.

 

I pick the Japanese cat #25-8P-5076 as a great sounding copy of Rush Moving Pictures.

 

Beat the MOFI for me!

 

I don't think mine has the missing intro.

 

Neither mine.

 

Hi,

The Atomic matrix ending in 03 is not missing the half beat. The "Green Arrow" ending in 01 and WG Atomic ending in 02 both are.

I thought the 25 8P was the same mastering as the 01/02 matrix? I can't seem to find the thread with the info....

In terms of the sound for Moving Pictures on CD, I own and have direct compared:

- WG Atomic 03 matrix
- MFSL
- 25 8P

I have no favorite. Each disc has tracks that sound better than the other 2. All in all not a whole lot of difference. My recommendation is to get whichever you can get for the least $

 

There is nothing wrong with your ears. The MFSL is warm (maybe too much), and some of these people must be high if they think it is bright and shrill. I will take the gold over any other version. The original US and RM are both too bright, not the gold.

 

I never liked the MFSL, tried many times though. I recently got the original Canadian Anthem CD and has a very nice sound with the high end pretty well managed. I've not compared it to the 25 8P or the Atomic and not sure I'll bother expend the effort.

 

So People whose ears hear brightness on that cd are on drugs, but if someone doesn't hear it their ears are correct?

To me, I try and end any sound quality comments with MHO as it's my ears that count. That goes for anyone else who hear things differently.

 

If the only problem with the MFSL 2112 is brightness, don't any of y'all have tweeter controls on your speaker that you could turn down a bit? I guess I wouldn't damn an otherwise good mastering for brightness' sake. I'd just reduce the treble a bit. Mind you, I haven't heard the MFSL 2112. I'm only asking.

As for MP, I don't think anyone has mentioned the tonal qualities of the remasters, which to my ears are more natural than the original atomics. The guitars, drums, vocals have less of an electronic/digital haze or glare on them to my ears. Yes, some of the dynamic impact is lost. I didn't appreciate that. The earlier masterings (I haven't heard any Jpn versions, but I had a West German pressing from the early days) sounded just slightly cloudy, slightly muddy, a bit more "digital" than the MFSL or the standard remaster. I find the MFSL the best compromise, having better clarity and more natural instrumental timbre, and good dynamics as well. I wouldn't say the atomic is bad, but the MFSL is a step up in overall naturalness. It probably is slightly brighter, but that's not why it sounds better. If the high frequencies were not cleaner and more precise, then a brighter EQ would only emphasize the electronic/digital haze I hear in the atomics.

Wasn't MP recorded on multitrack analog tape and then mixed to a digital master? In other words, in SPARS code language, was MP AAD, ADD, or DDD? I'm pretty certain it wasn't the latter. In any case, I always thought the album was not as good sonically as it could be, because the A/D converters were not as good as the best available today.

 

The major problem with the MFSL is that it distorts at loud volumes. Not acceptable imo. The WG atomic does not distort and is much sweeter for it.

 

To each his/her own. I love my MFSL 2112. It blows the remaster away and my original US pressing as well. It's interesting to me that so many mention how they dislike it. I'd like to get my hand on the SHM version of the album as well to compare but alas, they're all sold out....unless I wanted to pay more than needed on ebay. All the other SHM's that I have of Rush I absolutely love.

 

Would people here consider the MFSL of Moving Pictures the best sounding?

 

I do like the gold MP. The orginal US is not far behind, but the gold takes a little bit of the treble out of the drum sound.

 

I'm quite happy with the 1981 Moving Pictures Anthem CD and 1989 2112 Mercury CD.

 

I have my Anthem 2112 on the way. We will see just how good it is.

 

My bad. Or whatever year ANC-1-1030 (Anthem) came out.

 

Not sure if this has been posted but here are the peaks for the Moving Pictures Anthem CD:

Track 1
95.7 %

Track 2
89.0 %

Track 3
94.8 %

Track 4
82.1 %

Track 5
99.5 %

Track 6
91.5 %

Track 7
75.6 %

No errors occurred

 

Provided they don't mess up the mastering, this might might soon be the best sounding version of moving pictures:

High resolution stereo and 5.1 on Blu-ray

http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mu...-moving-pictures-blu-ray-audio-april-5-a.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004MNVKVO

 

Pre-ordered. Can't wait to hear the results.

 

The EAC numbers you posted match what I have for the ANMD Anthem for Moving Pictures. I do not like this one as much as the Atomic 03. That Anthem is a hair brighter than the Atomic. Good but not great IMO.

I'll be curious what HD thinks of the Anthem for 2112 when he gets it. I prefer that one to the Atomic. The Atomic is pretty good, but in this case, it's the brighter one vs the Anthem.