Rush - new 2015 vinyl and hi-res reissues thread.

Bwaaaaaahaaaaahaaa.

 

I like how he say's "Its intended."

 

Why he lets the stylus ride over that faulty runout is a bit silly if you ask me.

 

I know..LOL!!
I quickly replied to him to exchange that...although it does look cool. He is now keeping it as a collectible.

 

Ha! That was pressed at Quality Record Pressings? Somebody at the plant must've had a liquid lunch or something the day that AFTK was pressed.

 

Same here. I feel somewhat misled though, to be fair, there's nothing on the packaging of these LPs that says "all analog." Then again, using "all from original analogue masters" in the marketing materials while leaving out the part about the ADC and DACs in the chain is a bit deceptive.

 

Whaaat!?

 

I don't think I agree. I'd promised myself to wait out som info on why AFTK is not on HDtracks and why it's listed as 24/44.1 at PSM. But after a glass of wine after a long working week the temptation grew to strong. I bought the 24/192 from Acoustic Sounds. And even though it doesn't sound bad it's imo the most underwhelming of the 12 months of Rush remasters so far. I may very well prefer my old Mercury P2 22546 CD from the 80's. Warmer and yet just as detailed. May be system dependent and ymmv of course.

 

Considering these reissues sound generally on par with originals, and folks wound up assuming they were analogue, I think this is a bit of a finger in the eye of die-hard analogue enthusiasts. Well-mastered LPs from high-res digital sources are pretty much indistinguishable to most listeners. See also the Rolling Stones' DSD-sourced pressings.

 

...and Bruce Springsteen, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Roxy Music, Beatles Stereo albums. I'm very pro-analogue, and authentic reproductions,
but i agree that it's all about the results. When all these major classic rock bands are reissuing these premium vinyl sets from Digital files
and they're sounding fantastic, it ultimately doesn't matter what they did, the intention of the master tape is there and speaks for itself.

 

And I agree with the part about the results. It's the somewhat deceptive marketing that I object to.

 

I'm not sure what marketing you are referring to you find deceptive.

Where have you seen it claimed that the vinyl was remastered with an all analogue process?
Given all the digital versions of the reissues available, why would anyone simply assume
the process was entirely analogue?

http://www.rush.com/12-months-of-rush-14-albums-from-mercury-era-for-release-in-2015/

 

Hi folks! I'm new to the forum and found it by doing a search for these reissues. I was wondering if anyone else has found that their copy of AFTK is excessively noisy...The previous albums that I have all sound very quiet, but this one seems to have a lot of surface noise, clicks, and pops...I know it's vinyl, but it seems a bit much for a brand new record...

 

Well, I did. Why? The listings for these releases say "Remastered on 200-gram, heavyweight vinyl at legendary Abbey Road Studios using the Direct to Metal Mastering (DMM) audiophile copper plating process, all from original analogue masters." This is from Amazon's listing and the same language used elsewhere.

Why include "analogue" in the description? Every non-digitally recorded recording came from analogue masters at some point, too. So why bother mentioning it if not to plant the idea that these are all analogue pressings?

As I wrote earlier, there's nothing on the packaging that says 'all analog.' However, the bit about 'analogue masters' and no mention of all the additional digital manipulation is, in my opinion, deceptive. I'm glad it didn't deceive you, but it fooled me. Had I known that these were not all analogue, I'd have bought the FLACs and saved the shelf space.

 

yep, iam sending the second one back to amazon, its definalty not flat on side 1....but it sounds fine... ???

 

Side 2 is flat???!!

 

Because the original masters are indeed analogue tape!
And in the case of these albums, that was the source for these reissues.
The idea was to inform people that the original source tapes were used,
and that they were recorded on tape, not digitally.

If you're a regular reader here, it should be ZERO surprise that original analogue
tapes are being digitized and used for reissues on vinyl. Sorry you missed that point.

Wait for Moving Pictures coming in June- It was originally taped analog, but transferred
to digital, mixed digitally, mastered to digital, pressed on vinyl.

 

Please guys, stop this madness right now. This otherwise interesting and sane thread is getting drowned with these kind of messages. I don't know what generation you belong to, but if you've chosen to go vinyl with your music you have been completely naive if you think there is such a thing as a perfect pressing. From the (in this case as it seems digital) master it's analouge through and through. There will be pops and crackles and other things not perfect with any copy. Just not the same pops and crackles and other imperfect things. Take the consequenses or stay with digital already. Guess the market will be dead pretty soon with customers like you anyway.

 

I am sure someone has brought this up already but the thread is a bit long....is there any point in getting 2112 on digital or vinyl if I have the previously released Bluray? The same question for Hemispheres on SACD...but I suppose I have a to wait a while to ask that one. It really sucks that Rush has beaten up its fans with multiple hi rez releases in the last few years, leaving us to wonder which ones should I "upgrade" and which ones are marginally better, if at all

Fro what its worth, I thought they should have done all their stuff on bluray like 2112 with the added comic book sequences...adding the visual aspect made this a way better purchase. All Bluray audio should do this...at least some band photos during the music, etc.

 

I don't mean to be a bummer but if you clean your records and have a good setup...you should have very few pops and crackles, if any, on a quality released record @ $25-30. Most my good records have none...its mostly about your gear and how you care for your plastic (clean it before listening is a MUST!)

 

I don't think that it's pops and crackles that people are complaining about as much as it is above-average warping and dishing.

 

Here are some samples from the 24/96 AFTK that I got from Acoustic Sounds:

A Farewell to Kings
Xanadu

Make your own judgement on whether it's worth the investment or not. If it seems too expensive for you and/or the 24/44.1 source is the problem, then think of the "hi-res" as a cheap MFSL CD without liner notes

 

I've been thinking about buying one of those $4000 ultrasonic LP cleaners and an $80 vinyl flat and then running a business through the mail charging $10 a pop for ultrasonic cleaning and/or warp elimination. I figure I'll break even at 408 records. I wonder if I'd ever get enough customers . . .

 

This depends on how much you can handle compression and EQ choices. If you can't tolerate that stuff, then I'd recommend checking out either of the new versions.

 

your not alone. I returned mine twice already. not only is pops and crackles but the records are warped. meaning its not flat.. yes. its not you. It sucks cause it sounds great if you can get a quite clean copy. Mine always had clicks and loud pops durning madrigal for some reason.. Lets see if 3 times a charm.. I will let you know... wow, see, its not just me.. these AFTK are bad pressings for sure...