Is Rush's Moving Pictures a Digital Recording?

I once heard Bob Ludwig include it in a list of "digital recordings". Since that was the first I'd ever heard of it being digital, can anyone shed some light?



Dan

 

No. It is not an all digital recording. On the back of my CD case it says ADD. BUT on the CD it says AAD. I was told that the ADD on the back of the case is a mistake. "Moving Pictures" is analogue recording and mixing and digital remaster (naturally)

 

Nope. It is ADD:
From http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/tr...iczVisions.htm:
"'Moving Pictures' was one of the first rock albums that was digitally mixed and mastered. "

It was definitely recorded onto analog tape tho.

 

StyxCollector, I can't connect to this link. Does your DISC have ADD written on it?

 

There seems to be some confusion about this -- I get the impression different copies of the album have different labels.

I'm pretty sure I've read the band themselves talking about how it was the first album they used digital technology on.

 

The MoFi of Moving Pictures clearly states ADD right on the discface.

 

Does this mean that it was remixed in digital. Or, is the AAD printed on my disc a mistake?

Here is my info from the disc: Anthem Records inc. ANC 11030 - Manufatured in Canada by Americ Disc. Inc. - AAD

 

Can I add to the confusion? In the LP liner notes (I don't have this on CD) it states:

Digital mastering engineered by Peter Jensen.
Mastered at Masterdisk NYC by Bob Ludwig.

Take from that what you will.

Cheers,
Chris

 

You sure did. So, the original album was: analogue recording, analog mixing and digital mastering?

Hey, Dave

 

I said I was gonna add to the confusion, didn't I? Honestly, what I related is exactly what it says in the LP liner notes. Go figure!

BTW - I am positive that all of this confusion has been hashed out in a similar manner in a previous thread some time back. I think that the only thing that was resolved is that everybody is totally confused about this issue.

Cheers,
Chris

 

No point searching for that one. Let's pray we get some clarity this time around

 

I did a search but couldn't find anything. It makes sense that it was ADD then.

Can't think of a single reason to digitally master an LP if the mixes were analog.

Maybe that's what Bob Ludwig meant.



Dan

 

Was taped analog. Transfered to digital. Mixed digitally. Mastered directly to digital.

It IS ADD.

 

For an analog/vinyl guy like me, it's "digital".

 

Yes its disgusting.... Thier BEST album and they did this to it!!!! (I got rid of my copy of this record as it didnt sound good to me -- I WANT ALL 100% ANALOGUE ON MY RECORDS!!)

I have 2 other RUSH albums that sound quite good... (70s albums)

The original analog master of this record IS OUT THERE.. I wonder if a copy was ever made w/o this in it??

 

there are pics from inside the Le Studio control room during these sessions and you can see the reel
in operation

 

I am glad they did it! I've always thought it sounded great, but I didn't know why.

 

Why not get a CD of it then?? Thats basically what your hearing bud...

 

just because there's digital in the chain doesn't mean it's the same mastering as the CD

 

But if there is digital in it,the quality isnt as good. (I can tell the difference)

I dont wanna make anyone mad,i mean we can all like what we want

 

disagree about digital not being good, but agree about personal preference. you don't buy any vinyl records released since 1980(ish)? I bet 99% of them have digital in the chain and many of them sound excellent. I think most here would agree that Moving Pictures sounds amazing on vinyl

 

Well it sounds OK but not as good as my Boston Albums from the 70s

 

How can anyone complain about the sound of this album at all? Just because it was mixed digitally doesn't take away the fact that it sounds amazing. The drum sound on this album alone should be the benchmark for great drum sounds. Geddy's bass growls incredibly on this album and Alex's tone rocks.

It's a shame Neil's drums don't sound this great nowadays.

 

I have a great, early copy of this lp and I think it sounds stellar (I'm not the biggest Rush guy but I do appreciate the punch of this recording immensely). My question is, If this was done AAA, how much better would the music sound? What type of equipment would one need to really tell the difference?

This is an honest question. No snark intended or expected in return.

 

This old debate again? Digital seems to sound great until people realize it's digital!