Just a(another) quick question about Rush's "Presto"...

Just reading through this old thread:

Rush/Presto SACD announced by Audio Fidelity

And this post jumped out:

"The 2013 remaster by Andy Vandette is a marked improvement over both the original CD and the 2004 remaster. Of course it still has all the hallmarks of Rupert Hine's production, but somehow Vandette managed to boost the bass quite a bit and make it sound meatier."

So, what is the Andy Vandette remaster? The only thing on Discogs from that year is a Japanese SACD which doesn't seem to fit. Is it the version done for the box set?

 

Yes, from the Studio Albums 1989-2007 box. I believe it was also released as a standalone SHM-CD (not SACD): Rush = ラッシュ* - Presto = プレスト

 

No idea what mastering that Japan is, but it's not Andy's. His has way more compression.

 

I'd like to know what this means: "Bass doesn't seem to be goosed vis a vis the original CD"

 

I discovered the thread in the OP because I was searching for information about the 2004 Rush Remaster of Presto.

One of the things I'm finding very frustrating about Rush's remasters is that there's virtually no information!! Yes, the physical CDs of the Rush Remasters have it written down the side of the inner tray in big type, but there is nothing else at all on any of the CDs that I can see & therefore nothing on Discogs. No dates, no engineers details, nothing. Trying to find the right item when an eBay seller has not taken the time to photograph it so that you can see that type down the side is virtually impossible.

Of course, having read the thread, I now want (no, need!) to get a selection of Presto CDs in order to hear these differences. I have the original, I can get the AF version easily enough. Now that I know that the Andy Vandette version is the one in the box set, I can pick that up easily, too. But the 2004 remaster? Nightmare. The Discogs entries lack clarity, ("unknown"?? How can the release date of a CD be "unknown"??), & the photos on eBay & elsewhere never show the whole item so, even now, I don't know whether the Presto remaster has the "Rush Remaster" type or not.

I shall have to take a punt on one & hope that the person telling me it's a remaster knows what they're talking about! lol

 

This, from Diablo Griffin, made me sit up, too: "I'm glad to see you think Show of Hands is a good live album! Speaking of which; I was watching Show of Hands on VHS today (since the Replay X3 DVD is brickwalled to high heaven), and the guys certainly didn't seem tired."

This jumped out at me because I was literals watching that Replay DVD today & thinking "My god, you can barely hear Neil's drums on this!"

I just can't believe that stuff can be handled so carelessly! You'd think people who knew what they were doing would be falling over each other to get their hands on these projects!

 

I know nothing of the 2004's (sq wise) The one's I have seen at thrifts etc, all have it displayed on the inner jewel case side.
Edit:
Here's one listed in the UK-
RUSH PRESTO USED 1989 REMASTERED GUITAR ROCK UK CD ALBUM. 66825210598 | eBay

 

One of these days I really need to crack open that box, but I've really not liked what I've heard from Andy so I guess that's why I never have.

 

The 2004 Atlantic remasters offer a bit more clarity than the originals. Haven't cracked open the Atlantic Box that was released later with the Vapor Trails remix.

A few characteristics about the 2004's:

All of them have "Digitally remastered from the original master tapes" near the bottom right of the back insert.

They also have "The Rush Remasters" running down the far left of the front of the tray (Which presumably is a tie in to the 1997 Mercury Remasters to make everything uniform.)

They generally sound a bit more crisp and better defined, but not significantly. There really wasn't much that could be done with the Rupert Hine albums.

The reproduction of the art and liners is poor, almost like they didn't have the original art to work with. Always thought that was very strange.



I prefer the Audio Fidelity's in all cases, but I still don't think there are major improvements and probably aren't worth the differences unless you are a fan of those albums. I think they might offer a bit more resonance. Still not entirely sure how to explain the differences.

 

Two words: Richard Chycki. The production quality of Rush's output took a nosedive once that guy weaseled his way in. I believe the first thing he was involved with was the Rush in Rio DVD, and everything since then has had his overcompressed ear-bleeding fingerprints all over it.

 

A while ago, I bought the Presto SHM under the assumption that it would be VanDette's remaster. However, it turned out to be the 2004 remaster instead. I would assume that the same thing applies to the 90s albums as well.

 

That's a great find, thanks! It must've been there for a couple of days, too, as there are only 4 days remaining. Can't believe I didn't spot it, as I've been searching a lot!