Rush Moving Pictures Mixed Mastered Digital?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Yamahaha, Jan 21, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Yamahaha

    Yamahaha Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I know there are people around here who know the process. This question is for them (hopefully)

    Reading a lot of conjecture about the latest vinyl pressings etc.

    What I am trying to get to the bottom of is what the source would have been in 1981. I know the recorded the album to tape. However it appears from the credit is was mixed digital and the 2 track master would have been digital.

    Now, the big question. At that time, what rez would that digital 2 track master have been?

    From my understanding its unlikely to have been better than CD quality. Adding to the confusions are the latest pressings down at Abbey Road "from original masters". To my understanding that would be digital master and nothing anyone could do about any stair stepping since the bit rate is the bit rate of the time.

    Hopefully someone who actually knows can explain this. Thank you.
     
  2. c-eling

    c-eling Forum Resident

    Moving Pictures?
    My transfer of the old Howie/Ludwig has aspects of digital. (but it could be some of the pedal effects etc.)
    I don't think the whole thing was mixed to digital, not sure.
    There is a pretty distinct frequency cut-off on every track- Limelight is the only one that appears to have a mix.
    [​IMG]
    The rest carries this signature-
    [​IMG]
    So by looking at the cut-off you are getting just over 20 (40'ish)
    which appears to be identical to the old compact discs (which have a cut-off at about 20 as well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
    Dr. Funk likes this.
  3. ModernDayWarrior

    ModernDayWarrior Forum Resident

    Location:
    Rahway, NJ, USA
    It was one of the early albums to actually be mixed in digital. If you go by the old SPARS code it would be ADD.
     
    ceddy10165 and c-eling like this.
  4. znpnine

    znpnine Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
  5. Yamahaha

    Yamahaha Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    So the 2 track masters in the day would be 16 bit, CD quality?

    Its not like computer power was cheap in 1981 and I would assume the digital rigs were very expensive and very limited.
     
  6. c-eling

    c-eling Forum Resident

    Looks like it. Well, below cd quality, as the converters were below 44
    Even the compact discs are below 44
    Another simple case of mastering outdoing bit/sample rate.
     
    Opeth likes this.
  7. Catcher10

    Catcher10 I like records, and Prog...duh

    Just compare the sound quality, dynamics, resolution and warmth or clinical leanings between Moving Pictures and say AFTK. I would also agree that it could have been below redbook so under 44 sampling rate with 8-16 bit depth at that time.

    I have the MP 2011 deluxe edition box set with DVD-A, the CD is remastered digitally, without pulling the box I assume this means they took the original recording and mastered to 16/44 and the DVD-A is 24bit?

    Since it was recorded to 2" tape, I wonder if taking those tapes and mastering to 24bit has ever been done? I also have the 2015 Abbey Road vinyl edition that is DMM process, but assume that is from digital masters?

    It seems to me that an AAA edition could be made, remixed to push the bottom end some........Ok I'll wake up now, sorry I was dreaming LOL.
     
  8. ElevatorSkyMovie

    ElevatorSkyMovie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Analog mixing desk. I think they mixed to both the digital PCM recorder and an analog 2 track. It was recorded 24 track analog.
     
    c-eling likes this.
  9. c-eling

    c-eling Forum Resident

    Who knows, great sounding record/cd regardless :)
    Probably the biggest mystery to me is
    Cocteau Twins-Heaven or Las Vegas-1990. Until someone proves me wrong this was mixed down to a cassette and every format was based on this :D
     
  10. Yamahaha

    Yamahaha Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    It is a great sounding record indeed. Thats why I really want to know. All this 192 hiz rez stuff etc starts making no sense if the source was never that. I am quite curious not because it changes my opinion - I just want to know. Personally I have come to realize no matter what the format its the people involved and their skill that make the difference. I have heard stunning digital and stunning analog. All the best productions, same names seem to pop up. I am quite interested in this as the process is fascinating and I also dont need to spend $ chasing dragons. For instance new LP's, ever growing resolution (even if source doesnt exist)
     
    Queezma, c-eling and ytserush like this.
  11. znpnine

    znpnine Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Was there an analog backup done of the final mix?
    Regardless, it still sounds pretty great. Still sounds very analog (especially those great chunky synths.)
    Things kind of changed when they went full digital for recording though.
     
  12. ElevatorSkyMovie

    ElevatorSkyMovie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I may be incorrect, but I seem to remember that they tracked to both since digital was new and not trusted.

    They tracked analog. Mixing desk was analog. Mixed to 2 track digital (and possibly analog for safety).

    I think Bryan Adam's Reckless was recorded similarly.
     
  13. ElevatorSkyMovie

    ElevatorSkyMovie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oklahoma
    On the Wikipedia page for Moving Pictures, it says that they used a recently bought 48 track digital to record Moving Pictures at Le Studio. As far as I know, there where no 48 track digital machines in 1980.

    This link Interview with Paul Northfield that interviews Paul Northfileld says they linked to Studer A80 analog 24 track machines together. That makes more sense.

    He also talks about the tracking the mix to digital:

     
    Yamahaha and ytserush like this.
  14. Yamahaha

    Yamahaha Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I bought a 2015 reissue Moving Pictures LP yesterday. Disappointing. Its very obviously the same file as the high rez downloads from HDtracks. Its sounds better just playing the digital. Which makes sense.

    My old copy from 1981 blows the 2015 reissue away. I enjoy the "cleanness" of the 2015 digital ... but pressing that onto vinyl just made distortion. It has surface noise too . This is it for me and new vinyl presses. No one seems to know what they are doing. My old MP is worn but still more enjoyable.
     
  15. FashionBoy

    FashionBoy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Your old MP is probably the RL which is the definitive pressing, so would be hard to beat. Have you tried some of the MoFi re-issues or Analogue Productions? They are fantastic generally, often all analog if the source was such.

    Also would be great if you could fill in your equipment profile.
     
    boboquisp likes this.
  16. ElevatorSkyMovie

    ElevatorSkyMovie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Bob Ludwig used compression on the original vinyl. It's apples and oranges to the 2015 because it doesn't.
     
  17. Yamahaha

    Yamahaha Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    So what? The original sounds much better. In the end thats all that matters to me. Those 2 LP's are night and day to my ears. Especially cymbals for instance. On the original I can hear the tonality and its pleasant. On the Reissue cymbals sound like distortion to me.

    Played both copies on the same turntable. 1979 Oracle AC (delphi first version before they named it the delphi) with a Charisma MC1 cart. I also took the digital download and compared it to the version I already had from HDtracks. What I found was very surprising. The speed is slightly different on those 2 digital versions.
     
  18. rgray_69

    rgray_69 Well-Known Member

    The 5.1 version was mixed from the original analog multi-tracks so it should be true 24bit.
     
  19. c-eling

    c-eling Forum Resident

    Anything being manipulated is likely to be 32/24 Bit in the workstation, the question is in the sample rate. Is anything above 20 khz?
     
    Yamahaha likes this.
  20. c-eling

    c-eling Forum Resident

    The 24/192 for some reason, was way unnecessarily up-sampled beyond grief...
    [​IMG]
     
    Yamahaha and Dr. Funk like this.
  21. Merrick

    Merrick The return of the Thin White Duke

    Location:
    Portland
    IIRC there was a big stink about that 24/192 release of MP and they ended up re-releasing it in 24/44 or 24/48 (I can’t recall which at the moment).
     
    BGLeduc and c-eling like this.
  22. c-eling

    c-eling Forum Resident

    :laugh:
    What a joke.
    I paid a premium for that puppy.
     
    Merrick and Dr. Funk like this.
  23. Dr. Funk

    Dr. Funk Forum Resident

    Location:
    Fort worth tx
    Interesting info............I've also wondered about the recording process of Moving Pictures. For digital.....the West German Atomic with the matrix ending in 3 (I think), is a great digital option. The original Ludwig pressing is the best I've heard on wax.
     
    c-eling likes this.
  24. c-eling

    c-eling Forum Resident

    I'm happy with my #02, minute intro cut and all :laugh:
    With that and Bob's I'm good :)
     
    Dr. Funk likes this.
  25. Yamahaha

    Yamahaha Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    [​IMG]
    HD tracks version top
    Download with album bottom
     
    ytserush likes this.

Share This Page