The Rush cd mastering thread (part 2)

^^^

Never even noticed that ... Even though it's a great album, I just don't listen to it much because FM radio overplayed it for me all those years ago. I do like the 5.1 mix though.

 

Hey guys... I just got some Canadian ANCs (2112, MP, PoW, HF, ASoH) that have the ANC code, but were released by Columbia Record Club (they also have "CRC" written)
Is there any difference between these and the original ANCs from Anthem?

 

So you're saying that every Atomic pressing has shorter intros RB and VS? It's not a huge deal breaker, but it still ticks me off! I can't afford the MFSL or the original Canadian Anthem pressing, so I'll have to rely on Chronicles and the Sector 2 remaster at the moment

 

Yes, this was the case for every Atomic and/or West German pressing. That said, it is still a great sounding version.

The 1997 Remaster would be an improvement for what you have at the moment. And don't forget that there are still other later (and cheaper) unremastered pressings that are still good. There's the later Anthems (ANC-11030, AMND-11030), which are identical to the US silverface (another option). I personally have stumbled upon two ANC-11030's at two local CD stores.

The 2009 SHM is a copy of the original AMCY pressing and would be a great current option (though still pretty expensive). The 25.8P would also be pretty expensive too.

 

For MP, yes.

 

I hope so, it's the most popular thread I ever started

 

Really?? That sucks!
I was really hoping I had got the original anthems....

What's the difference between the original MP anthem and the ANC 11030 CRC?
What master does the CRC match then?
Because it definatelly doesn't match the West Germany (#02 and #05 matrix), the AMCY and the 25.8P that I have...

Also, do all the others have the same mastering as the original anthems?

Thanks!

 

Yeah, just checked peak levels, and it seems to match the later US Mercury release.
Indeed, now I've noticed that the matrix for the CRC ANC is ANK, just like the Power Windows CRC ANC.

The 2112 and the HYF CRC ANCs have the ANC code on the matrix, like the GUP and the Signals VANKs...
Does that guarantees that these mixes are the original anthems'?

 

That is correct. The ANC-11030 and AMND releases are identical to the US Silverface (Mercury). The VANK is altered from those versions.

There was only one Anthem mastering for those releases. In fact, HYF was nearly universal for all unremastered releases.

 

Correction, it appears some AMNDs were copies of the ANC-1 (1st pressing) and some are clones of the US Silverface/ANC-11030/VANK.

 

Thanks!!

 

Sorry to say this, but the original Signals is too muddy for me to handle. Yes, it's crankable and very warm sounding, but I like both the '97 and Sector 3 remasters better. Can't comment on the MFSL because it's too pricey and rare. So the original/Atomic, the '97 remaster, and the Sector remaster are what I currently own (the same goes for all the other 80's albums). I'm quite happy with my other originals and remasters as they all sound good in their own way. Speaking in collector's terms, is it worth investing an extra $30-50 for the MFSL, 25.8P or SHM of any of the 80s albums?

 

Well, for one thing, the original Atomic is not "the original Signals". That honour would go the Anthem Signals, which is better than the Atomic in some songs and not in others (IMO).

As for your question, IMO, the MFSL is not overall better than the Atomic or the Anthem and is definitely not worth the extra money. However, FizBin and I both find that the AMCY(1991)/SHM release of Signals is better than the other CDs by far. The 25.8P is similar to the AMCY(1991)/SHM but not as good. So my answer to you is yes, it is worth investing an extra $30-50 dollars in the SHM. It sounds better but doesn't have compression or other similar loudness war manipulation like the 97 remaster or the Sector.

 

I have spent quite a bit of time collecting (thanks to this thread) a lot of pre-HYF masterings of Rush albums, but haven't explored any of the post HYF albums. I know that their Atlantic catalog was remastered in 2004 I believe. Is it worth getting any of those remasters or am I better off sticking with the original CD releases that I have now? What about Japanese pressings or Canadian Anthems? Any different masterings out there?

 

Thanks, I'll look into it. Signals is my favorite Rush album, so I'm definitely getting the SHM now!

 

Another good thing about it is that is still sold new, albeit out of Japan.

 

Well, as an owner of the MFSL signals, I can say that it is still my go-to copy for most songs, but you must remember that "The Weapon" on the MFSL is an undermix. The reprise of the chorus right before the solo is missing. That's a deal-breaker for a lot of people.

I'm actually alright with the sound of the Sector Signals. It's too loud and dynamically compressed for my tastes, but the EQ seems close to what MFSL did.

 

The 2004 releases to the original releases are like what 1997 releases were to the corresponding original releases. IMO, and probably quite a few others, not worth the money (more compressed/loudness-war, less so than Sector). This is especially true for Counterparts and Test for Echo, as I'll explain further as I go through each release:

A Show of Hands - Nearly the same mastering from the original releases I've tested, which are the West German "Orange-Swirl" Vertigo and the Mercury Silverface. Apparently the 25.8P may be a different mastering, but I find that claim suspect (HYF seemed to have one main mastering plus the apparently one-of-the-kind SHM, and the next releases of Presto and Chronicles had one mastering). I give a slight edge to the Vertigo as it gets the track timings correct (the Mercury starts songs too late, which oddly enough is a similar issue with the MFSL Moving Pictures), but the Mercury is fine too.

Presto - Only one mastering, so no difference between the AMCY/Anthem/Atlantic. It's a big thing sounding but more dynamic and not EQ manipulated compared to the 97 Remaster. The vinyl record is an improvement over all the CD version.

Roll the Bones - No question, the Audio Fidelity HDCD Gold CD is the best CD release for this album. It's warmer, bassier, and less harsh than the original mastering (again, a single mastering shared between AMCY/Anthem/Atlantic). The '97 Remaster suffers the same problems as Presto remaster. The vinyl version again is better than most of the CD releases, arguably even the Gold CD.


Counterparts - This is where compression and general loudness war mastering became the trend for Rush albums. There is a noticeable drop in DR ratings from RtP to Counterparts (average of +12 to around 9). The original Counterparts CD as a result sounds muddy and heavy compared to previous Rush CDs, but still better than later albums as the loudness war effect got heavier and heavier. You can see why the 2004 remaster is pointless as it takes a CD that was already over-processed and over-processes it some more. The vinyl release is even more of an improvement over than CD than with the vinyl/CD comparisons with RtB and Presto, highly recommended. The Audio Fidelity Counterparts SACD will likely be a big improvement over all current CD versions (and hopefully the vinyl too).

Test for Echo - Only one original CD mastering, Anthem/Atlantic. No vinyl release, so you are stuck with compression and loudness war production. Still, the Peter Collins production on this album is still much better IMO than any studio album after. The dynamics are worse than Counterparts but still better than VT/S&A/CWA. Only hope really for a good CD is maybe a surprise special edition vinyl release or maybe the next AF Rush release (which would correspond with the current order of the AF Rush releases starting with RtB and then Counterparts). If you are really daring, there was a cassette release too. ^_^

Different Stages - Haven't heard, but expect sound quality similar to Counterparts/Test For Echo. No vinyl release for this one either.

Vapour Trails - No introduction needed for the worst Rush production ever in terms of sound quality. Every CD is a dud from that standpoint. Fortunately, there was a vinyl release for this one, however don't expect to solve every problem. It is far more dynamic, but it inherits nasty sounding "glitches" and periodic distortion that comes from the poor quality master release.

Rush in Rio Live - Haven't listened to in years, but all CD versions are the same.

Feedback - All CD versions are the same. The vinyl improves on the CD, but isn't as big an improvement as other albums. Typical high compression loudness-war mastering.

R30 - Haven't heard.

Snakes and Arrows - All standard format CDs use the same mastering. Typical low dynamics and loudness war mastering in between Test for Echo and Vapour Trails. The MVI version is a bit of an improvement, and the vinyl improves further. At this point however, there are flaws in the mixing process (as with Vapour Trails) that can't be fixed through the vinyl format.

Snakes and Arrows Live - All CDs the same. The release is actually quite dynamic with some songs, not so much with others.[/B]

Clockwork Angels - Basically everything that was said with Snakes and Arrows can be said here too. The HDTracks release doesn't seem to provide any big improvement over the CD, and the vinyl is better but can't undo the poor mixing choices.

 

The MFSL last time I heard it wasn't all that different from the Mercury release in many places. Particularly, Subdivisions on both were weak sounding compared to the Anthem/AMCY/25.8P, and the three final songs were practically the same sonically compared to the Mercury/Anthem. It's OK, but certainly not worth the money for a second-hand copy IMO.

 

Actually, there was a 2004 "Remaster" of this title as well. No noticeable improvement over the original in any metric I can think of.

 

Yeah, I didn't bother mentioning it. But you are right that I should have clarified by saying "only one ORIGINAL CD release".

EDIT: Fixed that part.

 

Thanks for the great review, wow! Actually, I erred when I said I didnt have any of the post HYF albums in other forms. I do have the Audio Fidelity RTB and I also got the MVI for Snakes and Arrows when it came out. I have not listened to the MVI in two channel, only in surround and I was NOT impressed. It wasnt that it was loud either, just too "airy" for lack of a better term. I felt the same way about the new 2112 DVD-A. I just think Chycki is not the person to do their surround work. Oh, that they could get James Guthrie to do some of their work! I should check out Snakes and Arrows MVI in 2 channel though, just to give it a try. You're right about the AF Roll the Bones. It is superior, but I think the bar was set pretty low with the original mastering. I wonder if they will ever have any SHM CD releases of the Atlantic era Rush albums? Anyway, thanks for the great overview. I think I've done well just sticking with the original Atlantic releases.

 

The MFSL "Weapon" is not an undermix, its actually the original mix. The vocals in the last chorus were added after it was considered a final mix. This has been debated on this forum more than once but IMO its still the way the band originally intended it to be and its also my favorite version. I have the 25.8P, the 1997 remaster, the original US release, and the MFSL, and to me, the MFSL wins hands down, except for maybe the 25.8P on some songs.

 

I'n curious what others think about me seeking out the SHM of Signals, given that I already have the AMCY, the 25.8P, the original US release, the MFSL and the 97 remaster. Since I already have all of those versions, would it would be worth me getting the SHM, even if its just for the fun of comparing the different masterings? Is the SHM of Signals a clone of another mastering like it appears that some of the other SHM releases are? Thoughts anyone??

 

SHM Signals is the same as the AMCY Signals, which in turn was an improved version of the 25.8P.