The Rush cd mastering thread (part 2)

Any thoughts on Audio Fidelity's gold CDs of Roll The Bones or the newly released Counterparts? How about the SHMs of Grace Under Pressure or Power Windows?

 

A good improvement over the original release in terms of warmness and bass, and comparable to the vinyl release.

Still hasn't shipped yet, I'll tell you in March...maybe.

The SHM/AMCY for Grace Under Pressure sucks, not worth the money. Weak and mediocre sounding.

The SHM for Power Windows is the same mastering as the 25.8P, which is considered by many here (myself included) as the best Power Windows on CD. Recommended.

 

Interesting. I have the AMCY and the 25.8P and I think the 25.8P wins hands down. Different strokes I guess!

 

I have the SHM and the 32.8P of Power Windows. Am I correct in saying that all of the "p" masterings are identical for this album? I think both the SHM and the 32.8P sound fantastic.

 

Yes, there is no difference between the 25.8P (SHM) and the 32.8P.

 

I'd agree with this assessment of Roll The Bones. It's got slightly more punch and is very crisp on the high end.



Slightly off-topic, Where would I find the Rush deadwax guide and discussion?

Thanks in advance.

 

For those who haven't tried it yet - the MFSL Permanent Waves CD is awesome!
Is definately louder and punchier than the japanese masterings, but on the excelent side of it.
Sounds more airier and crispier to me, with less mid-range, but veeery enjoayable to listen - I think it's my new go-to master!

 

Not clear on what you mean the Atomic, the Anthem, and the Japan 25 8P are all the same mastering and sound. The Atomic predates the others by a year or 2.

The MFSL Perm Waves is the only MOFI I own that they have produced in the last 6 years that I did not like. I even really like their Yes Album but Perm Waves is nearly as bad as the 90's remaster.

Seriously was your less mid-range comment some kind of joke?

 

Yeah. The bass is also very goosed on the gold PW.

 

I was very, very bummed with the MFSL "Permanent Waves." My 2nd favorite Rush album, and it looked so nice in my hands....but was a definite step-down from the old atomic cd.

 

Is the old US silver-faced Permanent Waves identical to the Atomic, or is it different?

 

Hi all. I joined the forum tonight just to comment on this thread.

I've been lurking for many months now, and was originally brought to this forum due to my fondness for Rush. I was lucky enough to own mostly Atomic masterings at the time. I've studied all the threads and have attempted to collect all of the recommended masterings. I even bought an extra CD player to do my own A-B comparisons. I find myself in agreement with most of the recommendations, with a few caveats. Here are my opinions, FWIW:

Rush - haven't compared yet

Fly By Night - the 97 remaster added bass, but the bass was bloated. I "acquired" a vinyl rip which is far superior to both. Vinyl is definitely the way to go for this album. Not all rips are created equal, however...

Caress Of Steel - Original Anthem is a clear winner.

2112 - I've owned the MFSL for some time now, and just assumed it was the best version. I understand the complaints about "shrillness" but perhaps that's just the way the album was recorded? I bought the recent 2112 deluxe set, and I have to say the 24/96 version beats the MFSL. I am in the process of tracking down an Anthem to compare. But for now, the hi-rez is the way to go.

AFTK - The Anthem beat my Atomic.

Hemispheres - Ditto

Permanent Waves - Hmmm. I suppose I can understand some of the complaints about the upper mid boost on the MFSL, but to my ears, the original Atomic has too much early 80's A/D "hashiness". The main draw for me though, is that the MFSL has a very pleasing phat bass which is not bloated in the slightest. The difference between the Atomic and MFSL of PW is exactly like the difference between the Diament "Yes Album" and the MFSL. More punch with no bloat. (One small criticism of the PW MFSL though: I was disappointed with the sound of the guitar arpeggios leading up to the "wheels within wheels" part; on the MFSL the sound is kind of veiled and muted compared to the original. Not sure what happened there)

Moving Pictures - I own the MFSL, and in my naivete (before finding this forum) I assumed it was the best version. But I couldn't shake the feeling that something just didn't sound right about it. I didn't fully admit it to myself until I read the comments here describing it as "cold" and "sterile". That's it exactly. It DOES have a bit more clarity, particularly in Geddy's bass lines, but overall it lacks a warm, organic bottom end. I eventually purchased the West German Atomic 03, and it's the best to my ears. Hand's down. I would only recommend the MFSL to bass players who want to hear every last detail of Geddy's playing.

Signals - this is where it gets interesting. I own the MFSL and the Atomic. The MFSL is better than the Atomic. I recently purchased the SHM a.k.a. AMCY of the album. I agree with what others have said. "Subdivisions" is better on the SHM/AMCY. Much more fullness in the lower end, which emphasizes the synth bass. The MFSL has more clarity, but just lacks balls on this track. BUT...others have said the rest of the tracks are identical. I disagree. I would say that OVERALL, the MFSL is superior, because it brings out much more clarity to what is a muddy sounding album. On the MFSL, Geddy's bass has much more clarity, bite and growl. While the SHM/AMCY has more fullness in the low end, it doesn't seem to work as as well on most of the other tracks. It just sounds muddy. HOWEVER, I would say that in addition to "Subdivisions", "New World Man" also sounds much better (has more punchy bass) on the SHM/AMCY than the MFSL. I would suggest anyone who owns both to do a comparison of that track. To me, the difference is night and day. I also suspect the same holds for "Losing It", but I need to do more comparisons. This is one CD where I will be making a CD-R of different tracks.

GUP - alas, I have found nothing that beats my Atomic...yet. The SHM didn't come close. The 2011 Sectors version had some things to recommend it (it's really not that bad all things considered), but the Atomic has more "air" and more "life" to it. Still, a bad sounding album due to the "hashiness" once again. I'm trying to track down a (cheap) Japanese first press for this one.

Power Windows - my second favorite album after Moving Pictures. My original Atomic has always sounded outstanding to me, but I now have the SHM and it truly is indeed better. A little more bass and a little less brightness, making it juuuust riiiight. However, the 2011 Sector version is nothing to sneeze at. It does have a little more compression, but the EQ is VERY similar to the SHM. A fine choice for playing in the car to overcome the road noise.

HYF - this one is tough and I still can't make my mind up. I found that the 97 remaster was preferable to the original Atomic since this album was lacking in low end. I then purchased the SHM on this forum's recommendation, and it is true there is more low end, of a different sort than the 97 remaster. The 97 remaster seems to have a bass boost which emphasizes frequencies below ~100Hz, things like Neil's bass drum and low synth notes. The low frequency boost on the SHM brings out more of Geddy's bass. The rub is that the SHM has added more top end to what is already a bright sounding album to begin with. Not only that, the soundstage is narrower on the SHM. I'm undecided on this one. And forget the 2011 Sector version. It's horrible. It sounds like they attempted to bring more of Geddy's bass into the mix like the SHM, but it sounds more like a wooden thud against cardboard to me. Just terrible.

Presto - I prefer the 97 remaster. More low end (although far from perfect) to what is a thin sounding album. I don't hear any excessive compression on this remaster.

Roll The Bones -- 97 remaster all the way. I felt cheated by the Audio Fidelity that some on here recommend. I really don't get it. I agree that the AF has a bit more clarity in the highs (reverb trails on Geddy's voice, reverb trails on the snare hits), but the soundstage is narrower. And more importantly, there is LESS bass than the original! I don't understand the folks who say the AF has more bass. I'm not hearing it at all.

TFE - Haven't compared. This is where my interest in Rush started waning.

I have some vinyl rips of S&A and Clockwork Angels, which are marginally better than the original CD's. Nothing to write home about though. Still haven't managed to track down a needledrop of Vapor Trails, regrettably. That's the album that needs improvement the most.


There you have it. Hope this helps.

 

Anyone? Is there a list that compares the old US silver-face CDs to the Atomics? I'd like to know which ones are identical/different. I only have 4 of the WG Atomics (MP, S, GUP, and PoW), the others are the US silver-face CDs. I'm happy with what I've got for now, but I'm just curious. The only one I know that's the same on both the US and Atomic is 2112.

Hello Serapis Bey, and welcome to the forum! This was an interesting read for me as I'm also seeking the best versions of Rush albums. All the albums on the Sector boxes sound great to me, but like you said, HYF just sounds bad. There's no 'great' sounding version IMO, so definitely stick with the '97 remaster for that one. Get the Atomic or original US for 2112, as they both sound very warm and dynamic. And it's nice to see another fan of Power Windows . That too is my 2nd favorite (though Signals is the best for me). There's tons of cool stuff happening on this forum, so you should love it here if you decide to post more stuff. So once again, welcome to the forum!

 

Thanks Terry. After all the OCD testing I've done, my brain is a little fried. I don't know if I could muster the energy to do it again for any band I'm not a big fan of. I have done it with Yes and a couple of others, but I suspect I'm not made of the same stuff as most of the regulars here.

I should clarify some things in my last post. My version of Caress of Steel was the M-1 silverface. I have no idea if it is the same as the Atomic. All I know is that the Anthem beat what I had.

The Anthem versions of AFTK and Hemispheres were only marginal improvements over the Atomics. Nothing drastic. Still better, though.

Regarding 2112, I'm looking for an Anthem to see if it really does improve upon the (seemingly) inherent shrillness to the album as others have stated.. As of now, I prefer the hi-rez stereo version.

I forgot to mention Counterparts in my last post. It is true that the vinyl is a slight improvement in the compression department. Most noticable to me on "Stick It Out". Try to find that German vinyl rip if you can.

I wouldn't knock the SHM HYF untill you've tried it. 97 remaster vs. SHM is a matter of taste, I think. I really did enjoy the prominence of Geddy's bass on the SHM. On the 97 remaster, a lot of articulation and detail is lost in a fog of his soft sounding Wal bass. Bass players would definitely prefer the SHM. But, like I said, more high end and a more narrow soundstage. I would suggest trying both.

I should point out that I only own Sectors 2 and 3. So I was unable to do any shootouts of the early albums. I agree that the Sectors I've heard are pretty good (excepting HYF, of course). In fact, I would go so far as to say that the EQ moves on virtually all of them are very similar to the EQ on the rare and hard to find masterings recommended on this forum. Of course, they do suffer *somewhat* from additional compression, so I can't recommend them over and above the "holy grails", but I would not hesitate to use them in noisy environments like a car. They are not bad at all.

 

What's the latest on a Vapor Trails remaster? Last I heard, Alex wanted to try to polish that turd.

 

I read on wikipedia that the plans were downshifted. Besides, the album wasn't one of Rush's bestsellers. Many (casual) fans don't know of the distorted sound and are happy with it, so it'd probably sell very poorly if it was remastered.

 

Well, what are you gonna do...especially when you can listen to Clockwork Agony in HD.

 

All the original Mercuries, Anthems, and the 25.8P are the same for this release.

 

Not going to happen any time soon. Your best bet is vinyl.

 

There really isn't any big difference between these versions. The original Japan, Anthem, and Mercuries are level-shifted. So any improvement you hear is probably psychological IMO, a result of different levels. The same with Hemispheres.

I actually managed to snag the Anthem release, and it's by far the best. The Hi-Rez version is typical modern Rush: compressed and over-equalized. In case you can't find the Anthem version, the 25.8P/AMCY is more or less identical (similar to the case with AFTK)

The 03 is probably the best CD, except for the fact that the fade-ins and -outs on many of the songs (Red Barchetta, Vital Signs, etc.) are shorter. For that reason I think the Holland Vinyl wins overall.

Compared to the Anthem, the Atomic has way over-boosted bass, which is why I think the Anthem CD in combination with vinyl is the best overall. The Atomic also has a nasty defect in "The Enemy Within". I wouldn't bother with the Japanese release, it's just louder, and that's it (and contains clips).

The Power Windows remasters from 97 onwards have probably the worst loss in dynamics compared to other Rush releases. The SHM/25.8P adds boost when needed but doesn't screw up the dynamics.

The best overall again, is the vinyl release by far. As for CDs, the SHM is basically an improved version of the original (the peaks were nearly identical) and maintains the dynamics as well. The remaster doesn't.

It's a fair improvement in dynamics for sure. Of course, the AF SACD will probably blow both out of the water. I should get it by Tuesday so I'll able to say for sure.

Not somewhat at all. If you compared them to the 97 remasters, they just what was there and compress it even more. Now would I say they are the sonic disaster that is the 2007 Genesis remasters? Probably not, but they aren't anything to spend significant money for over used copies. Some of the masters they used, like GUP, weren't even the original masters but digital copies.[/quote]

 

So the boosted bass is what's wrong with the Atomic. I guess I'll be getting the vinyl or Anthem (or maybe even the cassette ). So where's the error in The Enemy Within?

 

It occurs around 2:25. The Enemy Within seems to be a very troublesome song on the album. Every vinyl version I've heard has a nasty vocal distortion throughout the whole song.

 

Wrap that, I actually got it today.

Looking forward to trying it later.

 

Thanks for the tips Ambassador. On your recommendation I hunted down some of the vinyl versions you mentioned. But first:

"Over-boosted bass"? Hard for me to say, since the Atomic is what I've always owned. Would you happen to know if the SHM is similar to the Anthem in the bass department? Apart from the SHM's other failings, would you say the bass is similar to the Anthem? All I know is that the bass was very anemic on the SHM and one of the first things I noticed.

But the SHM is overly bright. HYF is bright to begin with. I did manage to track down a needledrop, however, and I now agree with you. The vinyl has very similar EQ to the 97 remaster, but with better dynamics. There seems to be a little more fullness to the low end, as well. Vinyl gets the edge for HYF.

OTOH, I have to disagree on Roll The Bones. I already compared the AF to the 97, and found the AF wanting. Today I compared a needledrop the the 97. Like the HYF vinyl, the RTB vinyl does have similar EQ moves to the 97, but whether due to the limitations of vinyl or some other factor, the vinyl was a tad dull in comparison. It sounded congested. The 97 on the other hand had much more clarity and seperation between the instruments. The bass/bass drum sounded tighter and more focused as well. I understand that technically, it must be more compressed, but I don't hear any compression artifacts. My preference might have more to do to with character of my mediocre stereo rig, however. In the final analysis, I might be willing to put up with IGD or "congestion" on an old Zeppelin LP, but for Rush, I find it intolerable. The 97 remains my go-to version for this album

Let's hear the review! I'm dying to know.

 

The bass on the Atomic borders on unbearable when you hear it on most of the songs compared to the Anthem. It just sounds bizarre really. The Distant Early Warning on the Anthem is lacking in bass though, which is where getting a good vinyl (the Japanese 25.whatever is good) comes in. The Anthem is still leagues ahead of the SHM however. I don't know what happened with the AMCY/SHM of this album. Sometimes they succeed with improving upon the 25.8P CD version (Signals) and sometimes they drop the ball.

Def, the vinyl is the best. However for CD, I still prefer the SHM. It really isn't that bright when you compare it to the SHM Power Windows for example. In fact, I'd say it's less bright than Power Windows. The 97 Remaster is just too artificial sounding with it's EQ. Which brings us to...

Agree to disagree then. To me, the 97 Roll the Bones remasters just sound artificial in it's EQ etc, whereas the AF Gold CD sounds warmer. Bare in mind that the album wasn't mixed as a sonic masterpiece to begin with, so some of what sounds "wrong" was actually intended. It's a similar case with Presto. You could do your own re-EQing of the original CDs and come to a similar result to the 97 remasters. Bare in mind also that I was listening to the AF Gold CD RTB with HDCD playback, though I'm not sure how much difference that would make.