ORIGINAL: John Page

I pulled up several songs off of SNA into Forge 9 and while there is limiting going on its not nearly to the degree of VT average RMS on SNA is around -9db any given song. While I would love to see less limiting (loudness) it’s in line with most of today’s CD's and I just plain disagree that SnA is the mess most are making it out to be in this thread. No flames just my 2c

So would it be unlikely that the DVD 2.0 mix is different? (I'm assuming you pulled the audio from the CD.)

ORIGINAL: Blackwaters End

Have you checked out the hi res 2.0 mix on the DVD yet? I wonder if there's a way to pull one of those files into an editor to look for clipping. I listened to the 2.0 mix and I liked it, but I probably wouldn't know pumping if it slapped me in the face.

I don't expect every Rush album to sound the same...I thought the drums sounded very cool. I think we might get bored if every Rush album sounded exactly like Moving Pictures.

The songs seem far better on this album than any other from recent years.

I did check out the hi res stereo mix. It's better than the CD but only marginally. I'm not sure if I could extract anything from the DVD. You got me curious though and I will look into it. However, I expect to see more or less the same thing I did on the CD mixes. By the way, the CD mixes did not clip but they constantly peak at 0dB. There is only about 4 or 5 db of dynamic range on the CD.

I don't expect eveything to sound like moving picture. The band has to evolve. What I expect is the superb engineering I'm use to enjoying with their older work. Why go through the trouble of putting 47 plus mics on a drum kit, get a great sound and then squash the living crap out of it in the mix where it has minimal impact on the music. It makes no sense to me and I can't believe that Neil could listen to this CD and feel his drums sound great in the mix. Iw ill say there is a bit more depth to the drums with the 5.1 mix and that is the only way I can listen to this new release.

Eric

The fact that they are compressing the mixes to death should be of concern to you. Because we are getting ripped off in a way. We are getting an inferior product just because someone thinks it should louder than the last guy's CD. It's an idiotic practice I wish would stop.

I don't disagree but I really dont think its going to change anytime soon .........I know its a sad reality

The New SOS opens up with this topic some interesting reading their conclusion is also its going to change anytime soon. People alot more connected than us are screaming about it for the last 6 years .......... but at least we can wish

ORIGINAL: John Page

The fact that they are compressing the mixes to death should be of concern to you. Because we are getting ripped off in a way. We are getting an inferior product just because someone thinks it should louder than the last guy's CD. It's an idiotic practice I wish would stop.

I don't disagree but I really dont think its going to change anytime soon .........I know its a sad reality

The New SOS opens up with this topic some interesting reading their conclusion is also its going to change anytime soon. People alot more connected than us are screaming about it for the last 6 years .......... but at least we can wish

I realize nothing will probably change and yes it is very sad but I will not contribute to trend. Anything I relase will lots of dynamic range and the best clarity and depth I can manage to accomplish.

Thanks for taking part in this thread. I appreaicate everyone's contributions.

Eric

ORIGINAL: Hansenhaus


Just for the record...

...I still feel the mixes are too loud and the dynamics are squahsed out of it. If they left a lot of the dynamics there this album would sound 100% better. The fact that they are compressing the mixes to death should be of concern to you. Because we are getting ripped off in a way. We are getting an inferior product just because someone thinks it should louder than the last guy's CD. It's an idiotic practice I wish would stop.

I wonder how much budget plays into the production ethos of making everything loud? Detail isn't cheap. My guess is Rush probably tries to keep the costs in the $50K to $75K range. For that kind of money you can get a record made by professionals in a reasonable amount of time. Maybe Moving Pictures took forever to make and cost a bundle. Think about how much it would cost to make Dark Side of the Moon compared to the recording budgets for most rock albums today. The fact that they are making new music and touring to support at all is pretty respectable.

I think knowing the production details like how long they spent tracking SnA and how linear/non-linear the tracking was could shed some light on the final product. Lets face it, they are a legacy act and not selling tons of records to new fans. Recording budgets are really important when there is a predictable level of sales (I wonder what kind of sales the recent releases grossed). The production personnel who have the engineering skills to make truly dynamic and detailed product are not cheap and the studios with the gear and rooms to make it are also not cheap. Maybe the most efficient way for them to produce this record ultimately go with the flow.

Perhaps for their next outing they could solicit fans to submit a test mix and make it a contest. I think Ozzy did that with his first video for his latest release. It's an interesting way for legacy artists to get things done and generate interest and hype as well as helping someone along the way.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers, wm

i've listened to the new rush cd a few times now, maybe 5 or 6 times, and as a bona-fide rush fan i've come to two conclusions:

a- contrary to some of the previous posts, i think the songs are for the most part very good and the best stuff since counterparts, albeit very dark in mood & subject matter. ( nothing wrong with that! )

b- the production BLOWS. without regard to what the waveform looks like, the drums & guitars are awful. the drums are so thin and brittle as to sound like a crappy pair of walkman headphones and the electric guitars are just dull & without any presense or balls. the bass sounds ok and i like the mellotron stuff. i think the vocals are hit & miss, some of the songs , far cry and the wind blows have very good vocals but some of them sound like rough takes and i think the vocals are just too hot in the mix to start with. PET PEEVE ALERT: i HATE it when a vocalist sings a word like "well" and turns it into 2 syllables "weh-hell"; geddy is the prime offender in this case. the instrumentals are good. the acoustic guitar stuff is very nice i think.

so in conclusion: the album sounds worse than vapor trails and far worse than test for echo, but the songs are better.

Geddy, Alex, Neil: if you're reading this, man you guys are in a position to say "screw the loudness war" and put out a real hi-fi album like everything from permanent waves through counterparts. it pains me to say it cuz i love Rush but man WTF? oh yeah i'll still be at the show in september though!

that's my 2 cents anyway

This will probably sound stupid, but I think the new album only sounds good if you can turn it up loud. At low volumes the drums do sound more thin and brittle and the guitars are annoying somehow. When I crank it up on my home stereo system it seems like it all comes to life and there is a ton of detail in the mix, such as it is. Haven't tried it with my reference monitors yet - and it (the DVD) is now on loan to my son.

ORIGINAL: Clydewinder

i've listened to the new rush cd a few times now, maybe 5 or 6 times, and as a bona-fide rush fan i've come to two conclusions:

a- contrary to some of the previous posts, i think the songs are for the most part very good and the best stuff since counterparts, albeit very dark in mood & subject matter. ( nothing wrong with that! )

b- the production BLOWS. without regard to what the waveform looks like, the drums & guitars are awful. the drums are so thin and brittle as to sound like a crappy pair of walkman headphones and the electric guitars are just dull & without any presense or balls. the bass sounds ok and i like the mellotron stuff. i think the vocals are hit & miss, some of the songs , far cry and the wind blows have very good vocals but some of them sound like rough takes and i think the vocals are just too hot in the mix to start with. PET PEEVE ALERT: i HATE it when a vocalist sings a word like "well" and turns it into 2 syllables "weh-hell"; geddy is the prime offender in this case. the instrumentals are good. the acoustic guitar stuff is very nice i think.

so in conclusion: the album sounds worse than vapor trails and far worse than test for echo, but the songs are better.

Geddy, Alex, Neil: if you're reading this, man you guys are in a position to say "screw the loudness war" and put out a real hi-fi album like everything from permanent waves through counterparts. it pains me to say it cuz i love Rush but man WTF? oh yeah i'll still be at the show in september though!

that's my 2 cents anyway

I will definitely have to agree with you here
Sounds like some of the vocal takes were *"what /how am I gonna sing this line"* - first take-type lines
Not so much Geddys style we've grown accustomed to.
IMHO test for echo was the start of the decline