 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.57.161.44
In Reply to: RE: Rush DVD-A ships tomorrow (4/5) posted by bquisp on April 04, 2011 at 09:25:06
I just picked up the cd/dvd version and have been comparing it to my original cd version. Dynamic range compression to me is like a gummy bear stuck to a theater screen. Once I see it, I can't help focus on it and it drives me nuts. That's how I feel about dynamic range compression. I found that the snare on the DVD-A version doesn't "POP" quite as much as it does on the original cd. Some people mentioned that the bass is a little tighter... possibly. I think it's a trade off with the compression personally. If compression doesn't bother you, then you'll probably be completely happy with this release.
I took a screen shot of the waveforms so you can see the 2 of them. Original Tom Sawyer is on the top, 24/96 Tom Sawyer is on the bottom.
Follow Ups:
Do you have a graph that compares the new CD included with the DVD-A? I don't prefer the sound of the CD that much myself, was a bit disappointed actually. The sound is not bad but sounds restricted compared to the BD (stereo or surround). Somehow I thought the CD and BD stereo mixes would be very similar, except for bit format of course. The difference I heard is not explained just by that, there is more going on, so perhaps the new CD is more compressed too.
Rush mentioned they recorded the BD at lower volume (than typical movies etc.) so they could get more dynamic range. I say nonsense, this BD is recorded like 10dB louder than a typical movie/TV BD is these days (15-20dB louder than WB lol) based on my regular listening level setting for DTS-HD MA (caught me quite off guard). There is still plenty of room for dynamic range, and I actually think Rush did this fairly right level-wise, it's the movie studios who sometimes record at ridiculously low levels and don't even nearly use the available DR.
The remastered cd is on top, the dvd-a is on the bottom. I agree that the cd sounds restricted, even though the waveforms look very similar. Like rlw, I'm also frustrated with the whole compression nonsense. "Hey look, increased dynamic range on this format! Now let's compress the dynamic range." Huh?!?
After reading this thread it wet my appetite for yet another version of Moving Pictures. Playing the Mobile Fidelity version over the years made me wonder if a new remaster could sound better. It does. This double disc set contains a very clear and detailed CD version. Where the Mobile Fidelity sounds tame in comparison. I like the new one better in all ways. Some of you shy away from the dose of compression but in all reality it is not over the top. The waveform shots show that the loudest amplitudes may be cut off and the bulk of the music has limited dynamic range taking into consideration this is a rock album. The sound of the new disc overall is more lively and in a good way. Plus it is not as compressed as most current remasters these days.I don't know what it was about early Mobile Fidelity CDs, since they didn't add much compression, for the lame sounds of Supertramp's Crime of The Century is a prime example of underutilized compression. Funny how that album from MFSL on vinyl is supreme but the cd is a waste.
Edits: 05/17/11
Further compressing the CD medium is a bad thing. If that's your cup of tea, so be it. But nonetheless, it's a bad cup of tea that you so enjoy.
RUSH is not some boy band nor are they some new pop sensation. They're three very talented musicians, especially in the areas of musicianship and complexity. They have assended to a music echelon in which very few groups have risen, one in which the whole truly is greater than the sum of its parts. As fans, musicians and audiophiles who recognise this and support their continued contribution to recorded and live music, we deserved and do deserve better. Period.
hogwash!Not just Rush but all bands would greatly enhance our musical pleasure if they meticulously mastered their pressings.
As for Mr. Joe Murphy Jr's generalized statement that 'further compressing the cd medium is a bad thing" is not just a personal statement but one bereft of any conclusive information and that taking his advice is fraught with disclaiming many good sounding cds. Try this Joe, play the mofi gold version of Moving Pictures. Do the same with a later remaster and do the same with the current 30th anniversary double disc's cd version. Which one sounds better to YOUR ears? Your answer will say a lot about your judgement, which at the moment is premature.
And you are wasting your time with the 'boy band' lecture. Sounds like you are more full of yourself than sure of yourself. I await your listening results with open arms.Like I earlier mentioned compared to many other band's discs this new one from Rush is not all that compressed. What compression is there greatly enhances information available on the disc and not at the cost of piercing sound.
Until you try that little experiment above keep your generalizations to yourself.
Edits: 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11
I own many versions of Moving Pictures: the initial CD release, the CD Remaster, the MFSL CD, the just released Deluxe Edition Blu-ray/CD and the initial album release, so I can do what you ask and more.
And as one who owns numerous versions of Moving Pictures, in my opinion, with regard to audio quality, the MFSL Gold CD of Moving Pictures is the release to own. Period.
Just because what they did "compared to many other band's discs this new one from Rush is not all that compressed" doesn't make it right. You must be a groupie, because no self-respecting fan, musician or audiophile would say such assinine crap. Next time you go to a live concert, make sure you tell the engineer on the board to boost the bass, jack up the highs and kick in some compression so the band sounds like the sub-par CD they released. I hope they tear up the ticket in your face after they boot your sorry ass out the door.
Have a nice day.
so you did the test? Good. Unfortunately someone is being dishonest here. I am confident in my judgement for I don't need someone to tell me how something sounds. I do that for myself. I don't need a panel of slides to move, buttons to push or sound waves to measure. Why? Because I just heard the best Moving Pictures on cd and it is the 30th Ann. Edition. Period!So what does our discrepancy make of our results Joe? You being the senior member at AA and me a newb. I'l tell you what to make out of it.
A) you really did not listen to the 30th anniversary edition
B) you did and you are obstinate for a reason
C) you are deluding yourself
D) you have poor listening skills.Now if you think this version of the cd is fraught with boosted bass, jacked up highs and compression you may or may not be right. All is relative. BTW, I have fun at concerts Joe. I've been to tons. Going into my fifth decade I don't need some anonymous Joe to tell me about music. Nor do I appreciate your attempt at insults. If you can't carry on a mature and decent conversation without Ad hominem attacks than keep your disrespectful behavior to yourself and away from this topic.
We are talking about one record and one record only. Stop deviating and generalizing. In fact those who do are seldom sure of themselves instead they are full of it. If you have to then let's do it apples to apples - I believe that the MFSL gold cd of 'Permanent Waves' is the best sounding cd available. I will also state that the best sounding 'Signals' is also the one from MFSL.
This guy here also agrees with me about Moving Pictures. Not that it means anything because I am not him:
http://musictap.net/2011/04/18/review-moving-pictures-2011-remaster-cddvd-30th-anniversary-deluxe-edition-rush/
Edits: 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11 05/19/11
regarding overly compressed cds try Wall of Voodoo's - Index Masters(2005) or Van Halen's - Best of Both Worlds (2004). Good tunes but horrendously loud. In those there is no dynamic range since the soft passages are just as loud as the boisterous ones. In comparison the latest Moving Pictures is sane.and this is what I'm trying to say. For me there is a limit where compression is bad and where it is not. Most every rock recording is compressed anyway. Even LP's. The difference is in the amount.
Edits: 05/19/11
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
