Rush Vapor Trails Remastered?

Surfing on Amazon, I saw that Rush had released a remastered version of Presto (one of their more underrated albums, IMNSHO), and saw a listing for Vapor Trails remastered.

Wanted to ask any Rush fans in HTF - does this mean we'll finally get a properly mixed version of this CD? I normally don't like double dipping, but it would be great to have a "corrected" version of VT.

And that's the question. I guess we will find out when the Atlantic remasters finally come out. Until then, who knows?

Jason

They vinyl is still compressed but not clipped, there is a slight improvement. Just using the same master as the vinyl would help somewhat.

Someone let us know when you find out. I liked the disc, but oh man could the mastering be improved...

This has been discussed by the usual suspects (Kyle should be along shortly with perhaps more info.) in a couple of other threads, including the "Rush and covers" thread.

The VT remaster has seemingly been cancelled. There's been no new release date announcement. All the other Atlantic remasters streeted 8/31.

No amount of remastering will fix the train wreck of a recording that is VT.

-p

I disagree. Given the years of experience Rush have at making sonically excellent recordings, what ended up on CD as Vapour Trails HAD to have been screwed up in the mastering. It is quite possible that all that would be required are a few minor settings changes in the mastering chain, such as raising the threshold on the limiter, and lowering the output ceiling.

I think what Paul S is getting at,is that is the master tracks were probably recorded to hot to begin with. How would you fix that?

Too bad, as imho, the album was probably Rush's greatest effort....I was bummed to say the least the first time I spun it up and my ears hurt for the next 3 days..

So it's your position, Jeff, that Howie Weinberg--who has been involved in the mastering of way more recordings than Ged, Alex and Neil put together--was just out to lunch during his VT mastering sessions and the fault is exclusively his? It's sonically obvious that there were already issues with the VT master tape when it arrived at Masterdisk, which were then exacerbated in the mastering process.

From Ged saying in interviews that he leaves his concert mic choices up to the engineers, to Neil saying in Work In Progress that--as long as they're not in his way--he also leaves mic choices up to his engineers, the boys are wicked terrific musicians, but not experienced engineers. I assume you've heard Victor? Sonically it is not impressive. I've yet to be impressed with the SQ of pretty much anything that's come out of Lerxt's home studio. At some point, perhaps while Neil was "riding on" and Alex was drinking somewhere, probably Ged listened to the VT final master and 'signed off' on it. I've read/seen/heard nothing about the band members disavowing/expressing dissatisfaction with the sound quality of the album since its release. Incidentally, VT is the first non-Terry Brown-produced album since GUP in which Rush is listed first in the production credit.

In case you haven't seen/read it already in the many discussions I've seen online in various places about this issue, please check out "Over the Limit: Ceiling Limited" by ProRec.com editor Rip Rowan which discusses the matter in depth, including amplitude graphs.

-p

From reading that prorec article a few years ago, it sounded like the most likely cause was the pressure by the labels for the mastering to make everything LOUD. I've seen a number of discussions about this trend, and the general consensus is that the mastering engineers don't want to clip everything this badly, but the labels are forcing them to do it.

I think that's a much more likely explanation than the one that says the recording engineer was clueless and the original tracks are clipped.

One thing I get the impression of is that the band was not satisfied with the mixes they were doing, which is why they brought in Howie to get something they could be happy with.

This is why I could believe that the problem could have been in the original recordings...

Jason

That doesn't sound quite right. I'm not saying you're wrong, it just sounds weird. If they weren't happy with the mixes, why not bring in someone different to make new MIXES, instead of trying to fix it in mastering?

I went back and looked at the graphs in that prorec article, since I remember being stunned by how badly clipped they were, and sure enough... ugly stuff. Badly recorded tracks aren't going to give you that kind of insane clipping, that's strictly a mastering issue.

Speaking from experience as a mastering engineer, yes, that is my position. If the supplied masters are clipped, you request new ones. Getting a hot signal to replication by limiting the hell out of the masters is one thing, but allowing multiple, consecutive overs is sloppy engineering, and is easily correctable with today's tools.

I agree. And, based upon interviews WRT how the album came together, I don't think the band was under label pressure to meet a deadline such that they would forgo new mixes because of a lack of time if they felt they were necessary. Maybe this is an incorrect presumption though.
Please explain. It's my understanding that, given the brick wall that is 0dB when recording digitally, you can very much distort/clip a signal by recording it too hot.

Herschel said: Jeff said: So Howie would insist upon clean masters from the recording engineer/band, but then roll over when the label insists on distorting those clean masters in the mastering process? It doesn't make sense.

I think ideally, Jeff, a mastering engineer should get/ask for clean masters, but saying that that always is what does happen is like saying that whatever the cinematographer wants is how the shot will look, director be damned.
How do you know that this is a case of the latter not the former? Is there something about the album's sound that points you in one direction versus the other?

Ultimately, I think we'll probably never know. We're arguably both speculating but it seems very unlikely to me that Ged (who does have experience as an audio producer) would sign off on such mastering after providing clean masters. I think it stands to reason if not to truth that the band knew their masters were distorted/too hot and that there was therefore only so much a mastering engineer could do given that. If Ged fought Atlantic to get My Favorite Headache in a Digipak, it doesn't make sense to me that he/the band would cave on a SQ issue involving their first album for the label in several years.

Although I think I understand your perspective WRT what should happen based upon the role the mastering engineer plays in the process, Jeff, it seems to me that--in this case--there were other larger, extenuating circumstances at play.

And yes, some of my position is informed by a recalcitrant desire on my part not to believe that Ged listened to Howie's work and said "Yeah okay fine." I'd sure like to believe that something else was at work here, and it seems to me that their own less-than-stellar recording is a fundamental, partial culprit.

-p

The vinyl is maximized/compressed but without clipping. There is an at least slightly better master out there somewhere.

But I fear the whole mix is probably very LOUD. That is my guess.

Yes, you can, but it is also possible to remove those clips. The problem I suspect is that the final mastered product was not distorting when played back through the mastering studios DACs, which are almost certainly of a very high quality. The same is not the case on consumer equipment.

Most DACS are intollerant of full scale signal, and will clip. If the mixed masters are too hot to begin with, it is up to the mastering engineer to correct the problem, not exascerbate it. While the band may not be expert engineers, they certainly have enough experience in hearing the effect mastering will have on their mixes.

Herschel said, "Badly recorded tracks aren't going to give you that kind of insane clipping . . ." I replied, "Please explain. It's my understanding that, given the brick wall that is 0dB when recording digitally, you can very much distort/clip a signal by recording it too hot." Jeff replied:

Herschel, since you were the person who made the comments I asked for explanation of, might you have any comments?

But that once again begs the question of band q.c. If you posit that "they certainly have enough experience in hearing the effect mastering will have on their mixes," that's not far from extrapolating to their having enough experience to know that the equipment at Masterdisk is not representative of consumer listening and they should/could have addressed the issue to which you're referring (e.g., Bruce Swedien mixes on tiny Auratone speakers [some call them 'horror tones'] to ensure the mix sounds good on arguably lower resolution equipment). And in furtherance of devil's advocate mode, I doubt Ged et al. listened to the final mastered product at Masterdisk. Howie probably couriered Ged a CD that he listened to elsewhere . . .

Still curious about the questions I posed in my post #13, Jeff ("How do you know that this is a case of the latter not the former? Is there something about the album's sound that points you in one direction versus the other?").

-p

I think there was distortion induced in the recording, mixing and mastering. VT was recorded digitally, so I think all the stages are to blame. I know Geddy mixed the album forever and wasn't happy with the mixes. I think he finally just gave up and said "put it out". Alex agreed, and it came out. Where was Paul Northfield and Howie Weinberg in all of this? I don't know. I suspect they said, "He guys this is insanely distorted." The band thought about fixing it, which would mean starting over from scratch. Being musicians, the may have thought the current mixes had a certain vibe they didn't want to lose, so they put it out despite the distortion.

Also, according to Rush.com, VT was never scheduled for a re-master. It did start showing up on amazon and other retailers, but when the other four re-masters came out, VT did not. I suspect there was an error with the label. I don't expect a VT remaster, although I would love one.

I love Rush. I have listened to Vapor Trails exactly two times (once when it came out and once last month). I doubt I will listen to it again in its current form. It's like watching something through a dirty picture tube. I was so hoping there would be a remaster, but maybe they think a remaster of a 2 year old album would be some sort of admission of error on the previous release.

On a related Rush note, I didn't find much of a difference on the recent Atlantic remasters. They all sounded slightly louder and brighter, but Presto and Roll The Bones still seemed a little anemic in the low end. I don't think Counterparts even needed it-that is still one of the best rock recordings I've ever heard.

Kyle:

Knew you'd join in eventually . . .

Where is Rush.com now making this revisionist claim? On the day Gwon Chang posted this, I went to the second link therein--the "News" page of Power Windows--and remember a reference to a VT remaster. The site states that this information is as announced on Rush.com. Of course, this verbiage could have changed since I read it back in July--I don't remember.

My point is that, although Rush.com may be now saying that VT was never skedded for a remaster, there was a fan site quoting them around the time of the announcement as having said that there would be.

Of course, none of this obviates (it actually reinforces) your suspicion that there was an error with the label (giving Rush.com incorrect information). I tend to agree with that conclusion.

-p

Sorry for the delay, I didn't make it back to this thread for a few days...

My comments were based on the screenshots of the waveforms in the prorec article. Those show the waveform that's on the CD being badly clipped at the maximum amplitude you can store on a CD. The only way to get that is at the mastering stage. Lets say the original tracks were badly recorded and clipped. Once those tracks get mixed (meaning the levels get adjusted, they get EQ'd, reverb and other effects get added, etc.) that kind of clipping wouldn't be visible. You might see artifacts from it, but it's unlikely that you're going to see flat lines, because of all the processing you've done to it. And once you mix in all the other tracks that you're using, clipping on any one track won't be visible at all in the final mix. Even if every track you're using was clipped, mixing them all together will mean no flat lines in the waveform (although it'll probably sound like crap).

It's only when you master that final mix for CD that you have the opportunity to clip the waveforms at the max amplitude and create the kind of pictures that prorec has in that article.

Now, like I said before, this doesn't mean that the original tracks weren't badly recorded. It just means that we should be able to get at least a somewhat better sounding version if it was remastered.

Ok, I have too much time on my hands, apparently. I made an example.

Here's a really badly clipped drum track. Everything was way too loud for my poor sound card to deal with. This doesn't sound good:



Here it is after a quick mix with a slightly clipped bass track and an unclipped organ track:



There's no sign of the clipping from the original badly recorded drums, but the track still sounds pretty bad. The only way to get that mixed track to look like the Vapor Trails waveforms, though, is during mastering. But I could still do that even if the original tracks were perfect.

My point is just that the mastering wasn't good. The original tracks and/or the mix could have issues also, I have no idea.

Herschel, thanks for your posts. Re the second para of your post #21, what about an egregiously high amount of compression/limiting being applied to the final mix before mastering? Won't that create flat lines if you look at it on a scope?
Thanks for explicitly acknowledging this, Herschel. 'Proving' distortion at the mastering stage does not disprove the possibility of distortion at the recording stage.

-p

Yes, it would be possible to do that in the final mix. But you really shouldn't be doing that kind of compression during the mixing process in the first place, since that's the mastering engineer's job. So while it's possible, I wouldn't say it's likely. Of course, if the person mixing it is completely clueless, you never know...

Paul,

I may stand corrected on the Rush.com VT re-master issue. I never saw it on there, so I assumed it never was. If you did, I stand corrected.

Herschel,

I agree with everything you've said. Only the band and producer know what this should sound like. I have seen an interview with Geddy and Alex where Geddy talks about how much trouble he had mixing the project. They made multiple mixes and had them mastered and he was not happy with the sound. He didn't say if he mixed it by himself or if someone else (Paul Northfield) helped. Geddy finally gave up and sent a test disc to Alex who was on vacation in Hawaii. Alex listened on a portable cd player with headphones and gave his approval. It wasn't said if Neil gave his, I assume he leaves that up to Alex and Geddy.

One thing I don't understand: Geddy recorded his solo album "My Favorite Headache" himself (with some help). I think it was recorded digitally, but it doesn't sound distorted. I'm not sure why Geddy would all of a sudden not be able to hear distortion on VT. I guess the fact that they worked on VT for over a year could have been part of the problem.

Here's hoping VT will be re-mastered. I would sure buy it!

I disagree. I listened to Presto for the first time last night and found a much stronger low-end. From what I read, it is the most improved of the four.

Ah yes, more 'should' versus 'did.' Although I agree it shouldn't be done, lots of compression on a master mix before mastering does happen. Incidentally, it's always sounded to me like James "Jimbo" Barton (Peter Collins' engineer) did it on PW, HYT and Queenryche's Empire (but then again, all three of those albums were mastered by Bob Ludwig).

Weeell I'd sure like to think Paul Northfield and David Leonard would also be in that category.

This has been discussed a lot in connection with VT SQ, too. Ged and Ben Mink 'met in the middle' of Canada (Ged coming from Toronto and Ben from Vancouver) with their hard drives for a week at a time every couple of weeks to work on MFH. Despite that kind of production, they ended up with a record that sounds much better than VT . . . even though both albums were mixed (David Leonard) and mastered (Howie) by the same people at the same facilities (Metalworks and Masterdisk respectively). I should have mentioned earlier in the thread in my exchange with Jeff that this is another reason I have long suspected problems with the original recording.

-p

If I remember correctly from the interview, Geddy recorded the band jamming in Alex's studio and pieced together parts he liked into songs. He would try to create cohesive songs from the parts. Alex would come in and either approve it or make some changes. However, most of the songs were not recorded as one piece and the band recorded themselves.

I think they should have taken the finished songs and then re-recorded them in a pro studio with an engineer.

Oh well, at least they're back and touring again. I think there is a good chance we'll see a new studio album next year.

I'll have to A/B them. I was going off memory, but I'm pretty familiar with the sound of the original version.

We can go back and forth on this issue . . . I know I've seen every side presented since the CD came out, since there was a message board at Rush.com (I was Malik23). However, this album is the WORST sounding recording in my collection, by my FAVORITE band, doing their best work in 20+ years! I love VT. Surely the band must have the same love for this album, I know what it must have meant for them to come back together and make this masterpiece. So what is the problem? Why isn't there a remaster? Why is there no word from the band?

This silence and absence of a remaster must mean SOMETHING, given the fact that they are obviously not too shy to release remasters (isn't every album now remastered except VT?). So what can we conclude from this? It has to be more than them not wanting to admit that there's something wrong with VT . . . they clearly have no problem admitting that there's something wrong with albums which sounded much better than VT BEFORE remastering. So either it's a just a matter of time, or VT can't be fixed. I can't imagine any other remaster having a larger potential market than VT, given the horrible SQ and the wonderful songs. So the delay can't be due to lack of demand (relative to all their other remastered CDs).

What can we conclude from their silence and the lack of a remaster? I fear the worse: it can't be fixed. This REALLY pisses me off. I'm not sure who to be mad at, but I'm pissed all the same. Maybe I'm pissed at Rush and I just don't want to admit it.

Rerecord it, Rush! You can go back to your "roots" and record a bunch of cover tunes from the 60s, so why can't you go back and record your best album since the 80s?!? Grrrrr! I just hope the new album is as good and is recorded properly. At least the last two tours have been kick-ass.