Quality of Rush Remastered CDs?

Michael Martin · 07-01-2003, 08:08 PM

Received a bit of money for my birthday, and while I'm considering some new music, I'd like to upgrade some older CDs as well.

Has anyone purchased the remastered versions of Power Windows, Grace Under Pressure, and/or Signals? What's the sound quality compared to the original CD releases? Are they worth buying to replace the originally released CDs?

I'm really hoping they are...one of the "for sure" purchases using birthday money is Queensryche's Rage for Order, which from all sources is incredible.

Thanks in advance for any opinions you can give.

Angelo.M · 07-02-2003, 09:34 AM

I have the remastered versions of Power Windows and Hold Your Fire. I'd say there is minimal improvement from the original CD releases. PW was, to my ear, a decent recording, but, by comparison, HYF sounds like it was recorded under water.

I haven't been impressed with a Rush recording since Moving Pictures. Why is it that the band with, arguably, three of the greatest rock musicians to ever breathe air on this planet haven't been meticulous about their studio recording quality?

07-02-2003, 11:14 AM

The remaster of Moving Pictures is outstanding. While I do not have remasters of the later titles, I would have to agree that the sound quality of their later catalog, including the last few CD's was not very good.

Now, is that because the source elements were not very good, or because of some bad choices in mastering? I sure don't know.

FWIW, there is lots of discussion online and in print about Vapor Trails suffering from severe peak digital limiting, compression, etc. In fact, its a poster child for the problem.

Having been a Rush fan for over 20 years, I can't accept that the band approved the release that way. Since I don't seem to have Alex, Geddy, or Neil's phone numbers handy, I guess we can't really find out for sure, but I would love to know what they think about it.

BGL

Mike Broadman · 07-02-2003, 11:39 AM

I have all of the remasters. Like most catalogue re-releases, I find that the older the album, the greater the improvement in sound in the new releases.

I don't have any problem with the way Hold Your Fire was recorded. I think it sounds fine. It was with Counterparts or maybe Roll the Bones where they started over-compressing. But that has nothing to do with Michael's question, since the remasters only go up to A Show of Hands.

Angelo.M · 07-02-2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

I don't have any problem with the way Hold Your Fire was recorded. I think it sounds fine.

It's not unlistenable, but my ear finds it very different than Power Windows. Don't know how to describe it: PW has a wide-open soundstage, and a very active mix, while HYF seems less involving. Interesting, because the 2 records have always been of a piece in my mind, with that electronic percussion Peart was so enamored of at the time.

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but is Show of Hands available on DVD?

**HTF Ads**

Mike Broadman · 07-02-2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

it's supposed to have a metal slant.

I've seen it as an import, or some version of it, anyway. I read a while back they were going to release it, though. Don't know what ever happened to that.

Michael Martin · 07-02-2003, 12:13 PM

Thanks for the feedback. I also did some googling on alt.music.rush, and the comments here seem to mirror the ones on that group, for the most part.

I was hoping that the remasters would be an improvement along the lines of Queensryche's recent remasters, but apparently that's not the case. For now, I'll plan on directing my dollars elsewhere.

Quote:

there is lots of discussion online and in print about Vapor Trails suffering from severe peak digital limiting, compression, etc.

I was very aware of the controversy and opinions on VT, both here and on the newsgroup. I have a fairly basic system at home and in the car, and even I can tell the recording quality just isn't very good.

Kirk Gunn · 07-02-2003, 02:43 PM

Not to hijack, but it has amazed me these individuals always seemed on the "bleeding edge", yet never embraced DVD, audio surround formats, etc.... even their MTV videos are hokey (though that could be on purpose). I would like to say "it's only about the music", but if they can't oversee decent audio mastering, that seems pretty weak.

Tom Sholz/Boston is in the same boat, imho. (though I haven't listened to their last 2 releases).

Paul.S · 07-02-2003, 03:19 PM

Michael:

I enjoy and would recommend the remasters of all three you mentioned (although remastering did little to help Peter Collins' engineer James "Jimbo" Barton's compressed master mixes of PW and HYF).

I also recommend the MFSL Ultradisc of Signals, which I keep coming across copies of at used CD stores. (If you dig "The Weapon," you may want to peep my comments here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...95#post1621195).

FWIW, the biggest revelation/improvement amongst "The Rush Remasters" over the original CD for me was one you didn't inquire about: Permanent Waves. The remasters of the "older" (pre-Signals) albums also rectify Mercury's deletion of artwork and liner notes on their original CD releases.

Paul

Michael Martin · 07-02-2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

The remasters of the "older" (pre-Signals) albums...

Paul:

Thanks for the insight. I'm pretty much a "Moving Pictures" and forward Rush fan - I like selected songs from before MP, but the farther back their catalog goes, the less I like the songs. Odd how Rush and Metallica both seem to have, generally speaking, two groups of fans, based around a "pivotal" release (Signals and the Black Album).

After reading here, and getting a couple of replies on the Rush newsgroup, I'll probably buy Signals. Others may follow when I get the money and inclination. I don't own Grace Under Pressure or Hold Your Fire right now, and if the sound isn't leaps and bounds the original CD release, I'm not going to rush out (no pun intended) and buy them.

Michael Martin · 07-02-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

MFSL

I have NO idea what that stands for.