2. music
  3. 134269-94467

"RUSH" Vinyl remasters vs CD --Sound differences...OPINIONS?

Is it just me or do these vinyl remasters sound "warm".  To me, it seems everything is recessed sounding or laid back. 

In contrast the CDs sound more forward ,upfront  and focused more sharply. More intricate.

I am surprised at this . This is not a "which is better analog or digital "discussion!!!

 Simply, I was expecting the same "sound" as the CD  but more "analogy". If that makes sense.

I've enjoyed many vinyl remasters that did not strike me in this fashion.

The difference in the performance of my digital and analog front end are negligible. They perform very well. An A/B comparison was easily done.

Just wondering. Any RUSH fans out there?  Notice the same thing?

thanks

mike


128x128mikepaul
13 responses Add your response
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,333 posts
 
Plenty of RUSH fans out there. Great musicians. Exit stage left is great it breathes and has atmosphere. Their studio stuff seems too dry or cleansed - too much studio tweaking perhaps chasing perfection.
radfrad's avatar
radfrad
156 posts
 
I am a Rush fan
In general I find their LP and CD to not sound as good as I would like on my system. A little flat. Thought is just my system but I have started to think it is their 
recording style   It is every  CD and LP of theirs on my system sounding this way

I still play them regularly.

R

slaw's avatar
slaw
5,785 posts
 
No... your analogy doesn't make sense, at least to me.

If you wanted a more "analog" sound in the first place, you should change formats. Having said this, These Rush re-masters are not the reference to make this sort of decision.

 
tablejockey
743 posts
 
As a fan since 1977, I find it highly offensive listening to Rush albums through any means other than an original press LP.

Nickleback CD  on repeat as punishment!!!!

The used bins reward those with patience/persistence, IMHO.
mikepaul's avatar
mikepaul OP
201 posts
 
my old cd's are from years ago . i was expecting to be blown away .i just feel the new remasters sound "suppressed" and one dimensional. just my opinion. but....

...i have to find one in the bin.

 then compare.

 let you know what happens.
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
1,368 posts
 
The sound quality of remasters varies from title to title. Your Rush vinyl may be a badly pressed unit, which you may be able to exchange for a good one, or it could be the remastering.  Maybe they were trying to make it sound more analogy and what you hear is what they ended up with.
jafant
10,525 posts
 

I enjoy the original CD versions myself. Nice, flat transfers.

Happy Listening!

billspecfoc
103 posts
 
Big Rush fan here since 1976.

I cannot comment on the vinyl remasters as I don't have a TT setup.  But, I have bought many incarnations of Rush CD's, from originals to remasters, and have found them all to be rather middling in SQ.  Then I took a chance on a BR of Farewell to Kings.  It was a majot step forward in SQ with greatly increased dynamics, separation of instruments, and LF response.  Well worth the purchase price.
falconquest's avatar
falconquest
480 posts
 
billspecfoc,
Can you clarify what "BR" means please?
billspecfoc
103 posts
 
Blu-Ray.
simao's avatar
simao
656 posts
 
My original Fly By Night pressing (1975) sounds much more full and spatial than a new version - or the cd. 
snackeyp's avatar
snackeyp
227 posts
 
The new QRP pressings of Moving Pictures and A Farewell To Kings are the only new Rush pressings I have, but I am honestly very happy with them.  They are the best sounding versions of these recordings I have heard to date.  I was a huge fan of them from the late 70's so everything I ever owned of theirs was on vinyl.  I still own a few of the LPs I bought back then, and in comparison to their remastered counterparts I favor the latter.  
tzh21y
1,377 posts
 
The original LP's sound great
Log in to respond
More to discover