gave it an 8
Sound quality is fine, surround mix well done
Sound quality is fine, surround mix well done
HiRez Poll Rush - MOVING PICTURES [DVD-A/BluRay Audio]
- Thread starter JonUrban
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
According to my MoFi disc, this was an Analog recording that was digitally mixed.
Good to know! So early digital mixing devices could have compromised the end result. Hopefully modern mixes will be compromise-free!
What sort of damage could a 1980 digital mixing device conceivably have done, that you are hearing on the original mix? By 1980 digital mixing had been used on excellent sounding releases by e.g., Ry Cooder, Stevie Wonder, and Fleetwood Mac. In 1982, a year after Moving Pictures, Peter Gabriel released Security and Donald Fagan released the Nightfly, DDD albums that are both commonplace on 'audiophile quality' recording lists.
Wouldn't any 'compromise' of the sound of MP, supposedly due to digital mixing, more likely simply be choices that the tracking, mix, and/or mastering engineers made?
Wouldn't any 'compromise' of the sound of MP, supposedly due to digital mixing, more likely simply be choices that the tracking, mix, and/or mastering engineers made?
Hi, Surly! 16-bit sampling, maybe?! But feel free to educate us all! In an assholish way, if you must!
which is the opposite of one of my favorite and very underrated albums...yeah, how do you follow "The Crossing"???--like this!
What are you hearing that is wrong with the album's sound that you think is due to using a bit depth of 16?
Re-listening to this today amidst all the talk of the forthcoming 40th anniversary edition, and I’ve got two things to say:
1. It stills sounds as great as I thought it did, probably better than I remember. It’s probably been a few years. Way better than stereo, especially “The Camera Eye.” I hadn’t voted yet, so today I gave it a 9 (like many of you, I might add!
)
2. Paul Rudd was right: Geddy does sing, “Tom SOYYYYY”!
1. It stills sounds as great as I thought it did, probably better than I remember. It’s probably been a few years. Way better than stereo, especially “The Camera Eye.” I hadn’t voted yet, so today I gave it a 9 (like many of you, I might add!
)2. Paul Rudd was right: Geddy does sing, “Tom SOYYYYY”!
Now you have me interested. I re-read what I wrote about this recording a couple years ago. Mainly I think I was pointing out the stereo mix's bass was kind of thin and the 5.1 mix had muddy to too much bass. Since then and I mean recently within this past couple weeks, I had an adjustment done to my system where I don't think the bass is now so heavy. So now I'll take another listen and compare the two.
Also, my 52nd Street 5.1 mix was so bass heavy it was hard to listen to, but I'll also give that another try.
Also, my 52nd Street 5.1 mix was so bass heavy it was hard to listen to, but I'll also give that another try.
latinido
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 20
The same for my copy.
Jeez... really. I'm glad I backed-up my disc
Elad
Active Member
My buddy Mike played it for me on his set up last week and listened to it from beginning to end. I am not really a big Rush fan but I have come to appreciate them the more I listen to their music. As a 3 piece band they have a fullness that makes them sound much more than that.
I liked Moving Pictures from beginning to end, I thought the mix was good and had discrete moments. It is not Farewell to Kings mixed by Steven Wilson which is one of my reference discs but Moving Pictures holds it own, songs are excellent and I enjoyed it. I would definitely listen to it again. I am giving it a 8
I liked Moving Pictures from beginning to end, I thought the mix was good and had discrete moments. It is not Farewell to Kings mixed by Steven Wilson which is one of my reference discs but Moving Pictures holds it own, songs are excellent and I enjoyed it. I would definitely listen to it again. I am giving it a 8
Thanks. I had searched in the Surround Polls section, but only this one showed up.
