Moving Pictures has been remastered

[Jimmy9190]

I was browsing MP3Million earlier this week and saw that they had a remastered version of the Rush album Moving Pictures. I wondered out loud how anyone could remaster or improve one of the best albums ever written. I bought it anyway, just got through listening in its entirety and it does sound better than the original record and CD. The drums are much more present and audible, especially on the tracks where Neil uses electronic percussion. Geddy's bass and vocals both sound better, again just more present in the audio. Alex's guitar work is also a degree louder and sounds much cleaner than on the original album. I don't know who remastered it but they did a great job on it.

There may not be that many Rush fans here but I think this is worth posting. Moving Pictures is one of the best albums of all time. This new MP3 version only cost 50 cents. It is well worth it. I will most definitely replace my current Itunes generated copy with it.

 

[veryHeavy]

Did they do any volume compression, where the entire record is turned-up to maximum volume? I hate audio engineers that do that. They should be fired. (Recordings are supposed to have dynamic range from high to low volume.)

 

[DBMaster]

Great album. Of course, it came out when I was in high school and that's often the life stage in which one forms lasting musical impressions.

 

[Jimmy9190]

I did not hear any volume changes at all in the album. No audible dostortion or other problems. I hate over saturated records too and always run MP3 files through MP3Gain to get rid of any clipping.

 

[Chris Meutsch]

That's their best album by far.

 

[veryHeavy]

Originally Posted By: Jimmy9190
I always run MP3 files through MP3Gain to get rid of any clipping.

MP3gain is actually what I oppose. It eliminates the quiet passages in recordings, thereby ruining the experience.

 

[Jimmy9190]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Great album. Of course, it came out when I was in high school and that's often the life stage in which one forms lasting musical impressions.


The first CD's I ever bought were Moving Pictures and the first Van Halen album. At the time they cost about 20 bucks each...

It is said that when CD's became the preferred method of recording music the first Van Halen records were not digitally recorded from the original master tapes. Warner Brothers basically just made low quality transfers just to get them out on CD as quickly as possible. Now you can buy the 6 albums in a set called The Collection. All 6 records have been remastered at 320 kbps and the sound is 1000 times better than the original. I could not believe the difference when I heard it. Itunes sells The Collection for about $60.00 or you can get it at MP3Million for about $6.00.

MP3million also has about 6 or 7 other remastered Rush albums for sale, most of the ones from the mid-1980's. I bought those last year but did not notice as big of a difference in sound quality with those as I did with this Moving Pictures release.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Jimmy9190
I was browsing MP3Million earlier this week and saw that they had a remastered version of the Rush album Moving Pictures.

Which remaster are you referring to? There were several over the years: 1997, 2011, 2015.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: veryHeavy
Did they do any volume compression, where the entire record is turned-up to maximum volume? I hate audio engineers that do that. They should be fired. (Recordings are supposed to have dynamic range from high to low volume.)

90 db dynamic range is a good number. Frank Sinatra had, by contract, his albums in the early 60s recorded at 30 inches per second tape speed when the industry was using 15 as a standard. His recording hold up well on CD, although they don't make it to 90 db dynamic range. The ape cassette by comparison is recorded at 1.75 IPS although tape has gotten a lot better. Your average rock and roll album was assumed by the industry execs to be played on kids "portable phonographs" and got little or no attention to recording or LP quality. Even with DSP applied after the fact it's difficult to make the silk purse. The early Beatles stuff was recorded in mono only. When I got a CD version of Dave Brubeck's Greatest Hits on CD I discovered what what I thought was a turntable/cartridge distortion problem I heard on one live cut was actually on the master tape.

 

[crw]

I'm a huge RUSH fan. MP came out when I was 16. I bought a lot of tapes, then CDs, then bought them again if they were lost or "not returned", and then I fill in the gaps by buying most of it again digitally. I don't know much about audio engineering, but the music sounds way better on my Motorola Droid than any other device I've had, including the earlier iPods and phones.

 

[Jimmy9190]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Jimmy9190
I was browsing MP3Million earlier this week and saw that they had a remastered version of the Rush album Moving Pictures.

Which remaster are you referring to? There were several over the years: 1997, 2011, 2015.


This one was done in 2015. I never saw it for sale on MP3Million or anywhere else until a few days ago.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

wouldn't a 24 bit lossless file be better than remastering? I recall my wife giving me a new beatles abbey road and the remastering destroyed the GREAT mastering of the former master engineer masterer. Tapes don't last forever, however well vaulted.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
wouldn't a 24 bit lossless file be better than remastering?

FYI, the 2015 remaster was also made available for purchase in a 24-bit/48kHz lossless digital format at several high-resolution audio online music stores.

 

[aquariuscsm]

What I hate is when a label takes an original mono master and "remasters" it into stereo. It always sounds aweful!!

 

[UNC017]

Love Rush, and that era is my favorite ('2112' through 'Power Windows,' with 'Moving Pictures being the peak). I should look into one of the later re-masters, my disc is quite old. Of course I have it on vinyl as well (bought when the record was released), but nothing to play it on anymore.

Its a real shame how Geddy's voice has changed over the years. I know he works very hard to protect it, and their instrumental musicianship on their last few tours (possibly last ever) has never been better. But the way he has to deliver the vocals now just makes it un-listenable. Very nasal delivery, and sorta "flinging" the high notes up there and letting them fall. Getting old sucks.

And just as an "oh by the way..." if you like progressive rock, great musicianship, and superbly mastered recordings, go sample some of 'Flying Colors' work (Steve Morse & Dave Larue from 'Dixie Dregs' and Steve Morse's band, Neal Morse and Mike Portnoy from 'Transatlantic' and 'Neal Morse band,' and Casey McPherson- a young guy from my town).

 

[aquariuscsm]

I almost bought their 1974 debut years ago.

 

[Papa Bear]

https://global.focusrite.com/

 

[blupupher]

Funny, Moving Pictures is the only CD I have in my truck, have been listening the c rap out of it.

I guess I am getting old, I just don't hear a difference in stuff like this. Sure the really low bit rate stuff or highly compressed I can tell some, but for most stuff, no difference to my ears. While it is only $0.50. I already have it on LP, cassette (3 I think), 2 CD and a digital download. I don't need another that will sound no different to me.

 

[The_Jeff]

Originally Posted By: Jimmy9190
I did not hear any volume changes at all in the album. No audible dostortion or other problems. I hate over saturated records too and always run MP3 files through MP3Gain to get rid of any clipping.


You can't get rid of clipping, once you have a square wave, it's there for life.

 

[Nick1994]

I'm not understanding their pricing. How are all albums like $.60 or $.72??? Is this legitimate?

I'm 22 and a Rush fan. Went and saw them in concert in 2015, they were phenomenal.