RUSH IS A BAND

#2 - Posted 2/14/07 @10:29AM by jman [contact]

Can't wait. PT is awesome especially in 5.1 stereo. Even better with a solo from Alex

#4 - Posted 2/14/07 @11:41AM by Scott [contact]

Kurt, my recommendation would be "Stupid Dream". It is the first album where they really started developing their own unique sound. Before that, though still some great albums, they sounded like a modern version of Pink Floyd.

Very happy to see two of my favorite artists collaborating, even if Alex is on just the one track.

#6 - Posted 2/14/07 @11:42AM by Rubinowits [contact]

Lifeson AND Fripp; what a trip.

#8 - Posted 2/14/07 @12:15PM by John [contact]

Ok... anal side of me stepping up.
5.1 Stereo? umm... Stereo is technically 2.0 ;-) So you can have Stereo OR 5.1, not 5.1 Stereo.

On a more serious side, I have never heard a CD in 5.1, only a few live DVD's. Overall I haven't been all that impressed. I'm very curious to hear this CD recorded natively in 5.1

#10 - Posted 2/14/07 @2:14PM by Chad [contact]

PTree's "In Abstenia" was voted best 5.1 release for that particular year. I have "Deadwing" in 5.1 as well and both are fantastic.

You'll get the heavier material with these two albums. "Stupid Dream" and "Lightbulb Sun" mix more songwriting with some progressive elements ("Russia on Ice" being a classic). Earlier albums lean more in a Pink Floyd direction, but are still quality releases.

#12 - Posted 2/14/07 @2:15PM by Reed Lover [contact]

Porcupine Tree are awesome!
Anyone wanting to get into them should try "In Absentia" first.

You can listen to some full tracks by Porcupine Tree at Progarchives by copying and pasting this link to their Biography page:

link

Tracks 2, 4 and 5 on the player are highly recommended especially "Arriving Somewhere But Not Here"

Sorry for hijacking here Ed.
;-)

#14 - Posted 2/14/07 @4:01PM by Reed Lover [contact]

Ed, you have my email address... ;-)

#16 - Posted 2/14/07 @5:34PM by Broonskey [contact]

5.1, 7.1, 9.1 20.1, 101.5...blah blah, it's all b.s and hype. Surround sound may be good for movies, but with music all it does is make too many speakers compete against each other with the sound coming from everywhere and nowhere at once. There is no sound stage, proper imaging or clarity, just random confusion; it's overkill made to impress the non-audiophile so they waste their money buying crap "brand name" separate components (or even worse those dreaded all-in-one systems) at Circuit Shity or Worst Buy.

If you want superb quality sound, buy an old 70's receiver or better yet a separate amp, pre-amp, and tuner (I recommend Pioneer for rock) when they actually built them well (and in Japan, not China) and used high quality electronics that weigh a ton (that's why a 2 channel 70's receiver with only 50 wpc will easily weigh 50+ lbs., the components and circuitry are so good compared to a newer receiver that has many more wpc and channels yet WEIGHS LESS because it is made of cheap junk) instead of cheap plastic digital crap; a good newer cd player (like a Rotel, NAD, or Marantz) with burr-dac (20 or 24 bit) and HDCD or SACD capability (when will Rush come out with cd's in those formats?!) and 2 good speakers (I find JBL's are great for rock) left and right channel, no more. Keep your 50 channel receiver with 2000 wpc and 70 speakers for movies, they're not made for music reproduction, only noise, like hearing the NASCAR race cars speed around you, lmao.

And don't worry about price; you can get a truly hi-fi system for less than you would spend on new throw away junk made for the average unknowing consumer. For instance, I just got a 1976 Pioneer SX-650 receiver in perfect condition for $70 shipped, and it weighs 30+ lbs. It only has 35 wpc, but it is louder and more powerful and much, much better sounding than (to name a few) my friend's new Yamaha 7.1 with 90 wpc, another friend's Harmon/Kardon 9.1 with 100 wpc, and my uncle's "high end" Denon 2 channel with 110 wpc, all of which cost hundreds of dollars more, lmao (and you can get vintage receivers that have over 100 wpc that will simply blow you away, they sound more like 300 wpc on a newer one!). And it's 30 odd years old and keeps on going and sounds great, just like Rush. :P)

All just my opinion, but I've had experience with all kinds of systems and components (even tube amps!) and brands from my teenage years on from hi-fi to mid-fi and down to low-fi (mine and friends and their parents, and I even built several speakers with a friend) and find the simple two channel front speaker set up to be the preferred for music.

As for PT, I need to listen to them more. I did have In Absentia, but wasn't impressed. I want to hear this new release; it sounds like it has some epic-length songs!

#18 - Posted 2/14/07 @6:59PM by Scott G [contact]

I will start using "Scott G" since I see there is another Scott... sorry about that.

I think it is cool that Alex is on the longer, more prog piece. I saw PT on this last tour when they did the new stuff, and the long piece that Alex is on is great. In fact, they were all great... can't wait for the new CD. For the new PT listener, I would start with In Abstentia and Deadwing... closer to where they are now, although every CD has some great stuff.

Regarding the 5.1 issue, I think if it is done right, it can sound great. I have a DVD-A player and have a few CDs from it... Fleetwood Mac Rumors is great in surround. Other stuff sucks - for me it is not about whether it distorts the sound or causes phase issues (some of that is speaker placement), it is the perspective and imaging. I had one where the back left speaker had one crash cymbal for whatever reason, and it irritated the hell out of me (until I had a vision of the drummer throwing a stick at a cymbal across the room to make that sound... then I laughed and promptly sold the thing on ebay). If mixed well to just add some additional clarity and depth, I think that surround can be great. If it is just taking stuff and applying some crappy algorithm to it, then I don't care for it. Just my thoughts.

#20 - Posted 2/14/07 @8:02PM by kurt [contact]

Thanks guys...I am always looking to expand a little...I like the Deadwing stuff alot.

Now ED get the other Track list we really care about.

#22 - Posted 2/15/07 @12:14AM by Broonskey [contact]

Um, what you proponents of 5.1 are forgetting is that what better quality you think you are hearing (if any) is because of the SACD format, not because of the Dolby or DTS 5.1 mix. I'll quote what a serious audiophile has to say about it (name withheld):

"5.1 multi channel has nothing to do with music, IMO. I've yet to hear a multi channel setup that didn't sound pretty poor. Mostly this is down to the majority of multi channel mixes, which seem to want to put the listener in the middle of the band, with drums behind you and other instruments in front. Unless you're actually in a band, you would never hear live music like that."

Right. It's unrealistic and distracting to the point of annoying. Messed up phasing, sound stage, imaging, focus, etc. I once experimented with surround sound and went back to a 2 channel setup within a month.

Once again, this is all jmo and preference.

PS: The difference between regular cd's and HDCD, SACD, and DVD-A is very, VERY negligible unless you have at least a mid-fi system. You may psychologically, because of your expectancy factor, think you hear a big difference on a low-fi system/equipment between a normal cd and these formats, but the specs don't lie, it is barely perceptible on low end components. And in fact many audiophiles with high end equipment think the difference is very slight indeed. It is still agreed that records have the best sound quality of all music formats (now if only they wouldn't hiss and pop and wear out!).

#24 - Posted 2/15/07 @9:20AM by Scott G [contact]

I would agree that the surround experience on a mid-fi or top end system is more dramatic than on a lesser system, but so is the stereo experience!! I don't know too many folks spending the cash on a DVD-A or SACD player (or one of the universal players that truly play DVD-A and SACD in their designed format) who don't have at least a mid-fi system. If you are talking about something just mixed in dolby 5.1 and put out for systems without discrete multichannel processing, or a receiver that converts to 5.1 through an algorithm, I would agree that there is little value. And, I also agree that many audiophiles don't care for 5.1 or 6.1. But, I have a decent system (Rotel power amp, Acurus surround processor, one of the original Panasonic DVD-A players, and Energy Audio speakers), and a well mixed DVD-A is dramatically different. Better?? Well, that is subjective. But it is quite different. I think the key is in spending the time and energy to remix it RIGHT, and having mix and mastering engineers who know what they are doing with surround. The Porcupine Tree stuff sounds pretty good in surround (yes, I own them), and Steve Wilsom spent a good bit of time mixing them. I personally prefer the stereo mixes. And, in most cases, I prefer the stereo mixes, particularly when the surround has dumb stuff flying around or simply out of place in the mix. But, done well, it is pretty interesting. Just my opinion.

#26 - Posted 2/15/07 @2:36PM by Mark Wallace [contact]

Hey Scott, imagine for a moment...
PT takes the stage and plays a 45 min set, then Alex comes on stage for their finale. Lights go out for a couple of minutes and you hear da danana dant, danana dant dant dant dant!!!!!

#28 - Posted 2/17/07 @11:22AM by Rob [contact]

Broonskey, I agree with you about vinyl..... seems like nothing compares. These seventies receivers/amps your always talking about, are you sure these are not tube amps. You mention their weight and solid state components dont weigh much

#30 - Posted 2/20/07 @8:02PM by Kevin [contact]

You have some good points broonskey.

I had an old Sansui receiver that had excellent sound I got in '76 in college, but the tuner finally went out on it and I stupidly pitched it around '92 believing the crap that "newer is better" instead of just fixing it. I didn't know anything about hi-fi back then.

So I got some new "black box" expensive Sony receiver and was surprised at how much worse it sounded, harsh highs and thiner bass, and not as powerful even though it had more watts than my old Sansui did. Yea everything worked and it had a convient digital display and a remote and such, but at what cost to the sound?

But this was way before the internet and I didn't know where I could get another old receiver and get it repaired if needed. I lamented my idiocy and carried on with the Sony.

I spotted years later an old Yamaha receiver at a gargage sale for $40. I bought it, took it home and hooked it up, and promptly made it my receiver for stereo, as it blew the Sony away in terms of sound quality. I still use the Sony for home theater, well, I have two speakers hooked up to my tv, but I won't dare listen to music on it.

Perhaps I should look on ebay for my old Sansui model now, no? The Yamaha is great, but I think my Sansui was even better, and I miss it, lol.

#32 - Posted 2/21/07 @5:27PM by Broonskey [contact]

I have yet to really listen to PT and I've only heard one album (and yea, I wasn't too impressed) but I have to say that many (most) bands that sound great in the studio may sound bad live (there aren't a lot of Rush like bands out there; a lot of perceived talent is just studio magic for many other bands) and sometimes bands that sound kind of clinical and boring in the studio really shine live.

Also, I am not too impressed with Ged's voice on ASOH or DS. He sounded kind of thin and taxed. Not bad, and I enjoy those live albums of course, but bands can range from great to fair to bad sounding on different tours and even different concerts on those tours. Not every performance will be stellar. So perhaps you heard a bad concert for the singer?