Rush v. Dirk, Pratt, & Lerxst

[Zydar]

I got two of SW's XTC 5.1's a few months back and they sound great.  I had a few quibbles, but overall he did an outstanding job.

Skylarking sounds even more beautiful in 5.1.

[Podaar]

How you listen to music is your gig.   But there are some HUGE misconceptions here.   One, $$$.  You can do surround for as little as $250 (extra) maybe less.

In case someone is interested, here's a pretty decent Samsung system including blu-ray player for $329.00. Stream your music either through WiFi or Bluetooth. The rear speakers are even wireless! Just plug this setup into your existing receiver/amplifier and viola!

[Stadler]

I had a Denon 5.1 system since 2008, and it sounded like gold.   I fought replacing it for years, because it sounded so, so good, but since it only had two HDMI outputs, and with cable, DVD, media player, PS3, xBox360, that was a problem, I finally crossed my fingers and went and upgraded my unit (also a Denon).     About a $800 unit on sale for $450 +/-, and if anything, it sounds better than the old one.   It's got a module that allows me to set up the unit based on the speaker arrangement, and my goodness, does it sound great.  There's a module/filter/whatever that will deliver the 2.0 stereo media (a CD) to 5.1, and while I imagine that an audiophile (remember Glass Dream?) would shit themselves over that but man, does it sound good.  It's hard to describe, but it's a PRESENCE.   I have one of the speakers behind my head to the right, and for sports, it's amazingly immersive.   For music, especially older material, it just makes the music breath.   A Farewell To Kings CD sounds earth-shaking, as does Fly By Night.

As for 5.1 mixes, it's a mixed bag; KevShmev is sort of right.  It's all in the mix; it can get too gimmicky, and that sucks.   The Genesis and King Crimson 5.1 mixes are in my mind, state of the art.   The two Dream Theater ones I have (Systematic Chaos and Black Clouds...) are only okay; they are sort of dense messes.   I have the Special Edition 2112 and Moving Pictures and they just seem like missed opportunities (I had to check a couple times to see if the MP was even delivering in 5.1.   The Sector boxset 5.1 mixes are slightly - slightly - better, but honestly I can barely tell the difference between the actual 5.1 mix of AFTK and the stereo version decoded to 5.1 artificially. 

The last thing I think you want (read: I want) is a bunch of cheesy panning (think of that moment in Yours Is No Disgrace where Steve hits the strings above the nut "ching ching" and it pans hard left, then hard right), since it makes it more of a distraction than an immersive experience. 

I have the Wilson Yes disks, two Soundgarden disks (BMF and Superunknown), Temple of the Dog, and Floyd's DSOTM, WYWH, and Animals to listen to and I haven't yet (waiting for a good, cold, perhaps snowy Saturday afternoon to dig in). 

[Architeuthis]

I never really saw the point in listening to music in 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever. I can see for movies why it is necessary.  I just prefer listening to music in stereo, kind of like when you see a band live. I do like the the old school four speaker outputs where you can have front and back, or just double up the front speakers by mounting the B speaker up high above the mains.  That makes for a really great in home concert experience watching live dvd's/blu-ray's..   

[Adami]

I never really saw the point in listening to music in 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever. I can see for movies why it is necessary.  I just prefer listening to music in stereo, kind of like when you see a band live. I do like the the old school four speaker outputs where you can have front and back, or just double up the front speakers by mounting the B speaker up high above the mains.  That makes for a really great in home concert experience watching live dvd's/blu-ray's..   

I don't have 5.1 (which is odd since I have two surround sound sets in boxes) but for some music they make sense, and for some it seems a little needless. A typical rock band? Nah. But a band with a lot of soundscapes? It's cool what you can do with surround sound in that sense. I don't need to hear Metallica in 5.1, but I'd love to hear Ayreon or even some DT in surround sound.

[Architeuthis]

Good point!  If the music has alot of interesting dynamics, then I can see why.

[Stadler]

I never really saw the point in listening to music in 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever. I can see for movies why it is necessary.  I just prefer listening to music in stereo, kind of like when you see a band live. I do like the the old school four speaker outputs where you can have front and back, or just double up the front speakers by mounting the B speaker up high above the mains.  That makes for a really great in home concert experience watching live dvd's/blu-ray's..   

That's just it, though; for me, in a lot of ways, 5.1 is far more representative of a "live" show.   Crowd in back, amps to the right, amps to the left, drums up the middle, vocals on the PA...  you can generate that on a two channel system, for sure (I've heard it) but if you're going to pay for a system that can accomodate that sound field so precisely, you're paying MORE than you would for 5.1, and with a 5.1 system you can still have your cake and eat it too (I can play any CD - or DVD for that matter) in a 2.0 environment. 

[Stadler]

I never really saw the point in listening to music in 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever. I can see for movies why it is necessary.  I just prefer listening to music in stereo, kind of like when you see a band live. I do like the the old school four speaker outputs where you can have front and back, or just double up the front speakers by mounting the B speaker up high above the mains.  That makes for a really great in home concert experience watching live dvd's/blu-ray's..   

I don't have 5.1 (which is odd since I have two surround sound sets in boxes) but for some music they make sense, and for some it seems a little needless. A typical rock band? Nah. But a band with a lot of soundscapes? It's cool what you can do with surround sound in that sense. I don't need to hear Metallica in 5.1, but I'd love to hear Ayreon or even some DT in surround sound.

Good point!  If the music has alot of interesting dynamics, then I can see why.

I'm at a loss on how you can say that without hearing it.   Early Rush is far from a "soundscape" band, and yet Fly By Night is one of the best sounding records I own on 5.1.   DT, underwhelming (Black Clouds sounds like a mushy mess, but many would say the album in 2.0 sounds like that). 

It has FAR more to do with how the record was recorded than what genre it is; i haven't listened to it yet, but Steven Wilson has commented that the Marillion Misplaced Childhood disk was one of his more difficult remixes because it wasn't that sonically complex, and yet... it's far closer to "soundscape" than "typical rock band".  For music I have listened to, one of the best examples of the 5.1 mix is actually the self-titled Genesis record, not the early Peter "proggy" stuff.   

Don't get me wrong; it DOESN'T work for every band.   I think the premise of the Ramones or Sex Pistols is actually undermined by 5.1 in many ways.    And I'm not looking to convince you that it is awesome; you listen how you want to listen, that's the beauty of music.  All I'm doing is trying to point out misconceptions, or examples where the "assumed" wisdom doesn't hold true. 

[Architeuthis]

I never really saw the point in listening to music in 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever. I can see for movies why it is necessary.  I just prefer listening to music in stereo, kind of like when you see a band live. I do like the the old school four speaker outputs where you can have front and back, or just double up the front speakers by mounting the B speaker up high above the mains.  That makes for a really great in home concert experience watching live dvd's/blu-ray's..   

That's just it, though; for me, in a lot of ways, 5.1 is far more representative of a "live" show.   Crowd in back, amps to the right, amps to the left, drums up the middle, vocals on the PA...  you can generate that on a two channel system, for sure (I've heard it) but if you're going to pay for a system that can accomodate that sound field so precisely, you're paying MORE than you would for 5.1, and with a 5.1 system you can still have your cake and eat it too (I can play any CD - or DVD for that matter) in a 2.0 environment.

I definitely see your point. I have heard music on surround sound systems at friends places etc and wasn't too impressed. But they weren't high quality systems and they likely had it on the wrong setting.
If I had the money, I'd probably invest in a great surround sound system. I got most of my stuff from pawn shops, garage sales, and Goodwill.  I've found perfectly good Denon receivers/amps at goodwill for $20 which drive my Infinity tower speakers and the two Boston acoustics up above. Sound quality is fantastic.  Having a good EQ is very important too.

[gazinwales]

I have a relatively modest surround system, Denon amp and Q-sound speakers, cost me around $2,500 AU about 6 years ago.
It was the first thing I bought when I moved into my then new place, I bough it before anything else and I didn't have any furniture at all.

I love listening to albums in 5.1, for me it's the ultimate listening experience, if the mix is done correctly.
Not every surround mix is a vast improvement, but most are.
I own all of Steven Wilson's solo releases in 5.1, but not on regular CD, I prefer to listen to him in surround as I feel you get to hear everything as SW intended.
A Farewell To Kings is one of the best I've heard in this format, it's feels like when you are listening that the band is playing right next to you.

[ytserush]

Asking Rush fans which albums are "essential" is likely to get you the entire catalog.

I had a feeling that would be the case, given the number of different eras that they have had across their career.  Great advice from everyone, especially Stadler's breakdown.  That's definitely helpful.

I don't mind the synth era (and absolutely love Subdivisions) but I did sample Power Windows and pretty much agree that it seems like the album has a few songs I like and the rest didn't grab me right away.  Lots of sampling ahead!   

I'm "that guy." Do the full contextual experience and start at the beginning.

They're all essential to me; especially the live ones.

[ytserush]

Not really a 5.1 guy either. (Although I have do have some, mostly Rush.)

I used to have a fairly cheap set up about 10 years ago, but I wasn't all impressed with it. Full disclosure -- I'm not really a movie guy in any Special Effects kind of way either so I'm sure that has something to do with it. I only have a few dozen of what I consider to be essential movies.

Have a cheap Bluray player for my Rush DVDs, but I'm just as happy to watch the regular DVDs. I probably watch concert DVDs more than most. (Last weekend I had a mini-Flying Colors festival and watched their 2 DVDs back to back.) Love DVD audio too when it's done right.

I guess it's odd that I seems to care more about how music sounds (mastering, dynamics,etc...) in stereo than how it might look on DVD/Bluray/5.1.

[Stadler]

Not really a 5.1 guy either. (Although I have do have some, mostly Rush.)

I used to have a fairly cheap set up about 10 years ago, but I wasn't all impressed with it. Full disclosure -- I'm not really a movie guy in any Special Effects kind of way either so I'm sure that has something to do with it. I only have a few dozen of what I consider to be essential movies.

Have a cheap Bluray player for my Rush DVDs, but I'm just as happy to watch the regular DVDs. I probably watch concert DVDs more than most. (Last weekend I had a mini-Flying Colors festival and watched their 2 DVDs back to back.) Love DVD audio too when it's done right.

I guess it's odd that I seems to care more about how music sounds (mastering, dynamics,etc...) in stereo than how it might look on DVD/Bluray/5.1.

Sadly, though, as a band, Rush is about the worst 5.1 I've experienced.  I don't know why that is, though I will say I had really high hopes for the Moving Pictures.   The only ones that really grabbed me were AFTK and FBN and even they pale in comparison to the Crimson and Genesis stuff.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how it might look on DVD"; is that a typo?  Because if you care about "mastering" and "dynamics", the same things apply in 5.1 as 2.0, it's just a "deeper" sound field.   

[Orbert]

I have to agree about the Moving Pictures and 2112 Blu-rays.  I was very excited to hear about them and picked them up right away, but the mixes are very pedestrian and not really very impressive.  Certainly not the immersive experience I was hoping for.

They're not bad; I can't say that they're worse than the 2.0 mixes or anything.  They just don't seem to add anything.

[KevShmev]

I got two of SW's XTC 5.1's a few months back and they sound great.  I had a few quibbles, but overall he did an outstanding job.

Skylarking sounds even more beautiful in 5.1.

That is one of the two I got (Black Sea being the other). 

Skylarking sounds really great, although I was a bit bothered by how the intensity and pace of the beginning of Earn Enough for Us was toned down, but that's for another thread.

[jammindude]

I love it when the intro to YYZ circles around the room.

[ytserush]

Not really a 5.1 guy either. (Although I have do have some, mostly Rush.)

I used to have a fairly cheap set up about 10 years ago, but I wasn't all impressed with it. Full disclosure -- I'm not really a movie guy in any Special Effects kind of way either so I'm sure that has something to do with it. I only have a few dozen of what I consider to be essential movies.

Have a cheap Bluray player for my Rush DVDs, but I'm just as happy to watch the regular DVDs. I probably watch concert DVDs more than most. (Last weekend I had a mini-Flying Colors festival and watched their 2 DVDs back to back.) Love DVD audio too when it's done right.

I guess it's odd that I seems to care more about how music sounds (mastering, dynamics,etc...) in stereo than how it might look on DVD/Bluray/5.1.

Sadly, though, as a band, Rush is about the worst 5.1 I've experienced.  I don't know why that is, though I will say I had really high hopes for the Moving Pictures.   The only ones that really grabbed me were AFTK and FBN and even they pale in comparison to the Crimson and Genesis stuff.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how it might look on DVD"; is that a typo?  Because if you care about "mastering" and "dynamics", the same things apply in 5.1 as 2.0, it's just a "deeper" sound field.

May have said this before, but Geddy and Alex have said they didn't want aggressive mixes of the music in 5.1. Of course these comments were made as recently as 10 years ago so their point of view may have changed, but that would explain why there's not a lot going on in Rush 5.1 land.

Not a typo, I was talking about how much better the picture looks or is cleaned up. Perhaps "mastering" was the wrong word in this case.  Though I might consider myself an audiophile (and I'm still not sure that I do) I don't have that same standard visually with how things look on Bluray. DVD is enough of a visual standard for me. (I guess that's similar to the way a lot of people don't really care how things sound as long as it isn't bad.)

I might be interested in 5.1 music IF the music was written with 5.1 in mind, but that would disqualify most of recorded history.  Is there any new music that sounds good in 5.1 that was released in the last 10 years?

[jammindude]

Hand. Cannot. Erase.

Freakin brilliant album and brilliant mix.

[Stadler]

Not really a 5.1 guy either. (Although I have do have some, mostly Rush.)

I used to have a fairly cheap set up about 10 years ago, but I wasn't all impressed with it. Full disclosure -- I'm not really a movie guy in any Special Effects kind of way either so I'm sure that has something to do with it. I only have a few dozen of what I consider to be essential movies.

Have a cheap Bluray player for my Rush DVDs, but I'm just as happy to watch the regular DVDs. I probably watch concert DVDs more than most. (Last weekend I had a mini-Flying Colors festival and watched their 2 DVDs back to back.) Love DVD audio too when it's done right.

I guess it's odd that I seems to care more about how music sounds (mastering, dynamics,etc...) in stereo than how it might look on DVD/Bluray/5.1.

Sadly, though, as a band, Rush is about the worst 5.1 I've experienced.  I don't know why that is, though I will say I had really high hopes for the Moving Pictures.   The only ones that really grabbed me were AFTK and FBN and even they pale in comparison to the Crimson and Genesis stuff.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how it might look on DVD"; is that a typo?  Because if you care about "mastering" and "dynamics", the same things apply in 5.1 as 2.0, it's just a "deeper" sound field.

May have said this before, but Geddy and Alex have said they didn't want aggressive mixes of the music in 5.1. Of course these comments were made as recently as 10 years ago so their point of view may have changed, but that would explain why there's not a lot going on in Rush 5.1 land.

Not a typo, I was talking about how much better the picture looks or is cleaned up. Perhaps "mastering" was the wrong word in this case.  Though I might consider myself an audiophile (and I'm still not sure that I do) I don't have that same standard visually with how things look on Bluray. DVD is enough of a visual standard for me. (I guess that's similar to the way a lot of people don't really care how things sound as long as it isn't bad.)

I might be interested in 5.1 music IF the music was written with 5.1 in mind, but that would disqualify most of recorded history.  Is there any new music that sounds good in 5.1 that was released in the last 10 years?

Haha, you can try Zaireeka by The Flaming Lips.     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaireeka

In all seriousness, though, their The Soft Bulletin and Yoshi... albums are just beautiful in 5.1. 

[Orbert]

May have said this before, but Geddy and Alex have said they didn't want aggressive mixes of the music in 5.1. Of course these comments were made as recently as 10 years ago so their point of view may have changed, but that would explain why there's not a lot going on in Rush 5.1 land.

This is new to me.  Or if I'd heard it before, I'd forgotten it.  By "aggressive mixes" I'm assuming they mean taking the 2.0 mix and really re-working it for 5.1, which many would consider the whole point.

I consider the intro to YYZ somewhat gimmicky, but it's a one-off and within the spirit of the composition.  It's the 2-D version of the original stereo panning.  Someone upthread pointed out a similar moment on The Yes Album where Steve's stereo panning gets the same treatment.  Rather than bouncing between left and right, it's bouncing around all four corners of the room.

Other than a few moments like that, I suppose all they were after was some more space, some ambience in the rear channels, something a bit more like a live 2.0 rather than full immersion.  If that's what they were after, then they succeeded.  The Rush 5.1 discs are not "aggressive mixes".  But that's exactly what has led some to wonder why they even bother.

Even early Rush had a lot of layers sometimes, and I for one was looking forward to hearing better separation.  Yeah, it's great when there are several guitar parts and a few keyboard parts all mixing together to make a glorious soundscape.  Good stuff.  But as a musician, I also like it when I can pick out the individual parts.  The keys are playing the same chords as the one guitar, only inverted; the other guitar is using a different picking pattern that accents certain notes in the melody; there's an acoustic guitar in there!  I love hearing stuff like that.  Spread things out, and you can both hear the individual parts and how they all fit together.  I'm not sure why a band would be categorically opposed to that.

[RodrigoAltaf]

just leaving some pictures here of my Saturday trip:

[goo-goo]

Holy shit. Where did you go?

[RodrigoAltaf]

It was a private event called Grapes Under Pressure. 150 people on a train to a winery with Geddy and Alex. They were very kind, approachable and chatty. We took pictures with them, chatted for a while, and after lunch Geddy walked around everybody's tables. I tol him I loved his solo album too, and he hugged me and said "bless your heart, man!". My favourite Alex moment was when I told him I went to the Rush in Rio show and sang YYZ. He said "you were at THAT show I'll never forget that, man!". Gave me chills!

The gift basket of the event included a bottle of wine from Peller Estates, with the label signed by the band.

[Stadler]

May have said this before, but Geddy and Alex have said they didn't want aggressive mixes of the music in 5.1. Of course these comments were made as recently as 10 years ago so their point of view may have changed, but that would explain why there's not a lot going on in Rush 5.1 land.

This is new to me.  Or if I'd heard it before, I'd forgotten it.  By "aggressive mixes" I'm assuming they mean taking the 2.0 mix and really re-working it for 5.1, which many would consider the whole point.

I consider the intro to YYZ somewhat gimmicky, but it's a one-off and within the spirit of the composition.  It's the 2-D version of the original stereo panning.  Someone upthread pointed out a similar moment on The Yes Album where Steve's stereo panning gets the same treatment.  Rather than bouncing between left and right, it's bouncing around all four corners of the room.

Other than a few moments like that, I suppose all they were after was some more space, some ambience in the rear channels, something a bit more like a live 2.0 rather than full immersion.  If that's what they were after, then they succeeded.  The Rush 5.1 discs are not "aggressive mixes".  But that's exactly what has led some to wonder why they even bother.

Even early Rush had a lot of layers sometimes, and I for one was looking forward to hearing better separation.  Yeah, it's great when there are several guitar parts and a few keyboard parts all mixing together to make a glorious soundscape.  Good stuff.  But as a musician, I also like it when I can pick out the individual parts.  The keys are playing the same chords as the one guitar, only inverted; the other guitar is using a different picking pattern that accents certain notes in the melody; there's an acoustic guitar in there!  I love hearing stuff like that.  Spread things out, and you can both hear the individual parts and how they all fit together.  I'm not sure why a band would be categorically opposed to that.

That's the key word there:  separation.

It's admittedly a fine line; you don't want it swirling any more or less than you want it panning, and you don't want a dense mess in 3D any more or less than you want a dense mess in 2D.   But ESPECIALLY with keyboards and pedals - which Rush use a lot of both - the 3D environment works well to create that feeling of movement, a feeling they were clearly going for in the 2D versions of songs like Vital Signs, Countdown, Red Barchetta, Marathon...

But... at the end of the day, it's their art.  Their choice.   Personally, I prefer Fripp's approach, but it's clearly not my call to make.

[Orbert]

I keep almost writing 3-D and 2-D in the contexts you've used above, but I'm pretty sure my tags are correct.

Monophonic or monaural sound has everything mixed down to a single channel.  A point in space, if you will, or zero dimensions.

Stereo, with two channels, spreads the soundfield across the X-axis, left to right.  There is one dimension, as a single coordinate will define the location.

5.1 and its ancestor quadraphonic (4.0) spreads the music across both X- and Y-axes, placing it anywhere in the plane of the room.  It is therefore two-dimensional.  Left, right, front, back.

For it to be three-dimensional, you need to be able to define altitude as well.  Z-axis.  Imagine a room which is a perfect cube, with speakers in each corner.  There will be eight of them.  By balancing the sound properly, you can place any sound at any point in the room in 3-D space.

To the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the only person to really do this with any degree of success was synthesist Suzanne Ciani.  I read an article back in the 70's about some of the stuff she was doing.  I think Zappa and either Philip Glass or maybe Jean-Michel Jarre also tried some 3-D stuff, but it was six-channel.  Presumably, this approach would place the speakers in the center of each wall of the theoretical cubical room.  That would work.  Somehow, I prefer the idea of speakers in the corners, though.  Just a personal preference, I guess.

[Setlist Scotty]

just leaving some pictures here of my Saturday trip:
<awesomeness removed>

Rodrigo - sooooooooo jealous of you!!! What an amazing experience! Only thing that disappoints me is that you didn't check with the forum here to see what kind of questions we wanted you to ask them!   

[devieira73]

Super amazing, RodrigoAltaf!!! Needless to say, even across just pictures, Alex and Geddy always seems to be truly great and simple people!
Honestly, do you mind to share with us how it was incredible hard to NOT make any questions to them like "when are you planning to make some music together?" hahaha

[RodrigoAltaf]

Scotty and devieira, thanks! I did pitch the idea of interviewing them, but it was denied of course. Geddy gets "60 Minutes" kind of media, and wouldn't spend time with a small website like the ones I write fro. But I just HAD to try it.

A few exchanges I had with them at the event:

1) Alex and Geddy greeted everyone on the train personally. When both passed by my seat I mentioned that I went to the Rush in Rio concert, and they were both glad to hear that. At that time, Alex said "we are planning for R70 - we'll play for 5 minutes and drop dead. Look out for that!". As he was leaving I said - "so Neil is coming next to greet us, right?". He said "don't wait too long, man!".

2)  After lunch, Geddy was walking around the tables and exchanging a few words. I asked him if there was a chance of My Favourite Headache Part II, he said "never say never". When I said I loved his solo album, he hugged me and said "bless your heat, man". At that time I nearly shit my pants.

3) Geddy stopped to sing a ticket stub that a friend of mine brought up - from 1986. He said "I had a goofy hair back then". I said "at least y still have lots of hair, man...look at me!". And he said "what!?!? I see hair there!". 

4) When we were boarding the bus to get back to the train, I did the "we're not worthy" thing to Alex, and told him that was my favourite part of rush in Rio, not the singing of YYZ". He said "I will NEVER forget that concert, man!!!".

[TAC]

So Tempus Vox is really Rodrigo Atlaf?

[The Walrus]

That's so cool!!

I realized this weekend that next week will mark 1 year since I really dug into Rush beyond the hits everyone knows. Feels like it's been much shorter than just a year, as I now own all of their albums plus a bunch of live material (except Feedback, and a lot of the later live releases). Very familiar with their entire catalog now and have been able to go back and figure out my favorites/least favorites from each album. And yet everything still sounds fresh to me. Just a shame I had to wait until they called it a day before playing catch up.

[KevShmev]

Sounds like a great time, RodrigoAltaf!  Glad you have fun! 

[Stadler]

I'd like to meet Alex.

[ytserush]

It was a private event called Grapes Under Pressure. 150 people on a train to a winery with Geddy and Alex. They were very kind, approachable and chatty. We took pictures with them, chatted for a while, and after lunch Geddy walked around everybody's tables. I tol him I loved his solo album too, and he hugged me and said "bless your heart, man!". My favourite Alex moment was when I told him I went to the Rush in Rio show and sang YYZ. He said "you were at THAT show I'll never forget that, man!". Gave me chills!

The gift basket of the event included a bottle of wine from Peller Estates, with the label signed by the band.

Glad you had a great time. It's a great experience. I'd have gone myself (and still might go in the future) but I didn't think dropping a few grand when my kid is in school was the wisest thing to do at the moment.  It seemed to go down pretty much as expected and I'd certainly consider it if the opportunity should present itself again.  Sounds like you had a blast.

[ytserush]

So Tempus Vox is really Rodrigo Atlaf?

He might have been there too, but we'll never know.

[ytserush]

Not really a 5.1 guy either. (Although I have do have some, mostly Rush.)

I used to have a fairly cheap set up about 10 years ago, but I wasn't all impressed with it. Full disclosure -- I'm not really a movie guy in any Special Effects kind of way either so I'm sure that has something to do with it. I only have a few dozen of what I consider to be essential movies.

Have a cheap Bluray player for my Rush DVDs, but I'm just as happy to watch the regular DVDs. I probably watch concert DVDs more than most. (Last weekend I had a mini-Flying Colors festival and watched their 2 DVDs back to back.) Love DVD audio too when it's done right.

I guess it's odd that I seems to care more about how music sounds (mastering, dynamics,etc...) in stereo than how it might look on DVD/Bluray/5.1.

Sadly, though, as a band, Rush is about the worst 5.1 I've experienced.  I don't know why that is, though I will say I had really high hopes for the Moving Pictures.   The only ones that really grabbed me were AFTK and FBN and even they pale in comparison to the Crimson and Genesis stuff.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how it might look on DVD"; is that a typo?  Because if you care about "mastering" and "dynamics", the same things apply in 5.1 as 2.0, it's just a "deeper" sound field.

May have said this before, but Geddy and Alex have said they didn't want aggressive mixes of the music in 5.1. Of course these comments were made as recently as 10 years ago so their point of view may have changed, but that would explain why there's not a lot going on in Rush 5.1 land.

Not a typo, I was talking about how much better the picture looks or is cleaned up. Perhaps "mastering" was the wrong word in this case.  Though I might consider myself an audiophile (and I'm still not sure that I do) I don't have that same standard visually with how things look on Bluray. DVD is enough of a visual standard for me. (I guess that's similar to the way a lot of people don't really care how things sound as long as it isn't bad.)

I might be interested in 5.1 music IF the music was written with 5.1 in mind, but that would disqualify most of recorded history.  Is there any new music that sounds good in 5.1 that was released in the last 10 years?

Haha, you can try Zaireeka by The Flaming Lips.     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaireeka

In all seriousness, though, their The Soft Bulletin and Yoshi... albums are just beautiful in 5.1.

So there doesn't seem to be a lot of post-2000 stuff out there then?