| Richard Orchard 23.08.2011 23:45 |
Hi, Are the new remasters better sounding - or just "louder"? In reference to the idea of loudness wars: link Sometimes you can say, i haven't heard that before when doing an A B comparison - but if one volume is a lot lounder when played, then that is bounds to be the case. For example, Hot Space is pretty loud at the same volume setting compared to other CD's i have. Is anyone up with recording technology, etc, who can give some insight? Thanks, Richard |
| pittrek 24.08.2011 02:37 |
They are much louder. I don't know if they're ONLY louder, but they were not done from the multitracks, but from a stereo "master", so I personally think they are ONLY louder. Never bothered to check it, to be honest |
| Back2TheLight 24.08.2011 04:05 |
I don't know. I don't get into the technical stuff personally, though I am actually a musician, and perhaps I should. I've so far liked all the remasters that I've heard so far. I'm really looking forward to hearing Innuendo remastered, as it is personally my favorite CD of theirs. Knowing the intent that the band were going for, I think they've acheived it, in the respect that they got the sound closer to the 'vinyl' sound that was sought after, at least in terms of warmth. Just my opinion, and I know I'll have a hundred people that disagree with what I'm saying. That's ok, to each his own, you know? |
| ole-the-first 24.08.2011 06:22 |
New remasters not just louder, they're indeed better. Check out different remasters of The March of the Black Queen. There's 'click' nearly at 2:00, which is very audible on both 1994 and 2004 remasters, and on 2004 remaster it's very loud. On the new remaster, this click is much lesser audible than on previous remasters. On new Jazz remaster Mustapha sounds great while it's too sharp on 2004 Japanese remaster. Now I'm wainting for Innuendo remaster. All previously released digital masters sounds bad. On 2004 remaster drums on I Can't Live with You seems to be too prominent, so even 1991 Innuendo CD sounds better in that case. |
| TyphoonTip 24.08.2011 06:56 |
I think broadly, it’s a fair summation to say that they are just louder. Now on the surface that could seem like a slur, which I guess it is, because in the end that’s why I don’t like them. However in every other way they are quite acceptable (Which is more than can be said for every other Queen remastering effort). So it’s desperately frustrating that they fallen into this loud trap. I think there is some acknowledgement of the ‘loud issue’ in the remasters, in so much as they are not overly compressed, rather they have been very heavily limited. So in some tracks (or sections of tracks) it can sound quite acceptable. But for the most part, snares, backing vocals, guitar solos etc.. are sunken and noticeably clipped, which is a real shame. The annoying part is that the EQ is mostly very faithful to the first presses (aside from a slight boost to the low end), so on that score they sound fine, and occasionally the EQ reveals a little more detail than the originals, without going too far. For what it’s worth, here’s my view on the remasters as they stand. QUEEN – EQ very faithful to the first press, just louder, however not ‘crazy loud’. I would still opt for the more dynamic original, but if you can’t get your hands on it, this would be next in line. Q II – Noticeable EQ rethink. For me this is the one real highlight of the releases. For what is basically a poor recording, this new version reveals a lot more detail and generally feels a lot more balanced. It is undoubtedly loud, however not too loud; considering, it’s actually quite restrained. There are only occasional moments of noticeable clipping. My new 'go to' version! SHA – Again a faithful EQ, just waaaaay too loud. This was a real disappointment. ANATO – Basically the same as the 2005 release. To be honest, it’s not that bad. Not overly loud, but enough clips to irritate. The EQ is quite good. It has moments where it sounds like the DCC and others where it sounds like the Japanese CP32. But not quite as good as either. In the end the DCC is pretty difficult to top. If anyone hasn’t heard that, I thoroughly recommend it. ADATR –An attempt to clean up a slightly muddy first press. And generally it succeeds on that front. But it’s just ridiculously loud. The Millionaire Waltz is a perfect example of everything that’s wrong this approach to mastering. Unlistenable. NOTW – Another attempt to de-mud, but probably didn’t need it. Again too loud. It’s late is a disaster. Will stick to the fantastic Target press I found a couple of months ago. Just brilliant. JAZZ – Very similar to the first press (which is perfect IMO), but, you guessed it, too loud. ...You do however get an additional kick track in Jealousy; along with a moronically unconvincing explanation as to why it’s there. Another reason to stick with the first press. TG – Great EQ. Outrageously loud. Could have been great. A real disappointment. FLASH – Great EQ. And, wait for it ....it’s not that loud. Sure it’s not quite as dynamic as the original, but a worthy addition to any playlist. Haven’t decided myself whether I prefer this or the first press. HS - Stupidly loud!! The EQ is fine, basically a similar profile to the original. The one thing I will credit these releases for, is encouraging me to relisten to the first presses and reminding me how great they sound. It’s also made me seek out the MFSL versions of The Game and ADATR, which are brilliant; and finally being led to the simply perfect DCC version of ANATO. One final point I’d like to make (I think I’ve made it before, so feel free to ignore), is that it’s reasonable to believe that Bob Ludwig himself doesn’t like these remasters, as he’s been on record numerous times talking up the evils of compression and hard limiting. But, as he also points out, he is at the mercy of his employers, in this case Queen Productions. And their history for commissioning remasters has been pretty diabolical. (Don’t mean to be preachy. ....It’s all subjective anyway) |
| joesilvey 24.08.2011 09:32 |
I'm convinced this is just too subjective to answer definitively. To my ears, some of these came out better than others - but then again, the original 2-track master mixes that Bob Ludwig was given were all sonically different as well. Louder, yes. Clearer, yes. EQ changes, yes. But to varying degrees among the different albums. Every CD gets mastered - there's EQ, compression, and sometimes limiting applied. EVERY single song. So I get irritated when people act like compression on a REmaster is this evil thing. If standards have changed (they have) then an updated mastering is merited. I like dynamics, but I like a recording to have the punch of a bit of overall compression. If i'm sitting in a soundproof studio, perfectly positioned in front of an amazing sound system, then vinyl or a wide dynamic range is great. But a lot of times, i'm listening to music in my car. If it isn't a modern, more compressed remaster, I don't hear it very well anyway. the point is, there's no one answer to the question. Different ears and different tastes on everyone. |
| Rick 24.08.2011 11:24 |
@TyphoonTip: could you name a few clipping examples? Which songs? |
| MercurialFreddie 24.08.2011 11:42 |
Honestly, I haven't heard the MSFL/DCC versins (looking forward to ! ) but I cannot agree with the statement that It's late is the worst example on NOTW 2011 remaster. To my mind Freddie was always "behind" the loud vocal harmonies and his words weren't that clear to hear on that song, which - imho - have been always loud. On the 2011 remaster Bob Ludwig cleared up and "embellished" his voice and simultaneously sustained the high volume level of the vocal harmonies. There is a new feel added to the drum sound on this song. And believe me, you can hear it all when you listen to it on good Hi-Fi. For the first time in years I understood how deep in the terms of sound is the song. :) But... stay away from the headphones ! |
| Rick 24.08.2011 15:43 |
I agree. It's Late sounds great on a good audio set. In fact, NOTW is one of the albums which has been improved the most. Spread Your Wings sounds ace as well. |
| MERQRY 24.08.2011 15:46 |
Today i was thinking the remaster sound like an old radio under the water... but maybe is too much, maybe it only sound more loud and nothing more... |
| brians wig 24.08.2011 17:23 |
pittrek wrote: They are much louder. I don't know if they're ONLY louder, but they were not done from the multitracks, but from a stereo "master", so I personally think they are ONLY louder. Never bothered to check it, to be honest ======================================================= You should be ashamed of yourself, especially as you can access, ahem, copies on the internet if you look hard enough. Once you realise it's not JUST a case of sounding louder, but stereo seperation on some albums is better (Queen II especially!), the bass and drums are clearer, richer and more precise for a start, then you might want to think about actually buying them. Of course, if you have the MFSL versions (What ARE the DCC ones people are talking about??), then you would be best to stick with them for headphone listening as the new remasters DO overpower after a few songs and can give you earache! |
| jstger6969 24.08.2011 17:25 |
Guys. The only was to truly enjoy the Queen experience is by listening to the original LPs . there is a warmth that Digital mastering just cannot duplicate. Listen to an Good copy of ANATO which I believe was mastered by Bob Ludwig (I'll need to check that) the difference is night and day. |
| GratefulFan 24.08.2011 17:32 |
Good news and bad news. The good news is I have everything you ever wanted to know about this subject typed up, along with material you didn't even know to ask for that will make you the envy of your friends and family until forever that I would be happy to post in a heartbeat. The bad news is it's on my iPad... ;) |
| Jimmy Dean 24.08.2011 17:40 |
Some good, some loud - I guess. Someone pointed out NOTW sounds way better rather than only louder. I can attest to that - it is my favorite album. The MFSL version was my favorite - but this is fairly close and is of course louder. I now listen to the remaster. Queen II, ANATO, and Jazz are very worth upgrades, including NOTW. These are not only louder but actually sound "cleaner" and I think are also "corrected" (as in the case of Jealousy in Jazz). As for the rest, yes they are louder, no the differences aren't extremely noticeable, and NO THEY ARE NOT TOO LOUD. If you feel they are too loud, lower your volume... there is no clipping... and anyone who complains about loss of dynamics, or compression, etc... you have superhuman ears. I have 125% hearing (as per a hearing test I underwent a few years ago)... and I can tell 192kpbs mp3 from a 320kbps mp3 from a lossless file (So I have an idea what compression sounds like)... there is no audible compression in any of the remasters.... unless your comparing to vinyl which is a whole other argument. |
| smilebrian 25.08.2011 06:28 |
jstger6969 wrote: Guys. The only was to truly enjoy the Queen experience is by listening to the original LPs . there is a warmth that Digital mastering just cannot duplicate. Listen to an Good copy of ANATO which I believe was mastered by Bob Ludwig (I'll need to check that) the difference is night and day. ****** Agree on the LP's, vastly superior - the only way to understand the intent of the music in my opinion. DCC of ANATO on CD is the closest I've heard a digital format come to the vinyl. Ludwig didn't do ANATO originally, that was Chris Blair from Abbey Road wasn't it? Look in the deadwax and you should see something like "BLAIR'S CUT" OR "MR BLAIR'S CUT" or something similar. |
| TyphoonTip 25.08.2011 08:13 |
OK, 'clipping' can be a loaded term in audio circles, but in truth the definition has a certain amount of breadth. In this instance (i.e. these remasters) I'm using the term in reference to 'soft clipping', rather than a flattening or distortion of the wave form. So, yes, there is clipping in these remasters. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this mastering approach, if used sparingly and intelligently. Personally I feel it works better with some genres than others. Messing with the dynamic range of recordings is nothing new. And as some have pointed out, compression can often help a mix. But as with all things, it's about choosing when and where it's best suited. Again I reiterate that this is all subjective and whatever sounds good to you, then stick with that. But for me Queen, particularly the 70's stuff, is all about dynamics, and the careful craft that went into creating it. And any mastering effort that undermines that is just not for me. I have a background in sound engineering so I'm probably more prone to hear when things are limited. There are tell tale signs (that are difficult to describe) when snares, kicks, solos, don't punch through a mix they way they should do (...if you are familiar with the mix, that is). I'm not one that generally looks at wave forms. In fact I purposely shy away from them, as they can distract and make you hear things in a different way. In short, they can play with your head. So my rule is, I live with a CD for a while, if I feel I'm hearing something that doesn't quite sound right, then my curiosity will occasionally get the better of me. And that's been the case with these remasters. I listened to them for a long while, before checking my suspicions, on one or two occasions. Sadly my suspicions were justified. Although clearly far from 'brick-walled', nevertheless a substantial amount of dynamic range has been lost from many tracks. Some worse than others. As for examples, the tracks I mentioned in the previous post are a good place to start. NOTW is a good case in point. In and of itself, the new remaster sounds quite good. And if that were the only version around, I'd happily listen to it, and probably not ever notice the limiting. But the problem is, I've grown up with the vinyl since I was a kid, and I've become super sensitive to how 'I think' it should sound. So to me the limiting is very noticeable. And as I've said before, having discovered other fantastic digital versions, like DCC, MFSL, and the Target NOTW, I find it hard to compromise. Whether you think something sounds good, or not, is completely up to you. There's no right or wrong. I'm just saying my piece and perfectly respect others that disagree. |
| Your Fairy King 25.08.2011 12:31 |
*shakes head at anyone who listens to rock music who complains because it's too loud* |
| Ron 25.08.2011 15:25 |
I'm really happy that I am such a noob when it comes to sound quality etc and I have no knowledge about remasters, clicks, clipping, loudness and other blabla. It seems that it really makes my life a lot easier, esp when I read everyone's opinions here who are so well-taught in that area. I always enjoyed the Japanese remasters back then and thought they were much better compared to the 80's CD's (80's discs were flat and too much hiss in my opinion). With the new remasters I barely hear any difference between these and the Jap ones. In the end I bought em for the bonus disc and because I like to stay up to date.. no matter if the sound is better or worse.. :D |
| the dude 1366 25.08.2011 15:47 |
It really is just louder. Look up "loudness war". I fell for the whole idea that each new remaster reissue means new technology that improves the sound. I bought and rebought and sold old CD's. So after buying the same album 5 times, I'm the theif for wanting to download the old version that I gave up. It's truly a scam. They do have the technology, but they just use to to make it louder instead. You will notice your ears fatigue really quickly. |
| the dude 1366 25.08.2011 15:53 |
Do yourselves a favour and google and youtube "loudness war". Here is a link to a very good explanation. it is a short video. link |
| GonnaUseMyPrisoners 30.08.2011 11:45 |
I've decided to rail against the groundless negativity I'm reading in this thread. Perhaps most of the detractors here don't have sound systems capable of revealing the correct sound. I'm sorry. Perhaps you're converting the wav files to mp3, m4a, aac, what have you, and have lost the original sound due to the file conversion. Bad choice, your fault. Maybe your feathers are ruffled because it's yet another costly outlay of money to attain a decent copy of music you love and you (like me) resent having to spend money every few years to renew your entire Queen catalog. I sympathize, but you have no ground to stand on there - music recordin technology changes and wasn't born perfect in 1950. Or maybe you're just not as discerning a listener as you purport to be, tearing down these amazing remasters without reason. That would be childish. The most striking difference is in the clean sound: much improved "imaging" of instruments, removal of noise, hiss, distortions etc. Yes, they're louder... thank heavens! They can finally be heard well alongside contemporary recordings. Just try to take the old CDs and crank up the sound. They're painful due to imbalances of all kinds, and you still can't discern tones, at times. These new remasters give a beautiful representation of the tones. I can hear, far more clearly than even from the original vinyl, the notes, the vibrato, the dynamics. The total effect is so much better when you can hear the parts rather than a clutter of distorted noise (loud, thickly layered bits in particular). And if I crank up the volume, they're even more beautiful, without distortion, like pristine live performances. I truly pity anyone who can't hear what I hear in these remasters. They're fabulous. |
| Rick 30.08.2011 11:48 |
Someone posted an excellent comparison between the 1994 version of Spread Your Wings and the 2011 version on the Queenonline forums a few weeks ago. It was like a veil got removed. A shame he deleted the file. Why bother using headphones? If you really want to notice differences, get yourself a decent sound system and enjoy the ride. They DO sound better. |
| smilebrian 31.08.2011 07:13 |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: I've decided to rail against the groundless negativity I'm reading in this thread. Perhaps most of the detractors here don't have sound systems capable of revealing the correct sound. I'm sorry. Perhaps you're converting the wav files to mp3, m4a, aac, what have you, and have lost the original sound due to the file conversion. Bad choice, your fault. Maybe your feathers are ruffled because it's yet another costly outlay of money to attain a decent copy of music you love and you (like me) resent having to spend money every few years to renew your entire Queen catalog. I sympathize, but you have no ground to stand on there - music recordin technology changes and wasn't born perfect in 1950. Or maybe you're just not as discerning a listener as you purport to be, tearing down these amazing remasters without reason. That would be childish. The most striking difference is in the clean sound: much improved "imaging" of instruments, removal of noise, hiss, distortions etc. Yes, they're louder... thank heavens! They can finally be heard well alongside contemporary recordings. Just try to take the old CDs and crank up the sound. They're painful due to imbalances of all kinds, and you still can't discern tones, at times. These new remasters give a beautiful representation of the tones. I can hear, far more clearly than even from the original vinyl, the notes, the vibrato, the dynamics. The total effect is so much better when you can hear the parts rather than a clutter of distorted noise (loud, thickly layered bits in particular). And if I crank up the volume, they're even more beautiful, without distortion, like pristine live performances. I truly pity anyone who can't hear what I hear in these remasters. They're fabulous. ****** What are you comparing them to? 1991 Hollywood, 1994 Digital Remaster Series, Original EMI, CP32, MFSL, Targets, DCC? I'd be interested in your frame of reference. Do you think the 2011 (2005) ANATO remaster is better than the DCC? As you're a discerning listener with a magnificent system I'm sure you have the DCC...... It's not even in the same ballpark. So for me, that's the benchmark and the standard they "could" have reached with these remasters. Oh, and I do take the "old" CD's, well the CP32's anyway, and quite enjoy cranking them with their lovely EQ and dynamic range left in far better shape than most modern incarnations. But I obviously have a crap system and am not a discerning listener. Why do they need to be "heard well alongside contemporary recordings"? Doesn't your phenomenal system have a volume control that is easy to access? And thanks for letting us know that music recording wasn't born perfect in 1950, that's really relevant for a band that had their first album release in 1973, even so, you'll find many a good jazz recording from the 1950's that sound way better than most contemporary brick walled slop. But you'd know that, because your system is awesome and you're a discerning listener. |
| malicedoom 31.08.2011 15:03 |
I am sensing just the slightest bit of sarcasm in smilebrian's reply... |
| ITSM 01.09.2011 05:06 |
I'm also waiting to hear the drums on "I can't live with you". That beat is great! |
| smilebrian 01.09.2011 05:47 |
Just the slightest..... it's the lowest form of wit, I know, but it comes so naturally! |
| OwenSmith 01.09.2011 07:05 |
Someone said the engineers were only given stereo tapes to start from. In which case how can these be remasters? The point of a remaster is to go right back to the 24 track master tape and digistise each track, then do the mix again digitally so that there is no noise or losses during the mix. If you start from a stereo tape all you can do is fiddle with EQ and compression etc. but the original analogue mixing noise will still be present. You could probably do the same job starting from the CDs already released, if we knew what changes were made. The only Queen CDs I have are the original EMI releases bought when they first came out, plus I have the DVD Audios of A Night at the Opera and The Game. The 5.1 DVD Audios really are full remasters from the 24 track tapes, and A Night at the Opera sounds fantastic played on a DVD Audio player on a 5 channel speaker system (which I have). The DVD Audio of the Game is a waste of time, it was an odd album to remix in 5.1 given that part of the point of The Game is that it had a more basic sound than previous Queen albums. I guess it was because it was a big seller in the USA. It's a shame the other Queen albums never got a full 5.1 DVD Audio (or you can use DTS or Blu Ray) remix from the 24 track tapes, A Night at the Opera shows what's possible. And for the purists the DVD Audios also have a 96/24 stereo track which is simply a high resolution digitising of the original stereo master tapes with nothing added or taken away. So the DVD Audios have both a full 5.1 remix from the 24 track masters, and a high resolution copy of the original analoge stereo master. They're perfect. It's a shame DVD Audio and SACD didn't catch on, and instead we end up with yet another pointless stereo "remaster" (which isn't). I'll stick to the original EMI CD releases I think |
| TyphoonTip 01.09.2011 07:25 |
@OwenSmith. I'm afraid you're confusing 'remixing' with 'remastering'. Mastering is the final process after a mix has taken place; a sort of final polish. So yes, mastering just deals with the results of a stereo/mono/5.1 mix. |
| malicedoom 01.09.2011 09:21 |
Regarding the DVD Audio of 'The Game', I love the fact they singled out Freddie's (as usual, incredible) vocal to the center channel for Play The Game. It's amazing. I just wish they had done that for more of the tracks on the DVD Audio releases. To hear him 'by himself' in his own speaker with everything else around the room... incredible. I didn't think it was possible to appreciate that voice even more than I already did... I was wrong. :) |
| Adam Baboolal 02.09.2011 11:49 |
Anyone claiming this is part of the loudness war is a fool. The whole loudness thing has been dying for the last few years. It's old news. Not claiming that the remasters aren't perhaps loud-er, but certainly nowhere near the "loudness war" claims flying in this thread. And to back up others' comments on the sound of the new remasters, there has been a very nice cleaner quality to the sound of the remasters I've heard. I haven't heard them all, but from what I have heard, they're generally, pretty sweet. Adam. |
| Rick 02.09.2011 14:24 |
Innuendo is - wow - great. The album, I mean. It sounds so much richer and clearer now. Notable mentions: the intro of Innuendo blew me away, the drum track in I Can't Live With You sounds very crisp, Don't Try So Hard sounds impeccably clear and Brian's guitar in Bijou has never sounded so crisp and clear before. Clear and rich, in sum. |
| Rick 07.09.2011 03:56 |
More opinions? Or am I the only one who bought the new remasters? ;-) |
| eYe 07.09.2011 06:36 |
To compared the remasters to my old cds (CDP) I ripped both with EAC in secure mode and applied replay gain (album). The remasters do sound a lot better on my computer, my hifi system (Popcorn C200 player (FLAC) > optical > HK 3940 amp > KEF Q900 loudspeakers), and also in my car. They are definatly not just louder, they sound overall a lot better. Imho ofc. I don't care if I have to set the amp to -30 odr -35 db for normal listening. |
| FedeNibbler 02.05.2012 23:00 |
Well, IMHO these remasters -which I bought- DO sound better, especially Queen, Queen II, Jazz, Flash Gordon and the superb ANATO, cos The Game and News of The World sounded good before on japanese 2001 versions. But some time after hearing them several times, and searching for any "loudness war" victim among the tracks, I was a little dissapointed. Then I found some of the original pressings on vinyl from various sources, and they have a beautiful sound, but lack of the "refreshment" the 2011 CDs have, though the CDs are terribly loud. (with "refreshment" I mean the texturized voices, the crispy sound of the guitar on Great King Rat, those pumping awesome basses on ADATR) Sometimes even felt my ears tired when upped the volume level. Never happened before with Queen ;) So I love the remasters, but actually they are loud. Some time ago, I just opened a waveform from a random ADATR track in Audacity and my surprise was huge: they are brickwalled to the most. Also did the same thing with Ride The Wild Wind (which remaster I love), and the result was the same: LOUDNESS. I am a defendor of the highest dynamic range (that concept of hearing the loudest and slightest sounds with differences between them, and not all at the same dB level) but my judges are always my ears, and obviously, absolutely LOVE the Queen's vinyl sounds. Even SHA, Queen II or Queen I which are definetly muddy in vinyl pressings and they hide some things that appear properly on the IRR remasters. But the vinyl pressings have that special sound so hard to emulate on cds. I Personally own the 1993 digital master series. I don't listen to them anymore. I don't listen the new releases, either. Only when I want to compare them with the vinyl releases. I loved the new remasters at first, because I heard so many new things in each and every track on every album, but soon I got tired of that brickwalled sound. It's a pity, because I like the improvements in matters of the mixing so much. I think the final answer to this mixed feelings might be the release of the Island Records Vinyl Pressings, and they will surely be the best Queen collection available. Greetings from Argentina... that's the best english I can write ;) |
| The Real Wizard 02.05.2012 23:33 |
What a great first post. Indeed, the loudness war has gone much too far - although I have heard MUCH worse than the latest round of Queen remasters. These 2011 versions were cleaned up in many ways, but the peak to average ratio is lost at so many key moments, especially on the early albums. Many songs don't have nearly as great an impact as they once did. |
| pittrek 03.05.2012 05:31 |
Sometimes even felt my ears tired when upped the volume level. Never happened before with Queen ;) So I love the remasters, but actually they are loud. Some time ago, I just opened a waveform from a random ADATR track in Audacity and my surprise was huge: they are brickwalled to the most. Also did the same thing with Ride The Wild Wind (which remaster I love), and the result was the same: LOUDNESS. I am a defendor of the highest dynamic range (that concept of hearing the loudest and slightest sounds with differences between them, and not all at the same dB level) but my judges are always my ears, and obviously, absolutely LOVE the Queen's vinyl sounds. Even SHA, Queen II or Queen I which are definetly muddy in vinyl pressings and they hide some things that appear properly on the IRR remasters. But the vinyl pressings have that special sound so hard to emulate on cds. I Personally own the 1993 digital master series. I don't listen to them anymore. I don't listen the new releases, either. Only when I want to compare them with the vinyl releases. I loved the new remasters at first, because I heard so many new things in each and every track on every album, but soon I got tired of that brickwalled sound. It's a pity, because I like the improvements in matters of the mixing so much.ABSOLUTELY agree with this part. I could not say it better |
| Djdownsy 03.05.2012 11:52 |
The Real Wizard wrote: What a great first post. Indeed, the loudness war has gone much too far - although I have heard MUCH worse than the latest round of Queen remasters.--------- Indeed. Have you ever heard the 'Stop The Clocks' album from Oasis? I like my music loud, but THAT was just way too loud, so loud that you actually miss little parts in songs. A massive dissipointment! |
| mooghead 03.05.2012 12:04 |
This blast from the past thread reminded me of this great little youtube clip by way of explanation... link |
| C_Matt 04.05.2012 21:33 |
This remasters sounds to me just a lot louder. The best masters of the songs are the Greatest Karaoke Hits (I think from Japan) or the Greatest Video Hits ones: Just compare Hammer To Fall or Body Language.
The new remasters not only have a horrible clipping parts. They also have a permanent hiss in every song. I copy this from another thread I started on the Fan Mixes forum:
For every album, the best song to listen to this hiss are (notice the beginning):
Queen - Liar
Queen II - TMoTBQ (FtS was ruined due the heavy clipping (2:05 - 4:00))
SHA - Tenement Funster
ANatO - Sweet Lady
ADatR - You and I
NOtW - SHA (WATC was ruined too, the last chorus (2:34!)WEE EAHGOSA THE GHKAHDMPCINSONS)
Jazz - Mostly Fun It, but all.
Game - Don't Try Suicide
Flash - Flash's Theme
Space - Soul Brother
Works - ITtWWC?
AKoM - WWtLF
Miracle - Stealin'
Innuendo - Don't Try so Hard
MIH - IWBtLY
They included the HD mix of Teo Torriate as a bonus track on ADatR (That is how the new remasters should have sounded at 2011 with all the new technology available). But as OwenSmith said, this are just the same stereo tapes very louder. The rest is imagination (despite the Jealousy bass drum, which could had been included as a bonus track to keep the original one).
mooghead wrote: This blast from the past thread reminded me of this great little youtube clip by way of explanation... linkVery good one. |
| purplepiepete 23.06.2012 20:04 |
i've just bought a new player so that i could have a listen to some good sacds. from what i've read on various forums it seems the queen's sacds are rubbish, except maybe for their second album, its this true? is it worth buying any of queens remastered releases? did roger and brian have anything to do with these releases? |