. 06.04.2017 04:50 |
Update 08.03.18 - Slightly improved transfer using a different deck (link below). Audience > ? > Trade Tape TDK D90 > NAD 6130 > PC Line in > Audacity > FLAC Single 16 bit 44.1Hz FLAC file level 8 - 433MB - Duration 87:30 link YouTube sample: |
pmatsynot 06.04.2017 06:25 |
Many thanks for the share |
PiotreQ 06.04.2017 07:25 |
Thanks! |
gioscana 06.04.2017 07:35 |
Thanks ! ! ! |
Chinwonder2 06.04.2017 09:38 |
Thanks! :D -Chin |
Chief Mouse 06.04.2017 09:57 |
Thanks! |
on my way up 06.04.2017 10:07 |
Thanks! The recording sounds better than what have (or remember to have ;-)). The youtube sample sounds way worse than the recording you shared. |
. 06.04.2017 10:24 |
I think both versions sound a bit naff! |
little foetus 06.04.2017 11:37 |
Thank you very much! :) Very nice upgrade! :) |
aristide1 06.04.2017 11:52 |
Very nice surprise. Thank you. |
gambri 06.04.2017 12:19 |
|
gambri 06.04.2017 12:20 |
Review of this concert, I believe. |
Chopin1995 07.04.2017 02:30 |
Thank you very much Kurgan! And thanks Gambri for this review. I've never heard such a huge difference between lossless version and Youtube version like in this one! |
on my way up 07.04.2017 05:02 |
Chopin1995 wrote: Thank you very much Kurgan! And thanks Gambri for this review. I've never heard such a huge difference between lossless version and Youtube version like in this one!Indeed, I also noticed that :-) |
. 07.04.2017 06:56 |
You choose, lossy or lossless hiss! |
MackMantilla 07.04.2017 08:50 |
Thanks a lot :-) |
Harry_queenrecordings 07.04.2017 13:29 |
Thanks for sharing! |
onedunpark 08.04.2017 03:57 |
Thanks for sharing.. |
tassilo 13.04.2017 13:52 |
Thank you very much. |
gbmaster 14.04.2017 02:32 |
Top sharing! :) |
Rami 15.04.2017 03:54 |
Download link doesn't work anymore, at least for me. Any chances for a re-upload? Many thanks in advance. |
pittrek 15.04.2017 05:33 |
Thanks for this one. It's a very interesting version, especially if you compare it to my "old" version (unknown source) The old version is 1:27:41, the new version is 1:28:08. Not sure if it's just a tape speed difference but for example the older, SHORTER version has a few seconds of Bohemian Rhapsody more at the beginning - you can hear more of the piano before Freddie's "I see a little silhouetto". The old version has clean sound on the first tracks, then the hiss levels get more prominent, The new version has a very annoying high pitched noise going through the first side, which slowly changes into hiss during the second half of the first side, the second side seem to have a more constant hiss. Also there is something which sounds like bass distortion. Very interesting, thanks. Would you mind if I would attempt to do something like "best of both worlds"? In other words merging both sources? |
brians wig 15.04.2017 07:36 |
pittrek wrote: Would you mind if I would attempt to do something like "best of both worlds"? In other words merging both sources?I should say it's a requirement, Pitters! BIts get lost through generational copying to different length tapes and unwanted sounds can be added. I've compared my tape to Kurgan's, and it's poor in comparison. (And shorter!) |
The Real Wizard 15.04.2017 11:35 |
pittrek wrote: The old version is 1:27:41, the new version is 1:28:08. Not sure if it's just a tape speed difference but for example the older, SHORTER version has a few seconds of Bohemian Rhapsody more at the beginning - you can hear more of the piano before Freddie's "I see a little silhouetto". The old version has clean sound on the first tracks, then the hiss levels get more prominent, The new version has a very annoying high pitched noise going through the first side, which slowly changes into hiss during the second half of the first side, the second side seem to have a more constant hiss. Also there is something which sounds like bass distortion.Good observations. Indeed, the tapes just run at slightly different speeds, so that accounts for the 30 second difference. Kurgan's version also has an extra 6 seconds in The Prophet's Song, and a bit less tape before Big Spender and at the end of GSTQ. Furthermore - Kurgan's version is mono, while the 1:27:41 version is in stereo. The latter is also one of those bad 90s CDRs where there is digital noise all throughout disc 1, but it becomes especially noticeable in Son and Daughter. Disc 2 has all kinds of digital clicks too, but the kind that can be painstakingly removed one at a time. Kurgan's copy doesn't have that overloaded bottom end, but it has a lot more hiss. Unfortunately there just is no optimal solution here. |
Gregsynth 15.04.2017 11:50 |
Best solution I see is to clean up the common version and Kurgan's version - then frankenstein the two together. Kurgan's copy is overall better - just cut down the hiss slightly and you're good to go! The hum can be reduced slightly as well! If there's missing bits of songs - use the older version to patch in. It's not optimal - but it's the best idea I can think of. |
The Real Wizard 15.04.2017 11:54 |
Gregsynth wrote: Kurgan's copy is overall better - just cut down the hiss slightly and you're good to go! The hum can be reduced slightly as well!That's a slippery slope. Then you start losing top end, and then you have digital artifacts. The recent Detroit 77 tape is a prime example. What we should be doing is frequenting other places where people are in contact with tapers, trying to find the tapers of these shows instead of trying to splice together two high/unknown gen copies. Queen collectors have not been an overly collaborative bunch on this front. There's a reason why Pink Floyd collectors regularly track down tapers of shows from 1970-71 while most Queen tapes from 1973-82 don't have any proper lineage. We really need to work on this. |
Gregsynth 15.04.2017 12:06 |
The Real Wizard wrote:I agree. But trying is better than not trying.Gregsynth wrote: Kurgan's copy is overall better - just cut down the hiss slightly and you're good to go! The hum can be reduced slightly as well!That's a slippery slope. Then you start losing top end, and then you have digital artifacts. The recent Detroit 77 tape is a prime example. What we should be doing is frequenting other places where people are in contact with tapers, trying to find the tapers of these shows instead of trying to splice together two high/unknown gen copies. Queen collectors have not been an overly collaborative bunch on this front. There's a reason why Pink Floyd collectors regularly track down tapers of shows from 1970-71 while most Queen tapes from 1973-82 don't have any proper lineage. We really need to work on this. I attempted a little bit of work - nothing major. But is it worth it? |
The Real Wizard 15.04.2017 12:10 |
Good job ! There's a slight loss of top end, but the hum is way less prominent. |
Gregsynth 15.04.2017 12:16 |
Thanks. I was trying a few different ideas on the EQ program and I didn't want to lose the top end. I just wanted to get some of the hiss and hum out without killing the top end. It's not going to be magic or anything (no pun intended), but a .00001% improvement is still an improvement :) I wish there was a clean copy of the show (without the speed fluctuations, cuts, and the hiss/hum problem), but if the only tools I have are two high gen copies, a computer, patience, a few bottles of Mt Dew, some Molson, headphones, and audio apps, I'm up for the challenge. |
. 08.03.2018 19:10 |
See post #1 for updated link. |
Chinwonder2 08.03.2018 22:03 |
Awesome, thank you for the new transfer! :) -Chin |
onedunpark 08.03.2018 22:16 |
Many thanks for the new transfer. |
aristide1 09.03.2018 08:39 |
Thank you for squeezing the last drop of juice from these old tapes (although the very last one would be a hi-res transfer). |
Chopin1995 09.03.2018 12:59 |
Thank you for the updated version! |
. 09.03.2018 14:51 |
aristide1 wrote: Thank you for squeezing the last drop of juice from these old tapes (although the very last one would be a hi-res transfer).In theory, yes. However, this particular old tape would not benefit from such a procedure, unless remastering was a consideration. Was that your intention? Other things to consider:- The RH channel is low level in places (it's been amplified as and when on this share, hence some additional hiss in places on that channel). I would offer a 24/96 raw transfer, but I really don't think it would result in any significant improvement should a remaster be attempted. |
aristide1 10.03.2018 10:00 |
24/96 doesn't sound better but it's important to have a superior source for further enhancements. Speed correction + noise reduction + eq require this extra space to be effective. The subject is somehow absurd because producing 24/96 isn't more expensive or more time consuming than 16/44. Why eat at Wimpy instead of Heston Blumenthal, assuming the price is the same on both? |
. 10.03.2018 10:15 |
aristide1 wrote: 24/96 doesn't sound better but it's important to have a superior source for further enhancements. Speed correction + noise reduction + eq require this extra space to be effective. The subject is somehow absurd because producing 24/96 isn't more expensive or more time consuming than 16/44.I know that, but you haven't answered my question. Would it be your intention to attempt to do this on a 24/96 transfer? PS. A 24/96 upload is far more time consuming than a 16/44. |
aristide1 10.03.2018 10:37 |
I'd like to give it a try, if you also feel there is a potential for improvement. |
. 10.03.2018 10:47 |
aristide1 wrote: I'd like to give it a try, if you also feel there is a potential for improvement.Personally, I don't think there is. But I am quite prepared to make a 24/96 transfer and send you a link if you want me to. |
aristide1 10.03.2018 11:22 |
It would be nice, but only if you have fun doing this, playing with the new deck, otherwise the present version is ok for me. Don't want to be hypocrite and pretend hi-res is mandatory. |
vivaqueen 10.03.2018 16:40 |
MERCI BEAUCOUP |
QSMJohn 11.03.2018 22:23 |
Thank you :) |
Egietje 02.11.2019 23:29 |
Here is a cue file if anyone wants it |
misabeat 03.11.2019 04:31 |
Here you go... link |
Viper 04.11.2019 17:24 |
thanks! |