QueenZone discussion #1081674

bohemianmoomin wrote: Happy valentines day Starky! And thanks for this torrent! Will download and seed for eons. Enjoyed your other remasters...I have high expectations for this one!

stark wrote:

bohemianmoomin wrote: Happy valentines day Starky! And thanks for this torrent! Will download and seed for eons. Enjoyed your other remasters...I have high expectations for this one!

No pressure then... :)

stark wrote:

bohemianmoomin wrote: Happy valentines day Starky! And thanks for this torrent! Will download and seed for eons. Enjoyed your other remasters...I have high expectations for this one!

No pressure then... :)

Alex Solan. wrote: Comparing this with the original Seven seas of Tsumagoi silver release, why do I have the feeling that this "remaster" sounds a bit lower in terms of volume? Still thanks a lot for sharing your work, stark and I do apreciatte your effort in working at this. Cheers.

pittrek wrote: Nice two posts !

stark wrote: Digital audio works 'in reverse' - in that the loudest possible level is 0dB, and the lowest is -96dB (on a 16-bit CD, anyway). These levels have nothing to do with the volume of your stereo system, but rather how the loud the track is recorded onto the CD (you must have noticed that hip-hop CDs generally play louder than records like 'Harvest', or 'Dark Side Of The Moon'). So. Imagine you're listening at a comfortable volume and the music on the CD is, unknown to you, averaging around -30dB. A loud audio event occurs (band suddenly comes in/explosion etc) which peaks briefly at 0dB. Allowing for the fact that your speakers have exploded, the event would sound incredibly 'real' (in the 'lifelike' sense). This example gives what we call a Peak-To-Average Ratio (similar to dynamic range) of 30dB, which is huge. Too huge, in fact, for the genre and the compact disc medium. Had the music been averaging -5dB with the loud event peaking at 0dB (giving 5dB Peak-To-Average Ratio , which is very small indeed), you would not even have blinked (and think how hard it is not to blink when someone's hitting a snare drum next to you - it's a reflex). This is not good: our ears expect quiet sounds to be quiet and loud sounds to be loud (in relation to one another); if they're not, even if it's subconscious, we know something's 'wrong' or at least unnatural. By correcting the equalisation of a recording, it is possible to increase the Peak-To-Average Ratio, thus making the quiet parts quieter and the loud parts louder (*in relation to one another*), resulting in a more 'real' or natural sound. It is this large Ratio that gives good recordings their depth, richness, clarity and of course, dynamic range. And this is why my remasters sound quieter than their source.

Remaster sounds better? You decide.

Your work on Golders Green 73, Shizuoka 75, and Tokyo 5-1-75 was brilliant, but on this one, I honestly can't tell the difference.

stark wrote: Glad someone's listening. :) It IS lower in volume, as pittrek says. 'Don't mistake something more for something better..'
Digital audio works 'in reverse' - in that the loudest possible level is 0dB, and the lowest is -96dB (on a 16-bit CD, anyway). These levels have nothing to do with the volume of your stereo system, but rather how the loud the track is recorded onto the CD (you must have noticed that hip-hop CDs generally play louder than records like 'Harvest', or 'Dark Side Of The Moon').
So. Imagine you're listening at a comfortable volume and the music on the CD is, unknown to you, averaging around -30dB. A loud audio event occurs (band suddenly comes in/explosion etc) which peaks briefly at 0dB. Allowing for the fact that your speakers have exploded, the event would sound incredibly 'real' (in the 'lifelike' sense). This example gives what we call a Peak-To-Average Ratio (similar to dynamic range) of 30dB, which is huge. Too huge, in fact, for the genre and the compact disc medium.
Had the music been averaging -5dB with the loud event peaking at 0dB (giving a 5dB Peak-To-Average Ratio , which is very small indeed), you would not even have blinked (and think how hard it is not to blink when someone's hitting a snare drum next to you - it's a reflex). This is not good: our ears expect quiet sounds to be quiet and loud sounds to be loud (in relation to one another); if they're not, even if it's subconscious, we know something's 'wrong' or at least unnatural.
By correcting the equalisation of a recording, it is possible to increase the Peak-To-Average Ratio, thus making the quiet parts quieter and the loud parts louder (*in relation to one another*), resulting in a more 'real' or natural sound. It is this large Ratio that gives good recordings their depth, richness, clarity and of course, dynamic range. And this is why my remasters sound quieter than their source.
For a valid comparison between a source and its remaster, you MUST listen to them at the same volume, otherwise the loudest one always sounds better. Generally the easiest way to do this is to match the vocal levels. I've attached a link to a section from the Liverpool '73 gig I'm working on at the moment. The files are as follows:
1. Source louder than remaster. Source sounds better.
2. Remaster louder than source. Remaster sounds better.
3. Source and remaster levels matched. Remaster sounds better? You decide.
The source comes first in each example.
link
I hope that explains it - forgive me if I've patronised you, but I've tried

Alex Solan. wrote: Secondly, I gotta say that I'm aware of all the technical mumbo-jumbo concerning to remastering these audience recordings, stopping especially at that fact: that you cannot improve a lot what it's there. You don't have to many "colors" or "significant and defined peaks" to work with, like in a soundboard recording... basically the improvement it's there and I can hear it but it doesn't add too much to the recording as in a soundboard recording.

queentel wrote: Thanks Stark, you have done a great job Any one want to do some artwork? just out of interest?

Your work on Golders Green 73, Shizuoka 75, and Tokyo 5-1-75 was brilliant, but on this one, I honestly can't tell the difference.

gaspar wrote: I've tried to change some artworks I downloaded from somewhere sites: Here's the back cover (photo is closest to the times)

stark wrote: Thanks for the comment, Sir GH; obviously I'd rather hear that you loved it, but honesty is the next best thing. :) and at least it means we're not all just accepting these 'remasters' at face value.

Let me know your thoughts? link

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Stark, are you there? As I posted in the Glasgow 77 topic, here's a sample of my two-source mix of that show: link Perhaps you could work your magic on it...?

stark wrote: If that is the case, then it just shows how damaging tape generations are - they're almost certainly from the same master.

I hope that makes sense.

Would suggest mastering the two sources separately for editing together.