John S Stuart 15.09.2009 12:00 |
This idea came to me after listening to the new Beatles remasters. So here it is: I don't believe the definitive Queen CD set exists, so why don't we at Queenzone create one? Album by album, track by track, burning a definitive QZ collection. We have a number of CD's (or like Opera DVD/a) to choose one. EMI original release, US Hollywood, Japanese, UK reissues etc. The rules are simple. Queen CD's only. Best tracks only. Album by album - so starting at the beginning with 'Queen'. I like the Hollywood remaster and would use this as my beginning CD. So what tracks from which disc would make the ultimate audoiphile debut album? Any discussion? |
Wiley 15.09.2009 12:32 |
I was thinking about something similar the other day but I wasn't going to go to a per-track level of detail. I would have chosen the Hollywood Records release for that particular album as well but I can't go into detail track per track without going back to listening to them. Good topic, though. Hopefully someone will answer to the level of detail you propose. |
onevsion 15.09.2009 12:47 |
Was thinking about that too. A two disc version for every album would be nice (demos, b-sides,outtakes, live tracks) |
onevsion 15.09.2009 12:49 |
When we start with the 'Queen' album I suggest the De Lane Lea demos should be on disc 2 as a bonus as well as 'Mad The Swine' |
pittrek 15.09.2009 13:07 |
Are you reading my mind ? I planned doing something similar for myself, but I don't have enough "versions" :) I say let's do it and a bonus disc is again a great idea |
John S Stuart 15.09.2009 13:19 |
So if enough of us agree, (and what is the harm in revisiting each album - track by track) is it possible to come up with the definitive (by that I mean best sounding) Queen collection? For me, anything is better than the original EMI CD releases. Anyone disagree? Also, I know Hollywood muck up in later discs - but we can cross that bridge at the time. So basically, Queen Hollywood Vs Queen Japan? |
Micrówave 15.09.2009 13:30 |
What about those four MFSL discs? Those sounded pretty good, but you guys are more qualified to answer that. I guess those are from the Hollywood source tapes, though. |
John S Stuart 15.09.2009 13:33 |
Yes - but we are just working on the initial debut album to start with. Is there an MSFL for the dbut disc? |
mooghead 15.09.2009 13:35 |
John, didnt you used to do a similar album by album 'ultimate collection' or something, on that other Queen site a few years ago? |
TerrorOfKnowing 15.09.2009 13:53 |
I've actually considered making myself a collection like this out of tracks I already have as well. If for nothing else than to keep everything organized in one place. I mean, let's face it, QPL is never going to give us the box set of our dreams so really, it's up to us. I think, when available, a truly definitive "set" for each album should be multimedia and include the following: - the album itself (from the best sounding source)- b-sides- outtakes / demos- alternative mixes of tracks (ex. single versions. remixes, etc)- interviews / television appearances from the era / specifically about the era (ie. "the press" section)- at least one full corresponding concert (audio or video)- music videos- any other bits and bobs applicable for the era as bonuses or easter eggs (ex. here something like the Brian May Star Licks section being attatched to The Works set since it was done around the same time) I realize this is a dream set, but that's what we're doing here, is it not? Dreaming or creating this for ourselves. Why SHOULDN'T it be all inclusive? |
Wiley 15.09.2009 13:57 |
There is no MSFL disc for the debut album. So, unless someone comes up and argues that the Japanese releases of Queen (1998, 2001) sound better than the HR version, we would conclude that it's the Hollywood Record version for the debut album. I know that's the one I play whenever I listen to it. The bonus tracks are great, also! Talking about Japanese remasters, were there remasters in 2004 as well or were those the same as the 2001 ones? Don't mean to change the topic, a quick answer will do. |
John S Stuart 15.09.2009 14:20 |
mooghead wrote: John, didnt you used to do a similar album by album 'ultimate collection' or something, on that other Queen site a few years ago? No: That 'ultimate collection' was an attempt to catalogue all Queen, solo, collaborative and cover versions etc. So that 'checklist' was really one of availability. What I was thinking of was upping the anti a little. With all the various remasters and versions out there, this new list is all about 'quality', rather than availability. So what are the best quality sound sources available? I was hoping for some conflict and some consenus. Only after a public debate can we then say the best tracks according to QZ are... Remember some of the Greatest Hits DVDs offer better sound than the CDs. |
mooghead 15.09.2009 15:31 |
Sorry mate but I'm not one of those fans who go out and buys every edition of every album so cant really help. I have the Hollywood remasters and they sound great to me, apart from the various unintentional edits obviously. My hi fi equipment has never really been high end enough to hear any discernable difference to be honest. |
mooghead 15.09.2009 15:33 |
For what its worth those ultimate collections you did could do with another airing on this site, always sparked plenty of debate about what might be out there..... |
John S Stuart 15.09.2009 15:43 |
Perhaps a poll or a panel would be better? I am loath to say that the Hollwood remaster of Queen is the best so far until we start pulling in a few more votes and opinions, but so far, all (who have replied) think Hollywood have got this one correct. Any opinions about the Japanese remasters? |
onevsion 15.09.2009 15:48 |
Great progress in this topic already. I suggest we use this topic for the debut album only. When all is discussed and we have a final track list (including a nice set of bonus material on disc 2) we can open a new topic for the next album. In the end all topics can be made sticky or indexed so that's it's clear for everyone where to find them. As far as the debut album is concerned: I think the Hollywood issue is the best sounding one. Bonus disc suggestions: De lane Lea demos Mad the swine Keep yourself alive (long lost retake / acetate version) Great King rat (bbc) Great King Rat (convention recording) Keep Yourselrf Alive (bbc) Liar (bbc) My Fairy King (bbc) Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll (bbc) Polar Bear (Queen version) Silver Salmon Son and daughter (bbc) and maybe the instrumentals from the Eye or the greatest kareoke hits could be included too... |
pittrek 15.09.2009 16:06 |
John S Stuart wrote: Perhaps a poll or a panel would be better? I am loath to say that the Hollwood remaster of Queen is the best so far until we start pulling in a few more votes and opinions, but so far, all (who have replied) think Hollywood have got this one correct. Any opinions about the Japanese remasters? I personally love the Japanese remasters of the 70's albums, the 80's are worse and Innuendo & MIH suck. The live albums are excellent. However I don't have the Hollywood remasters so I can't compare |
pittrek 15.09.2009 16:13 |
Copying from an older thread
" Oh well, since this is here anyway I'll try to answer your slightly more specific question. I have at least 2 versions of each so I'll list which one I'd grab: "Queen" - Hollywood version 1991. A warmer, not-so-harsh and tinny sound compared to the 2001 which actually hurts my ears at times. "Queen II" - Hollywood 1991 again. While the 2001 version never hurts my ears, it does venture into the same type of sound. And I actually listened to the 2001 version last night and swore I heard some very minor but noticeable drop-outs. "Sheer Heart Attack" - 2001 remaster for sure. Much fuller sound."A Night At The Opera" - 30th Anniversary, and preferably the DVD's PCM track which is noticeably better than the standard CD due to the higher sampling rate. "A Day At The Races" - 2001 remaster. Flawless I think and a significant improvement over 1991. "News Of The World" - 2001 remaster, absolutely. This is one of the two best of the 2001s. Big, rich sound that blows other versions away. "Jazz" - Tough call. I'm gonna say the 1991 version because again, there's a warmth there which is missing on the over-loud, bit-too-tinny 2001 version. UK version from 1994 has a glitch during the intro of Fat Bottomed Girls which was carried over to 'Rocks'. "Live Killers" - 2001 version all the way. This version sounds more rich and full than the weak 1991 version. "The Game" - 2001 version. This is tied with NOTW as my favorites of the 2001 series. I've tried the PCM from the DVD-A and it was lacking something, and the 1991 version is totally lacking a fullness/bass. "Flash Gordon" - 2001 version. Much like 'Live Killers', this isn't a very well-produced album and the 2001 remaster at least improves it slightly. "Greatest Hits" - 2001 version, which is also contained in the U.S. Platinum Collection (not the European version) and "Greatest Hits - WWRY Edition". Major improvement from the early 90s UK version. "Hot Space" - 2001 version. Excellent sound and much richer than the 1991 version. "The Works" - This one kinda parallels 'Jazz'. Again, I think the 1991 version is slightly more pleasing sounding.. the 2001 is a bit too loud and kinda flat sounding. "A Kind of Magic" - Very tough call. I actually like the sound of the 2001 version, though once it was pointed out that there was midrange missing, I heard it too.. I guess technically I'd have to say the 1991 version is more like it should be. I love this one as a 2004 card sleeve though.. being a gatefold and with such rich artwork. "Live Magic" - 2001 version without a doubt. The 1996 Hollywood version is very weak compared to this. Major improvment. "The Miracle" - Here again, like AKOM, if you like a sort of V-shaped EQ pattern like myself, the missing midrange won't bother you and this will sound nice. And since the 1991 Hollywood version has an alternate mix of 'I Want it All', this 2001 version is my best choice for an original representation of the album. I have the 1989 Capitol version as well and it's quite weak sounding compared to either of those. "Innuendo" - original 1991 version. 2001 remaster is horrible at times. 'I Can't Live With You' sounds really harsh, other tracks sound weak.. they botched this one when remastering. "Greatest Hits II" - 2001 version is much cleaner sounding, doesn't have that 'compressed' sound that the original 1991 version had. Plus they've restored the endin The end was truncated during the SQL injection attack |
John S Stuart 15.09.2009 16:28 |
Pittrick: Excellent list there. I guess it would be easier to do it that way - but I was looking for a Queenzone concensus rather than any one personal opinion. The debut album seems to be easy - but remember it will get harder eg: I believe the 'Teo Torriate' HQ remix may not be bettered, but that is only on one album. So what is the best way forward? Poll, sticky, committee, average opinion? Remebber this is not my thread - I will go with the flow if I am overwhelmed with disagreement. |
mooghead 15.09.2009 16:41 |
I fear if the thread is limited to those that have at least 3 different editions of every album you may have little response. |
Adam Baboolal 15.09.2009 17:30 |
I like the idea of getting the best of the best and creating a set from that lot. Good one! But I'm curious, my professional opinion differs from Pittrek's list there. Does that mean it's my personal one??? Tell me what you think and I'll get back to you. I own the UK remasters and have access to the 2001/04 remasters. I could maybe seek out all others. In fact, compilation albums are well worth checking at some stage as remember Under pressure on Classic Queen? That sounds sooo much better than the Hot Space album version. Adam. |
Yara 15.09.2009 18:38 |
John S Stuart wrote: Pittrick: Excellent list there. I guess it would be easier to do it that way - but I was looking for a Queenzone concensus rather than any one personal opinion. The debut album seems to be easy - but remember it will get harder eg: I believe the 'Teo Torriate' HQ remix may not be bettered, but that is only on one album. So what is the best way forward? Poll, sticky, committee, average opinion? Remebber this is not my thread - I will go with the flow if I am overwhelmed with disagreement. First, discussions followed by a poll. Then we could draw up a list based on the results of the poll and bits of the discussion - some marginal comments on each recording - and make it sticky. |
Ale_Pisa 16.09.2009 05:28 |
Good idea! Personally I prefer the last Japanese remastered edition, the MSFL album, NOTW sounds great to me and some HR Remastered. I don't like the Europe/UK version. For the 1st album we can use the HR Edition. But what do you think about the vynil issue? |
jozef 16.09.2009 05:43 |
By audio quality ... I have from the 70's albums these CD/DVD versions ... and the audio winners are ... Q1 - EMI 1994 + H.1991 = H.1991 Q2 - EMI 1994 + H.1991 + Toshiba 2004 = Toshiba 2004 SHA - EMI 1993 + Toshiba 2004 = Toshiba 2004 ANATO - EMI 1993 + H.1991 + EMI DVD-A 2002 + Toshiba 2004 + EMI DVD 30th A.E. = Toshiba 2004 (by stereo) ADATR - EMI 1993 + H. MFSL 1996(?) = H. MFSL 1996(?) NOTW - EMI 1993 + H.1991 + Toshiba 2004 = Toshiba 2004 J - EMI 1994 + Toshiba 2004 = Toshiba 2004 LK - EMI 1994 + EMI 2003 = EMI 2003 (Toshiba 2001) TG - EMI 1994 + EMI DVD-A 2003 + Toshiba 2004 = Toshiba 2004 or EMI DVD-A 2003 (stereo). Finaly for me absolutely the best sounding audio on CDs-DVDs (stereo) ever from that period and those versions is on ADATR Hollywood rec. UDCD 668. |
pittrek 16.09.2009 06:56 |
John S Stewart wrote: Pittrick: Excellent list there. I guess it would be easier to do it that way - but I was looking for a Queenzone concensus rather than any one personal opinion. The debut album seems to be easy - but remember it will get harder eg: I believe the 'Teo Torriate' HQ remix may not be bettered, but that is only on one album. So what is the best way forward? Poll, sticky, committee, average opinion? Remebber this is not my thread - I will go with the flow if I am overwhelmed with disagreement. Thanks, unfortunately it's not mine, but I agree with it for cca 50% |
pittrek 16.09.2009 06:57 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I like the idea of getting the best of the best and creating a set from that lot. Good one! But I'm curious, my professional opinion differs from Pittrek's list there. Does that mean it's my personal one??? Tell me what you think and I'll get back to you. I own the UK remasters and have access to the 2001/04 remasters. I could maybe seek out all others. In fact, compilation albums are well worth checking at some stage as remember Under pressure on Classic Queen? That sounds sooo much better than the Hot Space album version. Adam. Why ? I think it's normal that 2 persons have 2 or more opinions :) I sometimes have myself 2 opinions on 1 problem ;) |
Adam Baboolal 16.09.2009 08:06 |
True, I suppose it is possible to show which is technically better but still like one more than the other. Adam. |
Rick 16.09.2009 10:04 |
Ducksoup wrote: Great progress in this topic already. I suggest we use this topic for the debut album only. When all is discussed and we have a final track list (including a nice set of bonus material on disc 2) we can open a new topic for the next album. In the end all topics can be made sticky or indexed so that's it's clear for everyone where to find them. As far as the debut album is concerned: I think the Hollywood issue is the best sounding one. Bonus disc suggestions: De lane Lea demos Mad the swine Keep yourself alive (long lost retake / acetate version) Great King rat (bbc) Great King Rat (convention recording) Keep Yourselrf Alive (bbc) Liar (bbc) My Fairy King (bbc) Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll (bbc) Polar Bear (Queen version) Silver Salmon Son and daughter (bbc) and maybe the instrumentals from the Eye or the greatest kareoke hits could be included too... Don't forget Hangman ;-) |
onevsion 16.09.2009 10:55 |
Ah yes... Hangman. How could I forget? :-) |
brians wig 16.09.2009 12:47 |
What on earth does MFSL stand for????? Since John started this thread, would he be willing to delve into his own archives and offer some unreleased material of his own that we could plunder!? ;) |
mandocello 16.09.2009 13:26 |
John, I think you're missing the boat a little bit. If you want to create an "audiophile" album of Queen, it would have to be a vinyl LP to start things off. Plus, you'd basically be choosing tracks that best "show off your stereo" - not what you think the best tunes are. That's what audiophiles live and die by. For instance, you might naturally pick Bohemian Rhapsody, but Dragon Attack is a much more likely choice for an audiophile to pick. If you ears don't hear this, then it's tough to explain. |
mooghead 16.09.2009 16:03 |
Stop being a snob with the vinyl crap. The only way vinyl can sound any better (if at all) than cd is if you spend thousands on a hi fi. |
Sebastian 16.09.2009 16:45 |
For instance, you might naturally pick Bohemian Rhapsody, but Dragon Attack is a much more likely choice for an audiophile to pick. If you ears don't hear this, then it's tough to explain. I disagree there: Bo Rhap is great for audiophiles. Even if it wasn't a hit, just the way those cascades sound in a big stereo, the way those guitar harmonics send shivers down one's spine (pun intended), and the way the cymbal rolls walk through the panning during 'wind blows' are enough for them to be included. Not to mention the amazing 'oh-yeah' vocals during the reprise... priceless! |
Adam Baboolal 16.09.2009 16:59 |
mooghead wrote: Stop being a snob with the vinyl crap. The only way vinyl can sound any better (if at all) than cd is if you spend thousands on a hi fi. You don't have to spend thousands on a hi-fi to get the benefit of vinyl playback. About £200 can get a really great vinyl player. Not much more for an amp and most people who are into music have a decent amp already. You have to remember that cd is a lower resolution delivery format from the 80's. Vinyl has more possibilites. I won't go into this anymore as I'm supposed to be doing some music with folk. I'm getting looks from them as I type :) Adam. |
Dane 17.09.2009 04:47 |
brians wig wrote: What on earth does MFSL stand for????? Since John started this thread, would he be willing to delve into his own archives and offer some unreleased material of his own that we could plunder!? ;) Stands for Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, and its just a different way of transferring music from the source to a CD for release (in a nutshell). With MFSL the sound is much louder and packs a bigger punch, but it's all taste dependent. I personally love the MFSL release of News of the World... A lot of powerful songs. btw. Googleing 'MFSL wiki' will give you all the details |
Mr. Scully 17.09.2009 05:28 |
This is a great idea but please don't start with a vinyl vs. CD crap. I've had enough of that on our Czech Queen forum recently :-) Overall it's obviously safe to say some vinyls sound better than CD's and some CD's sound better than vinyls. Also vinyl has some attributes which should theoretically make him sound better than CD's but it does not work like that (same with analog photography - which in some aspect should be theoretically better but is not). In the end it's the (re)mastering process that matters most. Let's focus on the CD remasters. Obviously it's a Hollywood vs. Japan battle. Unfortunately most of my collection are EMI 1994 remasters which are crap so I cannot contribute. |
Adam Baboolal 17.09.2009 20:14 |
I have a mix of EMI's and Hollywood's. Haven't heard anything that says the EMI's are bad. If there's something comparable that says otherwise, I'd like to see/hear it. Btw, the mastering process isn't the most important. But I can understand that view! Just look at the f*** up that JSSmith did on his remasters of Queen's catalogue. What a mess. While the guy from 2005's ANATO (forget his name), is miles better. But they both have something in common...the mixes left from the sessions with Queen and/or the engineer(s) involved. That is where the honey is to be found. Just look at what happened with Teo Torriate in 2005. A remix with the latest kit and suddenly it's got a fresh sound again. But hey, the albums which were released by Queen are the way they were supposed to be heard. I think that needs to be remembered first. Whichever holds up that ideal, for me, is the one that matters most. That's why I really take issue with the JSSmith remasters. They can alter the perception of the songs and make things "feel" different. It's not right and most of them shouldn't be around at all. Getting a bit off track! The point to this thread is to find the best sounding release of each and every song available from Queen's albums. So, if there are errors on certain cd's, we can try to find one without those issues, etc. So, a track from CD -X- has to be clear enough to the majority that it's an improvement and worthy of inclusion here. I think this is what JohnSS is saying. Yay, nay? Adam. |
Micrówave 18.09.2009 00:19 |
Unfortunately the only MFSL discs are: A Night At The Opera A Day At The Races News Of The World The Game I have all four, as well as all of the Hollywood remasters and (whoo-hoo!) the original UK EMI pressings. I don't have the Japanese ones, so I can't comment on those, and it looks like those are the ones to have to participate in this poll. While I think the four MFSL discs sound better than their Hollywood counterparts, it's the same edit & mix (I believe). And the only reason I would suggest the EMI pressings is for sentimental value... since that's the only way I could hear Queen on CD until 1991. However, the US Capitol issue of A Kind Of Magic has bonus tracks not found on the Hollywood version. Plus there's the Highlander Immortal Edition DVD that has three tracks from AKOM. Looks like the later albums would be extremely expanded compared to the first few albums. And what about those 3" CD singles? I've never put them all in to compare them with the album versions I have on CD. Were those pulled from the EMI UK Pressings? |
Benn 18.09.2009 07:29 |
They were, yes. |
Adam Baboolal 18.09.2009 11:35 |
Just to make it clear, by EMI ones, I meant that these are the Digital Master Series from 93/94! Not the ones from previous years. I HAVE heard of those and none too favourably, either. :) Adam. |
John S Stuart 18.09.2009 12:04 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I have a mix of EMI's and Hollywood's. Haven't heard anything that says the EMI's are bad. If there's something comparable that says otherwise, I'd like to see/hear it. Btw, the mastering process isn't the most important. But I can understand that view! Just look at the f*** up that JSSmith did on his remasters of Queen's catalogue. What a mess. While the guy from 2005's ANATO (forget his name), is miles better. But they both have something in common...the mixes left from the sessions with Queen and/or the engineer(s) involved. That is where the honey is to be found. Just look at what happened with Teo Torriate in 2005. A remix with the latest kit and suddenly it's got a fresh sound again. But hey, the albums which were released by Queen are the way they were supposed to be heard. I think that needs to be remembered first. Whichever holds up that ideal, for me, is the one that matters most. That's why I really take issue with the JSSmith remasters. They can alter the perception of the songs and make things "feel" different. It's not right and most of them shouldn't be around at all. Getting a bit off track! The point to this thread is to find the best sounding release of each and every song available from Queen's albums. So, if there are errors on certain cd's, we can try to find one without those issues, etc. So, a track from CD -X- has to be clear enough to the majority that it's an improvement and worthy of inclusion here. I think this is what JohnSS is saying. Yay, nay? Adam. Yay - that is the basic idea. |
djcamper 18.09.2009 12:06 |
Weren't there one master disc to which band listened, was satisfied by it sound and decided it should go in production? What's the point of these reremasters, which sound band didn't approve, if band already choosed how their albums should sound best? That especially concers "Miracle" and "Innuendo" remasters, as there is little to improve, taking in mind what recording equipement was much better than in 70's. |
Adam Baboolal 18.09.2009 12:52 |
Recording equipment was better in the 70's? I'm guessing you meant over the digital stuff they used in the 80's..? In a way, yes. It's very subjective, i.e. bad converters on digital stuff, then. But it's something that is still stored on tape. So, the digital stuff can be improved on as well. Even Miracle and Innuendo. :) Adam. |
brians wig 19.09.2009 06:17 |
djcamper wrote: Weren't there one master disc to which band listened, was satisfied by it sound and decided it should go in production? What's the point of these reremasters, which sound band didn't approve, if band already choosed how their albums should sound best? That especially concers "Miracle" and "Innuendo" remasters, as there is little to improve, taking in mind what recording equipement was much better than in 70's. Are you KIDDING me? Innuendo sounds as flat as a pancake - some of the tracks on the Jap remaster improve upon it, but this album definately needs a complete remaster by the band just to give it some oomph! I've never played my vinyl version as I've got unplayed copies of all the "original releases" of the albums (mad ain't it?), but vinyl has that warmth that CD doesn't have. Wish I had £5000 for that Japanese laser vinyl player.... |
jl151080 10.11.2009 14:52 |
Since the 2001 remasters are approaching 10 years old, it must be time for new remasters! |
KevoM 12.11.2009 19:16 |
CD?? Haven't we got as much out of this mediocre format as we can? If not vinyl the surely blu ray audio is the way to go? |
4 x Vision 14.11.2009 09:27 |
What versions are the Gold Plated CDs that came with some box set many moons ago? |
4 x Vision 14.11.2009 09:29 |
Van Basten 9 wrote: What versions are the Gold Plated CDs that came with some box set many moons ago? link |
pittrek 14.11.2009 10:45 |
So what's the progress ? |
demonwolf 14.11.2009 12:05 |
Made In Heaven is easily the best sounding Queen-CD. Sounds amazing. |
Negative Creep 14.11.2009 17:37 |
demonwolf wrote: Made In Heaven is easily the best sounding Queen-CD. Sounds amazing. Made In Heaven sounds rubbish. Instead of the album being mastered properly - ie, compressed to get it to the desired loudness, they've just amplified the channels and in doing so have distorted lots of the vocals. |
demonwolf 14.11.2009 18:09 |
0_0 It sounds fantastic in my headphones. I guess I am just a fake audiophile then. :( The Cosmos Rocks then... that sounds great. |
pittrek 22.11.2009 13:01 |
OK - my personal tips Queen - Hollywood Records Queen II - it was hard to decide between HR and mini vinyls, but Japan remasters won Sheer Heart Attack - Hollywood Records 1991 A Night At The Opera - ANATO 30th anniversary what do you people think ? |
mooghead 22.11.2009 13:19 |
Negative Creep wrote:demonwolf wrote: Made In Heaven is easily the best sounding Queen-CD. Sounds amazing.Made In Heaven sounds rubbish. Instead of the album being mastered properly - ie, compressed to get it to the desired loudness, they've just amplified the channels and in doing so have distorted lots of the vocals. Compressing each track for equal 'loudness' (clipping) is the laziest, amateurish and worst sounding thing you can do to a piece of music in my opinion. Thats why Metallicas latest album got slammed. You will be wanting Rick Rubin to do a remaster next. |
Adam Baboolal 22.11.2009 22:20 |
Negative Creep wrote:demonwolf wrote: Made In Heaven is easily the best sounding Queen-CD. Sounds amazing.Made In Heaven sounds rubbish. Instead of the album being mastered properly - ie, compressed to get it to the desired loudness, they've just amplified the channels and in doing so have distorted lots of the vocals. Uhm...distorted vocals??? What are you listening to? I've never heard anything like that, unless of course, you mean the moment on Mother Love when Freddie's voice soars - "I've walked too long..." There is some there, but maybe that's from the actual vocal take. Maybe... Otherwise, I hear no other issues where there are distorted vocals. Could it be your setup? Adam. |
bitesthedust 23.01.2011 12:17 |
pittrek wrote: Copying from an older thread " Oh well, since this is here anyway I'll try to answer your slightly more specific question. I have at least 2 versions of each so I'll list which one I'd grab:. "A Kind of Magic" - Very tough call. I actually like the sound of the 2001 version, though once it was pointed out that there was midrange missing, I heard it too.. I guess technically I'd have to say the 1991 version is more like it should be. I love this one as a 2004 card sleeve though.. being a gatefold and with such rich artwork. "Innuendo" - original 1991 version. 2001 remaster is horrible at times. 'I Can't Live With You' sounds really harsh, other tracks sound weak.. they botched this one when remastering. Trawling through the archives today.... I own two versions of "Innuendo", the original 1991 version and 2001 remaster. Listened to both back to back and agree with regards to I Can't Live With You - sounds harsher and detracts from the song quality. "A Kind Of Magic" - again, own the original and the 2001 remaster. Prefer the 2001 version sound, sounds clearer. |
paulosham 23.01.2011 12:36 |
What about FLAC rips from original LPs? |
motorhead 23.01.2011 12:55 |
IMO the early EMI CDP's sound the best for Queen (pre-1994 remasters) on Cd and the Hollywoods suffer from over use of noise reduction ? |
Joey2504 23.01.2011 13:24 |
What versions are the Gold Plated CDs that came with some box set many moons ago? ---------------------------------------------------------- Emi Holland Remaster 1995! buying here: but only with paper covers, without box! link |
Soundfreak 23.01.2011 14:11 |
IMO the early EMI CDP's sound the best for Queen (pre-1994 remasters) on Cd and the Hollywoods suffer from over use of noise reduction ? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< It's interesting, we all have two ears and yet we all hear completely different. When I got my first CD player I borrowed those first EMI CDPs and they all sounded worse than my worn out vinyls. To me they sounded like tape copies of a third generation. The Hollywood CDs had their faults for sure, but I can't hear an over use of noise reduction. Where do you notice that? |