Soundfreak 15.03.2011 11:37 |
I just got the remasters and this is my first review of the album "Queen 1". I compared it with the Hollywood remaster from 1991 and put several tracks into a multitrack-system. Cause things like loudness can fool your ear... I took Keep yourself alive, Liar and The night comes down. The main difference is the loudness. The tracks have been turned up between 3 to 5 db, different on each track. The dynamics are still quite intact although some limiting has happened at the louder parts. Also notacable is a reduction in the high frequencies above 6 Khz. If you turn up the Hollywood remaster while reducing the treble a bit you will not notice any difference. The booklet contains lyrics plus few fotos I haven't seen before, no info on the album, there's just some unspecific info on the bonus tracks. And they are difficult to rate in this case. I compared this new version of the De Lane tracks with the version Of "In the beginning. My impression is, that both versions come from the same source and sadly it's not the mastertape. According to the booklet the source is an acetate belonging to Brian. This may be true as "Keep yourself alive" has a slightly longer guitar intro with some additional "needle-finding the groove-noise" at the very beginning. "In the beginning" features the tracks playing 2 % too fast, on the remaster they are playing correct. Played in sync the new one has less treble and they worked a lot on the noise reduction, which sometimes makes them sound amazingly clear - although not like a mastertape should be. Also the makers of "In the beginning" removed noise, sometimes too much (like in the intro of Jesus) and lost the sound of the cymbals etc. On this remaster they did a real good job. Although there are moments, when "In the beginning" has more treble and hiss but sounds more precise. It's a mixed bag - but just because of the correct speed I would recommend the remaster. For "Mad the Swine" it's the same as the album tracks, louder and less treble. Basically these remasters are just a catalogue replacement for the former EMI versions and less designed for the collector - apart from the bonus tracks. There is no real reason to throw away your old cds, you won't hear anything you haven't heard before. |
Sebastian 15.03.2011 12:27 |
I'm not 100% sure, but some harmonies on KYA (after the break) sound different to me. I don't know if it's a matter of mastering or if they used outtakes or stuff from one of the many different recordings of that one. |
Rick 15.03.2011 12:53 |
I have heard some samples and I think Queen II has been improved the most. It sounds epic in every way. The definitive version in my book. |
Soundfreak 15.03.2011 13:47 |
I'm not 100% sure, but some harmonies on KYA (after the break) sound different to me. I don't know if it's a matter of mastering or if they used outtakes or stuff from one of the many different recordings of that one. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< You mean after the "Do you think your better everyday" part? Comparing it in the multitracker they are identic. |
Sebastian 15.03.2011 15:13 |
I meant the time they sang the chorus in F. |
paulosham 15.03.2011 17:22 |
The album is called Queen not Queen 1 |
deleted user 15.03.2011 17:40 |
paulsmith2001 wrote: The album is called Queen not Queen 1 Reply: A trite pedantic, at least they took the time to do the review. Thanks for your comments Soundfreak. |
rhyeking 15.03.2011 18:14 |
It's standard practice in most instances to refer to the debut album as "Queen 1." Saying I'm going to do a review of Queen can be mistaken for doing a review of the band itself. It's like "Led Zeppelin 1" (or 2, or 3 or 4) or "Peter Gabriel 1" (or "Rain," or "Car") or The Beatles' "White Album." Since there was a "Queen II," it's logical, unofficial nomenclature. If I'm going to write a post talking about that album, I'll probably call it a various points "Queen 1," "the debut album," and "the first album." |
MERQRY 15.03.2011 18:52 |
The sound of the bonnus not is bad But WHY they let all these Noise?? at least they could had removed the Start Noise of Keep Yourself Alive! |
Thistle 15.03.2011 20:16 |
I think they all sound better, with Queen II being the most improved. Also, I'm loving the clarity of some of the bonus tracks and also the stand-alone efforts on "Deep Cuts". Btw, I'm getting tired already with folk moaning about the "noise" on the DLL demos, ffs it sounds more "authentic" this way - we all wanted them in their true form, we got it. |
rhyeking 15.03.2011 20:36 |
I think the "needle finding groove" sound was done deliberately, to give it the sound of an actual acetate pressing. Sure, when I copy something from vinyl I tend to remove elements like that, but here they left it on for artistic reasons. Notice the beginning of "Live At The Bowl" starts with the sound of the master tape distortion that happens when you start an actual recording. It was there on the original recording and they kept it for aesthetic reasons, rather than having a quiet fade in. The same tape distortion appears at the beginning of "Rock In Rio Blues" on the "A Winter's Tale" CD single (but not on the US "Too Much Love..." CD single, which has a cleaner fade in). It's not sloppy if they intended it to be there, it's just an effect some people don't like. If your ears find it an affront to sound quality, it's easy enough to remove the needle scratch if you have a basic audio editing program. As for the hiss, maybe they thought employing noise-reduction software dulled the sound. I'm not an expert on post-production computer audio software, so I'll let others debate the merits of leaving the hiss noise on the track. |
Thistle 15.03.2011 20:42 |
Well said. I think it sounds the business. |
deleted user 16.03.2011 08:22 |
The noise got to me on De Lane Le so I decided to try an experiment.. This worked well for me using Audacity 1.312 beta. Sample: link Here's how to do it link |
Rick 16.03.2011 08:25 |
Queen I and II are absolutely brilliant. It's like listening to the albums for the very first time. |
philip storey 16.03.2011 15:12 |
So far i have Queen,Queen 2 and SHA 2011 remasters.They sound fantastic ,i also bought Deep Cuts and i am looking foward to rest of the releases. |
Holly2003 16.03.2011 15:19 |
rhyeking wrote: It's standard practice in most instances to refer to the debut album as "Queen 1." Saying I'm going to do a review of Queen can be mistaken for doing a review of the band itself. It's like "Led Zeppelin 1" (or 2, or 3 or 4) or "Peter Gabriel 1" (or "Rain," or "Car") or The Beatles' "White Album." Since there was a "Queen II," it's logical, unofficial nomenclature. If I'm going to write a post talking about that album, I'll probably call it a various points "Queen 1," "the debut album," and "the first album." ================================================ I have decided to remaster the title to Queen 1 and it's now called Queen I |
Bo Alex 16.03.2011 17:24 |
I downloaded the 2011 remaster in FLAC earlier today. IHMO, sounds great. Better than Queen II (also I heard it in FLAC). I think Jesus particularly sounds amazing. |
MERQRY 16.03.2011 18:31 |
Maybe if they remove the sound they lost quality (The quality is Excellent for a acetate) Or maybe (as rhyeking said) is a artistic expression |
Farrokh The Great 17.03.2011 01:40 |
Hi, I did a quick review of the MP3 samples here: link Greetings |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners 22.03.2011 09:53 |
No one's mentioned the bass nor the bass qualities of the drums - have those been improved? To my ears, that was always sorely lacking from the first two albums. |
ITSM 22.03.2011 17:55 |
I think the bonus material on Queen (I) was a bit disappointing. We have allready heard all the songs many years ago - but of course it's good to finaly have them on an official CD. But they could fill the CD('s) with more songs than five or six. I really like the album though, and I enjoy Mad the Swine as well. Live versions of My Fairy King and Great King Rat would have been great! |
MERQRY 22.03.2011 18:53 |
ITSM wrote: I think the bonus material on Queen (I) was a bit disappointing. We have allready heard all the songs many years ago - but of course it's good to finaly have them on an official CD. But they could fill the CD('s) with more songs than five or six. I really like the album though, and I enjoy Mad the Swine as well. Live versions of My Fairy King and Great King Rat would have been great! ------------------- One live version of Great King Rat are possible in relative High Quality (31th March rainbow,Japan 75,etc) But a live version of My Fairy king is almost... is impossible cause they never performed that song live (except some references in 1984 or 1985,i don't remember well) |
ITSM 22.03.2011 20:37 |
Thank you MERQRY - I'll check it out! |
Farrokh The Great 23.03.2011 23:12 |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: No one's mentioned the bass nor the bass qualities of the drums - have those been improved? To my ears, that was always sorely lacking from the first two albums. ======================================================================================= Hi GonnaUseMyPrisoners! some of the mid and much of the low frecuencuencies are lost by the use of 16 bits transfers, 24 bits transfers shows much more of that audio info. Greetings |
Soundfreak 24.03.2011 06:43 |
As these are remasters and not remixes they could not improve the drum Sound. Especially the drum sound on Queen 1 is something, that even Taylor and May dislike. in a recent interview for german radio they said, that the real drum sound of Queen can be heard on the De Lane Lea Demos. While the Trident engeneers completely changed that sound to something very "dry", of which they thought was more "recent". So unless Queen do a proper remix, it will stay the way it is. And if one day they change it, people will debate "how could they do it.....it's no longer original......" |
Farrokh The Great 29.03.2011 10:50 |
Soundfreak wrote: As these are remasters and not remixes they could not improve the drum Sound. Especially the drum sound on Queen 1 is something, that even Taylor and May dislike. in a recent interview for german radio they said, that the real drum sound of Queen can be heard on the De Lane Lea Demos. While the Trident engeneers completely changed that sound to something very "dry", of which they thought was more "recent". So unless Queen do a proper remix, it will stay the way it is. And if one day they change it, people will debate "how could they do it.....it's no longer original......" ======================================================================================= Sorry if I don’t express myself correctly…. You had just reached the bottom of the issue, the reality is that most of the (high) drums master tapes are distorted (up to magic album) and this is easily noticed on the 24 bits transfers (2001 and 2004 EMI Toshiba remasters), for this reason Queen team avoids the 24 bits transfers and they prefer to go by the easy way... |
deleted user 30.03.2011 16:50 |
Soundfreak wrote: .... in a recent interview for german radio they said, that the real drum sound of Queen can be heard on the De Lane Lea Demos. Reply: I'm not sure about that. If you listen to the drums on Great King Rat (De lane Lea) the timing is way out and erratic compared to the album release. IMHO |
Soundfreak 31.03.2011 03:47 |
They were talking about the sound of the drums - not about timing or playing mistakes. |
xiao zhu 01.04.2011 11:19 |
probably totally stupid question: why is the acetate of Night Comes Down included when there is already the remastered album version (obviously the same De Lane Lea version) on the disk? or have i missed the point? |
deleted user 01.04.2011 12:36 |
xiao zhu wrote: probably totally stupid question: why is the acetate of Night Comes Down included when there is already the remastered album version (obviously the same De Lane Lea version) on the disk? or have i missed the point? Reply: So you can have another transfer complete with crackle. Seriously, I suppose they could have left it off but that would have wasted even more disc space. The original demo had five tracks, one of which was used in the eventual debut release. I guess you could say the same of the ITB bootleg. |
Soundfreak 01.04.2011 13:00 |
...more royalities |
The Real Wizard 01.04.2011 13:04 |
Listen carefully to the two versions - they are two different mixes. They used the same *recording* for Queen's first album, not the same mix. |
atom murray 03.12.2012 12:33 |
Just listened to Queen (Debut album, Queen 1, call it what you like!) 2011 version, and I enjoyed the remastering. The drums are fuller and the bass fatter. Overall the sound is clearer and guitars and piano more detailed. This album is where it all started and even though it has been slated and sneered at as not being the best Queen allbum, it is a great debut. For instance, Queen's vocals effortlessly bring The Beach Boys to Hard Rock without making a mess or being to glam. The debut is easily overshadowed by Queen II, which is a masterpiece after all, but the debut was how the band sounded after a few years slogging it out on the live circuit. Mercury's vocals are aggressive, raw and biting. His songs superbly accomplished. And listening to Queen's debut back in the day, punters must have known the band would be huge judging by the sheer rock artistry portrayed in the grooves. May's guitar is from another world sonically. It's a vocal six stringed orchestra and Taylor's open funky drums, while maybe in the style of Mitch Mitchell and Ginger Baker, retain a style he abandoned after 'Opera' as he became more straight laced. He never sounded like this again. I wonder why? Deacon powers away in the engine room with his precession picked Fender. The most understated bassist in Rock! So the 2011 gives it new life and the music transcends the format for once. Who cares about remastering, after all, you either like Queen or you don't, and I know I do! Queen (Debut album, Queen 1, call it what you like!) the fascination continues... |