| Reid_Special_98 18.03.2011 11:27 |
Just wondering what the findings are for these 2... Is the claim accurate that the 'Queen' (Queen 1) re-release is a clearer source or are they simply trying to fool us by cleaning up the 'ITB' bootleg ? I know it's been discussed in other threads but I'm curious if it could be summarized in this thread. Thanks! |
| ole-the-first 18.03.2011 11:55 |
If official recordings in better quality, is there sense to remove bootleg recordings in worse quality? |
| Soundfreak 18.03.2011 12:42 |
The main difference is the correct speed. The Bootleg played 2% too fast, this has been corrected. The official version also has a slightly longer intro of "Keep yourself alive", which indicates, that the bootleg is not the source for this version. The remaster uses different methods of noise reduction, which lead to some amazing results in places especially without cymbals, but there are also some moments, where the different and lesser noise reduction of the bootleg works nice. All in all the remaster wins - especially for the fact, that it plays at the correct speed. |
| Penetration_Guru 18.03.2011 17:28 |
I've only listened to the 2011 release of KYA in its entirety so far, only snippets of the others, but I'm pretty confident that I'll be binning ITB and buying the remaster (once the price comes down a bit). The crackle noise at the beginning is ridiculous (but easily removed), otherwise I'd say this is 60% better than ITB. |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 19.03.2011 07:07 |
There is a topic overhere discussing the quality of in the beginning. If I remember correct. In the begging bootleg was made by dutch collector. He got the acetate or an tape taken from this acetate from JSS. If it is a tape it is in worse quality to the official one. Though I haven't compared it yet I am quite sure the official product sounds a lot bette. The sound on IN THE BEGIN... is muffled , incorrect speed (cassette tape issues ?) and has quite a lot of hiss on it. Please search for the specific topic I'd mentioned above. I'm quite sure MIKO records did not used the acetate for the CD. Besides this , th bootleg was made in the mid 90's using unproffessional equipment.... So I do really prefer the official release. |
| Rick 19.03.2011 09:00 |
The crackling noise is obviously intentional; to indicate the source of the songs (Brian's acetate). I like it. Nostalgic in a way. |
| brians wig 19.03.2011 18:20 |
I feel the crackles on the recordings make it sound "cheap" as if QPL don't care about quality enough to clean it up! 3 non-Queen fan friends of mine who were actually interested enough to want to borrow the remasters, said exactly the same thing! |
| Benn 20.03.2011 10:29 |
And in contrast to what was shared here via John S. Stuart? |
| Negative Creep 20.03.2011 10:36 |
I don't remember JSS uploading anything of the De Lane Lea demos? I'd search, but the search function on this forum doesn't seem to work. |
| deleted user 20.03.2011 10:45 |
Benn wrote: And in contrast to what was shared here via John S. Stuart? Reply: It was never shared. |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 20.03.2011 11:59 |
No indeed JSS Lane Lea were neven uploaded here. But it was JSS which sold a tape from his acetate to a dutch fan. Which made a cd out of it. Named In the Beginning. That cd was uploaded here. So there was no direct upload from JSS but a indirect upload. |
| Negative Creep 20.03.2011 12:17 |
Didn't JSS claim he sold a safety copy reel to the Dutch collector (whilst retaining what he says is a master), not a tape transfer of the acetate? |
| pittrek 20.03.2011 14:31 |
OK it's time to clarify something. I was supposed to upload John's version of the De Lane Lea demo tape. This never happened. The reason is very simple - in the time I got it it was officially announced that they'll be released OFFICIALLY. I have spoken with YourValentine about the share and she asked me NOT to upload it and I fully agree. It's an official release now. JSS version sounds in some aspects better, and in some aspects worse. The better thing is that it's not so fucking loud ! I really don't understand why the new "remasters" are so loud :-( The bad thing is that it has more hiss than the official release, but (almost) no "scratches" . The official release has better "stereo separation" (sorry I can't describe it better), John's version has better sounding drums, etc. etc. The old bootleg "In The Beginning" is a couple of generations worse than John's acetate |
| Negative Creep 20.03.2011 15:58 |
Well, that's certainly interesting. As I'm sure he specifically referred to having a master tape - but in reality this "master tape" was merely a tape transfer of an acetate, and a bit like recording something off the radio onto cassette and referring to that as a master tape? |
| The Real Wizard 21.03.2011 21:44 |
Rick wrote: The crackling noise is obviously intentional; to indicate the source of the songs (Brian's acetate). I like it. Nostalgic in a way. ====================== That's exactly what I thought. |
| deleted user 22.03.2011 12:17 |
The noise got to me. This worked well for me using Audacity 1.312 beta Sample: link Here's how to do it link |
| ole-the-first 22.03.2011 13:24 |
pittrek wrote: OK it's time to clarify something. I was supposed to upload John's version of the De Lane Lea demo tape. This never happened. The reason is very simple - in the time I got it it was officially announced that they'll be released OFFICIALLY. I have spoken with YourValentine about the share and she asked me NOT to upload it and I fully agree. It's an official release now. JSS version sounds in some aspects better, and in some aspects worse. The better thing is that it's not so fucking loud ! I really don't understand why the new "remasters" are so loud :-( The bad thing is that it has more hiss than the official release, but (almost) no "scratches" . The official release has better "stereo separation" (sorry I can't describe it better), John's version has better sounding drums, etc. etc. The old bootleg "In The Beginning" is a couple of generations worse than John's acetate ============ Can you send me John's versions via email? Of course, I won't share them :) oleggolubkin@rambler.ru |
| DJGreg 29.03.2011 07:53 |
link |
| Dane 30.03.2011 10:32 |
I personally like the cracks at the start.. very nice hommage to the era, recording techniques, and source. And the remaining background noise only adds to the atmosphere of the songs, not a hinderence in any way.. Just listen to the drums!!! sorry, got carried away |
| Dr Zoidberg 30.03.2011 13:46 |
Dane wrote: I personally like the cracks at the start.. very nice hommage to the era, recording techniques, and source. And the remaining background noise only adds to the atmosphere of the songs, not a hinderence in any way.. Just listen to the drums!!! sorry, got carried away ------------------------------ I agree. I finally got my Queen (I) remaster in the mail and gave it a listen this morning and I have conlcuded that Queen fans are the bitchiest and nitpickiest people. All that fuss over that little needle drop at the beginning, which was obviously there for effect as a nod to the band's and the tracks' analogue beginnings, and which lasted all of two seconds, and to listen to some here, it was a slap in the face to "the fans". Please. Get over yourselves, friends. Save your ire for things that really matter. |
| deleted user 30.03.2011 15:29 |
Bottom line is it could be better. There would be no need for an acetate transfer if the master tapes were available. Then we wouldn't be 'nit picking', would we? An acetate is a poor source for a digital transfer in my opinion, but perhaps the only choice in this particular case. Having said that, perhaps the master tapes could actually still be out there somewhere. |
| John S Stuart 01.04.2011 20:23 |
A couple of myths to dispel. The studio master recording tapes for these sessions do NOT exist. They have long been erased. Whilst recording this session, Queen were not received with any notice or priority. After the acetates were cut (which were only recorded as a show-case demo anyway), the studio master tapes were recorded over by other artists. Why would this not be the case (especially in the early 1970's when both studio time and tape were very expensive?). So no studio master survives. This was the case in '72 - and it cannot be "undone" since! My high quality reel-to-reel came "almost instantly" from the direct recording of these newly-pressed acetates, (I believe ony four were cut, of which, only BM's & JD's survive) under studio conditions, and was the "cleanest" thing possible to a newly minted LP. (At that time - this would have been perceived as very high-tech). This tape was later hawked around the record companies as a demo tape - and was not intend for any other reason but to gain a record contract. It was never considered for publication. Therefore; My tape is first generation from a mint condition acetate, preserving that "crisp" new sound. This was digitalised in the 1980's and although both the sound of the original acetate and tape have deteriorated during that period, the digitalised copy has not altered. Queen's De Lane tracks come from a similar acetate, but my point is that their disc (or their LP if you like) is almost 40 years old now! It has obviously been played a few times - and it is also obvious that thier acetate has shown both ware and tare and a bit of "aging" during that interval. By the time QPL digitised their disc, my tape already had a twenty year start! So although it can be argued that both Queen and I have produced their tracks from similar acetate masters - my acetate master was in a healthier state to begin with, and hence, I believe the better quality. But, then again, my "older" preserved digitised copy of the tape - has not gone through any remastering, noise reduction or sonic engineering, so goodness knows what "could" have been achieved at the hands of a studio engineer. But it is not my tape in question rather the topic is "QPL Vs. In The Beginning". Also for the record; I agree with Peter. The quality of my tape is somewhere between the two. Above the bootleg (in places better - or at least on a par with QPL), but a bit more hiss than the official release. A very accurate description. You pays your money - you takes your choice! |
| cmi 02.04.2011 01:27 |
John, Thanks for clarification, but I can't understand one thing: If the stereo mix master was erased after cutting acetates possibly in late 71 - early 1972, they still had multitracks to remix TNCD version for 'Queen' album in summer/autumn 1972. And if all Trident multitracks from 'Queen' sessions still exist, there must be all De Lane Lea multitracks also exist 'cuase they were partially used for the album. If it's so, why not to remix them again... |
| Soundfreak 02.04.2011 12:43 |
And if all Trident multitracks from 'Queen' sessions still exist, there must be all De Lane Lea multitracks also exist 'cuase they were partially used for the album. If it's so, why not to remix them again... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Do they exist? When they started they were just one of many bands and most of them didn't make it. So I doubt, that their recordings were given special care. Even the Beatles lost some of their early two track-masters. If a better source for the DeLane tracks would exist, they definitely would have used it. Restoring an acetate is a lot more time consuming. |
| inu-liger 03.04.2011 03:31 |
CMI wrote: John, Thanks for clarification, but I can't understand one thing: If the stereo mix master was erased after cutting acetates possibly in late 71 - early 1972, they still had multitracks to remix TNCD version for 'Queen' album in summer/autumn 1972. And if all Trident multitracks from 'Queen' sessions still exist, there must be all De Lane Lea multitracks also exist 'cuase they were partially used for the album. If it's so, why not to remix them again... The problem with that is, assuming the Queen I version multitracks DO still exist for TNCD, they more than likely only contain the altered mix elements (one of the main differences is the drum sound) which would have been changed through EQ, gating, compression, etc. - whatever was used in the mix process. The original DLL tapes have been wiped otherwise, so it's probably safe to say that the absolute original DLL tape for TNCD is among those wiped for re-use. |
| dowens 03.04.2011 20:17 |
This really isn't related to the topic at hand, but I find the De Lane Lea demo's to be the most interesting of all the bonus material on the first 5 releases. It is so cool to here Queen in the very beginning, shopping for a record deal with these recordings. The vinyl sound doesn't bother me at all. It would have been great to have some commentary on the EP's though, such a waste of a disc! |
| Simon Brown 29.04.2011 23:14 |
The extra tracks on the first batch of remasters have recieved a bit of a beating from fans, largely because of the LK, MK and Wembley tracks I feel. These first demos are really something spectacular, and I appreciate them greatly. Especially as they have been presented as a complete set. If "studio quality" was paramount, they could've grabbed the album tape for The Night Comes Down, but they have been shared with us in the format Brian has carefully kept for years - as a set on an acetate. If the second batch has anything as interesting as this I'll be absolutely thrilled. |
| dysan 30.04.2011 08:51 |
The fact that Queen 1 was the only reissue I bought on the day (and still!) is due to the demo tracks being included - the release is the most 'complete' out of the first batch, the others seemed are more messy. Not strictly necessary, but the Larry Lurex stuff might have been nice if added to either 1 or 2. I was happy to hear the other bonuses on line without parting with my cash. I agree with the TNCD question. I can believe the mastertapes have gone missing, but assume there were not wiped, especially considering the arrangement they had with the studio. Oh, and I can't make up my mind about the needle noise at the start of KYA. I think i'd have to say it makes the release messy. |
| Negative Creep 30.04.2011 09:28 |
John S Stuart wrote: A couple of myths to dispel. The studio master recording tapes for these sessions do NOT exist. They have long been erased. Whilst recording this session, Queen were not received with any notice or priority. After the acetates were cut (which were only recorded as a show-case demo anyway), the studio master tapes were recorded over by other artists. Why would this not be the case (especially in the early 1970's when both studio time and tape were very expensive?). So no studio master survives. This was the case in '72 - and it cannot be "undone" since! My high quality reel-to-reel came "almost instantly" from the direct recording of these newly-pressed acetates, (I believe ony four were cut, of which, only BM's & JD's survive) under studio conditions, and was the "cleanest" thing possible to a newly minted LP. (At that time - this would have been perceived as very high-tech). This tape was later hawked around the record companies as a demo tape - and was not intend for any other reason but to gain a record contract. It was never considered for publication. Do you actually know all the details to be fact, or just filling in the blanks yourself? I think that's a rhetorical question. I find it very hard to believe that no tape source exists. The studio wiped all the individual multitrack and stereo mix down masters? It was also often standard procedure to run off quarter inch safety copies, which certainly weren't costly to anyone. It would also have been in the studios interests to retain masters of the sessions for reference seeing as the sessions was being used to test the studio. And as previously mentioned, the fact that they remixed TNCT for the first album blows the theory of there being no tape copies in existance complete out of the water. There's a major difference between the multitrack tapes going walkabouts and them having been wiped instantly. |
| Soundfreak 30.04.2011 10:34 |
It was also often standard procedure to run off quarter inch safety copies, which certainly weren't costly to anyone. It would also have been in the studios interests to retain masters of the sessions for reference seeing as the sessions was being used to test the studio. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Don't expect too much logic behind all that. It may well be, that they just "took" the multitrack for "Night" to the other studio and by doing this they rescued it from being wiped. And by then they were "nobodies". Even big bands of the 70s have lost their multitracks. "Slade" for example were extremely successfull in the early 70s and most of the masters and tapes for their single b-sides went missing. For a recent cd-collection they had to copy them from original vinyl.... So accept it as it is. Why else should they restore an acetate? |
| Negative Creep 30.04.2011 10:45 |
Soundfreak wrote: Why else should they restore an acetate? Erm, because they've lost (or "lost") any remaining tape copies that were in their possession of those demos - obviously. The concept that the band were only given an acetate from that session, from which they had to make a tape copy is evidently complete bollocks. No reel was assembled from acetates as the band had access to the original demo reels. Why spread misinformation? Does someone have something to hide? What was the time difference between the demo session and them deciding to use the original demo and remix it, after having tried re-recording for the debut album? Quite a while I'd imagine. The band evidently had free access to the tapes, and if they weren't the bands to use they wouldn't have been able to get them out of the studio. |
| Soundfreak 30.04.2011 11:45 |
It was common practise that artists in those days went home with acetates, even the Beatles did so. Also the band was poor in those days, they had no money and probably did not have studio tape machines at home. So for them it may have been easier to produce demo tape copies or cassettes at home from an acetate instead from a tape. To own even one tape machine was real luxury then. Never forget, it was 1971 ! |