Basically, is there a difference between the 1991 Hollywood remasters and the 'Digital Master Series' of 93-4? I'm referring to the actual mastering of the albums, as opposed to the clear difference of the extra tracks on the 1991 remasters.
The reason I ask, is that in updating my collection in the 90s I went for the 93-4 DMS releases, bypassing the 91 releases because the last thing I wanted to own was some wanker's tawdry dance remixes that have zero to do with Queen.
The second reason I ask is that, in reading peoples opinions of the 2011 remasters, they seem to be only compared to the 91 Holywood remasters (and recent Japanese releases) and never the 93-4 DMS. I've always assumed there is a difference, but the fact that they are never mentioned in comparison the the new releases has made be think twice.
Cheers.
I may be wrong here thou but most compare the 91 release and not the 93/4 release as this site is primarily american and most people on here are american.
I'm from the UK and the differences between the 93/4 release 2011 release is massive. 2011 remasters do sound better. Thats maybe why America gets the release late as the intended market for the 2011 release isnt them, which is a good thing cause I am sick and tired of Americans saying they should get everything first or at the same time as everyone else.
Thanks for confirming that.
At this stage I'm not sure whether I completely agree with you that the 2011 remasters sound better across the board.
Despite being a little loud, ADATR is a vast improvement on the 93-4 version (but I still prefer the MFSL ...the best of all the MFSL releases). The ANATO 2005/2011 remaster is also an improvement on the 90's release. Queen II is brilliant! The highlight of the remasters so far.
I can only assume that Ludwig was so happy with his job on Queen II that he preceded to get thoroughly pissed, and remastered SHA whilst shattered. It is terrible!!! The 93-4 remaster is a little bit bright, but it feels like there has been a complete over reaction in correcting this for the 2011 release. It's also waaaaay too loud. Completely lifeless. So on balance, while the 93-4 remaster has it's problems, it's not that bad, and light years ahead of the 2011 disaster.
The first album suffers for the exactly the same reasons. ...but is not quite the train wreck that SHA is. However again, on balance I much prefer the 93-4 release.
I dont own the 2011 remasters as of yet. However I heard some bad things about SHA release.
If possible, could you send me some tracks from the 2011 release of SHA so i can compare them to my 93/4 version
Basically the differences aren't that great between all the different editions. If you play them on a standard or a simple stereo set most people will not be able to tell the difference.
So most of the difference is the loudness. Louder Cds sound more impressive at the first moment. But they are also tiring for your ears. That's why many people prefer uncompressed sound with a greater dynamic. Meaning a greater difference between loud and low passages, while compressed masters try to make things more equal in loudness.
You find good and bad in all editions available so far.
The problem is, that every time a new edition appears people are made to believe it's better now.
But that would mean, that the technicians before produced a bad product. Which is not the case with Queen.
If you are an audio-fan the truth is, that every edition has it's highlights. And once a certain level of remastering is reached, it can't get any better. It can only get worse as can be seen (and heard) with the new "Sheer Heart Attack".
"Queen 2" of the new set is also a real improvement. And with "A Night at the Opera" they even have admitted, that they can't do better than the 30th anniversary edition.....
I can only recommend the following: If you are happy with a version of an album you already have - don't bother for any further remasters. If you are unhappy with a particular album then try another edition. There is no point in having a complete edition of one company - it's the band that you should collect.
I'm not sure I completely agree with you Soundfreak, that there's not a great deal of difference between the available master options. That may be true for some albums, but others the difference is stark, even on a standard system. For example I borrowed a copy of ANATO (2001/4 Japanese Mini LP) and was shocked at how bad it was. I could go into great detail of everything that was wrong with it, but l'll just say that it was almost comical ...and weirdly unrecognisable. So there is a great distance from that pile of trash to the beauty and perfection of the DCC.
As for the 2011 SHA, it is actually quite faithful EQ wise to the original CDP. ...Although it does have a more prominent bottom end. And so for purists this similarity can be (and has been) quite enticing. But my problems with it are two fold. 1) I've never really liked the original mastering. It always sounded a tad muddy, with a thick middle, poor bass, and not much to speak of at the top end. So although the 2011 addresses the bottom end, the congestion in the middle range still irks me. And 2) The 2011 is too loud. While not completely brick-walled, there are some tracks that sound considerable less dynamic than they had before.
In the end, it's whatever works for you. Even amongst audiophiles there's rarely agreement as to what carries the best sound. it's completely subjective. Having said that, I've learned a lot from listening to most of the remasters out there, as well as other people's opinions. So it's not difficult to develop an audiophile palate, if you're so inclined! ;-)
Once all this year's remasters are out of the way, I'll post my preferred masters and see what everyone thinks.