| Bad Seed 19.08.2011 02:50 |
I try not to moan too much about products, but I'm honestly lost for words about this link They have gone to the bother of remixing the bonus footage, but just left the main release as its been for 20 years! This will also mean no proper 5.1 again. Unbelievable! |
| Rick 19.08.2011 05:43 |
A huge letdown. Thanks QP for misinforming us! |
| Queenman!! 19.08.2011 05:51 |
Well... are these things new from QP? I always thought the best result is to take the orginal mastertapes and transfer them with the technology of 2011; instead of using a copy from 1991 |
| GinjaNinja 19.08.2011 06:19 |
Well that's crap. I can't see any point in up-mixing it to 5.1, just a waste of valuable disc space that could be used to increase the bitrate of the video. Another half hearted effort. The whole thing really should have had a re-mix. |
| cmsdrums 19.08.2011 06:43 |
Shocking really - I was looking forward to a brand new, decent sounding, mix. The attitude is summed up by their response to me pointing out that in the restoration of the Jealousy kick drum, they have missed one of the beats - their reply is; "How could you possibly be concerned about something so trivial. . . I don't care." |
| Bad Seed 19.08.2011 10:12 |
cmsdrums wrote: Shocking really - I was looking forward to a brand new, decent sounding, mix. The attitude is summed up by their response to me pointing out that in the restoration of the Jealousy kick drum, they have missed one of the beats - their reply is; "How could you possibly be concerned about something so trivial. . . I don't care." ================================ I was quite shocked when I first read that this morning. At least the QPL employee was decent enough to sign his name. A S Pokesman. |
| rhyeking 19.08.2011 10:48 |
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but Live At Wembley '86 was originally released in 1992. That was its debut and there were no other releases of that concert in full on CD before that date (though some tracks appeared on Live Magic...and "Tutti Frutti" had a bit of an edit...but basically, it was whole of Saturday's concert). That was the original master stereo mix for the live album, done by Brian Malouf. Forgive me for making the comparison, but wouldn't everyone be totally losing their shit if the QPL completely remixed one of the studio albums? Not remastered, mind you, *remixed*...as in from the original multitracks. Yet we're complaining that they did not do this with Wembley? Am I understanding this right? We want studio album stereo masters left alone. Looking at all the hullabaloo around the "restored" bass drum on the "Jealousy" album master, that people say: "leave the album masters as they were originally!" this seems to be the case. However, *live* albums are required to be completely remixed from scratch after 20 years? They're using the original album stereo master and we're complaining? Are studio album masters somehow more sacred than live album masters? I just want to get where people are coming from here, I'm not saying anyone is wrong. |
| Rick 19.08.2011 11:27 |
rhyeking wrote: Perhaps I'm missing the point, but Live At Wembley '86 was originally released in 1992. That was its debut and there were no other releases of that concert in full on CD before that date (though some tracks appeared on Live Magic...and "Tutti Frutti" had a bit of an edit...but basically, it was whole of Saturday's concert). That was the original master stereo mix for the live album, done by Brian Malouf. Forgive me for making the comparison, but wouldn't everyone be totally losing their shit if the QPL completely remixed one of the studio albums? Not remastered, mind you, *remixed*...as in from the original multitracks. Yet we're complaining that they did not do this with Wembley? Am I understanding this right? We want studio album stereo masters left alone. Looking at all the hullabaloo around the "restored" bass drum on the "Jealousy" album master, that people say: "leave the album masters as they were originally!" this seems to be the case. However, *live* albums are required to be completely remixed from scratch after 20 years? They're using the original album stereo master and we're complaining? Are studio album masters somehow more sacred than live album masters? I just want to get where people are coming from here, I'm not saying anyone is wrong. ==== Face it. The original mix of Wembley is pretty poor. |
| rhyeking 19.08.2011 11:44 |
That's beside my question. It's the original mix, should it not be respected as such? Jazz has been argued against for the quality of the original mix AND the inclusion of a "restored" bass drum, yet we're campaigning for the complete overhaul of Wembley, when people would complain that doing the same to Jazz would be disrespectful of the original, the "the way it was when it came out" philosophy. Do we hold live albums to a different standard than studio albums? If so, why? |
| cmsdrums 19.08.2011 12:11 |
Well bizarrely the experts response to me has been removed from Brian's site already - very odd. On the question of should the live albums be remixed or not, I can see the argument put forward in preserving the original mix, but then how far do we take the argument, ie should they not be remastered either? My view is that the studio albums are different beasts, and that live albums should be remixed where there are obvious deficiencies in the original mixes, such as Wembley and MK. I can't really eloquently back my view up, but that's how I feel. |
| rhyeking 19.08.2011 13:01 |
Yes, it could be argued that remastering is still altering the original mix in a way, but I think most people agree that the fundamental difference between remixing and remastering is cosmetic. Remastering generally is a clean up, using tools not previously available (such as for an album made 30 or 40 years ago) to get rid of noise and balance the equalization of the original mix. I equate this this to restoring artwork, cleaning the grime off. It was only there in the beginning because the limits of the technology prevented its removal. Remixing, such as taking the original master tracks of each instrument and changing the relative levels ("less guitar, more bass, etc.") IS a change at the most basic level of the music. Using the art analogy, it's like altering the colours of a painting, even slightly ("tone down that yellow, punch up the blues and greens, make that off-white greyer..."). Back to my first post, I'm not saying either position on remixing a live album (do it or don't do it) is wrong, I'm curious about the reasoning behind and how we justify the different standard. |
| GinjaNinja 19.08.2011 14:00 |
Let's face it, the quality of some live recordings (even on the master) is poor. These need all the help they can get to sound spick and span. Studio albums on the other hand, have ideal recording conditions, and they can re-do a take if something goes wrong. Just compare the sound of Live Killers to The Game. We can't compare something like Queen II to Live At Wembley. Queen II has many overdubs, harmonies and things bouncing from ear to ear. It is true that it would be a completely different experience if it was re-mixed (though I wouldn't object to new mixes of the albums, as long as the originals were also still available) whereas there aren't THAT many things going on to be mixed differently in a live album, it just needs to sound as clear and as crisp as possible. |
| inu-liger 19.08.2011 15:33 |
More upmixed garbage?? FAIL |
| Bad Seed 19.08.2011 15:52 |
I agree with GinjaNinja. Remixing a studio album is a huge task, not only that, that is how Queen sounded in whichever particular year. The band, producer, engineer's etc decided in 1978 that's how Jazz was to sound, and I think it should stay that way. I just think a studio album is a document of a particular time, and should maybe be left alone. A live recording is more about the performance, and if the mix can be made better, then why not. Live album's are often remixed by artists, and if it make's the listening a more enjoyable experience then I'm all for it. And because of that weird, and quite frankly awful guitar tone, Wembley would benefit enormously. |
| Wiley 19.08.2011 16:48 |
An album mix is apparently perceived as the original and definitive vision of how it is supposed to sound. A live album is more like an 'experience', a moment captured in time and documented for posterity... even if it's remixed or dubbed (?). In short... erm... there is a double standard. |
| Sebastian 19.08.2011 17:08 |
A valid double standard, in my book. Live albums and studio albums are different. Different 'rules' apply to each. |
| 99jaystang 19.08.2011 19:06 |
can't get the link to work on Brian's site (Expert) . clicked on the whats new tab, but it sends me to January post. |
| Sebastian 19.08.2011 20:50 |
Maybe they realised how rude that message was and how it affected QPL's public image. |
| MERQRY 19.08.2011 21:14 |
Sebastian wrote: Maybe they realised how rude that message was and how it affected QPL's public image. ------------- Mmmm i can see the message, so they didn't realised... |
| rhyeking 19.08.2011 21:14 |
The link on the OP still works. If that happens to vanish, here's the reply from JSS (no, not that JSS, the other JSS): **Justin Shirley Smith replied: Hi António Good point - I agree - the press release is a little ambiguous in this regard so I am glad of the opportunity to attempt to make it clear. Josh and I have made a new stereo mix of the Friday concert.For the Saturday concert we have used the familiar stereo mix, done in 1991 by Brian Malouf. This mix was intended for CD use only at the time so there was no sync. For the 2003 DVD edition of this show we only had access to the 1991 CD master so Kris synchronised it with the picture. Since that time we have found the original 1991 analogue half-inch stereo mix tapes in LA, so we've had those transferred at high resolution, speed-stabilised and synchronised by Plangent Processes for this edition.Both night's stereo audio have been digitally restored (cleaned up) by Kris, and then mastered and up-mixed by Tim Young.Hope that helps. Best wishes Justin *** |
| GratefulFan 19.08.2011 21:47 |
I really dislike it when websites black hole controversial content. Of course people can control their own sites, but the courteous and professional thing to do is issue a correction or a retraction, not confuse people or make them fear they're possibly losing their minds. Perhaps it's down for just that, or for review, or whatever. It could have just been very dry humour that missed. Anyway, in case anybody is concerned that anybody else is losing their minds, whoever removed it forgot, for now, to remove the part that said "On 27 June 2011 So and So [not sure if cmsdrums wants his real name on QZ forever :) ] wrote:". That is still appearing where it was initally misplaced above the question from the other person. That remains, but the question and reply are gone. I retained a screenshot for posterity, should anyone ever feel a burning need to see it if the site is further edited. |
| 99jaystang 20.08.2011 02:48 |
They found the half inch 1991 tape for a 5.1 sound,,, Jeez . I guess the original 2 inch tape multi-track tape from 1986 would have been a better choice (or did they lose that one too ?) Or Queen Productions didn't want to mess with the original mix Brian Malouf created. |
| Tim June 20.08.2011 04:27 |
Maybe it was easier and cheaper for them to re-use the stereo mixes from 1991 for the Saturday Wembley show, than to make a new mix with all the "needed" overdubs? : ) |
| Adam Baboolal 20.08.2011 07:38 |
First up, by the way everyone is talking, I'm guessing they definitely have the multitrack for Wembley, yes? That's confirmed? I Wouldn't be against a remix, coz I've loved what they've done in most cases with the live DVDs. Wembley could be as good, provided they have those multitracks lying around. Second, the comment about the guitar sound, " And because of that weird, and quite frankly awful guitar tone, Wembley would benefit enormously." I hate to break it to you, but, that will never change. It's NOTHING to do with the mix that was made. It's everything to do with Brian's choice of booster tech on that particular day. As far as I know, he used his usual TB83 booster PLUS a Line Driver, which was also provided by Pete Cornish. So, that can't be "fixed". I always try to make it clear that a recording of an instrument can't be magically changed. Unfortunately, sometimes it falls on deaf ears. Hopefully not here :) Adam. |
| Wilki Amieva 20.08.2011 08:28 |
Re: what JSS said above, we have to conclude that the digital master wasn't edited (dialogue and the Tutti Frutti 'reprise'). Weird! One would obvioulsy expect the original analog master mixes to be unedited, but the CD master should be like the CD. So they mastered the CD, and only then they edited some parts out ot for some reason to make the definitive CD master. I have always wondered about the cut in Tutti Frutti -it seems so pointless- and knowing it was a last-minute edit surely adds to the mistery... I have also found interesting that the original master mixes from the Wembley stuff are indeed analog. I always thought that the shows were recorded digitally, and then mixed digitally. But of course that's not the case (and I should have known better). Anyway, I am somehow happy that the master is analog. Would it have been digital we wouldn't have the opportunity to have a high resolution transfer now. A digital master from 1991 most surely means 44.1 kHz and 16-bit. And, now that I think of it, that would mean that the 2003 DVD has an upsampled stream. |
| Dodger Taylor 20.08.2011 11:09 |
Lets be honest,it doesnt matter if its remixed,remastered or re anything else.It would still not be right for some people. Everyone has theyre own ideas how it "should" sound".Im not having a go at anyone here,just sayin whatever they did they would never please everyone. |
| The Real Wizard 20.08.2011 13:10 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: It's NOTHING to do with the mix that was made. It's everything to do with Brian's choice of booster tech on that particular day. As far as I know, he used his usual TB83 booster PLUS a Line Driver, which was also provided by Pete Cornish. So, that can't be "fixed". I always try to make it clear that a recording of an instrument can't be magically changed. Unfortunately, sometimes it falls on deaf ears. Hopefully not here :) ================== Excellent post. One only needs to give Live Magic a spin to hear how different Brian's tone was at Knebworth and Budapest compared to Wembley. |
| GinjaNinja 20.08.2011 16:33 |
I assume that they won't have lost the multitrack master - for (from what they apparently think) was one of their most triumphant gigs - since 1992, considering they still have the multitrack for the Friday show. Wasn't there a thread about a short Rock Band promo featuring Bohemian Rhapsody at Wembley with remixed sound? This would indicate that they do have the multitrack and are just a bit lazy. Wouldn't surprise me. |
| Queenman!! 20.08.2011 16:40 |
Tim June wrote: Maybe it was easier and cheaper for them to re-use the stereo mixes from 1991 for the Saturday Wembley show, than to make a new mix with all the "needed" overdubs? : ) ================== Of course it cheaper, a lot!! And the overdubs too! |
| 99jaystang 21.08.2011 01:14 |
I always thought the guitar sounded different on Wembley 2nd night.Too light of a clean sound, Now I know. In my opinion I love the treble booster sound used during Budapest. Now that was a killer guitar sound. But who knows it could of been the same booster, but just mic'ed differently. |
| Bad Seed 21.08.2011 04:46 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: First up, by the way everyone is talking, I'm guessing they definitely have the multitrack for Wembley, yes? That's confirmed? I Wouldn't be against a remix, coz I've loved what they've done in most cases with the live DVDs. Wembley could be as good, provided they have those multitracks lying around. Second, the comment about the guitar sound, " And because of that weird, and quite frankly awful guitar tone, Wembley would benefit enormously." I hate to break it to you, but, that will never change. It's NOTHING to do with the mix that was made. It's everything to do with Brian's choice of booster tech on that particular day. As far as I know, he used his usual TB83 booster PLUS a Line Driver, which was also provided by Pete Cornish. So, that can't be "fixed". I always try to make it clear that a recording of an instrument can't be magically changed. Unfortunately, sometimes it falls on deaf ears. Hopefully not here :) Adam. ================================== That's nonsense. I'm quite aware that the sound can't be drastically changed, but it can at worst be EQ'd. Pulling back some of the top end, and perhaps boosting the lower/mid frequencies would certainly improve it IMO. Best case, they would have a separate track for each amp (although its probably a stereo bounce), meaning they could play with the sound of the 'dry' amp, so no over the top chorus. The Line Driver was probably used throughout the Magic tour, and quite possibly earlier tours? And it makes very little difference to the sound. All it does is boost certain frequencies which can be lost because of very long guitar cables. A 100ft cable with Line Driver should sound roughly the same as a 10ft cable without. The guitar does appear to be suffering from a lot of fretbuzz, especially on the 2nd night, which doesn't help the sound at all. |
| 12yrslouetta 21.08.2011 13:01 |
From a business point of view what would be the point of remixing the original live at Wembley Gig when theyve attached the Friday Gig (a new product), now that would be a pointless exercise. In 5 years time we'll get the friday and saturday Wembley Gigs repackaged and resold with a whole new remix, and Brian will say "it was always meant to sound this way". |
| Dane 22.08.2011 10:28 |
Why not use the audio from the vinyl release!!!??? REMIXED by ROGER TAYLOR!!!! :p |