QueenZone discussion #1291395
Definitive Version of Each Album
| dowens 13.11.2011 12:35 |
I have become very interested in knowing people's opinions on the "definitive versions" of each Queen album. I know this is very subjective, and I'd rather it not turn into a debate on compression/LP vs. CD/lossless, etc. I'd be interested in knowing which version/pressing (LP/original CD/remaster) does it for you and why! For example, I love the "Hot Space" 2011 remaster on my Shure headphones, but it seems to be a little too bassy for my car stereo. Of course, I need to probably upgrade my equipment... I look forward to reading your opinions! |
| TyphoonTip 13.11.2011 22:39 |
After a lifetime whittling process, these have become my favourite 'go to'' digital versions of the studio albums: Queen 1986 UK 1st Press Queen II 2011 Remaster (UK Press) Sheer Heart Attack 1988 Japanese CP32 A Night At The Opera 2000 DCC A Day At The Races 1996 MFSL News Of The World 1983 West German Elektra (Target) Jazz 1986 West German 1st Press The Game 1994 MFSL Flash Gordon 2011 Remaster (German Press) Hot Space 1986 UK 1st Press The Works 1992 Australian Press (Catalogued as a CDP, but strangely seems to be a unique mastering. Different to the 1st Press, the Hollywood and the 1994 Remaster. Sounds great. Glad I stumbled across it,) A Kind Of Magic 1986 UK 1st Press The Miracle 1989 Japanese 1st Press Innuendo 1991 Japanese 1st Press Made In Heaven 1995 Australian 1st Press N.B. Basically there's no difference between the CDP 1st presses and the 1988 Japanese CP32s. Both share the same mastering. Occasionally there are moments where one might sound slightly different to the other. Sometimes the gain is slightly different for example. But if you have one, IMO there's really no need for the other. Looking forward to seeing some posts with some FACTS about which versions are indisputably definitive ;-). It must be so frustrating when you KNOW the answer, but the willfully ignorant just refuse to acknowledge it. |
| dysan 14.11.2011 04:11 |
To be honest, I wih I'd never replaced my early 80's cassettes. |
| Jazz 78 14.11.2011 04:38 |
No matter how many times we get the re-mixes, 2011 versions, deluxe this, special mix that, remasters etc... it still doesn't change the original performances of the 70's and 80's. It just seems like a waste of money to buy the same old thing when the performaces by the band are the same. |
| me_too 16.11.2011 11:45 |
I don't have CDs or vinyl versions of the albums. I've made do with mp3 downloads and now want to get actual copies. That's why this thread is of interest. Some of us honestly don't know what version that is currently available is the best to get. |
| dowens 08.01.2012 13:16 |
I'm interested in knowing how to tell if a Queen CD or vinyl is a first press? I just stumbled across an original CD from EMI of ANATO at a used CD store. |
| Bigfish 10.01.2012 07:04 |
Absolutely f**king hilarious. Particularly the guy with the huge list. |
| k-m 10.01.2012 08:17 |
Bigfish wrote: Absolutely f**king hilarious. Particularly the guy with the huge list.I think we should also list definitive versions of each song. That would be handy when you want to listen to Queen again. |
| GratefulFan 10.01.2012 08:35 |
Whoa there. I don't personally have the ear/time/inclination/interest to make these kind of fine and subjective distinctions, but I can certainly appreciate that others who are able to do so might like to. There are differences in the pressings naturally, so what could possibly be wrong with serious enthusiasts seeking to qualify and quantify them? |
| Rubbersuit 10.01.2012 08:53 |
I don't get the attitude in this thread either. Some people have better stereo equipment than a shitty ipod and the mastering / levels actually matter. |
| Bigfish 10.01.2012 15:21 |
It just gets better and better. |
| GratefulFan 10.01.2012 17:30 |
Do you have some actual reasoning, or just feeling irrationally wedded to the original gratuitous jerk position? |
| dowens 10.01.2012 21:17 |
Well everyone talks about the remasters, various versions, etc. Just interested in knowing people's opinions, that's all. I've heard people say keep your original CDs, they are better. The 2011 versions blow them away. |
| TyphoonTip 13.01.2012 19:41 |
Bigfish wrote: Absolutely f**king hilarious. Particularly the guy with the huge list.I could run through a detailed series of arguments reasoning why appreciating mastering differences is perfectly justified. I could explain in a careful and logical way, in my opinion, which are the best masters and therefore the best representation of Queen's work. I could also explain the sometimes complex nature of mastering itself, as I used to do it for a living. However after much consideration, and in the spirit of you apparently being incapable of presenting a reasoned argument, I decided the more appropriate relpy would be to tell you to fuck off. So. fuck off. :) |
| YAFF 13.01.2012 23:25 |
dowens wrote: Well everyone talks about the remasters, various versions, etc. Just interested in knowing people's opinions, that's all. I've heard people say keep your original CDs, they are better. The 2011 versions blow them away.I concur. The 2011 versions are simply the best. But unless you have very good stereo equipment or listen with headphones you may not notice much of a difference between 1991s and 2011s |
| smilebrian 15.01.2012 05:51 |
Nice response Typhoon! I agree with your list (although post The Game I haven't yet bothered finding the best pressings). As I still haven't found NOTW Target for under three figures I haven't yet purchased but it's number one on my list. I quite like the MFSL but there's definitely something going on (boosted?) in the midrange which I strangely like, but I know the Target will be definitive based on multiple credible reports. Likewise The Game Target, do you have that and still prefer the MFSL? I haven't heard the ADATR MFSL as my CP32 is so damn good I haven't bothered, but on your recommendation I may have to get a copy! |
| brians wig 15.01.2012 08:03 |
TyphoonTip wrote: I could run through a detailed series of arguments reasoning why appreciating mastering differences is perfectly justified. I could explain in a careful and logical way, in my opinion, which are the best masters and therefore the best representation of Queen's work. I could also explain the sometimes complex nature of mastering itself, as I used to do it for a living. ==================================================================================== Actually. If you have the time and inclination to do so, THIS is exactly what some of us would like to hear!!! |
| drmurph 15.01.2012 15:20 |
Yes I agree, I'm interested to hear what people who know more about these things than me have to say. I doubt I'll be running out to buy the versions mentioned but who knows if one comes up on ebay. So if you can ignore the rude people please post your opinions. |
| Bigfish 15.01.2012 18:28 |
TyphoonTip wrote:Bigfish wrote: Absolutely f**king hilarious. Particularly the guy with the huge list.I could run through a detailed series of arguments reasoning why appreciating mastering differences is perfectly justified. I could explain in a careful and logical way, in my opinion, which are the best masters and therefore the best representation of Queen's work. I could also explain the sometimes complex nature of mastering itself, as I used to do it for a living. However after much consideration, and in the spirit of you apparently being incapable of presenting a reasoned argument, I decided the more appropriate relpy would be to tell you to fuck off. So. fuck off. :) I am, I assure you, grateful for small mercies. |