| MadTheDude 22.02.2013 23:51 |
Perhaps someone could help me here, I am wondering when and if Queen's albums were ever released onto CD but from the original master recordings. I'm not interested in the various shitty remasters that basically ruined the albums! I'd also be wondering where these would be found as well. I'd appreciate any info. |
| Lplix 23.02.2013 00:39 |
hi, it seems that on the first issue of the cd version until "kind of magic" the mastering of the editing songs are the same of the vinyl; you can ear the same errors like on "my fairy king" or on "bo rap". Those versions of cd was relase on tlhe later eighties. |
| rocknrolllover 23.02.2013 00:49 |
MadTheDude wrote: Perhaps someone could help me here, I am wondering when and if Queen's albums were ever released onto CD but from the original master recordings. I'm not interested in the various shitty remasters that basically ruined the albums! I'd appreciate any info.I think you want to know about first press on CD's 83-87 year. |
| bootLuca 23.02.2013 02:18 |
Lplix wrote: you can ear the same errors like on "my fairy king" or on "bo rap"what errors? |
| pestgrid 23.02.2013 03:08 |
Every album released after 1993 on cd is from a shitty remaster.....be it the Digital Master Series 1993-94..or the 2001 24bit Abbey Road Remasters released in Japan.....the same masters used in 2011 for the Island Records Re-Release.....any cd of any album prior to 1993 would be from the so called original recordings or flat masters,meaning no extra equalization...although really they are all from the original masters..but only the vinyl and tape versions prior to 1993 carry the original mix released at the time of the albums coming out.......its just how those masters are Interpreted by the engineer in charge of the flat master...in other words we have had the original versions of all albums on vinyl....then two additional remasters one in 1993 and another in 2001.....any other release globally has used either master mix.... |
| Lplix 23.02.2013 03:39 |
the most earable error is on my fairy king, when freddie sings: ...mother mercury.... in this point the sound slides off in the original mix on the original vinyl or first press cd; you can't find this on the last mastering (40th queen cd series). on bo rap you can ear on the original first print cd some background voice speaking "change" around the middle of the song, but in the last mastering is disappeared. with the new edition of the cd the mastering of the tracks is based on the loud-war. if you open in a editor the same song from a first edition cd and the new version you can understand what i mean. more compression and normalization of the tracks |
| MadTheDude 23.02.2013 08:50 |
Lplix wrote: with the new edition of the cd the mastering of the tracks is based on the loud-war. if you open in a editor the same song from a first edition cd and the new version you can understand what i mean. more compression and normalization of the tracksI recently learned of the "Loudness Wars" and I went and compared my remaster 2011 version of the song Play The Game with the vinyl version with Greatest Hits on an audio editing program and it was shocking. The Greatest Hits (released in 1991) was almost identical with the vinyl and the remaster was all compressed and "turned up to 11" as it were. |
| mooghead 23.02.2013 12:53 |
MadTheDude wrote:Some people like that, because you dont doesnt mean its wrong. Music should be listened to, not looked at as a waveform. You either like it or you dont.Lplix wrote: with the new edition of the cd the mastering of the tracks is based on the loud-war. if you open in a editor the same song from a first edition cd and the new version you can understand what i mean. more compression and normalization of the tracksI recently learned of the "Loudness Wars" and I went and compared my remaster 2011 version of the song Play The Game with the vinyl version with Greatest Hits on an audio editing program and it was shocking. The Greatest Hits (released in 1991) was almost identical with the vinyl and the remaster was all compressed and "turned up to 11" as it were. |
| MadTheDude 23.02.2013 13:45 |
mooghead wrote: Some people like that, because you dont doesnt mean its wrong. Music should be listened to, not looked at as a waveform. You either like it or you dont.Yes, but I like to listen to my music as it was meant to be not compressed by some producer, making all the quiet parts of a song louder and all the louder parts quieter (aka remastering) so everything is all turned up to one big loud mess- that results in loss of quality and detail so its "louder" or whatever. Ive got a volume nob and I can listen to a song loud without loss of quality. |
| mooghead 23.02.2013 15:23 |
Try listening to a new release before looking for visual flaws.. you might enjoy it. 'Quality' and 'louder' are personal. Its almost as if you hate the next release before 'seeing' it. Life is too short. Try being happy. |
| cmsdrums 23.02.2013 16:38 |
pestgrid wrote: but only the vinyl and tape versions prior to 1993 carry the original mix released at the time of the albums coming out.........I don't think this is correct - ALL versions of the albums in all forms (apart from The Eye mixes and the DTS 5.1 editions) have the same mix. It's only the mastering that has been different on various editions, and some have been mastered from a different starting point. I believe that the Island/Universal remasters are different to the previous few editions as they were done by Bob Ludwig from the original flat masters produced after the each album was mixed, but before any original or subsequent mastering. Most of the other cd releases were, I think, remastered from an already previously mastered edition. On the subsequent views, I totally agree that the music should be listened to, rather than looked at as a waveform - yes the latest software might tell you that the mastering is different to original releases, but it could equally be argued (and has been by Brian and Roger) that THIS is how they are supposed to sound but they didn't have the technology at the time. Equally, unless you're listening to it on a sound system and speakers exactly matching those in the mixing and mastering suites, it will sound different anyway - not necessarily better or worse, just different. |
| pestgrid 23.02.2013 18:00 |
|
| pestgrid 23.02.2013 18:11 |
any mastering changes to a song/album change the mix in the way the listener hears it....when the original mixes were being put together for save me for example....the song is assembled from the 8/16 or 24 multi track master and mixed to stereo....that particular mix/song was released as a single early before other songs had even been recorded and so the multi track (vocals,drums etc) once mixed for the single, was reassembled for the album mix..giving a different sound...any 7' single mix will have a difference from the album version...some more noticable than others.....so to get the original sound...the singles are the best version...and as the vinyls are the only way of getting the original mix/song..then Id suggest to anyone wanting original first versions,to grab a copy of the vinyls......anytime a new mix is put together....the flat (no equalization) is loaded onto the soundboard mixing desk and mixed/mastered from notes....but the engineer must use his ear at the end of the day...which is why the new versions sound different...I prefer the original mixes myself....listen to the original 7' vinyl of Another One Bites the Dust...then a cd version released later and it really does have a different feel to it.... |
| Lord Fickle 28.02.2013 12:31 |
cmsdrums wrote:On the subsequent views, I totally agree that the music should be listened to, rather than looked at as a waveform - yes the latest software might tell you that the mastering is different to original releases, but it could equally be argued (and has been by Brian and Roger) that THIS is how they are supposed to sound but they didn't have the technology at the time. Equally, unless you're listening to it on a sound system and speakers exactly matching those in the mixing and mastering suites, it will sound different anyway - not necessarily better or worse, just different.On a technical point, can anyone explain WHY CDs can now be mastered louder now than in the past? I know technology has moved on, but what is available today, that wasn't when the original releases were mastered, that simply enables them to be louder? |
| TyphoonTip 01.03.2013 06:51 |
mooghead wrote: Try listening to a new release before looking for visual flaws.. you might enjoy it. 'Quality' and 'louder' are personal. Its almost as if you hate the next release before 'seeing' it. Life is too short. Try being happy.If it's been compressed and/or hard limited, then it IS louder. Nothing 'personal' or subjective about it. Fact. As for whether you like it, sure, that's completely the domain of individual taste. Myself, I'd rather staple my ears shut than listen to hard-limited mess that was the bulk of the Ludwig remasters. But hey that's just me clearly being unhappy. |
| GratefulFan 01.03.2013 07:51 |
Lord Fickle wrote: On a technical point, can anyone explain WHY CDs can now be mastered louder now than in the past? I know technology has moved on, but what is available today, that wasn't when the original releases were mastered, that simply enables them to be louder?My potentially dubious understanding: CDs as a digital medium can be pushed to higher limits than formats that were stored and played analog. Limitations of the physical medium of vinyl records and of the equipment used in mastering, storing and ultimately playing analog signals meant that the potential for loudness was limited to a lower level than the much higher hard cap for digital processing and storage. While loudness was sought prior to the advent of CDs by artists and record companies who fretted their songs wouldn't 'pop' on compilations or when otherwise contrasted with the music of competitors, it could only be taken so far. The higher digital limits and the increasing ease and likelihood of songs ending up isolated from their albums and contrasted with others on MP3 players and through digital single downloads etc. led the industry to a collective assumption that loudness was effectively compulsory and what consumers wanted anyway. |