QueenZone discussion #1383959

rhyeking wrote:
FUN IN SPACE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
PART 1
In an effort to determine which, if either, remasters of the Roger Taylor album Fun In Space are faithful reproductions of the original 1981 release, Adam Unger and I conducted this experiment between the 1996 remastered CD and the 2013 remastered edition contained in The Lot boxed set (see below for catalogue information).
To accomplish this we decided to take the following approach, since the album has only seen three commercial releases:
1981 – LP & Cassette
1996 – CD
2013 – CD via The Lot boxed set.
Unlike other Queen-related albums which have seen numerous release re-issues and remasters, we didn’t have a variety of sources to compare to each other, so to calibrate Adam’s turntable, from which we’d played the 1981 vinyl, we used a previously unopened 1982 LP and the 2011 remastered CD of Hot Space.
Comparing the waveforms in the program Audacity, we used the tracks “Staying Power” and “Dancer” as a baseline and established the following:
- A 0.15% difference in speed between the “Staying Power” LP and CD, with the CD running that much faster. No fluctuations in speed throughout.
- A 0.95% difference in speed between the “Dancer” LP and CD, with the CD running that much slower. No fluctuations in speed throughout.
The baseline demonstrates that there can be inconsistent speed differences between releases/remasters and gives us a margin of error.
NO VIOLINS
Notes: Because the track starts with an approx. 4.5 fade-in, its exact start point on the vinyl is difficult to assess, so THE synchronization point between versions was placed at the first guitar strum as Roger starts singing approx. 4.5 seconds into the song.
1981 Vinyl speed: N/A
Notes: Audible track length from approx. 0:01.70 to approx. 4:29.20
1996 CD speed: same as vinyl
Notes: Audible track length from approx. 0:01.60 to approx. 4:31.50. There is some minor speed drift/fluctuation, where the 1996 remaster runs between approx. 0:00.05 to 0:00.10 (a fraction of a second) too fast or too slow in places before falling back into sync. These drifts aren’t noticeable to the naked ear.
2013 CD speed: -0.58%
Notes: The 2013 remaster has approx. 0:00.10 less silence at the beginning compared to the 1996 remaster. I’ve added that 0:00.10 to the audible track length to maintain sync in order to see how much, if any, extra or less audible music is present. Audible track length (adjusted +0.58% increase in speed to bring the track in line with the vinyl) from approx. 0:01:30. to approx. 4:29.10.
Conclusions: The 1996 remaster is virtually the same speed as the original vinyl, even accounting for the minor fluctuations in speed throughout. The 2013 has a bit more audible music during the fade-in. Once adjusted for time the 2013’s audible fadeout point is virtually the same. The -0.58% slower speed may not seem like much on paper, but is very noticeable to the naked ear, causing an average drift of 0:00.80, nearly 1 second off-speed. The 2013 remaster also suffers from minor speed fluctuations throughout (at different points than the 1996 remaster).
LAUGH OR CRY
Synchronization begins on the first note. The 1996 remaster has 0:00.20 of silence at the beginning, the 2013 remaster has 0:00.15 at the beginning. These silences are disregarded for this test as they do not affect speed or audibility.
1981 Vinyl speed: – N/A
Notes: Audible track length from first note to approx. 3:03.60.
1996 CD speed: same as vinyl
Notes: Audible track length from first note to approx. 3:04.30 Also has similar minor drift throughout as noted in “No Violins.”
2013 CD speed: -0.64%
Notes: Audible track length from first note (adjusted +0.64% increase in speed to bring the track in line with the vinyl) to approx. 3:04.25. Also has similar minor drift as noted in “No Violins.”
Conclusion: Like “No Violins,” the 1996 CD is virtually the identical in speed to the 1981 vinyl. Speed fluctuations/drift occur but aren’t even as pronounced or as frequent as in “No Violins.” The overall speed difference between the 1981 vinyl and the 2013 remaster is much greater here, is noticeable to the naked ear and is 0:01:20 (1.2 seconds) off, which is a lot, relatively speaking.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT
Test starts from first note.
Vinyl speed: N/A
Notes: Audible track length from first note to approx. 2:55.70.
1996 CD speed: same as vinyl
Notes: Audible track length from first note to approx. 3:01.70, meaning you hear about 6 seconds more music during the fadeout. The only minor speed drift occurs near the beginning, between about 0:20.00 and 1:00.0 of the track, where the 1996 remaster is about 0:00.10 (a tenth of a second) fast, but it re-syncs around the 1 minute mark. Not noticeable to the naked ear.
2013 CD speed: -1.01%
Notes: Audible track length from first note (adjusted +1.01%) to approx. 2:54.30, meaning it fades out at nearly the same point as the vinyl, short about 1.4 seconds, but has 7.4 seconds less audible music than the 1996 remaster. More importantly is the 1.01% speed difference, where the 2013 remaster runs quite a bit audibly slower than the vinyl. Similar minor speed fluctuations occur throughout, but are still only about 0:00.10 (a tenth of a second) and not noticeable.
Conclusion: The speed difference between the vinyl and 2013 remaster finds the 2013 figuratively crawling along, not quite at a snail’s pace, but it is running too slow anyway you look at it.
LET’S GET CRAZY
Test starts at first note.
Vinyl speed: N/A
Notes: Audible track length from first note approx. 3:37.70.
1996 CD speed: +0.03
Notes: Audible track length from first note (adjusted -0.03%) approx. 3:38.20, practically the same as the vinyl when adjusted for speed. This track runs a bit faster than the 1981 vinyl, about 0:00.20 (two tenths of a second) fast. It’s consistent throughout, so does not appear to be a simple fluctuation.
2013 CD speed: from first note to approx. 2:36.30 = -0.96%, from approx. 2:36.30 to finish = -0.90%
Notes: Audible track length from first note (adjusted at two points [see further on] for synchronization) to approx 3:38.80, adding an extra audible second to the run time. The most significant curiosity is that the track speeds up slightly around the 2:36.30 mark, but still runs nearly a 1 second too slow overall.
Conclusion: The 1996 CD remaster of this track is a wee bit too fast, where the 2013 remaster is overall much too slow.
MY COUNTRY I & II
Test begins from the first synth notes. The sudden finish makes for a nice mark to end, so no need to account for audible track length.
1981 Vinyl speed: N/A
1996 CD speed: from first notes to approx. 4:04.50 = same as vinyl, from 4:04.50 to finish = -0.03%
Notes: The first half of the song is identical to the vinyl edition. About halfway through, the 1996 remaster slows by two tenths of a second.
2013 CD speed: Average -2.275%
Notes: This track suffers from the greatest fluctuations in speed, not to mention the largest difference in overall speed. The above percentage is an average based on needing a +2.275% increase in speed to sync up the start and end points of the song between the 1981 vinyl and the 2013 remaster. Even applying this change does not correct the substantial fluctuations that occur throughout, with the track running ether too fast in places or too slow, only occasionally syncing up with the vinyl.
Conclusion: Even with the overall speed running incredibly slowly on the 2013 remaster, the massive speed fluctuations would seem to indicate the tape has suffered stretching. The 2013 remaster of “My Country I & II” is nearly unlistenable unadjusted.
Additional Test:
My Country (Single Version) 2013 Remaster
Speed: same as vinyl.
Notes: Despite the edits, it’s possible to sync the Single Version with the corresponding parts of the vinyl album and they

master marathon runner wrote: Is there a jobcentre near you?

cmsdrums wrote: I was the first/one of the first to point out that a bass drum beat had been dropped from the 'Jealousy' restored track on the 2011 remasters, and I faced similar flack - including a sarcastic comment from Josh on Brian's soapbox which was promptly removed 24 hours later.

cmsdrums wrote: It does go to show that, despite Roger's best efforts, a big bollock was dropped on this project. Either they didn't notice that the masters were corrupt (bad enough), or they didn't care (even worse).