| fofum 08.11.2014 07:30 |
I've had the complete series of album remaster series since they were released. I've only really listened to them on my iPod and in the car before but last night I listened to AKOM on my CD player with a really good set of cans (Grado GS100 Statement series) and was blown away by how truly horrendous the start of this album sounds. I'd heard MIH and Innuendo through these cans before and found the albums to sound muddy, massively over-compressed and with loads of digital clipping, but I was shocked last night when I listened to this. The first four tracks are obscenely distorted in places. The whole thing sounds muddy and awful. Only by Pain Is Close does the whole distortion start to subside. I listened to T. Rex's The Slider immediately after and it was a clean, perfect sound so I know the problem is with the CD. Anybody else had problems with this remastering series? |
| matt z 08.11.2014 08:33 |
Aac files? No idea. How's your mixer/preamp set? Distortion in the low end? Which edition? Legal/pirate?.... different encoding rate? 98kbps? 128? 192? 320? |
| Oscar J 08.11.2014 11:50 |
Can't hear any issues on my Genelecs. Except the album being mediocre, that is. |
| fofum 08.11.2014 12:52 |
I listened to the genuine copy on a super set of headphones, a great preamp and my usual Sony player. I genuinely think that these remasters are absolute bobbins. I'll have to dig out my original CD version from 20 years back to contrast the sound. Funnily enough the best sounding songs are the filler ones. |
| NickESB 08.11.2014 13:18 |
Oscar J wrote: Except the album being mediocre, that is.There's the answer. |
| MercurialFreddie 08.11.2014 14:48 |
Albums which greatly benefited from Bob Ludwigs' work are: Queen I, Queen II and News of The World. Especially the 2011 remasters of Queen II and NOTW are tremendous. Queen I still needs some work to be done and I'd like to hear it remastered in the way in which Bob Ludwig remastered Queen II but with re-recorded drums :) If you want to hear an excellent mastered version of AKOM just pm me. |
| The King Of Rhye 08.11.2014 15:09 |
MercurialFreddie wrote: Albums which greatly benefited from Bob Ludwigs' work are: Queen I, Queen II and News of The World. Especially the 2011 remasters of Queen II and NOTW are tremendous. Queen I still needs some work to be done and I'd like to hear it remastered in the way in which Bob Ludwig remastered Queen II but with re-recorded drums :) If you want to hear an excellent mastered version of AKOM just pm me.totally agree with that about II.............I always thought the remastering really kicked Funny How Love Is up a notch! I don't think the remastering of AKOM is THAT bad..........maybe it's just that I'm listening to it in mp3 form with relatively cheap headphones...........lol If you want to hear a really distorted and over-compressed cd listen to anything Rick Rubin has produced recently..............ie Black Sabbath's 13 and Metallica's Death Magnetic! (both great albums except for that!!!) |
| C_Matt 08.11.2014 17:15 |
I'm not used to promote my remixes, but this can be an excellent opportunity if you want definition and a fresh sound. I'm reworking the whole Queen studio discography, and 'A Kind of Magic' is my last work. Here's the link. Enjoy it very much! link |
| Jimmy Dean 08.11.2014 17:36 |
There is no distortion anywhere to be found on my copy (of AKOM)... unless you mean really minute instances of distortion... and you're off the wall bonkers in exaggerating it... then you might have a point. |
| Vali 08.11.2014 17:58 |
C_Matt wrote: I'm not used to promote my remixes, but this can be an excellent opportunity if you want definition and a fresh sound. I'm reworking the whole Queen studio discography, and 'A Kind of Magic' is my last work. Here's the link. Enjoy it very much! linkAnd I'm not used to promote Matt's remixes outside the fan mixes forum, but please do as he says and you'll enjoy the best sounding AKOM ever. And get ready for his forthcoming QII... |
| fofum 09.11.2014 13:11 |
I think the fact that I was listening on Statement series headphones which unearth any source problems. In defence of the mastering job I think my headphones needed warming up first. WWTLF sounded fantastic by the way. And yes Queen II sounds awesome :) |
| winterspelt 09.11.2014 13:34 |
Well, it doesnt sound that bad at all, at least to my ears. I have to say that the remasters that I like the most are the ones in the Crown Jewels and the one in the Absolute Greatest, both of them are considered kind of irrelevant or even bad according to some internet comments. There's a thread somewhere here about the different remasters published over the years. Now, I dont own all of them, this are the ones I own: Queen 20 years remasters from Hollywood records (from Queen to Miracle) The japanese "LP replica" (from Queen to Jazz) 2011 remasters (except the live albums) Crown Jewels A few from EMI mexico and Holland |
| mooghead 09.11.2014 14:25 |
Dont have any of them coz I am not a shameless sucker..... what I do have suits me fine. If everyone was the same we would get the non existent 'anthologies' |
| horse feathers 10.11.2014 00:53 |
If you are listening to it through a pre amp, then there is your answer. The treble and bass shold be set to zero too. They got rid of equalisers on amplifiers years ago because they muddy and distort the sound, which is very true. I would trust Bob Ludwig's ears over yours any day. What a pompous post. having said that, I find it very strange that you can listen to perhaps the second worst album they ever did, second only to the Works album. |
| fofum 10.11.2014 02:07 |
Look up... a prat... who knows nothing. |
| TRS-Romania 10.11.2014 02:25 |
fofum wrote: I've had the complete series of album remaster series since they were released. I've only really listened to them on my iPod and in the car before but last night I listened to AKOM on my CD player with a really good set of cans (Grado GS100 Statement series) and was blown away by how truly horrendous the start of this album sounds. I'd heard MIH and Innuendo through these cans before and found the albums to sound muddy, massively over-compressed and with loads of digital clipping, but I was shocked last night when I listened to this. The first four tracks are obscenely distorted in places. The whole thing sounds muddy and awful. Only by Pain Is Close does the whole distortion start to subside. I listened to T. Rex's The Slider immediately after and it was a clean, perfect sound so I know the problem is with the CD. Anybody else had problems with this remastering series? Absolutely agree. The 2011 ”remasters” are just louder, more compressed and clipped and are AWEFULL! Just open AKOM in an audio program like Audacity and just compare the wave forms! A kind of Magic (1995) http://i57.tinypic.com/33p829l.png The 1995 version is dynamic, not over compressed nor clipped. A Kind of Magic (2011 remaster) http://i62.tinypic.com/qospkk.png This wave form just hits the roof (meaning its compressed/clipped) just for the sake of having to sound loud. This phenomenon is called the ”loudness war” and maintained by record label executives who think louder = better. Fact is that songs on iTunes, Spotify are alle levelled back to the original volume, therefore making a mix louder just for the sake of it, is absolutely useless. Have a look at mastering engineer Ian Sheppard who gets it, and explains (with examples) what the loudness war is about and why it does not make sense. Its a 3minute video but its worth watching understanding this useless loudness war, but probably Brian and Roger have absolutely no clue on the matter (its a shame but utterly true!) link |
| horse feathers 10.11.2014 02:58 |
I'm a pratt that knows nothing, haha. Clipping? This can't happen with CD Masters as there are levels to adhere to. The only time you two clowns, who have mentioned clipping is when you have the volume turned too loud. If I am also a pratt? Then so are you for listening to AKOM. BTW, have you not heard of Fletcher Munsen? And no it isn't a person. You really paid over a grand for headphones and listen to a dreadful album? You should have gone to your local supermarket and bought some earex and cotton buds. What a tosser, you really are. |
| fofum 10.11.2014 08:19 |
Wow, you really do know nothing, you dumb fool. The fact that you're on a Queen fan site and having a go about people listening to any Queen album proves that you're a troll. You know nothing about the technical aspects of mastering you mug. I'll leave you to troll someone else ya giddy old dirtbox. |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.11.2014 08:31 |
horse feathers wrote: I'm a pratt that knows nothing, haha. Clipping? This can't happen with CD Masters as there are levels to adhere to. The only time you two clowns, who have mentioned clipping is when you have the volume turned too loud.There is definitely so-called "soft clipping" going on on a number of the remasters. It's a simple fact you can verify for yourself by loading a track straight from the cd into an audio editor like Adobe Audition or even Audacity and analyzing the waveform. The way you behave like an arrogant piece of shit does nothing to support your 'argument' (which basically boils down to "you listen to crappy records so you can't play with me and the cool boys"), which is feeble enough without you undermining it further. I recommend you get a life and a little decency as well as a basic education in music and audio technology before you try acting like you know something, which right now is evidently not the case. |
| horse feathers 10.11.2014 13:54 |
Some nasty comments coming my way, for me simply expressing my opinion. Also being called a troll, which I find laughable. Look at my post on Queen's gig at the famous Elland road gig in 1982, which I attended for proof of that. First of all I am a songwriter, musician and do a lot of mastering for various bands world wide, although I don't do mixing as that is an art in itself, which I have no interest in and get others to do mixes for me. I can give you links for my stuff too, if I need to prove I do have knowledge on mastering and the loudness war, which I detest. IMO British albums in the last 10 years or so have become unlisteneable, but we are talking about re masters here, which is a completely different subject. I also have a lot of respect for Bob Ludwig too and also Bob Clearmountain. I will try to explain the mastering process, without trying to patronise any of you. Mastering engineers get a mix of a song, which will come in at a volume level of -9db, even lower in some cases, I prefer it to be -12db. They will also provide an instrumental mix and a vocal only mix. Those are only if the mix is particularly bad and those mixes will be used to fix things. A mix will initially be done at a low volume, based on the Fletcher Munson theory, which is quite technical, perhaps beyond me, but does work. Chris Lorde-Alge, who mixes virtually every rock song in the USA is a genius, he mixes songs at a volume which can actually be spoken over. It took me 30 odd years to do the same and only because he does it. No mixes or masters are ever done on headphones, no matter how good they are. Because we are talking about re masters here, it's a slightly different process. They will do them from the flat track mix, which is the un mastered version of the origional album mixes. AKOM was recorded digitally, so there will be no clipping. The mastering engineer will then use the mastering tools he has, looking for sound that are too prominent, or too quite. He will then use subtractive EQ to achieve those sounds. In mixes, for example, if you can't hear the bass track (Queen and most bands record 3 bass tracks, DI'd, amped and distorted, then blend them) you don't turn the bass track up, if it can't be heard, you turn all the other tracks down. This applies for every track, turning tracks up is a massive no no. So back to mastering, subtractive EQ is the equivelant when you master. There will be conflicts, which should have been sorted out in the mix, but may not have been, i.e. frequency masking. Every instrument or vocal will occupy a certain space in the frequency range. However, if it is a bad mix a good mastering engineer can fix it, but may need the extra vocal mix and instrumental mix I mentioned earlier. Subtractive EQ, is making what's called notches (cuts) in the frequency range, for various tracks to be heard more. The kick and bass track, for example, may be conflicting with each other. that should have been fixed in the mix, via what's called sidechaining. Where the kick will 'duck' when the bass kicks in at the same time and vice versa. EQ can also be boosted at certain points, boosts are done at a wider range in the frequency range, cuts are much smaller, for precision. Nowadays you can hone right in on certain sounds, like hi hats, and you can actually change the sounds of those and even the snare, it really is that precise. Obviously there is more to it, but in a nutshell, that is what they do. the last part of the process is the limiting of the track. That is where the 'loudness war' comes in. Limiting makes things louder, it is not the same as compression. Limiting will make the mix louder and it is how far you push that, that when listening will give you the muddiness, clipping, distortion whatever you want to call it. One of the best tests for listening to a song is the go out of the room test, far better than listening over headphones, that test will tell you more things about a song, i.e. can you hear every instrument in the mix? The loudness war is due to 'dynamic range' which is sadly missing in most music today, sadly and annoyingly, IMO. Dynamic range is the difference between the loudest part of a song and the quietest part of the song. Off memory rock music should ideally have a dynamic range of 9db. The best example of this is Bo Rhap, very quite in some parts very loud in other parts. I brickwalled Bo Rhap, just for my own purpouses a few years back, as if it was done today. As you can imagine it sounded dreadful. But I would imagine listening in a car or a noisy workplace it would sound ok, as you could hear everything. Radio stations compress music for this purpous. Which is why we should wait for the new songs to be released before we judge them. One last point, the masters and any CD cannot be clipped. Nothing can go over 0db in the digital domain. In the anologue days, it could and was used to great effect, to achieve that now, is a totally different process. So when you listen to a re master, it should be listened to, for a fair opinion, with flat EQ and there should be no red lights shown on any LED displays you have. |
| bucsateflon 10.11.2014 14:51 |
|
| bucsateflon 10.11.2014 14:51 |
"AKOM was recorded digitally" really? those 24 track machines aren't analog? |
| horse feathers 10.11.2014 14:59 |
Yes it had DDD on the origional CD in 1986, as did The Works too. link |
| fofum 10.11.2014 15:22 |
Why couldn't you have just tried that approach in the first place Horse Feathers? You called my initial post patronising. Why? Because I mentioned that I had listened on expensive headphones? If I hadn't mentioned what I'd listened to it on then I would have had to answer to that later on. Also, I was making the point that I was listening on expensive gear, because it was relevant to my point. Thanks to all the others for their contribution. I've just been sent a different master of AKOM by Mercurial Freddie which I look forward to listening to... with expensive headphones, White Feathers. Not that it would matter to you. I'm dumb for wanting to listen to that album anyway. |