| Day dop 10.08.2015 10:04 |
... Sheer Heart Attack - from the Studio Collection at Queenonline.com on vinyl (my old copy is knackered). For a while, I couldn't decide which album to try out that'd give me an idea if overall, the reissues would be any good or not. I won't be getting them all again anyway. For example, I'm really not going to be playing Flash no matter how good the pressing is. At the most, if SHA does sound any good, I'd probably only get a few more: Queen, Queen II, ANTO, and Innuendo. And maybe The Game and / or Jazz. I didn't go for the box set for two reasons: 1) Because the coloured vinyl is off putting for me, I'd rather have the standard vinyl that you can buy individually. The coloured vinyl reminds me of this* (picture below)... 2) Buying the box set would be an expensive way of finding out the albums don't sound any better than the 2011 CD remasters, if turns out to be the case that they don't sound any better. One album will be a good tester. Needless to say, I won't receive the album before the 25th of September, but once it's here, I'll make a comparison between the 2011 remaster and the vinyl by playing both at the same time and switching between them. For those that are interested, I'll let you know if the vinyl reissue sounds any good. * |
| brians wig 10.08.2015 11:40 |
LOL. LOVE the picture! |
| matt z 10.08.2015 12:07 |
Frere Jacques? Is this a musical toy? Looks cool. Just tag a MIRACLE EXPRESS paint job on the side and it's the new reason the miracle reissue will be $350 |
| mooghead 10.08.2015 12:53 |
You dont want the coloured vinyl because its like a rainbow and you are homophobic.... |
| Estranged 11.08.2015 05:41 |
Gotta love how Kes is still pushing an idea as stupid as coloured vinyl on qof... |
| kevin79 11.08.2015 22:26 |
I don't see anything wrong with coloured vinyl. Is it a gimmick? Sure. But it's been obvious long before they announced this set that Kes was intrigued by the idea of the band reissuing the albums on cover-art specific coloured vinyl. Where I'm disappointed is with them seemingly using the same compressed masters that were used for the CD's. Don't get me wrong. I'm not someone who thinks if vinyl is sourced from a digital source, it's useless. With the Beatles stereo albums reissues, they used digital files. The difference was they used the files that they had cleaned up and fixed mistakes on, but from the step before they added the limiting and compression. It resulted in a set of very nice sounding albums. It's possible Queen did the same; but if they did, why not mention it? |
| Jimmy Dean 11.08.2015 23:12 |
i thought colored vinyl is generally regarded as better quality since the matrix has to be purer... when it's black it allows for more impurities since no one would be able to tell the difference. i may be wrong, however. |
| pittrek 12.08.2015 03:24 |
I think coloured vinyl is really, REALLY ugly. |
| Day dop 12.08.2015 09:54 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: i thought colored vinyl is generally regarded as better quality since the matrix has to be purer... when it's black it allows for more impurities since no one would be able to tell the difference. i may be wrong, however.I've read that clear vinyl is the best, but when it comes to sound quality, black or coloured makes no difference. Although... "Pressing coloured vinyl really makes your records pop. Whether it’s a single solid colour or a mixture of a few colours, pigment is poured into the PVC mix to achieve the final look. Coloured vinyl doesn’t have thickness limitations and don’t sound better or worse than black records, but they do lack the long-term durability of black vinyl." link |
| Day dop 12.08.2015 09:56 |
pittrek wrote: I think coloured vinyl is really, REALLY ugly.Me too. It seems an odd choice to make the vinyl in the box set coloured too, as you'd think a vinyl box set would be made to appeal to people who'd want to replace their old knackered vinyl, or have it the way they used to (which obviously wasn't coloured). |
| Day dop 12.08.2015 10:00 |
kevin79 wrote: I'm not someone who thinks if vinyl is sourced from a digital source, it's useless. With the Beatles stereo albums reissues, they used digital files. The difference was they used the files that they had cleaned up and fixed mistakes on, but from the step before they added the limiting and compression. It resulted in a set of very nice sounding albums. It's possible Queen did the same; but if they did, why not mention it?That's exactly the reason I've bought one album only. Forking out on more seems ridiculous unless you know whether they're likely to be any good or not. |
| Day dop 15.08.2015 00:06 |
Something else that crossed my mind tonight.... Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice. |
| kevin79 15.08.2015 01:56 |
Day dop wrote: Something else that crossed my mind tonight.... Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice.You make an excellent point. Not only is it one of the best selling albums of all time, but it would have made a good taster for the complete albums and a way for them to gauge fan reaction to the path they were taking for the project as far as the digital sources and sound quality. |
| tero! 48531 15.08.2015 01:59 |
Day dop wrote: Something else that crossed my mind tonight.... Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice.There's a million copies of the original vinyl in the UK alone. Anybody wanting to buy a better copy for themselves can get the original album for £5, so what would be the market for a £20 reprint? |
| kevin79 15.08.2015 02:13 |
tero! 48531 wrote:Improved sound quality. 180g vinyl. Maybe it would have been colored vinyl. A numbered limited edition. There's a number of ways they could have marketed it that would have most likely gotten people to buy it or re-buy it.Day dop wrote: Something else that crossed my mind tonight.... Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice.There's a million copies of the original vinyl in the UK alone. Anybody wanting to buy a better copy for themselves can get the original album for £5, so what would be the market for a £20 reprint? |
| tero! 48531 15.08.2015 05:05 |
kevin79 wrote:You're probably right... And it's not like these songs are available anywhere else.tero! 48531 wrote:Improved sound quality. 180g vinyl. Maybe it would have been colored vinyl. A numbered limited edition. There's a number of ways they could have marketed it that would have most likely gotten people to buy it or re-buy it.Day dop wrote: Something else that crossed my mind tonight.... Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice.There's a million copies of the original vinyl in the UK alone. Anybody wanting to buy a better copy for themselves can get the original album for £5, so what would be the market for a £20 reprint? There must be hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) who would rush out to buy the 435th version of the Greatest Hits album for any of those reasons, no matter what it cost. Maybe if were really lucky, next year there will be a series 35 different versions of the album to commemorate the 35th anniversary! |
| Day dop 17.08.2015 16:31 |
tero! 48531 wrote:kevin79 wrote:You're probably right... And it's not like these songs are available anywhere else. There must be hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) who would rush out to buy the 435th version of the Greatest Hits album for any of those reasons, no matter what it cost. Maybe if were really lucky, next year there will be a series 35 different versions of the album to commemorate the 35th anniversary!tero! 48531 wrote:Improved sound quality. 180g vinyl. Maybe it would have been colored vinyl. A numbered limited edition. There's a number of ways they could have marketed it that would have most likely gotten people to buy it or re-buy it.Day dop wrote: Something else that crossed my mind tonight.... Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice.There's a million copies of the original vinyl in the UK alone. Anybody wanting to buy a better copy for themselves can get the original album for £5, so what would be the market for a £20 reprint? Oh yeah, because, it was just hundreds of people (mostly the people on QZ and QOL) that bought Greatest Hits in the first place, just like it was just hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) that bought the 2011 remaster too. Excellent logic. You won't find it anywhere on vinyl on QOL either. Nor can I find a new/sealed copy of it on Ebay. Here's Amazon though. You'll find a nice new copy of Queen's Greatest Hits on vinyl for £95. http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=queen+greatest+hits+vinyl But maybe that's a little too much. I suppose for those who want to listen to it on vinyl, and want to listen to a clean copy, they could always put on A Night At The Opera to play Bohemian Rhapsody, followed by putting on The Game to play Another One Bites The Dust, then Sheer Heart Attack for Killer Queen, and so on and so forth... Actually... that brings me back to my first question. Take into consideration also, that it's the UK's top selling album. |
| tero! 48531 18.08.2015 02:48 |
Day dop wrote: Oh yeah, because, it was just hundreds of people (mostly the people on QZ and QOL) that bought Greatest Hits in the first place, just like it was just hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) that bought the 2011 remaster too. Excellent logic. - - Actually... that brings me back to my first question. Take into consideration also, that it's the UK's top selling album.So... it's the highest selling UK album, with a million vinyl copies sold, with literally thousands of near mint copies in all the second hand stores of the UK. Where's the market for a re-issue, except in the few hundred fanatics who will buy anything? Do you think the average Joe is desperately waiting for a re-issue, because he isn't satisfied with the hundreds of second hand copies? |
| matt z 18.08.2015 09:00 |
*433rd reprint |
| Day dop 19.08.2015 09:28 |
tero! 48531 wrote:Day dop wrote: Oh yeah, because, it was just hundreds of people (mostly the people on QZ and QOL) that bought Greatest Hits in the first place, just like it was just hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) that bought the 2011 remaster too. Excellent logic. - - Actually... that brings me back to my first question. Take into consideration also, that it's the UK's top selling album.So... it's the highest selling UK album, with a million vinyl copies sold, with literally thousands of near mint copies in all the second hand stores of the UK. Where's the market for a re-issue, except in the few hundred fanatics who will buy anything? Do you think the average Joe is desperately waiting for a re-issue, because he isn't satisfied with the hundreds of second hand copies? Where did you get the figures from that it's a million vinyl copies sold? Also, remember 6 million sales is for the UK only. Worldwide it's 25 million. Of course, cd sales trump vinyl sales, but by the same argument you're putting forward, where would be market be for the reissue of the 2011 greatest hits album when you can pick it up for a couple of quid second hand, or if you want to argue over cd sales being more, where would the market be for the upcoming vinyl reissues? The market for a re-issue would generally be the same market for all those other albums by other artists that have been reissued on vinyl, obviously. Personally, I'd much rather pick up a nice clean new copy for 20 quid or so - if the reissue sounds good - rather than a second hand copy (or £95 online on Amazon for a new copy), or rather than having to hunt out around second hand shops (and it's not an album that's in my local shops). A reissue would make sense. Especially when you consider they're reissuing their other albums. I don't see why you seem to have an issue with that. |
| ggo1 19.08.2015 10:56 |
If they re-released Greatest Hits on Vinyl now, I'm pretty sure they'd have to go for a double album reissue. If they are selling this on quality, I don't see how they can justify 30 minutes a side. At the very least, the volume would be much lower than the equivalent album tracks. To be fair, the mastering on the original is quite amazing given its length, but it pushed the boundaries then and no one is releasing 25 minute plus album sides any more. I was browsing in HMV at the weekend and noticed that U2's Joshua Tree is now a double vinyl album, and that is only 50 minutes in total. Side 2 clocks in at a massive 8 minutes 40 seconds. |
| Day dop 19.08.2015 12:12 |
ggo1 wrote: If they re-released Greatest Hits on Vinyl now, I'm pretty sure they'd have to go for a double album reissue. If they are selling this on quality, I don't see how they can justify 30 minutes a side. At the very least, the volume would be much lower than the equivalent album tracks. To be fair, the mastering on the original is quite amazing given its length, but it pushed the boundaries then and no one is releasing 25 minute plus album sides any more. I was browsing in HMV at the weekend and noticed that U2's Joshua Tree is now a double vinyl album, and that is only 50 minutes in total. Side 2 clocks in at a massive 8 minutes 40 seconds.I should imagine the Joshua Tree on 45rpm sounds pretty good, I'd say from memory that the original sounded better than U2s other releases. Pop and No Line On the Horizon were fairly muddy. A 45rpm of Queen's Greatest Hits, if done right, would be nice. Apparently Dire Straits Brothers In Arms and Fleetwood Macs Rumours sound amazing on 45rpm. Does anyone remember how great the 12 inch version of Scandal sounded? In terms of sound quality, that trumped every other Queen recording that I'd ever heard. The 33rpm vinyl or the compressed cd reissues couldn't touch that. |