| Liquid Scream 30.09.2015 11:07 |
I apologize if this has been posted already. Interesting read regarding why they did not cut the new vinyl box set from the original analog tapes. __________________________________________________ Bob Ludwig Issues Statement Re: "Queen Studio Collection" Box Set By Michael Fremer • Posted: Sep 11, 2015 (An analogplanet.com exclusive): Bob Ludwig today issued a statement about the Queen "Studio Collection vinyl box set. News that Queen's vinyl box set had been produced using Bob Ludwig's 96k/24bit master files rather than directly from analog tape created speculation about the condition of the tapes as well as why the choice was made to cut from digital. To end the speculation and with the approval of Queen's "camp", Bob Ludwig issued the following clarification: Hi Michael, The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project. The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note. They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed. Most importantly to my mind- in addition, there were first generation mixes of certain songs which were mixed at a different studio from the majority of the album and thus they had different alignment tones etc. Sometimes they were recorded using the CCIR curve instead of the NAB curve, or they were using Dolby instead of non-Dolby and, for the remastering project, Queen used those first generation tapes instead of the former album masters of those certain songs which of course had to contain a COPY of those mixes in order to cut from them. They ended up having literally countless fixes to make for the most perfect sound they wanted. I mastered everything from the original master tapes, but the final product, in order to sound like they wanted it to sound, HAD to be cut from the high resolution EQ masters. The difference between some of the first generation mixes and the tape copies of them that had to be inserted into the original cutting album masters was sometimes staggeringly better, for SURE it made for a better final product. Believe me, they spared NO expense on doing it as perfectly as they thought they possibly could. Best regards, Bob Ludwig |
| Biggus Dickus 30.09.2015 11:42 |
All that trouble and then they compressed the dynamic range to death anyway. |
| Nitroboy 30.09.2015 11:57 |
Biggus Dickus wrote: All that trouble and then they compressed the dynamic range to death anyway. My thoughts exactly. So much work, just to ruin the final product anyway. |
| joerijoerijoeri 30.09.2015 15:44 |
Biggus Dickus wrote: All that trouble and then they compressed the dynamic range to death anyway.Hahaha... |
| brians wig 30.09.2015 17:33 |
May as well stick with the SACD versions. |
| Richard Orchard 01.10.2015 00:57 |
or the CD versions. SACD versions - the recent ones - are pretty much the same as the CDs as far as dynamic range and compression goes. According to link |
| brians wig 01.10.2015 03:24 |
Richard Orchard wrote: or the CD versions. SACD versions - the recent ones - are pretty much the same as the CDs as far as dynamic range and compression goes. According to linkYes, the SACD's are exactly the same mix with the same compression, but at a higher definition. There IS a difference in the "open-ness" of the audio which makes them sound better (to my ears and a couple of Queen fan friends who I did blind A-B testing with just to make sure I wasn't imagining a difference!), but it's not an "OMG these are far better than the CD's" difference. I still say they need to go back to the original multitracks and do as many surround sound albums as they can. I don't believe that every multitrack has issues that prevent them being used. |
| cmsdrums 01.10.2015 07:25 |
"The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project. The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note. They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed" Yet they were happy to put out that absolutely shit drum sound on 'Live at The Bowl' that wasn't even as good as the original mono TV broadcast? Some good ears they've got there..... |
| Day dop 01.10.2015 07:34 |
The LPs look nice, but they sound the same as the 2011 remasters. |
| Nightjar_ 01.10.2015 11:11 |
This is all very interesting blah blah etc... So is this release actually better than the original 70s, 80s 1st edition vinyl? I'm thinking of purchasing them for framing purposes.... I'd rather have all albums in 5.1 as the game and anato releases were amazing.. |
| Doga 01.10.2015 11:49 |
I think vinyl nowdays only have purpose for nostalgia and hipsters. I am aware vinyls are better than CDs, they are more expensive, more fragile, but still sound better. But Bluray are superior to vinyl, imo. release every album in the best possible quality in Bluray as the definitive release. |
| mooghead 01.10.2015 12:37 |
You have bought the same albums again. As you always have. And always will. You get what you deserve. |
| Biggus Dickus 01.10.2015 12:38 |
cmsdrums wrote: "The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project. The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note. They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed" Yet they were happy to put out that absolutely shit drum sound on 'Live at The Bowl' that wasn't even as good as the original mono TV broadcast? Some good ears they've got there.....You keep going on about that, yet I can't find a huge difference between the original release and the TV version. I guess it's a matter of taste. |
| brians wig 01.10.2015 15:30 |
Techie question! You can buy phono pre-amps with valves these days which make your vinyls sound "warm" again on modern digital amplifiers. I wonder if you could use one inbetween your CD player and amp to add some warmth back into the music, or would it (even at the lowest setting), blow your amp? |
| Mercury 90 01.10.2015 15:56 |
Biggus Dickus wrote:I feel the same since day one! I Absolutely love the sound of live at the bowl, for me the best live sound on an album, makes me feel like I am there!cmsdrums wrote: "The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project. The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note. They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed" Yet they were happy to put out that absolutely shit drum sound on 'Live at The Bowl' that wasn't even as good as the original mono TV broadcast? Some good ears they've got there.....You keep going on about that, yet I can't find a huge difference between the original release and the TV version. I guess it's a matter of taste. |
| Fireplace 01.10.2015 18:33 |
brians wig wrote: Techie question! You can buy phono pre-amps with valves these days which make your vinyls sound "warm" again on modern digital amplifiers. I wonder if you could use one inbetween your CD player and amp to add some warmth back into the music, or would it (even at the lowest setting), blow your amp?If you keep your setting on the (very) conservative side your speakers (blowing an amp is a bit harder) will stay intact. It won't be very effective however, since pre-amps are meant to make sure there is any sound at all from passive electronics like turntables or microphones first, with the added warmth as an often welcome side effect. The modern phono pre-amps just make sure that your record sounds the way it was meant to in the first place. A great deal of the percieved warmth in vinyl was achieved by saturation (a form of distortion, basically clipping the output to a signal well over 0 dB), while any signal over 0 dB in a digital recording will lead to digital distortion which sounds horrible. I recommend fiddling with your amp's EQ-settings over inserting an extra amp. If you really want an extra pre-amp, try ripping your CD, mastering it with an VST or hardware pre-amp and then re-recording it on a blank CD. Hardly worth the hassle imho, but there ya go. |
| Biggus Dickus 02.10.2015 00:06 |
Biggus Dickus wrote:I meant the difference between the TV version and the officially released version. Don't know where that 'original release' came from.cmsdrums wrote: "The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project. The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note. They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed" Yet they were happy to put out that absolutely shit drum sound on 'Live at The Bowl' that wasn't even as good as the original mono TV broadcast? Some good ears they've got there.....You keep going on about that, yet I can't find a huge difference between the original release and the TV version. I guess it's a matter of taste. |
| bucsateflon 03.10.2015 06:32 |
I had no doubt about Queen's product.. top class as always. |
| mooghead 03.10.2015 08:18 |
"I recommend fiddling with your amp's EQ-settings over inserting an extra amp" This. The sound you want is right there. Buy an expensive amp with lots of pretty glass domes all you like but you will still mess with the EQ to get the sound you want. A new amp will do nothing. Find the sound you like, enjoy it, stop picking faults and carry on with your life. I should be president of the world. |
| eYe 03.10.2015 23:47 |
How about turning off any EQ and listen to the music like it was meant to? |
| dysan 05.10.2015 13:43 |
I'd be quite happy to listen to music I liked at half speed, forward and backwards. Maybe they should release these as bonus material. |
| Penetration_Guru 05.10.2015 15:43 |
dysan wrote: I'd be quite happy to listen to music I liked at half speed, forward and backwards. .It's not difficult to achieve. Audacity is free and can do it. . Maybe they should release these as bonus material.Don't give them ideas.... |
| dysan 06.10.2015 02:36 |
Sadly, I spend a surprising amount of time listening to tracks backwards on Audacity. You've got to have a hobby. |
| OwenSmith 04.11.2015 12:37 |
But they already remastered all the albums in 2011. Why would they not just use those masters for the vinyl boxset? And anyway, it's all compressed to death these days so pointless. I have a complete set of the original EMI UK first issue Queen CDs, and these have by far the widest dynamic range of any release I've heard of these albums. I have the 2011 remasters, but I listen to the original CDs by preference. |
| Day dop 04.11.2015 23:17 |
OwenSmith wrote: But they already remastered all the albums in 2011. Why would they not just use those masters for the vinyl boxset?They did. |