GinjaNinja 02.10.2016 19:02 |
Since this track won't be appearing on the upcoming "Queen: On Air" release, I thought I'd have another go at raising the volume of the vocals: Using my previous attempt as a starting point (see here: link, I produced a crude "mostly-vocals" track using a centre channel extraction filter, along with some high/low passes to cut out extraneous frequencies. This was simply overdubbed on top of the previous attempt to boost the volume of the vocals a little more. I also attempted to mask the distortion in the left channel (starting at about 2:30) by lowering its volume by a few dB and adding a duplicate of the right channel, also with reduced volume, but now panned left. The result is much more easy on the ears, but sacrifices some of the stereo separation. Thanks once again to pittrek for the original merge which forms the basis of my previous restoration. link |
Nitroboy 02.10.2016 19:10 |
Nice! And thank you :D EDIT: In all seriousness, there is no excuse for excluding this from the official release. Greater wonders have been worked by professionals (and fans) from old mono recordings. If Queen's team can't accept it or improve it the tiniest bit - well then they need a new team. |
Cruella de Vil 02.10.2016 22:25 |
Dear GinjaNinja, I wish you worked for QPL, maybe we'd see some sense in their release 'strategies'. |
aristide1 03.10.2016 02:11 |
Another return of the Golders Green comet? Smart of you to avoid the word "quadraphonic" this time. Although "center channel extraction filter" suggest you still have delusions about a quadraphonic source. In fact you've done some M/S equalization. The mid channel - the mono component of a stereo source - it's a derivative not a real center channel as you like to believe. |
Rami 03.10.2016 02:25 |
Thank you very much for your effort! |
GinjaNinja 03.10.2016 10:00 |
aristide1 wrote: Another return of the Golders Green comet? Smart of you to avoid the word "quadraphonic" this time. Although "center channel extraction filter" suggest you still have delusions about a quadraphonic source. In fact you've done some M/S equalization. The mid channel - the mono component of a stereo source - it's a derivative not a real center channel as you like to believe.I don't claim that the recording is quadraphonic. It was suggested by another QueenZoner and though the consensus later became that it wasn't, the SQ decoding process still gave some interesting results. "Center Channel Extractor" is literally the name of the filter I used, go pick a fight with Adobe. Indeed, true isolation of the mid channel is impossible. I called it a "crude, mostly-vocals" track as that's exactly what it sounded like. |
Chopin1995 03.10.2016 10:14 |
Thank you GinjaNinja! I think this is what we need now. |
dysan 03.10.2016 10:52 |
I'd butt in here and stand by the term 'centre channel' - an easy way to reference the information that has equal weighing in both the L and R channel. |
tassilo 03.10.2016 11:48 |
Thanks. |
aristide1 04.10.2016 07:01 |
GinjaNinja wrote:If you are aware the recording is not quadraphonic and the center channel is not real, then why all these decodings and extractions, instead of a classic equalizer (with M/S capabilities if you need)?aristide1 wrote: Another return of the Golders Green comet? Smart of you to avoid the word "quadraphonic" this time. Although "center channel extraction filter" suggest you still have delusions about a quadraphonic source. In fact you've done some M/S equalization. The mid channel - the mono component of a stereo source - it's a derivative not a real center channel as you like to believe.I don't claim that the recording is quadraphonic. It was suggested by another QueenZoner and though the consensus later became that it wasn't, the SQ decoding process still gave some interesting results. "Center Channel Extractor" is literally the name of the filter I used, go pick a fight with Adobe. Indeed, true isolation of the mid channel is impossible. I called it a "crude, mostly-vocals" track as that's exactly what it sounded like. You may obtain better results, or at least you can do something on your own, not only observing "interesting results" which are the unpredictable side effect of a failed decoding algorithm. |
Mrmarioanonym 04.10.2016 09:31 |
aristide1, if you can do it better than ginjaninja, then do it, otherwise just shut up. you're always rude to people. it's like you're a little spoiled child. |
aristide1 04.10.2016 11:32 |
Mrmarioanonym wrote: aristide1, if you can do it better than ginjaninja, then do it, otherwise just shut up. you're always rude to people. it's like you're a little spoiled child.Anonymity worked so well for you until now, why make changes, especially in a technical argument? If you have nothing to say about the subject, please remain hidden. |
Mrmarioanonym 04.10.2016 11:36 |
haha. don't ever change, buddy. |
. 04.10.2016 11:46 |
Thanks for trying. |
GinjaNinja 04.10.2016 13:24 |
aristide1 wrote: If you are aware the recording is not quadraphonic and the center channel is not real, then why all these decodings and extractions, instead of a classic equalizer (with M/S capabilities if you need)? You may obtain better results, or at least you can do something on your own, not only observing "interesting results" which are the unpredictable side effect of a failed decoding algorithm.First of all, by "all these" are you referring to my single share from over five years ago and an attempted improvement at one track? The "extractions" are nothing to do with quad decoding, as I'm sure you know, similar results can be achieved with any stereo track with centre-panned vocals. I didn't make an attempt at equalisation as the vocals and guitar occupy a similar range of frequencies, boosting both wouldn't really have helped to bring the vocals out. I also didn't want to risk ruining the balance of the sound with any extreme frequency adjustments. Fine, let's call the interesting results a product of phase cancellation, as that's all I really did. I've actually tried going back to Stark's remaster and using the center channel extractor (you can relax, no quad decoding involved with this one), the results are pretty much the same. |
Viper 04.10.2016 13:32 |
thx |
aristide1 05.10.2016 02:45 |
GinjaNinja wrote:It's not a correct approach to reject equalization just because there is some overlapping of different instruments. If you look at vocal and guitar from multitracks, Killer Queen for example, you will notice the energy has a different distribution, although the range is more or less the same. I've taken the spectrum of the vocal track, compared it with the target track, Killer Queen from Seattle 77, obtained a transfer profile, then used it to produce the best approximation of the "vocal channel" for the whole recording, with the purpose of boosting. It is the same thing you want to do, but has nothing to do with center channel or panning.aristide1 wrote: If you are aware the recording is not quadraphonic and the center channel is not real, then why all these decodings and extractions, instead of a classic equalizer (with M/S capabilities if you need)? You may obtain better results, or at least you can do something on your own, not only observing "interesting results" which are the unpredictable side effect of a failed decoding algorithm.First of all, by "all these" are you referring to my single share from over five years ago and an attempted improvement at one track? The "extractions" are nothing to do with quad decoding, as I'm sure you know, similar results can be achieved with any stereo track with centre-panned vocals. I didn't make an attempt at equalisation as the vocals and guitar occupy a similar range of frequencies, boosting both wouldn't really have helped to bring the vocals out. I also didn't want to risk ruining the balance of the sound with any extreme frequency adjustments. Fine, let's call the interesting results a product of phase cancellation, as that's all I really did. I've actually tried going back to Stark's remaster and using the center channel extractor (you can relax, no quad decoding involved with this one), the results are pretty much the same. The point is the overlapping effect was minimum, and you should not worry too much about it. You may try the same thing here by comparing vocal spectrum from a mostly vocal part with the same part from a sbd recording (Rainbow maybe), then apply the resulting profile to the current track. It's almost automatic using a MeldaProduction module or equivalent software, and is quite fun to play with spectral profiles. |
. 05.10.2016 03:45 |
aristide1 wrote:That took longer to explain than do.GinjaNinja wrote:It's not a correct approach to reject equalization just because there is some overlapping of different instruments. If you look at vocal and guitar from multitracks, Killer Queen for example, you will notice the energy has a different distribution, although the range is more or less the same. I've taken the spectrum of the vocal track, compared it with the target track, Killer Queen from Seattle 77, obtained a transfer profile, then used it to produce the best approximation of the "vocal channel" for the whole recording, with the purpose of boosting. It is the same thing you want to do, but has nothing to do with center channel or panning. The point is the overlapping effect was minimum, and you should not worry too much about it. You may try the same thing here by comparing vocal spectrum from a mostly vocal part with the same part from a sbd recording (Rainbow maybe), then apply the resulting profile to the current track. It's almost automatic using a MeldaProduction module or equivalent software, and is quite fun to play with spectral profiles.aristide1 wrote: If you are aware the recording is not quadraphonic and the center channel is not real, then why all these decodings and extractions, instead of a classic equalizer (with M/S capabilities if you need)? You may obtain better results, or at least you can do something on your own, not only observing "interesting results" which are the unpredictable side effect of a failed decoding algorithm.First of all, by "all these" are you referring to my single share from over five years ago and an attempted improvement at one track? The "extractions" are nothing to do with quad decoding, as I'm sure you know, similar results can be achieved with any stereo track with centre-panned vocals. I didn't make an attempt at equalisation as the vocals and guitar occupy a similar range of frequencies, boosting both wouldn't really have helped to bring the vocals out. I also didn't want to risk ruining the balance of the sound with any extreme frequency adjustments. Fine, let's call the interesting results a product of phase cancellation, as that's all I really did. I've actually tried going back to Stark's remaster and using the center channel extractor (you can relax, no quad decoding involved with this one), the results are pretty much the same. Make a contribution and let's hear your effort. |
. 05.10.2016 04:27 |
|
aristide1 05.10.2016 09:53 |
Only 30 days left to share the rest. Ghostwithasmile exposed his Rainbow tape much earlier. Unless you have funeral plans including your collection. |
. 05.10.2016 10:14 |
Make a contribution and let's hear your effort. |
brians wig 05.10.2016 14:08 |
Wow Mark. That announcement is STUNNING quality! |
. 07.10.2016 09:20 |
Also, the four songs from BBC session 6 were broadcast in quad matrix H on Radio 1 FM in the UK on Jan 2nd 1978. Program Title - Jonathan King Rules (produced By Dave Tate) |
aristide1 07.10.2016 11:13 |
The subject is exciting and for good reasons, both technical and historical. But I am wondering if a quad broadcast was a real treat or just commercial crap. Maybe someone who listened a quad 8-track cartridge of the Queen album could bring some light on this. What is the content of the rear channels, there is a separation of instruments, reverbs, or what? |
. 07.10.2016 14:45 |
I loved quad broadcasts, they sounded great if you had four ears. |