QueenZone discussion #1510109

View post on imgur.com

Ale Solan wrote: Self Made Man was edit by someone in here, can't remember who, there are not two versions, just one.

la_ultra_zona wrote: Great!

Freddie rey wrote: Amazing as always mate. What about doing this for each album? :)

dave76 wrote: This is what the band should have released back in 2011 as part of their 40th anniversary. I hope you will do more albums.

Kuijpy wrote: Sorry but all these songs you can find easily on YouTube, people that react here are so very fast pleased.. For the Miracle: Type on YT, Queen - Miracle whole album Than all the remixes, The eye versions.. Than the known demo's and there it is, another tread..

Freddie rey wrote: Amazing as always mate. What about doing this for each album? :)

dave76 wrote: This is what the band should have released back in 2011 as part of their 40th anniversary. I hope you will do more albums.

Thank you! But I'm sorry, I won't. Most of the work for this was already done through the research and making of my big share, so I just decided to simply give it some more content, spruce it up a bit and hopefully creating something nice enough for everyone to enjoy. If I were to make any more similar collections, I definitely wouldn't do anything else in my free time for the next months or years - these things are highly time-consuming. Personally, I'm satisfied because these shares allowed me to go deeper into the music I love and discover/rediscover some interesting tracks. But on the other hand, I can't shake off the emptiness I feel when I realise I'm getting pretty much nothing out of this in the real world other than said personal satisfaction. And I'm not talking about money. And sometimes too, you can get worse than nothing:

Golden Salmon wrote:

Ale Solan wrote: Self Made Man was edit by someone in here, can't remember who, there are not two versions, just one.

Can you please provide your source? I mean, the differences are there. The genuine audience recording (2001) does not match the rougher, hiss-ridden version (2005), but it does match the complete, very clear sound, high quality version. There are details you can't just fake, such as the different volume levels on top of at least one extra detail you can hear in the intro (a sort of guitar twang in the 2005 version not present in the others). If someone really did engineer the audio in the high quality version, they do deserve some special recognition and I'm ready to eat crow in that case.

la_ultra_zona wrote: Great!

You've been credited :-P

Freddie rey wrote: Amazing as always mate. What about doing this for each album? :)

dave76 wrote: This is what the band should have released back in 2011 as part of their 40th anniversary. I hope you will do more albums.

Thank you! But I'm sorry, I won't. Most of the work for this was already done through the research and making of my big share, so I just decided to simply give it some more content, spruce it up a bit and hopefully creating something nice enough for everyone to enjoy. If I were to make any more similar collections, I definitely wouldn't do anything else in my free time for the next months or years - these things are highly time-consuming. Personally, I'm satisfied because these shares allowed me to go deeper into the music I love and discover/rediscover some interesting tracks. But on the other hand, I can't shake off the emptiness I feel when I realise I'm getting pretty much nothing out of this in the real world other than said personal satisfaction. And I'm not talking about money. And sometimes too, you can get worse than nothing:

Kuijpy wrote: Sorry but all these songs you can find easily on YouTube, people that react here are so very fast pleased.. For the Miracle: Type on YT, Queen - Miracle whole album Than all the remixes, The eye versions.. Than the known demo's and there it is, another tread..

Cool! So youtube hosts lossless audio now? Every version in this quality, presented like this and permanently available for offline devices? Please post links for every complete Queen and solo album, with all the extra tracks and rarities! I'm waiting...

aristide1 wrote: Since all of these are lossy, it may be interesting to look further at the discarded frequencies above 16 kHz. The >16 kHz signature for the long version is clearly different than the others and reveals some eq boost. To me there is only one source, long and not equalized, who produced the two available versions: the not equalized short (4:24), and the equalized long (4:46). Spectralwise the convention version is consistent with the short version, not with the long one as you think (yes they have the same speed but this means nothing). And the best quality attribute (considering both are lossy) belongs to the shorter version, who is practically and edit of the original, not to the longer one who is dubiously boosted.

Ale Solan wrote: Here Golden Salmon, as aristide said, there is only one version. The longer version (4.46) comes from a completer rough version which it hasn't been shared so far, and is highly eq'ed and if it misses two seconds from the outro I guess is due to editing/eq'ing matters. The rough and incomplete version should the 4:24 minutes long. The real rough/longer version is still unavailable to us.

Golden Salmon wrote:

Ale Solan wrote: Here Golden Salmon, as aristide said, there is only one version. The longer version (4.46) comes from a completer rough version which it hasn't been shared so far, and is highly eq'ed and if it misses two seconds from the outro I guess is due to editing/eq'ing matters. The rough and incomplete version should the 4:24 minutes long. The real rough/longer version is still unavailable to us.

Sure, let's be more specific: there is one version of the song (musically speaking), but two different sources are available (4:24 and 4:46), with slightly different content and sound qualities beyond speed and completeness. In any case, the 4:38 version is not genuine as far as we can tell.

Ale Solan wrote: The content it's the same, there are no differences musically speaking. Queen didn't record two different demos (as far as we know)

Golden Salmon wrote:

Ale Solan wrote: Self Made Man was edit by someone in here, can't remember who, there are not two versions, just one.

Can you please provide your source? I mean, the differences are there. The genuine audience recording (2001) does not match the rougher, hiss-ridden version (2005), but it does match the complete, very clear sound, high quality version. There are details you can't just fake, such as the different volume levels on top of at least one extra detail you can hear in the intro (a sort of guitar twang in the 2005 version not present in the others). If someone really did engineer the audio in the high quality version, they do deserve some special recognition and I'm ready to eat crow in that case.

Golden Salmon wrote: ^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.

Ale Solan wrote:

Golden Salmon wrote: ^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.

It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.

Ale Solan wrote:

Golden Salmon wrote: ^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.

It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.

ataqueen wrote: it's an idea...look and tell me

Golden Salmon wrote: Wow, this board is so buggy. Reposting:

Ale Solan wrote:

Golden Salmon wrote: ^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.

It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.

May I ask for the reason behind the condescending tone? I'd love for this to be a healthy debate and you don't seem to actually follow what I'm posting, yet you write everything off as if I were clueless. Mind you, I'm no elite collector and never claimed to be, so I'd appreciate a more constructive approach rather than the edgy attitude. I'm doing this for fun and also to find out the truth, I don't think there's a need or point to offend anyone.