QueenZone discussion #1551410

Halifax wrote: Hopefully some form of Dvd footage would be ideal as well From "Live Killers" and juicy bonus clips would be such a treat with band interviews from the era of 1979 !

Halifax wrote: Lets hope they put everything into it and not be greedy and give us the worst bits as per usual. lol

Cruella de Vil wrote: Dear Jimmy Dean, "Like they did with the horrid News Of The World Box or the disgusting Rainbow box where they actually gave us that piece of vomit that was a live version of Ferry Feller?" On what planet do you live? Why the vitriole?

Halifax wrote: Jimmy Dean: i was referring to the terrible "Queen Forever" collection even Roger hated that one!

SweetCaroline wrote: Ferry Feller? Are you referring to Freddie?

Halifax wrote: Jmmy Dean Yes we have had some great Dvd Releases but i think the golden jewel in the crown for most Queen fans must be The Hyde park 1976 concert and still no official release as Brian says the sound is so poor on that concert. While many bands treat there fans regular Queen fans wait almost an eternity for new things to appear. I would have thought Brian and Roger could share some of there personal collections for releases of things we have not seen or heard? If you are a Beatles fan or an Elvis fan there is almost something to buy every year without fail but Queen fans must be the most patient souls on the planet!

Halifax wrote: Surely the Hyde Park and Hammersmith shows 76 and 79 could be restored or made up decent from different sources provided by fans? And while i am in moaning mode what has happened to Earls court 1977, no official release for that show or shows in the same year for a Dvd release?

aristide1 wrote: Another classic gambit opening. Do you have a strategy VH or just wait for his move?

Halifax wrote: . . . . But really there is other things that could have ended up on Dvd like the San Remo performance of "Radio Ga Ga !

bucsateflon wrote: they should do A bluy-ray release of any live concert with separate audio tracks so the listener can do hes own mixing of the show.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Gee, what a surprise, there's the stooge/sock puppet... Your remarks make it abundantly clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. And yes, they could well have used multi-band compression in 1975, by means of band-pass filtering and then applying compression to the resulting outputs as required.

bucsateflon wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Gee, what a surprise, there's the stooge/sock puppet... Your remarks make it abundantly clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. And yes, they could well have used multi-band compression in 1975, by means of band-pass filtering and then applying compression to the resulting outputs as required.

WTF! you stupid-idiot, only retards like you think they know everything and go overzealous "band-pass filtering and then applying compression" GTFOH! Ma'am let me explain in a simple manner to you. You start with the original mix and audio levels, but you give the listener the choice to fade in or out the main 5(lets say 5 you dumb retard) main audio tracks, something like this: BASS GUITAR Freddie Drums(maybe more tracks for fun) Keyboard(if the case) piano maybe they could include some effects options for each track make it mode fun. MAKE IT INTERACTIVE, also it would be an eye opener for many people when they start to add or subtract an audio track from the performance.It gives a better understanding of how a rock performance with 4 or 5 instruments is done! Many listeners assume background players or playback or clicktracks are involved in the performance. Most of those millions youtube viewers on "Montreal 1981" don't even realize the whole performance is based on just 3 live instruments... and Freddie on the piano sometimes.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: And it's just been established that you don't know a) the difference between multitracks and stems b) how live recordings work c) the meaning of the word "mixing" in an audio-context.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

bucsateflon wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Gee, what a surprise, there's the stooge/sock puppet... Your remarks make it abundantly clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. And yes, they could well have used multi-band compression in 1975, by means of band-pass filtering and then applying compression to the resulting outputs as required.

WTF! you stupid-idiot, only retards like you think they know everything and go overzealous "band-pass filtering and then applying compression" GTFOH! Ma'am let me explain in a simple manner to you. You start with the original mix and audio levels, but you give the listener the choice to fade in or out the main 5(lets say 5 you dumb retard) main audio tracks, something like this: BASS GUITAR Freddie Drums(maybe more tracks for fun) Keyboard(if the case) piano maybe they could include some effects options for each track make it mode fun. MAKE IT INTERACTIVE, also it would be an eye opener for many people when they start to add or subtract an audio track from the performance.It gives a better understanding of how a rock performance with 4 or 5 instruments is done! Many listeners assume background players or playback or clicktracks are involved in the performance. Most of those millions youtube viewers on "Montreal 1981" don't even realize the whole performance is based on just 3 live instruments... and Freddie on the piano sometimes.

Pffft, yeah, that's not pointless at all... And it's just been established that you don't know a) the difference between multitracks and stems b) how live recordings work c) the meaning of the word "mixing" in an audio-context. Enjoy living in that insane fantasy world of yours where you aren't a clueless ape and your ideas are not suggestive of degenerative brain damage.

aristide1 wrote: It's better to have a crippled personality than to be a fully functional idiot.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Despite what clowns such as yourself seem to think, mixing audio is not something you can do well without quite a bit of training, not to mention that it's a lot of work, and a substantial part of that work is absolutely tedious. It also takes a considerable number of tools that you couldn't use if the content is on a bluray or dvd - multi-band compression? Nope. EQ-ing separate tracks with a set of generic hifi speakers? Good luck! At least 99% of the potential buyers of Queen-products couldn't do it, nor would they want to - they want the best possible sound, which they're not going to get if they have to do the mixing themselves.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Despite what clowns such as yourself seem to think, mixing audio is not something you can do well without quite a bit of training, not to mention that it's a lot of work, and a substantial part of that work is absolutely tedious. It also takes a considerable number of tools that you couldn't use if the content is on a bluray or dvd - multi-band compression? Nope. EQ-ing separate tracks with a set of generic hifi speakers? Good luck!