| ploughman 18.08.2019 20:53 |
Actually noticed this while I came across some so called "reaction videos" on Youtube. People are listening to music and then giving comments and impressions etc.... Anyway, on some of the videos they were listening to "Innuendo" and I kind of noticed some difference to the sound as I have used to hear it. I mainly listen to the 2011 re-mastered version nowadays and have been getting used to its sound. The people doing "reaction videos" are more or less listening to the old official video version which has the audio track from the original Innuendo album from 1991? link To me there seems to be a HUGE difference in the drum sound. It seems that the 1991 version has much more dynamic, louder and fatter drums than the 2011 version. Also the bass guitar seems more prominent there. Has Bob Ludwig infact tamed the song with his new mastering? Have any of you noticed this? Im really curious, since it only occurred me today when flipping between the two versions. The new version is the one on Spotify and all the other digital platforms. |
| Negative Creep 18.08.2019 22:57 |
In a word, no - quite the opposite. The remaster is much louder than the original CD, which is really thin sounding. |
| Jeremy 19.08.2019 02:00 |
There's more bass on the 2011 master. It's also more compressed. I prefer the original. |
| Day dop 19.08.2019 05:41 |
The 1991 original is thin sounding, the 2011 has too much bass. I prefer the 2004 mini-vinyl Japanese CD ( TOCP-67354). |
| ploughman 19.08.2019 06:55 |
Yes, I too feel and notice that the 2011 is overall louder. i was mainly talking about Rogers drums here. To me it seems that they are really crunched in the background on Ludwigs master. Yu can realy hear the punch on the snare drum better in the video version. I just have to check if you guys know, is the audio track that is used on the "Official video" from the original Innuendo album version or from Hollywood Records version? |
| cmi 19.08.2019 07:45 |
Recently I started to work on 'Innuendo' Expanded Collection project. So here's a fresh analisys: There are 3 versions of CD (re-)mastering of this album: 1991 CD Worldwide - Some songs needs a slight boost on low end. 2001 CD Japan - Too heavy on low end. 2011 CD Worldwide - similar EQ to 1991 master but destroyed with over-compressed dynamics. BTW, several tracks on 2011 were taken not from DAT source but from an analogue source. But this fact doesn't save the sound of these tracks. Unfortunately this album has very strange mixing decisions. It sounds not so powerful even on heavy tracks. Probably it caused by strong reverb on drums. Only remix will breathe a new life into this excellent album. Listen to Headlong and Ride The Wild Wind from Bonus EP 2011 to hear the difference. |
| dudeofqueen 19.08.2019 10:28 |
Which source are you using to compile your issue CMI? What do you plan to do to the core tracks to "polish up a turd" so to speak? The sad thing is that many people (not me) consider this to be in the top 3 of Queen albums and, sadly, what we have been given from QPL so far is FAR below the standards sound-wise that we have come to expect from Queen. The discs so far have been faulty and ought to have been returned by ANYONE purchasing them. |
| Invisible Woman 19.08.2019 11:12 |
To me, original 1991 is best. |
| cmsdrums 19.08.2019 11:14 |
dudeofqueen wrote: The discs so far have been faulty and ought to have been returned by ANYONE purchasing them.The discs aren't faulty - they contain the music mixed and mastered as the band want you hear it. Now, that might not be to everyone's liking, or even mean the mastering is really as it should be to make the tracks sound their best, but that doesn't equate to it being 'faulty'! If so, would you have grounds to return any album by any artist that doesn't sonically meet your expectations? (Mr Bad Guy, for example?!?) |
| Dim 19.08.2019 11:16 |
Go buy the Queen ord 2011 it is the best (clear and balanced) . Also on the original video the audio is mono 44khz. The 2011 remaster is the best Ludwig did marvelous job, don't listen sciolist critics. |
| stevelondon20 19.08.2019 11:52 |
Spotify only have the 2011 version. |
| Agr123456 19.08.2019 13:11 |
I can't stand the original 1991 CD version. Drums sound so weak... |
| artist_nine 19.08.2019 13:34 |
ploughman wrote: Actually noticed this while I came across some so called "reaction videos" on Youtube. People are listening to music and then giving comments and impressions etc.... Anyway, on some of the videos they were listening to "Innuendo" and I kind of noticed some difference to the sound as I have used to hear it. I mainly listen to the 2011 re-mastered version nowadays and have been getting used to its sound. The people doing "reaction videos" are more or less listening to the old official video version which has the audio track from the original Innuendo album from 1991? link To me there seems to be a HUGE difference in the drum sound. It seems that the 1991 version has much more dynamic, louder and fatter drums than the 2011 version. Also the bass guitar seems more prominent there. Has Bob Ludwig infact tamed the song with his new mastering? Have any of you noticed this? Im really curious, since it only occurred me today when flipping between the two versions. The new version is the one on Spotify and all the other digital platforms.I have also noticed the huge difference in drum sound and here is an old video describing the issue: link I bought the original CD when it was released so of course I'm used to that sound, but to me the remaster (the drums in particular) unfortunately sounds, as you said, "tame" in comparison. Of course it's perfectly fine if anyone likes the 2011 version better, but if they originally wanted the drums to sound like that (not have any punch to them), they would have probably done so in the first place. |
| Negative Creep 19.08.2019 14:09 |
Are you seriously suggesting the drums on the original master have any punch to them?! My only criticism of Ludwing's remastering, as that the mastering style isn't uniform across the catalogue. Queen II is still mastered pretty quietly, with the dynamics barely changed yet we then get to Innuendo and it is mastered really loud, to the point of so called brickwalling. |
| Biggest Band On The Planet 19.08.2019 14:59 |
Its not just Innuendo. The 2011 version of I want it all also ruined the song. Now I only listen to 2004 Japanese versions of Queen albums. |
| ploughman 19.08.2019 19:22 |
"Are you seriously suggesting the drums on the original master have any punch to them?! My only criticism of Ludwing's remastering, as that the mastering style isn't uniform across the catalogue. Queen II is still mastered pretty quietly, with the dynamics barely changed yet we then get to Innuendo and it is mastered really loud, to the point of so called brickwalling. " It is quite easy to hear that the snare sound on the linked video (the sound comes from the original 1991 master) has a snare drum much more "in your face" where as Ludwigs master has somehow tamed the whole lower mid area, and thus it has lost A LOT of low end punch from the snare drum especially. Im still not sure what version they used for that video I linked in my previous post, but it really has the snare much louder. Bob Ludwigs version have the drum space and reverb much louder and I think this stems from using a lot of multiband compression and some widening tricks. |
| Golden Salmon 19.08.2019 21:14 |
cmi wrote: Only remix will breathe a new life into this excellent album. Listen to Headlong and Ride The Wild Wind from Bonus EP 2011 to hear the difference.I cannot explain why, but it is way too obvious that newly sourced tracks for the 2011 bonus discs sound incredible while the remastered album tracks do not sound all that different at all compared to the old CDs. It's like they never went back to the actual multitracks or anything. They simply took stereo masters and did little to them. |
| reesefallon 20.08.2019 05:37 |
|
| cmsdrums 20.08.2019 05:53 |
Golden Salmon wrote: I cannot explain why, but it is way too obvious that newly sourced tracks for the 2011 bonus discs sound incredible while the remastered album tracks do not sound all that different at all compared to the old CDs. It's like they never went back to the actual multitracks or anything. They simply took stereo masters and did little to them.They DIDN’T go back to the actual multitracks, that’s why! The 2011 remasters are exactly that - “remasters”...they are NOT remixes from multitrack but a revisit of the stereo master mix where (in simple terms) they make changes to certain frequencies, headroom volume etc. That’s it - so what were you expecting exactly? |
| The Fairy King 20.08.2019 08:57 |
Most Queen videos have a different mix than the album or single versions. |
| cmsdrums 20.08.2019 11:09 |
The Fairy King wrote: Most Queen videos have a different mix than the album or single versions.Really? I wasn't aware of this - can you provide some examples? |
| Dim 20.08.2019 12:41 |
The videos in most cases were mono and 40khz. The bonus of early versions demo etc sound flat. Bod did great job with Queen catalogue, Queen were never a audiophile band. |
| dudeofqueen 20.08.2019 13:53 |
Dim, re: >Queen were never a audiophile band. The hunk of utter SHIT that is Mustapha lays testament to that. |
| The Fairy King 20.08.2019 14:34 |
cmsdrums wrote:Sarcasm?The Fairy King wrote: Most Queen videos have a different mix than the album or single versions.Really? I wasn't aware of this - can you provide some examples? |
| cmsdrums 20.08.2019 15:22 |
The Fairy King wrote:No - genuinely interested.....I must admit that I haven't watched many of their videos since the Video Hits DVDs were released, so I wasn't aware of any others that had been remixed in addition to the 5.1 mixes that are on those. (I must admit I'm surprised at this though)cmsdrums wrote:Sarcasm?The Fairy King wrote: Most Queen videos have a different mix than the album or single versions.Really? I wasn't aware of this - can you provide some examples? |
| dudeofqueen 21.08.2019 10:35 |
>The Fairy King wrote: >Most Queen videos have a different mix than the album or single versions. The only example that springs immediately to mind id "Headlong". |
| cmsdrums 21.08.2019 14:50 |
dudeofqueen wrote: >The Fairy King wrote: >Most Queen videos have a different mix than the album or single versions. The only example that springs immediately to mind id "Headlong".And even then, is that actually just a different 'edit' rather than different 'mix'? |
| dysan 21.08.2019 20:24 |
dudeofqueen wrote: Dim, re: >Queen were never a audiophile band. The hunk of utter SHIT that is Mustapha lays testament to that.Explain |
| dudeofqueen 23.08.2019 15:45 |
dysan, re: >Explain Why? If you don't know, you can't heard it. Suggest you don't bother as you'll never recover from such a bad aural experience...... |
| Stick 23.08.2019 16:03 |
@dudeofqueen Thats a very childish response. Also, what's an opinion worth if you can't explain or support it with arguments. As I said, it's the mentality of a child. |
| dysan 23.08.2019 20:04 |
Yeah agreed. |
| dysan 23.08.2019 20:06 |
I really hope this is based on the editorial decision to mix elements of the song in mono. |
| Dim 25.08.2019 11:18 |
The Jazz has engineering issues which I don't know if there is a way to be fixed. The issues made the mix difficult and also helped the creation of that mudy, blury and sink sound. Roy EQ many things even Brian's guitar something rare. But the result is not what was meant to be. So an album with better music and writing than NOTW lost its potential. |
| dysan 25.08.2019 14:08 |
But surely that's part of it's mystique and charm? |
| Dim 25.08.2019 18:51 |
Yeah it has a strange dynamic and a 70s charming vibe. |