| Penis - Vagina 24.03.2004 20:16 |
I received an email from Justin Shirley Smith today, a portion of which follows: "I have made a close comparison between the different versions of I Want It All on the UK, HR and Capital releases of the Miracle album. 1st Chorus UK - No backing vocals - lead vocal double or triple tracked - synth more prominent - no lead Guitar 1st Chorus UK - REPEAT - No backing vocals - lead vocal double or triple tracked - synth more prominent - no lead Guitar 1st Chorus HR - No backing vocals - lead vocal with more obvious double or triple tracking and / or vocal FX - synth less prominent / more rhythm guitar - plus lead guitar. 1st Chorus HR - NO REPEAT! This HR 1st chorus is not taken from another part of the song - it is a different mix to the UK version! The version on the Capital Records Miracle CD is the same as the UK one. Looking at our audio database, it appears that a new mix of IWIA was added to the Album Master on 15/3/1989 but there are various "Album Master" Tapes with earlier dates so I suppose Hollywood records must have chosen the wrong tape. If I had time, I would lay out both albums on a DAW (Logic or Pro Tools etc) to check for any other differences. " So now it sounds like Hollywood made an honest mistake by choosing the wrong master.. and how were they to know one had a slightly different version? I always thought they did it themselves. |
| D.Blythe 24.03.2004 21:42 |
If Hollywood made a mistake on "I Want It All", it makes you wonder what else they screwed up... I gots to know; what is THE copy of "The Miracle" to own if the Hollywood version is "defective". I still like my Hollywood version. Sounds good to me. What version of the cd that has the correct mix of "I Want It All" is the best to own overall, with the best mastering available? I do not want to buy an old Capitol pressing that is available here in the states since the mastering is not as good as the Hollywood version. One from the U.K.? Japan? Can someone help me out? |
| Penis - Vagina 24.03.2004 21:51 |
That is a good question! The default answer would be the 2001 Japan version.. either the original or in the new card sleeve.. however we did some comparisons here and determined that the Hollywood version actually sounded a little better. (Some mid-range seems to be missing in our comparisons of tracks from AKOM, Miracle and Innuendo) I don't know about the other U.K. remasters such as 1994.. perhaps someone else can shed light on that. Personally I'm happier now knowing that this is a genuine alternate version and wasn't even meant to be released.. makes it kind of special, as opposed to thinking it was a major Hollywood 'error'. |
| Penis - Vagina 25.03.2004 01:54 |
Justin published his reply on the site in the 'experts' section in case anyone wants to read the rest of it: link And I have already replied with the info he asked for, thanks to Adam Unger for providing me with some necessary files :) Since he asked directly, I did tell him about our little comparisons here and the apparent decrease of mid-range on the 2001 remasters. I also asked about the volume levels and the differences between the older analog stuff and the later digital albums, so hopefully we'll learn something from the 'expert' soon :) |
| goinback 25.03.2004 07:25 |
Would the Capitol version be much different (in terms of sound quality) than the Hollywood one? I think the Capitol one came out only 3-4 years before the Hollywood one. I remember I couldn't figure out what was so great about "digitally remastering" an album that was only 3-4 years old and (I think) was recorded digitally in the first place. The Hollywood "News Of The World" disc still has a blank space between "WWRY/WATC" that wasn't there on the vinyl or tapes. "WATC" used to start IMMEDIATELY after "WWRY"...there was (virtually) no dead air. No one ever seems to believe me on this though :) |
| D.Blythe 25.03.2004 10:54 |
There may not be much of a difference between the '88/'89 Capitol cd of "The Miracle" and the '91 Hollywood version in terms of mastering, but I want to know if there is a cd that has been released since then overseas that has been manufactured using the advances in cd mastering that have been developed over the past ten years. Surely a cd manufactured in the past few years, especially in Japan, benefits from better transfer technology than a cd manufactured in 1989. |
| Penis - Vagina 25.03.2004 12:19 |
What we need is a fan who has: 1. An extensive collection with multiple versions of each release 2. A good ear 3. Lots of free time 4. HTML skills To create a definitive database of the Queen catalogue worldwide CD releases and note any differences :) goinback, my original instinct was to think that nothing could be improved from digital recordings too.. maybe we'll get an answer about that soon. For the tracks on the GHV2 DVD, since they went back to the multitracks and actually remixed, I would imagine that there is much more that can be done there, because they're now working with a much-improved mastering system... but when it comes to remastering an already mixed-down 'flat' stereo digital master, my guess is they can't make it any better than it originally was other than to amplify and adjust EQ and this loss of mid-range that we detected could be an indication of that........ Having said that, in our little comparisons for A Kind Of Magic & The Miracle, 3 editions of each were used.. original Capitol, Hollywood and 2001 Toshiba, and while there wasn't a massive response, the Hollywood version was picked most often as sounding the best of the three. |
| Adam Baboolal 25.03.2004 13:42 |
"but when it comes to remastering an already mixed-down 'flat' stereo digital master," There is no such thing as a 'flat' stereo master. It's never flat. A mixdown will have all the dynamics the engineer and band wanted, while also having been EQ'd etc etc. to give the sound that was needed. As long as everything is mixed properly, mastering is actually a very delicate process that doesn't change things too much. Unless things aren't quite 'there' in the final mix. But from there things can go anywhere, even back to the studio for remixing. "my guess is they can't make it any better than it originally was other than to amplify and adjust EQ" That's part of what mastering is. Although, usually not too much is changed in that area. This is the whole point of the mastering process. Balance, minor changes and fixes, too. "and this loss of mid-range that we detected could be an indication of that........" Yes and no. It's not because of the process of mastering that this has occured. But it is down to to the engineer who remastered the material and the equipment used to playback. Decisions made by this individual explains the outcome of the overall sound. Which is why some of us are not convinced of certain 2001 remaster cds. Even though others sound fine. It's confusing, I know. "Having said that, in our little comparisons for A Kind Of Magic & The Miracle, 3 editions of each were used.. original Capitol, Hollywood and 2001 Toshiba, and while there wasn't a massive response, the Hollywood version was picked most often as sounding the best of the three." Without a doubt, go for all the earlier albums up to '82 in the new 2001 remasters. These seem far better than any of the later 2001 remasters. However, I cannot judge MIH as I haven't heard a track from that one. But to be honest, I'd stick with the first few. The jury's still out on the latter albums... Peace, Adam. |
| Penis - Vagina 25.03.2004 13:56 |
You're too quick to argue Adam.. here's what I meant by 'flat', from Justin himself: "To Luke Mullens The final result of the band's work in the studio would have been a "Stereo Flat Mix Master" which contains the entire album mixed and sequenced with the right gaps and cross-fades etc. This is what they would have delivered to be mastered (or cut) on to vinyl. The mastering engineer would then have made a copy (called a "Production Master") of this with additional tone and level changes as desired or requested and this would be the version reproduced on the original records and CD's. " That's what I meant, nothing to do with dynamics.. I was just trying to use a proper term, in this case it means flat 2 channel rather than multi-track. |
| Penis - Vagina 25.03.2004 15:15 |
P.S. - goinback, I'll be sure and mention that WWRY/WATC gap too, not that anything will come of it but they seem to be curious about even the slightest differences :) According to what I pasted above from Justin, the correct gaps and crossfades should be part of these masters, so that shouldn't happen but I've noticed this quite a bit when making copies of different CDs of the same album. I extract an entire CD as one file and do it manually rather than track by track, so I then make note of the silence (pauses) and recreate them when burning with Nero. For CD, pauses are programmed to create the gaps where necessary and I think Hollywood (actually Eddy Schreyer and Kevin Metcalfe who did the remastering) sometimes ignored the original master and just did what they thought was correct. In that case, what sounds right to me is no gap at all, though you should still hear the slightest pause while Freddie takes a breath.. turn it up loud and you'll hear that :) |
| rhapsody__87 25.03.2004 15:20 |
Now okay wait here's my question and I don't know if this has been previously answered: -- Why does "I Want It All" have the beginning without the voices on the actual album but on Greatest Hits 2, you hear all 4 of them singing? Okay so I suck at describing but I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. God, I feel like a newbie for asking this! Haha :-) |
| Penis - Vagina 25.03.2004 15:26 |
The one with the vocal intro is the single edit.. it has that as well as editing out some of the good guitar stuff in the middle. To complicate things even more, there is a version which has the best of both... the vocal intro tacked onto the album version, which is on the 'Rocks' CD :) And recently by request I edited together another version, using the album intro tacked onto the single edit. LOL Oh yeah, those plus the Hollywood 'Miracle' CD version which we talked about here.. same as the regular album version but with a different (and shorter) first chorus. And then there's 3 different instrumental versions too.... :) |
| Adam Baboolal 25.03.2004 17:50 |
Didn't mean to argue, but I'd never heard that before. Hmm... maybe they have their own way of describing things. |
| rhapsody__87 25.03.2004 18:06 |
For the love of God, they were going version-happy with this song. I mean I adore "I Want It All" but how many times must we hear it differently? What's everyone's favorite version? Personally, I like the one on Greatest Hits 2... it fills it in a bit more. |
| Penis - Vagina 25.03.2004 18:35 |
There was me, that is Jeffrey, and I'm glad you replied again because I wanted to point out a malenky mistake you made... about 'all 4 of them warbling' :) Only Freddie, Roger & Brian warbled though some will be happy to argue that John did sing a malenky in concerts and veshches, where he is sometimes viddied at the mic. In the videos sometimes he's shown shown warbling too, O my brothers. My favorite changes depending on my mood. Sometimes it's nice to just ease into the warble via the pop-disc version rather than being creeched at from the nachinatovat, but the vocal intro is cool sometimes too. I definitely prefer the full-length guitar sections though. |
| Sebastian 25.03.2004 18:46 |
Although in the video they four sing, in the recording there's no John and there's no Roger, all the voices are Bri & Fred |
| rhapsody__87 25.03.2004 19:23 |
Haha, just like John singing in the Bohemian Rhapsody video. Gotta love the ol' Deaky. :-) |
| Penis - Vagina 17.04.2004 22:43 |
Another interesting thing I just noticed about this Hollywood version: In addition to the first chorus being different, during the final chorus, at approx. 3:38 you can hear Freddie singing 'Ay - yeah' from the same take as the vocal intro on the single version. Just thought I'd share that. |
| Saint Jiub 17.04.2004 23:05 |
That was not Freddie - It was Charles |