| una999 19.09.2006 12:13 |
after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts? |
| Adam Baboolal 19.09.2006 12:59 |
And this is under serious discussion... Hmm... |
| Deacon Fan 19.09.2006 13:17 |
I checked both the 1991 and 2001 masters and I don't see or hear any problems with volume level. The song is quite dynamic and obviously the bits with drums, bass and guitar are louder than the piano/vocal bits, but that's just how it is. If you've adjusted your volume level to hear Sheer Heart Attack at a comfortable level, you should have no problem with All Dead being too loud. If you have trouble hearing the quieter parts without adjusting the volume, consider that the environmental noise around you might be affecting your enjoyment. You might want to try headphones. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 19.09.2006 14:08 |
Adam, where's the peace?! Has the board worn you down? :) |
| Fireplace 19.09.2006 15:30 |
una999 wrote: after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts?It's all one big conspiracy to piss you off. Everyone on QZ chipped in to have the volume increased on the CD by QP, and we're all laughing at you now. Enjoy! |
| Adam Baboolal 19.09.2006 16:04 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Adam, where's the peace?! Has the board worn you down? :)It sure has! Well, I decided to reserve it for use when it was most needed. It'll have more meaning that way, I think. Adam. |
| SK 19.09.2006 16:36 |
una999 wrote: after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts?It's not really "louder" its just that some particles have survived the LP to CD transfer, its been badly mixed, like most CD Albums that were ment for LP |
| Adam Baboolal 20.09.2006 05:34 |
SK wrote:Wrong... It's the mastering stage where things were MADE for LP's. However, since the cd's were remastered in 93 for that format, the music survives. Nothing to do with being made for LP at all. And this LP to cd transfer you speak of... what the hell??? They're professionals, not somebody sitting at home with a turntable and a computer to capture the sound!! LMAOuna999 wrote: after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts?It's not really "louder" its just that some particles have survived the LP to CD transfer, its been badly mixed, like most CD Albums that were ment for LP Adam. |
| kagezan1313 21.09.2006 14:59 |
Fireplace wrote:Mwahahahaha! I laugh and laugh! That was the best $102,628 I ever spent! Hey, who wants to chip in to have my face put on the next release of the Queen 2 album?una999 wrote: after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts?It's all one big conspiracy to piss you off. Everyone on QZ chipped in to have the volume increased on the CD by QP, and we're all laughing at you now. Enjoy! |
| Fireplace 21.09.2006 15:05 |
kagezan1313 wrote:Only if you carefully rehearse your Marlene Dietrich pose :-)Fireplace wrote:Mwahahahaha! I laugh and laugh! That was the best $102,628 I ever spent! Hey, who wants to chip in to have my face put on the next release of the Queen 2 album?una999 wrote: after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts?It's all one big conspiracy to piss you off. Everyone on QZ chipped in to have the volume increased on the CD by QP, and we're all laughing at you now. Enjoy! |
| kagezan1313 21.09.2006 15:53 |
Done, I do that pose all the time. People look at me strange, especially the customs people when they look at my passport, and the cops when they pull me over for playing Queen too loud in my car... |
| SK 21.09.2006 15:58 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:No no, what I ment was the ADD/AAD transfer, its been known to lose particles and various sub-tracks(certain instrumental bits). The best example of this is the Pet Sounds Original Mono LP vs New CD, Listen to how even some double-tracks are lost. I'm sorry I don't really know the technical terms off my head, so I probably chose poor wordsSK wrote:Wrong... It's the mastering stage where things were MADE for LP's. However, since the cd's were remastered in 93 for that format, the music survives. Nothing to do with being made for LP at all. And this LP to cd transfer you speak of... what the hell??? They're professionals, not somebody sitting at home with a turntable and a computer to capture the sound!! LMAO Adam.una999 wrote: after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts?It's not really "louder" its just that some particles have survived the LP to CD transfer, its been badly mixed, like most CD Albums that were ment for LP |
| kohuept 21.09.2006 16:58 |
SK wrote:If you're talking about the stereo CD, then I belive the liner notes explain how the information was lost in the conversion from mono.Adam Baboolal wrote:No no, what I ment was the ADD/AAD transfer, its been known to lose particles and various sub-tracks(certain instrumental bits). The best example of this is the Pet Sounds Original Mono LP vs New CD, Listen to how even some double-tracks are lost. I'm sorry I don't really know the technical terms off my head, so I probably chose poor wordsSK wrote:Wrong... It's the mastering stage where things were MADE for LP's. However, since the cd's were remastered in 93 for that format, the music survives. Nothing to do with being made for LP at all. And this LP to cd transfer you speak of... what the hell??? They're professionals, not somebody sitting at home with a turntable and a computer to capture the sound!! LMAO Adam.una999 wrote: after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts?It's not really "louder" its just that some particles have survived the LP to CD transfer, its been badly mixed, like most CD Albums that were ment for LP It has been a while since I read the booklet, but what it described sounded much different than a re-mixing/restoring type thing. |
| SK 21.09.2006 18:40 |
kohuept wrote:Ah yes I recall that, I was actually talking about the original CD pressing my friend(Still Mono I recall, I'll have to pull it out). Usually any album that was recorded for vinyl was transferd via AAD(sp?), and in the linear notes of most album(or usually the back page) it explains that the flaw of this can cause albums to sound different from their original vinyl counterpart(WHITE LIGHT/WHITE HEAT by the Velvet Underground comes to mind). So this is why some Queen albums may sound odd, I wasn't trying to offend anyone, cheersSK wrote:If you're talking about the stereo CD, then I belive the liner notes explain how the information was lost in the conversion from mono. It has been a while since I read the booklet, but what it described sounded much different than a re-mixing/restoring type thing.Adam Baboolal wrote:No no, what I ment was the ADD/AAD transfer, its been known to lose particles and various sub-tracks(certain instrumental bits). The best example of this is the Pet Sounds Original Mono LP vs New CD, Listen to how even some double-tracks are lost. I'm sorry I don't really know the technical terms off my head, so I probably chose poor wordsSK wrote:Wrong... It's the mastering stage where things were MADE for LP's. However, since the cd's were remastered in 93 for that format, the music survives. Nothing to do with being made for LP at all. And this LP to cd transfer you speak of... what the hell??? They're professionals, not somebody sitting at home with a turntable and a computer to capture the sound!! LMAO Adam.una999 wrote: after the piano solo why does the volume on the song increase?? It's very inconvenient when you have the track on and then have to run over to turn it down before you finish. Then it goes into track 5 and that seems to be recorded at a low volume?? Any thoughts?It's not really "louder" its just that some particles have survived the LP to CD transfer, its been badly mixed, like most CD Albums that were ment for LP |
| Togg 22.09.2006 05:31 |
Well I know that Pet Sounds was a real mixture of cut and paiste when it came to mixing, you maybe confusing some of what you say by the fact that when they came to re do the mix in 96, some of the original tracks were no longer there. Here is what was said on some of the liner notes. "In mixing Pet Sounds in stereo," Linett wrote in the technical notes for the Pet Sounds Sessions boxed set, "every attempt was made to duplicate the feel and sound of the original mono mixes. Vocal and instrumental parts that Brian left off the record in 1966 were noted and duplicated, as were the fades. The one exception was the talking that can be heard under some parts of the original album. Even though this talking is now regarded by some to be part of the album, after consulting with Brian, it was decided to leave the background chatter out of the stereo mix." Nevertheless, despite all of the effort that went into creating the stereo mixes, there are instances where the stereo mix of a song differs significantly from the mono mix. Most notably, the bridge section of Wouldn't It Be Nice is sung by Brian in the stereo mix, while on the original mono mix, it is sung by Mike. The bridge originally was sung by Mike during the sessions for the song, and a mixdown was made of the song that included Mike's bridge vocal. But at some later point, Brian decided he was unhappy with Mike's vocal for the bridge and re-recorded it himself, in the process erasing Mike's vocals from the vocal multi-track tape. Then, after mixing down a version with his vocal in the bridge, he decided that he liked Mike's vocal better after all. He literally cut the bridge (with Mike's vocal) from the earlier mono mixdown and spliced it into the finished mono mix in place of his. However, that meant, when it came time for Linett to create a stereo mix three decades later, all that survived on the vocal multi-track was Brian's vocal for the section. |
| SK 22.09.2006 08:00 |
Ah yes, I am familiar with this, I was actually talking about the Pet Sounds 1988(?) CD, It was still in mono, but lost some of the mix in the AAD(?) transfer, I think this is quite apparant in a lot of cds(Beatles For Sale, Sgt Pepper, hell most of the Beatle catolouge) I suppose an easier term to use is "bad mastering" I'm unsure. Thanks for the help though! |
| YourValentine 22.09.2006 09:26 |
"They're professionals, not somebody sitting at home with a turntable and a computer to capture the sound!! LMAO" I am not into technical issues but professionals make mistakes, too. For example, I used to own a ADATR CD by Parlophone which had the end of YTMBA (take my breath, take my breath... away)cut as the beginning of Long Away. This mistake was quite embarrassing and it was eliminated in the later 1993 digital remaster series. Just an example that professional studios make real bad mistakes sometimes. |
| Adam Baboolal 22.09.2006 11:08 |
YourValentine wrote: "They're professionals, not somebody sitting at home with a turntable and a computer to capture the sound!! LMAO" I am not into technical issues but professionals make mistakes, too. For example, I used to own a ADATR CD by Parlophone which had the end of YTMBA (take my breath, take my breath... away)cut as the beginning of Long Away. This mistake was quite embarrassing and it was eliminated in the later 1993 digital remaster series. Just an example that professional studios make real bad mistakes sometimes.Hmm... considering I wasn't saying anything about profesionals MAKING mistakes, or otherwise, I think that's a weird post you've made YV. All human beings make mistakes when it comes to these working environments, professional or not. My original point was about una999 getting the terminology wrong and saying that a professional approach is different to how he thinks. Adam. |
| YourValentine 22.09.2006 15:38 |
Looks like this thread is full of misunderstandings. I thought you were replying to SK and his comments about "wrong mixing". |
| kohuept 29.09.2006 13:53 |
I'm going to take another stab at this... If you're talking about a CD from the late 80s, The Beatles' CDs, and such, you may be refering to the liner note that describes how it is impossible to "capture the warmth of a record" - or something like that. If this is the case, it has nothing to do with the actual recorded bits, but rather with how a CD sounds when it is played. IMO, this is correct because I think the earlier discs sound terrible - too quiet and hissy. Am I anywhere near what you are talking about? Also, I'm not claiming to have ANY technical knowledge. Hopefully that is not too obvious, though. |