| Cygnus X-1 23.05.2007 14:56 |
I know this has been asked before, but which CD versions are the best (soundwise)? I have all Albums on Vinyl and CD, but the CD's are the first ones who came out in the 80's. The 2001 Japanese pressings look really good, but they are expensive, so what's your opinion? Greetings, Olli |
| cmsdrums 23.05.2007 15:45 |
The latest mini vinyl remasters are the best 'normal' releases to datein terms of sound quality - they really seem to have worked well on these; the early stuff is a lot clearer and better to listen to, and even The Miracle and Innuendo are much sharper, with more snap and depth to the bass and drums. The best way to hear Queen however is really with a proper DTS set up for A Night At The Opera and The Game DVD-A releases, and the Greatest Video Hits DVDs. |
| masterstroke_84 23.05.2007 15:49 |
Without a doubt the latest japanese mini-vinyl editions... ...beatiful package and in most cases !REAL! high definition sound (not like ANATO 30 anniv. FAKE high definition sound)... P. |
| Bobby_brown 23.05.2007 16:41 |
There wer two great topics about this, last year. here´s one: link I couldn´t find the other. In my opinion the "News of the World" mimi lp edition beats everything. The vinyl was so bad, that this edition looks like gold. And in this edition you can clearly hear who sings "Sheer Heart attack". Others think it´s the Miracle album from mini lp edition. But yes, the japanese edition is the best. Take care |
| Micrówave 23.05.2007 17:07 |
This was touched on a bit in that other thread, but I'm interested in everyone's opinion on these MSFL discs. I have all four, and they sound the best thru my Bose speakers / Crown Amp. I bought all the EMI (imports) when they weren't available in the states. Then I bought all the Hollywood releases. Finally these MSFL discs, which I was really happy with upon 1st listen. I do not have any of the Japanese Mini CDs. Am I really missing out here? |
| Cygnus X-1 23.05.2007 17:59 |
Thanks a lot for your replys! I bought the japanese Innuendo and Queen II today. 16 euros at my local record store, which isn't too much for a japanese import here in Germany :-) They sound fantastic, specialy Queen II! Since i have the original Vinyls, these "vinyl minis" have the same layout. I think I get all of them, but I have to look where... At Amazon.de , the japanese 24bit re-master of Live Killers cost over 50 Euros...crazy! |
| pittrek 24.05.2007 03:30 |
Bobby_brown wrote: There wer two great topics about this, last year. here´s one: link I couldn´t find the other. In my opinion the "News of the World" mimi lp edition beats everything. The vinyl was so bad, that this edition looks like gold. And in this edition you can clearly hear who sings "Sheer Heart attack". Others think it´s the Miracle album from mini lp edition. But yes, the japanese edition is the best. Take careYes, there were 2 threads, the second was started by me and I too can't find it, which is bad, because there was a wonderfull long comparision of the original cd editions, the 1991 HR release and the Japanese remasters . And I fool didn't save it :( |
| Bobby_brown 25.05.2007 17:29 |
pittrek wrote:Hello Pittrek, nice to see it was you who started that wonderfull topic. I can´t find it too ; (Bobby_brown wrote: There wer two great topics about this, last year. here´s one: link I couldn´t find the other. In my opinion the "News of the World" mimi lp edition beats everything. The vinyl was so bad, that this edition looks like gold. And in this edition you can clearly hear who sings "Sheer Heart attack". Others think it´s the Miracle album from mini lp edition. But yes, the japanese edition is the best. Take careYes, there were 2 threads, the second was started by me and I too can't find it, which is bad, because there was a wonderfull long comparision of the original cd editions, the 1991 HR release and the Japanese remasters . And I fool didn't save it :( But i will try again. Now i´m gonna burn another DVD for some guy name Peter ; ) Take care |
| Bobby_brown 25.05.2007 17:36 |
OK, the other topic was erased from Queenzone. I remember i´ve copy it to my hard drive to know what to buy and the link is dead ; ( But i copy the text of a wonderfull review made by someone who i can´t remember. I´m sorry for not guiving the credit he deserves but in case someone knows, just say it. Here´s what he has said: " Oh well, since this is here anyway I'll try to answer your slightly more specific question. I have at least 2 versions of each so I'll list which one I'd grab: "Queen" - Hollywood version 1991. A warmer, not-so-harsh and tinny sound compared to the 2001 which actually hurts my ears at times. "Queen II" - Hollywood 1991 again. While the 2001 version never hurts my ears, it does venture into the same type of sound. And I actually listened to the 2001 version last night and swore I heard some very minor but noticeable drop-outs. "Sheer Heart Attack" - 2001 remaster for sure. Much fuller sound. "A Night At The Opera" - 30th Anniversary, and preferably the DVD's PCM track which is noticeably better than the standard CD due to the higher sampling rate. "A Day At The Races" - 2001 remaster. Flawless I think and a significant improvement over 1991. "News Of The World" - 2001 remaster, absolutely. This is one of the two best of the 2001s. Big, rich sound that blows other versions away. "Jazz" - Tough call. I'm gonna say the 1991 version because again, there's a warmth there which is missing on the over-loud, bit-too-tinny 2001 version. UK version from 1994 has a glitch during the intro of Fat Bottomed Girls which was carried over to 'Rocks'. "Live Killers" - 2001 version all the way. This version sounds more rich and full than the weak 1991 version. "The Game" - 2001 version. This is tied with NOTW as my favorites of the 2001 series. I've tried the PCM from the DVD-A and it was lacking something, and the 1991 version is totally lacking a fullness/bass. "Flash Gordon" - 2001 version. Much like 'Live Killers', this isn't a very well-produced album and the 2001 remaster at least improves it slightly. "Greatest Hits" - 2001 version, which is also contained in the U.S. Platinum Collection (not the European version) and "Greatest Hits - WWRY Edition". Major improvement from the early 90s UK version. "Hot Space" - 2001 version. Excellent sound and much richer than the 1991 version. "The Works" - This one kinda parallels 'Jazz'. Again, I think the 1991 version is slightly more pleasing sounding.. the 2001 is a bit too loud and kinda flat sounding. "A Kind of Magic" - Very tough call. I actually like the sound of the 2001 version, though once it was pointed out that there was midrange missing, I heard it too.. I guess technically I'd have to say the 1991 version is more like it should be. I love this one as a 2004 card sleeve though.. being a gatefold and with such rich artwork. "Live Magic" - 2001 version without a doubt. The 1996 Hollywood version is very weak compared to this. Major improvment. "The Miracle" - Here again, like AKOM, if you like a sort of V-shaped EQ pattern like myself, the missing midrange won't bother you and this will sound nice. And since the 1991 Hollywood version has an alternate mix of 'I Want it All', this 2001 version is my best choice for an original representation of the album. I have the 1989 Capitol version as well and it's quite weak sounding compared to either of those. "Innuendo" - original 1991 version. 2001 remaster is horrible at times. 'I Can't Live With You' sounds really harsh, other tracks sound weak.. they botched this one when remastering. "Greatest Hits II" - 2001 version is much cleaner sounding, doesn't have that 'compressed' sound that the original 1991 version had. Plus they've restored the endin |
| Cygnus X-1 26.05.2007 04:45 |
Thanks a lot Bobby Brown! Now this the perfect guide!!! |
| pittrek 26.05.2007 09:36 |
A big THANKS for a guy named NUNO :) And also for the original author, of course :) |
| Deacon Fan 26.05.2007 12:15 |
Hehe.. that was me. Thanks for reposting it Bobby :) |
| Bobby_brown 26.05.2007 16:53 |
the lesbian bunny wrote: Hehe.. that was me. Thanks for reposting it Bobby :)Just saved you all the trouble of writing it again ; ) Great review, thanks! Take care |
| Bobby_brown 26.05.2007 16:54 |
pittrek wrote: A big THANKS for a guy named NUNO :) And also for the original author, of course :)Yes, Nuno is a great guy ; ) |
| goinback 29.05.2007 22:25 |
Thanks I'm gonna save that list too :) Unlike CDs from other older bands I have, I do have to admit a lot of the older albums don't sound too bad on the 1991 Hollywood remasters (minus the missing measures on In The Lap Of The Gods, which I still haven't replaced).... Do the gold discs have any plusses at all? I have the MFSL gold ADATR but I've never noticed much difference between it and the Hollywood 1991 version, but I guess it doesn't hurt to keep it anyway. I know remasters from other bands have actually surpassed their gold MFSL counterparts so maybe most gold discs are obsolete. |
| Adam Baboolal 30.05.2007 10:59 |
Right. I have the early 2001/4 remasters to hand against my 90's versions. I'll post my observations on an album by post basis... -Sheer Heart Attack- Killer Queen - Here's something funny...On my HR version there's a humm noise at the begining of the track. This has been eliminated on the 2001 remaster. Good start for the 2001 ver! A definite sharper sound on the 2001 version that sounds great on the opening intro. But once the track gets into full flow, it sometimes gets tiring. A little too much. I.E. 'Sh' and 'Sss' vocal sounds are uncomfortable. The guitar lead still sounds great, if that bit better than before. Tenement Funster - Much better sound on the 2001 remaster. Ss sounds are nowhere near the sharpness on KQ, which is a relief! Spoke too soon... I still get that uncomfortable feeling on listening to the guitar solo bit in the middle. Too much sharp irratating sound that has me reaching for the volume knob! Drums sound nice and clear. Flick Of The Wrist - Fuuuuuccckkk! Opening chord sounds soooo harsh on 2001 re. This is horrible... The harmony vox near the beginning are very SS-ey. They're kinda like that on the 90's remaster, but not as pronounced at this 2001 ver makes them stand out more. The only good point I can find is that the guitars come through nicely, though at the expense of the overall track. Nice lows, but kinda irrelevant with all else happening around it! Lily of The Valley - Very nice on the 2001 re. Bass is nice and present. Ss-ey sounds from vocals is very low! Woohoo! Now I'm Here - 2001 is nice in the intro. But the SS-ey problem comes into play again. In fact, the vocals sound harsher on my ears, even before harmony vox come in. What a dissapointment because, with the intro and some quieter vocal moments, it did sound really nice. In The Lap Of The Gods - Even the 90's remaster was pushing the vocals and swooshy cymbal sounds hard in the opening, so I was really dreading the 2001 version... Oooh...Not as bad as I was expecting. But there's still a lot of harsh vocal loudness going on. They must have recognised this would happen and de-essed the track a bit cause it's quite different sonically. But still drum cymbal hits are quite harsh. Stone Cold Crazy - Again even the 90's remaster could push the limits a bit with the guitars. But it's very listenable. Wonder how the 2001 ver compares... 2001 ver certainly has a more thumping bass to it. Pretty cool. Shiiittt! Vocals come in and the SS-ey stuff comes in to play AGAIN! Guitar solo starts up and is also harsh and overly loud. Dear Friends - Very nice surprise here with the 2001 version as Freddie's vox sound even more intimate than the 90's re. THIS track, so far, is the truest representation of how it was on the previous 90's remaster, but sooo much nicer. Fan-f-ing-tastic! Misfire - 2001 is bassier. Not too bad on the SS-ey vocals. Still there, mind. Something I've definitely noticed in this track more than others is the limited dynamic range in play. On the 90's remaster, the harmony guitars on the left (19 secs in) sound really nice and present. But on the 2001 version, they're lacking any bounce or space like the older remaster has. In fact, even the mini-solo sounds nicer on the old re than the 2001 ver. On this track, more than any previous song, I've heard this lessened dynamic range and it has distracted me after hearing how it was BEFORE the 2001 re listen. Shame... Bring Back That Leroy Brown - 90's re is nice and spacious, great dynamics going on. Little Ss-ey, but very very rare. 2001... As soon as it started, it sounded like it had less of the spacious sound that the old re has. In fact the dynamics definitely sound less than they were. Even sounds more up front to the speakers. Not a nice change. Funny bit with the guy with the low voice - that sounded brilliant on the 2001 ver!! lol Hey, if you like that guy, get the 2001 ver for sure! lol She Makes Me - T |
| pittrek 30.05.2007 12:43 |
This starts to be a REALLY interesting discussion :) |
| Toozeup 30.05.2007 17:38 |
Remaster, for a number of years meant going back to the multi-tracks and creating a new digital mix. The big criticism being that the resolution of CD's revealed too many faults on the original master tape and to some extent this was/is true. This went out of fashion as record companies no longer wanted the extra expence of remixing. Personally I think the results are much better when a new mix is created but obviously it is difficult and time-consuming to replicate the original master and fans (and artists in some cases) moan about the mix not being quite the same. I think the early queen albums could seriously benefit from a new stereo digital mix (the 5.1 mix will happen sooner or later.) Just think how crisp they would sound with no generation loss!! A new mix supervised by Brian and Roy Thomas Baker would be awesome. The works and AKOM could do with a remix too, as I understand it, they were recorded on analogue equipment then digitally mixed. So if they were to be remastered the only logical choice would be to re-transfer the multi-tracks with modern equipment (80's A/D converters were Bad). They would sound so much better and I don't think the fans would complain because nobody gives those albums much credit anyway. |
| Daniel Nester 30.05.2007 21:39 |
I have yet to get the NOTW 2001 remaster. Still have that horrid Hollywood 1991 reissue with the chopped-off "It's Late," a crime if there ever was one. |
| Adam Baboolal 31.05.2007 06:14 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I have yet to get the NOTW 2001 remaster. Still have that horrid Hollywood 1991 reissue with the chopped-off "It's Late," a crime if there ever was one.I'll review that one next, then. I'm really hoping that Bobby's right about it. Should be great! Adam. |
| Daniel Nester 31.05.2007 09:31 |
Thanks, Adam, that would be really helpful for me and very informative I am sure for the board. I still regret selling all my import CDs as the reissues came out. What was I thinking? I was in college, thought selling a CD back then was like selling off a mutual fund or something. I think I got, like, two dollars for each one. I'll stop. Feel like I am in confession. |
| Adam Baboolal 31.05.2007 12:58 |
Here we go with another album review between my 90's remaster copy and the 2001/4 version. -News Of The World- We Will Rock You - Nice, in your face start with the 90's re ver. 2001 ver - Lacks some spaciousness that was on the 90's re, but this soon disappears anyway, so it's not hugely important. Just an observation. This 2001 copy sounds nice. Very similar to the 90's re, but with some heightened bass and treble. It's pretty loud, mind, but no real drawbacks in comparison. We Are The Champions - What a great track, eh? 90's re sounds nice, though, it's a little tough on the ears with the huge vocal harm bits coming in more and more. 2001 ver - First thing I notice as it starts, the bass is more prominent. Nice, but in some spots, seems a little forward. But as the song hits, that's not a problem. Song in full force sounds brilliant! Nice clean and clear, very powerful sound and in fact, smoother and easier on the ears in comparison to the 90's re. What a turnaround, eh? Much nicer to listen to than the 90's re. Sheer Heart Attack - 90's re is nice and clear. Little swishy swashy drums. I'd never listened to that before! Pretty quiet and stiffled aren't they? Love the mad guitar whine bit! 2001 ver - As soon as Freddie starts, he sounds clearer than before. John's bass is now punching the air more. Brian's guitar is prominent as it was before, but more so and sweeter sounding. Very nice compared to the 90's re. Only downer is the guitar whine bit. It seems soooo much higher than before that the dynamics are a little squeezed. *listens to 90's re for comparison* Yeah, definitely squeezed more. Again, when purely remastering the rest of the track with a more compressed edge, it brings these sweet little whin-y guitars out front more and they breathe less. Shame, but overall, very cool for the 2001 ver. All Dead, All Dead - 90's re first as always. Really wonderfully balanced track this one. Always liked the way it'd been recorded/mixed. Especially my fav moment on a Queen record, Brian's cascading harmony guitars at 1:43. Sooooo sweet and beautiful sounding. Hmm... It's a little hard to express this, but I'm not liking the sound on this one. Bass is really nice. But the vocals and piano have this strange trebley sound to them. It's not harsh, just a little bit of a weird edge to them. Like if someone turns the sharpness up on your tv, you start to see an edge around things? It feels like that to me. Brian's cascading guitars still sound great here! Overall, nice, but I still prefer the 90's re for this track in particular. Spread Your Wings - Nice on the 90's re. Nice highs on the 2001 re, though, again I'm hearing that edginess on the vocals as they come in. Oooh...little SS-eyness going on with this vocal. Oh dear, it's quite bad. Nowhere near as bad as the SHA album, mind. But it's a little distracting. The tracks certainly has a bit more punch, but...OH damn it! Sorry, but as I'm writing this that bloody vocal is jumping right out at me with the edginess. Ugh. Bass sounds nice, but not as remarkable a change as the SHA track. Guitar lead sounds pretty cool here, though as the track is playing out to the end, the cymbals are a little toppy. Fight From The Inside - Now this song has the drums and bass kicking nicely on the 90's re already. Guitars nicely placed and the vocals sounding pretty sweet with Roger. Great bounce to the sounds in the background. Haha, the 2001 starts kicking NICELY! Everything seems enhanced on the intro. The vox... Hmm...yes and no. I think everything else around it is brought up in level and seems a little crowded now. The 90's re was better cause everything had its own spot and I could happily listen to either instrument and appreciate it. On the 2001 version, it all seems squeezed together. What a shame cause the opening sounded so good! Get Down, Make Love - This'll be interesting cause the 90's re sounds cool. Very clear for every |
| Bobby_brown 31.05.2007 15:02 |
I think the NOTW LP is probably the worst Queen vinyl ever release (at least on my Portuguese version). Overall the sound is too weak! With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you. On SHA in the 94 version it´s still difficult to know whos singing the song (Freddie or Roger), but with 2001 version this problem was solved and the song can be seen as a "duet" for the first time. The vocals on All Dead all Dead are better in the 2001 version in my opinion. The other song was "Who needs you". Since they´ve choosed to put Freddie´s voice on one channel sometimes his voice sounded too weack compared with the other instruments. In the 2001 version i think the sound is more balanced and the sound of the acoustic guitar is cristal as water. This alone worths the price (or maybe not ; ). I remember reading a Brian interview saying the the remastering process (1994) was very demanding because he and Roger had to spent 12 hours a day with headphones on their ears. So, i´m thinking that the albums are probably in the way their creators wanted/imagined them ( 1994 version). Sometimes the sound we want for a certain track might not be the sound they thought in the first place. "I can´t live with you" is a good example. Some people want a more guitar oriented sound instead of the Synth oriented sound. Even though i like the 97 Re-take of the song, i think that on Innuendo they´ve made the right choice, It makes more sense. But it´s allways a question of taste, or lack of it ; ) Great reviews Adam. keep´em coming! Take care |
| Cygnus X-1 31.05.2007 15:15 |
@ Adam Baboolal Thanks so much for your excellent reviews! This really helps me a lot, since buying their entire Backcatalog again isn't cheap. Could you please tell me about your view of "Live Killers"? I own the org. '79 (german)Vinyl pressing - which sounds still better than the first CD edition (at least for me..). I saw a 24bit Remaster (japanese pressing) on Amazon, is it the same as the 2001 remaster? |
| Adam Baboolal 31.05.2007 15:34 |
The Mini Vinyls are exactly the same as the Japanese 24-bit remasters. One and the same. The Japanese got them in 2001 and the UK (and elsewhere?) in 2004. Bobby, you never knew both Freddie and Roger sang on SHA? It's not a duet though because, Freddie takes the lead and Roger only comes in at certain points. Also, you said there was bad mixing on the 1994 remaster in comparison to the 2001 remaster. Dude, NOTHING has been remixed! It's the same mix for both. They're not mixed differently because they come from the same master mix tape source when doing a remaster. Now, remember, if it sounds good to you on your equipment, good. But for me, knowing what something sounded like before the 2001 remaster (meddling), I choose the songs over the so-called improvements in sound. The 1993/4 remasters show off the songs well, while even on my studio speakers, the 2001 versions are sometimes wrecking the wonderful arrangements for a bit of extra highs, lows and loudness. A very modern thing to do, I'm afraid. As for the reviews, I need to state again that these are partially my opinion, but mainly from a sound engineer's perspective. I'm comparing the 1993/4 remasters against the 2001 remasters. Now, a good mix is a good mix and a bad remaster is a bad remaster. I haven't a clue why Justin-Shirley Smith did them. Cause he's Brian's engineer? The guy who did the 2005 ANATO 30th anniversary remaster ROCKS! It's the best sounding remaster I've ever heard from the Queen camp. And as we all know, there's been a lot of them! lol My point being that that guy (on ANATO 2005) is a mastering engineer and will always do a better job than someone like JSS, who is a recording/mixing engineer. We engineers SHOULDN'T do everything!! I've done it before and the results are always better with a fresh set of ears on the job. Anyway, I'll look at Live Killers very quickly cause there won't be any use going track by track. If I remember correctly, the 2004 remaster was good on this one. Can't recall, though. We'll see. Adam. |
| Bobby_brown 31.05.2007 16:48 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: The Mini Vinyls are exactly the same as the Japanese 24-bit remasters. One and the same. The Japanese got them in 2001 and the UK (and elsewhere?) in 2004. Bobby, you never knew both Freddie and Roger sang on SHA? It's not a duet though because, Freddie takes the lead and Roger only comes in at certain points.Until Brian said so on his soapbox i got confused over the years of rumours. It looks like Freddie wanted to sound like Roger, but he only achieved because of the bad sound this album had since it´s 1977 release. With the 1994 remaster i´m affraid that it´s still not that obvious that´s Freddie, but with the 2001 remaster is very clear that Roger only sings "cardiac" if i´m not mistaken (i´m speaking from memory here). Also, you said there was bad mixing on the 1994 remaster in comparison to the 2001 remaster. Dude, NOTHING has been remixed! It's the same mix for both. They're not mixed differently because they come from the same master mix tape source when doing a remaster.No, i was talking about the LP 77 version. Since it was the first edition and it was BAD, i choose to call it a bad mix since it was the original one. I don´t know if that´s the right term, but since it wasn´t a remaster i call it mix, or should i have call it bad production? I don´t know, what i meant is that this album is bad from the source, at least compared with their earlier efforts. Now, remember, if it sounds good to you on your equipment, good. But for me, knowing what something sounded like before the 2001 remaster (meddling), I choose the songs over the so-called improvements in sound. The 1993/4 remasters show off the songs well, while even on my studio speakers, the 2001 versions are sometimes wrecking the wonderful arrangements for a bit of extra highs, lows and loudness. A very modern thing to do, I'm afraid.I think equipment has a lot to do too! The things i find bad about the remasters are the ones i can´t "make up" with my stereo, so to speak. But it´s a matter of taste really. Take Care |
| Adam Baboolal 31.05.2007 20:15 |
First of all, I don't look at it as being a matter of taste. I'll explain why later.
I'm amazed you can't tell the difference between Freddie or Roger singing on either release. Freddie and Roger couldn't sound more different! I don't know what to say to you really.
Anyone who says this, and there have been a few over the last couple of years, I just sit back in amazement at it. It's like saying John sounds as good as Freddie. It just rocks me a little. *Shivers*
No, i was talking about the LP 77 version. Since it was the first edition and it was BAD, i choose to call it a bad mix since it was the original one... ...what i meant is that this album is bad from the source, at least compared with their earlier efforts.No, they're not bad mixes. I'll get to that in a moment. And I'll also explain that the source isn't bad either. And I quote... With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you."Again, it's not bad mixing. If it was bad mixing, the mix wouldn't have been used at all. I've never heard someone say a bad word on any album release. In fact, I'm not 100% sure, but aren't the master mix tapes from the time, the same used to create a new mastering of the material from? Makes sense. They don't go around recreating mixes of old, UNLESS it's a special case, i.e. TGame/NATO dvda's. The difference here Bobby is that I'm trying to view these from an engineer's perspective. To me, this is the only way to ensure that I'm not letting my personal opinion of the mix itself get in the way. I'm analysing the original remaster release compared to a new release of the same material. If the new release messes with the previously released cd, it makes sense to see if these changes make sense or are simply a bad move. Now, on the other hand, you have a completely different outlook on things. Your opinion is strong and biased, e.g. you didn't like the NOTW album sound from 77. Add to that the fact that you think that somehow these latest remasters have made it clearer who's singing on the SHA track. I certainly don't think it has changed THAT much. Or that there are bad mixes on this album from it's initial release. Your view is a personal one. I don't bring any opinions like those or any other really. Just that I like the band, the music and wish to compare these remasters. Simple as that. And there certainly have been plenty of surprises along the way, so far. Some tracks on the new remasters I think are well done, others, I think are badly done. Changes, like SOTS, that actually confuse the picture and change what it originally sounded like so much from what Queen created in their songs is wrong. They're not all like that, but in some cases, the changes are bad enough to warrant these reviews. Since this thread was started to make the differences and clarifications over what's best, clearer. I think it's high time they're looked at. I recognise that some just want a certain kind of update, but I hope to present the reality of what the latest remasters have actually done to the music we all love. So, far, it turns out my thoughts from late 2004 to present day have been wrong about the pre82' albums being the best of the 2001 remasters. That's quite sad. And I think with the two albums I've looked at, it's obvious to me that with someone like JSS behind the remasters, it's bad. I said it before, they should've gotten someone who's specialised in this field who ALSO has a fresh pair of ears. NOT someone already in the Queen camp!! Big mistake. Anyway, I'll look into another album soon. Any requests? Adam. |
| Bobby_brown 01.06.2007 05:36 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: And I quote...OK, first of all i must apologise because i was comparing my 2004 mini LP remaster with the Hollywood Records one. I forget that i have 2 HR, the other being QueenI. And since i´m out of names if it´s not a bad mixing, then what it is? One thing i´m shure, the sound of this album is weacker than the previous ones and i´ve never understood why. Bad production? Is it just me? Was it meeant to sound Punk-ish? Because if i want to have some pleasure listen to it, i have to turn my volume on. I don´t need to do that to listen to Tie Your mother down from the previous record. For me it´s obvious that something isn´t the same.With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you."Again, it's not bad mixing. If it was bad mixing, the mix wouldn't have been used at all. I've never heard someone say a bad word on any album release. In fact, I'm not 100% sure, but aren't the master mix tapes from the time, the same used to create a new mastering of the material from? Makes sense. They don't go around recreating mixes of old, UNLESS it's a special case, i.e. TGame/NATO dvda's.In this case3 they can´t because i think the tracks were stolen or misplaced. But even in the DVD´s the songs from this albums are the worst. "Spread your wings" it´s a good example. Maybe they´ve wanted that way, i don´t know. Now, on the other hand, you have a completely different outlook on things. Your opinion is strong and biased, e.g. you didn't like the NOTW album sound from 77. Add to that the fact that you think that somehow these latest remasters have made it clearer who's singing on the SHA track. I certainly don't think it has changed THAT much. Or that there are bad mixes on this album from it's initial release. Adam.I´m not a sound engenieer so it´s obvious that i´m not going for details. I didní like the 77 LP release, and i have 2 editions (Portuguese and Spanish), and unless i find one good one i stick with my opinion. When their 74 records sound better than the 77 record, something happened, that no remaster can undo properly. The guitars throughout this album are very weack, they could not recreat the excelent boost from TYMD for example. If it´s not a bad mix, then it´s bad production or whatever. On the other side you have "The Game". It has very gentle songs but with great sound. The German guy (forgot his name ) really made things better soundwise. Take care PS- you can review "The Miracle". |
| Adam Baboolal 01.06.2007 12:02 |
Overall, I think with yourself it comes down to how the album has been recorded/mixed. And that is the production side of things. It can be completely differently mixed, but usually, the recording sets the tone for everything afterwards. The famous saying in the studio, you can't polish a turd! lol Or, we'll fix it in the mix. Ugh... I'll use my 2005 experience with a band. What they recorded on day one was what was being played back from the recording stage to the mixing stage, right? But the mixes weren't doing it for them. They expected magic to transform these basic sounds they had into pro-recordings of their guitars! Here's my own personal example: 1. My demo recording of the lead guitar for DSMN (Feb 07) - link 2. My non-mixed recording of the lead gtr in DSMN (May 07) - link The difference? One additional room mic and a specially made reverb on the non-mixed version. Whereas the same equipment was used in both, when the demo was recorded, I had 10's on my guitar. The 2nd recording was made where I now have 9's on the guitar. Forgot to add, I did my main version (2nd file) in E instead of F! The demo's in the original F key. But the difference, I think, is pretty huge. Anyway, I'll look at The Miracle sometime soon. Adam. |
| Bohardy 01.06.2007 14:15 |
I actually prefer the sound on the first solo...It sounds a bit brighter and more at the forefront of what's going on. Plus it's in the right key, and instantly sounds right. Whereas the version in E makes my ears prick up for not being in the right key. Did you change key to make the vocals easier? Because it obviously makes absolutely no difference to the guitar parts, which wouldn't normally be the case when considering the difference between E and F on the guitar. Still. Very nicely done, from what we can hear on that little snippet. |
| Adam Baboolal 01.06.2007 17:20 |
Bohardy wrote: I actually prefer the sound on the first solo...It sounds a bit brighter and more at the forefront of what's going on.Well, yeah, it does have its charm. But remember, the demo is kinda mixed, whereas the main recording is totally unmixed. The new one is a bit wild. Needs taming! But hey, this serves my point quite well. You prefer one over the other. They both have good and bad points as they are right now. Interesting... Bohardy wrote: Plus it's in the right key, and instantly sounds right. Whereas the version in E makes my ears prick up for not being in the right key. Did you change key to make the vocals easier? Because it obviously makes absolutely no difference to the guitar parts, which wouldn't normally be the case when considering the difference between E and F on the guitar.I'm guessing you haven't read the idea behind my covering DSMN. Long story short, it was requested by my m8's fionse to have me play that at their wedding reception. How could I refuse? Amazingly, I'd done a demo of DSMN as a gift for my own girlfriend a couple of months prior to her asking. My girlfriend also loves the song. What a coincidence. Girls really like that song, huh?! Anyway, singing the whole song in the original key killed the sound of my voice and I wanted to do about 4-5 Queen tracks on the night. So, a markdown to E made my voice survive the song and be ready for other Queen songs. I could never hit all the notes in the original key comfortably anyway, so it made even more sense to do it in E. Bohardy wrote: Still. Very nicely done, from what we can hear on that little snippet.Thanks for the kind comments. I really need to finish it off and get it mixed. Adam. |
| Bobby_brown 01.06.2007 20:31 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Overall, I think with yourself it comes down to how the album has been recorded/mixed. And that is the production side of things. It can be completely differently mixed, but usually, the recording sets the tone for everything afterwards. The famous saying in the studio, you can't polish a turd! lol Or, we'll fix it in the mix. Ugh...Exactly! That´s my point. Every time i hear "We Are the Champions" on the radio i have the feeling that it starts too low like a fade in or something. But as the album goes along i realise that "Spread Your Wings" has the same low begining. Was it meant to be? Probably, but i think this album lacks a real producer. Some bad decisions were made for this record. If we compare this album with it´s different masters maybe we don´t get much of a different in volume, but compare it with other albums and you´ll see what i mean. In a recent interview by Mack (the German producer of the Game)-someone poste the link on Queenzone- he said that his methode of recording has made Queen save a generation in the tape. He said that Queen would loose a generation because of their process of working in the studio. I really don´t know technical terms, but this got my attention for some reason. Well, i don´t want to be mean but this album looks like some generations from the masters ; )- it´s the best i can do to define it´s sound. And my frustration only exists because this album has a lot of great songs that in my opinion don´t shine because they´ve screwd up big time. I just want to make one thing clear: I never thought that Roger sang the "SHA" song fully. It´s obvious on all versions that Freddie sings the first verse, but on the second verse the first time i heard it on Vinyl i thought it was Roger and i never gave too much attention to that, and very rarely do i hear this record. (until now with my mini lp version). Today i´ve listened again my Hollywood 91 version against my Japan, and here´s some samples that i´ve made from a few songs (i´ve included the japanesse samples too for you to hear the diferences in songs that have been edit with the same tools). If you listen to SYW HR91 sample you realize my frustration. This Hollywood version is the reason i love the japanese version so bad. I hope it´s clear for you too. link Here's my own personal example: 1. My demo recording of the lead guitar for DSMN (Feb 07) - link 2. My non-mixed recording of the lead gtr in DSMN (May 07) - link The difference? One additional room mic and a specially made reverb on the non-mixed version. Whereas the same equipment was used in both, when the demo was recorded, I had 10's on my guitar. The 2nd recording was made where I now have 9's on the guitar. Forgot to add, I did my main version (2nd file) in E instead of F! The demo's in the original F key. But the difference, I think, is pretty huge. Anyway, I'll look at The Miracle sometime soon. Adam.Interesting, i think on the second version you sounded more like Brian than on the first one. I liked the second one better, but it´s too short to tell the end result. I´m not too picky! If the sound fits the song then it´s ok. I don´t like to think there are too many rules other than our ears. Take care |
| goinback 02.06.2007 00:11 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Here we go with another album review between my 90's remaster copy and the 2001/4 version. -News Of The World-Is the gap between WWRY/WATC on both CDs the same? I swear it's too long on the Hollywood CD (though I know I shouldn't swear). |
| goinback 02.06.2007 00:17 |
I´m not a sound engenieer so it´s obvious that i´m not going for details. I didní like the 77 LP release, and i have 2 editions (Portuguese and Spanish), and unless i find one good one i stick with my opinion. When their 74 records sound better than the 77 record, something happened, that no remaster can undo properly. The guitars throughout this album are very weack, they could not recreat the excelent boost from TYMD for example.There is a small possibility that the mastering for vinyl was done badly, and that the vinyl records aren't what the recording really sounds like. Even my original Jazz LP from 1978 has that annoying problem some records had where you could hear they'd re-recorded over an old tape to make the vinyl master: At the end of "Mustapha" I can hear them say "hey!" again in the background, then in the background I can hear FBG start before it really starts at full blast. This was a regular US copy by the way. Of course the CD (and even my cassette from the early '80s) didn't have this because it wasn't on the original album master, it was just a bad production master used for that string of vinyl records. [Actually...another subject, this also makes me think maybe they originally wanted FBG to start almost immediately after Mustapha, because that's what it sounds like was erased....] |
| Adam Baboolal 02.06.2007 05:29 |
Bobby, those MP3's are really badly encoded. What did you use to make them? It's really hard to compare anything with them. Goinback - gap between WWRY and WATC? Didn't notice any difference. Adam. EDIT: Also, I think it's pretty obvious from your post that the NOTW album is just not your cup of tea. The sound they chose for it, that is. But I must say, it's a style. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Practically nothing can be done to make you like it. |
| Bobby_brown 02.06.2007 15:24 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Bobby, those MP3's are really badly encoded. What did you use to make them? It's really hard to compare anything with them.I used Nero, and for some reason after i edit the songs he would re-encode them to mp3 128kb/s. I hope this is better. I will put the two versions of Spread Your Wings. You can hear the diferences in the voice and in the voulume of the guitar. SYW_HR91 link SYW_Japan link EDIT: Also, I think it's pretty obvious from your post that the NOTW album is just not your cup of tea. The sound they chose for it, that is. But I must say, it's a style. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Practically nothing can be done to make you like it.If they find the masters i think there´s a possibility they can do something of it. After the album was out they (Queen) deffended it saying that it was suppose to have that punk-ish production, but over the years it was clear that due to a tour already agended they did not had the time to finish the album as they wanted to. Knowing a little bit of Brian´s style (and you certainly know too!), we know that he likes to enter with that "punch" guitar (like on "White Queen"). My guess is that in Spread Your Wings when he enters he tries to achieve the same effect (my guess, or what i would like it to sound like), but to my disapointment nothing happens! He enters, and he doesn´t sound like Brian at all, and the Bass blows him away. But yes, soundwise it´s not my cup of tea. Take care |
| Adam Baboolal 02.06.2007 19:17 |
Btw, why are you posting these sound files? I've already heard them side by side as I reviewed the album earlier! My view is still the same. And for the last time, if you like it, good! But from a technical (and preservational side) of the music... it's shoddy sounding. And the biggest crime to the songs is that the wonderful arrangements have been harmed by some overly done compression. So far, with these reviews I'm finding some really badly done work on these great albums. Out of the two albums I've looked at, I can probably name 2-3 tracks total I'd take over the old 90's remaster I compared with. Btw, they were UK 1993 remasters I compared with the 2001 remasters. Now, saying they can do something with the master recordings is denial AFAIC. My post about the 2005 band was supposed to highlight what a recording is from beginning to end. It is what it is. The sound they (Queen) recorded is the sound that exists till the end of time! lol To put it in the right context, there's only 1 way the recording can fit together. It's like a picture. If painted with oils, it has a certain feel and look. Just like, if it was painted with water colours, it would take on a completely different look and feel. It's the same with recordings. And there's no real way to alter that recording into something sonically different after the fact. The engineer chose his mics (tools to build the picture) and processing, too. So, hopefully I'm getting across that it's fairly difficult to alter the recording in a mix to sound as different as you'd like. Iyee iy iyee...I'm typing too much. Need to back off now. Bobby, there's no end to this discussion because it will never satisfy you. No matter how many times I say it, it will always be very much the same. I'm sure they did defend it because it's an original piece of work with a different take on their sound. In fact, it's just my opinion, but I think the NOTW album represents the change to their sound. A fresh look for a different approach and path to take for the future. While some might call Jazz a revisiting/recapturing of their old sound, it is and isn't. Mainly because every album afterwards continued the beginnings of what the NOTW album brought to the fold. The Game is a definite step in the same direction. But with less ambience. And the ambience did decrease with each album into reverb-y kinda ambience in its place. Very little room-y sounds, ya know? Anyway, I'm beat. Rambled on for enough time tonight. Night! Adam. |
| pittrek 13.06.2007 07:52 |
So Adam, no time for continuing your analysis ? |
| Adam Baboolal 13.06.2007 09:20 |
Yeah, man. I'm just back on QZ yesterday. Had a rollercoaster week and a bit of stuff to do - Been to London, been editing/recording things for our WWRY dvd, at panto auditions and my equipment from the commentary recording thing I did is still not back in my room! So, kinda not able to do much at the mo. I'd like to continue it because it's worth doing. Maybe later today, IF I get my speakers and soundcard back up and running. Adam. |
| Adam Baboolal 14.06.2007 20:12 |
Right. Done a review, but it won't fit on one post, so I'll need to edit it down. Better than doing two posts, I think. It's late now, so I'll do it tomorrow. The results are...kind of interesting. Adam. |
| Adam Baboolal 15.06.2007 08:12 |
The Miracle Party - 90's re to start. Not much to say though! 2001 - Hmm...strange. The level is lower than my HR ver! Sounds nice in comparison to the 90's re. But the vocals seem dipped. I can definitely hear more going on with the overall sounds and a real smooth bass to boot! Cool. So, the only downer would be the lower vocal level. Must be that mid-range cutting I found 3 years ago. But you know, with this track, I'd be hard pushed to choose the 90's re over the 2001 ver. But, I like both to be honest. I can't choose! They're both quite different. Khashoggi's Ship - The 90's re has shown this strong full-on mid-range that, I must admit, is a little tiring on my ears! 2001 - Yeah, the mids do get dipped and the sounds aren't as full-on and I find myself putting the volume up to compensate cause it's dipped the volume. As I tried that, the backing vocals seemed a little much for my ears. Again, they're both different. But on listening to the 90's re I have, I'd stick with that on this one. The Miracle - 90's re sounds pretty cool. 2001 is nice and smooth. I hear things in the mix a bit better than the 90's re. It certainly sounds well defined on this track and the remastering has definitely shaped the overall sound better. I Want It All - Now, I must point out that I have a HR version, it misses a bit of the chorus. Mmm... what a great track this is on the 90's re here. Great to listen through this one! 2001 - Hmm...yeah, not the same. The guitars that are so central to the track are kinda tamed by the mid-range change. Yeah, it's smoother sounding, but it's lost some of the edge that makes it such a great track to listen to. Good points would be hearing a bit more of the mix on the 2001 re. However, the overall difference in these remasters is very VERY little in anything of the sound. Apart from the mid-range/volume changes. The bass could be a little smoother on the 2001 re, but nowhere near as the previous two albums I've looked at. Not even close. *HOLY CRAP* he says as the breakdown bit on the 2001 re's bassyess is grossly huge. That's just weird. Especially since it actually fades out the effect once the rest of the instruments come back in leaving it feel a bit empty. The Invisible Man - Now, I get the feeling this track will lose out here - cause the sounds on the 90's re feel right. There's nothing that sticks out that makes me wanna hear the other version. 2001 ver - Whoa... Huh? The volume of this track is higher than the rest and gets close to my 90's remaster volume. Eh..? After that little revelation - wow! Very nice. Drums pounding away, Roger's voice sounding very nice and clear and bass is nice. Downer would be that somehow, Freddie's voice is a little (very little bit) further back and a little ehm...boxy sounding? Remember, I did say, just a little bit. But I can hear it without it being obscure. Overall, great surprise as it retains a lot of the 90's remaster, but gives some nice additions to the sound. Breakthru - Ooooh - Love that opening part! Hey, sounds good on the 90's re. Wonder what the 2001 will have added/subtracted. 2001 ver starts a little quiet again, so, back to how previous tracks had been before T.I.Man. What I'm noticing most is the volume of the organ on the first verse is sooo high in the mix now. Probably because of the balance change with the mid-range. Something which is also affecting the edgyness of the guitars and they seem too soft and in the background. Not cool. No. The more I listen, the more I yearn for the 90's re cause it was so alive. The 2001 re overall sound seems kinda dull and unexciting. Aww man what a shame... It's so unpredictable this 2001 remastered album biz that I just don't know what to expect next. Rain Must Fall - Sounds good on the 90's re side. Now, I think RMF is already very smoothly mixed to get that effect I've heard on earlier 2001 remastered tracks. 2001 - Things sound fine and not that different. Fr |
| Adam Baboolal 15.06.2007 08:23 |
2001/4 remaster rating (out of 5) - **1/2 1993/4 remaster rating (out of 5) - **** Overall, in comparison to the 90's remaster I have, the 2001 remaster isn't true to what was released before. It's kind of hacked up in the mid-range in places. To the point where the mix changes quite badly, e.g. Breakthru and the organ coming through more. However, on some tracks I'd actually listen to them more than the 90's re. Only 2 tracks come to mind (Invisible Man + Miracle), so not a glowing statement really. I can see that, because the sound is drastically changed, there will be some that take to this better. I guess. But once I started going back to the 90's remaster after hearing the 2001 re, the difference was so clearly better on the old 90's remaster. So, in closing, once again things have been a downer for the 2001/4 remasters. I'm very surprised by quite a few things that come about, i.e. the 1-2 tracks per album (so far) that stand out as being better on the new remaster. While the older albums have been changed quite badly. Very strange kind of...flow. Something that's clear is that the new remaster here and with the previous 2 I've looked at, don't stick to this constant. So, nothing to shout about and to be honest, something to avoid. _____ Note: reviewed side by side on my studio setup and cheaper consumer type speaker setup. ----- Adam. |
| pittrek 20.06.2007 01:47 |
I have a question for somebody . Yesterday I've seen in a music shop Queen & Queen II - The Abbey Road remaster (93/94) for a fantastic price. I have allready those albums, but not these remasters :) What do you think, are they worth buying or should I keep my 1986(?) EMI (?) releases ? |
| Adam Baboolal 21.06.2007 07:16 |
I don't have any real experience there. But, haven't people on this forum said that the 90's remasters were a great deal better than the ones that came before? So, on that info I'd ditch the 80's release unless someone can demonstrate the differences. Might be time for someone to put up the Record Collector reviews of the difference between them. Adam. |
| pittrek 21.06.2007 07:37 |
BTW I didn't know where to put it so I put it here. Yesterday I've bought the HR album Queen at the BBC. This is the first time that I hear an official release is WORSE than a bootleg. My old mp3s are WAY better than this. The overall sound is simply "weird", sometimes (e.g. during My Fairy King) the "expected" backing vocals come in a completely different volume level or don't come at all, the sound is LOUD so much that it's sometimes distored... I wanted to buy the complete HR remasters, mainly to get the bonus tracks in non-mp3 versions, but after hearing THIS album ... |
| Adam Baboolal 21.06.2007 10:13 |
I also have the HR BBC album and I don't have the problems you say are there. No distortion on the track you mentioned or loud volumes. Where did you get it and what's the name of the album? Mine is Queen At The BBC from 1995. Adam. |
| pittrek 21.06.2007 10:33 |
Mine is Queen at the BBC, Hollywood Records 1995. I was comparing it to my bootleg containing all BBC sessions, and it's really louder, for my taste TOO loud. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.06.2007 11:35 |
Haven't heard the bootlegs in a long time. But the bbc album is completely different to the actual albums sounds. You shouldn't be comparing them! Especially not to bootlegs! Adam. |