|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 14, 2021 6:28:00 GMT
For me it's cmatt's version of this one - it's a brilliant EQ job where he brought out so many things that were buried in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by straycatbeatles on Apr 13, 2022 3:38:34 GMT
This is what I have so far. I used to own most of the Hollywood CDs but sold them off thinking I could find better; hoping I can expand this collection to include the rest of the albums.
Queen [2011 Remaster] Queen II [2011 Remaster] Sheer Heart Attack [CDP 7 46206 2] A Night At The Opera [2011 Remaster] A Day At The Races [2011 Remaster] Live Killers [HR-61066-2, I doubt this album would sound that much better anywhere else] Greatest Hits [CDP 7 46033 2] The Works [CDP 7 46016 2, Capitol pressing] The Miracle [CDP 7 92357 2] Innuendo [HR-61020-2] Made In Heaven [HR-62017-2]
My plan so far is to keep the first five albums as they are, and get the original CD pressings of the last five albums (just need A Kind Of Magic), now I need help with the middle five.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jul 20, 2022 18:25:41 GMT
Queen [2011 Remaster] Queen II [2011 Remaster] A Night At The Opera [2011 Remaster] A Day At The Races [2011 Remaster] I have a tough time accepting these as the definitive versions due to the brickwalling.
The Japanese remasters from the early 2000s are far superior.
|
|
|
Post by mrmarioanonym on Jul 21, 2022 8:03:31 GMT
I don't know about best versions, but the 2011s are certainly not it. And i'm not sure Queen 1 and 2 actually sound clearer on the 2011 than original vinyl or 80s cd. Hell, even if they did, the brickwalling kinda makes the already present distortion on the drums on II more obvious and the albums feel very congested. This goes for the other 2011s to an extent as well, but here it bothers me the most.
Queen's music is meant to very dynamic and compressing them like they did is inexcusable.
|
|
DasTarD
Satyr
www.DasTarD.nl
Posts: 78
Likes: 48
|
Post by DasTarD on Jul 21, 2022 9:24:54 GMT
Does anyone here has the Hollywood Records version of The Game? My version of Crazy doesn't start correctly, The first chord sounds just like the tape was at a higher speed.
|
|
|
Post by deathtoming on Jul 21, 2022 15:39:32 GMT
Does anyone here has the Hollywood Records version of The Game? My version of Crazy doesn't start correctly, The first chord sounds just like the tape was at a higher speed. I just listened for it with my '91 Hollywood The Game CD, and I hear it too. I compared it with two earlier masters ('83 Elektra and '87 EMI Japan) and they sound fine.
|
|
|
Post by macduff77 on Jul 21, 2022 17:07:28 GMT
Yup, same here on my Hollywood Records version. I think it was corrected for subsequent releases. Does anyone here has the Hollywood Records version of The Game? My version of Crazy doesn't start correctly, The first chord sounds just like the tape was at a higher speed.
|
|
|
Post by Maxi Dries on Jul 24, 2022 13:58:39 GMT
I really love the 1986 CDs. For me those are the best since that’s really the original sound since it was a direct transfer from the stereo tapes If the 1986 CDs were direct transfers, what about the earlier CDs from Elektra, for Greatest Hits, News of the World, and The Game from '83-'84, which are also popular for their sound? I have those earlier Target CDs and the later EMIs, and I remember The Game definitely sounds different, with Freddie's vocals in Play the Game and Save Me standing out in particular. If the '86 CDs were direct transfers, were the Elektra CDs remastered? (Asking because I'm genuinely curious.) Yes, but they are from stereo safety copies, because the original stereo master mixes were lost. So the 1986-88 are 1 generation away from master.
|
|
cmsdrums
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Posts: 171
Likes: 188
|
Post by cmsdrums on Jul 28, 2022 19:34:00 GMT
I started doing the same in lockdown! I have a number of original U.K. CDs, the rest on 1994 digital master series, the US Crown Jewels box, all 2004 Japanese ‘mini vinyl replica CDs’ (which have 2001 masters) and all the 2011 issues, plus most albums on original vinyl release and The Complete Works (which tends to get left out of comparison discussions!).
I’ve started ripping various editions to FLAC then listening in the car as my preferred ‘usual’ listening place (though I have a home studio set up) and only just starting to make notes.
Initial thoughts are that I generally don’t like the loss of dynamics between quiet and loud sections on newer masters over the years…lots of stuff getting ‘squeezed’ for the sake of volume; my preference is to have scope to turn the volume up whilst everything from thumping low end to the top end of the cymbals is still clear and not distorted at higher playback levels.. So far the original masters and the Japanese 2001/04 mini vinyl CDs are better on this, whilst perhaps not revealing quite as much polish and shine on vocals and piano as on the 2011 sets.
|
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 476
Likes: 282
|
Post by Dimitris on Jul 29, 2022 16:12:51 GMT
I consider that there is not only the dynamics that counts. Queen during their latest reissues 2011 wanted to rescue their work in best way they could, so Bob Ludwig tried and managed to achieved this difficult task. I really think that in the near future record companies will provide digital formats 96kHz/24, which will have the best stereo sound. So in my opinion, the 2011 remasters were/are coming from a source for preserving their tapes and was then used for cutting the cds. theaudiophileman.com/queen-studio-collection-pt-2-engineers/
|
|
|
Post by macduff77 on Jul 29, 2022 18:02:53 GMT
That's a really great article. I hadn't read that before, so was good insight into what was done on the 2011 remasters. I consider that there is not only the dynamics that counts. Queen during their latest reissues 2011 wanted to rescue their work in best way they could, so Bob Ludwig tried and managed to achieved this difficult task. I really think that in the near future record companies will provide digital formats 96kHz/24, which will have the best stereo sound. So in my opinion, the 2011 remasters were/are coming from a source for preserving their tapes and was then used for cutting the cds. theaudiophileman.com/queen-studio-collection-pt-2-engineers/
|
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 476
Likes: 282
|
Post by Dimitris on Jul 29, 2022 19:38:09 GMT
That's a really great article. I hadn't read that before, so was good insight into what was done on the 2011 remasters. I consider that there is not only the dynamics that counts. Queen during their latest reissues 2011 wanted to rescue their work in best way they could, so Bob Ludwig tried and managed to achieved this difficult task. I really think that in the near future record companies will provide digital formats 96kHz/24, which will have the best stereo sound. So in my opinion, the 2011 remasters were/are coming from a source for preserving their tapes and was then used for cutting the cds. theaudiophileman.com/queen-studio-collection-pt-2-engineers/Yes very good article. I remember reading before buying the boxset. Interesting is that Bob says, "In fact, for most of the albums there is no compression used at all.” Queen was interested in retaining the dynamics of the original cuts as much as possible. Compression is not always a bad word, though, it’s often the heart of rock’n’roll, “Believe me, when they were originally mixing these Queen records they sure spared no expense with those compressors!” confirmed Ludwig “But having done their artistic thing, the music was then left the way it was. We haven’t then smashed the music to death as many contemporary things have done.”
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jul 30, 2022 5:58:44 GMT
That's a really great article. I hadn't read that before, so was good insight into what was done on the 2011 remasters. I consider that there is not only the dynamics that counts. Queen during their latest reissues 2011 wanted to rescue their work in best way they could, so Bob Ludwig tried and managed to achieved this difficult task. I really think that in the near future record companies will provide digital formats 96kHz/24, which will have the best stereo sound. So in my opinion, the 2011 remasters were/are coming from a source for preserving their tapes and was then used for cutting the cds. theaudiophileman.com/queen-studio-collection-pt-2-engineers/Great piece indeed - but this is about the vinyl only remasters released in 2016, not the 2011 CD remasters.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jul 30, 2022 6:15:40 GMT
Interesting is that Bob says, "In fact, for most of the albums there is no compression used at all.” Queen was interested in retaining the dynamics of the original cuts as much as possible. Compression is not always a bad word, though, it’s often the heart of rock’n’roll, “Believe me, when they were originally mixing these Queen records they sure spared no expense with those compressors!” confirmed Ludwig “But having done their artistic thing, the music was then left the way it was. We haven’t then smashed the music to death as many contemporary things have done.” Of course, compressors go back to the 1940s - they've always had their purpose, in that case the fact that people were listening out of a single tiny speaker on a radio. But by the 1990s they usually weren't used for the objective of making music sound better - it was to make it sound louder on the radio, as that would minimize the chances of someone changing the channel and losing out on advertising revenue. It had little to do with music. The "loudness war" as we now know it began as a war over money.
This is an excellent history of recorded music that makes an extended stop on this subject:
And now that most people are used to listening to music that has less dynamic range, the mastering engineers who have participated in this (Ludwig included) will never speak out about such things, as they'll never bite the hand that feeds them. And then there's the thought that these guys did such remasters in their 60s when they were likely losing their hearing. You don't have to go too far to find what audiophiles think of that round of Queen remasters.
(Pieces like this largely miss the point; the sentence "people don't like music that has quiet and loud passages" should be rephrased as "people who listen to music on a 1-inch speaker on their phones and have no idea what good music sounds like don't like music that has quiet and loud passages." I digress.)
Back to topic - there absolutely were improvements on the 2011 remasters (like the mic pops being removed from the vocal in the first verse of It's Late), but so much of the dynamic range was lost on many of the albums. They're just not my first choice and never will be.
|
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 476
Likes: 282
|
Post by Dimitris on Jul 30, 2022 6:40:36 GMT
Interesting is that Bob says, "In fact, for most of the albums there is no compression used at all.” Queen was interested in retaining the dynamics of the original cuts as much as possible. Compression is not always a bad word, though, it’s often the heart of rock’n’roll, “Believe me, when they were originally mixing these Queen records they sure spared no expense with those compressors!” confirmed Ludwig “But having done their artistic thing, the music was then left the way it was. We haven’t then smashed the music to death as many contemporary things have done.” Of course, compressors go back to the 1940s - they've always had their purpose, in that case the fact that people were listening out of a single tiny speaker on a radio. But by the 1990s they usually weren't used for the objective of making music sound better - it was to make it sound louder on the radio, as that would minimize the chances of someone changing the channel and losing out on advertising revenue. It had little to do with music. The "loudness war" as we now know it began as a war over money.
This is an excellent history of recorded music that makes an extended stop on this subject: And now that most people are used to listening to music that has less dynamic range, the mastering engineers who have participated in this (Ludwig included) will never speak out about such things, as they'll never bite the hand that feeds them. And then there's the thought that these guys did such remasters in their 60s when they were likely losing their hearing. You don't have to go too far to find what audiophiles think of that round of Queen remasters. (Pieces like this largely miss the point; the sentence "people don't like music that has quiet and loud passages" should be rephrased as "people who listen to music on a 1-inch speaker on their phones and have no idea what good music sounds like don't like music that has quiet and loud passages." I digress.) Back to topic - there absolutely were improvements on the 2011 remasters (like the mic pops being removed from the vocal in the first verse of It's Late), but so much of the dynamic range was lost on many of the albums. They're just not my first choice and never will be.
That will be a long interesting read. I think that, they use the same remaster for vinyl, but the cutting was analog. I believe that Queen wanted to have their works secured and well preserved at a high quality format. Probably it was not meant for cds or Vinyls. That's why I would like Queen discography to be available at 96khz/24bit stereo. It will be a real audio experience.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jul 30, 2022 6:51:04 GMT
I believe that Queen wanted to have their works secured and well preserved at a high quality format. Probably it was not meant for cds or Vinyls. That's why I would like Queen discography to be available at 96khz/24bit stereo. It will be a real audio experience. Can't disagree with that.
I'd love to see Steven Wilson remix the early albums - anything he touches turns to gold. His work on early Yes and Chicago was perfection.
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 20,770
Likes: 7,392
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Jul 30, 2022 8:51:35 GMT
I believe that Queen wanted to have their works secured and well preserved at a high quality format. Probably it was not meant for cds or Vinyls. That's why I would like Queen discography to be available at 96khz/24bit stereo. It will be a real audio experience. Can't disagree with that.
I'd love to see Steven Wilson remix the early albums - anything he touches turns to gold. His work on early Yes and Chicago was perfection.
Agreed about Steven Wilson. Can't see Brian allowing that though.
|
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 476
Likes: 282
|
Post by Dimitris on Jul 30, 2022 9:30:12 GMT
Can't disagree with that.
I'd love to see Steven Wilson remix the early albums - anything he touches turns to gold. His work on early Yes and Chicago was perfection.
Agreed about Steven Wilson. Can't see Brian allowing that though. I did a listen on Yes, he did great job. I think too, Brian will not allow anyone to remix Queen albums for stereo, he had stated in few interviews why not, but for surround, it is an other story.
|
|
JackG
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Discord: tieyourmotherdown
Posts: 191
Likes: 196
|
Post by JackG on Jul 30, 2022 9:31:42 GMT
I believe that Queen wanted to have their works secured and well preserved at a high quality format. Probably it was not meant for cds or Vinyls. That's why I would like Queen discography to be available at 96khz/24bit stereo. It will be a real audio experience. You should look into Queen's Super Audio CD releases from 2011, they are 24/96 using the DSD format
|
|
velizar
Ploughman
Posts: 292
Likes: 254
|
Post by velizar on Jul 30, 2022 9:49:14 GMT
That's a really great article. I hadn't read that before, so was good insight into what was done on the 2011 remasters. Great piece indeed - but this is about the vinyl only remasters released in 2016, not the 2011 CD remasters. Even the 2016 LPs contain lots of soft limiting, although they were normalised to -6 DB to prevent the normal listener from noticing this. Here are the waveforms of I Want It All from the 1989 CD of The Miracle vs. the 2011 remaster (normalised) and the 2016 vinyl.
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 20,770
Likes: 7,392
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Jul 30, 2022 10:05:49 GMT
Agreed about Steven Wilson. Can't see Brian allowing that though. I did a listen on Yes, he did great job. I think too, Brian will not allow anyone to remix Queen albums for stereo, he had stated in few interviews why not, but for surround, it is an other story. Who did the 5.1 mixes for ANATO and The Game? Was it Justin Shirley-Smith?
|
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 476
Likes: 282
|
Post by Dimitris on Jul 30, 2022 10:16:40 GMT
I did a listen on Yes, he did great job. I think too, Brian will not allow anyone to remix Queen albums for stereo, he had stated in few interviews why not, but for surround, it is an other story. Who did the 5.1 mixes for ANATO and The Game? Was it Justin Shirley-Smith? For the 2002 ANATO & 2003 The Game it was Justin with Brian supervise, if I remember. I have to see them in my collection.
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 20,770
Likes: 7,392
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Jul 30, 2022 10:25:54 GMT
Who did the 5.1 mixes for ANATO and The Game? Was it Justin Shirley-Smith? For the 2002 ANATO & 2003 The Game it was Justin with Brian supervise, if I remember. I have to see them in my collection. Yes, I couldn't be bothered to dig them out and look! 😄
|
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 476
Likes: 282
|
Post by Dimitris on Jul 30, 2022 12:47:13 GMT
I believe that Queen wanted to have their works secured and well preserved at a high quality format. Probably it was not meant for cds or Vinyls. That's why I would like Queen discography to be available at 96khz/24bit stereo. It will be a real audio experience. You should look into Queen's Super Audio CD releases from 2011, they are 24/96 using the DSD format
If I was informed well, from all audio Queen releases 2011, only Queen orb has a better resolution, all the others were standard.
|
|
JackG
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Discord: tieyourmotherdown
Posts: 191
Likes: 196
|
Post by JackG on Jul 30, 2022 13:16:18 GMT
You should look into Queen's Super Audio CD releases from 2011, they are 24/96 using the DSD format
If I was informed well, from all audio Queen releases 2011, only Queen orb has a better resolution, all the others were standard. These say on the front that they're 24/96Khz. The Discogs page says the Queen Orb is only 24/48Khz.
Here's the Queen I SACD front:
|
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 476
Likes: 282
|
Post by Dimitris on Jul 30, 2022 15:03:49 GMT
If I was informed well, from all audio Queen releases 2011, only Queen orb has a better resolution, all the others were standard. These say on the front that they're 24/96Khz. The Discogs page says the Queen Orb is only 24/48Khz.
Here's the Queen I SACD front:
My question, are these 96/24 or is their source 96/24? If it is the latter there isn't much difference than the orb or any other format. Having the two DVD audio releases from 2002-2003 I can certainly say that the stereo mix in 96/24 is great especially on The Game. ANATO has a improvements on 5.1 in 2005.
|
|
velizar
Ploughman
Posts: 292
Likes: 254
|
Post by velizar on Jul 30, 2022 15:15:38 GMT
If I was informed well, from all audio Queen releases 2011, only Queen orb has a better resolution, all the others were standard. These say on the front that they're 24/96Khz. The Discogs page says the Queen Orb is only 24/48Khz.
Here's the Queen I SACD front:
The digital audio in 24/96 can be also purchased from HDTracks and Qobuz's store.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jul 30, 2022 15:40:21 GMT
Great piece indeed - but this is about the vinyl only remasters released in 2016, not the 2011 CD remasters. Even the 2016 LPs contain lots of soft limiting, although they were normalised to -6 DB to prevent the normal listener from noticing this. Here are the waveforms of I Want It All from the 1989 CD of The Miracle vs. the 2011 remaster (normalised) and the 2016 vinyl. And that's precisely why I don't buy most modern vinyl - it's anything but analog.
|
|
JackG
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Discord: tieyourmotherdown
Posts: 191
Likes: 196
|
Post by JackG on Jul 30, 2022 16:07:58 GMT
These say on the front that they're 24/96Khz. The Discogs page says the Queen Orb is only 24/48Khz.
Here's the Queen I SACD front:
My question, are these 96/24 or is their source 96/24? If it is the latter there isn't much difference than the orb or any other format. Having the two DVD audio releases from 2002-2003 I can certainly say that the stereo mix in 96/24 is great especially on The Game. ANATO has a improvements on 5.1 in 2005. It says on the front "24/96 Digital Master from Bob Ludwig", however they are 24/96 tracks as well, in foobar2000 they show as 24/96
|
|
manymilesaway
Politician
Houston out now!
Posts: 550
Likes: 1,684
Member is Online
|
Post by manymilesaway on Jul 31, 2022 1:33:29 GMT
These say on the front that they're 24/96Khz. The Discogs page says the Queen Orb is only 24/48Khz.
Here's the Queen I SACD front:
My question, are these 96/24 or is their source 96/24? If it is the latter there isn't much difference than the orb or any other format. Having the two DVD audio releases from 2002-2003 I can certainly say that the stereo mix in 96/24 is great especially on The Game. ANATO has a improvements on 5.1 in 2005. Some of the actual content in the 5.1 mix is different though, no? I remember specifically that this high "call your oooowwn" in Good Company isn't in the surround mix. Variations like that make me immediately rule it out.
|
|