Ginger01
Thanks for sharing this with us! :)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
stark
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Alex Solan. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Comparing this with the original Seven seas of Tsumagoi silver release, why do I have the feeling that this "remaster" sounds a bit lower in terms of volume?
Still thanks a lot for sharing your work, stark and I do apreciatte your effort in working at this.
Cheers.[/QUOTE]
Glad someone's listening. :) It IS lower in volume, as pittrek says. 'Don't mistake something more for something better..'
Digital audio works 'in reverse' - in that the loudest possible level is 0dB, and the lowest is -96dB (on a 16-bit CD, anyway). These levels have nothing to do with the volume of your stereo system, but rather how the loud the track is recorded onto the CD (you must have noticed that hip-hop CDs generally play louder than records like 'Harvest', or 'Dark Side Of The Moon').
So. Imagine you're listening at a comfortable volume and the music on the CD is, unknown to you, averaging around -30dB. A loud audio event occurs (band suddenly comes in/explosion etc) which peaks briefly at 0dB. Allowing for the fact that your speakers have exploded, the event would sound incredibly 'real' (in the 'lifelike' sense). This example gives what we call a Peak-To-Average Ratio (similar to dynamic range) of 30dB, which is huge. Too huge, in fact, for the genre and the compact disc medium.
Had the music been averaging -5dB with the loud event peaking at 0dB (giving a 5dB Peak-To-Average Ratio , which is very small indeed), you would not even have blinked (and think how hard it is not to blink when someone's hitting a snare drum next to you - it's a reflex). This is not good: our ears expect quiet sounds to be quiet and loud sounds to be loud (in relation to one another); if they're not, even if it's subconscious, we know something's 'wrong' or at least unnatural.
By correcting the equalisation of a recording, it is possible to increase the Peak-To-Average Ratio, thus making the quiet parts quieter and the loud parts louder (*in relation to one another*), resulting in a more 'real' or natural sound. It is this large Ratio that gives good recordings their depth, richness, clarity and of course, dynamic range. And this is why my remasters sound quieter than their source.
For a valid comparison between a source and its remaster, you MUST listen to them at the same volume, otherwise the loudest one always sounds better. Generally the easiest way to do this is to match the vocal levels. I've attached a link to a section from the Liverpool '73 gig I'm working on at the moment. The files are as follows:
1. Source louder than remaster. Source sounds better.
2. Remaster louder than source. Remaster sounds better.
3. Source and remaster levels matched. Remaster sounds better? You decide.
The source comes first in each example.
http://www.mediafire.com/?8bl03bz3ukv
I hope that explains it - forgive me if I've patronised you, but I've tried to explain it simply and in a way that even I would understand!
Still thanks a lot for sharing your work, stark and I do apreciatte your effort in working at this.
Cheers.[/QUOTE]
Glad someone's listening. :) It IS lower in volume, as pittrek says. 'Don't mistake something more for something better..'
Digital audio works 'in reverse' - in that the loudest possible level is 0dB, and the lowest is -96dB (on a 16-bit CD, anyway). These levels have nothing to do with the volume of your stereo system, but rather how the loud the track is recorded onto the CD (you must have noticed that hip-hop CDs generally play louder than records like 'Harvest', or 'Dark Side Of The Moon').
So. Imagine you're listening at a comfortable volume and the music on the CD is, unknown to you, averaging around -30dB. A loud audio event occurs (band suddenly comes in/explosion etc) which peaks briefly at 0dB. Allowing for the fact that your speakers have exploded, the event would sound incredibly 'real' (in the 'lifelike' sense). This example gives what we call a Peak-To-Average Ratio (similar to dynamic range) of 30dB, which is huge. Too huge, in fact, for the genre and the compact disc medium.
Had the music been averaging -5dB with the loud event peaking at 0dB (giving a 5dB Peak-To-Average Ratio , which is very small indeed), you would not even have blinked (and think how hard it is not to blink when someone's hitting a snare drum next to you - it's a reflex). This is not good: our ears expect quiet sounds to be quiet and loud sounds to be loud (in relation to one another); if they're not, even if it's subconscious, we know something's 'wrong' or at least unnatural.
By correcting the equalisation of a recording, it is possible to increase the Peak-To-Average Ratio, thus making the quiet parts quieter and the loud parts louder (*in relation to one another*), resulting in a more 'real' or natural sound. It is this large Ratio that gives good recordings their depth, richness, clarity and of course, dynamic range. And this is why my remasters sound quieter than their source.
For a valid comparison between a source and its remaster, you MUST listen to them at the same volume, otherwise the loudest one always sounds better. Generally the easiest way to do this is to match the vocal levels. I've attached a link to a section from the Liverpool '73 gig I'm working on at the moment. The files are as follows:
1. Source louder than remaster. Source sounds better.
2. Remaster louder than source. Remaster sounds better.
3. Source and remaster levels matched. Remaster sounds better? You decide.
The source comes first in each example.
http://www.mediafire.com/?8bl03bz3ukv
I hope that explains it - forgive me if I've patronised you, but I've tried to explain it simply and in a way that even I would understand!
stark
How's this for a summary? The loud bits (cymbal crashes etc) are still the same volume while the body of the music is quieter, giving the loud bits - all of it actually - more realism, impact and drama. Better?
pittrek
Nice two posts !
stark
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pittrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Nice two posts ![/QUOTE]
Thanks man. If it makes sense at least to you, I'm happy!
Thanks man. If it makes sense at least to you, I'm happy!
on my way up
stark, thanks for the explanation and thanks for all your efforts!
on my way up
could somebody upload this remaster to mediafire? thanks
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stark wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Digital audio works 'in reverse' - in that the loudest possible level is 0dB, and the lowest is -96dB (on a 16-bit CD, anyway). These levels have nothing to do with the volume of your stereo system, but rather how the loud the track is recorded onto the CD (you must have noticed that hip-hop CDs generally play louder than records like 'Harvest', or 'Dark Side Of The Moon').
So. Imagine you're listening at a comfortable volume and the music on the CD is, unknown to you, averaging around -30dB. A loud audio event occurs (band suddenly comes in/explosion etc) which peaks briefly at 0dB. Allowing for the fact that your speakers have exploded, the event would sound incredibly 'real' (in the 'lifelike' sense). This example gives what we call a Peak-To-Average Ratio (similar to dynamic range) of 30dB, which is huge. Too huge, in fact, for the genre and the compact disc medium.
Had the music been averaging -5dB with the loud event peaking at 0dB (giving 5dB Peak-To-Average Ratio , which is very small indeed), you would not even have blinked (and think how hard it is not to blink when someone's hitting a snare drum next to you - it's a reflex). This is not good: our ears expect quiet sounds to be quiet and loud sounds to be loud (in relation to one another); if they're not, even if it's subconscious, we know something's 'wrong' or at least unnatural.
By correcting the equalisation of a recording, it is possible to increase the Peak-To-Average Ratio, thus making the quiet parts quieter and the loud parts louder (*in relation to one another*), resulting in a more 'real' or natural sound. It is this large Ratio that gives good recordings their depth, richness, clarity and of course, dynamic range. And this is why my remasters sound quieter than their source.[/QUOTE]
^ what he said.
[QUOTE]Remaster sounds better? You decide.[/QUOTE]
Your work on Golders Green 73, Shizuoka 75, and Tokyo 5-1-75 was brilliant, but on this one, I honestly can't tell the difference.
So. Imagine you're listening at a comfortable volume and the music on the CD is, unknown to you, averaging around -30dB. A loud audio event occurs (band suddenly comes in/explosion etc) which peaks briefly at 0dB. Allowing for the fact that your speakers have exploded, the event would sound incredibly 'real' (in the 'lifelike' sense). This example gives what we call a Peak-To-Average Ratio (similar to dynamic range) of 30dB, which is huge. Too huge, in fact, for the genre and the compact disc medium.
Had the music been averaging -5dB with the loud event peaking at 0dB (giving 5dB Peak-To-Average Ratio , which is very small indeed), you would not even have blinked (and think how hard it is not to blink when someone's hitting a snare drum next to you - it's a reflex). This is not good: our ears expect quiet sounds to be quiet and loud sounds to be loud (in relation to one another); if they're not, even if it's subconscious, we know something's 'wrong' or at least unnatural.
By correcting the equalisation of a recording, it is possible to increase the Peak-To-Average Ratio, thus making the quiet parts quieter and the loud parts louder (*in relation to one another*), resulting in a more 'real' or natural sound. It is this large Ratio that gives good recordings their depth, richness, clarity and of course, dynamic range. And this is why my remasters sound quieter than their source.[/QUOTE]
^ what he said.
[QUOTE]Remaster sounds better? You decide.[/QUOTE]
Your work on Golders Green 73, Shizuoka 75, and Tokyo 5-1-75 was brilliant, but on this one, I honestly can't tell the difference.
stark
[QUOTE]Your work on Golders Green 73, Shizuoka 75, and Tokyo 5-1-75 was brilliant, but on this one, I honestly can't tell the difference.
[/QUOTE]
Oh good. I'm on it: downloading both now. If there's been an..um..computer error it'll be a bit embarrassing.
[/QUOTE]
Oh good. I'm on it: downloading both now. If there's been an..um..computer error it'll be a bit embarrassing.
Ale Solan
Thanks a lot for the detailed description of your work =)
Really appreciate that.
Now, trying to resume my point of view (and most of all, trying to make sense in it) on the "remastering" work you've done, I gotta say, in first place, that it's very well done.
Secondly, I gotta say that I'm aware of all the technical mumbo-jumbo concerning to remastering these audience recordings, stopping especially at that fact: that you cannot improve a lot what it's there.
You don't have to many "colors" or "significant and defined peaks" to work with, like in a soundboard recording... basically the improvement it's there and I can hear it but it doesn't add too much to the recording as in a soundboard recording.
I use to do some remastering on some of my recordings as well but I don't share them here since the average Queenzoner can't notice the difference or just don't give a fuck about the effort & work you put on remastering/improving an audience recording of this kind, and just compulsively download what they see.
Don't take my comment as a bashing to your work or intention to share your work with the rest of us.
Just my two cents about remastering audience recordings of this kind as I said before.
Keep up the hard work & I do really appreciate it!
Cheers =)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stark wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Glad someone's listening. :) It IS lower in volume, as pittrek says. 'Don't mistake something more for something better..'
Digital audio works 'in reverse' - in that the loudest possible level is 0dB, and the lowest is -96dB (on a 16-bit CD, anyway). These levels have nothing to do with the volume of your stereo system, but rather how the loud the track is recorded onto the CD (you must have noticed that hip-hop CDs generally play louder than records like 'Harvest', or 'Dark Side Of The Moon').
So. Imagine you're listening at a comfortable volume and the music on the CD is, unknown to you, averaging around -30dB. A loud audio event occurs (band suddenly comes in/explosion etc) which peaks briefly at 0dB. Allowing for the fact that your speakers have exploded, the event would sound incredibly 'real' (in the 'lifelike' sense). This example gives what we call a Peak-To-Average Ratio (similar to dynamic range) of 30dB, which is huge. Too huge, in fact, for the genre and the compact disc medium.
Had the music been averaging -5dB with the loud event peaking at 0dB (giving a 5dB Peak-To-Average Ratio , which is very small indeed), you would not even have blinked (and think how hard it is not to blink when someone's hitting a snare drum next to you - it's a reflex). This is not good: our ears expect quiet sounds to be quiet and loud sounds to be loud (in relation to one another); if they're not, even if it's subconscious, we know something's 'wrong' or at least unnatural.
By correcting the equalisation of a recording, it is possible to increase the Peak-To-Average Ratio, thus making the quiet parts quieter and the loud parts louder (*in relation to one another*), resulting in a more 'real' or natural sound. It is this large Ratio that gives good recordings their depth, richness, clarity and of course, dynamic range. And this is why my remasters sound quieter than their source.
For a valid comparison between a source and its remaster, you MUST listen to them at the same volume, otherwise the loudest one always sounds better. Generally the easiest way to do this is to match the vocal levels. I've attached a link to a section from the Liverpool '73 gig I'm working on at the moment. The files are as follows:
1. Source louder than remaster. Source sounds better.
2. Remaster louder than source. Remaster sounds better.
3. Source and remaster levels matched. Remaster sounds better? You decide.
The source comes first in each example.
http://www.mediafire.com/?8bl03bz3ukv
I hope that explains it - forgive me if I've patronised you, but I've tried
Really appreciate that.
Now, trying to resume my point of view (and most of all, trying to make sense in it) on the "remastering" work you've done, I gotta say, in first place, that it's very well done.
Secondly, I gotta say that I'm aware of all the technical mumbo-jumbo concerning to remastering these audience recordings, stopping especially at that fact: that you cannot improve a lot what it's there.
You don't have to many "colors" or "significant and defined peaks" to work with, like in a soundboard recording... basically the improvement it's there and I can hear it but it doesn't add too much to the recording as in a soundboard recording.
I use to do some remastering on some of my recordings as well but I don't share them here since the average Queenzoner can't notice the difference or just don't give a fuck about the effort & work you put on remastering/improving an audience recording of this kind, and just compulsively download what they see.
Don't take my comment as a bashing to your work or intention to share your work with the rest of us.
Just my two cents about remastering audience recordings of this kind as I said before.
Keep up the hard work & I do really appreciate it!
Cheers =)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stark wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Glad someone's listening. :) It IS lower in volume, as pittrek says. 'Don't mistake something more for something better..'
Digital audio works 'in reverse' - in that the loudest possible level is 0dB, and the lowest is -96dB (on a 16-bit CD, anyway). These levels have nothing to do with the volume of your stereo system, but rather how the loud the track is recorded onto the CD (you must have noticed that hip-hop CDs generally play louder than records like 'Harvest', or 'Dark Side Of The Moon').
So. Imagine you're listening at a comfortable volume and the music on the CD is, unknown to you, averaging around -30dB. A loud audio event occurs (band suddenly comes in/explosion etc) which peaks briefly at 0dB. Allowing for the fact that your speakers have exploded, the event would sound incredibly 'real' (in the 'lifelike' sense). This example gives what we call a Peak-To-Average Ratio (similar to dynamic range) of 30dB, which is huge. Too huge, in fact, for the genre and the compact disc medium.
Had the music been averaging -5dB with the loud event peaking at 0dB (giving a 5dB Peak-To-Average Ratio , which is very small indeed), you would not even have blinked (and think how hard it is not to blink when someone's hitting a snare drum next to you - it's a reflex). This is not good: our ears expect quiet sounds to be quiet and loud sounds to be loud (in relation to one another); if they're not, even if it's subconscious, we know something's 'wrong' or at least unnatural.
By correcting the equalisation of a recording, it is possible to increase the Peak-To-Average Ratio, thus making the quiet parts quieter and the loud parts louder (*in relation to one another*), resulting in a more 'real' or natural sound. It is this large Ratio that gives good recordings their depth, richness, clarity and of course, dynamic range. And this is why my remasters sound quieter than their source.
For a valid comparison between a source and its remaster, you MUST listen to them at the same volume, otherwise the loudest one always sounds better. Generally the easiest way to do this is to match the vocal levels. I've attached a link to a section from the Liverpool '73 gig I'm working on at the moment. The files are as follows:
1. Source louder than remaster. Source sounds better.
2. Remaster louder than source. Remaster sounds better.
3. Source and remaster levels matched. Remaster sounds better? You decide.
The source comes first in each example.
http://www.mediafire.com/?8bl03bz3ukv
I hope that explains it - forgive me if I've patronised you, but I've tried
Ale Solan
I recall now sharing only once here one of my remasters some time ago, Winterland, San Francisco, CA, USA, March 30th, 1975 (3 tracks only)
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=923619
"It's the recording shared by ~Pred. Using GoldWave version 5.17, I raised the volume using the Full Dynamic Range feature which it raises the volume up without saturating the original volume. And as I said, corrected the pitch, which was at lower speed. All done under WAV and re encoded with FLAC frontend, compression level 8, without any gap."
;-)
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=923619
"It's the recording shared by ~Pred. Using GoldWave version 5.17, I raised the volume using the Full Dynamic Range feature which it raises the volume up without saturating the original volume. And as I said, corrected the pitch, which was at lower speed. All done under WAV and re encoded with FLAC frontend, compression level 8, without any gap."
;-)
stark
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Alex Solan. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Secondly, I gotta say that I'm aware of all the technical mumbo-jumbo concerning to remastering these audience recordings, stopping especially at that fact: that you cannot improve a lot what it's there.
You don't have to many "colors" or "significant and defined peaks" to work with, like in a soundboard recording... basically the improvement it's there and I can hear it but it doesn't add too much to the recording as in a soundboard recording.
[/QUOTE]
Kind words - thank you. But I *think* we'll have to agree to differ on your point about not being able to improve it a lot. I'm not familiar with your terminology (s.d.peaks?), but this is about frequency manipulation, not transients or timbre, and I think the results are a Significant (capital S) improvement.
If you mean that audience recordings can't be cleaned up to soundboard quality, then no, it can't be turned into something it never was, which is why I wouldn't claim to have improved the quality. Or do you mean that better recordings can be more successfully restored? I think I'm lost..
You've actually piqued my curiosity - I guess you're saying you don't think it's worth it (and I see no offence is meant) - anyone else got any thoughts?
Secondly, I gotta say that I'm aware of all the technical mumbo-jumbo concerning to remastering these audience recordings, stopping especially at that fact: that you cannot improve a lot what it's there.
You don't have to many "colors" or "significant and defined peaks" to work with, like in a soundboard recording... basically the improvement it's there and I can hear it but it doesn't add too much to the recording as in a soundboard recording.
[/QUOTE]
Kind words - thank you. But I *think* we'll have to agree to differ on your point about not being able to improve it a lot. I'm not familiar with your terminology (s.d.peaks?), but this is about frequency manipulation, not transients or timbre, and I think the results are a Significant (capital S) improvement.
If you mean that audience recordings can't be cleaned up to soundboard quality, then no, it can't be turned into something it never was, which is why I wouldn't claim to have improved the quality. Or do you mean that better recordings can be more successfully restored? I think I'm lost..
You've actually piqued my curiosity - I guess you're saying you don't think it's worth it (and I see no offence is meant) - anyone else got any thoughts?
queentel
Thanks Stark, you have done a great job
Any one want to do some artwork? just out of interest?
Any one want to do some artwork? just out of interest?
Ale Solan
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]queentel wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thanks Stark, you have done a great job
Any one want to do some artwork? just out of interest?[/QUOTE]
from Sir GH's site
front:
http://queenlive.ca/queen/art/CD/75-04-29_Shizuoka_SweetEncore_a.jpg
back:
http://queenlive.ca/queen/art/CD/75-04-29_Shizuoka_SweetEncore_b.jpg
Any one want to do some artwork? just out of interest?[/QUOTE]
from Sir GH's site
front:
http://queenlive.ca/queen/art/CD/75-04-29_Shizuoka_SweetEncore_a.jpg
back:
http://queenlive.ca/queen/art/CD/75-04-29_Shizuoka_SweetEncore_b.jpg
kohuept
Thanks!...I'm a bit behind...