The definitive 'Queen' audiophile thread

John, I think you're missing the boat a little bit.

If you want to create an "audiophile" album of Queen, it would have to be a vinyl LP to start things off.

Plus, you'd basically be choosing tracks that best "show off your stereo" - not what you think the best tunes are. That's what audiophiles live and die by.

For instance, you might naturally pick Bohemian Rhapsody, but Dragon Attack is a much more likely choice for an audiophile to pick. If you ears don't hear this, then it's tough to explain.

Stop being a snob with the vinyl crap. The only way vinyl can sound any better (if at all) than cd is if you spend thousands on a hi fi.

[QUOTE] For instance, you might naturally pick Bohemian Rhapsody, but Dragon Attack is a much more likely choice for an audiophile to pick. If you ears don't hear this, then it's tough to explain.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree there: [i]Bo Rhap[/i] is great for audiophiles. Even if it wasn't a hit, just the way those cascades sound in a big stereo, the way those guitar harmonics send shivers down one's spine (pun intended), and the way the cymbal rolls walk through the panning during 'wind blows' are enough for them to be included.

Not to mention the amazing 'oh-yeah' vocals during the reprise... priceless!

[QUOTE]

[b]mooghead wrote: [/b]

Stop being a snob with the vinyl crap. The only way vinyl can sound any better (if at all) than cd is if you spend thousands on a hi fi.
[/QUOTE]

You don't have to spend thousands on a hi-fi to get the benefit of vinyl playback. About £200 can get a really great vinyl player. Not much more for an amp and most people who are into music have a decent amp already.

You have to remember that cd is a lower resolution delivery format from the 80's. Vinyl has more possibilites. I won't go into this anymore as I'm supposed to be doing some music with folk. I'm getting looks from them as I type :)

Adam.

[QUOTE]

[b]brians wig wrote: [/b]

What on earth does MFSL stand for?????

Since John started this thread, would he be willing to delve into his own archives and offer some unreleased material of his own that we could plunder!? ;)[/QUOTE]

Stands for Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, and its just a different way of transferring music from the source to a CD for release (in a nutshell). With MFSL the sound is much louder and packs a bigger punch, but it's all taste dependent.

I personally love the MFSL release of News of the World... A lot of powerful songs.


btw. Googleing 'MFSL wiki' will give you all the details

This is a great idea but please don't start with a vinyl vs. CD crap. I've had enough of that on our Czech Queen forum recently :-) Overall it's obviously safe to say some vinyls sound better than CD's and some CD's sound better than vinyls. Also vinyl has some attributes which should theoretically make him sound better than CD's but it does not work like that (same with analog photography - which in some aspect should be theoretically better but is not). In the end it's the (re)mastering process that matters most.
[/QUOTE]Let's focus on the CD remasters. Obviously it's a Hollywood vs. Japan battle. Unfortunately most of my collection are EMI 1994 remasters which are crap so I cannot contribute.[/QUOTE]

I have a mix of EMI's and Hollywood's. Haven't heard anything that says the EMI's are bad. If there's something comparable that says otherwise, I'd like to see/hear it.


Btw, the mastering process isn't the most important. But I can understand that view! Just look at the f*** up that JSSmith did on his remasters of Queen's catalogue. What a mess. While the guy from 2005's ANATO (forget his name), is miles better. But they both have something in common...the mixes left from the sessions with Queen and/or the engineer(s) involved. That is where the honey is to be found. Just look at what happened with Teo Torriate in 2005. A remix with the latest kit and suddenly it's got a fresh sound again.

But hey, the albums which were released by Queen are the way they were supposed to be heard. I think that needs to be remembered first. Whichever holds up that ideal, for me, is the one that matters most. That's why I really take issue with the JSSmith remasters. They can alter the perception of the songs and make things "feel" different. It's not right and most of them shouldn't be around at all.


Getting a bit off track! The point to this thread is to find the best sounding release of each and every song available from Queen's albums. So, if there are errors on certain cd's, we can try to find one without those issues, etc. So, a track from CD -X- has to be clear enough to the majority that it's an improvement and worthy of inclusion here. I think this is what JohnSS is saying.

Yay, nay?
Adam.

Unfortunately the only MFSL discs are:
[i]A Night At The Opera
A Day At The Races
News Of The World
The Game[/i]

I have all four, as well as all of the Hollywood remasters and (whoo-hoo!) the original UK EMI pressings.  I don't have the Japanese ones, so I can't comment on those, and it looks like those are the ones to have to participate in this poll.

While I think the four MFSL discs sound better than their Hollywood counterparts, it's the same edit & mix (I believe).  And the only reason I would suggest the EMI pressings is for sentimental value... since that's the only way I could hear Queen on CD until 1991.

However, the US Capitol issue of A Kind Of Magic has bonus tracks not found on the Hollywood version.  Plus there's the Highlander Immortal Edition DVD that has three tracks from AKOM.  Looks like the later albums would be extremely expanded compared to the first few albums.

And what about those 3" CD singles?  I've never put them all in to compare them with the album versions I have on CD.  Were those pulled from the EMI UK Pressings?

They were, yes.

Just to make it clear, by EMI ones, I meant that these are the Digital Master Series from 93/94! Not the ones from previous years. I HAVE heard of those and none too favourably, either. :)

Adam.

[QUOTE]

[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]

I have a mix of EMI's and Hollywood's. Haven't heard anything that says the EMI's are bad. If there's something comparable that says otherwise, I'd like to see/hear it.


Btw, the mastering process isn't the most important. But I can understand that view! Just look at the f*** up that JSSmith did on his remasters of Queen's catalogue. What a mess. While the guy from 2005's ANATO (forget his name), is miles better. But they both have something in common...the mixes left from the sessions with Queen and/or the engineer(s) involved. That is where the honey is to be found. Just look at what happened with Teo Torriate in 2005. A remix with the latest kit and suddenly it's got a fresh sound again.

But hey, the albums which were released by Queen are the way they were supposed to be heard. I think that needs to be remembered first. Whichever holds up that ideal, for me, is the one that matters most. That's why I really take issue with the JSSmith remasters. They can alter the perception of the songs and make things "feel" different. It's not right and most of them shouldn't be around at all.


Getting a bit off track! The point to this thread is to find the best sounding release of each and every song available from Queen's albums. So, if there are errors on certain cd's, we can try to find one without those issues, etc. So, a track from CD -X- has to be clear enough to the majority that it's an improvement and worthy of inclusion here. I think this is what JohnSS is saying.

Yay, nay?
Adam.
[/QUOTE]

Yay - that is the basic idea.

Weren't there one master disc to which band listened, was satisfied by it sound and decided it should go in production? What's the point of these reremasters, which sound band didn't approve, if band already choosed how their albums should sound best?
That especially concers "Miracle" and "Innuendo" remasters, as there is little to improve, taking in mind what recording equipement was much better than in 70's.

Recording equipment was better in the 70's? I'm guessing you meant over the digital stuff they used in the 80's..? In a way, yes. It's very subjective, i.e. bad converters on digital stuff, then. But it's something that is still stored on tape. So, the digital stuff can be improved on as well. Even Miracle and Innuendo. :)

Adam.

[QUOTE]

[b]djcamper wrote: [/b]

Weren't there one master disc to which band listened, was satisfied by it sound and decided it should go in production? What's the point of these reremasters, which sound band didn't approve, if band already choosed how their albums should sound best?
That especially concers "Miracle" and "Innuendo" remasters, as there is little to improve, taking in mind what recording equipement was much better than in 70's.
[/QUOTE]

Are you KIDDING me?
Innuendo sounds as flat as a pancake - some of the tracks on the Jap remaster improve upon it, but this album definately needs a complete remaster by the band just to give it some oomph!

I've never played my vinyl version as I've got unplayed copies of all the "original releases" of the albums (mad ain't it?), but vinyl has that warmth that CD doesn't have.
Wish I had £5000 for that Japanese laser vinyl player....

Since the 2001 remasters are approaching 10 years old, it must be time for new remasters!