One of the reasons I don't post on this board although I've been a member for 7 and a half years, is the number of virtual arse holes who roam about on occassion here, the type who give GB such a hard time for not really answering questions.
john bodega · Member since
It's not GB's fault that this forum is full of horrible cunts.
smilebrian · Member since
Soundfreak, seriously, those Beatles remasters are absolutely superb. I think they go FAR beyond some level boosts and compression. Zep, Floyd, the Stones all seem to handle their "brand" with far more panache than Queen. I agree with [url=http://www.queenzone.com/profile/brenski.aspx]brENsKi [/url]that their output has been of far greater quality and Queen have with only a couple of exceptions released absolute drivel over the last 15 years. [/QUOTE]I would much prefer the studio catalogue handled with a great deal more care and bought up to speed though a proper remastering then any amount of box set rarities, outtakes etc. Add some live concert material done properly via blu-ray and that would give the fans (the ones that actually care about the music) a really strong product line-up that the Queen catalogue deserves. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]All the whining, bitching and sarcasm simply reflects the HUGE frustration genuine Queen fans have over the complete and utter ineptness of the band's releases (and lack of releases!) over the last decade and a half. [/QUOTE]
Soundfreak · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]smilebrian wrote: [/b]
Soundfreak, seriously, those Beatles remasters are absolutely superb. I think they go FAR beyond some level boosts and compression. [/QUOTE]
I wish they were...checked them in a studio environment, played them to several people in direct comparison after bringing the old ones to the "new loudness level". And no one was able to tell the difference.....
There were some glitches repaired mainly on Past Masters - and that's all. There was a lot of hype created around these releases. The only real plus is, that finally the albums have better covers and booklets.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]smilebrian wrote: [/b]
Soundfreak, seriously, those Beatles remasters are absolutely superb. I think they go FAR beyond some level boosts and compression.
[/QUOTE]
I wish they were...checked them in a studio environment, played them to several people in direct comparison after bringing the old ones to the "new loudness level". And no one was able to tell the difference.....
There were some glitches repaired mainly on Past Masters - and that's all. There was a lot of hype created around these releases. The only real plus is, that finally the albums have better covers and booklets.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. It was all hype. I've compared most of the 2009 remasters to the 1988 CDs, and after adjusting the volume levels to make them equal, there is no difference in the sound itself, with only a few minor glitches removed - things that no average ear would hear. Abbey Road was the only one with any audible improvement, as it simply went through hiss reduction. At the end of the day, it's the same old stereo mixes, and a whole lot of money made.
The 1999 Yellow Submarine CD is the only recent Beatles remaster with any major audible improvement. The songs have completely new stereo mixes, and are simply the best the Beatles have ever sounded. To me it's the greatest shame in the recent history of popular music that the entire catalogue of the world's most acclaimed band was not given this kind of treatment.
