Queen 1 - Remaster Review

I just got the remasters and this is my first review of the album "Queen 1".

I compared it with the Hollywood remaster from 1991 and put several tracks into a multitrack-system. Cause things like loudness can fool your ear...

I took  Keep yourself alive, Liar and The night comes down. The main difference is the loudness. The tracks have been turned up between 3 to 5 db, different on each track. The dynamics are still quite intact although some limiting has happened at the louder parts. 
Also notacable is a reduction in the high frequencies above 6 Khz. 

If you turn up the Hollywood remaster while reducing the treble a bit you will not notice any difference. 

The booklet contains lyrics plus few fotos I haven't seen before, no info on the album, there's just some unspecific info on the bonus tracks. 

And they are difficult to rate in this case. I compared this new version of the De Lane tracks with the version Of "In the beginning. 

My impression is, that both versions come from the same source and sadly it's not the mastertape. 
According to the booklet the source is an acetate belonging to Brian. This may be true as "Keep yourself alive" has a slightly longer guitar intro with some additional  "needle-finding the groove-noise" at the very beginning. 
"In the beginning" features the tracks playing 2 % too fast, on the remaster they are playing correct.
Played in sync the new one has less treble and they worked a lot on the noise reduction, which sometimes makes them sound amazingly clear - although not like a mastertape should be. 
Also the makers of "In the beginning" removed noise, sometimes too much (like in the intro of Jesus) and lost the sound of the cymbals etc. On this remaster they did a real good job. Although there are moments, when "In the beginning" has more treble and hiss but sounds more precise. It's a mixed bag - but just because of the correct speed I would recommend the remaster. 

For "Mad the Swine" it's the same as the album tracks, louder and less treble. 

Basically these remasters are just a catalogue replacement for the former EMI versions and less designed for the collector - apart from the bonus tracks. There is no real reason to throw away your old cds, you won't hear anything you haven't heard before.

I'm not 100% sure, but some harmonies on KYA (after the break) sound different to me. I don't know if it's a matter of mastering or if they used outtakes or stuff from one of the many different recordings of that one.

I have heard some samples and I think Queen II has been improved the most. It sounds epic in every way. The definitive version in my book.

I'm not 100% sure, but some harmonies on KYA (after the break) sound different to me. I don't know if it's a matter of mastering or if they used outtakes or stuff from one of the many different recordings of that one.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You mean after the "Do you think your better everyday" part?
Comparing it in the multitracker they are identic.

I meant the time they sang the chorus in F.

The album is called Queen not Queen 1

paulsmith2001 wrote: The album is called Queen not Queen 1

Reply: A trite pedantic, at least they took the time to do the review.

Thanks for your comments Soundfreak.

It's standard practice in most instances to refer to the debut album as "Queen 1." Saying I'm going to do a review of Queen can be mistaken for doing a review of the band itself. It's like "Led Zeppelin 1" (or 2, or 3 or 4) or "Peter Gabriel 1" (or "Rain," or "Car") or The Beatles' "White Album." Since there was a "Queen II," it's logical, unofficial nomenclature. 

If I'm going to write a post talking about that album, I'll probably call it a various points "Queen 1," "the debut album," and "the first album."

The sound of the bonnus not is bad But WHY they let all these Noise?? at least they could had removed the Start Noise of Keep Yourself Alive!

I think they all sound better, with Queen II being the most improved.  Also, I'm loving the clarity of some of the bonus tracks and also the stand-alone efforts on "Deep Cuts".

Btw, I'm getting tired already with folk moaning about the "noise" on the DLL demos, ffs it sounds more "authentic" this way - we all wanted them in their true form, we got it.

I think the "needle finding groove" sound was done deliberately, to give it the sound of an actual acetate pressing. Sure, when I copy something from vinyl I tend to remove elements like that, but here they left it on for artistic reasons. Notice the beginning of "Live At The Bowl" starts with the sound of the master tape distortion that happens when you start an actual recording. It was there on the original recording and they kept it for aesthetic reasons, rather than having a quiet fade in. The same tape distortion appears at the beginning of "Rock In Rio Blues" on the "A Winter's Tale" CD single (but not on the US "Too Much Love..." CD single, which has a cleaner fade in). It's not sloppy if they intended it to be there, it's just an effect some people don't like.

If your ears find it an affront to sound quality, it's easy enough to remove the needle scratch if you have a basic audio editing program. As for the hiss, maybe they thought employing noise-reduction software dulled the sound. I'm not an expert on post-production computer audio software, so I'll let others debate the merits of leaving the hiss noise on the track.

Well said.  I think it sounds the business.

The noise got to me on De Lane Le so I decided to try an experiment..
This worked well for me using Audacity 1.312 beta.

Sample: http://www.mediafire.com/?ipvl29dv07cdvd1

Here's how to do it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krWIvP9DKvc

Queen I and II are absolutely brilliant. It's like listening to the albums for the very first time.

So far i have Queen,Queen 2 and SHA 2011 remasters.They sound fantastic ,i also bought Deep Cuts and i am looking foward to rest of the releases.