Queen 2 Remaster review

I guess I haven't bought an album more often than Queen 2 - always hoping for a better sound quality. Usually I was quite disappointed. The ones I kept so far were the Hollywood version and the Japanese one from 2001 with the very nice sleeve replica.

So I put all three into the multitracker. And surprise surprise - the new one wins !
The Japanese one is very sharp compared to the Hollywood version.
 But - all tricks of loudness or EQ do not help to make both sound as detailed as the new one.
Compared to the new remaster both - especially the Japanese one - sound like taken from a lower generation tape copy. The new one has much more details and this is not just a question of EQ and loudness. 
So this is a real improvement !

Also amazing are the extras! The remix of the BBC "See what a fool" sounds like being recorded yesterday. And even "White Queen" from the well known Hammersmith has a bass sound I never heard before. The whole mix has been worked on, it's close to the later remix of that concert but different in many details like stereo positions of the instruments. So I hope this is an appetizer for a possible full release of that concert.

Can't see why they won't release it now.  This is going to be a HUGE year for us, in terms of releases and downloads.

Thanks for the review - I've been thinking of getting these remasters too, but was quite content with the 1991 Hollywood versions.
However, Q2 being a fantastic album, I do have a question.

During the second part of the guitar solo in Father to Son, the sound has always seems saturated - with RMT bashing the drums and JD's bass sounding like crap. Any better sound with the new versions?

Cheers,
Lem

Lemmy wrote: Thanks for the review - I've been thinking of getting these remasters too, but was quite content with the 1991 Hollywood versions.
However, Q2 being a fantastic album, I do have a question.

During the second part of the guitar solo in Father to Son, the sound has always seems saturated - with RMT bashing the drums and JD's bass sounding like crap. Any better sound with the new versions?

Cheers,
Lem
Alas, that part still sounds like crap!!!

Must be on the multitrack like that. In fact, isn't it because they 'bounced' between tracks too hot which caused the distortion?

One notable mistake on the remaster: Loser in the end...is still there. haha!!!

I prefer "Loser" instead of Funny How Love is..

Great Roger song.

And how about the full complete version of SSOR. It's an instrumental but complete with Fred ending it.

I've heard the instrumental version of Seven Seas Of Rhye - it's spectacular... about a minute longer.  This is absolute gold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJGiszfjhm8 seven seas of rhye instrumental on youtube :)

Re: SSOR instrumental

Awesome! Thanks!

Sir GH wrote: I've heard the instrumental version of Seven Seas Of Rhye - it's spectacular... about a minute longer.  This is absolute gold.

==========
The only interesting bonus track :(

Hi, I did a quick review of the MP3 samples, mainly from ANATO and ADATR albums.

Here's the link to the samples:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Queen/e/B000AQ0748/ref=amb_link_159097067_18?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=left-8&pf_rd_r=12MFEE6D6T7CDWJ3JBKV&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=229881607&pf_rd_i=77197031

The volume level was raised a bit                                                                        Ok

The stereophonic effect was noticeably improved                                            Super!

Processed sound, more noticeable on lead vocals                                         Ultra wrong decision, more natural closer-to-
and piano (“microgranulated sound” )                                                                reality sound is much better

Return to16 bits transfers?                                                                                    Totally wrong, backward step, fast and easy 
                                                                                                                                      way decision!!!

It’s difficult to assure that transfers were done at 16 bits due the samples are MP3 (64 Kbps) sourced, but the original
remasters could sound much better or only with minor changes, perhaps anyone would want to confirm if the inner sleeve come with the notice “24 bits”?

Greetings

ole-the-first wrote:
Sir GH wrote: I've heard the instrumental version of Seven Seas Of Rhye - it's spectacular... about a minute longer.  This is absolute gold.

==========
The only interesting bonus track :(

-----------------------------------------------------------

The BBC tracks are in better quality than ever before.  Give them another listen with an open mind... they are pretty spectacular.

Farokh. How on earth can you do a reliable "test" on 64kbs mp3 samples?
It's like reviewing a  Bluray movie from a long play VHS copy of it....

Question for the experts (Soundfreak..etc):

Apart from raising the "Db" levels, reduce the "hiss" and manipulate the "treble", what other technical implements can be used to remaster an album??. I mean, for example, The Beatles remasters in the view of many experts were perfectly treated and I didn´t read too much moaning about them. Im not saying that you guys are moaning or anything like that, Im just asking.

Cheers,

Basically remastering is less depending from technical implements than from the guy (usually it's a guy....) who is doing it. He decides how he wants a recording to sound like.
In case of the Beatles remasters there was a team of several engineers discussing every decision before adding some EQ or compression. 
There is no rule and there are lots and lots of tools available to remove noises or correct a weakness in the sound.
And different people will come to different results even if they use the same tools.  
In recent years it became a fashion to make everything as loud as possible, luckily this "philosophy" is disappearing cause it's extremely tiring for the ears.   

But first of all the most important thing for remastering is to find the best possible source.