Finding the very best source (i.e proper original master tape) is the most crucial aspect.
After that, it's allowing the Engineer to do their best work without record companies constraining them with ridiculous requests for loudness.
That's why I love Steve Hoffman so much, he seems to get this right more times than most.
mandocello · Member since
There is a gigantic difference between remastering and remixing.
If you've got the original tapes to work with, why not remix it (perhaps only minor tweaks here and there), and then have Ludwig master it?
Soundfreak · Member since
It's just a question of money.
Remastering an existing mix is unbelievably "in-expensive". Remastering a song is something that can be done in less than an hour by a well trained engineer. And I heard of several cases of record companies paying sums around 40 Euro (!) for a song. Sometimes even less....
When you remix a track, then it's getting really expensive. You have to find the fitting equipment that can reproduce the original multitracks as good as possible, you have to analyse and restore each track and then you have to imitate the original mix as close as possible. Or you have to find a new mix. So this is extremely time consuming and expensive like a new production. And that's why it's not done very often.
Negative Creep · Member since
earwig wrote: 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!!! Why must it be on the multitrack? Based on what? Far more likely that it's just on the stereo master, which will have gone through a lot of compression. Didn't the band have a specific compressor that they used on pretty much every album?
Negative Creep · Member since
Soundfreak wrote: It's just a question of money.
Remastering an existing mix is unbelievably "in-expensive". Remastering a song is something that can be done in less than an hour by a well trained engineer. And I heard of several cases of record companies paying sums around 40 Euro (!) for a song. Sometimes even less....
When you remix a track, then it's getting really expensive. You have to find the fitting equipment that can reproduce the original multitracks as good as possible, you have to analyse and restore each track and then you have to imitate the original mix as close as possible. Or you have to find a new mix. So this is extremely time consuming and expensive like a new production. And that's why it's not done very often. Queen have already transferred all their multiracks to digital and have an inhouse team for mixing. It wouldn't be that costly to do unless you bring in some hot shout mixing engineer - the fact they've produced new instrumental mixes demonstrates cost isn't an issue - it's that, like most bands, unless what exists is rubbish, they don't want the original mixes to go out of print. In fact, Brian evidently doesn't want remixed albums in stereo to be produced at all - he deliberately chose not to include new stereo mixes on the DVD-A releases.
Farrokh The Great · Member since
brians wig wrote: 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.... =============================================================================================
Hi brians wig!, remember that “part” of the audio information is present in those MP3 samples, apart from that, training my ears over the years.
Farrokh The Great · Member since
masterstroke_84 wrote: 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,
============================================================================================= Hi masterstroke_84!
The main matter in a remasterization would be to extract (with the ultimate tech) the most possible of the audio information from the original master tapes (it means a LOT of information) and to put it in a convenient format like DVD audio format (24 bits/96 Khz) or another similar (SACD), in this way we could to listen almost ALL the audio content and not only part of it (like in the CD format 16Bits/44 Khz), in other words we could have a sound very rich in harmonics.
If You want to know about 24 bits/96 Khz, try this:
unfortunately for us, some or most of the remasterizations are “light”, in other words “commercial”, the owners of the rights don’t try to release a definitive product with the intention of having other opportunities to get money in the future, apart there’s few people interested on a high quality (high resolution) product and therefore the owner of the rights lost interest in releasing such a product.
Greetings
Erik Viking · Member since
In White Queen little sound breakdown in the beginning of line "Stars of lovingness in her hair" disappears. :) But in "Father to Son" still is. :(
Soundfreak · Member since
Negative Creep wrote: Queen have already transferred all their multiracks to digital and have an inhouse team for mixing. It wouldn't be that costly to do unless you bring in some hot shout mixing engineer - the fact they've produced new instrumental mixes demonstrates cost isn't an issue <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I don't want to defend them, I wish they had remixed everything from the multitracks. But what you write is a bit of wishful thinking. They may have transferred all their multitracks to digital safety copies. But that does not mean they automatically have new remixes. And I don't think they have an "inhouse team for mixing". As was reported on this board some months ago they booked into a studio to remix some tracks. And this is expensive and time consuming.
Adam Baboolal · Member since
Hey Soundfreak.
I think what was meant about the "in-house" team was, well, I believe most peeps think Justin-Shirley Smith when they hear such things. He's generally (and unfortunately) their go-to guy for a lot of things. I say unfortunately because I grow tired of the same old, same old. I wish they'd try other people for these kind of jobs. Heck, it's the reason I believe the recent remasters were done by someone new (fairly new) to the Queen camp.
Adam.
mahlers.com · Member since
Soundfreak wrote: 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.
Reads good, I suppose a mix of "The Miracle" sound production team meets Queen 1973-1974.
Song by song, word for word, chord for chord, beat for splash!.
WK
Negative Creep · Member since
Soundfreak wrote:
I don't want to defend them, I wish they had remixed everything from the multitracks. But what you write is a bit of wishful thinking. They may have transferred all their multitracks to digital safety copies. But that does not mean they automatically have new remixes. And I don't think they have an "inhouse team for mixing". As was reported on this board some months ago they booked into a studio to remix some tracks. And this is expensive and time consuming.
Wishful thinking? I haven't said they've remixed everything anywhere. They really have no need to book a studio to remix anything either. Roger has his own home studio (perhaps Brian too) and it's almost all software not hardware anymore, which I'm sure they already own. JSS can easily, even on a PC, open up a set of files making up a multitrack in a range of different multritrack editors and create a professional quality mix without entering a studio.
Adam Baboolal · Member since
I'd completely forgotten to drop that same info about both Brian and Roger having their respective home studios. Roger's barn (still around? Or did he move...hmm...) and Brian's at his house where he seemingly recorded a lot of guitar for Kerry Ellis' album.
Adam.
Soundfreak · Member since
Negative Creep wrote:
Wishful thinking? I haven't said they've remixed everything anywhere. They really have no need to book a studio to remix anything either. Roger has his own home studio (perhaps Brian too) and it's almost all software not hardware anymore, which I'm sure they already own. JSS can easily, even on a PC, open up a set of files making up a multitrack in a range of different multritrack editors and create a professional quality mix without entering a studio.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They may have digital studios at home like many people have today. But that is not the same. Every musician..every sound technician knows, that digitial tools are not the "real" thing. There are good programms for example to simulate valve driven amps - but still a real valve driven amp is lightyears superior and also reacts differently. When Queen and other people like the Beatles remaster or remix their old recordings, they try to find as much original and analogue equipment as possible. As only this leads to a great result that also sounds fine on quality stereo systems.
mahlers.com · Member since
Remember how many songs from Queen II flow into each other? Is it possible to hear the same with digital downloads or should I go purchase the CD?
