MK Bowl vs Montreal - I just don't understand.....

......how the team responsible for the audio on these two concerts can produce results so massivley differing in quality.  I'm fully understanding that different shows from different eras will sound different, but they can sound different yet still actually be good.  This is not the case with MK Bowl.

Essentially the overall audio on Rock Montreal is superb - the drums are the best live recording of Roger - crisp, clear hi hats, plenty of kick drum, fat floor toms.  The piano cuts through really well, and on Freddie's vocals you even get the ambience and reverb of the room. The bass is also fantastic. The mix is good - everything in it's own space and not competing, everything perfectly clear and audible, and plenty of power and bottom end without any boominess or loss of clarity.

In contrast - the Live at the Bowl drums are appalling; the snare sounds 'flappy' with no snap or presence, the kick drum is woolly with nothing done to help it cut through - the toms are not hugely audible, but sound dull and 'boxy' anyway so perhaps thats no bad thing!  Yes, the bass and Freddie's vox are pretty good, but not to the standard of Montreal.  Overall, the mix sounds lifeless and with no definition, with a lot of parts getting swamped or lost in a jumble.  Backing vocals again are not nearly up enough in the mix.

QPL went ot great lengths to state that both of these shows were remixed fully from the multitrack tapes, so I simply can't explain how when they were mixing MK they got to the point of saying '"yeah, that sounds good" when it clearly doesn't.  I was so waiting for the CD when it came out but even on first play I was so so disappointed with the sound of it.  Yes, the original recording made by Mack of the Montreal show may well have been much better, but I simply don't know how when they have revisited the multitrack masters they could not apply the right mixing techniques, EQs, settings etc.. to make the MK concert come alive in a similar way.

I know some discussion has taken place on this subject in the past, but I just had to vent my spleen on this for some reason today!!!

Surely it's a case of how it was recorded - not mixed.

To put it another way: garbage in, garbage out!!!

You're right to a certain degree, and different drum kits etc.. will sound different, and recordings will be affected by the acoustics in the venue etc...   BUT

because they have remixed the audio from the multitracks rather than just a stereo mix of the whole band, they should be able to make any of the instruments sound markedly different if they want to.

An example is that the original Live In Rio audio is very poor, (along with most shows that have surfaced from that tour).  However, when you listen to Rock In Rio Blues from the A Winter's Tale CD single, the sound on that is fabulous, and a vast improvement on the mix on the VHS - they have put some work into that track (or perhaps the whole show but just not released it yet??) and it really shows.  They could have improved MK to a similar degree.

I agree. MK is really disappointing. Just compare Action This Day to the Tokyo version for example.

I figured it was to do with the recording.   That or else the venue was just bad for recording or something, maybe it had really bad acoustics.

great topic. I hope someone with technical insight can shed a light on this

if it is largely down to the multi track master, then it's a wonder that MK and Wembley don't sound remotely as good as Queen Rock Montreal

When it was first shown on The Tube way back in 1982 Brian's guitar sounded like it was coming through a transistor radio in another room. Unfortunately, it still sounds that way on Live at the Bowl. Don't really care for the drum sound. The bass sounds a lot different  -- more funkier -- than on previous shows. Fred sounds good. Nothing can change that :)

The reason I think Montreal has "better" sound quality was because it was for VHS and movie release. And so, it was made as if it was a studio recording. That's why on the WWRY release, you barley hear any audience noise. On the Rock Montreal release, you hear more, but nothing close to that on the bootleg of the first night.

Well I can be wrong, but I think that when you listen to the Montreal recording, you are listening to a perfectly mixed soundboard recording and when you're listening to the Milton Keynes, you are listening to the sound recorded by the video cameras

I could be wrong too Pittrek, but I'm sure I recall comments by Brian and Justin Shirley-Smith at the time that the MK gig was released that they had remixed from the multitracks, therefore meaning NOT just a cleaned up stereo mix from the video feed.  I distinctly remember specific comments about how they looked at in such close details that they did things like lowered the level of the (horrible!) electronic drums.

Definitely a problem with the source, I'd say. Having the multi tracks are no guarantee of good sound.

If the source is bad then there's only so much you can do with EQ and filters etc.. The sound might not be great, but just be thankful they didn't no-noise the life out of it.

I actually don't mind it. Sure it's not soundboard perfect, but I think it gives it a bit of character. If I have any problem, it's that it's far too loud. (.....I'm starting to sound like a broken record!).

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]cmsdrums wrote:[/QUOTENAME]

I could be wrong too Pittrek, but I'm sure I recall comments by Brian and Justin Shirley-Smith at the time that the MK gig was released that they had remixed from the multitracks, therefore meaning NOT just a cleaned up stereo mix from the video feed.  I distinctly remember specific comments about how they looked at in such close details that they did things like lowered the level of the (horrible!) electronic drums.[/QUOTE]

I know, I read the same comments, I just trust my ears better :-) When I was creating my DVD I was comparing the audio of the "long TV" version with the sound track of the official DVD, and the only difference I could find was that the official DVD sounded LOUDER and CLEANER. Of course the drums sound differently (=WORSE IMHO) and there is this terrible "locality" overdub, but otherwise these 2 tracks sounded similar. But I must admit I didn't listen to the concert for actually YEARS now so maybe I don't remember it correctly.

Yeah, the drum quality always baffled me, i know they're different tours, but it still baffles me.

With one gig being outdoors and one indoors got anything to do with it?

Definitely MK is from a multi-track. No way would a TV camera pick up sound like that, that's if they pick up any sound at all?

But I agree that MK is only marginally different from the original broadcast. And I'll give you my theory.

I think that JSS and Fredrikson are so familiar with the original mix, they almost sub-consciously copy it. I think they've done that with MK, Montreal, and that new mix of Hammersmith '75. Montreal is the most obviously different, but it had to be. Hammersmith '75 and especially MK sound more like remasters than remixed.

Either that, or they sit at the desk with the original mix playing and simply make little tweaks to the original.

The sound is compressed to hell, no dynamics at all. And why is Brians guitar ALWAYS so friggin quiet and buried in the mix?

I like Montreal but I still think the sound is a little 'dead'. It lack's ambience, and sounds like they're playing in a cupboard.

Listen to the power of Brians guitar here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NG1GoKG8m8 
It make's Queen sound like a rock band, and not powder puff, as my mate likes to refer to Queen's live sound. Japan '82 and the SNL performance have a similar sound.

Been listening to How The West Was Won by Zeppelin lately, and that's how you mix a live album IMO, guitars right out in front! Check out Over The Hill's And Far Away on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ooleghBLw