Remasters - just louder

OK, 'clipping' can be a loaded term in audio circles, but in truth the definition has a certain amount of breadth. In this instance (i.e. these remasters) I'm using the term in reference to 'soft clipping', rather than a flattening or distortion of the wave form. So, yes, there is clipping in these remasters. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this mastering approach, if used sparingly and intelligently. Personally I feel it works better with some genres than others. Messing with the dynamic range of recordings is nothing new. And as some have pointed out, compression can often help a mix. But as with all things, it's about choosing when and where it's best suited.

Again I reiterate that this is all subjective and whatever sounds good to you, then stick with that. But for me Queen, particularly the 70's stuff, is all about dynamics, and the careful craft that went into creating it. And any mastering effort that undermines that is just not for me. I have a background in sound engineering so I'm probably more prone to hear when things are limited. There are tell tale signs (that are difficult to describe) when snares, kicks, solos, don't punch through a mix they way they should do (...if you are familiar with the mix, that is).

I'm not one that generally looks at wave forms. In fact I purposely shy away from them, as they can distract and make you hear things in a different way. In short, they can play with your head. So my rule is, I live with a CD for a while, if I feel I'm hearing something that doesn't quite sound right, then my curiosity will occasionally get the better of me. And that's been the case with these remasters. I listened to them for a long while, before checking my suspicions, on one or two occasions. Sadly my suspicions were justified. Although clearly far from 'brick-walled', nevertheless a substantial amount of dynamic range has been lost from many tracks. Some worse than others.

As for examples, the tracks I mentioned in the previous post are a good place to start. NOTW is a good case in point. In and of itself, the new remaster sounds quite good. And if that were the only version around, I'd happily listen to it, and probably not ever notice the limiting. But the problem is, I've grown up with the vinyl since I was a kid, and I've become super sensitive to how 'I think' it should sound. So to me the limiting is very noticeable. And as I've said before, having discovered other fantastic digital versions, like DCC, MFSL, and the Target NOTW, I find it hard to compromise.

Whether you think something sounds good, or not, is completely up to you. There's no right or wrong. I'm just saying my piece and perfectly respect others that disagree.

*shakes head at anyone who listens to rock music who complains because it's too loud*

I'm really happy that I am such a noob when it comes to sound quality etc and I have no knowledge about remasters, clicks, clipping, loudness and other blabla. It seems that it really makes my life a lot easier, esp when I read everyone's opinions here who are so well-taught in that area.
I always enjoyed the Japanese remasters back then and thought they were much better compared to the 80's CD's (80's discs were flat and too much hiss in my opinion).
With the new remasters I barely hear any difference between these and the Jap ones. In the end I bought em for the bonus disc and because I like to stay up to date.. no matter if the sound is better or worse..
:D

It really is just louder. Look up "loudness war".  I fell for the whole idea that each new remaster reissue means new technology that improves the sound. I bought and rebought and sold old CD's. So after buying the same album 5 times, I'm the theif for wanting to download the old version that I gave up. It's truly a scam. They do have the technology, but they just use to to make it louder instead. You will notice your ears fatigue really quickly.

Do yourselves a favour and google and youtube "loudness war". Here is a link to a very good explanation. it is a short video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

I've decided to rail against the groundless negativity I'm reading in this thread.  Perhaps most of the detractors here don't have sound systems capable of revealing the correct sound. I'm sorry. Perhaps you're converting the wav files to mp3, m4a, aac, what have you, and have lost the original sound due to the file conversion. Bad choice, your fault. Maybe your feathers are ruffled because it's yet another costly outlay of money to attain a decent copy of music you love and you (like me) resent having to spend money every few years to renew your entire Queen catalog. I sympathize, but you have no ground to stand on there - music recordin technology changes and wasn't born perfect in 1950. Or maybe you're just not as discerning a listener as you purport to be, tearing down these amazing remasters without reason. That would be childish. 

The most striking difference is in the clean sound: much improved "imaging" of instruments, removal of noise, hiss, distortions etc. Yes, they're louder... thank heavens! They can finally be heard well alongside contemporary recordings. Just try to take the old CDs and crank up the sound. They're painful due to imbalances of all kinds, and you still can't discern tones, at times.  These new remasters give a beautiful representation of the tones. I can hear, far more clearly than even from the original vinyl, the notes, the vibrato, the dynamics. The total effect is so much better when you can hear the parts rather than a clutter of distorted noise (loud, thickly layered bits in particular).  And if I crank up the volume, they're even more beautiful, without distortion, like pristine live performances.

I truly pity anyone who can't hear what I hear in these remasters. They're fabulous.

Someone posted an excellent comparison between the 1994 version of Spread Your Wings and the 2011 version on the Queenonline forums a few weeks ago. It was like a veil got removed. A shame he deleted the file.

Why bother using headphones? If you really want to notice differences, get yourself a decent sound system and enjoy the ride. They DO sound better.

GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: I've decided to rail against the groundless negativity I'm reading in this thread.  Perhaps most of the detractors here don't have sound systems capable of revealing the correct sound. I'm sorry. Perhaps you're converting the wav files to mp3, m4a, aac, what have you, and have lost the original sound due to the file conversion. Bad choice, your fault. Maybe your feathers are ruffled because it's yet another costly outlay of money to attain a decent copy of music you love and you (like me) resent having to spend money every few years to renew your entire Queen catalog. I sympathize, but you have no ground to stand on there - music recordin technology changes and wasn't born perfect in 1950. Or maybe you're just not as discerning a listener as you purport to be, tearing down these amazing remasters without reason. That would be childish. 

The most striking difference is in the clean sound: much improved "imaging" of instruments, removal of noise, hiss, distortions etc. Yes, they're louder... thank heavens! They can finally be heard well alongside contemporary recordings. Just try to take the old CDs and crank up the sound. They're painful due to imbalances of all kinds, and you still can't discern tones, at times.  These new remasters give a beautiful representation of the tones. I can hear, far more clearly than even from the original vinyl, the notes, the vibrato, the dynamics. The total effect is so much better when you can hear the parts rather than a clutter of distorted noise (loud, thickly layered bits in particular).  And if I crank up the volume, they're even more beautiful, without distortion, like pristine live performances.

I truly pity anyone who can't hear what I hear in these remasters. They're fabulous.
******

What are you comparing them to?
1991 Hollywood, 1994 Digital Remaster Series, Original EMI, CP32, MFSL, Targets, DCC?
I'd be interested in your frame of reference.

Do you think the 2011 (2005) ANATO remaster is better than the DCC?
As you're a discerning listener with a magnificent system I'm sure you have the DCC......
It's not even in the same ballpark.
So for me, that's the benchmark and the standard they "could" have reached with these remasters.

Oh, and I do take the "old" CD's, well the CP32's anyway, and quite enjoy cranking them with their lovely EQ and dynamic range left in far better shape than most modern incarnations. But I obviously have a crap system and am not a discerning listener.

Why do they need to be "heard well alongside contemporary recordings"? Doesn't your phenomenal system have a volume control that is easy to access? 

And thanks for letting us know that music recording wasn't born perfect in 1950, that's really relevant for a band that had their first album release in 1973, even so, you'll find many a good jazz recording from the 1950's that sound way better than most contemporary brick walled slop. But you'd know that, because your system is awesome and you're a discerning listener.

I am sensing just the slightest bit of sarcasm in smilebrian's reply...

I'm also waiting to hear the drums on "I can't live with you". That beat is great!

Just the slightest..... it's the lowest form of wit, I know, but it comes so naturally!

Someone said the engineers were only given stereo tapes to start from. In which case how can these be remasters? The point of a remaster is to go right back to the 24 track master tape and digistise each track, then do the mix again digitally so that there is no noise or losses during the mix. If you start from a stereo tape all you can do is fiddle with EQ and compression etc. but the original analogue mixing noise will still be present. You could probably do the same job starting from the CDs already released, if we knew what changes were made.

The only Queen CDs I have are the original EMI releases bought when they first came out, plus I have the DVD Audios of A Night at the Opera and The Game. The 5.1 DVD Audios really are full remasters from the 24 track tapes, and A Night at the Opera sounds fantastic played on a DVD Audio player on a 5 channel speaker system (which I have).  The DVD Audio of the Game is a waste of time, it was an odd album to remix in 5.1 given that part of the point of The Game is that it had a more basic sound than previous Queen albums. I guess it was because it was a big seller in the USA. It's a shame the other Queen albums never got a full 5.1 DVD Audio (or you can use DTS or Blu Ray) remix from the 24 track tapes, A Night at the Opera shows what's possible. And for the purists the DVD Audios also have a 96/24 stereo track which is simply a high resolution digitising of the original stereo master tapes with nothing added or taken away.

So the DVD Audios have both a full 5.1 remix from the 24 track masters, and a high resolution copy of the original analoge stereo master. They're perfect. It's a shame DVD Audio and SACD didn't catch on, and instead we end up with yet another pointless stereo "remaster" (which isn't). I'll stick to the original EMI CD releases I think

@OwenSmith. I'm afraid you're confusing 'remixing' with 'remastering'. Mastering is the final process after a mix has taken place; a sort of final polish. So yes, mastering just deals with the results of a stereo/mono/5.1 mix.

Regarding the DVD Audio of 'The Game', I love the fact they singled out Freddie's (as usual, incredible) vocal to the center channel for Play The Game.  It's amazing.

I just wish they had done that for more of the tracks on the DVD Audio releases.  To hear him 'by himself' in his own speaker with everything else around the room... incredible.  I didn't think it was possible to appreciate that voice even more than I already did... I was wrong.  :)

Anyone claiming this is part of the loudness war is a fool. The whole loudness thing has been dying for the last few years. It's old news. Not claiming that the remasters aren't perhaps loud-er, but certainly nowhere near the "loudness war" claims flying in this thread.

And to back up others' comments on the sound of the new remasters, there has been a very nice cleaner quality to the sound of the remasters I've heard. I haven't heard them all, but from what I have heard, they're generally, pretty sweet.

Adam.