ANNOUNCE: Hyde Park 1976 (New Audience Source)

Wat possible remasterring could have been done if this recording sounds like its coming out of a fat mans asshole?

[QUOTE] [b]abc1 wrote:[/b]
Wat possible remasterring could have been done if this recording sounds like its coming out of a fat mans asshole?
[/QUOTE]

Troll?

Listen to the sample. There's obviously been a lot of work done to clear up the hiss/pops/distotion (weird water-sounding effect) without diminishing the quality of the recording. It may not seem like much but the person(s) who restored it must have put in a lot of work, and knew what they were doing. I really doubt anyone could make it sound much better (if any) than what it is. It's the best we will be able to hear out of the recording, wether you appreciate the work or not.

My compliments go to Joshua. I'm pretty new to the whole audience tape thing, so I personally haven't heard an audience recording cleaned up so well! The sound hasn't been diminished (At least none that I can notice) and it sounds a lot cleaner than the original, I didn't know that was possible!

Thank you so much.

Joshua has had several year's experience recording and mixing his own band's material, and last year completed a certified audio engineering course, so I would say it's more than fair to say he knows what he's doing.
And I should add, it's very generous of him to take time out of his band and studio schedule to kindly help restore the audio tapes to a listenable state, so I think we should appreciate that much :-)


PS. Don't feed the trolls ;-)

Fantastic !
Thank you very much !

Fantastic. Thank you all, guys. =)

Dont feed the trolls my ass. Who da fuc are u man? Richard Guillbalt?? Richard Shnibalt is more like it. Im not a troll.Im just like one of u, a devoted queen fan. i just dont fancy when recordings sound like my wife's wet queefs.

[QUOTE]

[b]abc1 wrote: [/b] Dont feed the trolls my ass. Who da fuc are u man? Richard Guillbalt?? Richard Shnibalt is more like it. Im not a troll.Im just like one of u, a devoted queen fan. i just dont fancy when recordings sound like my wife's wet queefs.[/QUOTE]
============

You don't even get it.

Thanks!

Thank you all for creating this new great source of a milestone concert for Queen.
I can't imagine how much work you all have made to make this alternative beauty !!

In many countries it's a custom to try and fool people on April 1st. To be honest, I really appreciate what is shared on QZ in most cases and I do not want to depreciate the work a few people are doing here for the so called beggars. I can’t thank enough for this, but:

Call me a troll, call me a beggar, tell me not to download if I do not like it: I really cannot point out any changes in the reference sample every 10 seconds from raw to remastered material. What I point out is a huge downgrade of the sources that circulated so far.

Sometimes things on QZ get really weird. A few days after someone’s life was threatened for sharing wav-files of Reaction songs that sound almost equal to former circulated mp3 sourced versions of the same songs in most ears people are overjoyed by a much inferior source of a well known concert. Funny thing.

Anyway, have a happy nice April 1st my Queen friends.

cheers!

Thefallenqueen, I think you've missed the point entirely.
This release was about bringing out an ALTERNATIVE source from a historic show, irregardless if the sound quality is inferior OR superior! Most collectors surely appreciate that we made an effort with this, even though the remaster quality wasn't AS drastic an improvement as it was with our previous Earl's Court '77.
We did what we could with a shitty sounding recording, and tried making it sound as listenable as possible through taking out the various persistent anomalies that actually induced headaches just listening to! We didn't want to take extreme measures that would have destroyed the integrity of the performance and colour the sound image drastically,

Next time please exercise some deep consideration.
And this whole thing contrary to your implications, by the way, was in NO way intended to be an April Fool's joke. Learn to read the timestamp on the topic's starting post.

Don't get me wrong as I don't want to offend anybody - I really do appreaciate your work. It's nice to have alternative sources without any doubt. But when listening to the AB sample I cannot hear any remastering at 10 20 30 ... seconds. In my ears this is a constantly bad sounding source no matter if it's worth having or not! It's the disproportionality in this forum that makes me a little wonder. B.t.w. there was some sarcasm between the lines you obviously didn't catch (but I'll type this up on my invisible typewriter)

Well to be honest guys this sounds MUCH worse than expected after reading all the negative comments.

However I am a huge fan of alternate sources, so THANK YOU !