GAP
Thanks in advance too [b]Matt.[/b]
Thread
Posts in chronological order
GAP
Finally, I could acces to Onedrive!!!!!!!! Now I've got AKOM-CD2 so I'm gonna enjoy it.
Lord Fickle
Good luck with QII, Matt. That's going to be a REAL challenge! I hope we can finally get to hear some of the drums which are buried in the mix. :)
And, here's another little challenge for you - how about trying to separate 'Side Black' into bonus stand alone tracks? ;)
And, here's another little challenge for you - how about trying to separate 'Side Black' into bonus stand alone tracks? ;)
cmi
[QUOTE] [b]Lord Fickle wrote:[/b]
And, here's another little challenge for you - how about trying to separate 'Side Black' into bonus stand alone tracks? ;)[/QUOTE]
Interesting idea. But we already have standalone versions of Ogre Battle and FHLI tracks. TMOTBQ is also created in 2011 by QPL but not so greatly.
And, here's another little challenge for you - how about trying to separate 'Side Black' into bonus stand alone tracks? ;)[/QUOTE]
Interesting idea. But we already have standalone versions of Ogre Battle and FHLI tracks. TMOTBQ is also created in 2011 by QPL but not so greatly.
wOvANz
hello, I've got some technical questions to C_Matt on this release.
first I wonder what quality of used sources?
I suppose it [24 bit / 48 kHz] - in this case why not encode result track into [24 bit / 48 kHz] or even to [24 bit/ 96 kHz] it would be a great benefit.
next one is related to the previous, some tracks have cut off high frequencies, so they detected by some analyzing software as lossy, maybe it's just a noise reduction of some kind or lossy sources are used?
thanks.
first I wonder what quality of used sources?
I suppose it [24 bit / 48 kHz] - in this case why not encode result track into [24 bit / 48 kHz] or even to [24 bit/ 96 kHz] it would be a great benefit.
next one is related to the previous, some tracks have cut off high frequencies, so they detected by some analyzing software as lossy, maybe it's just a noise reduction of some kind or lossy sources are used?
thanks.
C_Matt
GAP, I'm really sorry I didn't see your comment before. I'm trying to be at least once a week in QueenZone to check everything is ok. I'm happy you could access to OneDrive, really, I want you to listen and enjoy a lot the album! If you have any trouble again, tell me and I'll upload the album to PutLocker as soon as I read it!
Vali, Fickle and Cmi, I'll have a really hard time with 'Queen II'. In sound terms, the drums and the bass are the weakest points of the album, and the vocals and guitars its highlights. I planned to do standalone versions for every track, trought it will be a nightmare. I'll see what I can do. This last week I didn't touch the project due lack of time, but today I'll do some experiments, as I started to check OB and SSoR, having this last one spectacular improvements thanks to the multitracks. Thank you all for the good wishes!
Hi, Wovanz! I can answer your questions :) Don't forget that by saying all this next long monologue I'm angry or anything like that, but since texts can't express emotions, just imagine I'm talking in a good mood and never take anything of the next as a disrespectful answer or a reprimand. Said that, let's start!
To the first question, about the quality of the sources. I try to use the best quality available to do my works. If you're asking about my last release, AKoM, I used different sources such as GVHII, 1986 AKoM original CD, The eYe soundtrack, Highlander soundtrack, Rock Band multitracks, and vinyl discs and 2011 AKoM remastered CD bits for some B-Sides. I would detail you this better for each track, but it would take me a lot of time.
Every track has many different sources, of which none have a bit depth higher than 24-bit nor a sample rate higher than 48KHz, so encoding them with a 96KHz sample rate would be useless since all the rest of the information doesn't exists.
From the original 9 songs in the album, except the 5 tracks which are in GVHII, the main source for the skeleton of the rest was the 1986 original AKoM CD. This means that these songs originally were in 16-bit and 44.1KHz, the best sources available for them since CD doesn't suport a higher bit depth or sample rate, so those aren't in 24-bit / 48KHz neither.
With this I mean that I used the best available sources for every track to my ear, but not all of them are in the same bit depth or sample rate.
Now, I know I could've used the SHM-CD 2011 releases, but the 2011 remasters are ruined to me, with a muddy and compressed sound which killed all the songs contrast, they sound flat and lifeless; plus the loudness war phenomenom. That's why I used the original release sources, or GVHII and RB Multitracks, which sound so much better and allowed me to make new remixes.
As an advice, if I were you, I would judge with the ear. The audio enjoyment is more about perception than a mathematical science. The Highlander soundtrack songs are in 48KHz, but they sound really worse than the CD songs, which are in 44.1KHz. Ok, the mix is worse too, but being in 48KHz doesn't mean that is better "real" audio quality. Let's take another example: I prefer a lossy 320kbps MP3 from the original 1986 AKoM CD than a loseless audio from the 2011 remaster. It's lossy and all, and the 2011 CD contains more frequencies information, but judging the song with my ear I wouldn't chose the 2011 one at all.
Now I can answer your second question: As I said before, I used the best source available for all the songs. The only source which can be considered as lossy are the Rock Band stems. In this case, 'One Vision' was remixed all again with this multitracks, but again, they sound so so so much better than the 1986 CD release and allows me to make a lot of things I couldn't be able to do working even with the amazing GVHII audio tracks or, again, with the 1986 loseless CD release... so "lossy" is a bit subjective concept in this sense. Now, in every track I work with the multitracks, there's at least one loseless element which makes worth to export the song in a loseless audio format. In the case of 'One Vision', the main structure was made with the Rock Band stems, but it also contains parts from GVHII, 1986 CD and The eYe, which are loseless, and only for their simple inclusion is worth to export the track in a loseless audio format.
As for the rest of the songs, absolutely none of them are actually lossy, that's why I would trust more my ear than a software than analizes the audio form. Remember that for some songs I use the CD source, which is at 44.1KHz, but for the final export of the album I put all the songs in 48KHz. That's why the very high frequencies doesn't exist and software says that they are loseless, but it's not the case.
Up above I said that resampling a 48KHz song to a 96KHz sample rate would be useless. This would be the same: I worked with 44.1KHz songs and export them in 48KHz, which means that frequiencies higher than 22KHz and higher won't exist since the original source never had them. But I do this for a simple reason: if you or me want to put all the songs together in a multitrack audio editor (like Adobe Audition, which I use), you need to have them in the same sample rate, and by me putting all of them in 48KHz you have them already and don't have to resample all the 44.1KHz songs to 48KHz.
To not be considered as loseless, those would have to be at 44.1KHz, but as I want to have them all in the same sample rate, I prefer upscale them to 48KHz than cut the frequencies for the 48KHz transforming them into 44.1KHz audio tracks. But don't worry, since these songs aren't lossy at all.
Now, the audio is really a perception thing. I wouldn't judge a song by the waveform or if it's lossy, always it sounds good to me. I really hate 128kbps MP3 tracks, since I can notice a bad quality and cheap sound, but 320kbps sounds really good and keep me satisfied.
Despite is really hard, some people say they can "notice" the difference between a lossy and a loseless audio format in an excellent audio player. But the difference between 44.1, 48 and 96KHz (or even 192!!) is ridiculous to me.
There's a lot of the psychological thing here. The frequencies higher than than 22KHz are almost inaudible. Anyway, if the human ear could perceive frequencies higher than 24.000Hz I'm sure I won't be there to see it, lol!
Here I upload an audio piece containing the first minute of my 48KHz AKoM HD remix, only with the audio information you would be missing if it would be in 44.1KHz. You'll see it's not a big deal! This is what I mean when I say that the psychological element is really present in some people's obsession about audio quality. You could export a lossy 320kbps MP3 (which is a great quality) as a 24-bit/192KHz WAV, and some people would say "Oh my God! What a spectacular quality!" and they would be hearing the same lossy track. It's almost like judging a book by its cover.
I hope this answered your questions! :)
Vali, Fickle and Cmi, I'll have a really hard time with 'Queen II'. In sound terms, the drums and the bass are the weakest points of the album, and the vocals and guitars its highlights. I planned to do standalone versions for every track, trought it will be a nightmare. I'll see what I can do. This last week I didn't touch the project due lack of time, but today I'll do some experiments, as I started to check OB and SSoR, having this last one spectacular improvements thanks to the multitracks. Thank you all for the good wishes!
Hi, Wovanz! I can answer your questions :) Don't forget that by saying all this next long monologue I'm angry or anything like that, but since texts can't express emotions, just imagine I'm talking in a good mood and never take anything of the next as a disrespectful answer or a reprimand. Said that, let's start!
To the first question, about the quality of the sources. I try to use the best quality available to do my works. If you're asking about my last release, AKoM, I used different sources such as GVHII, 1986 AKoM original CD, The eYe soundtrack, Highlander soundtrack, Rock Band multitracks, and vinyl discs and 2011 AKoM remastered CD bits for some B-Sides. I would detail you this better for each track, but it would take me a lot of time.
Every track has many different sources, of which none have a bit depth higher than 24-bit nor a sample rate higher than 48KHz, so encoding them with a 96KHz sample rate would be useless since all the rest of the information doesn't exists.
From the original 9 songs in the album, except the 5 tracks which are in GVHII, the main source for the skeleton of the rest was the 1986 original AKoM CD. This means that these songs originally were in 16-bit and 44.1KHz, the best sources available for them since CD doesn't suport a higher bit depth or sample rate, so those aren't in 24-bit / 48KHz neither.
With this I mean that I used the best available sources for every track to my ear, but not all of them are in the same bit depth or sample rate.
Now, I know I could've used the SHM-CD 2011 releases, but the 2011 remasters are ruined to me, with a muddy and compressed sound which killed all the songs contrast, they sound flat and lifeless; plus the loudness war phenomenom. That's why I used the original release sources, or GVHII and RB Multitracks, which sound so much better and allowed me to make new remixes.
As an advice, if I were you, I would judge with the ear. The audio enjoyment is more about perception than a mathematical science. The Highlander soundtrack songs are in 48KHz, but they sound really worse than the CD songs, which are in 44.1KHz. Ok, the mix is worse too, but being in 48KHz doesn't mean that is better "real" audio quality. Let's take another example: I prefer a lossy 320kbps MP3 from the original 1986 AKoM CD than a loseless audio from the 2011 remaster. It's lossy and all, and the 2011 CD contains more frequencies information, but judging the song with my ear I wouldn't chose the 2011 one at all.
Now I can answer your second question: As I said before, I used the best source available for all the songs. The only source which can be considered as lossy are the Rock Band stems. In this case, 'One Vision' was remixed all again with this multitracks, but again, they sound so so so much better than the 1986 CD release and allows me to make a lot of things I couldn't be able to do working even with the amazing GVHII audio tracks or, again, with the 1986 loseless CD release... so "lossy" is a bit subjective concept in this sense. Now, in every track I work with the multitracks, there's at least one loseless element which makes worth to export the song in a loseless audio format. In the case of 'One Vision', the main structure was made with the Rock Band stems, but it also contains parts from GVHII, 1986 CD and The eYe, which are loseless, and only for their simple inclusion is worth to export the track in a loseless audio format.
As for the rest of the songs, absolutely none of them are actually lossy, that's why I would trust more my ear than a software than analizes the audio form. Remember that for some songs I use the CD source, which is at 44.1KHz, but for the final export of the album I put all the songs in 48KHz. That's why the very high frequencies doesn't exist and software says that they are loseless, but it's not the case.
Up above I said that resampling a 48KHz song to a 96KHz sample rate would be useless. This would be the same: I worked with 44.1KHz songs and export them in 48KHz, which means that frequiencies higher than 22KHz and higher won't exist since the original source never had them. But I do this for a simple reason: if you or me want to put all the songs together in a multitrack audio editor (like Adobe Audition, which I use), you need to have them in the same sample rate, and by me putting all of them in 48KHz you have them already and don't have to resample all the 44.1KHz songs to 48KHz.
To not be considered as loseless, those would have to be at 44.1KHz, but as I want to have them all in the same sample rate, I prefer upscale them to 48KHz than cut the frequencies for the 48KHz transforming them into 44.1KHz audio tracks. But don't worry, since these songs aren't lossy at all.
Now, the audio is really a perception thing. I wouldn't judge a song by the waveform or if it's lossy, always it sounds good to me. I really hate 128kbps MP3 tracks, since I can notice a bad quality and cheap sound, but 320kbps sounds really good and keep me satisfied.
Despite is really hard, some people say they can "notice" the difference between a lossy and a loseless audio format in an excellent audio player. But the difference between 44.1, 48 and 96KHz (or even 192!!) is ridiculous to me.
There's a lot of the psychological thing here. The frequencies higher than than 22KHz are almost inaudible. Anyway, if the human ear could perceive frequencies higher than 24.000Hz I'm sure I won't be there to see it, lol!
Here I upload an audio piece containing the first minute of my 48KHz AKoM HD remix, only with the audio information you would be missing if it would be in 44.1KHz. You'll see it's not a big deal! This is what I mean when I say that the psychological element is really present in some people's obsession about audio quality. You could export a lossy 320kbps MP3 (which is a great quality) as a 24-bit/192KHz WAV, and some people would say "Oh my God! What a spectacular quality!" and they would be hearing the same lossy track. It's almost like judging a book by its cover.
I hope this answered your questions! :)
C_Matt
Try to make the next exercise, it wouldn't take more than 15 minutes, but don't cheat!
[i][b]1) Take a 5 seconds bit from any song and make four samples: [/b][/i]
. -Loseless 24-bit 48KHz
. -Loseless 16-bit 44.1KHz
. -MP3 320kbps 48KHz
. -MP3 320kbps 44.1KHz
[i][b]2) Put a 5 seconds silence at the ending of each one.[/b][/i]
[i][b]3) Name them to identify them correctly[/b][/i] (something like "WAV24/48.wav", "WAV16/44.wav, "MP3-48.mp3" and "MP3-44.mp3).
[b][i]4) Make three copies of every file so you have 4 equal samples of the every quality.
5) Select all the resulting 16 bits and now play them in random mode.
[/i][/b]
[i][b]6) Close your eyes every time one of them starts and try to guess which one is it.[/b][/i] You have the 5 remaining silence seconds to check if you guessed the right file.
[i][b]7) Check the final results, how many guesses and how many wrong answers you had.[/b][/i] If you done it 100% right you can do it one more time to confirm it wasn't just luck. If you got it 100% right again, then you are a mutant and should donate yourself to science!
Cheers!
[i][b]1) Take a 5 seconds bit from any song and make four samples: [/b][/i]
. -Loseless 24-bit 48KHz
. -Loseless 16-bit 44.1KHz
. -MP3 320kbps 48KHz
. -MP3 320kbps 44.1KHz
[i][b]2) Put a 5 seconds silence at the ending of each one.[/b][/i]
[i][b]3) Name them to identify them correctly[/b][/i] (something like "WAV24/48.wav", "WAV16/44.wav, "MP3-48.mp3" and "MP3-44.mp3).
[b][i]4) Make three copies of every file so you have 4 equal samples of the every quality.
5) Select all the resulting 16 bits and now play them in random mode.
[/i][/b]
[i][b]6) Close your eyes every time one of them starts and try to guess which one is it.[/b][/i] You have the 5 remaining silence seconds to check if you guessed the right file.
[i][b]7) Check the final results, how many guesses and how many wrong answers you had.[/b][/i] If you done it 100% right you can do it one more time to confirm it wasn't just luck. If you got it 100% right again, then you are a mutant and should donate yourself to science!
Cheers!
Lord Fickle
[QUOTE] [b]cmi wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Lord Fickle wrote:[/b]
And, here's another little challenge for you - how about trying to separate 'Side Black' into bonus stand alone tracks? ;)[/QUOTE]
Interesting idea. But we already have standalone versions of Ogre Battle and FHLI tracks. TMOTBQ is also created in 2011 by QPL but not so greatly.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I did a better job myself of the ending for MOTBQ, so I'm sure it won't be too much of a challenge for Matt to create a power chord over the last 'Ahhh'.
The greater challenge will be separating TFFMS entirely from OB and Nevermore, and it's those mainly to which I was referring. :)
[QUOTE] [b]Lord Fickle wrote:[/b]
And, here's another little challenge for you - how about trying to separate 'Side Black' into bonus stand alone tracks? ;)[/QUOTE]
Interesting idea. But we already have standalone versions of Ogre Battle and FHLI tracks. TMOTBQ is also created in 2011 by QPL but not so greatly.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I did a better job myself of the ending for MOTBQ, so I'm sure it won't be too much of a challenge for Matt to create a power chord over the last 'Ahhh'.
The greater challenge will be separating TFFMS entirely from OB and Nevermore, and it's those mainly to which I was referring. :)
wOvANz
C_Matt, thanks for your answer, from what I've heard in your releases I thought you have that secret key into the room with master tapes.
But it's shocking info about the way you get the sound and it then, seems to be, a kind of incredible job you've done. WoW! Just WoW!
Thank you so much.
But it's shocking info about the way you get the sound and it then, seems to be, a kind of incredible job you've done. WoW! Just WoW!
Thank you so much.
Lord Fickle
With regards perceived loss of high frequencies, I think, in my opinion, you may have been a bit heavy on the noise reduction at times, Matt. A prime example of that was your mix of White Man where you worked really hard to remove all the background noise, but it turned out TOO clean in the end.
Sometimes, a little 'air' is needed to be left, so that a track can 'breathe', if you see what I mean. Perhaps that might be something to bear in mind with QII, as I think you're going to come up against that issue quite a bit. ;)
Oh, and with regards your AKOM Highlander version, it sounds almost as good as the album version, sound wise, with a gentle high lift. :)
Sometimes, a little 'air' is needed to be left, so that a track can 'breathe', if you see what I mean. Perhaps that might be something to bear in mind with QII, as I think you're going to come up against that issue quite a bit. ;)
Oh, and with regards your AKOM Highlander version, it sounds almost as good as the album version, sound wise, with a gentle high lift. :)
C_Matt
The 'Queen II' post is opened, with a standalone version of TFFMS. It was a real challenge! But I think it works. Fickle, you're right about that, I was a bit harsh with the distortion delete on 'White Man', but I was thinking about doing an alternative mix of it with the original guitar sound, because I like the clean version. Anyway, I was talking about the <20K frequencies, those that are cut off in MP3's and 48KHz to 44.1KHz songs.
Thank you a lot for support me always!
Thank you a lot for support me always!
tomchristie22
Wow, nice. I'm surprised this hasn't got more attention - just listening to the title track of AKOM, it's such a refreshing take on a song which was originally quite flatly mixed.
tomchristie22
Loving the stripped mixes, too. I now know harmonies for '39 which I never knew existed in the studio version - the live vocal harmonies are obviously much more simplified, though charming in their own way.
PabloArg
Hi Mr. Hero
Did you think about take Freddie's voice from the TMBMTLTT demo and then merge it into WO Mix with a decent volume, just as it was meant to be?
Did you think about take Freddie's voice from the TMBMTLTT demo and then merge it into WO Mix with a decent volume, just as it was meant to be?
MercurialFreddie
Dear Matt, just wanted to say that your mix of WWTLF (Freddie's vocal) is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G ! The chorus in the last refrain could be a little more prominent in the mix but it's only my thought, not some urgent matter which should be addressed.