[QUOTE] [b]artist_nine wrote:[/b]
But surely no-one could have made such a mistake in post production...?[/QUOTE]
Don't even start me off about stupid mistakes made in post production...!!!
cmsdrums
Thread
Posts in chronological order
artist_nine
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]artist_nine wrote:[/b]
But surely no-one could have made such a mistake in post production...?[/QUOTE]
Don't even start me off about stupid mistakes made in post production...!!![/QUOTE]
:)
Yes, please ignore my sarcastic remarks... for we all know that certain Queen products are not... how should I say... perfect. :)
[QUOTE] [b]artist_nine wrote:[/b]
But surely no-one could have made such a mistake in post production...?[/QUOTE]
Don't even start me off about stupid mistakes made in post production...!!![/QUOTE]
:)
Yes, please ignore my sarcastic remarks... for we all know that certain Queen products are not... how should I say... perfect. :)
GinjaNinja
Sounds like the 5.1 surround mix is literally just the stereo mix with a bit of delay/volume reduction in the front channels :(
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
I cetrtainly hope they didn't use drum triggering![/QUOTE]
They used it on Live At The Bowl and the 2009 BBC broadcast of Hammersmith. As a result, I find both to be unlistenable.
Perhaps theyve done it on the other recent releases too, but it's not nearly as obstructive.
I cetrtainly hope they didn't use drum triggering![/QUOTE]
They used it on Live At The Bowl and the 2009 BBC broadcast of Hammersmith. As a result, I find both to be unlistenable.
Perhaps theyve done it on the other recent releases too, but it's not nearly as obstructive.
Oscar J
What? That's insane!
How do you know this by the way?
How do you know this by the way?
MercurialFreddie
[QUOTE]
[b]artist_nine wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Needless to say - the sound on 3-31-74 is incredible. By far the best Queen live album released to date. Very minimal overdubbing and patch work done.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, nowadays everyone feels the need to compete in the "loudness wars". I would have preferred a little less compression and limiting. When applied this much (as in the CD version) the drums lose much of their impact and sound quite weak.
Or maybe they have done the best they can with the material. I would hate to think that the "newly mixed and mastered to the highest contemporary standard" only means making EVERYTHING as LOUD as possible...
And by the way, what is happening at 0:46 in Father to Son (November gig)? Did Roger really play like that or is the hi-hat somehow triggering a snare drum sample? Usually the hi-hat bleeds a little into the snare mic and at that point Roger is hitting the hi-hat pretty hard (which could have resulted in the snare sound being falsely triggered) But surely no-one could have made such a mistake in post production...?[/QUOTE]
I'm curious what will the vinyl version sound like. If it's in 24 bit / 96 khz format than compression won't be the problem and the overall album will be more pleasing to ears and not tiring while listening on headphones. Although if the vinyl was mastered digital.....
[b]artist_nine wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Needless to say - the sound on 3-31-74 is incredible. By far the best Queen live album released to date. Very minimal overdubbing and patch work done.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, nowadays everyone feels the need to compete in the "loudness wars". I would have preferred a little less compression and limiting. When applied this much (as in the CD version) the drums lose much of their impact and sound quite weak.
Or maybe they have done the best they can with the material. I would hate to think that the "newly mixed and mastered to the highest contemporary standard" only means making EVERYTHING as LOUD as possible...
And by the way, what is happening at 0:46 in Father to Son (November gig)? Did Roger really play like that or is the hi-hat somehow triggering a snare drum sample? Usually the hi-hat bleeds a little into the snare mic and at that point Roger is hitting the hi-hat pretty hard (which could have resulted in the snare sound being falsely triggered) But surely no-one could have made such a mistake in post production...?[/QUOTE]
I'm curious what will the vinyl version sound like. If it's in 24 bit / 96 khz format than compression won't be the problem and the overall album will be more pleasing to ears and not tiring while listening on headphones. Although if the vinyl was mastered digital.....
artist_nine
[QUOTE] [b]inu-liger wrote:[/b]
I noticed that too, and asked the same question over at QOL.
That being said, does anyone have an audio rip from the '92 Box Of Trix VHS that can put up just a small clip to compare that particular moment?[/QUOTE]
I have the old VHS but my player hasn't been hooked up for ages. Also, the player does not have any dedicated audio out sockets so I don't know what the sound quality might be like (should I somehow convince myself that the tedious task of hooking the player up again is worth the effort).
I noticed that too, and asked the same question over at QOL.
That being said, does anyone have an audio rip from the '92 Box Of Trix VHS that can put up just a small clip to compare that particular moment?[/QUOTE]
I have the old VHS but my player hasn't been hooked up for ages. Also, the player does not have any dedicated audio out sockets so I don't know what the sound quality might be like (should I somehow convince myself that the tedious task of hooking the player up again is worth the effort).
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
What? That's insane!
How do you know this by the way?[/QUOTE]
I'm just comparing them to previous versions. The snares on both are processed beyond belief. I don't hear concerts from 1975 and 1982. I hear Pro Tools.
But thankfully they got it right for the Rainbow release.
What? That's insane!
How do you know this by the way?[/QUOTE]
I'm just comparing them to previous versions. The snares on both are processed beyond belief. I don't hear concerts from 1975 and 1982. I hear Pro Tools.
But thankfully they got it right for the Rainbow release.
KevoM
[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Chief Mouse wrote: [/b] Well, how about the March footage?[/QUOTE]
My guess is that it's video tape source as well, like the November material.[/QUOTE]
No it is a bad transfer from the only piece of 16mm which is left.
Check my facebook page for interesting shot. Or open the same picture here below[/QUOTE]
Oh, I was not aware of this! So it was originally shot on 16mm? Or was it just used for storage, as with the November one?[/QUOTE]
Yes it was shot in 16mm even in this version it is clear it is a film
http://youtu.be/g2ZDRI3RNmo
A reason for doing this could be that it was used for merly promotion for tv broadcast or other promotional purposes.
Shooting on 2" video was much more expensive compared to simple 16mm film reels. And much more versitile options for editting. E.g. 1 single ampex tape cost over £ 800,- in the 70's for 60 minutes video. So when Rainbow was filmed on video with 5 camera's : 5 * 2 (tapes per camera) * 2 (nov 19 and 20)= 20 tapes equal to £ 16,000 no wonder they rented the ampex tapes made the edit and stored it on 35 mm. Which would be a fraction of costs compared to buying 20 ampex tapes.
The question is is the one QPL has shows clean lashes , or not , if not it was of the original film edited from
the original negatives.
My biggest gues is that the rest of the material was simply thrown away.
Imagine some one throwing all those negatives in a bin... Easy to imagine : the band got what their manager asked for and it was deleted scenes on a cutting room floor of a upcomming little band...[/QUOTE]
Doesn't look like film at all, looks like video. Although can never be conclusive with you tube videos and the extra conversions to frame rates etc it adds.
Also, there is clearly a TV studio style camera (not film) in the front, middle of the audience.
[QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Chief Mouse wrote: [/b] Well, how about the March footage?[/QUOTE]
My guess is that it's video tape source as well, like the November material.[/QUOTE]
No it is a bad transfer from the only piece of 16mm which is left.
Check my facebook page for interesting shot. Or open the same picture here below[/QUOTE]
Oh, I was not aware of this! So it was originally shot on 16mm? Or was it just used for storage, as with the November one?[/QUOTE]
Yes it was shot in 16mm even in this version it is clear it is a film
http://youtu.be/g2ZDRI3RNmo
A reason for doing this could be that it was used for merly promotion for tv broadcast or other promotional purposes.
Shooting on 2" video was much more expensive compared to simple 16mm film reels. And much more versitile options for editting. E.g. 1 single ampex tape cost over £ 800,- in the 70's for 60 minutes video. So when Rainbow was filmed on video with 5 camera's : 5 * 2 (tapes per camera) * 2 (nov 19 and 20)= 20 tapes equal to £ 16,000 no wonder they rented the ampex tapes made the edit and stored it on 35 mm. Which would be a fraction of costs compared to buying 20 ampex tapes.
The question is is the one QPL has shows clean lashes , or not , if not it was of the original film edited from
the original negatives.
My biggest gues is that the rest of the material was simply thrown away.
Imagine some one throwing all those negatives in a bin... Easy to imagine : the band got what their manager asked for and it was deleted scenes on a cutting room floor of a upcomming little band...[/QUOTE]
Doesn't look like film at all, looks like video. Although can never be conclusive with you tube videos and the extra conversions to frame rates etc it adds.
Also, there is clearly a TV studio style camera (not film) in the front, middle of the audience.
Togg
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Bad Seed wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Bad Seed wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]Davidmsdrums wrote:[/b]
I've said it before but will again; how can they make the drums sound so gorgeous on this release yet have absolutely royally shafted them up on Live at the Bowl?!?[/QUOTE]
Live at the Bowl was their first shot at mixing a live show and I can only assume that they've learned as they've gone on? Would love to hear it re-done though as it really is bad
[/QUOTE]
First shot? Do you realise Bowl was released after Live Killers, Live Magic, Live at Wembley 2 times, Rock In Rio ...[/QUOTE]
It was the first shot by Shirley-Smith and the current team. No Mack, David Richards, Freddie etc. Many people (including myself) were referring to JSS & KF as clowns at the time who didn't know what they were doing.
[/QUOTE]
But surely JSS and the rest of Brian's in house team must have already been hugely experienced audio engineers and mixers - knowing what a snare drum should sound like (especially when the Ch4 mix was a starting point) wasn't beyond them?!?
[/QUOTE]
I was at the Bowl concert and the drums sounded pretty crappy live frankly, remember there was no backing wall or ceiling for the sound to bounce off unlike the Rainbow concert. in-fact at the bowl there was nothing but air behind Roger, you don't even get that at Wembley.
I think Rogers early drum sound was way better than later on, but we also had different mics. different mic placement different heads as well.
[QUOTE] [b]Bad Seed wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Bad Seed wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]Davidmsdrums wrote:[/b]
I've said it before but will again; how can they make the drums sound so gorgeous on this release yet have absolutely royally shafted them up on Live at the Bowl?!?[/QUOTE]
Live at the Bowl was their first shot at mixing a live show and I can only assume that they've learned as they've gone on? Would love to hear it re-done though as it really is bad
[/QUOTE]
First shot? Do you realise Bowl was released after Live Killers, Live Magic, Live at Wembley 2 times, Rock In Rio ...[/QUOTE]
It was the first shot by Shirley-Smith and the current team. No Mack, David Richards, Freddie etc. Many people (including myself) were referring to JSS & KF as clowns at the time who didn't know what they were doing.
[/QUOTE]
But surely JSS and the rest of Brian's in house team must have already been hugely experienced audio engineers and mixers - knowing what a snare drum should sound like (especially when the Ch4 mix was a starting point) wasn't beyond them?!?
[/QUOTE]
I was at the Bowl concert and the drums sounded pretty crappy live frankly, remember there was no backing wall or ceiling for the sound to bounce off unlike the Rainbow concert. in-fact at the bowl there was nothing but air behind Roger, you don't even get that at Wembley.
I think Rogers early drum sound was way better than later on, but we also had different mics. different mic placement different heads as well.
artist_nine
[QUOTE] [b]artist_nine wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]inu-liger wrote:[/b]
I noticed that too, and asked the same question over at QOL.
That being said, does anyone have an audio rip from the '92 Box Of Trix VHS that can put up just a small clip to compare that particular moment?[/QUOTE]
I have the old VHS but my player hasn't been hooked up for ages. Also, the player does not have any dedicated audio out sockets so I don't know what the sound quality might be like (should I somehow convince myself that the tedious task of hooking the player up again is worth the effort).[/QUOTE]
Here is a clip from the VHS for comparison... although barely audible, the same thing seems to happen on the VHS also.
[QUOTE] [b]inu-liger wrote:[/b]
I noticed that too, and asked the same question over at QOL.
That being said, does anyone have an audio rip from the '92 Box Of Trix VHS that can put up just a small clip to compare that particular moment?[/QUOTE]
I have the old VHS but my player hasn't been hooked up for ages. Also, the player does not have any dedicated audio out sockets so I don't know what the sound quality might be like (should I somehow convince myself that the tedious task of hooking the player up again is worth the effort).[/QUOTE]
Here is a clip from the VHS for comparison... although barely audible, the same thing seems to happen on the VHS also.