Queen Studio Collection LP box set

[QUOTE]

[b]FG wrote: [/b] Hmmm...delivery charge is €168.21 from Queenonline store....are Brian and Roger delivering this in person... :) ?[/QUOTE]

Really? That's fooking mental. I could get the equivalent weight of Cocaine into Ireland via registered post for less than that.

Instead of releasing 15 LP box set, is it beyond Brian and Roger to go into the studio and work on some new material,bloody hell ,five songs each ! I have no interest in buying the same albums all over again when i already own four copies of each album.Why not give Live Killers a proper remaster with all the bits that were hacked out put back in.No i am afraid Brian and Roger have not got a fucking clue.It just goes to show how much Freddie did and not just writing great songs.Another thing why have they allowed themselves to look so fucking old and haggered.Roger looks absurd with his grey beard and has Brian ever heard of some highlights, he looks shocking.For a long time after the passing of Freddie i thought the band would still have some future,when all we have been fed is stuff we have heard a thousand times before.They will argue that Freddie said dont ever let me become boring, i could cry.Well they both have about 80 million tucked away so why should they bother,when the truth is why should we bother !

Personally i don't care what they look like and/or recording new material. But would have been great to get some more
old concerts and demo material.

wow, Queen boxset at last !!!!

I dn't think this boxset or most of the reissues were Brian / Roger's idea. The record company is well aware Queen is one od the best selling acts of all time and they're among a small group of 'legendary' artists they can squeeze every last penny out of. Probably reissues still make more money than things the fanss have been waiting for for years. For good and exciting new music there are still lots of options that you could check out but you might want to dig a little deeper.

For money problems, i'll buy only Innuendo and MIH versions, the others albums i'll complete with the brazillian versions.

Remastering the albums in 24/96 is a joke.

Every mp3 player I have bought in the last few years supports 24/192.

24/96 was the standard for home audio 10 years ago now just about every new DAC will support 24/192.

For professional Remastering a even higher bit rate should be used.

If they wanted the "optimum quality" they should of remasted the albums in something like 32 bit/192 at a minimum.

[QUOTE] [b]philip storey wrote:[/b]

Instead of releasing 15 LP box set, is it beyond Brian and Roger to go into the studio and work on some new material,bloody hell ,five songs each ! I have no interest in buying the same albums all over again when i already own four copies of each album.Why not give Live Killers a proper remaster with all the bits that were hacked out put back in.No i am afraid Brian and Roger have not got a fucking clue.It just goes to show how much Freddie did and not just writing great songs.Another thing why have they allowed themselves to look so fucking old and haggered.Roger looks absurd with his grey beard and has Brian ever heard of some highlights, he looks shocking.For a long time after the passing of Freddie i thought the band would still have some future,when all we have been fed is stuff we have heard a thousand times before.They will argue that Freddie said dont ever let me become boring, i could cry.Well they both have about 80 million tucked away so why should they bother,when the truth is why should we bother ![/QUOTE]

I agree. Freddie's influence on the band was huge in so many aspects. The longer he's gone, the more this becomes noticeable.

[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE]

[b]FG wrote: [/b] Hmmm...delivery charge is €168.21 from Queenonline store....are Brian and Roger delivering this in person... :) ?[/QUOTE]

Really? That's fooking mental. I could get the equivalent weight of Cocaine into Ireland via registered post for less than that.[/QUOTE]

Some of their other prices are bit dodgy too. The Rainbow '74 box set is 120€ not including postage costs. When it came out I ordered it from Amazon.com for 55€ and that included shipping from US to Europe. 120€ from two cd's, DVD, BR and a book isn't reasonable in my opinion.

[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]MercurialFreddie wrote:[/b]


= So it IS NOT the 2011 remaster ?[/QUOTE]


If only QPL management made as much effort as Gary Taylor and Greg Brooks do, their products would be the best in the world.

.[/QUOTE]

Really? Greg might have good ideas that he puts forward, but a lot of his work across several othe Queen projects has had typos, grammatical errors, factual errors about the music and (according to some) chunks of text from other sources without credit. Basically, a big lack of attention to detail. My favourite was the 10 feet x 20 feet backing display at the Stormtroopers in Stilletoes exhibition stating Bo Rhap was on Queen II.....

[QUOTE] [b]Biggest Band On The Planet wrote:[/b]

Remastering the albums in 24/96 is a joke.

Every mp3 player I have bought in the last few years supports 24/192.

24/96 was the standard for home audio 10 years ago now just about every new DAC will support 24/192.

For professional Remastering a even higher bit rate should be used.

If they wanted the "optimum quality" they should of remasted the albums in something like 32 bit/192 at a minimum.[/QUOTE]
Like you can hear the difference b/w 96 and 192.

Not to mention 24/96 is still the archiving standard for many, many record companies, and lots of artists still record at 24/48.

Oh and nobody uses 32 bit resolution.

There's a lot to complain about, but the resolution of the transfer isn't one of them.

[QUOTE] [b]Estranged wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Biggest Band On The Planet wrote:[/b]

Remastering the albums in 24/96 is a joke.

Every mp3 player I have bought in the last few years supports 24/192.

24/96 was the standard for home audio 10 years ago now just about every new DAC will support 24/192.

For professional Remastering a even higher bit rate should be used.

If they wanted the "optimum quality" they should of remasted the albums in something like 32 bit/192 at a minimum.[/QUOTE]
Like you can hear the difference b/w 96 and 192.

Not to mention 24/96 is still the archiving standard for many, many record companies, and lots of artists still record at 24/48.

Oh and nobody uses 32 bit resolution.

There's a lot to complain about, but the resolution of the transfer isn't one of them.

[/QUOTE]

I agree!

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]MercurialFreddie wrote:[/b]


= So it IS NOT the 2011 remaster ?[/QUOTE]


If only QPL management made as much effort as Gary Taylor and Greg Brooks do, their products would be the best in the world.

.[/QUOTE]

Really? Greg might have good ideas that he puts forward, but a lot of his work across several othe Queen projects has had typos, grammatical errors, factual errors about the music and (according to some) chunks of text from other sources without credit. Basically, a big lack of attention to detail. My favourite was the 10 feet x 20 feet backing display at the Stormtroopers in Stilletoes exhibition stating Bo Rhap was on Queen II.....
[/QUOTE]

Greg is the ideal match for QP, because they are both doing a half-arsed work. They can each justify their shoddy efforts by saying it was the other one who was at fault.

"five tracks on the ‘Innuendo’ album, were improved hugely after the discovery of better sources during this period."

Anyone have any idea which tracks those five actually are and were they found only recently (post 2011 remasters)? Since Innuendo was the last proper Queen album I wonder how they already had "lost" those "hugely impoved sources" in the first place. If it was one of the older albums I would understand better, but Innuendo? And does this discovery of better sources mean that those five tracks on the original CD and vinyl are somehow inferior...

Analogue tapes of the 5 songs that were then converted to digital.