I just pre-ordered...

... Sheer Heart Attack - from the Studio Collection at Queenonline.com on vinyl (my old copy is knackered).

For a while, I couldn't decide which album to try out that'd give me an idea if overall, the reissues would be any good or not. I won't be getting them all again anyway. For example, I'm really not going to be playing Flash no matter how good the pressing is.
At the most, if SHA does sound any good, I'd probably only get a few more: Queen, Queen II, ANTO, and Innuendo. And maybe The Game and / or Jazz.

I didn't go for the box set for two reasons:

1) Because the coloured vinyl is off putting for me, I'd rather have the standard vinyl that you can buy individually.
The coloured vinyl reminds me of this* (picture below)...

2) Buying the box set would be an expensive way of finding out the albums don't sound any better than the 2011 CD remasters, if turns out to be the case that they don't sound any better. One album will be a good tester.

Needless to say, I won't receive the album before the 25th of September, but once it's here, I'll make a comparison between the 2011 remaster and the vinyl by playing both at the same time and switching between them.

For those that are interested, I'll let you know if the vinyl reissue sounds any good.

*

LOL.
LOVE the picture!

Frere Jacques?


Is this a musical toy?


Looks cool. Just tag a MIRACLE EXPRESS paint job on the side and it's the new reason the miracle reissue will be $350

You dont want the coloured vinyl because its like a rainbow and you are homophobic....

Gotta love how Kes is still pushing an idea as stupid as coloured vinyl on qof...

I don't see anything wrong with coloured vinyl. Is it a gimmick? Sure. But it's been obvious long before they announced this set that Kes was intrigued by the idea of the band reissuing the albums on cover-art specific coloured vinyl.

Where I'm disappointed is with them seemingly using the same compressed masters that were used for the CD's. Don't get me wrong. I'm not someone who thinks if vinyl is sourced from a digital source, it's useless. With the Beatles stereo albums reissues, they used digital files. The difference was they used the files that they had cleaned up and fixed mistakes on, but from the step before they added the limiting and compression. It resulted in a set of very nice sounding albums. It's possible Queen did the same; but if they did, why not mention it?

i thought colored vinyl is generally regarded as better quality since the matrix has to be purer... when it's black it allows for more impurities since no one would be able to tell the difference.

i may be wrong, however.

I think coloured vinyl is really, REALLY ugly.

[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]

i thought colored vinyl is generally regarded as better quality since the matrix has to be purer... when it's black it allows for more impurities since no one would be able to tell the difference.

i may be wrong, however.[/QUOTE]

I've read that clear vinyl is the best, but when it comes to sound quality, black or coloured makes no difference.

Although...

"Pressing coloured vinyl really makes your records pop. Whether it’s a single solid colour or a mixture of a few colours, pigment is poured into the PVC mix to achieve the final look. Coloured vinyl doesn’t have thickness limitations and don’t sound better or worse than black records, but they do lack the long-term durability of black vinyl."

http://standardvinyl.com/2011/06/30/the-pros-cons-of-funky-looking-records/

[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]

I think coloured vinyl is really, REALLY ugly.[/QUOTE]

Me too. It seems an odd choice to make the vinyl in the box set coloured too, as you'd think a vinyl box set would be made to appeal to people who'd want to replace their old knackered vinyl, or have it the way they used to (which obviously wasn't coloured).

[QUOTE] [b]kevin79 wrote:[/b] I'm not someone who thinks if vinyl is sourced from a digital source, it's useless. With the Beatles stereo albums reissues, they used digital files. The difference was they used the files that they had cleaned up and fixed mistakes on, but from the step before they added the limiting and compression. It resulted in a set of very nice sounding albums. It's possible Queen did the same; but if they did, why not mention it?[/QUOTE]

That's exactly the reason I've bought one album only. Forking out on more seems ridiculous unless you know whether they're likely to be any good or not.

Something else that crossed my mind tonight....

Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice.

[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]

Something else that crossed my mind tonight....

Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice. [/QUOTE]

You make an excellent point. Not only is it one of the best selling albums of all time, but it would have made a good taster for the complete albums and a way for them to gauge fan reaction to the path they were taking for the project as far as the digital sources and sound quality.

[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]

Something else that crossed my mind tonight....

Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice. [/QUOTE]

There's a million copies of the original vinyl in the UK alone.

Anybody wanting to buy a better copy for themselves can get the original album for £5, so what would be the market for a £20 reprint?

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]

Something else that crossed my mind tonight....

Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice. [/QUOTE]

There's a million copies of the original vinyl in the UK alone.

Anybody wanting to buy a better copy for themselves can get the original album for £5, so what would be the market for a £20 reprint?[/QUOTE]

Improved sound quality. 180g vinyl. Maybe it would have been colored vinyl. A numbered limited edition. There's a number of ways they could have marketed it that would have most likely gotten people to buy it or re-buy it.