Bob Ludwig Statement Re: "Queen Studio Collection" Box Set

I apologize if this has been posted already.

Interesting read regarding why they did not cut the new vinyl box set from the original analog tapes.
__________________________________________________

Bob Ludwig Issues Statement Re: "Queen Studio Collection" Box Set

By Michael Fremer • Posted: Sep 11, 2015

(An analogplanet.com exclusive):

Bob Ludwig today issued a statement about the Queen "Studio Collection vinyl box set.
News that Queen's vinyl box set had been produced using Bob Ludwig's 96k/24bit master files rather than directly from analog tape created speculation about the condition of the tapes as well as why the choice was made to cut from digital.

To end the speculation and with the approval of Queen's "camp", Bob Ludwig issued the following clarification:

Hi Michael,

The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project.

The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note.

They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed.

Most importantly to my mind- in addition, there were first generation mixes of certain songs which were mixed at a different studio from the majority of the album and thus they had different alignment tones etc.

Sometimes they were recorded using the CCIR curve instead of the NAB curve, or they were using Dolby instead of non-Dolby and, for the remastering project, Queen used those first generation tapes instead of the former album masters of those certain songs which of course had to contain a COPY of those mixes in order to cut from them.

They ended up having literally countless fixes to make for the most perfect sound they wanted.

I mastered everything from the original master tapes, but the final product, in order to sound like they wanted it to sound, HAD to be cut from the high resolution EQ masters. The difference between some of the first generation mixes and the tape copies of them that had to be inserted into the original cutting album masters was sometimes staggeringly better, for SURE it made for a better final product.

Believe me, they spared NO expense on doing it as perfectly as they thought they possibly could.

Best regards,

Bob Ludwig

All that trouble and then they compressed the dynamic range to death anyway.

[QUOTE]

[b]Biggus Dickus wrote: [/b] All that trouble and then they compressed the dynamic range to death anyway.[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly.
So much work, just to ruin the final product anyway.

[QUOTE] [b]Biggus Dickus wrote:[/b]

All that trouble and then they compressed the dynamic range to death anyway.[/QUOTE]

Hahaha...

May as well stick with the SACD versions.

or the CD versions.

SACD versions - the recent ones - are pretty much the same as the CDs as far as dynamic range and compression goes. According to http://dr.loudness-war.info/

[QUOTE] [b]Richard Orchard wrote:[/b]

or the CD versions.

SACD versions - the recent ones - are pretty much the same as the CDs as far as dynamic range and compression goes. According to http://dr.loudness-war.info/
[/QUOTE]

Yes, the SACD's are exactly the same mix with the same compression, but at a higher definition.
There IS a difference in the "open-ness" of the audio which makes them sound better (to my ears and a couple of Queen fan friends who I did blind A-B testing with just to make sure I wasn't imagining a difference!), but it's not an "OMG these are far better than the CD's" difference.

I still say they need to go back to the original multitracks and do as many surround sound albums as they can.
I don't believe that every multitrack has issues that prevent them being used.

"The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project.

The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note.

They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed"



Yet they were happy to put out that absolutely shit drum sound on 'Live at The Bowl' that wasn't even as good as the original mono TV broadcast? Some good ears they've got there.....

The LPs look nice, but they sound the same as the 2011 remasters.

This is all very interesting blah blah etc... So is this release actually better than the original 70s, 80s 1st edition vinyl? I'm thinking of purchasing them for framing purposes.... I'd rather have all albums in 5.1 as the game and anato releases were amazing..

I think vinyl nowdays only have purpose for nostalgia and hipsters. I am aware vinyls are better than CDs, they are more expensive, more fragile, but still sound better.

But Bluray are superior to vinyl, imo. release every album in the best possible quality in Bluray as the definitive release.

You have bought the same albums again. As you always have. And always will. You get what you deserve.

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

"The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project.

The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note.

They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed"

Yet they were happy to put out that absolutely shit drum sound on 'Live at The Bowl' that wasn't even as good as the original mono TV broadcast? Some good ears they've got there.....[/QUOTE]

You keep going on about that, yet I can't find a huge difference between the original release and the TV version. I guess it's a matter of taste.

Techie question!

You can buy phono pre-amps with valves these days which make your vinyls sound "warm" again on modern digital amplifiers.
I wonder if you could use one inbetween your CD player and amp to add some warmth back into the music, or would it (even at the lowest setting), blow your amp?

[QUOTE] [b]Biggus Dickus wrote:[/b]

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

"The people from the Queen camp were the most fastidious listeners I’ve ever encountered. No one I’ve ever worked with has shined a light like this on a project.

The Queen camp wanted to: fix all ticks, fix “bad” edits that couldn’t be re-spliced to correct them with a razor blade, have me change eq if necessary note by note.

They hired an engineer JUST to listen to everything at half-speed, and BACKWARDS as well, to see if the slightest tick or anomaly could be perceived and fixed"

Yet they were happy to put out that absolutely shit drum sound on 'Live at The Bowl' that wasn't even as good as the original mono TV broadcast? Some good ears they've got there.....[/QUOTE]

You keep going on about that, yet I can't find a huge difference between the original release and the TV version. I guess it's a matter of taste.

[/QUOTE]

I feel the same since day one! I Absolutely love the sound of live at the bowl, for me the best live sound on an album, makes me feel like I am there!