See What A Fool I've Been - Golders Green Hippodrome (Vocal Restoration v2)

Since this track won't be appearing on the upcoming "Queen: On Air" release, I thought I'd have another go at raising the volume of the vocals:

Using my previous attempt as a starting point (see here: http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1255580/announce-golders-green-hippodrome-vocal-restoration.aspx), I produced a crude "mostly-vocals" track using a centre channel extraction filter, along with some high/low passes to cut out extraneous frequencies. This was simply overdubbed on top of the previous attempt to boost the volume of the vocals a little more.

I also attempted to mask the distortion in the left channel (starting at about 2:30) by lowering its volume by a few dB and adding a duplicate of the right channel, also with reduced volume, but now panned left. The result is much more easy on the ears, but sacrifices some of the stereo separation.

Thanks once again to pittrek for the original merge which forms the basis of my previous restoration.

https://mega.nz/#!QFEW2DTa!Zrh_LJOvPNEAwwfXG1tIyyoy5FMKKsXC87pXdGLfk4s

Nice! And thank you :D

EDIT: In all seriousness, there is no excuse for excluding this from the official release. Greater wonders have been worked by professionals (and fans) from old mono recordings. If Queen's team can't accept it or improve it the tiniest bit - well then they need a new team.

Dear GinjaNinja, I wish you worked for QPL, maybe we'd see some sense in their release 'strategies'.

Another return of the Golders Green comet? Smart of you to avoid the word "quadraphonic" this time. Although "center channel extraction filter" suggest you still have delusions about a quadraphonic source.
In fact you've done some M/S equalization. The mid channel - the mono component of a stereo source - it's a derivative not a real center channel as you like to believe.

Thank you very much for your effort!

[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]

Another return of the Golders Green comet? Smart of you to avoid the word "quadraphonic" this time. Although "center channel extraction filter" suggest you still have delusions about a quadraphonic source.
In fact you've done some M/S equalization. The mid channel - the mono component of a stereo source - it's a derivative not a real center channel as you like to believe.[/QUOTE]
I don't claim that the recording is quadraphonic. It was suggested by another QueenZoner and though the consensus later became that it wasn't, the SQ decoding process still gave some interesting results.

"Center Channel Extractor" is literally the name of the filter I used, go pick a fight with Adobe. Indeed, true isolation of the mid channel is impossible. I called it a "crude, mostly-vocals" track as that's exactly what it sounded like.

Thank you GinjaNinja! I think this is what we need now.

I'd butt in here and stand by the term 'centre channel' - an easy way to reference the information that has equal weighing in both the L and R channel.

Thanks.

[QUOTE] [b]GinjaNinja wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]

Another return of the Golders Green comet? Smart of you to avoid the word "quadraphonic" this time. Although "center channel extraction filter" suggest you still have delusions about a quadraphonic source.
In fact you've done some M/S equalization. The mid channel - the mono component of a stereo source - it's a derivative not a real center channel as you like to believe.[/QUOTE]
I don't claim that the recording is quadraphonic. It was suggested by another QueenZoner and though the consensus later became that it wasn't, the SQ decoding process still gave some interesting results.

"Center Channel Extractor" is literally the name of the filter I used, go pick a fight with Adobe. Indeed, true isolation of the mid channel is impossible. I called it a "crude, mostly-vocals" track as that's exactly what it sounded like.[/QUOTE]
If you are aware the recording is not quadraphonic and the center channel is not real, then why all these decodings and extractions, instead of a classic equalizer (with M/S capabilities if you need)?
You may obtain better results, or at least you can do something on your own, not only observing "interesting results" which are the unpredictable side effect of a failed decoding algorithm.

aristide1, if you can do it better than ginjaninja, then do it, otherwise just shut up. you're always rude to people. it's like you're a little spoiled child.

[QUOTE] [b]Mrmarioanonym wrote:[/b]

aristide1, if you can do it better than ginjaninja, then do it, otherwise just shut up. you're always rude to people. it's like you're a little spoiled child.[/QUOTE]
Anonymity worked so well for you until now, why make changes, especially in a technical argument? If you have nothing to say about the subject, please remain hidden.

haha. don't ever change, buddy.

Thanks for trying.

[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]

If you are aware the recording is not quadraphonic and the center channel is not real, then why all these decodings and extractions, instead of a classic equalizer (with M/S capabilities if you need)?
You may obtain better results, or at least you can do something on your own, not only observing "interesting results" which are the unpredictable side effect of a failed decoding algorithm.[/QUOTE]

First of all, by "all these" are you referring to my single share from over five years ago and an attempted improvement at one track? The "extractions" are nothing to do with quad decoding, as I'm sure you know, similar results can be achieved with any stereo track with centre-panned vocals.

I didn't make an attempt at equalisation as the vocals and guitar occupy a similar range of frequencies, boosting both wouldn't really have helped to bring the vocals out. I also didn't want to risk ruining the balance of the sound with any extreme frequency adjustments.

Fine, let's call the interesting results a product of phase cancellation, as that's all I really did. I've actually tried going back to Stark's remaster and using the center channel extractor (you can relax, no quad decoding involved with this one), the results are pretty much the same.