I remember watching the Kampuchea concert on ITV with mixed artists and Queen performed "Now im Here" and the sound quality on that was excellent. But really there is other things that could have ended up on Dvd like the San Remo performance of "Radio Ga Ga !
bucsateflon · Member since
lol
RS_Protos · Member since
The show must go on, queen and AL documentary on DVD with extra footage :)
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]
Another classic gambit opening. Do you have a strategy VH or just wait for his move?[/QUOTE]
No. Some perfectly valid observations and opinions. You seem to be trying to load (figuratively) an automatic weapon and hope someone picks it up and starts shooting.
I steered clear of commenting on something I do think is wrong in Halifax' post to avoid an argument.
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Halifax wrote:[/b]
. . . . But really there is other things that could have ended up on Dvd like the San Remo performance of "Radio Ga Ga ![/QUOTE]
Why would you choose a glorified TOTP type mimed performance over genuin live footage
Star* · Member since
I am not bothered if its live or mimed we still see our boys in action and looking so proud! San Remo and Freddie looked re-charged and ready to impress the fans!
bucsateflon · Member since
they should do A bluy-ray release of any live concert with separate audio tracks so the listener can do hes own mixing of the show.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]bucsateflon wrote:[/b]
they should do A bluy-ray release of any live concert with separate audio tracks so the listener can do hes own mixing of the show. [/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, sure, *that* will appeal to the general public...not to mention how mixing a live recording comes with its own set of challenges as compared to a studio recording.
Despite what clowns such as yourself seem to think, mixing audio is not something you can do well without quite a bit of training, not to mention that it's a lot of work, and a substantial part of that work is absolutely tedious. It also takes a considerable number of tools that you couldn't use if the content is on a bluray or dvd - multi-band compression? Nope. EQ-ing separate tracks with a set of generic hifi speakers? Good luck!
At least 99% of the potential buyers of Queen-products couldn't do it, nor would they want to - they want the best possible sound, which they're not going to get if they have to do the mixing themselves.
aristide1 · Member since
It's a remarkable dumb view.
"Professional" means that someone is working for money, not that his work is exceptional.
And multi-band compression is not mandatory, unless you want to leave work at 5 PM and have the job done in time.
All those "secrets weapons", especially compression, means easy life for engineer, not better sound.
Did they have a multi-band compressor back in 1975 at Trident?
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
Gee, what a surprise, there's the stooge/sock puppet...
Your remarks make it abundantly clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. And yes, they could well have used multi-band compression in 1975, by means of band-pass filtering and then applying compression to the resulting outputs as required. The fact that you refer to compression as a "secret weapon" and assert that it "means easy life for engineer [sic], not better sound" strongly implies that you understand next to nothing about the processing of audio.
None of this is strictly relevant, though, as you yourself hint at the fallacy that is central to your unreasoned idea: "have the job done in time".
Do you really think that the general public wants to spend dozens of hours doing tedious work to mix a concert in order to listen to it? I think not.
aristide1 · Member since
Audio processing should be subtle and subdue, not intensive and taking "a considerable number of tools", as you say.
Did you ever heard "Live at the Bowl" LP?
It's virtually unlistenable on a hi-fi system, because of the "considerable number of tools" wrongly used by professionals.
Star* · Member since
Oh dear i am a sure the lovies at EMI wont be pleased with you dear !
bucsateflon · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Gee, what a surprise, there's the stooge/sock puppet...
Your remarks make it abundantly clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. And yes, they could well have used multi-band compression in 1975, by means of band-pass filtering and then applying compression to the resulting outputs as required. [/QUOTE]
WTF! you stupid-idiot, only retards like you think they know everything and go overzealous "band-pass filtering and then applying compression" GTFOH!
Ma'am let me explain in a simple manner to you.
You start with the original mix and audio levels, but you give the listener the choice to fade in or out the main 5(lets say 5 you dumb retard) main audio tracks, something like this:
BASS
GUITAR
Freddie
Drums(maybe more tracks for fun)
Keyboard(if the case) piano
maybe they could include some effects options for each track make it mode fun.
MAKE IT INTERACTIVE, also it would be an eye opener for many people when they start to add or subtract an audio track from the performance.It gives a better understanding of how a rock performance with 4 or 5 instruments is done!
Many listeners assume background players or playback or clicktracks are involved in the performance.
Most of those millions youtube viewers on "Montreal 1981" don't even realize the whole performance is based on just 3 live instruments... and Freddie on the piano sometimes.
matt z · Member since
Man, me thinks someone here has got lead poisoning.
The anger!
The madness!
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]bucsateflon wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Gee, what a surprise, there's the stooge/sock puppet...
Your remarks make it abundantly clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. And yes, they could well have used multi-band compression in 1975, by means of band-pass filtering and then applying compression to the resulting outputs as required. [/QUOTE]
WTF! you stupid-idiot, only retards like you think they know everything and go overzealous "band-pass filtering and then applying compression" GTFOH!
Ma'am let me explain in a simple manner to you.
You start with the original mix and audio levels, but you give the listener the choice to fade in or out the main 5(lets say 5 you dumb retard) main audio tracks, something like this:
BASS
GUITAR
Freddie
Drums(maybe more tracks for fun)
Keyboard(if the case) piano
maybe they could include some effects options for each track make it mode fun.
MAKE IT INTERACTIVE, also it would be an eye opener for many people when they start to add or subtract an audio track from the performance.It gives a better understanding of how a rock performance with 4 or 5 instruments is done!
Many listeners assume background players or playback or clicktracks are involved in the performance.
Most of those millions youtube viewers on "Montreal 1981" don't even realize the whole performance is based on just 3 live instruments... and Freddie on the piano sometimes.[/QUOTE]
Pffft, yeah, that's not pointless at all...
And it's just been established that you don't know a) the difference between multitracks and stems b) how live recordings work c) the meaning of the word "mixing" in an audio-context.
Enjoy living in that insane fantasy world of yours where you aren't a clueless ape and your ideas are not suggestive of degenerative brain damage.
