Mr Bad Guy - Special edition

runner_70 wrote:

Other Queen albums that have decent enough sound quality are A Day At the Races, News of The World, and the sound quality of Hot Space isn't too bad either.

NOTW is the worst sounding Queen album after Jazz. They ent for a less pompous sound but the sound quality is very muddy

You are fucking clueless. News of The World doesn't sound "muddy" whatsoever. Fucking hell, you really have no idea. One could argue that News of the World is a little cold sounding, but "muddy"? No, far from it.

Queen albums with worse sound quality than News of The World (not including live albums).

Queen
Queen II
Sheer Heart Attack
A Night At The Opera
Jazz
A Kind of Magic
The Miracle
Innuendo

Again, that isn't about the music itself. It's about the sound quality, the recording of the album. How clear it is, how punchy it is, how separate the instruments are from one another etc etc etc. Stuff that goes way beyond your tiny brain.

runner_70 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

Another example (of many) of a rock album with ropy sound quality is Meat Loaf's Bat Out of Hell. I'm not a Jackson fan but Thriller is a far superior sounding recording. What about all the Lo-fi rock albums that sound like shit compared to well recorded pop albums?

BOOH has a ropy sound quality? What drugs are you on? It ewas produced in the 70's and has one of the best productions of this era. It is a legendary record production AND song wise.How could anyone compare it to Thriller? A pop album that came out years later where the recording equipment was totally different and the music is no pomp rock like Meat Loaf? You self called expert on sound are just a sad joke. I mean it. Pathetic really

Yes, Bat out of Hell has ropy sound quality.
It's no secret that it's widely regarded as such.
For example, from this website...

Question:
"Fellow audiogoners...I have orig domestic and import Lps and Cds of BOOHell and would welcome any input...I have been dissapointed by these...weak bass, flat soundstage,etc...any suggestions?"

Reply:
"I think, there is none. Tried to find one some time ago, too. I found the information, that the mastering was done so bad, that plans for a reissue were buried.
Great Music, inferior recorded. A real pity..."

Another reply:
"HiFi News did a review (2 years ago I think?} of the Bat Out Of Hell recording and a review of currently available versions (LP and CD, maybe even SACD as well?} and concluded they are all poorly recorded and mastered. Having said that, I am sure there is one version better than the others. I have not heard the HD Tracks version, maybe worth a listen."

And another reply...
"It's a mess. My understanding is that "BOOH" was a really low budget recording session that Todd Rundgren (a top three all-time rock/pop musician, in my book) financed out of his own pocket after every record label in town passed on it. I'm not certain, but I think that it may have been recorded at Rundgren's Bearsville Studio, the birthplace of many of the worst sounding records in my collection. Rundgren's a hero of mine, but when he screws up the sound of a record, he usually does so royally. Unfortunately, "BOOH" is a good example of that."


I'm happy to carry on with this, but you get the general idea (or you probably don't, you're a bit slow).


https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/best-bat-out-of-hell-recording

runner_70 wrote:

BOOH has a ropy sound quality? What drugs are you on? It ewas produced in the 70's and has one of the best productions of this era. It is a legendary record production AND song wise.How could anyone compare it to Thriller? A pop album that came out years later where the recording equipment was totally different and the music is no pomp rock like Meat Loaf? You self called expert on sound are just a sad joke. I mean it. Pathetic really

Bat Out of Hell came out in 1977. And it's well known that the sound quality on that album is poor.

1977, the same year as Fleetwood Mac's Rumours was released. But unlike Bat Out Of Hell, The sound quality on Rumour's is superb.

Dark Side of The Moon came out in 1973. FOUR YEARS EARLIER THAN BAT OUT OF HELL. And Dark Side of the Moon is regarded as one of the best rock recordings quality-wise out there.

Like I said, the idea that a pop recording can't or shouldn't be as good as a rock recording is absolute nonsense. Thriller is a much better recording than Bat out of Hell (again, it's not about the music, I don't even like Jackson's music. It's about sound quality).
Again, Dark Side of the Moon was released in 1973, and that is a WAY better recording than Bat Out of Hell.
So come again about Thriller? Do you see how fucking STUPID you're being yet again? How your brain-farts don't hold up under scrutiny? No, of course you don't. You never do.
It's as though you are incapable of differentiating between the music itself and the sound quality. Why am I not surprised?
.
Despite yet another bullshit claim from you, that "You self called expert", at no point have I called myself an "expert". That said, I'm clearly more clued up than a complete idiot such as yourself. But it'd be difficult for anyone to be as bad (although you do have some competition here from the likes of aristide1).

I'm not surprised you think that Bat Out Of Hell has great sound quality, given that you've been clueless about everything else so far.

An uneducated thick as shit clown such as yourself with an ongoing unhealthy obsession over Adam Lambert is not in a good position to call anyone else "pathetic". You are a prime example of the very word.

Day dop wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Other Queen albums that have decent enough sound quality are A Day At the Races, News of The World, and the sound quality of Hot Space isn't too bad either.

NOTW is the worst sounding Queen album after Jazz. They ent for a less pompous sound but the sound quality is very muddy

You are fucking clueless. News of The World doesn't sound "muddy" whatsoever. Fucking hell, you really have no idea. One could argue that News of the World is a little cold sounding, but "muddy"? No, far from it.

Queen albums with sound quality than News of The World (not including live albums).

Queen
Queen II
Sheer Heart Attack
A Night At The Opera
Jazz
A Kind of Magic
The Miracle
Innuendo

Again, that isn't about the music itself. It's about the sound quality, the recording of the album. How clear it is, how punchy it is, how separate the instruments are from one another etc etc etc. Stuff that goes way beyond your tiny brain.

You rally say Queen 1 sounds like Innuendo? You are a troll of the highest order - better to ognore you from now on as it is getting beyond pathetic

Day dop wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

BOOH has a ropy sound quality? What drugs are you on? It ewas produced in the 70's and has one of the best productions of this era. It is a legendary record production AND song wise.How could anyone compare it to Thriller? A pop album that came out years later where the recording equipment was totally different and the music is no pomp rock like Meat Loaf? You self called expert on sound are just a sad joke. I mean it. Pathetic really

Bat Out of Hell came out in 1977. And it's well known that the sound quality on that album is poor.

1977, the same year as Fleetwood Mac's Rumours was released. But unlike Bat Out Of Hell, The sound quality on Rumour's is superb.

Dark Side of The Moon came out in 1973. FOUR YEARS EARLIER THAN BAT OUT OF HELL. And Dark Side of the Moon is regarded as one of the best rock recordings quality-wise out there.

Like I said, the idea that a pop recording can't or shouldn't be as good as a rock recording is absolute nonsense. Thriller is a much better recording than Bat out of Hell (again, it's not about the music, I don't even like Jackson's music. It's about sound quality).
Again, Dark Side of the Moon was released in 1973, and that is a WAY better recording than Bat Out of Hell.
So come again about Thriller? Do you see how fucking STUPID you're being yet again? How your brain-farts don't hold up under scrutiny? No, of course you don't. You never do.
It's as though you are incapable of differentiating the music itself and the sound quality. Why am I not surprised?
.
Despite yet another bullshit claim from you, that " You self called expert", at no point have I called myself an "expert". That said, I'm clearly more clued up than a complete idiot such as yourself. But it'd be difficult for anyone to be as bad (although you do have some competition here from the likes of aristide1).

I'm not surprised you think that Bat Out Of Hell has great sound quality, given that you've been clueless about everything else so far.

An uneducated thick as shit clown such as yourself with an ongoing unhealthy obsession over Adam Lambert is not in a good position to call anyone else "pathetic". You are a prime example of the very word.

You are just a sad shit stirring wankhole who compares Pink Floyd with Michael Jackson. I guess you own neither one record of both artists you sad dick

runner_70 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Other Queen albums that have decent enough sound quality are A Day At the Races, News of The World, and the sound quality of Hot Space isn't too bad either.

NOTW is the worst sounding Queen album after Jazz. They ent for a less pompous sound but the sound quality is very muddy

You are fucking clueless. News of The World doesn't sound "muddy" whatsoever. Fucking hell, you really have no idea. One could argue that News of the World is a little cold sounding, but "muddy"? No, far from it.

Queen albums with sound quality than News of The World (not including live albums).

Queen
Queen II
Sheer Heart Attack
A Night At The Opera
Jazz
A Kind of Magic
The Miracle
Innuendo

Again, that isn't about the music itself. It's about the sound quality, the recording of the album. How clear it is, how punchy it is, how separate the instruments are from one another etc etc etc. Stuff that goes way beyond your tiny brain.

You rally say Queen 1 sounds like Innuendo? You are a troll of the highest order - better to ognore you from now on as it is getting beyond pathetic

No, extremely thick person, I did not say that "Queen 1 sounds like Innuendo".
I listed some Queen albums that have poorer sound quality than News of The World.
Do you understand the difference? No? You probably don't.

You of all people calling anyone else a "troll" is ironic. You calling anyone else "beyond pathetic" is also ironic.

runner_70 wrote:

You are just a sad shit stirring wankhole who compares Pink Floyd with Michael Jackson. I guess you own neither one record of both artists you sad dick

Incorrect yet again.

I made no comparison between Pink Floyd and Michael Jackson.

I also pointed out that Thriller - a pop album - has superior sound quality to Bat Out of Hell.

Then after your brain fart of claiming it was because Thriller was released later, I pointed out that Dark Side of the Moon - an album released FOUR YEARS earlier than Bat Out Of Hell - also has far superior sound quality than Bat Out Of Hell.

Derp!

And no, I don't own Thriller anymore. I used to, hence I know the sound quality on that album is very good. But I don't like it and would rather not have it in my collection these days. However, you wouldn't have to look far to see what people think of the recording...

"Thriller’s cultural and commercial significance is well documented, but Michael Jackson’s masterpiece is also one of the best-recorded and most immaculately produced albums of the 1980s."

https://www.stuff.tv/features/50-essential-albums-audiophiles

As for Dark Side of the Moon, I own a few versions of it. The 30th Anniversary edition on vinyl, and the SACD. I also own the 2011 reissue.

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/a3YxTzC" data-context="false" ><a href="//imgur.com/a/a3YxTzC"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Day dop wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

You are just a sad shit stirring wankhole who compares Pink Floyd with Michael Jackson. I guess you own neither one record of both artists you sad dick

Incorrect yet again.

I made no comparison between Pink Floyd and Michael Jackson.

I also pointed out that Thriller - a pop album - has superior sound quality to Bat Out of Hell.

Then after your brain fart of claiming it was because Thriller was released later, I pointed out that Dark Side of the Moon - an album released FOUR YEARS earlier than Bat Out Of Hell - also has far superior sound quality than Bat Out Of Hell.

Derp!

And no, I don't own Thriller anymore. I used to, hence I know the sound quality on that album is very good. But you wouldn't have to look far to see what people think of the recording...

"Thriller’s cultural and commercial significance is well documented, but Michael Jackson’s masterpiece is also one of the best-recorded and most immaculately produced albums of the 1980s."

https://www.stuff.tv/features/50-essential-albums-audiophiles

As for Dark Side of the Moon, I own a few versions of it. The 30th Anniversary edition on vinyl, and the SACD. I also own the 2011 reissue.

Stop using your wikipedia knowledge you copy and paste. You are already a laughing stock no need to prove it anymore dickhead

runner_70 wrote:

Stop using your wikipedia knowledge you copy and paste. You are already a laughing stock no need to prove it anymore dickhead

Incorrect yet again. Find the part I quoted from Wikipedia. Of course you can't. You just spew horseshit.

Here's an idea...
Why not spend the next few years obsessing over Lambert and harassing his fans online?
Your life has been that pointless and meaningless for the last few years, so I'm sure it'll be that pointless and meaningless for the next few years too, if not for the rest of your miserable life.

I would say you're a laughing stock, but that'd be like laughing at a train wreck.

Day dop wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Stop using your wikipedia knowledge you copy and paste. You are already a laughing stock no need to prove it anymore dickhead

Incorrect yet again. Find the part I quoted from Wikipedia. Of course you can't. You just spew horseshit.

Here's an idea...
Why not spend the next few years obsessing over Lambert and harassing his fans online?
Your life has been that pointless and meaningless for the last few years, so I'm sure it'll be that pointless and meaningless for the next few years too, if not for the rest of your miserable life.

I would say you're a laughing stock, but that'd be like laughing at a train wreck.

Those 3 loones harass themselves. It is more fun watching a troll being a luaghing stock like yourself. "Innuendo" has a worse sould quality than NOTW lol - funny shit

runner_70 wrote:

Those 3 loones harass themselves.

I think you're not very well.

runner_70 wrote:
It is more fun watching a troll being a luaghing stock like yourself.

You're not having fun. No more than you have fun obsessing over Lambert of harassing Lambert fans. The truth is very clear: You're deeply unhappy.

runner_70 wrote:
"Innuendo" has a worse sould quality than NOTW lol - funny shit

No, there's nothing funny about Innuendo having poorer sound quality than News of The World.

Because it hasn't you stupid dick. Anyone with common sense would say this. But live in your dream bubble - byebye

runner_70 wrote:

Because it hasn't you stupid dick. Anyone with common sense would say this. But live in your dream bubble - byebye

Wrong. News of the World is a much sharper, punchier sounding album than Innuendo.

You are not in a good position to bring up "common sense" being as you've repeatedly demonstrated you completely lack any sense whatsoever.

I would say "Get well soon", but that's just not going to happen.

You'll be back.

DayDop : You really do not like other peoples opinion on here do you?
You have to attack others to justify your previous reply, tut tut.,
What does it matter what hi-fi system i have it will not make the new mix of Mr Bad Guy any better and it will still sound flat
and going back to Abba's production and mixing, yes there albums always sounded glossier compared to Queen's albums,
i was not comparing Queen with Abba over music content i was merely comparing the sound quality as a whole.
You may think Abba were boring but they were the best pop band in the 70s by miles.
Queen are a rock n roll band and represent the very best of there category !
I think you protest too much because you want to believe you are right and we are all wrong.
This topic would probably be a 50 / 50 split based on opinions.
Personally Justin Shirley Smith has butchered Freddie's brilliant Mr Bad Guy album, and should hang his head in shame.
Never make me boring, Freddie says, well they just have Fred !

K770i wrote:
DayDop : You really do not like other peoples opinion on here do you?

I have no issue with someone else having an opinion I disagree with. However, some, such as yourself take issue with your opinion being challenged or shown to be outright wrong.
.

K770i wrote:
You have to attack others to justify your previous reply, tut tut.,

Nope. I don't "have" to attack others to justify anything whatsoever. My arguments hold up perfectly well on their own, without attacking. You seem to be completely and utterly blind to your hypocrisy here.
If I take issue with an argument, I'll attack the argument.
Unless we're dealing with a clown who repeatedly attacks me, then it's fair game, regardless.

K770i wrote:
What does it matter what hi-fi system i have it will not make the new mix of Mr Bad Guy any better and it will still sound flat

Why so defensive? The new version doesn't sound flat whatsoever. If you had a decent set up you'd be able to hear that (unless you have hearing problems). That's the difference.
So... what set up have you got? You mentioned Denon earlier.

K770i wrote:
and going back to Abba's production and mixing, yes there albums always sounded glossier compared to Queen's albums,
i was not comparing Queen with Abba over music content i was merely comparing the sound quality as a whole.

Abba's sound quality isn't better than Queen albums such as The Game and The Works. I never said you had compared the music.

I don't give a shit about Abba.

K770i wrote:
You may think Abba were boring but they were the best pop band in the 70s by miles.

Change "best" for "tackiest" and I might be in agreement with you.

I still don't give a shit about Abba.

K770i wrote:
Queen are a rock n roll band and represent the very best of there category !

*their

K770i wrote:
I think you protest too much because you want to believe you are right and we are all wrong.

That's rich, coming from someone who doesn't like the new mix yet is still on the thread about it.
It's not a case of "wanting" to believe I am right. I am right. And, "we are all wrong"? Are you aware that most people have said that the new version of Mr Bad Guy is an improvement (or similar words).

K770i wrote:
This topic would probably be a 50 / 50 split based on opinions.

50/50? Seriously? It's ironic that you'd previously said, "I think you protest too much because you want to believe you are right and we are all wrong"

Here's the numbers (I've left out those who don't seem to have a strong opinion either way).

Positive opinions.

Day Dop
Jondickens1
cmi
paulosham
Apocalipsis_Darko
Makka
inu-liger
Agr123456
Sam99
MercurialFreddie
ianlasseter
TRS-Romania
k-m
MackMantilla
snelly1
pma
Jake12
Viper
Vali
FlorianS

(Then on top of that, there's the eight quotes from different people I read on the SH forum)

Negative opinions.

Runner_70
SweetCarolina (I'm not sure even if she knew what album was being reviewed, as she mentioned Never Boring and Barcelona).
Daburcor?
K770i
princetom
montanasz
dudeofqueen

Come again with 50/50 spit?

K770i wrote:
Personally Justin Shirley Smith has butchered Freddie's brilliant Mr Bad Guy album, and should hang his head in shame.
Never make me boring, Freddie says, well they just have Fred !

Such hyperbole!
It's almost like you and Runner_70 are the same person coming out with nonsense such as that.
If it was "butchered", then it wouldn't be an improvement over the original, with clearer, punchier sound, but it is.