Right. I have the early 2001/4 remasters to hand against my 90's versions. I'll post my observations on an album by post basis...
-Sheer Heart Attack-
Killer Queen - Here's something funny...On my HR version there's a humm noise at the begining of the track. This has been eliminated on the 2001 remaster. Good start for the 2001 ver!
A definite sharper sound on the 2001 version that sounds great on the opening intro. But once the track gets into full flow, it sometimes gets tiring. A little too much. I.E. 'Sh' and 'Sss' vocal sounds are uncomfortable. The guitar lead still sounds great, if that bit better than before.
Tenement Funster - Much better sound on the 2001 remaster. Ss sounds are nowhere near the sharpness on KQ, which is a relief! Spoke too soon... I still get that uncomfortable feeling on listening to the guitar solo bit in the middle. Too much sharp irratating sound that has me reaching for the volume knob! Drums sound nice and clear.
Flick Of The Wrist - Fuuuuuccckkk! Opening chord sounds soooo harsh on 2001 re.
This is horrible... The harmony vox near the beginning are very SS-ey. They're kinda like that on the 90's remaster, but not as pronounced at this 2001 ver makes them stand out more.
The only good point I can find is that the guitars come through nicely, though at the expense of the overall track. Nice lows, but kinda irrelevant with all else happening around it!
Lily of The Valley - Very nice on the 2001 re. Bass is nice and present. Ss-ey sounds from vocals is very low! Woohoo!
Now I'm Here - 2001 is nice in the intro. But the SS-ey problem comes into play again. In fact, the vocals sound harsher on my ears, even before harmony vox come in. What a dissapointment because, with the intro and some quieter vocal moments, it did sound really nice.
In The Lap Of The Gods - Even the 90's remaster was pushing the vocals and swooshy cymbal sounds hard in the opening, so I was really dreading the 2001 version...
Oooh...Not as bad as I was expecting. But there's still a lot of harsh vocal loudness going on. They must have recognised this would happen and de-essed the track a bit cause it's quite different sonically. But still drum cymbal hits are quite harsh.
Stone Cold Crazy - Again even the 90's remaster could push the limits a bit with the guitars. But it's very listenable. Wonder how the 2001 ver compares...
2001 ver certainly has a more thumping bass to it. Pretty cool. Shiiittt! Vocals come in and the SS-ey stuff comes in to play AGAIN! Guitar solo starts up and is also harsh and overly loud.
Dear Friends - Very nice surprise here with the 2001 version as Freddie's vox sound even more intimate than the 90's re. THIS track, so far, is the truest representation of how it was on the previous 90's remaster, but sooo much nicer. Fan-f-ing-tastic!
Misfire - 2001 is bassier. Not too bad on the SS-ey vocals. Still there, mind. Something I've definitely noticed in this track more than others is the limited dynamic range in play. On the 90's remaster, the harmony guitars on the left (19 secs in) sound really nice and present. But on the 2001 version, they're lacking any bounce or space like the older remaster has. In fact, even the mini-solo sounds nicer on the old re than the 2001 ver.
On this track, more than any previous song, I've heard this lessened dynamic range and it has distracted me after hearing how it was BEFORE the 2001 re listen. Shame...
Bring Back That Leroy Brown - 90's re is nice and spacious, great dynamics going on. Little Ss-ey, but very very rare.
2001... As soon as it started, it sounded like it had less of the spacious sound that the old re has. In fact the dynamics definitely sound less than they were. Even sounds more up front to the speakers. Not a nice change.
Funny bit with the guy with the low voice - that sounded brilliant on the 2001 ver!! lol Hey, if you like that guy, get the 2001 ver for sure! lol
She Makes Me - T
Thread
Posts in chronological order
This starts to be a REALLY interesting discussion :)
Remaster, for a number of years meant going back to the multi-tracks and creating a new digital mix. The big criticism being that the resolution of CD's revealed too many faults on the original master tape and to some extent this was/is true. This went out of fashion as record companies no longer wanted the extra expence of remixing.
Personally I think the results are much better when a new mix is created but obviously it is difficult and time-consuming to replicate the original master and fans (and artists in some cases) moan about the mix not being quite the same. I think the early queen albums could seriously benefit from a new stereo digital mix (the 5.1 mix will happen sooner or later.) Just think how crisp they would sound with no generation loss!! A new mix supervised by Brian and Roy Thomas Baker would be awesome.
The works and AKOM could do with a remix too, as I understand it, they were recorded on analogue equipment then digitally mixed. So if they were to be remastered the only logical choice would be to re-transfer the multi-tracks with modern equipment (80's A/D converters were Bad). They would sound so much better and I don't think the fans would complain because nobody gives those albums much credit anyway.
Personally I think the results are much better when a new mix is created but obviously it is difficult and time-consuming to replicate the original master and fans (and artists in some cases) moan about the mix not being quite the same. I think the early queen albums could seriously benefit from a new stereo digital mix (the 5.1 mix will happen sooner or later.) Just think how crisp they would sound with no generation loss!! A new mix supervised by Brian and Roy Thomas Baker would be awesome.
The works and AKOM could do with a remix too, as I understand it, they were recorded on analogue equipment then digitally mixed. So if they were to be remastered the only logical choice would be to re-transfer the multi-tracks with modern equipment (80's A/D converters were Bad). They would sound so much better and I don't think the fans would complain because nobody gives those albums much credit anyway.
I have yet to get the NOTW 2001 remaster. Still have that horrid Hollywood 1991 reissue with the chopped-off "It's Late," a crime if there ever was one.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I have yet to get the NOTW 2001 remaster. Still have that horrid Hollywood 1991 reissue with the chopped-off "It's Late," a crime if there ever was one.[/QUOTE]
I'll review that one next, then. I'm really hoping that Bobby's right about it. Should be great!
Adam.
I'll review that one next, then. I'm really hoping that Bobby's right about it. Should be great!
Adam.
Thanks, Adam, that would be really helpful for me and very informative I am sure for the board. I still regret selling all my import CDs as the reissues came out. What was I thinking? I was in college, thought selling a CD back then was like selling off a mutual fund or something. I think I got, like, two dollars for each one. I'll stop. Feel like I am in confession.
Here we go with another album review between my 90's remaster copy and the 2001/4 version.
-News Of The World-
We Will Rock You - Nice, in your face start with the 90's re ver.
2001 ver - Lacks some spaciousness that was on the 90's re, but this soon disappears anyway, so it's not hugely important. Just an observation.
This 2001 copy sounds nice. Very similar to the 90's re, but with some heightened bass and treble. It's pretty loud, mind, but no real drawbacks in comparison.
We Are The Champions - What a great track, eh? 90's re sounds nice, though, it's a little tough on the ears with the huge vocal harm bits coming in more and more.
2001 ver - First thing I notice as it starts, the bass is more prominent. Nice, but in some spots, seems a little forward. But as the song hits, that's not a problem.
Song in full force sounds brilliant! Nice clean and clear, very powerful sound and in fact, smoother and easier on the ears in comparison to the 90's re. What a turnaround, eh? Much nicer to listen to than the 90's re.
Sheer Heart Attack - 90's re is nice and clear. Little swishy swashy drums. I'd never listened to that before! Pretty quiet and stiffled aren't they? Love the mad guitar whine bit!
2001 ver - As soon as Freddie starts, he sounds clearer than before. John's bass is now punching the air more. Brian's guitar is prominent as it was before, but more so and sweeter sounding. Very nice compared to the 90's re.
Only downer is the guitar whine bit. It seems soooo much higher than before that the dynamics are a little squeezed.
*listens to 90's re for comparison*
Yeah, definitely squeezed more. Again, when purely remastering the rest of the track with a more compressed edge, it brings these sweet little whin-y guitars out front more and they breathe less. Shame, but overall, very cool for the 2001 ver.
All Dead, All Dead - 90's re first as always. Really wonderfully balanced track this one. Always liked the way it'd been recorded/mixed. Especially my fav moment on a Queen record, Brian's cascading harmony guitars at 1:43. Sooooo sweet and beautiful sounding.
Hmm... It's a little hard to express this, but I'm not liking the sound on this one. Bass is really nice. But the vocals and piano have this strange trebley sound to them. It's not harsh, just a little bit of a weird edge to them. Like if someone turns the sharpness up on your tv, you start to see an edge around things? It feels like that to me.
Brian's cascading guitars still sound great here! Overall, nice, but I still prefer the 90's re for this track in particular.
Spread Your Wings - Nice on the 90's re.
Nice highs on the 2001 re, though, again I'm hearing that edginess on the vocals as they come in. Oooh...little SS-eyness going on with this vocal. Oh dear, it's quite bad. Nowhere near as bad as the SHA album, mind. But it's a little distracting.
The tracks certainly has a bit more punch, but...OH damn it! Sorry, but as I'm writing this that bloody vocal is jumping right out at me with the edginess. Ugh.
Bass sounds nice, but not as remarkable a change as the SHA track. Guitar lead sounds pretty cool here, though as the track is playing out to the end, the cymbals are a little toppy.
Fight From The Inside - Now this song has the drums and bass kicking nicely on the 90's re already. Guitars nicely placed and the vocals sounding pretty sweet with Roger. Great bounce to the sounds in the background.
Haha, the 2001 starts kicking NICELY! Everything seems enhanced on the intro. The vox... Hmm...yes and no. I think everything else around it is brought up in level and seems a little crowded now. The 90's re was better cause everything had its own spot and I could happily listen to either instrument and appreciate it. On the 2001 version, it all seems squeezed together. What a shame cause the opening sounded so good!
Get Down, Make Love - This'll be interesting cause the 90's re sounds cool. Very clear for every
-News Of The World-
We Will Rock You - Nice, in your face start with the 90's re ver.
2001 ver - Lacks some spaciousness that was on the 90's re, but this soon disappears anyway, so it's not hugely important. Just an observation.
This 2001 copy sounds nice. Very similar to the 90's re, but with some heightened bass and treble. It's pretty loud, mind, but no real drawbacks in comparison.
We Are The Champions - What a great track, eh? 90's re sounds nice, though, it's a little tough on the ears with the huge vocal harm bits coming in more and more.
2001 ver - First thing I notice as it starts, the bass is more prominent. Nice, but in some spots, seems a little forward. But as the song hits, that's not a problem.
Song in full force sounds brilliant! Nice clean and clear, very powerful sound and in fact, smoother and easier on the ears in comparison to the 90's re. What a turnaround, eh? Much nicer to listen to than the 90's re.
Sheer Heart Attack - 90's re is nice and clear. Little swishy swashy drums. I'd never listened to that before! Pretty quiet and stiffled aren't they? Love the mad guitar whine bit!
2001 ver - As soon as Freddie starts, he sounds clearer than before. John's bass is now punching the air more. Brian's guitar is prominent as it was before, but more so and sweeter sounding. Very nice compared to the 90's re.
Only downer is the guitar whine bit. It seems soooo much higher than before that the dynamics are a little squeezed.
*listens to 90's re for comparison*
Yeah, definitely squeezed more. Again, when purely remastering the rest of the track with a more compressed edge, it brings these sweet little whin-y guitars out front more and they breathe less. Shame, but overall, very cool for the 2001 ver.
All Dead, All Dead - 90's re first as always. Really wonderfully balanced track this one. Always liked the way it'd been recorded/mixed. Especially my fav moment on a Queen record, Brian's cascading harmony guitars at 1:43. Sooooo sweet and beautiful sounding.
Hmm... It's a little hard to express this, but I'm not liking the sound on this one. Bass is really nice. But the vocals and piano have this strange trebley sound to them. It's not harsh, just a little bit of a weird edge to them. Like if someone turns the sharpness up on your tv, you start to see an edge around things? It feels like that to me.
Brian's cascading guitars still sound great here! Overall, nice, but I still prefer the 90's re for this track in particular.
Spread Your Wings - Nice on the 90's re.
Nice highs on the 2001 re, though, again I'm hearing that edginess on the vocals as they come in. Oooh...little SS-eyness going on with this vocal. Oh dear, it's quite bad. Nowhere near as bad as the SHA album, mind. But it's a little distracting.
The tracks certainly has a bit more punch, but...OH damn it! Sorry, but as I'm writing this that bloody vocal is jumping right out at me with the edginess. Ugh.
Bass sounds nice, but not as remarkable a change as the SHA track. Guitar lead sounds pretty cool here, though as the track is playing out to the end, the cymbals are a little toppy.
Fight From The Inside - Now this song has the drums and bass kicking nicely on the 90's re already. Guitars nicely placed and the vocals sounding pretty sweet with Roger. Great bounce to the sounds in the background.
Haha, the 2001 starts kicking NICELY! Everything seems enhanced on the intro. The vox... Hmm...yes and no. I think everything else around it is brought up in level and seems a little crowded now. The 90's re was better cause everything had its own spot and I could happily listen to either instrument and appreciate it. On the 2001 version, it all seems squeezed together. What a shame cause the opening sounded so good!
Get Down, Make Love - This'll be interesting cause the 90's re sounds cool. Very clear for every
I think the NOTW LP is probably the worst Queen vinyl ever release (at least on my Portuguese version). Overall the sound is too weak!
With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you.
On SHA in the 94 version it´s still difficult to know whos singing the song (Freddie or Roger), but with 2001 version this problem was solved and the song can be seen as a "duet" for the first time. The vocals on All Dead all Dead are better in the 2001 version in my opinion.
The other song was "Who needs you". Since they´ve choosed to put Freddie´s voice on one channel sometimes his voice sounded too weack compared with the other instruments.
In the 2001 version i think the sound is more balanced and the sound of the acoustic guitar is cristal as water. This alone worths the price (or maybe not ; ).
I remember reading a Brian interview saying the the remastering process (1994) was very demanding because he and Roger had to spent 12 hours a day with headphones on their ears.
So, i´m thinking that the albums are probably in the way their creators wanted/imagined them ( 1994 version).
Sometimes the sound we want for a certain track might not be the sound they thought in the first place. "I can´t live with you" is a good example. Some people want a more guitar oriented sound instead of the Synth oriented sound. Even though i like the 97 Re-take of the song, i think that on Innuendo they´ve made the right choice, It makes more sense.
But it´s allways a question of taste, or lack of it ; )
Great reviews Adam. keep´em coming!
Take care
With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you.
On SHA in the 94 version it´s still difficult to know whos singing the song (Freddie or Roger), but with 2001 version this problem was solved and the song can be seen as a "duet" for the first time. The vocals on All Dead all Dead are better in the 2001 version in my opinion.
The other song was "Who needs you". Since they´ve choosed to put Freddie´s voice on one channel sometimes his voice sounded too weack compared with the other instruments.
In the 2001 version i think the sound is more balanced and the sound of the acoustic guitar is cristal as water. This alone worths the price (or maybe not ; ).
I remember reading a Brian interview saying the the remastering process (1994) was very demanding because he and Roger had to spent 12 hours a day with headphones on their ears.
So, i´m thinking that the albums are probably in the way their creators wanted/imagined them ( 1994 version).
Sometimes the sound we want for a certain track might not be the sound they thought in the first place. "I can´t live with you" is a good example. Some people want a more guitar oriented sound instead of the Synth oriented sound. Even though i like the 97 Re-take of the song, i think that on Innuendo they´ve made the right choice, It makes more sense.
But it´s allways a question of taste, or lack of it ; )
Great reviews Adam. keep´em coming!
Take care
@ Adam Baboolal
Thanks so much for your excellent reviews! This really helps me a lot, since buying their entire Backcatalog again isn't cheap. Could you please tell me about your view of "Live Killers"?
I own the org. '79 (german)Vinyl pressing - which sounds still better than the first CD edition (at least for me..). I saw a 24bit Remaster (japanese pressing) on Amazon, is it the same as the 2001 remaster?
Thanks so much for your excellent reviews! This really helps me a lot, since buying their entire Backcatalog again isn't cheap. Could you please tell me about your view of "Live Killers"?
I own the org. '79 (german)Vinyl pressing - which sounds still better than the first CD edition (at least for me..). I saw a 24bit Remaster (japanese pressing) on Amazon, is it the same as the 2001 remaster?
The Mini Vinyls are exactly the same as the Japanese 24-bit remasters. One and the same. The Japanese got them in 2001 and the UK (and elsewhere?) in 2004.
Bobby, you never knew both Freddie and Roger sang on SHA? It's not a duet though because, Freddie takes the lead and Roger only comes in at certain points.
Also, you said there was bad mixing on the 1994 remaster in comparison to the 2001 remaster. Dude, NOTHING has been remixed! It's the same mix for both. They're not mixed differently because they come from the same master mix tape source when doing a remaster.
Now, remember, if it sounds good to you on your equipment, good. But for me, knowing what something sounded like before the 2001 remaster (meddling), I choose the songs over the so-called improvements in sound. The 1993/4 remasters show off the songs well, while even on my studio speakers, the 2001 versions are sometimes wrecking the wonderful arrangements for a bit of extra highs, lows and loudness. A very modern thing to do, I'm afraid.
As for the reviews, I need to state again that these are partially my opinion, but mainly from a sound engineer's perspective. I'm comparing the 1993/4 remasters against the 2001 remasters. Now, a good mix is a good mix and a bad remaster is a bad remaster. I haven't a clue why Justin-Shirley Smith did them. Cause he's Brian's engineer? The guy who did the 2005 ANATO 30th anniversary remaster ROCKS! It's the best sounding remaster I've ever heard from the Queen camp. And as we all know, there's been a lot of them! lol My point being that that guy (on ANATO 2005) is a mastering engineer and will always do a better job than someone like JSS, who is a recording/mixing engineer. We engineers SHOULDN'T do everything!! I've done it before and the results are always better with a fresh set of ears on the job.
Anyway, I'll look at Live Killers very quickly cause there won't be any use going track by track. If I remember correctly, the 2004 remaster was good on this one. Can't recall, though. We'll see.
Adam.
Bobby, you never knew both Freddie and Roger sang on SHA? It's not a duet though because, Freddie takes the lead and Roger only comes in at certain points.
Also, you said there was bad mixing on the 1994 remaster in comparison to the 2001 remaster. Dude, NOTHING has been remixed! It's the same mix for both. They're not mixed differently because they come from the same master mix tape source when doing a remaster.
Now, remember, if it sounds good to you on your equipment, good. But for me, knowing what something sounded like before the 2001 remaster (meddling), I choose the songs over the so-called improvements in sound. The 1993/4 remasters show off the songs well, while even on my studio speakers, the 2001 versions are sometimes wrecking the wonderful arrangements for a bit of extra highs, lows and loudness. A very modern thing to do, I'm afraid.
As for the reviews, I need to state again that these are partially my opinion, but mainly from a sound engineer's perspective. I'm comparing the 1993/4 remasters against the 2001 remasters. Now, a good mix is a good mix and a bad remaster is a bad remaster. I haven't a clue why Justin-Shirley Smith did them. Cause he's Brian's engineer? The guy who did the 2005 ANATO 30th anniversary remaster ROCKS! It's the best sounding remaster I've ever heard from the Queen camp. And as we all know, there's been a lot of them! lol My point being that that guy (on ANATO 2005) is a mastering engineer and will always do a better job than someone like JSS, who is a recording/mixing engineer. We engineers SHOULDN'T do everything!! I've done it before and the results are always better with a fresh set of ears on the job.
Anyway, I'll look at Live Killers very quickly cause there won't be any use going track by track. If I remember correctly, the 2004 remaster was good on this one. Can't recall, though. We'll see.
Adam.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The Mini Vinyls are exactly the same as the Japanese 24-bit remasters. One and the same. The Japanese got them in 2001 and the UK (and elsewhere?) in 2004.
Bobby, you never knew both Freddie and Roger sang on SHA? It's not a duet though because, Freddie takes the lead and Roger only comes in at certain points. [/QUOTE]
Until Brian said so on his soapbox i got confused over the years of rumours. It looks like Freddie wanted to sound like Roger, but he only achieved because of the bad sound this album had since it´s 1977 release. With the 1994 remaster i´m affraid that it´s still not that obvious that´s Freddie, but with the 2001 remaster is very clear that Roger only sings "cardiac" if i´m not mistaken (i´m speaking from memory here).
[QUOTE]
Also, you said there was bad mixing on the 1994 remaster in comparison to the 2001 remaster. Dude, NOTHING has been remixed! It's the same mix for both. They're not mixed differently because they come from the same master mix tape source when doing a remaster.[/QUOTE]
No, i was talking about the LP 77 version. Since it was the first edition and it was BAD, i choose to call it a bad mix since it was the original one. I don´t know if that´s the right term, but since it wasn´t a remaster i call it mix, or should i have call it bad production? I don´t know, what i meant is that this album is bad from the source, at least compared with their earlier efforts.
[QUOTE]
Now, remember, if it sounds good to you on your equipment, good. But for me, knowing what something sounded like before the 2001 remaster (meddling), I choose the songs over the so-called improvements in sound. The 1993/4 remasters show off the songs well, while even on my studio speakers, the 2001 versions are sometimes wrecking the wonderful arrangements for a bit of extra highs, lows and loudness. A very modern thing to do, I'm afraid.
[/QUOTE]
I think equipment has a lot to do too!
The things i find bad about the remasters are the ones i can´t "make up" with my stereo, so to speak.
But it´s a matter of taste really.
Take Care
Bobby, you never knew both Freddie and Roger sang on SHA? It's not a duet though because, Freddie takes the lead and Roger only comes in at certain points. [/QUOTE]
Until Brian said so on his soapbox i got confused over the years of rumours. It looks like Freddie wanted to sound like Roger, but he only achieved because of the bad sound this album had since it´s 1977 release. With the 1994 remaster i´m affraid that it´s still not that obvious that´s Freddie, but with the 2001 remaster is very clear that Roger only sings "cardiac" if i´m not mistaken (i´m speaking from memory here).
[QUOTE]
Also, you said there was bad mixing on the 1994 remaster in comparison to the 2001 remaster. Dude, NOTHING has been remixed! It's the same mix for both. They're not mixed differently because they come from the same master mix tape source when doing a remaster.[/QUOTE]
No, i was talking about the LP 77 version. Since it was the first edition and it was BAD, i choose to call it a bad mix since it was the original one. I don´t know if that´s the right term, but since it wasn´t a remaster i call it mix, or should i have call it bad production? I don´t know, what i meant is that this album is bad from the source, at least compared with their earlier efforts.
[QUOTE]
Now, remember, if it sounds good to you on your equipment, good. But for me, knowing what something sounded like before the 2001 remaster (meddling), I choose the songs over the so-called improvements in sound. The 1993/4 remasters show off the songs well, while even on my studio speakers, the 2001 versions are sometimes wrecking the wonderful arrangements for a bit of extra highs, lows and loudness. A very modern thing to do, I'm afraid.
[/QUOTE]
I think equipment has a lot to do too!
The things i find bad about the remasters are the ones i can´t "make up" with my stereo, so to speak.
But it´s a matter of taste really.
Take Care
First of all, I don't look at it as being a matter of taste. I'll explain why later.
I'm amazed you can't tell the difference between Freddie or Roger singing on either release. Freddie and Roger couldn't sound more different! I don't know what to say to you really.
Anyone who says this, and there have been a few over the last couple of years, I just sit back in amazement at it. It's like saying John sounds as good as Freddie. It just rocks me a little. *Shivers*
[QUOTE]No, i was talking about the LP 77 version. Since it was the first edition and it was BAD, i choose to call it a bad mix since it was the original one... ...what i meant is that this album is bad from the source, at least compared with their earlier efforts.[/QUOTE]
No, they're not bad mixes. I'll get to that in a moment. And I'll also explain that the source isn't bad either.
And I quote... [QUOTE]With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you."[/QUOTE]
Again, it's not bad mixing. If it was bad mixing, the mix wouldn't have been used at all. I've never heard someone say a bad word on any album release.
In fact, I'm not 100% sure, but aren't the master mix tapes from the time, the same used to create a new mastering of the material from? Makes sense. They don't go around recreating mixes of old, UNLESS it's a special case, i.e. TGame/NATO dvda's.
The difference here Bobby is that I'm trying to view these from an engineer's perspective. To me, this is the only way to ensure that I'm not letting my personal opinion of the mix itself get in the way. I'm analysing the original remaster release compared to a new release of the same material. If the new release messes with the previously released cd, it makes sense to see if these changes make sense or are simply a bad move.
Now, on the other hand, you have a completely different outlook on things. Your opinion is strong and biased, e.g. you didn't like the NOTW album sound from 77.
Add to that the fact that you think that somehow these latest remasters have made it clearer who's singing on the SHA track. I certainly don't think it has changed THAT much. Or that there are bad mixes on this album from it's initial release. Your view is a personal one. I don't bring any opinions like those or any other really. Just that I like the band, the music and wish to compare these remasters. Simple as that. And there certainly have been plenty of surprises along the way, so far. Some tracks on the new remasters I think are well done, others, I think are badly done. Changes, like SOTS, that actually confuse the picture and change what it originally sounded like so much from what Queen created in their songs is wrong. They're not all like that, but in some cases, the changes are bad enough to warrant these reviews.
Since this thread was started to make the differences and clarifications over what's best, clearer. I think it's high time they're looked at. I recognise that some just want a certain kind of update, but I hope to present the reality of what the latest remasters have actually done to the music we all love. So, far, it turns out my thoughts from late 2004 to present day have been wrong about the pre82' albums being the best of the 2001 remasters. That's quite sad. And I think with the two albums I've looked at, it's obvious to me that with someone like JSS behind the remasters, it's bad. I said it before, they should've gotten someone who's specialised in this field who ALSO has a fresh pair of ears. NOT someone already in the Queen camp!! Big mistake.
Anyway, I'll look into another album soon. Any requests?
Adam.
I'm amazed you can't tell the difference between Freddie or Roger singing on either release. Freddie and Roger couldn't sound more different! I don't know what to say to you really.
Anyone who says this, and there have been a few over the last couple of years, I just sit back in amazement at it. It's like saying John sounds as good as Freddie. It just rocks me a little. *Shivers*
[QUOTE]No, i was talking about the LP 77 version. Since it was the first edition and it was BAD, i choose to call it a bad mix since it was the original one... ...what i meant is that this album is bad from the source, at least compared with their earlier efforts.[/QUOTE]
No, they're not bad mixes. I'll get to that in a moment. And I'll also explain that the source isn't bad either.
And I quote... [QUOTE]With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you."[/QUOTE]
Again, it's not bad mixing. If it was bad mixing, the mix wouldn't have been used at all. I've never heard someone say a bad word on any album release.
In fact, I'm not 100% sure, but aren't the master mix tapes from the time, the same used to create a new mastering of the material from? Makes sense. They don't go around recreating mixes of old, UNLESS it's a special case, i.e. TGame/NATO dvda's.
The difference here Bobby is that I'm trying to view these from an engineer's perspective. To me, this is the only way to ensure that I'm not letting my personal opinion of the mix itself get in the way. I'm analysing the original remaster release compared to a new release of the same material. If the new release messes with the previously released cd, it makes sense to see if these changes make sense or are simply a bad move.
Now, on the other hand, you have a completely different outlook on things. Your opinion is strong and biased, e.g. you didn't like the NOTW album sound from 77.
Add to that the fact that you think that somehow these latest remasters have made it clearer who's singing on the SHA track. I certainly don't think it has changed THAT much. Or that there are bad mixes on this album from it's initial release. Your view is a personal one. I don't bring any opinions like those or any other really. Just that I like the band, the music and wish to compare these remasters. Simple as that. And there certainly have been plenty of surprises along the way, so far. Some tracks on the new remasters I think are well done, others, I think are badly done. Changes, like SOTS, that actually confuse the picture and change what it originally sounded like so much from what Queen created in their songs is wrong. They're not all like that, but in some cases, the changes are bad enough to warrant these reviews.
Since this thread was started to make the differences and clarifications over what's best, clearer. I think it's high time they're looked at. I recognise that some just want a certain kind of update, but I hope to present the reality of what the latest remasters have actually done to the music we all love. So, far, it turns out my thoughts from late 2004 to present day have been wrong about the pre82' albums being the best of the 2001 remasters. That's quite sad. And I think with the two albums I've looked at, it's obvious to me that with someone like JSS behind the remasters, it's bad. I said it before, they should've gotten someone who's specialised in this field who ALSO has a fresh pair of ears. NOT someone already in the Queen camp!! Big mistake.
Anyway, I'll look into another album soon. Any requests?
Adam.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And I quote... [QUOTE]With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you."[/QUOTE]
Again, it's not bad mixing. If it was bad mixing, the mix wouldn't have been used at all. I've never heard someone say a bad word on any album release. [/QUOTE]
OK, first of all i must apologise because i was comparing my 2004 mini LP remaster with the Hollywood Records one. I forget that i have 2 HR, the other being QueenI.
And since i´m out of names if it´s not a bad mixing, then what it is?
One thing i´m shure, the sound of this album is weacker than the previous ones and i´ve never understood why. Bad production? Is it just me?
Was it meeant to sound Punk-ish?
Because if i want to have some pleasure listen to it, i have to turn my volume on. I don´t need to do that to listen to Tie Your mother down from the previous record. For me it´s obvious that something isn´t the same.
[QUOTE]
In fact, I'm not 100% sure, but aren't the master mix tapes from the time, the same used to create a new mastering of the material from? Makes sense. They don't go around recreating mixes of old, UNLESS it's a special case, i.e. TGame/NATO dvda's.[/QUOTE]
In this case3 they can´t because i think the tracks were stolen or misplaced. But even in the DVD´s the songs from this albums are the worst. "Spread your wings" it´s a good example. Maybe they´ve wanted that way, i don´t know.
[QUOTE]
Now, on the other hand, you have a completely different outlook on things. Your opinion is strong and biased, e.g. you didn't like the NOTW album sound from 77.
Add to that the fact that you think that somehow these latest remasters have made it clearer who's singing on the SHA track. I certainly don't think it has changed THAT much. Or that there are bad mixes on this album from it's initial release.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
I´m not a sound engenieer so it´s obvious that i´m not going for details.
I didní like the 77 LP release, and i have 2 editions (Portuguese and Spanish), and unless i find one good one i stick with my opinion.
When their 74 records sound better than the 77 record, something happened, that no remaster can undo properly. The guitars throughout this album are very weack, they could not recreat the excelent boost from TYMD for example.
If it´s not a bad mix, then it´s bad production or whatever.
On the other side you have "The Game". It has very gentle songs but with great sound. The German guy (forgot his name ) really made things better soundwise.
Take care
PS- you can review "The Miracle".
And I quote... [QUOTE]With the 94 Queen remaster there were two songs that still suffered from the bad mixing. Sheer Heart Attack and Who needs you."[/QUOTE]
Again, it's not bad mixing. If it was bad mixing, the mix wouldn't have been used at all. I've never heard someone say a bad word on any album release. [/QUOTE]
OK, first of all i must apologise because i was comparing my 2004 mini LP remaster with the Hollywood Records one. I forget that i have 2 HR, the other being QueenI.
And since i´m out of names if it´s not a bad mixing, then what it is?
One thing i´m shure, the sound of this album is weacker than the previous ones and i´ve never understood why. Bad production? Is it just me?
Was it meeant to sound Punk-ish?
Because if i want to have some pleasure listen to it, i have to turn my volume on. I don´t need to do that to listen to Tie Your mother down from the previous record. For me it´s obvious that something isn´t the same.
[QUOTE]
In fact, I'm not 100% sure, but aren't the master mix tapes from the time, the same used to create a new mastering of the material from? Makes sense. They don't go around recreating mixes of old, UNLESS it's a special case, i.e. TGame/NATO dvda's.[/QUOTE]
In this case3 they can´t because i think the tracks were stolen or misplaced. But even in the DVD´s the songs from this albums are the worst. "Spread your wings" it´s a good example. Maybe they´ve wanted that way, i don´t know.
[QUOTE]
Now, on the other hand, you have a completely different outlook on things. Your opinion is strong and biased, e.g. you didn't like the NOTW album sound from 77.
Add to that the fact that you think that somehow these latest remasters have made it clearer who's singing on the SHA track. I certainly don't think it has changed THAT much. Or that there are bad mixes on this album from it's initial release.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
I´m not a sound engenieer so it´s obvious that i´m not going for details.
I didní like the 77 LP release, and i have 2 editions (Portuguese and Spanish), and unless i find one good one i stick with my opinion.
When their 74 records sound better than the 77 record, something happened, that no remaster can undo properly. The guitars throughout this album are very weack, they could not recreat the excelent boost from TYMD for example.
If it´s not a bad mix, then it´s bad production or whatever.
On the other side you have "The Game". It has very gentle songs but with great sound. The German guy (forgot his name ) really made things better soundwise.
Take care
PS- you can review "The Miracle".
Overall, I think with yourself it comes down to how the album has been recorded/mixed. And that is the production side of things. It can be completely differently mixed, but usually, the recording sets the tone for everything afterwards. The famous saying in the studio, you can't polish a turd! lol Or, we'll fix it in the mix. Ugh...
I'll use my 2005 experience with a band. What they recorded on day one was what was being played back from the recording stage to the mixing stage, right? But the mixes weren't doing it for them. They expected magic to transform these basic sounds they had into pro-recordings of their guitars!
Here's my own personal example:
1. My demo recording of the lead guitar for DSMN (Feb 07) - http://www.mediafire.com/?bgwxjmxbsgi
2. My non-mixed recording of the lead gtr in DSMN (May 07) - www.mediafire.com/?7lkbtiuqsnx
The difference? One additional room mic and a specially made reverb on the non-mixed version. Whereas the same equipment was used in both, when the demo was recorded, I had 10's on my guitar. The 2nd recording was made where I now have 9's on the guitar.
Forgot to add, I did my main version (2nd file) in E instead of F! The demo's in the original F key.
But the difference, I think, is pretty huge.
Anyway, I'll look at The Miracle sometime soon.
Adam.
I'll use my 2005 experience with a band. What they recorded on day one was what was being played back from the recording stage to the mixing stage, right? But the mixes weren't doing it for them. They expected magic to transform these basic sounds they had into pro-recordings of their guitars!
Here's my own personal example:
1. My demo recording of the lead guitar for DSMN (Feb 07) - http://www.mediafire.com/?bgwxjmxbsgi
2. My non-mixed recording of the lead gtr in DSMN (May 07) - www.mediafire.com/?7lkbtiuqsnx
The difference? One additional room mic and a specially made reverb on the non-mixed version. Whereas the same equipment was used in both, when the demo was recorded, I had 10's on my guitar. The 2nd recording was made where I now have 9's on the guitar.
Forgot to add, I did my main version (2nd file) in E instead of F! The demo's in the original F key.
But the difference, I think, is pretty huge.
Anyway, I'll look at The Miracle sometime soon.
Adam.
I actually prefer the sound on the first solo...It sounds a bit brighter and more at the forefront of what's going on.
Plus it's in the right key, and instantly sounds right. Whereas the version in E makes my ears prick up for not being in the right key.
Did you change key to make the vocals easier? Because it obviously makes absolutely no difference to the guitar parts, which wouldn't normally be the case when considering the difference between E and F on the guitar.
Still. Very nicely done, from what we can hear on that little snippet.
Plus it's in the right key, and instantly sounds right. Whereas the version in E makes my ears prick up for not being in the right key.
Did you change key to make the vocals easier? Because it obviously makes absolutely no difference to the guitar parts, which wouldn't normally be the case when considering the difference between E and F on the guitar.
Still. Very nicely done, from what we can hear on that little snippet.