[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bohardy wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I actually prefer the sound on the first solo...It sounds a bit brighter and more at the forefront of what's going on.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, it does have its charm. But remember, the demo is kinda mixed, whereas the main recording is totally unmixed. The new one is a bit wild. Needs taming!
But hey, this serves my point quite well. You prefer one over the other. They both have good and bad points as they are right now. Interesting...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bohardy wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you haven't read the idea behind my covering DSMN. Long story short, it was requested by my m8's fionse to have me play that at their wedding reception. How could I refuse? Amazingly, I'd done a demo of DSMN as a gift for my own girlfriend a couple of months prior to her asking. My girlfriend also loves the song. What a coincidence. Girls really like that song, huh?!
Anyway, singing the whole song in the original key killed the sound of my voice and I wanted to do about 4-5 Queen tracks on the night. So, a markdown to E made my voice survive the song and be ready for other Queen songs. I could never hit all the notes in the original key comfortably anyway, so it made even more sense to do it in E.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bohardy wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Still. Very nicely done, from what we can hear on that little snippet.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the kind comments. I really need to finish it off and get it mixed.
Adam.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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...[/QUOTE]
Exactly! That´s my point. Every time i hear "We Are the Champions" on the radio i have the feeling that it starts too low like a fade in or something.
But as the album goes along i realise that "Spread Your Wings" has the same low begining. Was it meant to be? Probably, but i think this album lacks a real producer. Some bad decisions were made for this record.
If we compare this album with it´s different masters maybe we don´t get much of a different in volume, but compare it with other albums and you´ll see what i mean.
In a recent interview by Mack (the German producer of the Game)-someone poste the link on Queenzone- he said that his methode of recording has made Queen save a generation in the tape. He said that Queen would loose a generation because of their process of working in the studio. I really don´t know technical
terms, but this got my attention for some reason.
Well, i don´t want to be mean but this album looks like some generations from the masters ; )- it´s the best i can do to define it´s sound. And my frustration only exists because this album has a lot of great songs that in my opinion don´t shine because they´ve screwd up big time.
I just want to make one thing clear:
I never thought that Roger sang the "SHA" song fully. It´s obvious on all versions that Freddie sings the first verse, but on the second verse the first time i heard it on Vinyl i thought it was Roger and i never gave too much attention to that, and very rarely do i hear this record. (until now with my mini lp version).
Today i´ve listened again my Hollywood 91 version against my Japan, and here´s some samples that i´ve made from a few songs (i´ve included the japanesse samples too for you to hear the diferences in songs that have been edit with the same tools). If you listen to SYW HR91 sample you realize my frustration. This Hollywood version is the reason i love the japanese version so bad. I hope it´s clear for you too.
http://www.mediafire.com/?2babotxldw0
[QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, i think on the second version you sounded more like Brian than on the first one. I liked the second one better, but it´s too short to tell the end result.
I´m not too picky! If the sound fits the song then it´s ok. I don´t like to think there are too many rules other than our ears.
Take care
Exactly! That´s my point. Every time i hear "We Are the Champions" on the radio i have the feeling that it starts too low like a fade in or something.
But as the album goes along i realise that "Spread Your Wings" has the same low begining. Was it meant to be? Probably, but i think this album lacks a real producer. Some bad decisions were made for this record.
If we compare this album with it´s different masters maybe we don´t get much of a different in volume, but compare it with other albums and you´ll see what i mean.
In a recent interview by Mack (the German producer of the Game)-someone poste the link on Queenzone- he said that his methode of recording has made Queen save a generation in the tape. He said that Queen would loose a generation because of their process of working in the studio. I really don´t know technical
terms, but this got my attention for some reason.
Well, i don´t want to be mean but this album looks like some generations from the masters ; )- it´s the best i can do to define it´s sound. And my frustration only exists because this album has a lot of great songs that in my opinion don´t shine because they´ve screwd up big time.
I just want to make one thing clear:
I never thought that Roger sang the "SHA" song fully. It´s obvious on all versions that Freddie sings the first verse, but on the second verse the first time i heard it on Vinyl i thought it was Roger and i never gave too much attention to that, and very rarely do i hear this record. (until now with my mini lp version).
Today i´ve listened again my Hollywood 91 version against my Japan, and here´s some samples that i´ve made from a few songs (i´ve included the japanesse samples too for you to hear the diferences in songs that have been edit with the same tools). If you listen to SYW HR91 sample you realize my frustration. This Hollywood version is the reason i love the japanese version so bad. I hope it´s clear for you too.
http://www.mediafire.com/?2babotxldw0
[QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, i think on the second version you sounded more like Brian than on the first one. I liked the second one better, but it´s too short to tell the end result.
I´m not too picky! If the sound fits the song then it´s ok. I don´t like to think there are too many rules other than our ears.
Take care
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Here we go with another album review between my 90's remaster copy and the 2001/4 version.
-News Of The World-
[/QUOTE]
Is the gap between WWRY/WATC on both CDs the same? I swear it's too long on the Hollywood CD (though I know I shouldn't swear).
-News Of The World-
[/QUOTE]
Is the gap between WWRY/WATC on both CDs the same? I swear it's too long on the Hollywood CD (though I know I shouldn't swear).
[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.
[/QUOTE]
There is a small possibility that the mastering for vinyl was done badly, and that the vinyl records aren't what the recording really sounds like. Even my original Jazz LP from 1978 has that annoying problem some records had where you could hear they'd re-recorded over an old tape to make the vinyl master: At the end of "Mustapha" I can hear them say "hey!" again in the background, then in the background I can hear FBG start before it really starts at full blast. This was a regular US copy by the way. Of course the CD (and even my cassette from the early '80s) didn't have this because it wasn't on the original album master, it was just a bad production master used for that string of vinyl records.
[Actually...another subject, this also makes me think maybe they originally wanted FBG to start almost immediately after Mustapha, because that's what it sounds like was erased....]
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.
[/QUOTE]
There is a small possibility that the mastering for vinyl was done badly, and that the vinyl records aren't what the recording really sounds like. Even my original Jazz LP from 1978 has that annoying problem some records had where you could hear they'd re-recorded over an old tape to make the vinyl master: At the end of "Mustapha" I can hear them say "hey!" again in the background, then in the background I can hear FBG start before it really starts at full blast. This was a regular US copy by the way. Of course the CD (and even my cassette from the early '80s) didn't have this because it wasn't on the original album master, it was just a bad production master used for that string of vinyl records.
[Actually...another subject, this also makes me think maybe they originally wanted FBG to start almost immediately after Mustapha, because that's what it sounds like was erased....]
Bobby, those MP3's are really badly encoded. What did you use to make them? It's really hard to compare anything with them.
Goinback - gap between WWRY and WATC? Didn't notice any difference.
Adam.
EDIT: Also, I think it's pretty obvious from your post that the NOTW album is just not your cup of tea. The sound they chose for it, that is. But I must say, it's a style. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Practically nothing can be done to make you like it.
Goinback - gap between WWRY and WATC? Didn't notice any difference.
Adam.
EDIT: Also, I think it's pretty obvious from your post that the NOTW album is just not your cup of tea. The sound they chose for it, that is. But I must say, it's a style. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Practically nothing can be done to make you like it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bobby, those MP3's are really badly encoded. What did you use to make them? It's really hard to compare anything with them.[/QUOTE]
I used Nero, and for some reason after i edit the songs he would re-encode them to mp3 128kb/s.
I hope this is better. I will put the two versions of Spread Your Wings. You can hear the diferences in the voice and in the voulume of the guitar.
SYW_HR91
http://www.mediafire.com/?8evist6lmnt
SYW_Japan
http://www.mediafire.com/?fcpev1db9v9
[QUOTE]
EDIT: Also, I think it's pretty obvious from your post that the NOTW album is just not your cup of tea. The sound they chose for it, that is. But I must say, it's a style. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Practically nothing can be done to make you like it.[/QUOTE]
If they find the masters i think there´s a possibility they can do something of it.
After the album was out they (Queen) deffended it saying that it was suppose to have that punk-ish production, but over the years it was clear that due to a tour already agended they did not had the time to finish the album as they wanted to.
Knowing a little bit of Brian´s style (and you certainly know too!), we know that he likes to enter with that "punch" guitar (like on "White Queen"). My guess is that in Spread Your Wings when he enters he tries to achieve the same effect (my guess, or what i would like it to sound like), but to my disapointment nothing happens!
He enters, and he doesn´t sound like Brian at all, and the Bass blows him away.
But yes, soundwise it´s not my cup of tea.
Take care
I used Nero, and for some reason after i edit the songs he would re-encode them to mp3 128kb/s.
I hope this is better. I will put the two versions of Spread Your Wings. You can hear the diferences in the voice and in the voulume of the guitar.
SYW_HR91
http://www.mediafire.com/?8evist6lmnt
SYW_Japan
http://www.mediafire.com/?fcpev1db9v9
[QUOTE]
EDIT: Also, I think it's pretty obvious from your post that the NOTW album is just not your cup of tea. The sound they chose for it, that is. But I must say, it's a style. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Practically nothing can be done to make you like it.[/QUOTE]
If they find the masters i think there´s a possibility they can do something of it.
After the album was out they (Queen) deffended it saying that it was suppose to have that punk-ish production, but over the years it was clear that due to a tour already agended they did not had the time to finish the album as they wanted to.
Knowing a little bit of Brian´s style (and you certainly know too!), we know that he likes to enter with that "punch" guitar (like on "White Queen"). My guess is that in Spread Your Wings when he enters he tries to achieve the same effect (my guess, or what i would like it to sound like), but to my disapointment nothing happens!
He enters, and he doesn´t sound like Brian at all, and the Bass blows him away.
But yes, soundwise it´s not my cup of tea.
Take care
Btw, why are you posting these sound files? I've already heard them side by side as I reviewed the album earlier! My view is still the same. And for the last time, if you like it, good! But from a technical (and preservational side) of the music... it's shoddy sounding. And the biggest crime to the songs is that the wonderful arrangements have been harmed by some overly done compression. So far, with these reviews I'm finding some really badly done work on these great albums. Out of the two albums I've looked at, I can probably name 2-3 tracks total I'd take over the old 90's remaster I compared with. Btw, they were UK 1993 remasters I compared with the 2001 remasters.
Now, saying they can do something with the master recordings is denial AFAIC. My post about the 2005 band was supposed to highlight what a recording is from beginning to end. It is what it is. The sound they (Queen) recorded is the sound that exists till the end of time! lol
To put it in the right context, there's only 1 way the recording can fit together. It's like a picture. If painted with oils, it has a certain feel and look. Just like, if it was painted with water colours, it would take on a completely different look and feel. It's the same with recordings. And there's no real way to alter that recording into something sonically different after the fact. The engineer chose his mics (tools to build the picture) and processing, too. So, hopefully I'm getting across that it's fairly difficult to alter the recording in a mix to sound as different as you'd like.
Iyee iy iyee...I'm typing too much. Need to back off now. Bobby, there's no end to this discussion because it will never satisfy you. No matter how many times I say it, it will always be very much the same.
I'm sure they did defend it because it's an original piece of work with a different take on their sound. In fact, it's just my opinion, but I think the NOTW album represents the change to their sound. A fresh look for a different approach and path to take for the future. While some might call Jazz a revisiting/recapturing of their old sound, it is and isn't. Mainly because every album afterwards continued the beginnings of what the NOTW album brought to the fold. The Game is a definite step in the same direction. But with less ambience. And the ambience did decrease with each album into reverb-y kinda ambience in its place. Very little room-y sounds, ya know?
Anyway, I'm beat. Rambled on for enough time tonight. Night!
Adam.
Now, saying they can do something with the master recordings is denial AFAIC. My post about the 2005 band was supposed to highlight what a recording is from beginning to end. It is what it is. The sound they (Queen) recorded is the sound that exists till the end of time! lol
To put it in the right context, there's only 1 way the recording can fit together. It's like a picture. If painted with oils, it has a certain feel and look. Just like, if it was painted with water colours, it would take on a completely different look and feel. It's the same with recordings. And there's no real way to alter that recording into something sonically different after the fact. The engineer chose his mics (tools to build the picture) and processing, too. So, hopefully I'm getting across that it's fairly difficult to alter the recording in a mix to sound as different as you'd like.
Iyee iy iyee...I'm typing too much. Need to back off now. Bobby, there's no end to this discussion because it will never satisfy you. No matter how many times I say it, it will always be very much the same.
I'm sure they did defend it because it's an original piece of work with a different take on their sound. In fact, it's just my opinion, but I think the NOTW album represents the change to their sound. A fresh look for a different approach and path to take for the future. While some might call Jazz a revisiting/recapturing of their old sound, it is and isn't. Mainly because every album afterwards continued the beginnings of what the NOTW album brought to the fold. The Game is a definite step in the same direction. But with less ambience. And the ambience did decrease with each album into reverb-y kinda ambience in its place. Very little room-y sounds, ya know?
Anyway, I'm beat. Rambled on for enough time tonight. Night!
Adam.
So Adam, no time for continuing your analysis ?
Yeah, man. I'm just back on QZ yesterday. Had a rollercoaster week and a bit of stuff to do - Been to London, been editing/recording things for our WWRY dvd, at panto auditions and my equipment from the commentary recording thing I did is still not back in my room! So, kinda not able to do much at the mo. I'd like to continue it because it's worth doing.
Maybe later today, IF I get my speakers and soundcard back up and running.
Adam.
Maybe later today, IF I get my speakers and soundcard back up and running.
Adam.
Right. Done a review, but it won't fit on one post, so I'll need to edit it down. Better than doing two posts, I think.
It's late now, so I'll do it tomorrow. The results are...kind of interesting.
Adam.
It's late now, so I'll do it tomorrow. The results are...kind of interesting.
Adam.
The Miracle
Party - 90's re to start. Not much to say though!
2001 - Hmm...strange. The level is lower than my HR ver! Sounds nice in comparison to the 90's re. But the vocals seem dipped. I can definitely hear more going on with the overall sounds and a real smooth bass to boot! Cool.
So, the only downer would be the lower vocal level. Must be that mid-range cutting I found 3 years ago. But you know, with this track, I'd be hard pushed to choose the 90's re over the 2001 ver. But, I like both to be honest. I can't choose! They're both quite different.
Khashoggi's Ship - The 90's re has shown this strong full-on mid-range that, I must admit, is a little tiring on my ears!
2001 - Yeah, the mids do get dipped and the sounds aren't as full-on and I find myself putting the volume up to compensate cause it's dipped the volume. As I tried that, the backing vocals seemed a little much for my ears.
Again, they're both different. But on listening to the 90's re I have, I'd stick with that on this one.
The Miracle - 90's re sounds pretty cool.
2001 is nice and smooth. I hear things in the mix a bit better than the 90's re. It certainly sounds well defined on this track and the remastering has definitely shaped the overall sound better.
I Want It All - Now, I must point out that I have a HR version, it misses a bit of the chorus. Mmm... what a great track this is on the 90's re here. Great to listen through this one!
2001 - Hmm...yeah, not the same. The guitars that are so central to the track are kinda tamed by the mid-range change. Yeah, it's smoother sounding, but it's lost some of the edge that makes it such a great track to listen to.
Good points would be hearing a bit more of the mix on the 2001 re. However, the overall difference in these remasters is very VERY little in anything of the sound. Apart from the mid-range/volume changes. The bass could be a little smoother on the 2001 re, but nowhere near as the previous two albums I've looked at. Not even close.
*HOLY CRAP* he says as the breakdown bit on the 2001 re's bassyess is grossly huge. That's just weird. Especially since it actually fades out the effect once the rest of the instruments come back in leaving it feel a bit empty.
The Invisible Man - Now, I get the feeling this track will lose out here - cause the sounds on the 90's re feel right. There's nothing that sticks out that makes me wanna hear the other version.
2001 ver - Whoa... Huh? The volume of this track is higher than the rest and gets close to my 90's remaster volume. Eh..? After that little revelation - wow! Very nice. Drums pounding away, Roger's voice sounding very nice and clear and bass is nice.
Downer would be that somehow, Freddie's voice is a little (very little bit) further back and a little ehm...boxy sounding? Remember, I did say, just a little bit. But I can hear it without it being obscure.
Overall, great surprise as it retains a lot of the 90's remaster, but gives some nice additions to the sound.
Breakthru - Ooooh - Love that opening part! Hey, sounds good on the 90's re. Wonder what the 2001 will have added/subtracted.
2001 ver starts a little quiet again, so, back to how previous tracks had been before T.I.Man. What I'm noticing most is the volume of the organ on the first verse is sooo high in the mix now. Probably because of the balance change with the mid-range. Something which is also affecting the edgyness of the guitars and they seem too soft and in the background. Not cool.
No. The more I listen, the more I yearn for the 90's re cause it was so alive. The 2001 re overall sound seems kinda dull and unexciting. Aww man what a shame...
It's so unpredictable this 2001 remastered album biz that I just don't know what to expect next.
Rain Must Fall - Sounds good on the 90's re side. Now, I think RMF is already very smoothly mixed to get that effect I've heard on earlier 2001 remastered tracks.
2001 - Things sound fine and not that different. Fr
Party - 90's re to start. Not much to say though!
2001 - Hmm...strange. The level is lower than my HR ver! Sounds nice in comparison to the 90's re. But the vocals seem dipped. I can definitely hear more going on with the overall sounds and a real smooth bass to boot! Cool.
So, the only downer would be the lower vocal level. Must be that mid-range cutting I found 3 years ago. But you know, with this track, I'd be hard pushed to choose the 90's re over the 2001 ver. But, I like both to be honest. I can't choose! They're both quite different.
Khashoggi's Ship - The 90's re has shown this strong full-on mid-range that, I must admit, is a little tiring on my ears!
2001 - Yeah, the mids do get dipped and the sounds aren't as full-on and I find myself putting the volume up to compensate cause it's dipped the volume. As I tried that, the backing vocals seemed a little much for my ears.
Again, they're both different. But on listening to the 90's re I have, I'd stick with that on this one.
The Miracle - 90's re sounds pretty cool.
2001 is nice and smooth. I hear things in the mix a bit better than the 90's re. It certainly sounds well defined on this track and the remastering has definitely shaped the overall sound better.
I Want It All - Now, I must point out that I have a HR version, it misses a bit of the chorus. Mmm... what a great track this is on the 90's re here. Great to listen through this one!
2001 - Hmm...yeah, not the same. The guitars that are so central to the track are kinda tamed by the mid-range change. Yeah, it's smoother sounding, but it's lost some of the edge that makes it such a great track to listen to.
Good points would be hearing a bit more of the mix on the 2001 re. However, the overall difference in these remasters is very VERY little in anything of the sound. Apart from the mid-range/volume changes. The bass could be a little smoother on the 2001 re, but nowhere near as the previous two albums I've looked at. Not even close.
*HOLY CRAP* he says as the breakdown bit on the 2001 re's bassyess is grossly huge. That's just weird. Especially since it actually fades out the effect once the rest of the instruments come back in leaving it feel a bit empty.
The Invisible Man - Now, I get the feeling this track will lose out here - cause the sounds on the 90's re feel right. There's nothing that sticks out that makes me wanna hear the other version.
2001 ver - Whoa... Huh? The volume of this track is higher than the rest and gets close to my 90's remaster volume. Eh..? After that little revelation - wow! Very nice. Drums pounding away, Roger's voice sounding very nice and clear and bass is nice.
Downer would be that somehow, Freddie's voice is a little (very little bit) further back and a little ehm...boxy sounding? Remember, I did say, just a little bit. But I can hear it without it being obscure.
Overall, great surprise as it retains a lot of the 90's remaster, but gives some nice additions to the sound.
Breakthru - Ooooh - Love that opening part! Hey, sounds good on the 90's re. Wonder what the 2001 will have added/subtracted.
2001 ver starts a little quiet again, so, back to how previous tracks had been before T.I.Man. What I'm noticing most is the volume of the organ on the first verse is sooo high in the mix now. Probably because of the balance change with the mid-range. Something which is also affecting the edgyness of the guitars and they seem too soft and in the background. Not cool.
No. The more I listen, the more I yearn for the 90's re cause it was so alive. The 2001 re overall sound seems kinda dull and unexciting. Aww man what a shame...
It's so unpredictable this 2001 remastered album biz that I just don't know what to expect next.
Rain Must Fall - Sounds good on the 90's re side. Now, I think RMF is already very smoothly mixed to get that effect I've heard on earlier 2001 remastered tracks.
2001 - Things sound fine and not that different. Fr
2001/4 remaster rating (out of 5) - **1/2
1993/4 remaster rating (out of 5) - ****
Overall, in comparison to the 90's remaster I have, the 2001 remaster isn't true to what was released before. It's kind of hacked up in the mid-range in places. To the point where the mix changes quite badly, e.g. Breakthru and the organ coming through more.
However, on some tracks I'd actually listen to them more than the 90's re. Only 2 tracks come to mind (Invisible Man + Miracle), so not a glowing statement really.
I can see that, because the sound is drastically changed, there will be some that take to this better. I guess. But once I started going back to the 90's remaster after hearing the 2001 re, the difference was so clearly better on the old 90's remaster.
So, in closing, once again things have been a downer for the 2001/4 remasters. I'm very surprised by quite a few things that come about, i.e. the 1-2 tracks per album (so far) that stand out as being better on the new remaster. While the older albums have been changed quite badly. Very strange kind of...flow. Something that's clear is that the new remaster here and with the previous 2 I've looked at, don't stick to this constant. So, nothing to shout about and to be honest, something to avoid.
_____
Note: reviewed side by side on my studio setup and cheaper consumer type speaker setup.
-----
Adam.
1993/4 remaster rating (out of 5) - ****
Overall, in comparison to the 90's remaster I have, the 2001 remaster isn't true to what was released before. It's kind of hacked up in the mid-range in places. To the point where the mix changes quite badly, e.g. Breakthru and the organ coming through more.
However, on some tracks I'd actually listen to them more than the 90's re. Only 2 tracks come to mind (Invisible Man + Miracle), so not a glowing statement really.
I can see that, because the sound is drastically changed, there will be some that take to this better. I guess. But once I started going back to the 90's remaster after hearing the 2001 re, the difference was so clearly better on the old 90's remaster.
So, in closing, once again things have been a downer for the 2001/4 remasters. I'm very surprised by quite a few things that come about, i.e. the 1-2 tracks per album (so far) that stand out as being better on the new remaster. While the older albums have been changed quite badly. Very strange kind of...flow. Something that's clear is that the new remaster here and with the previous 2 I've looked at, don't stick to this constant. So, nothing to shout about and to be honest, something to avoid.
_____
Note: reviewed side by side on my studio setup and cheaper consumer type speaker setup.
-----
Adam.
I have a question for somebody . Yesterday I've seen in a music shop Queen & Queen II - The Abbey Road remaster (93/94) for a fantastic price. I have allready those albums, but not these remasters :)
What do you think, are they worth buying or should I keep my 1986(?) EMI (?) releases ?
What do you think, are they worth buying or should I keep my 1986(?) EMI (?) releases ?
I don't have any real experience there. But, haven't people on this forum said that the 90's remasters were a great deal better than the ones that came before?
So, on that info I'd ditch the 80's release unless someone can demonstrate the differences. Might be time for someone to put up the Record Collector reviews of the difference between them.
Adam.
So, on that info I'd ditch the 80's release unless someone can demonstrate the differences. Might be time for someone to put up the Record Collector reviews of the difference between them.
Adam.
BTW I didn't know where to put it so I put it here. Yesterday I've bought the HR album Queen at the BBC.
This is the first time that I hear an official release is WORSE than a bootleg. My old mp3s are WAY better than this.
The overall sound is simply "weird", sometimes (e.g. during My Fairy King) the "expected" backing vocals come in a completely different volume level or don't come at all, the sound is LOUD so much that it's sometimes distored...
I wanted to buy the complete HR remasters, mainly to get the bonus tracks in non-mp3 versions, but after hearing THIS album ...
This is the first time that I hear an official release is WORSE than a bootleg. My old mp3s are WAY better than this.
The overall sound is simply "weird", sometimes (e.g. during My Fairy King) the "expected" backing vocals come in a completely different volume level or don't come at all, the sound is LOUD so much that it's sometimes distored...
I wanted to buy the complete HR remasters, mainly to get the bonus tracks in non-mp3 versions, but after hearing THIS album ...