Forums > Queen - General Discussion > New releases sound quality.

forum rss feed
Author

liam user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 596 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Feb 11, 05:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bought the two GH yesterday and I have to say they have made me excited about the rest of the albums. I think they sound excellent. The bass and drums are much louder and clearer, you can hear guitar parts that were previously buried, they sound crisp and clean but still raw. Excitingly the songs from QII and SHA sound excellent, in particular the mix of killer queen and SSOR, both of which had very buried bass and drums. 

There hasn't been much talk of the sound quality of the new cd's. What do you guys think?


Go, Go, Go, little queenie!!
liam user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 596 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Feb 11, 05:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I mean they had very buried bass and drums in the previous cd mix's. I hope the rest of Q2 is great! I wonder if they can do anything to improve Queen 1 however...


Go, Go, Go, little queenie!!
Soundfreak user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Feb 11, 13:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bought the two GH yesterday and I have to say they have made me excited about the rest of the albums. I think they sound excellent. The bass and drums are much louder and clearer, you can hear guitar parts that were previously buried, they sound crisp and clean but still raw. Excitingly the songs from QII and SHA sound excellent, in particular the mix of killer queen and SSOR, both of which had very buried bass and drums. 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

It's always very exciting to read what people suddenly hear once an album is labelled as a "new remaster".

I bet you could even put the old cd into the new cover and people would also hear different mixes and more bass....
whatever.

It's like a placebo, highly interesting

Queenman!! user not visiting Queenzone.com
Queenman!!
Bohemian: 931 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Feb 11, 13:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

liam wrote:

There hasn't been much talk of the sound quality of the new cd's. What do you guys think?
=================================

I think you should search the forum a bit better. The soundquality on the albums and the albums tracklisting have been widely dicussed. I don't like the result.


You made us laugh, you made us cry, you made us feel like we could fly!
the dude 1366 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 208 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Feb 11, 21:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Youtube and google "loudness war". New remasters are just louder. They are usually a downgrade. I made the same mistake. I thought that louder was better, It wasn't. It is just louder. People are searching out non-remasters as a result. Don;t throw your old cd's away. I learned this the hard way. Save your money. If it's for bonus tracks, that's another story.

liam user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 596 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Feb 11, 02:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

God people are rude on this forum. 
I'm not a bloody dickhead, it isn't a placebo, they don't just sound louder.
The bass ans drums are more prominent in the mix and i think they sound much better.
I doubt anyone will be searching out the old emi cd's.


Go, Go, Go, little queenie!!
Soundfreak user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Feb 11, 04:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I am not rude.
But it's amazing when people hear things in a remaster that are definitely not there.

I'm a long time collector and also used to go into the "remaster-trap". Meaning you never listen carefully to an old and well known CD until you buy a remaster. Expecting big differences you tend to listen with big ears and then you may notice things you have forgotten about.

But when you put those "remasters" into a multitrack-system to compare them to the old ones in most cases they are just louder. Turn the old ones up and you will not notice any difference...

And as another member wrote, we have discussed this topic for weeks now in detail....

motorhead user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 17 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Feb 11, 06:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I urge you to get a copy of the original CDP EMI of 'Another One Bites The Dust' and reduce the volume of the 2011 remaster version in a wave editor program like Audacity to match the CDP EMI Cd, you will hear that the 2011 does not sound as good and the bass is far to over bearing, now increase the original EMI CDP version so it is louder but the wave forms do not clip, that my friend will sound much better than the 2011 remaster and is how they should have been remastered, try it or listen to my sample, you can produce better results with your PC?

Here is a sample of the original EMI CDP version of Another One Bites The Dust from GH1 with a 2db volume increase, anymore like the 2011 remaster and you lose sound quality, this IMO is closer to how the 2011 remasters should have sounded if they needed to increase the volume:

AOBTD Original CD with 2db volume increase:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/fpurrr

AOBTD 2011 Remaster with 5db volume decrease

http://www.sendspace.com/file/ddemaq

marvinp01 user not visiting Queenzone.com
marvinp01
Bohemian: 210 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Feb 11, 08:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The biggest difference i noticed, was the piano on Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy... the original piano must have been EQ'd because the new mix has a very vibrant piano


"I was *burp* initially going to be on Thriller! Can you imagine that? Blew it!"
Jimmy Dean user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 488 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Feb 11, 20:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
liam wrote: Bought the two GH yesterday and I have to say they have made me excited about the rest of the albums. I think they sound excellent. The bass and drums are much louder and clearer, you can hear guitar parts that were previously buried, they sound crisp and clean but still raw. Excitingly the songs from QII and SHA sound excellent, in particular the mix of killer queen and SSOR, both of which had very buried bass and drums. 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Soundfreak wrote:
It's always very exciting to read what people suddenly hear once an album is labelled as a "new remaster".

I bet you could even put the old cd into the new cover and people would also hear different mixes and more bass....
whatever.

It's like a placebo, highly interesting

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

i'll teach how to listen to differences between the old master and the new re-master... you play any song from the old master... then you play the SAME song from the new re-master.... in the case of GH1... there is a noticeable difference - not in the volume level.. but as Liam pointed out... the bass and drums have increased definition.... the buried sounds are now blended with the rest of the mix... this occurs because the EQ levels of certain tracks were strengthened, less compression used when digitizing the master tapes, etc...

with a name like "soundfreak", you sure are hypocritical! good luck 'splaining yourself dude! thumbs up!

p.s. placebos aren't highly interesting... in fact a placebo is a pill composed of sugar and water... it's a substance... if you wanted to sound sarcastic, you could have said "it's like a placebo, very effective". The word "it" refers to the remastering process... the sarcasm then becomes amusing when one realizes a placebo is actually non-medicinal and therefore "IN-effective" The work "interesting" has no sense being placed in you poorly thought out explanation to a simile.

[I'm purposely being rude because while you were being rude to Liam's comments, you were also proving to be ingornant, dumb and annoying to the flow of conversation.]

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Feb 11, 00:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr. Dean, you may have some knowledge, but there are two things that become painfully obvious from your post:

1) you have no understanding of medicine, considering your flawed remarks on placebos
2) you really don't have a clue about low-frequency sounds. A completely linear 3dB boost will result in a substantial *subjective* alteration in the overall balance, with low frequencies becoming more prominent than high ones. This is because of the way human hearing works. See, for instance, this graph: dB(C) presents the physical reality, whereas dB(A) is in line with human hearing: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Acoustic_weighting_curves.svg


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Soundfreak user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Feb 11, 04:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Jimmy Dean wrote:

p.s. placebos aren't highly interesting... in fact a placebo is a pill composed of sugar and water... it's a substance... if you wanted to sound sarcastic, you could have said "it's like a placebo, very effective". The word "it" refers to the remastering process... the sarcasm then becomes amusing when one realizes a placebo is actually non-medicinal and therefore "IN-effective" The work "interesting" has no sense being placed in you poorly thought out explanation to a simile.

I'm purposely being rude because while you were being rude to Liam's comments, you were also proving to be ingornant, dumb and annoying to the flow of conversation

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm sorry if I do not come across as highly intellectual as you probably are. But please consider that this is an international board and if you would write in my mother-language, I bet there would be a lot of limitations.
But I can assure you that the "highly interesting" was meant about the effect of placebos, I hoped that people would "get that". Sorry if I have confused you. 

But I don't think I was rude at all compared to you. I never used words like "dumb or ignorant".
 I'm only surprised, what people believe to hear in these new remasters and I also admitted, that I used  to fall into that remastering trap until I found out, that in many cases we are just "fooled" by loudness and compression.

Jimmy Dean user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 488 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Feb 11, 06:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

yea, but... you never mentioned if you listened to these particular ones... I actually do agree with you, that many "remasters" actually don't sound much better than the originals... it's just Liam said he heard the new ones and compared them... then you decided to write him off as if he was some gullible idiot who had just been had. If you had said you heard them too, but found that there wasn't much of a difference... I wouldn't have made a peep - smirked as I read your post, and kept to myself.. as I usually do... my less than 200 posts were written over the course of the last 7 or 8 years, i think.

To prove YOUR point... almost every Japanese SHM master is certainly evidence that many "remasters" are nothing more than raising the volume... I'm sure there are plenty of other examples... you are correct sir - a lot of times remasters are nothing more than increasing the volume and simply putting a disc into a nicer package... agreed - much like the Jimi Hendrix remaster that were just released this past year...No extra tracks... songs sound exactly the same but a tad bit louder... and they've packaged them in cardboard  disc cases with a bonus dvd that was nothing more than a 15 min documentary of the making of the album.

Jimmy Dean user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 488 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Feb 11, 06:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr. Quinn

Your point #1 is well taken... I did not take the time research placebos, and I apologize for that. My point wasn't really about the composition of a placebo, but rather on the English used to convey the simile... I was just trying to be a dick, to be honest.

Your point # 2 comes from left-field... I think you read motorhead's comment and decided to rip into me instead... maybe you should read more carefully... i never mentioned low-frequency nor did i attempt a decibel comparison as he had.