Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Queen 2 Remaster review

forum rss feed
Author

Soundfreak user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Mar 11, 14:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I guess I haven't bought an album more often than Queen 2 - always hoping for a better sound quality. Usually I was quite disappointed. The ones I kept so far were the Hollywood version and the Japanese one from 2001 with the very nice sleeve replica.

So I put all three into the multitracker. And surprise surprise - the new one wins !
The Japanese one is very sharp compared to the Hollywood version.
 But - all tricks of loudness or EQ do not help to make both sound as detailed as the new one.
Compared to the new remaster both - especially the Japanese one - sound like taken from a lower generation tape copy. The new one has much more details and this is not just a question of EQ and loudness. 
So this is a real improvement !

Also amazing are the extras! The remix of the BBC "See what a fool" sounds like being recorded yesterday. And even "White Queen" from the well known Hammersmith has a bass sound I never heard before. The whole mix has been worked on, it's close to the later remix of that concert but different in many details like stereo positions of the instruments. So I hope this is an appetizer for a possible full release of that concert.

Thistleboy1980 user not visiting Queenzone.com
You wanna ring the bell?
Thistleboy1980
Deity: 3053 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Mar 11, 20:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Can't see why they won't release it now.  This is going to be a HUGE year for us, in terms of releases and downloads.


It ain't about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can get hit: how much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!
Lemmy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 44 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 11, 09:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Thanks for the review - I've been thinking of getting these remasters too, but was quite content with the 1991 Hollywood versions.
However, Q2 being a fantastic album, I do have a question.

During the second part of the guitar solo in Father to Son, the sound has always seems saturated - with RMT bashing the drums and JD's bass sounding like crap. Any better sound with the new versions?

Cheers,
Lem


take it to 11
earwig user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 273 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 11, 13:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Lemmy wrote: Thanks for the review - I've been thinking of getting these remasters too, but was quite content with the 1991 Hollywood versions.
However, Q2 being a fantastic album, I do have a question.

During the second part of the guitar solo in Father to Son, the sound has always seems saturated - with RMT bashing the drums and JD's bass sounding like crap. Any better sound with the new versions?

Cheers,
Lem
Alas, that part still sounds like crap!!!

Must be on the multitrack like that. In fact, isn't it because they 'bounced' between tracks too hot which caused the distortion?

One notable mistake on the remaster: Loser in the end...is still there. haha!!!


Dead Daddy Long-legs. I'm still drinking it.
masterstroke_84 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 542 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 11, 14:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I prefer "Loser" instead of Funny How Love is..

Great Roger song.


Queen rocks!
dave76 user not visiting Queenzone.com
dave76
Bohemian: 573 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 11, 16:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

And how about the full complete version of SSOR. It's an instrumental but complete with Fred ending it.

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18633 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 11, 21:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've heard the instrumental version of Seven Seas Of Rhye - it's spectacular... about a minute longer.  This is absolute gold.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
advanced159 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 42 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 11, 23:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJGiszfjhm8 seven seas of rhye instrumental on youtube :)

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

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

Re: SSOR instrumental

Awesome! Thanks!

ole-the-first user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 314 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 00:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sir GH wrote: I've heard the instrumental version of Seven Seas Of Rhye - it's spectacular... about a minute longer.  This is absolute gold.

==========
The only interesting bonus track :(


E-mail: oleggolubkin[AT]rambler.ru
Farrokh The Great user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 374 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 01:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hi, I did a quick review of the MP3 samples, mainly from ANATO and ADATR albums.

Here's the link to the samples:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Queen/e/B000AQ0748/ref=amb_link_159097067_18?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=left-8&pf_rd_r=12MFEE6D6T7CDWJ3JBKV&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=229881607&pf_rd_i=77197031

The volume level was raised a bit                                                                        Ok

The stereophonic effect was noticeably improved                                            Super!

Processed sound, more noticeable on lead vocals                                         Ultra wrong decision, more natural closer-to-
and piano (“microgranulated sound” )                                                                reality sound is much better

Return to16 bits transfers?                                                                                    Totally wrong, backward step, fast and easy 
                                                                                                                                      way decision!!!

It’s difficult to assure that transfers were done at 16 bits due the samples are MP3 (64 Kbps) sourced, but the original
remasters could sound much better or only with minor changes, perhaps anyone would want to confirm if the inner sleeve come with the notice “24 bits”?

Greetings

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18633 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 11:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ole-the-first wrote:
Sir GH wrote: I've heard the instrumental version of Seven Seas Of Rhye - it's spectacular... about a minute longer.  This is absolute gold.

==========
The only interesting bonus track :(

-----------------------------------------------------------

The BBC tracks are in better quality than ever before.  Give them another listen with an open mind... they are pretty spectacular.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
brians wig user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2236 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 12:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Farokh. How on earth can you do a reliable "test" on 64kbs mp3 samples?
It's like reviewing a  Bluray movie from a long play VHS copy of it....

masterstroke_84 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 542 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 13:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Question for the experts (Soundfreak..etc):

Apart from raising the "Db" levels, reduce the "hiss" and manipulate the "treble", what other technical implements can be used to remaster an album??. I mean, for example, The Beatles remasters in the view of many experts were perfectly treated and I didn´t read too much moaning about them. Im not saying that you guys are moaning or anything like that, Im just asking.

Cheers,


Queen rocks!
Soundfreak user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 13:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Basically remastering is less depending from technical implements than from the guy (usually it's a guy....) who is doing it. He decides how he wants a recording to sound like.
In case of the Beatles remasters there was a team of several engineers discussing every decision before adding some EQ or compression. 
There is no rule and there are lots and lots of tools available to remove noises or correct a weakness in the sound.
And different people will come to different results even if they use the same tools.  
In recent years it became a fashion to make everything as loud as possible, luckily this "philosophy" is disappearing cause it's extremely tiring for the ears.   

But first of all the most important thing for remastering is to find the best possible source.

smilebrian user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 103 posts
add to buddy list send PM

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

Well said Soundreak.

Finding the very best source (i.e proper original master tape) is the most crucial aspect.

After that, it's allowing the Engineer to do their best work without record companies constraining them with ridiculous requests for loudness.

That's why I love Steve Hoffman so much, he seems to get this right more times than most.

mandocello user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 51 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 15:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

There is a gigantic difference between remastering and remixing.

If you've got the original tapes to work with, why not remix it (perhaps only minor tweaks here and there), and then have Ludwig master it?

Soundfreak user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 16:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's just a question of money.

Remastering an existing mix is unbelievably "in-expensive". Remastering a song is something that can be done in less than an hour by a well trained engineer. And I heard of several cases of record companies paying sums around 40 Euro (!) for a song. Sometimes even less.... 

When you remix a track, then it's getting really expensive. You have to find the fitting equipment that can reproduce the original multitracks as good as possible, you have to analyse and restore each track and then you have to imitate the original mix as close as possible. Or you have to find a new mix. So this is extremely time consuming and expensive like a new production. And that's why it's not done very often.

Negative Creep user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 720 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 18:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

earwig wrote: Lemmy wrote: Thanks for the review - I've been thinking of getting these remasters too, but was quite content with the 1991 Hollywood versions.
However, Q2 being a fantastic album, I do have a question.

During the second part of the guitar solo in Father to Son, the sound has always seems saturated - with RMT bashing the drums and JD's bass sounding like crap. Any better sound with the new versions?

Cheers,
Lem
Alas, that part still sounds like crap!!!

Must be on the multitrack like that. In fact, isn't it because they 'bounced' between tracks too hot which caused the distortion?

One notable mistake on the remaster: Loser in the end...is still there. haha!!!
Why must it be on the multitrack? Based on what? Far more likely that it's just on the stereo master, which will have gone through a lot of compression. Didn't the band have a specific compressor that they used on pretty much every album?

Negative Creep user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 720 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 11, 18:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Soundfreak wrote: It's just a question of money.

Remastering an existing mix is unbelievably "in-expensive". Remastering a song is something that can be done in less than an hour by a well trained engineer. And I heard of several cases of record companies paying sums around 40 Euro (!) for a song. Sometimes even less.... 

When you remix a track, then it's getting really expensive. You have to find the fitting equipment that can reproduce the original multitracks as good as possible, you have to analyse and restore each track and then you have to imitate the original mix as close as possible. Or you have to find a new mix. So this is extremely time consuming and expensive like a new production. And that's why it's not done very often.
Queen have already transferred all their multiracks to digital and have an inhouse team for mixing. It wouldn't be that costly to do unless you bring in some hot shout mixing engineer - the fact they've produced new instrumental mixes demonstrates cost isn't an issue - it's that, like most bands, unless what exists is rubbish, they don't want the original mixes to go out of print. In fact, Brian evidently doesn't want remixed albums in stereo to be produced at all - he deliberately chose not to include new stereo mixes on the DVD-A releases.