Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > 2011 remasters - pedant's point

forum rss feed
Author

cmsdrums user not visiting Queenzone.com
cmsdrums
Deity: 3040 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 11, 08:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Can anyone confirm is sloppy attention to detail on descriptions and sleeve notes is prevalent again on Queen's output or not based on the following?:

The CD tray insert states that each of these is a '2011 Digital Remaster'.

The inner sleeve notes state that the audio has been remastered using both 'digital and analogue' techniques.

Does this make the rear tray description of 'Digital Remaster' technically incorrect?  Or, after any analogue work has been done, is there one final stage in the remastering process that is 100% digital, thereby making the description accurate?

As ANATO is clearly described as a new 2011 remaster but I think has been proved(?) to actually be the 2005 one, this is another little point for the 'version nerds' (which includes myself)!

Cheers

TyphoonTip user not visiting Queenzone.com
TyphoonTip
Bohemian: 133 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 11, 09:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Your final point about the ANATO 2011 remaster actually being the 2005 release, is a little bit more than a pedantic minor error. It's blatant disgraceful deception.

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 11, 11:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Standing ovation.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 11, 13:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wow....ANATO 2011 is a brand new remaster. I know because while I liked the 2005 one, I was not so sure about the 2011 one. I still haven't sat down for a complete listen of the 2011 release, but I will.

But please don't say they're the same.

Soundfreak user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 11, 15:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

....yes they are

smilebrian user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 103 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 11, 05:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A few posts over on the Hoffman forum suggest that only Bo Rhap has been cleaned up a little.
I guess that gets QP and Island over the line on calling it a 2011 remaster!!!

The 2005/2011 difference:
Both were mastered by Bob Ludwig and are in fact almost identical.
The 2011 release has a bit more absolute silence in the beginning, between the two "sides" and at the end. All tracks except "Bohemian Rhapsody" are identical (I synchronized them, inverted the phase on one and absolutely nothing came out of the speakers). The only audible difference I noticed on Bohemian Rhapsody was, that the damaged tape noticable in the left channel on the second verse ("goodbye everybody..." etc.) which sounds pretty much the same on all versions, has been cleaned up a bit on the 2011 remaster. It is obviously still there but doesn't sound quite as "aggressive" as previously without changing the overall sound.

Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 11, 13:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Is there still a lot of hiss in the quiet parts of "White Man" or was that cleaned?
That's the first Queen song that I think about when talking about songs that need some "cleaning".

The other ones are Mustapha and Jealousy from Jazz, but I only have the EMI Capitol 1992 release from Mexico. Was this fixed in any other remaster (93, 2001) ?

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

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

The noise in White Man can't be fixed, as it's the hum of Bri's Vox AC/30.  Unless you do some major digital processing that would ruin the overall sound, it's there to stay.


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



http://www.queenlive.ca
rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 11, 13:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I know the hiss on "White Man" is present, but I thought it was meant to be there for effect in this case. Yes, normally hiss is a bad thing, but like anything, it can be used stylistically (as is done with feedback, distortion and such). On "White Man," at the end, hearing that sustained hiss is, for me, like the band saying, "hold on...wait for it...waaaaait..." before the final drum crash.

Just my thought. Someone ought to ask Brian if he wanted it in there for that reason.

the dude 1366 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 208 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 11, 18:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Dont throw away your older remasters. The 1994 ones are better than the new ones. MFSL are best. Look up "loudness war" to see what i mean

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 11, 19:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rhyeking wrote:

Someone ought to ask Brian if he wanted it in there for that reason.

==================

You bring up a good point, and the hum is definitely a useful device in that case.  But having the hum wasn't a choice - Vox AC/30s cranked up to 10 will hum and you can't do a thing about it.


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



http://www.queenlive.ca
rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 11, 22:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A mic would have to pick up that hiss, though, unless it's on a direct line from the amp to the board. 

If it's a mic, such as one of the drum mics, could they not mute that channel until they want the drum beat at the end heard?

If it's a DL, same thing, lower or mute that channel when you don't need it.

Or am I missing something?

ksimpson1960 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 35 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 11, 23:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I agree 100% with Rhyeking, ..that's  a very accurate way to say it ....Waaaait for it, ...BU DUM!!! Excellent, Well said Rhyeking. (makes me want to hear it right now)

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 11, 23:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rhyeking wrote:

If it's a mic, such as one of the drum mics, could they not mute that channel until they want the drum beat at the end heard?

=====================

It's got nothing to do with the drum mic or any mic other than the guitar mic.  The guitar amp is buzzing and the guitar mic is picking it up.  It can't be undone.  Not sure what the discrepancy is here..


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



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

Bohemian: 596 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Apr 11, 00:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

What is this damage to the tape.
I can not hear a point in the old re masters that indicates the original tape was damaged can you give me a time or word when it occurs?

Cheers.


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

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Apr 11, 03:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

There is no damage on the tape. There is a slight anomaly in the loudness level of one channel. And it's so short and fast, that it's not audible. It's only visible especially when you compare the grafics. 
A correction of this can not justify to call it a new remaster.....

smilebrian user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 103 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Apr 11, 04:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I agree Soundfreak. A tiny tweak here and there is not enough to declare it a 2011 remaster. It's deceptive, they could have just released it on Island and declared it the 2005 remaster and be done with it. As you know, I prefer the DCC anyway, but there will be plenty who had the 2005 and plonked down their cash for the 2011. I'm far too jaded now to do that, but would have several years ago before I realised QP had far too much of my money for little return!

I guess we could email Brian about it, but he usually dismisses dedicated fans (dedicated to good sound - he likes the fans that still worship his love affair with foxes) and will bang on with the same old rhetoric about how good his team is.

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

Posted: 12 Apr 11, 14:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sir GH wrote: rhyeking wrote:

If it's a mic, such as one of the drum mics, could they not mute that channel until they want the drum beat at the end heard?

=====================

It's got nothing to do with the drum mic or any mic other than the guitar mic.  The guitar amp is buzzing and the guitar mic is picking it up.  It can't be undone.  Not sure what the discrepancy is here.. =========================

Not trying to be difficult, but the guitar mic would be assigned its own channel on the mixing console before reaching the multi-track tape. That channel can be muted or the fader lowered to eliminate the sound. 

Also, once on the multi-track, the console playing back the recording would have each instrument and vocal assigned to a channel, to allow for mixing and re-mixing each element individually.

I understand that some elements leak and get picked up by other inputs. If that leak is present on the same track as an element you can't remove (like the choral vocals picked up on Freddie's master vocal on some of the Barcelona tracks) then yes, your stuck with it that way. "White Man" is different, at least in this example, as even if that hiss appears on a non-guitar track, there is no other element present in those few seconds until the drum hit at the end. Whatever track contains that hiss can be lowered or muted.

dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Royalty: 1589 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 11, 06:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

'wait for it... DUM DUM!' Brilliant.

I'm more angry about the track marks. I checked Lily Of The Valley and they kept the same split as on the '93 version so I didn't listen to anymore.

Wilki Amieva user not visiting Queenzone.com
We must all HEAR to believe
Wilki Amieva
Royalty: 1422 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 11, 07:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"The inner sleeve notes state that the audio has been remastered using both 'digital and analogue' techniques. Does this make the rear tray description of 'Digital Remaster' technically incorrect?"

No it does NOT. First, it says "digital and analogue technology". As the source tapes are analogue you HAVE to use "analogue technology" to play them. Beside that, some mastering engineers also use EQs or compressors before the signal is digitised.

Also, the A NIGHT AT THE OPERA remaster is a brand new one. Of course is VERY similar, almost indentical to the 2005 one. That's due to the use of the same source tapes, equipment and engineer. Bar from some noise reduction and phase correction tools, there is only so much that has been improved in the 2005-2010 period.

Finally, it's strange -at least for a 'pedantic topic'- that nobody mentioned the line 'missing' from the referred statement on the QUEEN album...