Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Comparison files: 1998 vs. 2001 remasters

forum rss feed
Author

Penis - Vagina user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4230 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 May 04, 19:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

First up, Let Me Entertain You 1998 vs. 2001

**no longer available**

After enough responses, I'll delete this and do another song.. actually I only have Jazz & The Game in both '98 and '01.


Carlos user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 334 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 May 04, 19:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I personally think the 1st one sounds better, its a bit clearer and punchier. The 2nd one sounds more muddled.

Penis - Vagina user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4230 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 May 04, 21:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, the first one is the 1998 version. People have complained about 'too much noise reduction' on those. Weird.

Jazz is difficult for me to judge personally, because it always sounds kinda crappy in my opinion.

Ron user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1031 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 May 04, 05:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I can hardly tell any differences, but I think that the 2nd one sounds a bit better.
I once compared the 98 version of SHA with the 01 version and the 2001 sounded better to me because they managed to remove some more background noise/hiss, even though there wasn't that much left on the 98 remaster (just compare the intro of Killer Queen and you will hear that noise difference)
next!


QueenPictureHall.com is back at qph.runoutgrooves.com
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: 08 May 04, 10:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The worst problem with the 1998 remasters is that it seems they used a defective tape machine to transfer the masters, so there are some speed problems. The most annoying I recall is during Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy.

Penis - Vagina user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4230 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 May 04, 14:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That's interesting about Killer Queen. This was one that was specifically mentioned to me as having TOO MUCH NR. You're saying it sounds better with even more, Ron? I won't have the 2001 of that for a couple more months. Got the '91 Hollywood & the '98 though :-P

I'll have to see if I can hear anything odd about Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy.

Meanwhile, here's one with some definite differences.

Dragon Attack. I think the 2nd one (2001) sounds MUCH better. The '98 sounds quite muddy I think.

http://members.cox.net/deaconfan/drat.wav

Penis - Vagina user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4230 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 May 04, 15:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That reminds me!

Rien, when you shared files from the card sleeves, had you used normalizing by any chance? I ask because when I played the wav of Don't Stop Me Now.. your version 'clipped' from being so loud.. into the red, and mine is still way up there but doesn't clip like that.

Rien user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2204 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 May 04, 16:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

All I did was converting the files into 320KBs mp3-files.


Feel free to visit my site - http://www.mercuryparadise.com

(Come into my life, it's a MercuryParadise)
Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 May 04, 16:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Normalizing takes the volume up to 100% and no more. So, it won't clip. If you're getting clipping, it could be something to do with your setup. Speakers or soundcard, perhaps?

There isn't much difference with LMEY - they're very similar. But I guess the latter version sounds slightly better.

Dragon Attack is pretty similar too. The highs are probably a little more tamed on the latter version. But otherwise, they're not that different.

Peace,
Adam.

Ron user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1031 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 May 04, 19:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

yea, the 2001 KQ version from SHA sounds better to me. I will create a file like you have done for LMEY and DA tomorrow

the 2001 DA sounds better than the 1998: the vocals sound a bit too hard for the 98 version and the high tones are better in the 01 version, esp the hihats (or cimbals, I dunno) of the drums


QueenPictureHall.com is back at qph.runoutgrooves.com
Ron user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1031 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 May 04, 12:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

www.queenonline.nl/files/KQ.wav
first the 1998 version, than the 2001

the difference is very noticable (for me): the 2001 version sounds much clearer. I was a bit wrong though about the noise reduction: there is still some left and both noise/hiss levels sound diff, so they probably used a diff tool in 2001


QueenPictureHall.com is back at qph.runoutgrooves.com
Penis - Vagina user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4230 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 May 04, 13:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Thanks Ron :)

I do like the 2001 better. I can hear more clarity in the piano particularly. This is the same thing Adam Unger and I heard when comparing the '91 with the '98. The '91 was clearer. So I wonder which wins between '91 and '01.

http://members.cox.net/neeuq/KQ91.wav

In '91 the tape would have been 7-10 years younger too, if that makes any difference. The '91 to me sounds a little warmer while still being clearer than the '98.

Penis - Vagina user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4230 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 May 04, 18:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I compared '..Lover Boy' 1991 vs. 1998 and couldn't hear any major speed differences or weird changes. The final time (first piano note to final crash) on one was off a little bit, by .320 of a second which isn't even 1/2 second and is nothing compared to some speed problems I've seen (like 'Break Free' on the 12" Collection being so slow it's 8 seconds longer)

Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Unger (QueenVault.com)
Bohemian: 347 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 May 04, 21:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ya know, I'm starting to realize that maybe Hollywood did a pretty decent job after all. At least they fixed some of their mistakes too (Lap of the Gods/Its Late).


QueenVault.com

Updated October 2, 2016
Ron user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1031 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 May 04, 01:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"Ya know, I'm starting to realize that maybe Hollywood did a pretty decent job after all. At least they fixed some of their mistakes too (Lap of the Gods/Its Late)."

yea... problems that shouldn't have happened in the first place :)


QueenPictureHall.com is back at qph.runoutgrooves.com
Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Unger (QueenVault.com)
Bohemian: 347 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 May 04, 01:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

RonB: "yea... problems that shouldn't have happened in the first place :)"

I can't really argue with that :)


QueenVault.com

Updated October 2, 2016
goinback user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 997 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 May 04, 03:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Has anyone ever compared the sound quality between the original Hollywood 1991 SHA CD (with the error) and the later "fixed" Hollywood CD? Because the music on the entire CD was probably reprocessed somewhere along the line....


"I have no time for Time magazine. Or Rolling Stone." Jethro Tull
Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 May 04, 08:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

RonB posted the KQ comparison and I preferred the latter one.

Peace,
Adam.

Penis - Vagina user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4230 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 May 04, 08:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That's a good point, goinback. I've sorta wondered if there were any differences between those. I imagined that the faulty songs were remastered again individually and edited into the digital master but who knows?

The funny thing about the Hollywood errors is that the biggest ones.. on SHA and NOTW were remastered by Kevin Metcalfe, who seems to be Queen's own in-house masterer. He's also responsible for the lovely Fat Bottomed Girls glitch in the '94 remaster and 'Rocks'.

So Hollywood really isn't to blame, other than for not catching them. Even the alternate version of 'I Want It All' is merely the result of having the wrong 'Miracle' master.

The Classic Queen/Greatest Hits compilations still make them seem like idiots though :-P

'Greatest Hits' should have been the original U.S. version from '81 with 3 bonus tracks to make it a 17-track.. "Tie Your Mother Down", "It's Late", "Need Your Loving Tonight". And a big sticker on the front indicating that it contained 'Bohemian Rhapsody' from the hit film Wayne's World!'

And 'Greatest Hits II' with a few replacements made.. 'Body Language' in place of 'Under Pressure' since that had already been on G.H. here. And something replaced with 'Princes Of The Universe' which could have been used to promote the disc. It was gaining some popularity for being used for the Highlander TV show which had just started. With a big sticker on the front saying 'Includes "Princes of the Universe", the theme from the new hit series "Highlander" plus 16 more Queen classics!'

But I kinda went off-topic there.