Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > ANATO 30th Anniversary - Audio

forum rss feed
Author

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

Posted: 04 Mar 06, 22:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Anybody's got comments on the audio? Is it a good mix?

Thanks


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: 05 Mar 06, 07:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's not a new mix. It's a remastering. And yes, it's the best remaster to go for in ANATO's case.

Peace,
Adam.

kdj2hot user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 965 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Mar 06, 18:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Adam Baboolal wrote:

It's not a new mix. It's a remastering. And yes, it's the best remaster to go for in ANATO's case.

Peace,
Adam.




Um, genius when you remaster something you re-MIX it with updated technology so right now I'm thinking it's some what ignorant to say it's not a new mix because technically it is as well as being a new master.

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: 05 Mar 06, 19:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No comment.

...Except that you have NO IDEA.

Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Mar 06, 21:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

kdj2hot wrote:

Adam Baboolal wrote:

It's not a new mix. It's a remastering. And yes, it's the best remaster to go for in ANATO's case.

Peace,
Adam.




Um, genius when you remaster something you re-MIX it with updated technology so right now I'm thinking it's some what ignorant to say it's not a new mix because technically it is as well as being a new master.


Oh dear... Just do a search on the term mastering and you'll actually find it has nothing to do with remixing anything.

Peace,
Adam.

kdj2hot user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 965 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Mar 06, 07:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Adam Baboolal wrote:

kdj2hot wrote:

Adam Baboolal wrote:

It's not a new mix. It's a remastering. And yes, it's the best remaster to go for in ANATO's case.

Peace,
Adam.




Um, genius when you remaster something you re-MIX it with updated technology so right now I'm thinking it's some what ignorant to say it's not a new mix because technically it is as well as being a new master.


Oh dear... Just do a search on the term mastering and you'll actually find it has nothing to do with remixing anything.

Peace,
Adam.



Honey, I think you need to follow your own device:

"A master recording is an original recording, from which copies may be made.

When recording on to magnetic tape, the original tape is known as the master tape.

A multitrack recording master tape or disk, on which productions are developed (or captured, in a live session) for later mixing, is known as the multitrack master, while the tape or disk holding a mix (mono, stereo, or Surround) is called a mixed master.

It is standard practice to make a copy of a master recording, known as a safety copy, in case the master is lost or damaged." .....

"Better processing choices can be used. Better prints can be utilized, with sound elements remixed to 5.1 and obvious print flaws digitally corrected. "

In case you and that WIlki guy are too slow to comprehend let me highlight the key point for you.
To re-MIX it in 5.1 they would have to had used (and did use from the making of) the Multi track master which by definition is used for further mixing. Which they did, re-mix it in 5.1, genius. The audio on the dvd-a is another mix.

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_recording

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaster



Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Mar 06, 08:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You're mixed up, methinks. No pun intended!

This link will hopefully help you understand what the process actually entails - http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=66/

I'd let you think what you think, but since you're on the forum posting this for all to see, I felt it important that this be corrected before anyone else starts thinking you're right.

The CD music was NOT remixed. And neither was the DVD music. They were both newly remastered for the ANATO 25th anniversary.

Peace,
Adam.

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

Posted: 06 Mar 06, 15:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Actually the reason I'm asking is because I received the question. So without the kind permisson from the person who sent it I'll quote:

"I have listened almost all audio remasters except the
30Th anniversary edition; the last two ANATO audio
remasters have been transferred to 24 bits (Japanese
2001-2004 EMI-Toshiba and 30th anniversary editions).
Those 24 bits audio remasters enhances the soundstage
a lot (term soundstage means that when listening, the
musicians sound as if they are out in front of you),
but they as well enhances the faults, e.g. the 2004
(2001) Japanese EMI-Toshiba remaster sounds awful in
most percussions and in some drums parts, distortion
is present due to it wasn?t restored, it was only
transferred to 24 bits. I already know that 30Th ANATO
edition was restored but I want to be sure before
buying because I have bought ANATO six times (two on
vinyl and four on cd ).

The question is: is the ANATO 30th anniversary
edition (in stereo mode) distortion-free on
percussions and drums??????

Other things to be revised would be:
Not excessive filtering as 1998 EMI-Toshiba edition,
that ruined Freddie´s voice !!!
Clean sound (not hiss noise)
Natural sound (not too brilliant sound)
Volume level (high is desirable obviously without
distortion)"

Thanks from both of us.


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.
kdj2hot user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 965 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Mar 06, 15:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Adam Baboolal wrote:

You're mixed up, methinks. No pun intended!

This link will hopefully help you understand what the process actually entails - http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=66/

I'd let you think what you think, but since you're on the forum posting this for all to see, I felt it important that this be corrected before anyone else starts thinking you're right.

The CD music was NOT remixed. And neither was the DVD music. They were both newly remastered for the ANATO 25th anniversary.

Peace,
Adam.


I don't know you might really be slow. I was partly joking the last post but really might be a little slow because the link you posted pretty much said a master is the last step when making an album and that to get to that step one would have to re-mix the album. I think you're a little confused about the definition of re-mix, I'm not talking about the those little fan mixes you people do. I'm talking about a mix that attempts to achieve what was on the original release on a new medium, IT's pretty simple to me... Also, I don't own the dvd-a from either anato releases but I've read on here that the mix is a little different than the 2002 one from the dvd in the 2 disk set from last yr.

Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Mar 06, 20:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The reason I posted that was due to the question posed in this thread to begin with, Kd. It's about the RE-mastering that has taken place, i.e. is it any good? And I believe it's the best ANATO has sounded on cd.

People like John S Stuart will advise, as will I, they (Queen) don't need to remix anything because there is a master mix sitting ready for mastering any time they want it. It's there because it represents the work they put into the album mix back in 1975. That's the whole point. To retain what the album sounded like, then and now. Therefore, the original stereo mix never needs rebuilt unless need-be.

Peace,
Adam.

goinback user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 997 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 01:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

But that's what they've done: The original stereo mix HAS been rebuilt, which probably took work that boggles the mind. They've gained a generation this way because they've gone back to the original multi-track master and mixed a new stereo master DIGITALLY from the original multi-track (rather than via analog in 1975).

Part of the problem of putting The Prophet's Song and God Save The Queen in 5.1 before was that they only had the stereo master with 2 channels of audio. Since they recently found the multi-track masters they were able to make a real 5.1 mix, and were able to remix the multitracks again into 2-channel stereo. So even the normal stereo CD has gained one tape generation in quality.

To sum up: In the past most people have made "digitally remastered" CDs using digital copies of the analog stereo masters. Now they're going one generation back PAST the analog stereo masters and making new DIGITAL stereo masters from the multitrack tapes (which involves mixing all the tracks to two stereo tracks...and since it was mixed once in 1975, they're now mixing it for a second time - AKA remixing - though they're attempting to mix it EXACTLY like it was mixed the first time).

So they've mixed all the separate opera voices in Bo Rhap together again, rather than simply using the mix they already made in 1975. Of course the problem is that some instrument and vocal levels might not sound balanced exactly as they were before so it's a painstaking process....


"I have no time for Time magazine. Or Rolling Stone." Jethro Tull
Sunshine user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 191 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 08:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It sounds marvellous but can you hear the difference at a normal stereo installation? I mean, I have a Marantz amplifier and B&W speakers, no surround or anything. I think I have a medium kind of set, not bad but also not amazing. Can you hear the difference or do you also need state of the art equipment? I have the 1993 remaster, is it helpful to buy the new version?


You ain't seen nothing 'till your down on the muffin...;)
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2393 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 08:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This may help to clear this up, it is from Justin on Brian's site answering some guys question about a distortion on the Bo Rap mix.




"I have listened specifically to the section of music you mentioned and I can hear the problem as you describe it.
I would guess this distortion is caused by an imperfect electrical connection in a switch or patch cable during the mix because it is not the whole mix that is distorting - just the left side of the drum kit I think. I don't believe the problem is on the multi-track recording because I don't hear it on the karaoke mix.
The surround mix on the the ANATO DVD-A doesn't have this problem and is as clean as you will hear Bohemian Rhapsody.

The stereo mix on the same DVD-A however, is the original mix so it shares all the same distortions, but in more detail than you've ever heard them before!
This type of distortion is not fixable in any mastering process (yet). The only versions without the distortion are both remixes from the multitrack."

Cheers
Justin



"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2393 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 08:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Once again for clarity, again from Justin.


The final result of the band's work in the studio would have been a "Stereo Flat Mix Master" which contains the entire album mixed and sequenced with the right gaps and cross-fades etc. This is what they would have delivered to be mastered (or cut) on to vinyl. The mastering engineer would then have made a copy (called a "Production Master") of this with additional tone and level changes as desired or requested and this would be the version reproduced on the original records and CD's.

When re-masters are done it is desirable to go back to the Stereo Flat Mix Masters to make new tone and level adjustments dictated by current tastes or technology. This is what happened in in the early 1990's when Kevin Metcalfe re-mastered the entire catalogue for the "Digital Re-Master Series", and again in 1998 and 2001 for Hollywood and Toshiba EMI.




"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 09:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

What about the percussion? Is it distorted as in other remasters?

And by the way my question wasn't wrong. I said "Is it a good mix?", implying that it's a mix. And of course it's a mix. I didn't say "new mix" or "re mix", I said "mix", without specifying whether it was the same mix or a different one ;)


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.
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2393 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 10:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sebastian wrote:

What about the percussion? Is it distorted as in other remasters?

And by the way my question wasn't wrong. I said "Is it a good mix?", implying that it's a mix. And of course it's a mix. I didn't say "new mix" or "re mix", I said "mix", without specifying whether it was the same mix or a different one ;)


it is not the whole mix that is distorting - just the left side of the drum kit I think. I don't believe the problem is on the multi-track recording because I don't hear it on the karaoke mix.
The surround mix on the the ANATO DVD-A doesn't have this problem and is as clean as you will hear Bohemian Rhapsody.

Is that what you meant?

And KD, before you shoot your mouth off again, try to understand the process, Adam is correct.
see my post above.



"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
kdj2hot user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 965 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 11:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:

kdj2hot:

A word of advice; if there's ANYONE on here who knows what he's talking about regarding audio processing, mixing, mastering, etc., it's Adam.

I'll spell it out for you simply, and I'm not going to bother with any niceties, seeing as your behaviour was highly impolite in the first place.

Part of the MASTERING PROCESS involves taking the SEPARATE TRACKS of a MIXED master tape and equalizing them, adding stereo (or surround) effects, removing glitches, reducing analogue or digital noise (such as in extremely high or low parts of the spectrum, or in some Wall Of Sound-cases), etc.

So, can you grasp that, or should I explain it to you like you were three?



Obviously you can't grasp it because you said absolutely nothing. They did the 5,1 mix from the original multi tracks. Get off you high horse you're arguing about nothing. Maybe you're confused because you got the idea of a remix as being something like the Bicycle Race remix from the hollywood release.


I like the fact that you said absolutely nothing and then finished it with "can you grasp that" like let off like a Stephen HAwkins type lecture or something. That was funny lol.


Wait you did say something, something which kind ofd sounds stupid, no offense. Each multi track placed together as liked equals the master, in the sense that it's being ddiscussed in this thread. If you change the level of something, make the drums more prominent, etc. That's another mix. I guess you can argue that each track from a song is a "master track" but that's like grasping at straws. Ofcourse they're the master of that particular track because I doubt that they would be able to mix the track in itself again. The tracks placed together is a mix...

wait a minute Thomas, your post was so out of it that I'm responding to something I never even argued about. I never questioned anyone's definition of a master. I just pointed out that to get to a new master you would have to mix it the track again. In definition that's what a new or remaster is. If it's not it would'nt be a new master. Now if they just take the master (the "multi track masters" as you called them, placed together) and make tapes directly from that instead of making tapes from copies of copies then it certainly wouldn't be a new mix. They didn't do that with the 5,1 mix because it would be impossible. The same way if a master was in mono, you can take the tracks and create a real stereo mix. That's what the leap from stereo to 5.1 is like. You can't have a 5.1 master without remixing it. It seems that they even did a new stereo mix as well from the "multi track masters" so I don't see what the argument is.

Also I'm very far from an expert in the recording process but this sounds ike common sense to me.

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 14:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

kdj2hot, quit while you're ahead.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Sunshine user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 191 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 14:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

And again: can anyone give an honest answer to this: It sounds marvellous but can you hear the difference at a normal stereo installation? I mean, I have a Marantz amplifier and B&W speakers, no surround or anything. I think I have a medium kind of set, not bad but also not amazing. Can you hear the difference or do you also need state of the art equipment? I have the 1993 remaster, is it helpful to buy the new version?


You ain't seen nothing 'till your down on the muffin...;)
Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Mar 06, 15:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hey sunshine. Get the latest release as it surpasses the 1993 one by quite a bit.


Thanks to Togg for that wonderful quote. I wish I'd known about that as that explains it perfectly!

Kd, let's just drop all this as you believe what you believe and are not willing to take on what you're being told. If you want to pursue this, my advice is to go to the source. Send an email to Justin Shirley Smith and you will get THE definitive answer and only then will you realise what the answer truly is.

The 5.1 mix is just that, a newly created mix from the original elements that came from the multitracks (remixed 192kHz files in Pro Tools). The stereo remaster, as explained by JustinSS, comes from the flat mix master with all the correct trimmings. That is transferred digitally. But apart from being at 24-bit, I'm not sure of the details.

Peace,
Adam.