PDA

View Full Version : Queen Remasters


Kane Knight
02-22-2011, 09:51 AM
Reuters reported last year that Queen has signed to Universal and would re-release their catalogue in 2011. The first five records are set to drop in March with bonus materials. Hopefully, they're not delayed.

Buzzkill
02-22-2011, 10:17 AM
Fuck yes

Funky Fly
02-22-2011, 02:30 PM
Sweet.

blake639raw
02-23-2011, 10:23 PM
Hell yeah, Queen is the one of the greatest bands ever. Can't wait for this.

KleptoKlown
02-23-2011, 10:30 PM
Isn't that kinda hard to do when the lead singer has been dead for (months away from...)20 years?

Reuters should be saying that Brian May needs some cash.

Queens isn't Queen without Freddie...It's just not possible. This is nothing but a money grab.

KleptoKlown
02-23-2011, 10:34 PM
Holy shit.

It's almost been 20 years...

I actually remember when Freddie died. It wasn't just some musician dying...it put a magnifying glass on Aids...and crushed pretty much every belief about the disease for its time.

Lara Emily
02-23-2011, 10:35 PM
Isn't that kinda hard to do when the lead singer has been dead for (months away from...)20 years?

Reuters should be saying that Brian May needs some cash.

Queens isn't Queen without Freddie...It's just not possible. This is nothing but a money grab.

What? It's not new Queen it's their catalogue remastered, bonus stuff is probably previously unheard/unreleased tracks, outtakes, alternates

KleptoKlown
02-23-2011, 10:55 PM
What? It's not new Queen it's their catalogue remastered, bonus stuff is probably previously unheard/unreleased tracks, outtakes, alternates

I get it...its not new stuff, but either way, it has nothing to do with the actual band in the actual times.

Think 2pac or the Beatles.

Same shit...these "remastered" albums are the ideas of suits making 6 figures a year....or more.

KleptoKlown
02-23-2011, 10:56 PM
or Star Wars....cept Lucas aint dead

Lara Emily
02-23-2011, 11:12 PM
I get it...its not new stuff, but either way, it has nothing to do with the actual band in the actual times.

Think 2pac or the Beatles.

Same shit...these "remastered" albums are the ideas of suits making 6 figures a year....or more.

Remasters are great if done well. Sabbath had some excellent remastering done on their albums and you can hear the difference.

KleptoKlown
02-23-2011, 11:16 PM
At least with Sabbath, Osborne and Iommi were around to approve of it....or disapprove while collecting decent cheques.

KleptoKlown
02-23-2011, 11:17 PM
Another thing....I'd rather listen to 2pac on cassette and The Beatles on vinyl then any of the re-released shit.

Lara Emily
02-23-2011, 11:21 PM
Vinyl I hear you (with the right speaker system Vinyl is still the best authentic reproduction of sound, fuck cassettes though terrible format)

And I mean it is what's left of Queen working with Universal. Not like a Beatles situation where none of them own the rights,

KleptoKlown
02-23-2011, 11:41 PM
Sound quality...thats a different debate in itself.

I remember taking a coat hanger, soldering 2 1.5mm male ended jack to each end, and hooking that up to 3 different speaker systems(basic, mid, and hi range..I dont remember the actual speakers...) Then comparing it to gold plated high end "audiophile" cables. For the basic and mid ranged speakers....couldn't tell the difference. There was a definite difference in the high end speaker system, but compare the costs, it wasnt worth dropping close to $100 bucks on the high end cables.

Re-mastered or not...music is only going to sound as good as the hardware is capable of...and for most of us, we don't have top of the line stuff where we're actually going to notice the difference..

Kane Knight
02-23-2011, 11:52 PM
I get it...its not new stuff, but either way, it has nothing to do with the actual band in the actual times.

Think 2pac or the Beatles.

Same shit...these "remastered" albums are the ideas of suits making 6 figures a year....or more.

'Cept the Beatles remasters were done by people who had plenty to do with the Beatles "in the actual times." Being done with the Queen remasters, too.

Then again, I forgot that Freddie Mercury did the mastering on the original albums, so what do I know?

Lara Emily
02-23-2011, 11:55 PM
Sound quality...thats a different debate in itself.

I remember taking a coat hanger, soldering 2 1.5mm male ended jack to each end, and hooking that up to 3 different speaker systems(basic, mid, and hi range..I dont remember the actual speakers...) Then comparing it to gold plated high end "audiophile" cables. For the basic and mid ranged speakers....couldn't tell the difference. There was a definite difference in the high end speaker system, but compare the costs, it wasnt worth dropping close to $100 bucks on the high end cables.

Re-mastered or not...music is only going to sound as good as the hardware is capable of...and for most of us, we don't have top of the line stuff where we're actually going to notice the difference..

I disagree, I could tell the difference between the remastered Sabbath and the previously released (Remastered was absolutely amazing). I also have epic headphones so this could be great

Kane Knight
02-23-2011, 11:59 PM
Re-mastered or not...music is only going to sound as good as the hardware is capable of...and for most of us, we don't have top of the line stuff where we're actually going to notice the difference..

*coughbullshit*

That's highly conditional, and you should know better than to make that kind of erroneous claim. For example, if you cannot hear the difference in masters on Who albums, you're completely deaf and have no business complaining that you can't tell the difference on audio recordings.

It's not just the end equipment.

KleptoKlown
02-24-2011, 12:01 AM
I disagree, I could tell the difference between the remastered Sabbath and the previously released (Remastered was absolutely amazing). I also have epic headphones so this could be great

How are you disagreeing then?

I said music is only going to sound as good as its hardware...

you said you have epic headphones....

so I challenge you...next time you're at the dollar store, buy a set of headphone, listen to re-mastered music compared to original and let me know how obvious the difference is.

KleptoKlown
02-24-2011, 12:03 AM
*coughbullshit*

That's highly conditional, and you should know better than to make that kind of erroneous claim. For example, if you cannot hear the difference in masters on Who albums, you're completely deaf and have no business complaining that you can't tell the difference on audio recordings.

It's not just the end equipment.

Its not JUST the hardware, but it is a huge part of it....you could use software to re-master your ass to look like Brad Pitt

Lara Emily
02-24-2011, 12:10 AM
How are you disagreeing then?

I said music is only going to sound as good as its hardware...

you said you have epic headphones....

so I challenge you...next time you're at the dollar store, buy a set of headphone, listen to re-mastered music compared to original and let me know how obvious the difference is.


My Sabbath sound test was with normal headphones and normal speakers. I was just saying I have epic headphones which enhances it even more.

KleptoKlown
02-24-2011, 12:20 AM
I'll take your word on it Lara, based on the fact that 10 years ago you were mixing wrestling themes and music(Few Sabbath songs too...) and doing a pretty damn good job of it...

But for the sake of an argument...that makes you an audiophile. Your expectations are higher, and you're paying more attention. For the average consumer, the hardware is a lot more important than the software.

It's like watching Avatar on a TV from 1972

dronepool
02-24-2011, 02:02 AM
I have some nice 75 dollar mixing/DJ headphones. Love them.

Kane Knight
02-24-2011, 05:13 PM
Its not JUST the hardware, but it is a huge part of it....you could use software to re-master your ass to look like Brad Pitt

If you've seen Brad Pitt in the morning, it doesn't take much to make him look like my ass...

Oh, wait.

A huge part of it is that mastering was done a lot differently in the 60s, 70s and 80s. There's even a huge difference between mastering for vinyl and mastering for audio CDs. We're not talking computer editing, at least not in the sense of editing something to be what it once wasn't. Computer aided mastering can provide a significantly cleaner sound with superior fidelity that shows through. It also allows a fuller sound and potentially better volume without the need for any computer tricks (Protools can be used to up the sound of the source tape beyond what could normally done, but this is a legit mechanical use. It's not like pitch correction being used to actually alter a voice).

In short, you could use software to change a truck into a tea cup, but that's not relevant here. As, it seems, are most of your complaints.

Queen's going to benefit from the remaster job, especially since the Hollywood remasters sound compressed.

Kane Knight
03-17-2011, 11:06 AM
Comparing lossless files of the new records (Well, Queen and Queen 2) to my CDs of the Hollywood releases, you can hear a pretty big difference.

Even on my 20 dollar speakers. I haven't had the opportunity to listen on something better yet, but my PC speakers tend to make things sound somewhat compressed even when they're not.

Speaking of remasters, I'm listening to Help! and the 2009 remaster has so much more depth to the mix it's not funny. The bass is even nice and warm, something I doubt dedicated audiophiles would actually concede, but it is.

Amazing. A-maaaaaaaaa-zing....[/Mickey Cantor]