Queen Remasters

[KleptoKlown]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight *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

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by KleptoKlown 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.