Queen - A Night At The Opera CD-Comparison

CDs used:
- 1986 "unremastered" (EMI CDP 7 46207 2)
- 1992 MFSL Remaster (UDCD 568)
- 1993 Digital Master Series (Parlophone 0777 7 89492 2 0)
- 2005 30th Anniversary Collectors Edition (Parlophone 00946 3 38457 2 5)
- 2011 Digital Remaster (Island 276 442 4)

Method used:
I ripped the CDs, synchronised them in an audio-editing-program and adjusted the volume levels based on RMS-values and my hearing (both song-by-song), then used the solo-button to switch between the different versions without pause or delay.

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.

Observations:
The original 1986 release obviously lacks low frequencies and the high end sounds a bit harsh. Also the stereo separation isn't as good as on the others.
The MFSL sometimes has a little less high end than all the other versions. The bass sounds rather "broad" or "wide" (not in a stereo kind of way), hard to describe...
The 1993 remaster has a bit more high end than the MFSL though not as aggressive sounding as on the 1986 and nice sounding bass.
The EQ settings on the 2005/2011 remaster are probably closest to the 1993 remaster. The peak-limiting doesn't seem to be a problem and some clicks have been removed.

Conclusion:
To me the 2005/2011 remaster sounds best. I'd definately upgrade from the 1986 and MFSL, and probably also fromt the 1994 remaster. Wether to get the 30th Anniversary or 2011 depends on what bonus you prefer, I guess. The 30th Anniversary has a DVD with the surround mix, while the 2011 version has... well a mixed bag of stuff. Both are also available as single-discs, in which case I'd get the 2011 one.


and for all friends of numbers:

1986:


MFSL:


1993:


2005:


2011:

 

great review, thank you

 

The surround mix on the '05 is a ton of fun, it's one of my favorite "DVD-A" discs to listen to in the car.

 

Welcome to the forum!

Great first post. Especially the comparison between the 2005 and 2011 should be interesting for some here, since many have the 30th anniversary edition already and wondered if there is any difference.

 

khashoggi, welcome to the forum. Thanks for the review. If you can, get the DCC gold disc. It's still my favorite version on CD. Second is the MFSL gold disc. The only version I have that I really don't like is the '93 Hollywood remaster.

 

Welcome... Tremendous first post!

 

Nice review! It's a shame that you didn't have access to the DCC, which I think is the best, of the versions I've heard. I've compared the DCC against the 1986, the MFSL, the 1991 Hollywood, and the 2005. The 2005 was second best for me and quite good. The MFSL is a bit muffled with a bloated bass. The 1991 Hollywood is uninspiring (I can't quite remember how). The 1986 is very bass shy.

 

welcome on board and thanks for the hard work and info.

 

I only have the Original 1986 CD at the moment and am not that impressed with it - especially the distortion which is audible throughout a lot of the disc.

Is that fixed on the new version or is is a recording artifact?

 

I guess I'm sticking with the 2005 then!

 

remasters 2011 rules!

 

Get the 2005 digipak with the DVD. Even if you don't have a surround setup, or a DVD-Audio capable player, the video soundtrack has the same awesome Bob Ludwig re-master of the entire album (minus the 2011 scrub-job on "Bohemian Rhapsody") encoded at lossless 24bit 48 kHz PCM... well worth the upgrade from any CD version.

 

Nice comparison khashoggi, although I eagerly await any info Roland might be able to add.



It would be cool if you could add the "dynamic range" numbers from the offline TT dynamic range meter application. If I look at the jumble of numbers you have in the 1st post, if you subtract the peak minus the average RMS, that's a rough measure of dynamic range.

So for example, the '86, MFSL, and '93 all give a number of about 18-19 dB there. 2005 and 2011 are about 16 dB. That's a fair size reduction that might certainly be audible.

Can you post samples (FLACs) ? Someday I want to compare myself, and your opinion asserting that the 2005/2011 is indeed the best, and that for the '86, "the high end sounds a bit harsh" are really hard for me to believe.

Could also post waveforms too. I'd bet the 2005/2011 have visibly more compression than the others. Kind of hard for me to believe that that isn't audible.

 

^ Some of the ANATO CD pressings DR info is already posted there:

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ind...lbum=a+night+at+the+opera&sort=year&order=asc

Not even close to 18-19 dB...

 

i have it too its awesome!

 

Anyone cares to post some waveforms and/or spectrum graphs for 24/48 2005 ANATO DVD 2-channel tracks? It would be interesting to see what is there

 

Not sure if I've done this right. I used Audacity for this and selected waveform and spectrum.

First two are "You're My Best Friend" followed by "Bohemian Rhapsody".

Edit: Looking at the preview it seems the graphs are only half their size when uploaded to this site. No idea why? Hope this is still useful.

 

^ Great, thanks. These graphs are looking pretty good actually (just a little compression + peak limiting was applied, me thinks, but at least the 24/48 tracks don't seem to be upsampled from 44KHz material ).

 

Right: I said that the peak minus RMS is a "rough measure of dynamic range". And indeed, looking at the link you provided does indeed say that the 2005/2011 has reduced dynamic range vs the earlier masterings: 9 dB vs 11 dB. That's an 18% reduction, which isn't that bad compared to some remasters. But still could be audible.

 

Nice review - sounds like I need to listen to the remaster.

I have the CP32 (Japan), DCC and DVD Audio. Of the 3, to me the CP32 edges out the DCC if you listen closely to Freddie's vocals.

 

Don't know what Hollywood did, but they REALLY screwed up the catalog sound wise.

 

Yeah. Bad EQ choices on the Hollywood CDs. They have a very harsh top end on some of the titles.

 

In the 2005 CD/DVD, Brian May (I think) claims that the DVD included in the set is an improvement over the prior DTS DVD-A version. Is he correct? If you have the 2005 version, is there any reason to try to track down the more expensive DVD-A version?

 

Answering my own question, this thread:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=201801&highlight=queen+night+opera+dvd&page=5

indicates the DVD-A has 24/96 audio whereas the 30th Anniversary version is 24/48. I thought the 24 bit was what made it hi-rez. Is the difference that only the stereo is hi-rez on the 30th Anniversary version, whereas the DVD-A is hi-rez in surround as well?

 

The 2005 pressing sounds great. I wouldn't change it for another.