Queen Vinyl Reissues For 2015 (including boxed set and turntable)*

Saying 'we don't know' is different than saying 'I specifically asked and received answers to every other question but this one'. When a project like this comes out, and those responsible are unwilling to answer direct and specific questions about some aspect of it, my experience has been that they are withholding this information as they believe that it will adversely impact sales. I, for one, have changed my opinion on this from 'automatic buy' to 'not buying unless I get a solid confirmation' because of this.

 

I fear you may have misunderstood 'loud' in this context. If it's unlistenably compressed, as some of the 2011 remasters are IMO, then it doesn't matter how many dB you lower the signal prior to cutting, it will still be compressed. It's the compression of the source, not the raw gain of the signal that's the problem.

This will help you:

http://www.offbeatband.com/2009/08/the-difference-between-gain-volume-level-and-loudness/

Let's just examine this 'wild speculation' shall we?

Initially there was uncertainty about what masters were used. It was then confirmed by Josh Macrae that the 2011 premasters were used. Not particularly speculatory, it would seem.

The 2011 SACDs and CDs feature the identical source mastering, and feature identical levels of compression and limiting. Again, not overly speculatory.

The long explanatory text that Queen have released with this project makes no mention of the altering of said compression, as the Beatles have done in the past. Fact.

And what you make of Josh Macrea choosing to ignore questions around the compression of these LPs, is up to you.

To this point there is some 'reading between the lines', I grant you, but 'wild speculation'? Well, no.

Finally it was then confirmed to me by, yes my unnamed source, that the 2011 remasters used for these LPs were in the same form (compression and all) as they were for all previous 2011 releases (i.e. CD & SACD). Now granted, since I have not named my source, you cannot confirm this for yourself. But your default reaction, to disregard it outright on that basis, is quite sad.

If you can point me to my posts where I made "...repeated declarations about .... information from an anonymous source", it would be much appreciated. Here's me thinking I mentioned it once prior to this post.

Also, while you're at it, show me where I display an 'expectation' that others must be as satisfied as I am with the conclusions I've drawn from fro my anonymous source.

In the end, I have no horse in this race and have no particular axe to grind. I'm just a Queen fan with high expectations for an expensive product. If your expectations are not the same, then all well and good. I'm simply posting my conclusions and small amount of research in the hope that others may find it useful. Simple as that.

 

And?...All recorded music is an illusion. No matter what format its on. Thats the idea, thats the goal, thats what it is.

 

Yes its sounds amazing. What do you mean It was supposed to sound bad? If are are speaking of those folks who simply hate vinyl from digital , ignore them. It's a case by case thing. The Springsteen box also sounds incredible

 

They fixed the kick drum? Did it squeak a-la Since Ive been loving You by Zep?

 

There was no kick in the original mix. Then leading up the the recent remasters a Queen archivist found a mix that contained the missing kick. Everybody got so excited that they though it would be a great idea to replace the original song with the newly 'kicked' one.
Unfortunately, it's Freddie's track, and nobody has ever forwarded any evidence that he wanted it any other way than it was originally presented. But then again, he's not here to complain. So Brian and Roger got their airbrushes out, set them to 'tamper'.

 

Hmmm, haven't heard the 'kicked' version - would be fine with it as a bonus track but not keen on this practice of 'replacing' original versions with 'alternate' ones.

On the subject of this new vinyl I'm sure it will be a lovely thing to own - but I am blessed with almost two complete sets of original UK LPs, plus most of the original 80's CDs, as well as some of the '93 editions - think I have enough Queen to keep me satisfied for now!

 

I'm in on this...but not paying $200 for shipping.

Yes, it would be better if they were mastered from a new more pure source, but I don't have any umbrage with the 2011 remasters. Some folks get overly sensitive to the use of compression that it's almost a binary equation: any = brickwalled.

I still have my old original LPs from my teenage years. They've been played under oh-so-non-audiophie conditions and if they could talk about the parties they've been too I'd need to get a gag order. Can't listen to them now for all the surface noise and IGD.

A new set of vinyl will be very welcome.

 

*Correction to a few previous posts. A couple of times I mentioned Josh Macrae, when I actually meant Justin Shirley Smith.*

Sorry!

 

So... if it's now pretty much confirmed that they're using the same digital transfers as used for the 2011 remasters, does that mean we'll still have to suffer with that glitch in Let Me Live? Please tell me they've at least noticed this and will be fixing it!

 

^ this glitch is only on CD versions. SACD and USB Orb doesn't have it.

 

There was speculation/complaining before the 2015 SF vinyl release because of presumed sound quality (bad mastering/too much compression). Yet, much rejoicing about sound quality when it was actually released. Like you say, it's a case by case thing.

 

I'm sure that they will sound enjoyable, compressed/limited or not, and also - these color records look so great, I just cannot resist ordering this set! After all, our hobby is quite irrational anyway...

 

You're right. I checked my Made in Heaven iTunes download: no glitch!

 

Which glitch is this?..Does it happen on the 1995 CD version?.
Cheers.

 

^ No, only on 2011 CD remaster. Several samples are absent and it caused a glitch for ears.

 

I am assuming this will be on Amazon U.S. right? I am orderi ng as soon as a link pops up!

 

Not sure if already mentioned, but the excellent What Records are doing this set for £250, or - as they often do, like the Bowie box, £25 deposit and balance on despatch. Probably £8 postage on top (in UK, not sure about ROW)

Have bought quite a few things from them, very friendly to deal with and service is excellent. Will be placing my order tonight!

http://www.whatrecords.co.uk/items/67345.htm

 

Yep, I'm of that opinion as well.

I've got 'Blairs', 'Mr Blairs Cut', DCC as well, and they all sound remarkably different from one another, although Ludwig was very faithful EQ wise to Mr Blairs Cut.

In the end it's a shoot out between the 2005 Ludwig or the DCC. Both sound fantastic for different reasons, and really, I'd be happy to listen to either of them. The DCC sounds natural and relaxed, like the band were set up in your living room. This is clearly a good thing, however occasionally it doesn't sit that well for this album. ANATO is a masterpiece of artifice, and sometimes 'natural' sounds a bit out of place. It's hard to explain....

Anyway that's why I slightly prefer the 2005 Ludwig. It just sounds 'right' for that album. It has a certain sharp aggressiveness that the album needs, especially for tracks like 'Death On Two Legs'. The DCC is a tad laid back in places.

Although, I hate to disappoint, but the 2005 Ludwig is digitally sourced I'm afraid. It doesn't say anything to either effect on the album itself, but everything Ludwig has done for Queen has been in the digital realm.
Interestingly, this press appears to be a prototype for the upcoming LPs. All digitally remastered by Ludwig, then the 24bit files cut at 1/2 speed by Miles Showell, all exactly as the 2005 ANATO was.

 

Nothing was remixed, just remastered. All digital, and mostly by Hack ....I mean Mack. He did everything other than Opera, Races, Sheer Heart Attack and the compilation record Complete Vision. They were remastered by Peter Vince and the infamous Peter Mew, who has had a couple of goes at ruining Queens back catalogue.

 

Yes, What Records are excellent. I have used them many times and would do so again without hesitation. Strangely enough, I did a search on their site before following the link above and couldn't find it. However, I placed my order for this set with Amazon.ca (Canada) at £242.00 including shipping. I did this because I got such a great deal from them with the 'Rainbow 74' deluxe box-set and their service was very good. It's tempting to switch given What's UK presence and only an £8.00 delta. Mind you, I could buy a fairly nice bottle of wine with that to drink while I'm listening the first album (I say whilst listening to the debut album as it's unlikely to last until QII is placed on the turntable).

 

What Records are on ebay a "standstillladdy" if people want to find them that way.

 

Wow, never new the 30th Anniversary ANOTO was sourced from digital. But, if this is the prototype then the 2015 set should sound Excellent!

 

This is a good comparison point, but was the 2005 version released on CD and as compressed as the 2011 versions? I think where most of us are at is that the 2011 versions may not be made available in any uncompressed format, so if the 2005 versions were, that might be where the difference is.

 

Not all the 2011 remasters are compressed messes. They were released in batches and seemed to get progressively louder as each one was released. Who knows why. So the 1st 4 albums, IMO, are not too bad at all. Particularly the first two. Queen II being the standout of the whole series. This is not to say that they are not limited (it seems to be more hard limiting than flatout compression that makes many of these releases loud), it's just that in the first batch it wasn't overly distracting. Although SHA has its moments.


As far as I can tell the 2005 and 2011 (using both my ears and eyes!) ANOTA masters are the same. They did however make a few little tweaks (for the worse) for the 2011. The biggest difference being Bo-Rhap is noticeably louder. It's really weird. The album sounds (and looks) as it did in 2005, then suddenly Bo-Rhap comes along it, and it's red needle time. Why they felt the need to do that, I don't know, but it doesn't bode well for the new ANATO LP. Thankfully the 2005 LP is not like that.


The problem back in 2011, and it will be the same in 2015, is that by the time the remasters got to releasing the 80s stuff (even prior, to a certain extent), it was hard limit city (aside from Flash, which is odd, as it sounds great!). The only explanation I can give, is that Queen Prod., in all their wisdom, got the first batch, thought it wasn't loud enough, and then continually asked for it to be progressively pushed further. But then you'd imagine all the CD/release pre-production would have been sorted a long time before that. It remains a mystery...


What is certain, is this push for loudness did not come from Ludwig. He's made a few public statements around the loudness wars, and the damage it does. Pointedly mentioning the pressure mastering engineers are under from their clients to make it sound a certain way. Although all of that, from memory, was before 2011 though.