[rooze]

I'm a big Queen fan. There, I said it - I feel like a weight has been lifted. 

I'm on their Facebook page and received notification of a new 'boxed set' due for release in September this year, it's a collection of all 15 of their studio albums, remastered, repackaged and pressed on colored vinyl.

So I got into reading more and discovered that Bob Ludwig we selected as the mastering engineer (thumbs up), but then came upon this paragraph which I've lifted directly -

The original plan was to master everything straight from the analogue mix tapes, where available. But in fact most of those tapes, having suffered from the effects of time, were in need of some restoration. The problems encountered included speed errors, missing audio, newly developing clicks and other unwanted noise. So the decision was made to create new super-high quality digital masters, using 24 bit samples and a sampling rate of 96 kHz. All the restoration was then performed in the digital domain, and the vinyl was cut from these perfected files. All restoration was carried out with the lightest of touches, with a profound respect for the originals, and the resulting masters are undoubtedly the finest ever.



This doesn't seem to be doing the original format true justice - converting what's on the tapes to the dreaded digital domain, and at only 96khz - then claiming superior quality over the original.

Personally I would have rather had the mastering done from the original analog tapes, even with some 'noise', as described. I'm sure the result will be 'clean', 'clear' and.....very digital sounding.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this process and what one might expect from the finished article? At $450 for the set, it's obviously aimed at the collector, but it's also touted as a sonic upgrade for those with good playback systems.

I'm somewhat out of the loop so I wonder if other new pressings of old material have been remastered in this way, and have proven pleasing on vinyl?

The full information is here http://studiocollection.queenonline.com/

Any thoughts?

[vinyl_guy]

Michael Fremer  is in the process of having a record cut with AAA on one side and 24/96 on the other so folks can compare. http://www.analogplanet.com/content/aaa-vs-9624-vinyl-project-update#bAlXEjWpqFFY1Awp.97 and http://www.analogplanet.com/content/aaa-lps-vs-9624-aad-lps-what-can-we-hear#g6XgvPoqe3EqpxIB.97.

I have a lot of new records mastered for vinyl and cut from 24/96 and it sounds pretty good. Vinyl cut from CD quality files sounds like crap.

[Russtafarian]

All the new Zeppelin reissues were cut from 24/96 for the same reason.  The 40 to 50 year old tapes may have deteriorated to the point where digital restoration is the only viable option.  The Zep remasters do sound good but different from the originals.  There's an organic liveliness to the originals that's missing from the remasters.  OTOH, the remastered pressings are dead quiet, have tighter, deeper bass and better clarity.

A key date to keep in mind with master tape restoration is 1973.  Due to the oil crisis and other factors, recording tape formulations were changed around that time.  The newer formulations did not age well.  Over time they tended to shed more oxide and the binding agents would get sticky and glue the layers of tape together making the reels unplayable.  The is where you hear stories about baking the reels in an oven in order to loosen the binding agents to play the tape.  The resulting master tape playback could sound anywhere from magnificent to horrible depending on the condition of the tape.  Master tapes from the '50s and '60s didn't have the binding agent issue for the most part.

All that to say that the Queen master tapes could very well have been in rough shape and digital restoration was their best option.

Russ

[*Scotty*]

Considering that the earliest master tape is 42 years old and the most recent recording was released in 1995, they may have been lucky to get one pass on the tape machine after an attempt at physical restoration. In all probability this likely to be the best version of these albums that can produced at this point in time.
 I would be a happy camper if I could also buy 24/96 downloads of the project which would allow playback on my portable devices and computer. I would hope that the 24/96 digital master has not been subjected to additional compression beyond that which applied to the original master tape. Except for the original vinyl releases most of the catalogue has been vandalized with added compression in subsequent releases on CD.
Scotty

[kingdeezie]

This is not good news.

I saw the box set, and I was really excited to pick it up. I bought a reissue of "A Night at the Opera" a few years back, and it sounded horrible, never heard the original, but I have to assume the re-release was from a digital master.

I guess having all the Queen albums, collected brand new in a beautiful box set, with vinyl derived from the master tapes, was asking too much.

Oh well....

[rooze]

Michael Fremer  is in the process of having a record cut with AAA on one side and 24/96 on the other so folks can compare. http://www.analogplanet.com/content/aaa-vs-9624-vinyl-project-update#bAlXEjWpqFFY1Awp.97 and http://www.analogplanet.com/content/aaa-lps-vs-9624-aad-lps-what-can-we-hear#g6XgvPoqe3EqpxIB.97.

I have a lot of new records mastered for vinyl and cut from 24/96 and it sounds pretty good. Vinyl cut from CD quality files sounds like crap.

That's an interesting project, thanks for the link.

I'm actually between TT rigs at the moment, having sold my last rig on a bit of an impulse after becoming disillusioned with a lot of the 'crap' that's out there - expensive stuff from the likes of MoFi which just didn't cut it - and folks pawning off 'Mint' albums on eBay that were virtually unplayable. They really don't make it easy to get back into vinyl after a long hiatus (15 years in my case).

One of the few pop bands I can listen to (and it is only a few) is Tears for Fears - I bought their "The Seeds Of Love" on MoFi, having seen that Tim de Paravacini was involved in the mastering process, but the finished product sounded so much like digital - with all of the digital strengths and weaknesses. I can't recall if the original source was an analog tape for this recording, but other MoFi stuff suffered in the same way. Simple passages involving little overdubbing and layering would shine, but as soon as the music became more layered and complex the whole thing would just collapse, sounding compressed and harsh.

So it worries me that these Queen albums are going to go down in the same fashion. Obviously Queen's use of extensive layering and multi-tracking doesn't lend itself to digital at all, in the sense of harshness and compression.

Ah well, I think I'm talking myself out of a new TT investment, but may snag the set anyway and keep it for nostalgia and potential future value 

[rooze]

All the new Zeppelin reissues were cut from 24/96 for the same reason.  The 40 to 50 year old tapes may have deteriorated to the point where digital restoration is the only viable option.  The Zep remasters do sound good but different from the originals.  There's an organic liveliness to the originals that's missing from the remasters.  OTOH, the remastered pressings are dead quiet, have tighter, deeper bass and better clarity.

A key date to keep in mind with master tape restoration is 1973.  Due to the oil crisis and other factors, recording tape formulations were changed around that time.  The newer formulations did not age well.  Over time they tended to shed more oxide and the binding agents would get sticky and glue the layers of tape together making the reels unplayable.  The is where you hear stories about baking the reels in an oven in order to loosen the binding agents to play the tape.  The resulting master tape playback could sound anywhere from magnificent to horrible depending on the condition of the tape.  Master tapes from the '50s and '60s didn't have the binding agent issue for the most part.

All that to say that the Queen master tapes could very well have been in rough shape and digital restoration was their best option.

Russ

Good info. I'd forgotten about the Zep reissues. I have Mothership somewhere but didn't much care for the way it sounded compared with the originals. (The SQ was good but I was too distracted by the way it all seemed to be mixed differently).

I can understand that with the Queen project, their options were limited on the early part of the catalog. But I suspect from perhaps Jazz onwards, the original tapes would be preserved and intact. So I'm reading between the lines and thinking that the decision was based on it being more expedient and cost-effective, rather than in the best interests of preserving the original 'art'.

I'm just not sure I'm ready for 'Fairy Feller's Master Stroke' with any more compression! 

[Russtafarian]

One of the few pop bands I can listen to (and it is only a few) is Tears for Fears - I bought their "The Seeds Of Love" on MoFi, having seen that Tim de Paravacini was involved in the mastering process, but the finished product sounded so much like digital - with all of the digital strengths and weaknesses. I can't recall if the original source was an analog tape for this recording, but other MoFi stuff suffered in the same way. Simple passages involving little overdubbing and layering would shine, but as soon as the music became more layered and complex the whole thing would just collapse, sounding compressed and harsh.

I love that record and have it on CD and vinyl (pressed in the '90s), but... it's a digital multitrack recording from the dark days of 16 bit record production.  That's why it sounds digital.  Don't blame Mofi; they did the best they could given the source. 

Speaking of TFF, the Blu-ray reissue of SFTBC, remixed by Steven Wilson sounds phenomenal.  Especially the 5.1 surround mix.  Highly recommended.

Russ

[STEREOmole]

As a consumer, LPs like that (sourced from a digital master) only make sense to me if they include a full-resolution (FLAC) digital download or disc along with the vinyl record.