Queen - ANATO DVD-Audio True Scheiner Mix

[J. PUPSTER]

Is there a thread that details the actual audio/mix differences? I see several that talk mostly about the physical aspects of the case, disc and formats; but little on audio/mix, especially on the unreleased Scheiner.

 

[Owen Smith]

I'm not the most attentive listener ever, but I really can't tell the difference between my 2001 and 2002.
And I prefer the BD anyway!

Really? The HFPA blu ray 5.1 has been ruined by loudness wars, the DVD-A has much better sound quality on the 5.1. Now for the stereo it's a different story, the HFPA blu ray is absolutely sublime there.

 

[sjcorne]

Is there a thread that details the actual audio/mix differences? I see several that talk mostly about the physical aspects of the case, disc and formats; but little on audio/mix, especially on the unreleased Scheiner.

The biggest differences I can recall were in "Bohemian Rhapsody" - the piano that kicks off the opera section is completely isolated in the rears (all other speakers are dead silent) on Scheiner's original mix, while May had him move it further into the room. Also, the dynamic contrast between the ballad and rock sections is somewhat diminished on the May-tweaked version.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Really? The HFPA blu ray 5.1 has been ruined by loudness wars...

Really. It sounds fine on all my systems...

 

[Owen Smith]

The biggest differences I can recall were in "Bohemian Rhapsody" - the piano that kicks off the opera section is completely isolated in the rears (all other speakers are dead silent) on Scheiner's original mix, while May had him move it further into the room. Also, the dynamic contrast between the ballad and rock sections is somewhat diminished on the May-tweaked version.

There are loads of differences. When I finally heard the Scheiner mix I thought "What on earth is he doing? This doesn't follow the style of the stereo mix at all." but then I am very familiar with Queen albums in general and this era of Queen in particular. The 2002 5.1 sounds more like a complete redo of the mix to me rather than just tweaked.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

There are loads of differences. When I finally heard the Scheiner mix I thought "What on earth is he doing? This doesn't follow the style of the stereo mix at all." but then I am very familiar with Queen albums in general and this era of Queen in particular. The 2002 5.1 sounds more like a complete redo of the mix to me rather than just tweaked.

Well Owen, I need to get my copies out (got two or three IINM) and make sure I have a legit Scheiner version. Pretty sure I've got a Parlophone copy and a 2001. Then I can open it up and hear/see what differences I notice (YMMV)

And was the Scheiner version an actual "Unauthorized Release" or just a short term authorized release?

*edit -oh, and "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a great song, but also one of my least fav. Queen songs!

 

[EricKalet]

The biggest differences I can recall were in "Bohemian Rhapsody" - the piano that kicks off the opera section is completely isolated in the rears (all other speakers are dead silent) on Scheiner's original mix, while May had him move it further into the room. Also, the dynamic contrast between the ballad and rock sections is somewhat diminished on the May-tweaked version.

Also the gong at the end is much more pronounced on the May-tweaked version.

 

[Glenshoreham]

Well Owen, I need to get my copies out (got two or three IINM) and make sure I have a legit Scheiner version. Pretty sure I've got a Parlophone copy and a 2001. Then I can open it up and hear/see what differences I notice (YMMV)

And was the Scheiner version an actual "Unauthorized Release" or just a short term authorized release?

*edit -oh, and "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a great song, but also one of my least fav. Queen songs!

Hey Pupster, the old article linked from Queenonline (web.archive.org cache) stated that the initial disc was produced only for promotional DTS press kits at CES Las Vegas in 2002, and that by the time it took place, May had already undertaken the changes which resulted in the eventual retail release. The article is not complimentary of the original disc's mix, nor of its authoring.

If you need to confirm your own copy, the Discogs page for this release has all the information you'll need. Mastering code IFPI LL07 is unique to these discs, I understand.

FWIW, I also struggle to enjoy Bohemian Rhapsody ... not sure whether I should blame my peers for always playing it at houseparties in our youth, or Mike Myers.

 

[edisonbaggins]

If you need to confirm your own copy, the Discogs page for this release has all the information you'll need. Mastering code IFPI LL07 is unique to these discs, I understand.

My 2001 copy matches the discogs page in every way. As for the mastering code, is it in the middle ring? I'll need a magnifying glass!!!

 

[Owen Smith]

Hey Pupster, the old article linked from Queenonline (web.archive.org cache)

I agree with pretty much everything that linked article above says about the difference between the two versions.

One thing the reviewers didn't know then is that God Save The Queen (multi tracked guitar last track) is an upmix as Queen couldn't find the original multi channels. By the time of the later DVD-V of this mix they'd found it (on the Queen II tapes when it was recorded for live concert use) and did a new discrete 5.1 mix of that track. But they then ruined the entire 5.1 mix with dynamic range compression, and that is still present on the HFPA Blu Ray. So the 2002 DVD-A is still the best fidelity source for the 5.1 mix.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I agree with pretty much everything that linked article above says about the difference between the two versions.

One thing the reviewers didn't know then is that God Save The Queen (multi tracked guitar last track) is an upmix as Queen couldn't find the original multi channels. By the time of the later DVD-V of this mix they'd found it (on the Queen II tapes when it was recorded for live concert use) and did a new discrete 5.1 mix of that track. But they then ruined the entire 5.1 mix with dynamic range compression, and that is still present on the HFPA Blu Ray. So the 2002 DVD-A is still the best fidelity source for the 5.1 mix.

The BD is mastered FAR better than the DVD-V... It is less dynamic than the DVD-A's, but far from brickwalled. Have the naysayers compared for themselves or just relied on reviews?
I have all four versions. Given that the BD sounds great to me and is fully discrete AND has Brian May's preferred mix, it's my go-to. Though the DVD-As are enjoyable. The DVD-V is trash.

 

[Owen Smith]

The BD is mastered FAR better than the DVD-V... It is less dynamic than the DVD-A's, but far from brickwalled. Have the naysayers compared for themselves or just relied on reviews?
I have all four versions. Given that the BD sounds great to me and is fully discrete AND has Brian May's preferred mix, it's my go-to. Though the DVD-As are enjoyable. The DVD-V is trash.

I have all four versions. The DVD-V is indeed trash. I agree with most of what you say except I prefer the 2002 DVD-A for the better dynamic range. But I can see how the fully discrete last track might give the edge to the BD for you. To me it doesn't buy me enough for the dynamic range loss of the rest of the album.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I have all four versions. The DVD-V is indeed trash. I agree with most of what you say except I prefer the 2002 DVD-A for the better dynamic range. But I can see how the fully discrete last track might give the edge to the BD for you. To me it doesn't buy me enough for the dynamic range loss of the rest of the album.

Ahhhh... sounds like two people reaching reasonable middle ground. Prophet song is fully discrete on the BD too. And yeah, if the mastering of the BD bothered me, I'd be all over the DVD-As. I'm headed to the kitchen for another drink during GStQ anyhow. But, the mastering of the BD is pretty damn well done. No clipping. Rears are balanced with the fronts and center. Yes, a bit of limiting to bring some peaks to the same volume. But only in the very loudest parts. Somehow, just performs better, to me ears, with no drawbacks.

 

[Tres Discrete]

The BD is mastered FAR better than the DVD-V... It is less dynamic than the DVD-A's, but far from brickwalled. Have the naysayers compared for themselves or just relied on reviews?
I have all four versions. Given that the BD sounds great to me and is fully discrete AND has Brian May's preferred mix, it's my go-to. Though the DVD-As are enjoyable. The DVD-V is trash.

Yeah…but I kept the DVD-V because I love the corny videos

 

[Owen Smith]

Ahhhh... sounds like two people reaching reasonable middle ground. Prophet song is fully discrete on the BD too. And yeah, if the mastering of the BD bothered me, I'd be all over the DVD-As. I'm headed to the kitchen for another drink during GStQ anyhow. But, the mastering of the BD is pretty damn well done. No clipping. Rears are balanced with the fronts and center. Yes, a bit of limiting to bring some peaks to the same volume. But only in the very loudest parts. Somehow, just performs better, to me ears, with no drawbacks.

To my knowledge only God Save The Queen is an upmix on the DVD-A. I've seen nothing about any issue with Prophet's Song (which is to my mind a better track than Bohemian Rhapsody). Do you have a source for that? It can't have been the same issue as God Save The Queen, the multi tracks would not have been on Queen II tapes.

 

[edisonbaggins]

To my knowledge only God Save The Queen is an upmix on the DVD-A. I've seen nothing about any issue with Prophet's Song (which is to my mind a better track than Bohemian Rhapsody). Do you have a source for that? It can't have been the same issue as God Save The Queen, the multi tracks would not have been on Queen II tapes.

The vocal fugue parts. I don't have the source at hand, but it's been well-discussed if I know about it.

 

[Glenshoreham]

My 2001 copy matches the discogs page in every way. As for the mastering code, is it in the middle ring? I'll need a magnifying glass!!!

Hahahah, I tend to need one, sometimes! The inner plastic ring of my disc contains the Mould Code. The Mastering Code is in the inner ring of the coated section. I found I could read it when a light was reflected against it at the right angle. Some disc matrices are difficult for me to decipher, even that way! Best of luck. I never sought the ANATO BD-A out; perhaps I should...

 

[edisonbaggins]

The Mastering Code is in the inner ring of the coated section. I found I could read it when a light was reflected against it at the right angle. Some disc matrices are difficult for me to decipher, even that way!

Ah, I see it! IFPI LL07

 

[ssully]

Really? The HFPA blu ray 5.1 has been ruined by loudness wars, the DVD-A has much better sound quality on the 5.1. Now for the stereo it's a different story, the HFPA blu ray is absolutely sublime there.

That's funny because on the 2002 DVDA the stereo mix was hit hard by loudness mastering (less so on the 2005 DVD), while the surround mix was full-dynamics. It sounds like the producers of the HFPA BluRay did the opposite.

 

[Owen Smith]

That's funny because on the 2002 DVDA the stereo mix was hit hard by loudness mastering (less so on the 2005 DVD), while the surround mix was full-dynamics. It sounds like the producers of the HFPA BluRay did the opposite.

That's exactly what I hear, they swapped over which mix was hurt by excessive dynamic range compression.

The HFPA Blu Ray stereo track is so good I can hear all sorts of things I've never picked up on before. I'm sure in several places I can hear master tape saturation, having read up on what that sounds like. They make a point of it being the original stereo mix and master, presumably before anyone accused them of re-mastering it.