weird. I thought LZ I was their worst in terms of fidelity. Lots of "dirt" in that sound. Houses of the Holy is their first recording, which sounds very clean and more polished.
What is all the fuss about the original CD releases of the Led Zeppelin back-catalogue remastered by Barry Diament? This subject about the Barry Diament LZ CDs is probably the topic I've seen discussed the most on this forum since joining in 2006 (even more than The Beatles albums). I've never heard these 1980s remasters before. Is it mainly due to very little or no compression being applied during the mastering stage or other reasons as well? What source did Barry Diament use? The original mix-down masters, flat copies of the original mix-down masters or previously EQd masters made for vinyl with Barry just adding even more EQ to them? Also, how do LZ, LZII & LZIII remastered by Barry Diament compare with the new 2014 remasters (both the CD copies and 24bit/96kHz download copies)? I am aware that the original CD release of Led Zeppelin IV wasn't remastered by Barry Diament.
Good questions, Andrew. Why do people like the Diaments? I'm aware of two main reasons: (1) No compression. From what he's said, and as far as we all know, the dynamic range on the CDs is identical to the dynamic range on the tapes he used. (2) Minimal and/or "analogue-ish" EQ. Generally speaking, the Diament CDs are heavy on the bass and a bit light (rolled-off, or natural, depending on your view) on the treble. The result is CDs that, whatever faults they might have, are dynamic and never fatiguing to listen to. As for what tapes he used, I believe he's said he always asked for the true masters, but he used whatever Atlantic gave him. If memory serves, he had to use an EQ'd LP master for In Through the Out Door, but not for any others. However, many folks feel that for at least some of the others, he was using safety copies, or other 2nd-gen (or worse?) copies rather than the original masters. As to how the Diaments stack up against the new Davis mastered CDs and high-res files, well, you'll get a lot of different opinions here. My view is that the Davis masters are the clearest and "cleanest" versions ever released in any medium - but of course that doesn't necessarily mean they are the best. For LZ I, I prefer the Diament slightly for the non-acoustic tracks, because the bass is fatter and more resonant. The sound is not as clean/clear as the Davis, but IMHO it's pretty close. For the acoustic tracks it's a toss-up IMHO, and if I had to choose for those tracks, I'd probably pick the Davis. For LZ II, I prefer the Davis for its clarity - best-sounding Lemon Song I've ever heard. BUT, I can say this because the things I like about the Diament - primarily the bass and overall impact - are even better on the Robert Ludwig vinyl (which remains my favorite version of this album). For LZ III, I prefer the Davis, hands-down. Some say it's too trebly, but I disagree. And the Diament, while very easy to listen to, is dull and lifeless by comparison (as is the Marino remaster and a lot of the vinyl versions). You are correct that Diament didn't master IV; Joe Sidore did, reportedly from a West Coast copy of the master tape. That CD is dynamic, but it's dull and hissy and with all due respect I can't really understand how anyone could prefer it - I really like the digital, CD-quality tracks of IV that are available on Qobuz. For Houses, Diament's CD is excellent and tops the Davis remaster (again relying on Qobuz CD-quality tracks). For Physical Graffiti I feel the Davis slays every other version. For the final three, I would easily take the Davis versions over the Diaments, but for Presence and Coda I like the Classic Records versions the best. For In Throught the Out Door I feel the Davis master is the best ever.
Why was he given a previously EQd master for In Through The Out Door? Is the original master missing? If this is the case, did Davis use a 2nd or 3rd generation tape or a previously EQd master for ITTOD as well, or did they just not have enough time to locate the master for the Diament CD edition back in the mid-1980s?
All we can do is make educated guesses. When Diament (and Joe Sidore) mastered the Zep catalogue for CD in the 1980s, it seems the band was not involved - Diament and Sidore just got what was given to them by whomever was in charge of getting tapes to mastering engineers for CD production at the time. The press coverage for the new Davis remasters has included comments from Page (and maybe Davis, I can't remember) to the effect that they went and found the original two-track masters - it seems to have been strongly implied that these might have been Page's own copies, perhaps never before used, or perhaps used only in 1990 when George Marino did the digital transfers for the 1990s remasters.
The Diament are way too quiet for a rock record imo. Even back in the day with my junky stereo I couldn't stand them. LZ IV is the worst. Black Dog comes on like your stereo is broken. Never understood why people like these. I prefer the vinyl.
When I got my copy of the original set of Davis remasters, I was very happy to hear them. They sounded very clear and I thought I heard more of the music than I ever heard before. Eventually I went back and listened to the Diaments and I wasn't as sure that the new Davis remasters were the best versions of the music that I'd ever heard. I think it's a case by case basis, but I'd never sell my Diaments. There are things I like about both versions that will keep me coming back to the Diaments. I'll buy all the new remasters, but I'll still have the Diaments/Sidore 80's versions.
In the end there's no point to all this back and forth on the subject. The fact is the Diaments can be purchased quite cheaply (I just got Physical Graffiti on Ebay yesterday for $9.99), so if you like or love the band buy the Diaments, buy the new remasters, enjoy the music and stop obsessing! I enjoyed discovering the info on the Diaments here on the forum and have had fun tracking them down cheaply. And my favorite one so far? LZ II, I was really knocked out the first time I heard it, "Whole Lotta Love" sounded like surround sound at times it was so immersive, thanks Forum!
Am I the only one who thinks that something is not right with the 2014 remasters? They're too clear and they don't sound fluid. (It's the same problem as with the 2011 Pink Floyd remasters.) I think the original Barry Diament masters are the most natural sounding versions but they have drop outs and other issues. I listened to the '94 remasters recently and I think they're not bad at all, however they're a bit sterile. The 2014 remasters sound good but as I said they're too clear and don't sound fluid. I don't really know. So, are the 2014 versions so good? Or is it just the hype? Is the problem with my ears only? I think they're worse than the '94 remasters and I think the '94 remasters aren't so bad. Am I alone in my opinion?
I don't have the same feeling about this as you do , but I certainly understand where you're coming from, and while (based on posts here) you are probably in the minority, you certainly are not alone in your view. The new remasters are indeed clear; the Marinos can indeed be described as sterile; and the Diaments generally are warmer and less precise, which means they can sound "natural" or "vinyl-like" in some cases. In another thread about these new remasters, I wrote something to the effect that 95% of us probably agree on the overall sonic characteristics of these three different versions/masterings of Zep on CD. Where we disagree is on how we weigh those characteristics - how important or minor we think they are, what the pros and cons are, how they balance out, and so on.
Okay, but the point is that the 80s versions are not flawless because IV is not flawless. Please, focus on my questions...
I just listened to the Diaments again and they are really well done. Nothing to scoff at at all! And miles ahead of the Marino remasters that are just kind of harsh and in some cases a hollow representation of the albums. The Davis remasters though are still my favorite because of the added clarity on all of the albums as well as (IMO) a decent job on the EQ. Maintaining the power of the albums while opening up the sonic space - especially on IV, III, and Houses (the bass on TSRTS is soo good!)
I've read bad things about Marinos and Diaments here. But almost nothing bad about the new remasters. That's my only problem. That's why I asked that "Am I alone in my opinion?"
You must not be running across the right threads! In my experience, the Marinos are pretty universally panned, while people seem to favor the Davis remasters over the Diaments, but not by a very large margin. Problem is, many people (myself included) have a mastering preference on an album by album basis, so it's really not possible to make definitive statements.
If the 1994 remasters are your favourites then the SHMs are the way to go, they are improved versions of 'Marinos'.
The Sidore "IV" was also preferred over the Marinos due to several early fade-outs on tracks (notably "Going To California" and "Stairway"). I take it the recent remaster doesn't have that issue?
Early fade is present on the 2014 "Going to California". Looks like I will be keeping both the Davis and the Diament for this one.
