Led Zeppelin CD's

So, just as I thought. Blowing smoke as usual.

 

As they say, best to use your own ears but I prefer the intact dynamics and darker sound of the 80's CDs and original LPs. I didn't really need the peak limiting/compression and brightness to hear all this "new" detail.

I'm mostly a vinyl guy but if I had to stick with any of the released CDs I'd go with the 80's releases. They are easier on my ears at louder volumes and sound more organic to me.

 

I still go with the originals, those Marinos never did much for me. Very processed sounding.

 

I agree with Ricks. I suppose he and I and Luke and Ledsox are all drinking the same Kool-Aid. And that Kool-Aid is: clarity of thought.

 

The curves are in this thread but may have been lost after the forum rehost ? :
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/led-zeppelin-ii-needledrop-comparisons.243376/

I'm sure others will back me up , I'm known here for my honesty if not brutal honesty. You seem to have a rather serious anger issue, at least think about getting some help you'll live longer and better as a result.

 

How so? The Davis CD has a bit more high end EQ'd into it, but what else? Hiss? Dropouts? Where do the two differ?

 

This whole "newer is always better", or "artist authorized is always better" bias toward reissues is puzzling. IMO Too often the artist does not know what's best for their reissue, at least sonically. I thought the Knack remasters were hard and bright sounding, and that the ELO remasters were hard and bright sounding; both of those had the original composer's supervision and input.

Back before the loudness war kicked in on the CD format, mastering engineers such as Barry just try to get the best sound out of the tapes without much fiddling. The tape was the reference, just try to get a good total balance and call it a day. When the Marinos were done, some second-guessing took place. Page probably listen to the tapes and thought, this is heavier than I expected, this is brighter than I expected - and so there is a tendency among artists when remastering their own work that they never consider the tape itself as the reference, they're trying to remember back to their original intent, or what they think was their original intent.

Then there are extreme examples like Iggy Pop where he wanted to remix and remaster 'raw power' to be the loudest nastiest CD ever produced. By and large he succeeded, but of course it's completely unlistenable to human beings.

 

I thought we learned our lessons about remastering during the loudness war years. Newer is better isn't something I think about anymore.

I've had the original albums since they were released. I've bought the Diaments/Sidore CDs and enjoy them as much as I ever have. When the Crop Circles box came out, I bought it because it was the first new official LZ remasters released since the original CDs. I couldn't stand the CDs. The remasters are "good", and I'll listen to them when I'm in the mood. The original CDs may be my "go to" CDs when I want to hear Zeppelin.

 

I'd argue any "[insert term here] is always better" bias is puzzling. There are instances where older CDs are better, as well as instances where newer CDs are better. That's all the case here.

Interestingly, the original CD of HOTH seems to use a *better* tape than the new remaster. The original CD has extreme stereo separation, while the remaster seems to be taken from a tape that was used for vinyl mastering, with some of the bass frequencies summed to mono, reducing stereo separation somewhat.

 

If you usually prefer 'Older/Smoother' go for those, if you usually prefer 'Sharper/Clearer' then the new ones.

If you know you're usual preference then go with that. Nothing hugely wrong with either.

There's a massive thread something like 'Are the 80s Zep CDs any good ?' where this is covered at length.

 

Exactly what I've been saying for months, only to be told "that's not possible! Page used the MASTERS! Stop oppressing me!"

 

The BD of Houses of The Holy is the better sounding CD. I think some people here are under the mistaken impression that I prefer the Davis remasters for all albums, and I most certainly do not.

 

No way. I love all this about inferior tape sources. Where is the confirmation that Atlantic were lying when they said the original tapes (like several other of theirs) were lost? I see no official claims, just the usual 'this time we've done it properly' tosh from Page. The vinyl is pretty much spot for spot identical to the original CDs. Barry has confirmed he used little EQ and no dynamic compression.

 

I know you for being completely dismissive of other people's opinions and putting forth strawman arguments to try and prove your point. Regardless, I am aware that Th BD Led Zeppelin II has a bass boost in comparison to the RL (still my preferred version overall) In my opinion, the Davis remaster is closer overall, although I believe it has a slight treble increase in comparison.

 

Barry did these 30 years ago, and can't even remember working on some of the titles that he is credited for.

 

I don't think Barry ever said that he had inferior tape sources. I remember him saying "I used what they gave me." That was it. He had no information indicating they were the masters or less inferior sources. He just didn't know.

 

Hello Pot, this is the kettle . Apparently we are the same then.

Dude we are talking about CD's that cost under $5 and new ones that are $12.99, you are not someone here trying to sell Japan 1st pressings at an inflated rate or the Super Duper Deluxe's at 3 figures, so lighten up...I know I hate when people tell me that. i will also try to lighten up hows that. If not then how about this, add me to your ignore list, I will add you to mine. A win for you, a win for me, a win for all reading these posts, and it stops giving us New Yorkers a bad name

 

Now THIS I find to be really interesting. I wonder why the Jimmy Page/John Davis mastering team would choose to do this?

And this just makes me wonder, what tape was the Classic LP for HOTH sourced from, then?

 

Thanks

 

Not remotely true. He posted on another (CA) forum recently about them in answer to a direct question.

"I used to bring my own cables to work at Atlantic and bypass most of the signal path, using only what was absolutely necessary. When I applied EQ, only the EQ was inserted in between the analog tape machine and the A-D converters. Monitoring was always from the output of the A-D-A conversion (but I could also listen directly to the analog machine for comparisons).

I used some gentle EQ on the Zeps but other than that, what is on those CDs is the sound of the tapes Atlantic had. Of course the sound would also be influenced by the Sony 1630 converters. The 1630 we had was equipped with the Apogee retrofit filters, which made some nice improvements over the stock 1630.

Some of those were flat copies of the masters and a few (later ones) were from EQ'd tapes made during vinyl mastering. I was always told the original masters were lost. (This makes me wonder why it wasn't in the news when they were found -- if indeed they were. I know the 1990 remasterings claimed to be from originals but heard from the tape librarian at Atlantic that he delivered the same tapes I was given. As I wasn't there, I don't know for sure. Hopefully, they *did* find them and the tapes are still in good shape after all these years.)

If I was to do them again today, I think the approach would be exactly the same but I'd probably use a little more EQ than I did back then--in my opinion, the mixes can use a little more help. Of course the tools are better today also. I think that properly used, EQ can act like lighting on a film set, drawing one's attention toward certain aspects of the scene and/or away from others. In other words, the result should not sound "EQd" but instead it should bring out what is in the mixes themselves. And as always, I would not compress the dynamics at all."

 

I JUST GOT THE 40TH anniversary remastered Physical Graffitti and it sounds amazing to me!

 

This doesn't really have anything to do with my post. When I said he didn't remember doing some of the titles he is credited for, I was not strictly limiting the statement to the Led Zeppelin titles.

 

You say that it's "almost identical," and then later seem to say that you've only hear vinyl rips of that album -- so do you really know how the BL II sounds? (Does it matter?)

I've been listening to these remasters for almost three years -- yes, I would say that all previous masterings (digital at least) are "muddy" in comparison. I can't remember all the precise details and impressions I've had of "Wow, I never noticed that before!" -- I do remember being struck by the clarity on the remastered "Ten Years Gone" and the new-found audibility of the many guitar parts...I would say that the stereo image on the remaster of II really impressed me, whereas before I didn't notice it nearly as much. It's hard to quantify.

I can't speak to the specifics of this claim (I'd have to A/B with the Diament) but I remember being less impressed overall with HOTH in comparison to the other albums.

I think this could be said about a lot of people on this forum...

 

Umm...yes?