Led Zeppelin DVD-A details

Yes, it could be a lost opportunity - we may never know why Warner's chose 48/24 over 96/24. On the other side of the coin, Warner's has been wrong before on stating on the package and pre-release what the disc actually includes. I have a few Warner's DVD-A discs that state on the back 96/24 for stereo, and you really get 192/24. On the other hand certain discs were touted that they would contain a 192/24 stereo mix, and they had only 96/24 (the Grateful Dead DVD-As come to mind).

It could very well be possible, or at best hopeful, that the information regarding 48/24 is incorrect and that the disc when actually released will have the 96/24 mix we are all hoping for.

As for a brilliant MCH mix, I wouldn't expect one. If it is anything like the DVD-Video, it is good, but not brilliant. The rears are mostly used for audience and ambience, except for some effects when Jimmy is using his violin bow to play guitar. At those times, the sounds spin around the room (which I like - but many people hate).

The problem here is many people are getting worked up over a disc they have yet to hear. Yes we can be disappointed that the discs are not mastered at 96/24, but how do we know that even at 48/24 they won't sound spectacular. Let's wait and see.

And regarding the Band DVD-A, I mentioned it earlier and I said it sounded OK. What I meant by OK was that it was good but nothing to write home about. So if the Zep DVD-A sounds similar due to 48/24, then some might have reason to be a bit miffed, because merely good is not good enough if there exists the propensity for the material to sound great.

 

"The problem here is many people are getting worked up over a disc they have yet to hear. "

Perhaps Mike but you do the same thing with cracked discs. You assume all of Crest work is bad and you speculate on albums that have not disclosed who is doing the pressing. Don't get me wrong the Crest issue is a important disaster that needs addressing but speculation works both ways.

This album may sound fine and I will likely pick it up for my DVDA player to check out. But we ought to be fair and allow commentary on this DVDA shortcoming when people like Michael are constantly criticizing an SACD title for using a PCM source.

Fair is fair. Balanced is balanced.

You do raise a point about Warner's labeling - this could be mislabeled as several in my collection are. Hopefully it really is 24/96.

 

Ok - I do not give Crest the benefit of the doubt, but I don't ever remember speculating on albums that have not disclosed who is doing the pressing. I can always spot a Crest pressed SACD.

As far as Crest is concerned, and I don't mean to thread crap, but I believe that they have not done enough to allay the fears of people like me who buy a lot of SACDs and have gotten burned by them (Crest) in the past.

If I may, I have found that almost all recent Crest pressings hold up much better than early pressings. Most of my recent SACD purchases where Crest is involved have not cracked, and seem to be made stronger than what we have come to expect. Maybe I have not been fair, but I sink a lot of money into SACDs, and I don't want to throw $14.99 down the drain on discs that might crack in the future.

I am like Pavlov's Dog in this situation, I have been conditioned to believe that when I see a Crest disc I automatically believe it will crack. And for that I apologize. I still take issue with Crest for not being more vocal about this situation and offering us something to restore our faith in them 100%.

Anyway, I think we are having a fair and balanced discussion regarding the Zep DVD-A, and if we stick to the point of 48/24 vs. 96/24 and the actual reasons why Warner's has chosen one over the other, fine. But it is quite possible, as you have seemingly agreed on, that even at 48/24 the Zep DVD-A might sound "fine". Yes 96/24 gets me "hotter" than seeing 48/24. And Yes, the connotation of seeing 48/24 to me can mean that the disc isn't going to sound as good as one that is mastered at 96/24. Regardless it isn't going to stop me from buying this disc, but that points more to my weakness as an "obsessive-compulsive" music collector, than a rational "normal" music buyer who might be happy with the redbook CD and never give a second look to the DVD-A.

 

My criticism of SACDs using PCM sources are not based on sound quality (have I ever accused a PCM-sourced SACD of sounding bad?), but on truth in advertising and marketing. Throw into that that many 'golden-eared' PCM bashers are dead quiet on PCM sourced SACDS, especially when they don't know the source is PCM.

Comparing to Crest is invalid. Crest has shown a trend of making defective SACDS (and also DVD-Videos...they make rotting DVDs). There is no trend of 24/48 discs sounding bad; actually, some acclaimed discs here are 24/48 sourced...and there's probably a ton more but the SACD folks won't admit what their source is.

And all of this does ignore the fact that just because a tape is analog doesn't make it high-res. Not all analog tapes are created equal and on-location tapes of live rock from the 70s aren't always the greatest. This recording may not benefit from 24/96 or 24/192 at all.

Conclusions are being jumped to here.

 

"My criticism of SACDs using PCM sources are not based on sound quality (have I ever accused a PCM-sourced SACD of sounding bad?), but on truth in advertising and marketing."

I can't speak to others but I have not been silent on the Gaucho SACD or other good PCM sourced discs. I HAVE repeatedly said that pure DSD or analog tape sources are the goal.

And we must disagree on the Crest being different because I do believe that in general lower sampling rate sources yield lower sounding sonics.

"And all of this does ignore the fact that just because a tape is analog doesn't make it high-res. "

Of course not, the transfer into a high rez sampling rate makes it hirez. The general rule is that analog sources sound far better than PCM sources. I spoke with Barry Wolifson at Chesky/Sterling two weeks ago and asked if the Chesky SACDs used the PCM masters we created, he said "God no, we used the analog tapes which sound much better."

You may be right about 70s live rock not being an ideal starting point...we will have to see what we wind up with. There are some phenomenal live recordings from that era though.

"If I may, I have found that almost all recent Crest pressings hold up much better than early pressings."

Same here, and again don't get me wrong..I think you are to be commended for "bulldogging" the issue on these forums. And we do agree that a 24/48 Zep could sound damn good. I just want more hirez acceptance because it is better for us music fans and I hate to see DVDA or Super Audio fumble around with low quality sources...especially since I have heard nirvana on many of my pure DSD or analog sourced SACDs (oh yeah, lots of nirvana on Mark Waldrep's AIX DVDA discs as well).

 

You may not have been silent, but you have not been nearly as critical as you have been on this disc (that you haven't even heard yet)!

If I were a label exec reading this thread, I'd seriously consider taking the SACD approach. Upsample everything to the highest resolution possible, and don't tell the buyers what they are really getting.

 

Well Michael, I am just trying to get people to buy true hirez which 24/48 is not in my humble opinion. It may sound good, but it should have been 24/96. Most of the SACDs I have bought lately have described in detail the source in some detail. DVDA is no better on this front. As we agreed earlier, there needs to be more transparency in the labelling of discs. You can't blame one format or the other as both are guilty.

My voice is just out there trying to get DVDA to offer a better product so we can get more DVDA and other hirez discs.

Maybe the answer on Zeppelin is to visit Classic Records and pick up the LPs-the only real hirez available for the near future-I know Hobson used analog for those puppies.

 

(I'm not much of a Zeppelin fan, so I avoided this discussion for a while so I hope I'm not repeating any information already written, as I didn't read the entire thread. But when The Cars dvd-audio comes out the 23rd, then you'll see me here more often.)

Holy crap if it sounds good at 48kHz what's the big deal?! I've been reading several pro boards ever since these formats debuted & I've read lots of reports of pros reporting significantly improved sound going from 16 to 24bits, and to a lesser extent, from 44.1 to 48kHz sampling rates.

And did anyone consider the possibility that the live master tapes sounded really sucky and a higher sampling rate (i.e. ability to capture more detail) would have brought out ALL the suckiness? As many people of high quality sound systems have found out to their dismay, many times when they finally got to hear their favorite album on their new Super-Duper System it sounded like crap: formerly insignificant-sounding tape edits are now jarring occurrences; that "soft" tape hiss now becomes an all-too-clear irritating distraction; microphone overload distortions become unpleasantly apparent, etc, etc.

IF that was the case with this release, and you are trying to push a new format touting itself as sounding superior to CD and you are trying to get high-visibility titles onto the retail shelves in order to help sell that format, why not pick a PCM format that best takes care of all these considerations?

On a related note, check out this quote in this review at Mixonline.com by their reviewers of a 192kHz-capable recording system (24 paragraphs down):

As that 1990s dance song goes, kinda makes ya go hmmm...............

[T]

 

Sorry my friend I think your statement is factually inaccurate. Ceteris paribus, 96/24 will sound better than 48/24.

As far as the sound quality of the master tapes and discounting it because it’s live and from the early 70’s, have you listened to the cd’s of this release? I don’t think anyone will argue that it’s a bad recording.

I love Zep, I love high-res (both formats but my personal preference is DVD-A so I’m not a PCM basher) but releasing this in 48/24 when the master analog tapes were in Jimmy’s hands within the last year strikes me as bizarre. The only reason that I can come up with is that they went to 48/24 to keep what is a 3 cd set down to 2 DVD-A’s. This smells of reducing the audio quality for business reasons, not technical audio reasons. I’d bet a buck a record company executive had a hand in this.

 

"As that 1990s dance song goes, kinda makes ya go hmmm"

Taurus, you should do a search on Dr. Mark Waldrep, the engineer and owner of AIX on his comments at The Home Theater Forum. He clearly feels that 192k is a big step up from 96k, as do many engineers. I suspect your article did not hear the difference due to system resolution or they had an AD/DA that did not have a good 192k implementation. There are big quality differences at both 96k and 192k among DACs as I have found out the hard way.

 

By the way, I think most consumers that love hirez sonics, also want both formats to sell well. My view is that having DVDAs sell well also helps Super Audio, because it creates more momentum for hirez in general and shows more profit/cash flow potential to the record execs.

I say bring both on and make the hirez formats a dual standard like Dolby Digital and DTS....more titles is a good thing.

 

Ducking from the debates, but wanting to add a quick comment...

I don't believe the Classic will be mastered from analog tapes. Check this link (posted sometime ago by another member). I doubt they would have made these kinds of edits in analog, with all kinds of fine digital equipment at their disposal these days, especially when considering issues like time synch, etc. I'd be willing to bet this is a 24/96 or higher res PCM digital mix:

Garden Tapes