Led Zeppelin - Early CD Pressings

I know that this has been done to death, but at lunch I picked up both the I and II. I was a USA pressed Atlantic pre-remastering and II was a Japan pressed pre-remastering are these the "good" ones? So many discs so little time.

 

Depends who you ask...one train of thought is that the early masters were 'flat' transfers as opposed to the redos supervised by Jimmy Page himself, which were most certainly 'tweaked' to some degree. The latter discs sound just fine to me, while the earlier discs sound a bit dull. When the band's avatar supervises the remastering, I figure he should know what he's doing--not like The Who letting Jon Astley make a total hash of their catalog. Page was the producer, another reason to trust his judgment. On the other hand, Gus Dudgeon--Elton's original producer--remastered his catalog and many members here prefer the older DJM and MCA versions. In the end, trust your own ears. Better yet, find a remaster used of a title you already bought in its original mastering. Compare. Enjoy.

ED

 

I beg to differ Ed. The Page remasters are better than most remasters. However, Page's guitar doesn't sound as good as in the original pressings and the remasters are a little harsh.

Do me a favour Ed....Take either one of the same album and crank it up reasonably loud (subject to spouse being absent) and let me know which version you could stand to listen to all day long at this level.

Tom, yes those are the right ones as long as the Atlantic symbol isn't on the front cover.

 

Vinyl reissues sound better than either CD issues. Original CD issues need more punch and the reissues sound harsh. Again, the vinyl reissues (19XXX) sound right.

 

What Dave said.

 

I think I'm havin' deja-vu.:

 

You've talked me into it, Dave....like the packrat I am I still have all the original Zep CD pressings. Might as well pick the fourth one, it's my favorite. Neither will likely match my purple vinyl UK import, but what the hell....maybe I'll play all three and really drive the house bonkers. They need a little good music now and then Best be careful; repetition of the same music over and over is a sure sign of senility. How much "Stairway" can one man take in a day? We'll soon find out

ED

 

The original CDs were done basically flat using tape copies. The remasters used the original two tracks, but were EQd and ect.

Depending on what sound you're looking for, quite happily, you have a freedom of choice. While I like the original LPs, I'm satisfied and quite happy with the CD remasters.

Tom: Don't go nuts with Zep. Just go with what you like.

 

What Dave and Sckott said - the originals sound fine (a bit dull to my ears), the remasters are brighter (but not suffering from "dig-i-ti-tus", excessive noise reduction or compression). I bought the remasters on the 2 box sets, which means I have it all, out of sequence. With the tracks all "shuffled", it becomes easier to notice that the tracks from II are "red lined" on the analog scale, the tracks from IV and Graffiti seem to have less bottom end than those from Houses and Presence. Led Zep I is cleaner than those - but some songs have a less "breath", the effect of multiple overdubs on less available tracks give a more cluttered sound. Kudos to Page, he could have used a lot MORE EQ to make them all sound similar, and he didn't. I think this is a matter of PERSONAL preference.

 

I used to have a complete set of the original 80's Zep CD's and always thought that they sounded very dull. To my ears, the remasters are significantly better. They just "move" me more, and even at high volumes (the best way to listen to LZ), I don't find them fatiguing at all.

I agree with what seems to be the general consensus here: listen to both and decide which you like. There is no right or wrong answer.

 

I thought those originals were from the LP mastered tapes which means everything below 150Hz, or so, is mono.

 

Cool. That's why we keep you around here Steve.

 

Anyone who knows me jeff, knows that my system is totally unforgiving when it comes to over-compression or over-eqing. The page remasters are not too bad but on my system I can't stand to listen to more than one song simply because of discomfort (audio fatigue). The originals do not have this effect and constantly sound sweet and natural, also the Page remasters have inappropriate enhancement of certain instruments. For me, flat is where it's at.

 

When I compared the original Zep CDs to the remastered Zep CDs, the main thing that I noticed was that Robert Plant's vocals sound much smoother and warmer on the originals, and somewhat, but not overly harsher, on the remastered CDs. On my current system, I prefer the originals.




Ed Hurdle
HeavyDistortion

 

But Sckott, it's official even my shrink agrees I'm suffer from obsessive compulsive behavior, thankfully it only pertains to music. What really pisses me off is having to go buy all the same disks that I traded in. I gotta start listening to my purchases when I buy them instead of waiting years before getting around to them (or just stop buying so damn many).

 

There is no hope for the obsessive compulsive personality, which, although I've never been to a shrink in my life(I've met a few--probably why I've never gone to one)I've got a pretty good read on myself, and I'm somewhere in that general category. The thing is, I very seldom have traded in an old disc after buying the new one--not least because some of those early discs got a lot of boom box play wherever I was working at the time. Most play perfectly, but visually couldn't be sold to anybody. As it happens, I have all my old Zeps, and IV is a red label pressed in Japan.
I'll do my usual A-B test: play the newest disc first, with the system set for non-Eq'd stereo listening, and the woofer at a comfortable but obvious level to pick up the low end. Then I'll put on the older disc and check only for the volume level so it lines up with the first. I did this last week with the Zombies SACD/DCC disc and found a big difference between the two, with the former winning hands down.

ED

 

I agree with those that prefer the remasters (though overall I still much prefer the LPs). To me the first cds sounded thin and lifeless. While the remasters still don't have the warmth and fullness of the LPs, they do have more of the dynamic feel of the LPs. To me they sound more lifelike. They're definitely not perfect, but in my opinion, they are an improvement over the first cds.

I'm probably the exception on this forum though. I often prefer the remasters to the original cds. In general I find most of the first cds issued in the '80's to sound thin, tinny and lifeless (relative to the LPs). I've found a lot of remasters to be at least a step in the right direction, even if not perfect.

 

I have the Barry Diament early CD's, the 4 CD crop circle box set, and the 10 CD studio recordings thingy, and I come back to the Diament's every time. Not perfect, but the most natural. Those would be my recommendation. I actually prefer the BD CD of Graffiti to my Classic vinyl (ooohhh how this pains me), since it has more life, and slightly better eq. to these ears. Hope this helps.

 

Wasn't it BD's mastering of GRAFFITI where the post-song studio talk of "In My Time Of Dyin'" was dropped? That rankled the hell out of fans, and probably Page, too, when he found out. No wonder he decided to take over and get it done his way.

ED

 

Well - Pages remasters initially came out on the box set, where he restored In My Time of Dyings end chatter, but deleted the opening sound effect to Immigrant Song and the false start on Tangerine. I guess they are about even.

 

The "In My Time of Dying" Tag was fixed with an RE-1 before the Marino/Page remasters.

 

I agree - trust your ears. I don't think anybody here is right or wrong in making a judgement if that's the "sound" you prefer. Some people like "aggressive" EQ and others prefer "mellower" EQ. I know most people here will think I'm nuts but I've been a recording engineer for 20 years and listening on very good speakers, I think the new Elton remasters sound better than the original '80's MCA no-frills CDs. I A-Bed them to death when I first got them and that's just my personal taste - a lot more detail and also warmer. I also prefer the original Barry Diament Zeppelin CDs - the new ones are way too harsh. I do this every time I buy a new remaster - sometimes I keep the new ones and sometimes I keep the old ones and sometimes I keep both.

 

The LED ZEP IV comparison test--totally unscientific

And so, Great Gort(or is that Spidey?), I have. I played the remaster first: deeper(and cleaner) bass response, more bombastic during the loudest passages, some nice sound during the quieter tracks. Obviously Eq'd and tweaked for maximum impact. As you noted, for what they are, among the better remasters. Page obviously cares like a father over his children.

Then I put on the old Zep CD from '85('84?). Listening again, it is an utterly untweaked sound--no significant adjustments, whatsoever. What surprised me was that the only real difference can be heard at the bottom: the bass doesn't come off with the distinction of the remaster. Other than that, one bonus: a more even sound along the rest of the sonic range, including the top, which is more natural and less 'harsh,' as you put it.
There is also more hiss, but that was typical of early CD mastering, anyway, and is probably the natural sound of the tape used. What generation of tape was employed, I can't guess, though it sounds close to if not right on the master. FWIW, I could turn the volume up higher on the original without significant sibilance or distortion; the remaster, on the other hand, started piercing my eardrums if I pushed the limits too far(yet the bass still sounded distinct; everything else suffered).

I avoided the vinyl, for now, because of time limitations; I don't doubt that there are vinyl editions superior to both. Bottom line: for the evening, not to bother the family too much, the original CD works fine; for a rowdier, ass-kickin' time, the Page remaster works better. That is, good for a Sunday afternoon when your fave team is getting their butts handed to them; why listen to the announcers when you can offset it with great loud rock? Yet the old CD has its good qualities, too.

So it really is a matter of choice, at least this time; neither sounds exactly great--each has flaws--and neither sounds bad, either. Depends on the listening situation and the mood of the main listener --who, as we know, must sometimes bow to the whims of others.

ED

 

Really? My bad memory again. But no matter: just the kind of little thing that should never have happened. As I posted, you can bet Page found out, and put it in his mental file for later use. Not that I would have bought a new 2-CD set for the relatively insignificant studio talk, in any case. The fact that such screwups happened helped usher in the acts starting to take control of their own remasters, if they could. Page did.

ED