Led Zeppelin - new SHM Box from Japan.

The CD WAS remastered by Bob Ludwig. Notice my list was titled This thread is about CD versions "Led Zeppelin CD masterings."

 

Sometimes cds from Japan have own proprietary mastering,and sometimes this mastering is very good! (like for last Elvis or Metallica mini-lps,mastering is outstanding).May be with this LZ set same story.

 

Yes, but that generally hasn't happened with Led Zeppelin on CD. What I've been hearing on LZ forums/lists from people who've compared this set as well as other Japanese LZ CDs is that it's just the same Marino remasters repackaged yet again.

 

Ok, I did some checking and according to www.cdjapan.co.jp the entire set is from the 1993 masters except for The Song Remains the Same, which is from the 2007 remaster.

For example the listing for Led Zeppelin I has "Audio comes from the 1994 digital remasters." in the Description section of the web page. All the others are the same.

The Page and Page/Plant listings have no mastering info, but the Unledded cover is the bronze-colored one from the original 1994 CD and not the red one from the 2004 remaster.





Anyway, these may sound better due to the SHM format, but they're definitely not a new remastering.

 

They've always been my favorite as well. Led Zeppelin as they were meant to be heard.

 

What about the Japanese CD's from the early to mid 80's??

 

My understanding is that those were done from Barry and Joe's masterings.

 

Those are the credits from the vinyl release. Bob did the CD, Stan did the vinyl.

 

Stefan -

4. Dave Collins (I just got this set from DrJ here).

Sounds pretty good but have not had a chance to A/B with all other mastering versions. When I quite traveling I'll try to do this and post thoughts.

 

Reading some reviews, people rave about the sound quality, saying the Cd's, on SHM format, never sounded that good before.
Other claims that the paper sleeves are too thin, and don't deliver the old "quality Vibes" of past Japanese mini lps version.

did any one got any of those new led zeppelin shm mini lp version, and can comment ?

thanks !

 

No, if it were a bootleg it would show SACD, DVD-Audio, DSD, HDCD, DTS, and Dolby logos.

 

Thanks thorbs. I have heard that before but forgot. Someone here or elsewhere reported that they sounded similar to the Marino's but with better EQ choices. I assume these were again sourced from the same Sony 1610 digital flat transfers that were apparently the source of the Marino remasters and the John Davis Mothership remasters.

It would be interesting to hear what could be done with a new hires digital transfer of the tapes as a source. The latest rumors I've heard have this happening with a release in 6-8 months. I hope it's so.

 

Isn't SHM just a different material used to make the discs? It has nothing to do with the mastering, correct? Unless you believe that SHM improves reflectivity or something like that, why would the new Zeppelin SHM discs made from the '94 Marino remasters sound better than the original '94 remasters?

My only experience with SHM is the two-disc sampler, where disc one is the SHM disc and disc two is the standard CD. Neither disc sounded great to me, but the SHM disc was louder and more boomy (boomier? ). It sounded to me like the mastering on the two discs was different and that the SHM disc was boosted in the bass and made louder to give the impression that you were hearing more (i.e., modern mastering). The differences could not be attributed just to differences in materials of construction.

 

As I posted in the other thread running on this topic (Keith is there any chance of merging these two threads? They're essentially the same topic), these ARE the 1994 remasters except for The Song Remains The Same, which is now sourced from the 2007 remix/remaster (note for accuracy, someone above called the 1994 versions "Jimmy Page remixes". They are not remixed. Zeppelin has never been remixed, only remastered).

 

There nothing more descriptive than "Super High Material".

 

Me too.

 

how is it in relation to the 1980's (Barry & Joel) masters?

 

But EAC values can be misleading. If they don't match, people will wrongly assume it's a whole new mastering, but that's not always the case.

For example, I have a mini-LP version of Physical Graffiti from the EU released in 2003 that for a couple of tracks measures about 2dB louder for average RMS values but it's clearly the same mastering just boosted if you compare the waveforms. One could argue that it's technically a different "mastering" if someone went in and modified the levels, but in terms of the current popular definition of "remaster" in the sense of going into a studio with a flat source and EQing, adding compression, getting the artist's approval, etc., we have no knowledge of this being done. Someone simply decided to boost "Custard Pie" and a couple of others. Yet, if someone compares the EAC values alone and sees a difference, he or she might conclude it's a different version .

As I posted, at least one web site selling the package is claiming it's from the 1994 digital remaster (except for TSRTS, which is from 2007).

 

Oh I fully agree that technically it is a different mastering, but in the past decade or two, the whole notion of "digitally remastered from the original master tapes" has taken on a marketing life of its own. People see it as a much more monumental and definitive process. In the case of Led Zeppelin we know from several interviews that Jimmy Page did not sit in the studio tweaking the knobs and tailoring the sound for the 1990s remasters the way he did for the original mixes. He sat in as George Marino did the work and listened, etc. He apparently did the same for the Classic vinyl reissues. Yet, people often refer to the 1990s remasters as being the Page remastered, in large part because the stickers on the CDs say so!

Thus, if someone sees a different EAC value, he or she may think Page went into the studio again, threaded up the master tapes and went through the EQ, compression and level adjustments for a "full remastering" when in fact, it was probably just a matter of some anonymous engineer hired by the record company with instructions to boost the level on tracks 2, 5 & 9 by 2.3dB with the peak limiter turned on (these are just example levels and track #s, not the ones I've observed as different). Yes, that's technically a form of mastering but it's not what most people consider a "remaster."

 

Folks, we had two threads running on these CDs that had each grown to two pages. I have merged Masmusic's thread with this one since this one was started first.

 

Agreed.

I'll find out what the deal is when they arrive today or tomorrow.

SH-M CDs are simply made using "super high material" or some bulls_ _ t; It is not a mastering process at all, just "good plastic" as I like to call it. I've got lots of these SH-M CDs and they all sound good. Truth is, I can't tell if the "SH-M" business helps or hinders anything at all. From what I've read, the main benefit to SH-M CDs are that they don't make your player work as hard reading the bits. Whether or not that improves audio, I don't know.

Long live GOOD PLASTIC, eh?

 

For what it's worth, it looks like this Mini-LP box is going to be released domestically. Elusive Disc has it listed (and so does Amazon). No mention of SHM-CD, though.

 

Hi Stefan,

Perhaps "most people" need to learn to separate the marketing language from the facts. I would say most people could not even tell you what "mastering" is.

As I've said in other threads, even if it was simply a level change, I would no longer consider it the work of the original mastering engineer. One could correctly say that original engineer's work was used as the source but the result is not the original engineer's work.

That is "even if was simply a level change". But other changes will occur. If they took the easy way and simply altered the 16-bit files, they will have truncated data. This is a change, regardless of whether some folks hear it or not. If they took the more difficult path and copied the originals to expanded word length files (and perhaps upsampling as well), performed the level changes and then dithered back to 16-bits (and resampled back to 44.1 if needed), truncation would be avoided but the artifacts from the processes are still added to what was the original. This too is a change, regardless of whether some folks hear it or not.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com