Led Zeppelin Remasters in 2014 to include 2nd disc of bonus material (Pt7)

I think what SP is getting at is that the song titles in the filenames in your second link don't correspond to Zeppelin tunes. First link is to a NY thread. The discussion is already over my head so I'm guessing this is just meant to illustrate your point but the data is not necessarily measured from Zep tunes but would still apply ?!?

 

I need to compare IV to my other versions but is it my imagination or does the bass in IV sound the most defined that I have ever heard? Not loud just more definition. I can hear more note changes clearly.

HOTH sounds great to me also but I need to do some comparisons.

 

We're supposed to be talking about the two latest LZ releases on this thread. I'm strictly referring to the latest LZ remasters as I stated. There is clearly more tape hiss on the high resolution copies than the "MFiT" copies, even though they're supposed to come from the same 24/96 EQd master. Stairway To Heaven (original album version) is actually a good track to compare when it comes to the tape hiss. Maybe the 256kbps AAC files hide more tape hiss as someone else suggested further back on this thread.

 

I actually use 320kbps AAC files for casual listening (vs. MP3) because of running across the ability to view track as spectrogram plots instead of waveforms in Audacity. I found that, when comparing a WAV file to a 320kbps AAC file, the AAC looks virtually identical to a lossless source with most data preserved all the way up to 22kHz, while an "equivalent" MP3 or lowere bitrate AAC file will show significant data loss above 18kHz or so. My car receiver doesn't play lossless, so it's a reasonable compromise.

 

I think the LZ iTunes downloads are 256kbps AAC. I don't think the downloads go up to 320kbps... they never have.

 

If the hiss is very low-level & is ocurring up above 16 or 17kHz, the 256kbps AACs might not catch it. I think that's about where my hearing poops out tho, so I wouldn't be able to tell...

 

Yep- I think Apple determined that 256 was good enough, and it probably is for the majority of iTunes shoppers...

 

In general, I think the bass sounds more defined through all the 2014 remasters so far...I know some people prefer the boomy, uber-powerful bass on the Diament LZ II for example, but I prefer the more controlled bass of the latest remaster.

 

I agree. The bass does sound more defined on all of the remasters. I heard note changes that I never heard before on IV. It sounds great and I am looking forward to PG.

 

In a good way or a bad way?

 

That's a shame there has been so little live official audio product. I recall how excited I was to get the BBC live set for Christmas in '97!

 

Having now heard the bonus tracks for Led Zeppelin IV, I am somewhat puzzled. First, were these alternate versions created specifically for the re-issue, or did they exist from 1971? Second, why do some tracks have superior sound quality ("Stairway To Heaven" Sunset Sound Mix sounds incredible) and others sound inferior to the originals ("Misty Mountain Hop" in particular). Finally, I have to wonder if some tracks were just put on to fill up space, as they are barely alternates at all. I have to say however, in spite of the shortcomings, it's great to have the instrumental and in some cases, superior sounding tracks. Just an odd collection IMO.

 

Here's a quick comparison in Audacity of "The Song Remains The Same" from the 2014 CD- the top is 256kbps AAC encoded, the bottom is ALAC lossless- looks like a negligible difference to me, right up to 22kHz.

I would think that any audible hiss in the Hi-Res files would be carried through in the conversion to 16/44.1, so not sure why you would hear it on one & not the other...

 

IMO, a good way! a lot more open and dynamic.

 

I'm not even talking about the cymbals...I'm talking about the kick and snare. Like all the bottom was sucked out. No "girth".

 

Listening to IV on vinyl now. "Rock and Roll" finally has the bottom end and thump i've been looking for (along with mid and top end clarity).

PS. Anyone notice how cloudy and washed-out the artwork is on the vinyl of IV or is mine a dud?

 

Bad way, too bright and compressed (peak limited).

 

Yes, and that's another example of Page compromising a live release! I really wish they would revisit the BBC material with a comprehensive release.

 

Maybe I could send you that one track in 24bit/96kHz and you can post the comparisons between the high rez and the 256kbps AAC (like you have done here) on this thread.

 

the insert is even more washed out than the cover. horrible.

 

I'm curious- what version & format are you used to hearing? I sprang for HOTH yesterday, but am still on the fence with IV- especially after seeing multiple posts claiming it has the least improvement over previous versions.

 

I'm happy to do it- if you could post a sample of a track, it would be more manageable size-wise, but whatever you want to do would be fine with me. I could probably get to it later this evening...

 

What I was saying was that marking them down $40 was not the same thing as giving them away for free, which is what someone was claiming they were trying to do but failing. Granted, some people like to exaggerate, but it tends to make their statements suspect in general when one can't tell if they are being sincere or honest (in my opinion)

 

Question going back to LZ1 extras. Before we had this official release, there were live tapes floating around on the internet. Many of the songs were much longer on those tapes. Is it possible that the tapes were mislabled? The songs are much longer on the unofficial versions Or is it possible that there was some judicious editing for the official release?

 

I don't think these CD's sound compressed at all or bright...you'd sometimes think reading on here that all compression kills a disc it doesn't-these CD's sound balanced and clearer than the previous versions I've heard....