Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Plissken99, Dec 5, 2014.
In my opinion stick with the originals.
So far, I'd stick with the original Daiment for 'Houses…' which I realize is out of the purview of the OP. In a pinch, the Daiment II is also excellent, but so is the remaster. The rest I prefer the 2014s (but do enjoy the witchcraft and fakery of the SHM-CD of 'III').
Ramble On? Isn't Robert looking for his bluebird on the Classic and the 2014?
I would then stick with the Diament I, II and Houses and get the 2014 remasters of III and IV. I can't speak for PG as I haven't heard the remaster yet. Hope this helps...
From what I've heard of the new remasters judging from the mastered for iTunes versions which should sound about the same as the CD/Vinyl releases, only Presence and ITTOD sound better than my UK 1st press Vinyls.
Ultimate Versions (Vinyl Ofcourse!)-
I - US AT/GP George Piros or Classic 200G
II - US RL
III - UK Plum A5/B5
IV - UK Plum A3/B3 or B4
HOTH - UK A1/B1 Porky/Pecko or later RL pressings
PG - UK A1/B4 or B5/C1/D1
Presence - Classic 200G
ITTOD - Classic 200G
Coda - Classic 200G
I'm still not sure if you folks are finding the remastered 2014-15 vinyl more dynamic than the remastered 2014-15 CDs or hi-res. Anyone done a comparison?
IMHO, no. Put it this way: If your vinyl rig generally sounds more dynamic to you, then it will here too. But the mastering is the same, and the source is the same, so there are no extra dynamics on the vinyl per se.
I don't know what you mean about "Ramble On". I just compared the 80's CD with the 2014 and they both fade out at the same time.
If you are a flac person the upgrades call. If you have early vinyl then I would stay put because that is the way they were supposed to be heard in the world of riaa
i believe additionally that i asked the tape librarian at atlantic if these were the tapes that jimmy used...and he said yes...but this was over 20 years ago.
i think it's all moot now. that said, i commented here earlier that i felt maybe half of the newer remastering's for the boxed sets merited buying them and that the original zep releases had better sounding tracks about half of the time. i also did not particularly like the earlier fadings on some of the latter mastered tracks.
Ok, so Diement and Marino used the same tapes. Do you know if these were the orginal masters or dubs?
Still think the Diament HOTH is the best. I and II are tied, Diament and 2014. Otherwise, it's 2014 all the way, baby!
The Diement-mastered discs are great no doubt about it, problem i have with them is lack of detail and the muddiness. On the other hand becuase they lack detail they are very very crankable.
I like to connect with the music and hear exactly what the individual band memmbers are doing. For that the 2014 discs does the trick. Instrument-separation is killer. They feel more alive.
I've compared these for several months back and forth and overall i have to say the 2014 wins for me, despite being a bit compressed.
I generally feel very positive about the 2014 remasters, but in the last couple of days I have been playing the original CDs over and over again, for the first time since I heard the remasters, and the more I listen to them, the more I feel that I really wouldn't have needed the remasters - these discs do sound pretty good to me. Granted, the 2014 issues may well be sonically "better" in some respects, or "truer" to what's on the original master tapes, but I'm not at all sure that the improvement is in any way of considerable significance. Anyhow, I think that now I do appreciate the original CDs more than ever.
It would take a lot of explaining to do for someone to suggest that the additional compression and mid-range suck out of the 2014 editions are truer to the master tapes than the original CDs.
Man, I started collecting the CD's but now that HD Tracks has higher quality files available for download?! Why buy the CD's at all?! Still, seeing as I've already started on LZ I, II & III, I may as well continue collecting.
I find this statement interesting as I just ABX tested in Foobar2000 the Barry Diament CD Stairway track with the 2014 16bit_44.1kHz track (the least dynamic range version) as found this out.
The first roughly 4 minutes of the 2014 track is quieter than the Diament CD. The next 60-70 seconds is about the same in volume and then the remaining "crescendo" as you called it is actually louder on the 2014 version.
I can only conclude from my observations the exact opposite of what you are stating. The 2014 version HAS MORE DYNAMIC RANGE than the original CD.
Granted I know this is only one track and not necessarily representative BUT IT IS THE EXAMPLE YOU CHOSE TO USE and it's the opposite of your conclusion.
I was specifically referring to the guitar freakout section on "Heartbreaker", not "Stairway to Heaven". The guitar freakout section has a limited peak.
Regardless, "Stairway to Heaven" is still missing the dynamics of the Sidore CD. That should be obvious to anybody who compares it to the 2014.
I am going to do Heartbreak next. Looking forward to it!
Can you tell me what you mean by dynamics? I am curious to see if I can hear what you are describing?
I'm with you...just ABXed both stairway and Heartbreaker in foobar and then listened and looked at them both in Audacity...I don't hear the extreme loss of dynamics, at least in those two songs.
For what it's worth...these remasters sound pretty great to me.
It's not just dynamics, but it is loudness as well. Regarding "Stairway", there is a 4 dB difference in RMS between the 2014 digital master and the Sidore CD.
Hint: the new one is louder. It didn't get louder by 4 dB by accident.
Also, if you are not familiar with the uncompressed masters as we can hear on the Sidore CD, it might take some time to acclimate with it and learn to hear its dynamics. You aren't necessarily going to notice the difference in dynamics if you aren't used to listening for it.
Assuming the new releases are less dynamic, does that apply to the hi res versions also?
Personally I liked the first three re-releases the best, then houses. The fourth and graffiti seem more similar to the old versions.
Yes, the same masters (eq, limiting, etc...) were used across the board on all formats on the latest reissues.
What difference does it make if it is 4dB louder? That's why replay-gain was made...or heaven forbid a volume knob or button. Just because something is louder (or softer) doesn't mean it's of lesser quality...it literally just means it has a different volume. If that 4dB is taking up space in the file that was otherwise encoding something else, then that is one thing...but it's not. Look at the waveforms!! As long as the relative loudness of one note to another is in the same ratio, or the ratio its supposed to be, then there is no difference other than it being louder. Just turn the volume down a little...or have replay-gain enabled and you don't even need to worry about!
Separate names with a comma.