Led Zeppelin

[Andreas]

What do all of you think when it comes to comparing original CDs to the remasters?

I have only compared Houses Of The Holy (that's the only original LZ CD I have so far). Comparison done on the PC, through soundcard, via headphones, after ripping and normalizing both CDs.

Observations:

The differences are small. Both CDs sound great.

Both CDs seem to be mastered from the same tape --- with the possible exception of The Rain Song. In that song, the remaster has a narrowed stereo image, and sounds somewhat compressed or recessed...hard to put into words. An unpleasant effect. I would wildly speculate that a safety copy for this particular song was used on the remaster. Also, the intro to Over The Hills And Far Away sounds a bit....more lifelike....on the older CD. Maybe I am imagining things, but that is what I hear.

The theory that the older CD were mastered from copy tapes seems untrue for this CD. At least, I do not hear any signs of an inferior tape on the older CD.

The remaster is louder, all the songs peak at 100%, but the waveforms seem to be intact. No sign of clippings except a few samples here and there. This confirms what I am hearing: No harshness, no unnecessary peak limiting.

The remaster is a bit brighter. Not much, but a bit. On some songs more than on others. The Song Remains The Same, for example, sounds identical on the two, while D'Yer Mak'er has a considerably enhanced top end on the remaster. I prefer the eq on the older CD, it sounds earthier and more powerful.

Verdict: I slightly prefer the older CD, it seems more dynamic and rounder, without being muffled. And the Rain Song sounds actually like coming from a better tape. But the remaster is not bad at all. No need to throw the remaster away. I would recommend everyone to compare the two (they are available cheap) and decide for himself.

[Phil Elliott]

I've only been able to compare LZ 3 and 4, but FWIW ...

For me, my original disc of LZ3 is preferable to the remaster. The tape used for the remaster sounds like it is encoded with Dolby - yet Dolby doesn't seem to be used on playback. The result is a disaster, with "inflated" reverb tails and wispy top end. I've ranted on this one many times at SH.TV. No point remastering something if you can't play the tape properly.

For LZ4, on the other hand, I prefer the remaster. My original in an RSA pressing as opposed to Polygram, although I don't know if these use different masterings (EDIT - I've just realised - they should be the same, mastered by Barry Diament). The tape used for my original was truly in bad condition, with dropouts galore. The remaster fixes this - the only things I don't like on the remaster and the abrubt fades, and the edits on Going To California.

[Andreas]

Isn't it odd that they would make this Dolby error with one CD, but not with the others?

I will have to get the original LZ III CD.

As far as I have heard, there are exactly two masterings of every LZ album, and no country-specific variations have to be considered.

[dudelsack]

I compared HOTH non-remaster to remaster wayyy back. I found that the non-remaster was hugely preferable. I can't elaborate why, though - too long ago, don't really remember. I do remember that, at high volumes, the original pressing shone...

[krabapple]

As usual, lots of speculation, but in fact none of you can know what you are actually listening to.
Original masters or copies? Dolby or not?

One thing we know: the remasters are what Jimmy Page approved.

[lukpac]

One thing we know: the remasters are what Jimmy Page approved.

Just like Pete Townshend "approved" Live At Leeds: Deluxe Edition. Doesn't make it any better, though.

The only studio Zep I own are the first two albums, remastered.

[dudelsack]

Yeah, frankly, I would rather not have the guy who stood in front of the amps for 100+ shows a year 'approve' what I'm listening to.

You're right, Krab, in that we don't have any idea what we're listening to. Our incoherent friend Zal said on SH.tv that Atlantic's first edition CD policy was to use the original masters wherever possible, but this doesn't prove anything. I suppose we'd have to talk to Barry Diament, who did the actual mastering for the original series, but even he could be full of poop. So could Jimmy and George, for that matter. The bullshit train never stops in the world of the record companies...

But, as usual, I'm less concerned with what the source is than how it sounds. A crap mastering, IMO, makes tape generations kind of irrelevant. And that's exactly what I remember the HOTH remaster being.

[Dob]

A crap mastering, IMO, makes tape generations kind of irrelevant.

That's one of the bedrock philosophies of SHtv (SH's insistence on using nothing but master tapes notwithstanding). Correct tonality is much more important than the slight loss of resolution from a tape copy.

I happen to agree, though I acknowledge there is a large gray area -- how correct is the tonality and how much resolution is lost? But, as you said, the acid test is the listening test.

[krabapple]

One thing we know: the remasters are what Jimmy Page approved.

Just like Pete Townshend "approved" Live At Leeds: Deluxe Edition. Doesn't make it any better, though.

'Better' is entirely subjective. I don't know the LAL story, but I have read that Page was actually there when the tapes were rolling for the remastering of the LZ catalog.

[krabapple]

But, as usual, I'm less concerned with what the source is than how it sounds. A crap mastering, IMO, makes tape generations kind of irrelevant. And that's exactly what I remember the HOTH remaster being.

HotH was *never* that great-sounding a record -- on vinyl or elsewhere, IME.

[krabapple]

A crap mastering, IMO, makes tape generations kind of irrelevant.

That's one of the bedrock philosophies of SHtv (SH's insistence on using nothing but master tapes notwithstanding). Correct tonality is much more important than the slight loss of resolution from a tape copy.

I happen to agree, though I acknowledge there is a large gray area -- how correct is the tonality and how much resolution is lost? But, as you said, the acid test is the listening test.

The acid test is comparison to the source. And only the mastering engineer
knows for sure...

The fact is, the 'crappier' sounding one *could be* the one that sounds more like the master tape.

[lukpac]

'Better' is entirely subjective.

Yea - so? "Accurate" or "approved" might be interesting in an analytical sense, but in terms of "do I want to listen to this?" I really don't care.

I don't know the LAL story, but I have read that Page was actually there when the tapes were rolling for the remastering of the LZ catalog.

Again - so? I couldn't care less if John Fucking Bonham came back from dead for the mastering sessions.

[lukpac]

The acid test is comparison to the source. And only the mastering engineer knows for sure...

The "acid test" of what? What tape was used?

[lukpac]

That's one of the bedrock philosophies of SHtv (SH's insistence on using nothing but master tapes notwithstanding). Correct tonality is much more important than the slight loss of resolution from a tape copy.

I happen to agree, though I acknowledge there is a large gray area -- how correct is the tonality and how much resolution is lost? But, as you said, the acid test is the listening test.

Well, there are two situations here: 1) is there actually a difference in sound of the copy tape, and 2) if so, is it made up for in the mastering?

SH has said a number of times that a properly produced analog tape copy will be indistinguishable from the source. Now, that's not saying that all such copies *are*, but that they certainly can be.

The second situation is where it gets interesting. Good tonality is great, but what if there's really a big difference in the sources? What's the trump card?

[Andreas]

I have no proof for that....but my listening session leads me to believe that the same tape was used for both masterings of HOTH. The exception being The Rain Song, as stated above.

I think the somehow-accepted-as-a-fact theory that the original CDs were mastered from copy tapes is more than doubtful.