Led Zeppelin

Andreas · Postby **Andreas** » Tue May 31, 2005 2:27 am

Was there more than one CD mastering before the 1994 remasters?

In particularly Houses Of The Holy, some people praise the target CD (but have they compared it to the standard Atlantic CD?), and others condemn the target CD for having dropouts and coming from a copy tape (which is not true for the German Atlantic CD I have). Are these just marginal opinions that should be taken with a grain of salt, or could it be that we are all listening to different CDs?

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... hp?t=54099

I see another EAC log comparison coming...

Any thoughts?

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Tue May 31, 2005 3:14 am

Can we please, please, *please* not do an EAC log comparison? Can we instead do null and synch tests?

Andreas · Postby **Andreas** » Tue May 31, 2005 3:24 am

If you only have one CD, a null test is kind of difficult...

krabapple · Postby **krabapple** » Tue May 31, 2005 1:59 pm

Andreas wrote:If you only have one CD, a null test is kind of difficult...

Besides, shouldn't you synch *before* you null? ;>

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Tue May 31, 2005 2:05 pm

Yes, you should.

I dunno. I just feel like pooling resources is better than a standalone log comparison. I mean, EAC logs wouldn't have told me that every iteration (almost) of "My Friend Jack" was derived from the same D-->A transfer...

Phil Elliott · Postby **Phil Elliott** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:10 pm

Andreas wrote:If you only have one CD, a null test is kind of difficult...

So you rip a chunk and email it to someone. This is how Mr Zinazpic and myself sorted out the early Japan DSOTM masterings.

Larkston Zinazpic · Postby **Larkston Zinazpic** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:13 pm

I own the WG target by Polygram and the original Atlantic by WEA, although I don't know if that's what we're talking about. Despite a slight timing difference, I doubt I could tell the difference between the two sonically--couldn't the last time I heard it. I bought the target because a few of the guys at SH.tv were raving about it at the time like it was the best thing they ever heard. Nobody else seemed to care that the WEA disc sounds just like it. If you're familiar with that dropout at the beginning of Dancing Days then you probably have the "magic" version, which isn't all that exciting incidentally. Haven't heard the remaster yet.

I'm not equiped to do a null test right now but I'll send a wav snippet of these discs to anyone who wants it.

...

Postby **lukpac** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:20 pm

FLAC up some clips and send them this way.

Beatlesfan03 · Postby **Beatlesfan03** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:02 pm

Larkston Zinazpic wrote: If you're familiar with that dropout at the beginning of Dancing Days then you probably have the "magic" version, which isn't all that exciting incidentally....

Isn't there also some tape drag on that disc's Dancing Days as well?

Andreas · Postby **Andreas** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:54 pm

Larkston Zinazpic wrote:I'm not equiped to do a null test right now but I'll send a wav snippet of these discs to anyone who wants it.
...

Could you send snippets to amrtn@yahoo.com ?

Thank you.

Andreas · Postby **Andreas** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:40 pm

Those snippets never arrived....

Anyway, I just compared Led Zeppelin III, original versus remaster, and I only realize one thing: The remaster has a lot more treble than the older CD, and that alone makes it unpleasant. The original CD sounds just right. I will never listen to the remaster again. The difference is bigger than for HOTH, in my opinion.

Of course, that unpleasant treble-heavy sound could be because of the dolby theory that Phil stated. I don't know.

However, there is a (mastering ?) error on the original CD at the end of track 8. The volume suddenly drops for about half a second, and then track 9 sets in. On the remaster, track 8 is faded to silence, which sounds more logical.

Tape source? Sounds identical to me. The hiss is louder on the remaster because of the eq. Another nail in the coffin for the theory that copy tapes were used for the original CDs.

Phil Elliott · Postby **Phil Elliott** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:13 pm

Andreas wrote: Of course, that unpleasant treble-heavy sound could be because of the dolby theory that Phil stated. I don't know.

A quick acid test for you, using two songs (I should have posted this before - sorry).

Immigrant Song: compare the two instances where there is a pause, after he sings (according to the internet) "our only goal will be the western shore". Have a listen to the original, then compare that with the remaster. On the original, the reverb is big, but it remains even in tone. On the remaster, that reverb gets brighter, and brighter, and .... you get the idea. Reverb is not supposed to get more trebly as it decays, nor is it meant to get bigger.

Since I've Been Loving You: The kick drum pedal has an annoying sqeak. Or does it? On the original, it is hardly noticable.There's plenty of top end on this track, so there's no reason for anyone to EQ more onto it. But - on the remaster, that pedal squeak is ... a bit annoying, yet the track isn't really brighter as such - it just sounds very "airy". The snare also gets bigger after the initial "thwack". This is more noticable in the intro than anywhere else. If you dub the original onto a cassette with Dolby B, then play it back without - that's pretty much what the remaster sounds like.

Andreas wrote:However, there is a (mastering ?) error on the original CD at the end of track 8. The volume suddenly drops for about half a second, and then track 9 sets in. On the remaster, track 8 is faded to silence, which sounds more logical.

This is interesting - I've just checked my "original" (not remastered - but not a Polygram pressing either, its a Record Services Alsdorf pressing). Mine fades out. The very moment the fade is complete, track 9 comes in, but it is a complete fade nonetheless. Silent upgrade perhaps?

Larkston Zinazpic · Postby **Larkston Zinazpic** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:02 pm

Andreas wrote:Those snippets never arrived....

If you're patient, I promise I haven't forgotten. I just moved to my new place, and I'm totally disorganized. I knew I should've taken a few extra days off. Now I have to sift through the rubble after work. When I get a little extra time to play around, I'll start sending out those chunks of data.

...

Andreas · Postby **Andreas** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:01 am

Larkston Zinazpic wrote:If you're patient, I promise I haven't forgotten. I just moved to my new place, and I'm totally disorganized. I knew I should've taken a few extra days off. Now I have to sift through the rubble after work. When I get a little extra time to play around, I'll start sending out those chunks of data.

...

That would be great. No offense intended. Just my usual moodiness.

Postby **lukpac** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:17 pm

Ok, time to chime in with some actual thoughts...

I and II have been the only LZ CDs I've ever owned (other than the BBC set), and the only versions I've had have been the remasters. At one of my local stores today I found - surprise surprise - I and II in their pre-remastered form. Brief thoughts...

- the stereo image is reversed on I. I'll *assume* the remaster is correct, but I don't know for sure.

- many songs don't sound very different at all. I don't hear anything to suspect different sources.

- the biggest difference in EQ is generally not the high end, but the midrange. Perhaps around 3k or so. While some things are a tad "peaky" on the remasters, some tracks on the original CDs seem to have - dear god I hate this term - "mid range suckout". Moby Dick sounds really muffled on the original CD because of this.

- on the remaster, the high end on Bring It On Home suddenly comes up at 1:48, right as the drums are coming in. Seems kind of sloppy.

That's my 2 cent review. At the moment I think I'd give the nod to the remasters, but maybe further listening would move me in the other direction.