Led Zeppelin

[Andreas]

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.

The Pet Sounds stereo mix was approved by Brian Wilson. What does that mean?

[lukpac]

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.

It seems more likely the changes you describe are due to different mastering, vs. using a copy tape. It's not as if things automatically narrow and get compressed when you copy them.

Without hearing it, though, it's unclear *why* they would narrow it.

[Andreas]

Not automatically, of course. But maybe intentionally, for LP mastering purposes.

[dudelsack]

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

Very true, if the differences are just EQ. If there's narrowing of stereo on the remaster as compared to the original (for the sake of argument, at least), or certain other mastering tricks, I'm not sure one could claim that the remaster sounds more like the master, because it couldn't have been effectively 'undone' for the first CD.

[lukpac]

Very true, if the differences are just EQ. If there's narrowing of stereo on the remaster as compared to the original (for the sake of argument, at least), or certain other mastering tricks, I'm not sure one could claim that the remaster sounds more like the master, because it couldn't have been effectively 'undone' for the first CD.

Well...

It *is* possible to widen the stereo image on something. I'd be *really* surprised if that was actually done, though.

[Andreas]

The same issue is with the intro of Carry On on Deja Vu. Does anyone really think that the remaster is closer to the master tape in that case?

[Phil Elliott]

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.

I mentioned Dolby first, so I suppose I should answer...

I wanted to avoid saying I "knew" what I was "actually listening to". I've no idea what tape was used, all I can do is describe what you will get when you play the CD.

It might not be Dolby. It could be that the remaster of LZIII was singled out to have certain frequencies compressed in the remastering, from the upper mids and upwards. I can't see why they would deliberately do that. It's a bizarre sound whatever caused it.

Anyone else actually done the listening comparison on LZIII?

[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.

The Pet Sounds stereo mix was approved by Brian Wilson. What does that mean?

It means Brian Wilson thought it sounded right.

[dudelsack]

Anyone else actually done the listening comparison on LZIII?

Yeah, but it was, again, a while ago. I didn't notice as much difference as, say, HOTH. I preferred the original disc but don't recall why exactly.

Helpful, ain't I?

[krabapple]

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?

Read that post again for *fucking* context, Luke. I know you can do it.

[Dob]

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?

I'd vote for tonality.

To illustrate, let's take the example of CD-R needle drops. In theory, they shouldn't even be competitive with a CD taken from the master tape -- let alone superior -- due to the various generational losses involved. But we've all (most of us, anyway) heard needle drops that are clearly superior to the official CD.

Speaking of Zep, I have a needle drop (Classic Records) of the first album that IMO trumps the CD remaster for clarity and dynamism.

[lukpac]

I'd vote for tonality.

Er...that was a rhetorical question.

My point is that it isn't always black and white. Take my Mason Proffit example. I'd say I still haven't quite matched the tonality of the LP (which I like), yet the lack of any vinyl distortions (which are quite annoying on that album) is a big plus for the CD.

[Dob]

My point is that it isn't always black and white.

I wholeheartedly agree...I didn't think that I was contradicting my first post.

I was confining my comments to comparing tonality vs. resolution losses due to multiple copies. If you're including the effects of distortion due to damage, any evaluation is strictly on a case by case basis IMO.

Would I prefer a Zep needle drop if it was taken from vinyl that had water damage, or more than a few ticks and pops? Probably not...but I'd still want to have a listen just to make sure.

[lukpac]

I was confining my comments to comparing tonality vs. resolution losses due to multiple copies. If you're including the effects of distortion due to damage, any evaluation is strictly on a case by case basis IMO.

Well, what exactly are we calling "resolution loss"? More hiss? Less high end? Yes?

[Dob]

In general, a lower S/N ratio -- which would result in more hiss and a masking of low level ambience cues and such. There may be a bit of softening of transients as well.

I'm not sure if a treble reduction would necessarily result. Most of the time I'm quite tolerant of hiss. It seems as if I hear "through" it, similar to looking through the dirt on a window, so I'm tempted to say that the treble is still there, it's just a bit obscured. An EQ treble boost makes hiss louder as well, but it also can bring out detail.

If the S/N ratio is reduced, perhaps the masking effect of the higher noise floor is much more dependent on the amplitude of the music than the frequency. If the noise itself (hum + hiss + rumble) is similar to white noise, it should affect all the frequencies more or less equally.