Led Zeppelin Remasters

That helps a ton, thank you Barry.

I might add that the original Atlantic CD I have that was pressed in Japan sounds nicer than the Gold CD. The original Atlantic CD has a warmer, softer sound to it.

Again, thank you for your reply Barry.


PS. Barry, I checked out your web site. Wow, very informative. I will be looking through it extensively in the coming evenings.

 

Exactly!! I own the Barry CDs, all the CD boxed sets, and the original vinyl, the RL vinyls, Classic, MOFI you name it, and feel the same way.

Those Barry CDs are very very good. If you dont have a turntable thats the way Id go. Also, Barry didnt have a super hi-rez format at his disposal in 1983 or so, and it didnt seem to limit his CD transfers. Just my $0.02.

 

I don't have the HtWWW disc any longer, but maybe someone else can chime in? It isn't that bad, and obviously there is hope of proper remastering of the Zep catalog if it ever happens.

But I was just assuring Max that for people with his apparent mastering taste, there is always plenty of hope.

Barry has already said that he believes he was working with flat safety copies. That's a already a pretty good situation. Plenty of older CDs were made from EQd tapes. The original Zep discs I've heard sound great to me. I think Max could achieve the sound he wants by just putting the Diaments into a PC and jacking them up. That's all we are *likely* to get from the tapes if the catalog is ever remastered anyway. Why wait?

 

I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion that that's what Max would want, but whatever the case, as I said, I'm not sure if that's likely what we'd get anyway. Good mastering still happens. I guess "Suha Gur" just isn't as sexy as "Dennis Drake" or "MFSL", though.

 

I haven't heard much from Suha Gur. I like his Rainbow remasters. I have the DE of Blind Faith but haven't compared with the MFSL. I follow what you're saying, but I couldn't really care less what the forum finds "sexy."

As regards Max's taste, he gave examples. I suspect if, say, Digiprep ever got the Zep catalog, he'd be happy.

 

I rather like the tonality of How The West Was Won - it could have used less noise reduction, but sounds a lot better than The Song Remains The Same, where the vocals are less well recorded. IMHO, there is hope for the Led Zeppelin catalogue.
Black Sabbath on Castle is the way to go for the first 3 albums at least. Paranoid sounds like the original Vertigo vinyl. The Rhino or WB Paranoid sounds like the original WB vinyl, complete with all its problems (especially during War Pigs). Ozzy's vocals on the Rhino or WB War Pigs make me seasick, they move around so much. The Castle is perfectly and immovably centred. The Rhino has corrected some of the volume variations, but has brightened up the sound as well as maximized it. I'll say it again - the Vertigo vinyl didn't sound like the WB or Rhino.
Volume 4 always sounded indifferently recorded. What do the Rhino and Castle sound like compared with each other? Volume 4 was mainly recorded in the US and there may be a chance that Rhino got hold of the original stereo master for that one.
The MFSL of Blind Faith is REALLY worth searching for. MUCH better than the DE. Keep the DE for the liner notes and most of the graphics (apart from the dodgy cover). The MFSL has lower volume but increased dynamics - want a quick check - listen to Gingers drums at the start of Do What You Like.

 

Vol. 4 on Castle has the channels reversed, but sounds infinitely better than the original WB CD (there's no way I believe the original WB greenie sounded like that, btw!) and much better than the Rhino. The Castle has that warm, thick yet punchy sound but unlike the Rhino, it isn't EQd to the point of no return earbleed.

I scored a Vertigo Japan 1st pressing of Master/Vol. 4 not long ago. And I think it's the best I've heard of both of these albums on CD so far! Unfortunately, it omits "Under The Sun."

 

Wow!?

To be quite honest, I can't think of a single artist who's remastered catalog (I am not talking about single albums done by Steve or another audiophile label) doesn't suffer at least from one of the following problems:
- compression (this is ever-present and the worst curse of all modern CD's)
- noise reduction
- poor EQ choices (mostly boosted treble and bass)

There is only one exception to this in my opinion: if all/most albums of the artist were remastered by Steve Hoffman (i.e. CCR).

Here are only some of the artists I like and of which I like the non-remastered CD's better:

Allman Brothers, Deep Purple, Free, Rainbow, Dire Straits, John Mayall, Van Morrison, Thin Lizzy, Paul Simon, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones (London era), Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, Police, Doobie Brothers, Foreigner, Elton John, CSN(&Y), Eric Clapton, Jethro Tull, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Manfred Mann's Earth Band, Uriah Heep, Van Halen, Jimi Hendrix, Tom Petty, Santana, Stevie Wonder, etc.

The list goes on and on, these are just some of the artists I own several albums of.

I have to add though that it takes time to find the "right" non-remastered CD version, since there are some differences from country to country and pressing to pressing in many cases.

Maybe I should start a new thread on this, but this whole CD-remastering has gotten just outright ridiculous in my opinion.

I am not saying that the non-remastered versions of the above artists are in all cases perfect or very good, but in many cases they are and in all the above cases I still like them better than the newer remasters.

There are some good SACD's, DVD-A's (Neil Young etc.) and MFSL/Classic Records/Analogue Productions/etc., but these are far and few in between.

My statement was referring to the regular CD remasters which can be found in the stores today.

Am I alone with this opinion?

Roland

 

I'm with ya.

 

Roland, you are definitely not alone. Sadly, "remastered" has become very much a cash cow marketing ploy. There are exceptions, including Steve Hoffman's work, and a couple of others, but in far too many cases, the recordings are ruined.

• I was listening to some John Hiatt albums on the weekend through headphones and the difference between his 80's albums and the newer stuff is striking. The high end on the newer stuff is brittle and fatiguing. On the original Slow Turning release, it's sparkling and crisp but smooth.
• I recently acquired a Harvest release of Pink Floyd's The Wall (CDS 7460368). I compared tracks to their remastered counterparts on Echoes. The high end on the Harvest version was like silk. The details and stereo image were all tremendous. The remastered versions were like the Hiatt example: harsh and unmusical.
• A couple of months ago, a friend lent me his West German "Target" release of House of the Holy. I compared tracks with the Marino remasters. Dancing Days, for example, sounded dense and somewhat muffled in the remastered form. The target version was more open, airy with much more detail and definition on the drums. The same thing goes for The Ocean (although I recall that some crackles appeared on both versions). The target was a bit treble heavy, but still smoother and more refined sounding than the remaster. What bugs me even more is that I once owned a target version of Zep IV purchased in the early 80's in Moncton, New Brunswick. I gave it away to a friend after I bought the remastered box sets!

And don't even get me started about new releases.

Regards,
Steve.

 

Barry, any reminisces as to what proportion of tapes you were given back in the day for their first CD appearance, were OMTs or flat safeties, and how many were production masters with LP EQ?

(Seems to me that if a consumer wanted a CD that sounds most like the 'record' they grew up with, rather than most like an original master tape they've never heard, they'd want a CD mastered from such a production tape.)

 

John, did you check out that Blind Faith comparison a month or two ago? I (and a few others) took the DE over the MFSL slightly. And both were quite a bit better than the original disc, IMO.

 

I'll use the Suha Gur example above. He's done a lot with the Clapton catalog. I've never heard him use noise reduction (other than on the Cream BBC tracks), compression use is *minimal* at best (a quick look at waveforms confirms it), and he generally doesn't use outlandish EQ. Sometimes older discs sound better, but in other cases, I've found the work he's done to be the best.

As far as the Allman Brothers, Dennis Drake used the wrong mix of the first album, and (at least on the Beginnings CD) added digital reverb to Idlewild South. I haven't heard the original Fillmore East CD, but the Deluxe Edition sounds pretty good, and certainly doesn't have the problems you cite.

I could go on, but I hope I don't have to.

 

Hi Pioneer,

I don't believe any of the Zep tapes I worked with were original masters. To the best of my recollection, they were mostly safeties. One or two of the later ones were most likely "EQd limited" copies made during LP mastering... "In Through The Out Door" most likely. I did my best to get the highest quality playback out of the sources I had to work with. Sometimes this required flat transfer; other times it required judicious use of EQ to try and "un-do" what was done before, to the extent I found this possible.

As to having a CD that sounds most like the vinyl, in one sense I'd agree that using the EQ'd limited copy might get one closest, since it would have the changes made by the vinyl mastering engineer. In another sense, I'm not so sure. Do we really want the bass roll offs and treble roll offs and mid boosts and compression used for vinyl? (I don't.) And what if those EQ decisions were made with less than the best monitoring (from my perspective this is the case 99% of the time)?
And of course, the very best way to get the sound of the vinyl... is to listen to the vinyl. ;-}

Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

 

Hi Barry,

You mentioned "In Through The Outdoor" being possibly an "EQd limited" copy. I've always found the sound of this album, both on vinyl and CD to be very dry and brittle. Do you recall if it sounded that way when you worked with it?

Also, for all the Zeppelin CDs, did you find the dynamic range of the drums to be a challenge for mastering? Last year a bootleg surfaced of Bonham tracks outtakes from "In Through The Outdoor" sessions (and the Polar Studio Coda tracks). By the time I heard them, the tracks were just MP3s on some guy's web site, but it was obvious what kind of demands Bonzo must have put on the whole recording process.

Regards,
Steve.

 

It looks like the channels are reversed.

EDIT: I just realized that Barry already said that.

 

Hi Steve,

Yes, I do recall feeling the tapes I had to work with for "In Through The Out Door" sounding a bit thin and "squeezed" to my ears. I felt this about almost all of the "EQd limited" tapes I got.

Dynamics, rather than being a "challenge for mastering", have always been something that have thrilled me, as they do in when I'm in the presence of the players at a recording session. The reason they have not been a "challenge" is that I've always chosen to work *with* them and adjust final levels to allow full dynamic swings.

I believe they only become a concern when final levels are given priority - that is, if having a loud record is important to you, then you have to decide how much music you're willing to sacrifice to achieve that loudness. Personally, I've always found the records I consider to be the best sounding to have relatively *low* average levels because the engineer left room for dynamic peaks to bloom. Besides, there are many very good sonic reasons to have the volume control on the playback system turned *up* for better sound quality.

That last sentence may need clarification: If I take two versions of the same record, differing only in their loudness, in order to get the *same apparent playback level*, I'll need to advance my volume control for the lower one. That alone will result in better sounding playback than playing the louder record with the volume control turned down to match the levels.

Anyone who have ever compared the components we call "volume controls" knows they can have a profound effect on the sound quality, not simply the sound quantity. (Some of the best sound I've ever heard was from a recording made a low level, played back without a volume control in the signal path.)
I talk about this a bit more in "Declaring an end to the loudness wars" at
http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/loudness.htm

Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

 

Hello lukpac,

o.k., I now understand your "matering taste" better. Suha Gur is not one of the really bad mastering engineers, that's for sure. He does use a little compression (which is totally unnecessary IMHO), but what bothers me most with his remasterings are the EQ choices. They are not "in your face"-type bad, but he definitely boosts the treble and bass almost all the time.

At first listen, his masterings seem to sound superior to the old versions (very often Dennis Drake mastered the old versions like with ABB, Clapton, Rainbow, etc.), but they don't after longer listening, especially at louder volumes.

So in that sense, Suha Gur is a perfect example regarding the different opinions on this subject on this forum (everybody seems to agree on the real bad remasterings like Aqualung etc.).

ABB At Fillmore East: both Suha Gur masterings (single disc and deluxe version) are the least preferred version of this title in my opinion. Vinyl is best, but if you don't have a turntable, the best CD versions are either the MFSL or the Dennis Drake mastering IMHO.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to convince you to like a different mastering better. I am just trying to understand what goes on in some of those threads (e.g. Jimi Hendrix sound clips).

I personally will stay away from all Suha Gur masterings, with one exception: The Allman Brothers Band first album. This is due to the different mix only. I did compare the Dennis Drake version of this album against the Suha Gur version (the same alternate mix, which appeared on some versions of the remastered "Beginnings"). When the same mix is used, the Dennis Drake version is by far superior. I wish there was a Dennis Drake mastering of the original mix, but there just isn't. Then I have to go with the Suha Gur mastering (no alternative on CD).

You are right about the flaws on the old "Beginnings" CD. Yes, there are some not so good mastering choices on some old CD's as well.

Roland

 

Barry, thanks for the reply.

I've always looked at In Through The Out Door as having a similar feel to House of the Holy but with inferior sound. As an experiment last year, I took one of those EQ matching plugins and applied the EQ from D'Yer Maker to a couple of ITTOD tracks. The difference was quite marked. I know such plugins are frowned upon (especially on this forum , but as an "academic experiment," it was quite interesting to note the result.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the benefits of preserving as much dynamic range as possible. To my ears, it's not just a matter of preserving the excitement of the music, it's also the effect on transients and especially percussive sounds such as guitar strums, cymbals, etc. The natural attacks and decays of these sounds get squashed.

What scares me a lot about the loudness trend is that a whole generation are growing up with ears accustomed to digital clipping distortion. I'm wondering if they'll someday consider that sound to be as desirable and rich as we regard analog tube distortion! On my drive to work this morning, I heard the latest Nickelback single (for the umpteenth time), Saving Me. This song features two lead vocalists with similar but not identical voices. However, the treatment on the vocals is such that they seem almost identical. It sounds like deliberate digital clipping as an effect instead of just a consequence of pushing the levels. What a pity if people someday consider this sound to be good!

Steve
www.stevethomson.ca

 

But that isn't the case. I've looked, and compression is often minimal at best. As for EQ, try comparing 'Blind Faith' sometime. The Deluxe Edition is very neutral sounding, much like the MFSL, while in fact it's the Dennis Drake issue that has the highs boosted significantly.

If anything, the highs seemed to be rolled off a little on Gur's work compared to other discs.

 

You sure do like to speak for me a lot!

You have all these assumptions based on the fact that i like the Rhino remasters of the first 3 Sabbath CDs. I know what compression is, I would not consider those CDs compressed. I would considered a compressed CD something like the Gorillaz or Chemical Brothers latest ones.

What i do like to see is analog to digital extraction of ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES (which the original Zep CD apparently were not) at 24-bits or more using high sample frequencies (at least 96khz). I also like this to occur at high levels with the peak levels hitting the 0 digital mark, that way you are using all of the digital resolution available. Yes, i don't typically like weak CDs that don't utilize the entire 16-bit resolution (e.g., the original CD of Doors Soft Parade). I also don't have a problem with some of those peaks getting chopped a little as long as it represents a very small fraction of the wave file. Sorry if this doesn't make since to you, i'm not certain of the terms since this isn't my profession, just my hobby.

 

Hi Max,

One thing about your post: The argument about maximizing digital resolution must be made carefully. All bits are being used as long as the signal is in the top 6 db. (It doesn't have to be at 0.)

The reason I say the argument has to be made carefully is that the "logic" can be extended to say we're not getting "full resolution" unless the signal is within the top 6 db. Extended another step, it would say that in order to get "full resolution", the signal needs to be compressed to a dynamic range no greater than 6 db. Once that meter drops to -7, you're "losing bits".

(Oh, wait a minute. 6db is about what we've been getting from the major labels the past few years isn't it? 8-O )

Theoretical "resolution" can be a dangerous goal to chase after. The CDs I've found to be the best, most natural sounding (and the ones I've recorded that sound the most like what I heard at the session) spend lots of time below that top bit.

That's my take on it anyway.

Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

 

I am not suggesting there is a thing wrong with the style of mastering you like. If I assumed incorrectly, then my bad.

However, you may "not consider" the Sabbath CDs on Rhino compressed, but they are. Here is "Sweet Leaf."

 

Thanks again for all your comments. Responses like yours are one of the main reasons i'll keep lurking here (although, I'll try to keep myself from posting if i can help it).

 

This would be certainly acceptable by me especially by today's standards. Doesn't look bad at all. The best thing about it is i can put it on my stereo, jam it out at full volume, enjoy it immensely, and not give a hoot what it looks like on wave editor. You know there were some old threads with people that preferred the Rhino box set over the castles. Wonder what happened to them?