Thank you Barry D. for Led Zep I on cd!

I remember reading that Jimmy wanted the guitars to pop more for the remasters and hey, the master tapes were not used originally so remastering was a no brainer. I actually have no problem turning either the originals or the remasters up fairly loud. Yes the originals are smoother and more LP like but the Page/Marino remasters achieved what they set out to do- more clarity (since the masters were used) and a bit more guitar presence (because that's what Jimmy wanted).

 

LOL!

A while back I raised the question of whether Marino and Page actually used the master tapes. There was no answer. I would guess, based on what Steve has said over the years about tapes - that the "real" master tapes are set aside, marked, "Do Not Use!" - that they weren't used.

 

Hi Spirit Crusher,

When I was at Atlantic asking for original Zep tapes, I was told Jimmy Page had them "somewhere". I would not be surprised to find the remasters did in fact use the originals. But who knows?

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi SiriusB,

I used flat copies, not LP production tapes (aka EQ'd Limited masters).
I did apply some gentle EQ but did not have the LPs on hand (or at home) for comparison. I just did my best to get the most out of the tapes. That said, even if I had the LPs on hand, I was mastering anew and would not have used them as a target.

Theory can say what it wants. If practice says something else, I'll go with the empirical evidence and consider the theory in need of revision.

The criterion was which revealed more of the information displayed by the original master. This is completely divorced from any concept of liking one more than the other.

Of course the LP and CD from the same source sound different. I'm saying that I heard more information from the original tapes coming from the LP than I did from the CD. There were numerous other occasions when even an over-engineered, compressed LP revealed more of the original master than a "purist" mastered CD. I'll leave the "why" for someone else to discover. I report only on what I've heard consistently, repeatably and without exception.

As I said earlier, the last time I did such a comparison was several years ago. In the interim, converters and other associated gear have improved considerably so it would be interesting to repeat such a test. But in those days, the same theory about the alleged superiority of 16/44 over LP was being put forth. I've never once heard any audible evidence to support said theory. I wish it was true. I wished it was true then too. The speakers told a different story.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Many Thanks Barry-thats a great and detailed reply to the Zeppelin mastering and now we know what you had to use as a source.

My original question actually related to the Bob Marley re-masters and I wondered if, as a "re-master", you received any instructions as to how these might sound, being as they were, to be marketed as "re-masters"? Just idle curiosity really, but it must have been around this time (or a little later) that re-mastering and the loudness wars began to prevail?
Thanks
Darren

 

You misunderstood what I was getting at. The "perfect sound" associated with CD was an implied notion that seemed quite pervasive in the media those days. It certainly helped create a buzz and a market for CDs. It's like those who continue to believe that because Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem by definition dictates that a waveform can be perfectly reconstructed, therefore a digital recording must be perfect. If this were true, then why do people bother spending $5000 for a Naim CD player when they can drop by Walmart and get a $30 player that will, by definition, reconstruct the waveform just as well? There's no consideration of the effects of jitter, filtering, aliasing, etc.

If those shiny little 16-bit 44.1 redbook CDs were indeed perfect, then hires would be a complete waste of time, which pros such as Barry will tell you, it most certainly isn't.

 

Hi Darren,

To be clear, the Zep tapes were mostly flat copies (not EQd Limited copies created during vinyl mastering). The only exceptions might be "Presence" and "In Through The Out Door" - but I'm not sure.

As to the Marley question, these were done a few years after I left Atlantic to go independent with BDA, my own company and I was given carte blanche to do exactly what I felt should be done. (Since I was not a company employee, this was not an "assignment". Luckily for me, they called me because they were familiar with my approach and liked my work.)

At first, Island sent me digital copies of the originals (in 1630 format). I called them and asked what they were saving the originals for, saying the new CDs would be what folks would listen to for years to come. The next day, I received the cartons containing the original tapes and those are what I used.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

YES! This is exactly what I've been saying now for awhile, whether it be with regards to Led Zeppelin, the Beatles or whatever act. these companies, artists, whoever, stash away these original masters for some undefined "posterity" while we consumers listen to copies of copies of copies, etc. Meanwhile the original tapes rot away. I'm not saying they should be used and abused, but surely saving them for the future but then never deciding that the future is now until it's too late is kind of ridiculous. These These are major works of art just as the paintings in the Louvre or wherever. They should be protected but also enjoyed somehow. The most logical way to do that is to archive them using the absolute best technology of the day and then rearchive once the technology advances. I know defining the specifics of when and how frequently is open to interpretation, but surely letting the tapes sit and deteriorate is not the most sane approach.

In the case of Led Zeppelin, I recall reading several articles about the tape baking process they had to go through in preparation for the 2003 DVD and live album releases. At that time they supposedly found all multitracks for all studio albums intact. I wonder if they took the time to bake these too or just stored them to turn into even more mush! I also wonder if this included the stereo masters.

 

I understood that. If you had used them, and the transfers were truly 'flat', I would not be surprised if people reported they sounded like the LPs. It's similar to doing a needle drop (alebit without the additions to the sound made by LP play itself). But since you did not use them, and people are still reporting that your CDs sound more like the LP, I wondered if you had tried to match the LP EQ (which would make the transfers non-'flat' btw).

Very clear now, thanks.

The definition of audio resolution isn't just theory. As for practice, as with any empirical method, it matters how the practice is done, and how its interpreted.

If you use words like 'information' you are binding yourself to things that have precise definitions. Information can be measured.

Different people (within and without the professional audio community) feel differently about this matter. And when they use words like 'information' and 'subjective' and 'more from the master tapes' to mean 'a quality of sound that can't be measured, only experienced' , then it's effectively impossible to argue.

 

Thanks Barry, that's great info. I appreciate your reponse.

 

Hi SiriusB,

Some information can be measured. I do not believe we have yet devised measurements to quantify everything an experienced listener can hear. If you feel otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do not seek to argue. I report on my experience. Your experience may of course be different.

By the way, of all the mastering engineers I've ever spoken with, not one with any experience, regardless of their approach, has ever said the believe 16/44 contains more information than vinyl. On the contrary, every one of them who has voiced a perspective to me in private conversation has been unanimous in their feeling of loss of resolution with 16/44.

If you feel differently I respect that, whether you have actually made comparisons against an original master or not.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I don't think I misunderstood you -- you're using a marketing slogan from the dawn of CDs as a cudgel to beat on CD remasters

As for the Naim vs Wal-Mart being an example of unexamined belief, one could also ask why it's assumed that a $200 Oppo will actually sound different from that $5000 Naim -- which is to say, why its assumed that measurable differences in jitter , filtering/antimaging are in the audible range?

Well, some in the audio field believe that the dirty little secret of home audio delivery media may well be that , except for their multichannel features, hi-rez media are indeed a waste. I've seen some say that if CD is done right -- using the full dynamic range, using a properly engineered player, etc -- DVD-A and SACD don't beat it, they simply match it. The only thing I can think of that I've seen pros uniformly agree on is that longer wordlength during digital recording and production is good.

 

Well, there's lots of mastering engineers out there. I believe you can find experiences and opinions to the contrary, on the prosoundweb forums. I suspect opinions contrary to yours on this matter may also be more common in the 'classical/symphonic' recording community, where the constrictions of LP were always more grating, and digital was seen as a godsend.

Certainly you are unlikely to find agreement with those using the word 'information' in its digital audio sense. There, it's clear that LPs have more inherent noise than 16/44, and thus less signal, and thus less information-carrying capability. For CD masters of analog tape sources, the noise floor is effectively set by the tape hiss. For something like Led Zeppelin II..that's some floor...yikes! :>

 

I agree this is a great sounding disc. Smooth warm and a nice punch. Great job BD!

 

Hi SiriusB,

It seems we must agree to disagree.

Having more noise does not mean there is necessarily less signal - unless you are speaking of a ratio. In absolute terms, they are independent properties. (For example, one could use a severe low pass filter on analog tape and achieve very low noise. Of course they'd also achieve very low signal.)

With vinyl, my ears hear more noise AND more signal. Then it becomes a matter of which your attention is on.

To each their own, I suppose.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Not all CD remasters. Some are actually quite good, as anyone who's heard one of Steve's DCCs will tell you.

A perfect example is the Genesis 2007 remasters. As I write, I'm listening to a really wonderful old early Atco LP pressing of A Trick of the Tail. It's got a beautiful, big, dynamic, rich sound that's incredibly musical. I have a later pressing that's not bad but it just doesn't have that magic to it. I have the original Atco CD plus the Definitive Edition Remaster as well. Of these two, the original comes closest to that same "magic" but still sounds flat by comparison. I originally found a download of Ripples from the 2007 redbook layer and thought it sounded horrible. Then a colleague bought the CD+DVD so I borrowed the redbook at work one day and listened. What a horrible demolition of what was once a beautiful piece of music! It's all loud, in-your-face, buzzy sawtooth-like crap!! This is what happens when remasters are done badly. It's about as musical as a jackhammer on a construction site!


Fortunately, the Marino remasters are not this bad. I hope to God that the next time someone remasters Zeppelin it doesn't turn out like the absolute drek that these Genesis remasters have been.

 

Yay another Led Zep CD thread!

I've never heard Barry's LZ I in its entirety but there were some clips posted here before. I remember liking the remaster better, for those clips. The guitars had more "bite" (probably because of the upper mid boost). I also compared Barry's LZ II to the remaster and also preferred the remaster for the same reason. Never compared the rest but I've picked up a bunch of the old CDs over the past few months so maybe I'll get around to that some time. To be honest though, with the Classic vinyl I don't find myself listening to Led Zep on CD much these days. LZ II is the only exception - I listen to the remaster since the Classic vinyl isn't really any better.

 

Agreed! (see, I can do it )

Yes, and the available S/N of digital is higher than the best LP can do. That has direct bearing on information and resolution.

Some people do think it's easier to 'hear through' low-level, uncorrelated LP noise (not pop and tics of course) than other kinds of noise,and it may indeed be a training thing...if you listen to enough LP, you accomodate to that noise, and filter it out yourself. But that doesn't -- can't -- increase the resolution or information that's actually on the LP, unless you want to get into a 'if a tree falls and no one hears it, did it make s sound' kind of argument.

 

The 2007 Genesis CDs are remixes. Really not germane to an argument about remasters.

 

Of course it's germane! The remixes were also mastered in a style that's very common in 2007, loud and squashed. Granted, they are not a "remaster" of something previously mastered, but if the discussion is about how some remasters suffer from the effects of brickwalling, then a remix that's mastered with brickwalling is not that different. Why do I get the feeling you like to analyse and debate each word instead of the overall intent of the discussion?

I think you and I will have to also agree to disagree.

 

We could turn this into a whole analog versus digital debate and it would go nowhere. There are those who believe an analog sound reproduction by its very nature offers practically speaking infinite "resolution" compared to the finite, fixed resolution of a digital signal with its samples at regular finite intervals and at finite bit depth. There are also those who believe the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem that defines a theoretically perfect reconstruction of a waveform up to one half the sampling frequency.

Somewhere in the middle of all this are our ears and each of us decides what sounds better. To get back to the original subject of this forum, I think Barry's early 80's mastering of Led Zeppelin I to CD sounds better than George Marino's early 90's remastering. I also think Bernie Grundman's late 90's remastering of the same album for vinyl sounds better than either CD. You're free to hold whatever opinion you wish.

 

can someone post the info on the center spindle so I can make sure no case and cd got switched when/if I run across Barry's LZ I, II, III.



Thanks a bunch

 

I know for a fact they aren't compressed. The waveforms are intact. Only a small number of samples reveal any clipping. The wavforms are similar to DCC's. Keep in mind the remasters were done in 1989. You won't find many discs with peak limiting that were done that early.

 

Apparently there is something wrong with The Rain Song on the remaster. I've read that it was narrowed and sounds screwy compared to the original disc. I don't have the remaster so I can't compare the two. I've also heard that the differences with LZIII are really huge with the remaster being much brighter. I haven't heard the LZIII remaster so I can't comment.