WTF? I don't see anyone in this thread expressing biased, "agenda based opinions"! I see people contributing their opinions to a discussion. Why do you feel the need to insult us?
Why do you feel insulted? Do you feel Holy Diver should not be making up his own mind? There are those who only like originals and those who only like remasters. Never the 'tween to meet. Each faction will only say things positive about the side they support. To me that is an agenda. I freely admit that I mainly prefer originals but that several tracks on IV like MMH and GTC sound better. However they have premature fades which negate much of the positives they had to me. I want all the original music that was on the album not just what Page now says I can have. The drums on Levee on the remaster sound like pure crap but on the original they are excellent. Overall I say both discs are needed in ones collection. The 1990 remasters were all decent but all the early fades remain in my mind to be indicative of a lazy amateurish slipshod effort by "professionals" who should have known better.
I picked up an original II today for $10 used. It sounds pretty good, but I will compare to the RM when I get one. I also saw a III gold version with a green insert for $10. Is it any good? I can still go get it.
Don't bother with the gold-tinted CD. It's the exact same mastering as the early Atlantic silver CD. I've seen people pay good money for these German "Gold" discs, but there is no difference between them and the common first release discs.
Cool. Thanks. I thought I may have stumbled on to something, but I guess not. I am glad I did not buy it.
You mean like when you accused someone who disagrees with you of being "on the Page dole"? It’s insulting, needlessly divisive and clearly expressing an agenda of your own.
As others have mentioned, it has the same mastering as the original BD mastered CD. I like this mastering, but it is important to get the one with the correct channel orientation (acoustic guitar at the beginning of Gallows Pole needs to be in the left channel). For LZ III, there is a big difference between the remaster and the original in terms of tonality. For my taste, the remaster is just way too bright. At louder volumes, songs like "Immigrant Song" and "Since I've Been Loving You" become almost unbearable for me. But others seem to prefer it because it has more detail (the remaster really brings out the squeaky bass drum pedal during "Since I've Been Loving You" to a point where it becomes really annoying).
Nice going - Now that's the way to do it! At least on 'affordable' CD's. Pricey CD's well that's another matter. If you prefer one over the other you can then post your own agenda based opinion like the rest of us
Well, you can also hear that squeaky bass drum pedal on Barry Diament's mastering, as well as on vinyl, but it isn't as prominent as it is on the remaster.
That's because there is more signal present on the remaster. I guess that's the price you have to pay for having a better quality product when it comes to music recorded 40 years ago.
.....or the price you pay for having an inferior product with a little too much compression (which brings flaws that were once intentionally low in the mix to the surface).
I suppose I could dig up the answer with a search, but to those posting on this thread: How do you feel about the MOTHERSHIP remastering job?
The remasters are not compressed, and they are -not- remixes so saying that flaws "intentionally low in the mix" are suddenly prominent is just silly. sheesh.
Man, people really are passionate about their Zeppelin versions. I have not heard III (either version), but I will try to get them soon to compare. The original II sounds good, but a little "thick" sounding. The RM might open that up for me.
I think it's funny. Everyone's jumping on Obtuse1's comment. Has anyone ever compared several tracks across all the releases with the offline TT dynamic range meter comparison program to see if indeed there is no added compression on the remasters? Or this is just from looking at the waveforms? Both are valid, but I'm just curious if anyone has actually done it? (On my list of things to do, someday ...) The reason why I think it's "funny" is that even if there is no added compression on the RMs, you still get the *effect* with the EQ moves they made on some of the songs with some of the song elements people have already mentioned. If something was previously buried in the mix, and it's brought forth, is that "correct"? I suppose that's a question for each listener and what they individually prefer.
I tend to like some EQ if it is not overdone like on most modern CDs. Most CDs before 2000 I like, most.
Agreed. Mothership is needlessly overcompressed, but the EQ choices John Davis made were good ones. I exchanged some PMs with him when he joined this forum for awhile and he told me about using some multiband EQ to bring out the bass for example. If it weren't for the compression, it would be a stunning set of music. Stan Ricker's vinyl version is actually quite nice, although still limited by the 16/44.1 early 90's transfer used for the source.
Yes, they are compressed. Go back to post 399 and review the example I posted. While one could argue that the first Marino version from the 1990 "Crop Circle" box set was mostly just boosted with very little loss of transients, both the 1993 and 2003 versions I measured showed not insignificant compression. Look at this waveform and tell me the blue version wasn't compressed (blue is the 2003 version of Custard Pie, red is the 1986 version). Listen to this sample and tell me the drums are equally dynamic in both versions:http://www.mediafire.com/file/njojnnddigm/Custard Pie 03-86.flac (BTW, it's the remaster followed by the original). As for your second comment, Obtuse1's comment about compression bringing out things that were lower in the mix was absolutely correct. Nowhere did he say or implt a remix. Compression will make things that were lower in the mix sound louder simply because in addition to squashing down the peaks, the whole file is then boosted. In the waveform graphic above, I reduced the blue version intentionally so that it was at the same perceived loudness as the red one. It was originally boosted to the point where the straight line of peaks was just below 0dB. So in the case of Since I've Been Loving You, that squeaky bass drum pedal is significantly louder on the remaster because all low-level material that's still there is louder. The only thing that's not there is ambience and hiss because of the noise reduction. Unfortunately, noise reduction in 1990 was nowhere near what it is now, so the cymbals at the beginning of SIBLY don't sound as natural because their attack and fade rise out of and fall into the noise reduction. Go back and listen to them really closely and compare to the Diament original or even better a decent vinyl pressing. The difference is truly obvious.
