[TheSonicTruth]

I think it's tarnations. And I don't know what TL means either, or even DR. I think this deserves an explanation.

Anyway, to all concerned, I have my Foobar2000 loaded (LOVE it) and if I understand all of this right I am getting 50+ db of dynamic range on a Keith Jarrett CD (Whisper Not). It's a real nice mainstream jazz trio set by him on a modern-sounding live recording. I am streaming by bluetooth to a Marshalll bluetooth speaker that I really love the sound of. Mid-fi for sure.

Is that good? Is it bad? Does it make me a bad person? Does it mean I'm ignorant? Am I ruining the music industry?

Turnations.. Just trying to sound west of the Appalachians a little LOL!

 

[tansand]

I used to think that Jimmy Page actually had a hand in the remasters, as the label implies, but then I read a post where someone speculated what happened is that he showed up for a couple hours and observed, which makes a lot more sense to me. I doubt even Jimmy thinks it's a good idea for him to be making mastering decisions with the condition his ears are likely in. I think we can put the blame squarely on George Marino.

 

[old tech]

I used to think that Jimmy Page actually had a hand in the remasters, as the label implies, but then I read a post where someone speculated what happened is that he showed up for a couple hours and observed, which makes a lot more sense to me. I doubt even Jimmy thinks it's a good idea for him to be making mastering decisions with the condition his ears are likely in. I think we can put the blame squarely on George Marino.

I thought the Marino masterings were an earlier release ie after Diament and prior to the current Page remasters. That's not to say Page did do the current remasters, he is credited with overseeing the production, probably explains why his guitar work sounds more prominently in the current remasters.

 

[gregorio]

[1] So the correct is Y?
[2] Remember, peaks have a negligible affect on loudness.

1. No, the correct answer is that the question cannot be answered. The question is effectively this: If X = 5 + ? + ? and Y = 4 + ? + ? which is greater? This question is impossible to answer without knowing what any of the question marks represent. Level, including compression, is just one of the parts of the equation our brains use to calculate loudness. In my example we know the level, represented by the 5 and the 4 in the equation but not the other variables.

Here's another example but with those variables filled in: X is a signal comprised of low frequencies which has been compressed by 6dB (has had it's peak reduced and 6dB of make-up gain applied) with a peak value of -0.5dBFS. Y is a signal comprised of mid-high frequencies which has been compressed by 3dB with the same peak value of -0.5dBFS. Assuming both X and Y are roughly the same duration, which is louder? ... We can now answer the question and that answer would be Y, by a huge margin! The peak levels are the same but the RMS level of X is greater and therefore X should sound louder but it will actually sound very significantly quieter.

I created this last example with an additional point in mind: Let's say we have a piece of music which is comprised mostly of our X and Y signals, what would that piece of music look like in your DAW? ... It would look like a sausage because both X and Y have peak values which have been compressed/limited to -0.5dBFS, but because Y sounds many times louder than X, our piece of music has a large dynamic range!!

2. You seem to be arguing against yourself, without even realising it! You keep going on about peak levels, that music looks like a sausage in your DAW due to compressed/limited peaks, your avatar is even a picture of it, but if peak levels "have a negligible effect on loudness" then how does looking like a sausage have any more than a "negligible affect" on loudness or dynamic range??

G

 

[tansand]

Barry Diament (I,II,III, Physical Grafitti, Houses of the Holy) and Joe Sidore (IV) did the first CD masterings, the later bad remasters were done by Page 'with' Marino. There may be more after that, I read the Mothership thing is pretty bad. I stopped looking after I got the Diaments, they sound right. Treat yourself. III (and II) in particular are worth having the Diaments. These are my fav Led Zeppelin though...

 

[Glmoneydawg]

He also messed up the fat middle from the albums, thinning the sound out and dissolving the power; and he put mushy digital reverbs on stuff that made it sound like it was half a block away instead of in your face the way the LPs were. That slimy reverb makes the distortion seem less organic. The How The West Was Won blu-ray audio is better sounding than the albums, even though it's live.

But on the other hand, every single David Bowie album sounds a million times better on CD than it ever did on LP, even on MFSL half speed masters. The same is true of Elton John's 5.1 remixes. Those are fantastic. And the first Beatles CDs and the Beatles mono box sound great. The Stones mono box sounds better than the LPs ever did too, but the SACDs are more neutered.

It all depends.

yep love old bowie stuff....but his albums sound very "pieced together"...and i strangely find the stones "dirty" sound to be part off their charm.

 

[old tech]

Barry Diament (I,II,III, Physical Grafitti, Houses of the Holy) and Joe Sidore (IV) did the first CD masterings, the later bad remasters were done by Page 'with' Marino. There may be more after that, I read the Mothership thing is pretty bad. I stopped looking after I got the Diaments, they sound right. Treat yourself. III (and II) in particular are worth having the Diaments. These are my fav Led Zeppelin though...

Just shows how sound perception is subjective. I certainly prefer the Diament masterings of 1, 11 and HOTH but the current remasters for everything else - particularly 111, which I find the Diament to be lifeless. Physical Graffiti, well that was just a poor recording IMO which no remaster can put right. Just out of curiosity, as you seem to know a bit about the zep catalogue, who then has remastered the current release (both CD and hi res)? They are generally considered to be better than the Marino's which first appeared in the 1990s.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1. No, the correct answer is that the question cannot be answered. The question is effectively this: If X = 5 + ? + ? and Y = 4 + ? + ? which is greater? This question is impossible to answer without knowing what any of the question marks represent. Level, including compression, is just one of the parts of the equation our brains use to calculate loudness. In my example we know the level, represented by the 5 and the 4 in the equation but not the other variables.

Here's another example but with those variables filled in: X is a signal comprised of low frequencies which has been compressed by 6dB (has had it's peak reduced and 6dB of make-up gain applied) with a peak value of -0.5dBFS. Y is a signal comprised of mid-high frequencies which has been compressed by 3dB with the same peak value of -0.5dBFS. Assuming both X and Y are roughly the same duration, which is louder? ... We can now answer the question and that answer would be Y, by a huge margin! The peak levels are the same but the RMS level of X is greater and therefore X should sound louder but it will actually sound very significantly quieter.

I created this last example with an additional point in mind: Let's say we have a piece of music which is comprised mostly of our X and Y signals, what would that piece of music look like in your DAW? ... It would look like a sausage because both X and Y have peak values which have been compressed/limited to -0.5dBFS, but because Y sounds many times louder than X, our piece of music has a large dynamic range!!

2. You seem to be arguing against yourself, without even realising it! You keep going on about peak levels, that music looks like a sausage in your DAW due to compressed/limited peaks, your avatar is even a picture of it, but if peak levels "have a negligible effect on loudness" then how does looking like a sausage have any more than a "negligible affect" on loudness or dynamic range??

G

I never said something looking like a sausage in the DAW had a negligbile effect on loudness. It is simply because all those peaks were sawed off by limiting - their absence affect loudness - because you can just makeup gain the rest and make it superloud and less dynamic.

It is that difference between the peaks and the average stuff that makes something sound more dynamic. Short term dynamics. Add in rising and falling verses and refrains(longer term dynamics) on top of short term transients, and you have a pretty exiting piece! Think "Who Are You"(by The Who).

Between the crack of the percussion on that, plus Daltrey's swelling vocals: "Oh I really wanna KNOW!", the piece really comes to life, even on a pair of desktop PC speakers.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I never said something looking like a sausage in the DAW had a negligbile effect on loudness. It is simply because all those peaks were sawed off by limiting - their absence affect loudness - [1a] because you can just makeup gain the rest and make it superloud and less dynamic.
[2] It is that difference between the peaks and the average stuff that makes something sound more dynamic. Short term dynamics.

Between the crack of the percussion on that, plus Daltrey's swelling vocals: "Oh I really wanna KNOW!", the piece really comes to life, even on a pair of desktop PC speakers.

1. If peaks have "a negligible affect on loudness" how does sawing them off affect loudness??
1a. Yes, we can add make up gain after sawing off the peaks, which is exactly what I did in my second example. Both X and Y had their peaks "sawed off", X had it's peaks sawed off more than Y and had more makeup gain applied, so X should sound louder according to your theory but actually Y sounds louder, very much louder!!! Even though we would end up with a sausage, we'd have a large dynamic range! You can try this yourself, you've got a DAW, it will take you about 5 minutes.

2. No. I have already given you the answer to this question, in the article I linked to in the other thread but I don't think you understood/realised it answered your question.

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1. If peaks have "a negligible affect on loudness" how does sawing them off affect loudness??
1a. Yes, we can add make up gain after sawing off the peaks, which is exactly what I did in my second example. Both X and Y had their peaks "sawed off", X had it's peaks sawed off more than Y and had more makeup gain applied, so X should sound louder according to your theory but actually Y sounds louder, very much louder!!! Even though we would end up with a sausage, we'd have a large dynamic range! You can try this yourself, you've got a DAW, it will take you about 5 minutes.

2. No. I have already given you the answer to this question, in the article I linked to in the other thread but I don't think you understood/realised it answered your question.

G

It has been clinically diagnosed early on that I learn better by visual demonstrations and examples than by just writing and talking about something.

That said, in our fat sausage daw example, if the lighter part of that waveform, the averages, fills most of it, that sausage is not dynamic, it is just LOUD.

Now if the peaks in that example all max out, due to mild peak limiting but the average is thin and wavy or raggedy in appearance, that is gonna be one dynamic mutha- of a sausage!

 

[gregorio]

Now if the peaks in that example all max out, due to mild peak limiting but the average is thin and wavy or raggedy in appearance, that is gonna be one dynamic mutha- of a sausage!

No, the opposite! The peaks of both X and Y are the same (maxed out), X has a higher RMS or, using your terminology, X has a higher average, more of the lighter part of it's waveform is filled in, but Y is much louder!

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Just shows how sound perception is subjective. I certainly prefer the Diament masterings of 1, 11 and HOTH but the current remasters for everything else - particularly 111, which I find the Diament to be lifeless. Physical Graffiti, well that was just a poor recording IMO which no remaster can put right. Just out of curiosity, as you seem to know a bit about the zep catalogue, who then has remastered the current release (both CD and hi res)? They are generally considered to be better than the Marino's which first appeared in the 1990s.

Some kook over in the Hoffman Forums suggested that the original round of the Zep catalog on CD were mastered from the CASSETTES of the albums! WT??

 

[bigshot]

yep love old bowie stuff....but his albums sound very "pieced together"...and i strangely find the stones "dirty" sound to be part off their charm.

Actually the engineering on Bowie is top notch. The problem was that he was was on RCA, and during that time RCA was producing LPs using Dynaflex. It was a system where they pressed on super floppy vinyl to save money, and they deliberately introduced distortion, claiming that it sounded better on typical systems that way. The British Bowie LPs sounded fine, but the US ones were abysmal. When his catalog was remastered, they did a first class job of it and the albums now sound incredible. It's the same with Stevie Wonder albums. Those sounded flat and rough on LP, but the recent remastering is a revelation.

The Stones remasters for SACD were the other side of the coin. They cleaned them up so they don't even sound like the same recordings any more. Some albums were totally remixed, and when they did that, they left off Jagger's vocal futz and replaced all of the twangy wire reverbs and slapbacks with sleek and smooth digital reverbs. They also took the greatest hits packages, which had originally contained the singles versions of the songs and replaced them with the album versions. The Stones mono box is the only place you can get the real deal any more.

 

[tansand]

AFAIK all the latest discs are the same Page/Marino masters, you could google it though.I was inspired to listen to III last night before bed, I think the way it sounds is a large part of why I love the record, it's part of the creation of the music. Change the mastering you change the aesthetics, which is BS imo when the original vision is so effective. I think the Page/Marino III is a crime actually, the worst they did. Its not like a car where you can change the muffler and flog it on craigslist, but that's exactly the logic. There was some rumor about unrealeased music being released for the 50th anniversary, so maybe they'll hack them up again...

 

[tansand]

The 2014 ones are the last I remembered...

Technical note: The new remasters were created from 192 kHz/24 bit digital transfers of the original analogue tapes. The catalogue is being remastered now to take advantage of the significant advances in mastering technology that have occurred since 1991.

http://www.ledzeppelin.com/event/june-3-2014

Davis.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/led-zeppelin-on-cd-poll.606937/