[tansand]

The III in the little paper LP replica was the later one I had, the Marino I believe. I don't think I've heard the 2014. Like I said I thought it was the Marino again. I'll pass anyway, I like the Diament.

Originals, later masterings are harder in the upper mids, which for me makes them fatiguing after a short period time, especially when you crank this stuff up.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/led-zeppelin-on-cd-poll.606937/page-2#post-15208852

 

[old tech]

The III in the little paper LP replica was the later one I had, the Marino I believe. I don't think I've heard the 2014. Like I said I thought it was the Marino again. I'll pass anyway, I like the Diament.



http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/led-zeppelin-on-cd-poll.606937/page-2#post-15208852

There is another thread on that site which provides a blind listening test of the various masterings.

Some of the results may surprise you.

 

[bigshot]

what site? who'll be surprised?

 

[tansand]

Been listening to these records since I was 10, man, I know what they should sound like. Input from random passerby is a curiosity, nothing more. You can't make the jump from, "many people like this", to "this is, therefore, good".

 

[gregorio]

Been listening to these records since I was 10, man, I know what they should sound like. Input from random passerby is a curiosity, nothing more. You can't make the jump from, "many people like this", to "this is, therefore, good".

Input from a random passerby is a curiosity, nothing more - I agree with this statement and would take it further, it may not even be much of a curiosity. The problem with your statement is that you are a random passerby yourself! Having listened to those records since you were 10 is no indication whatsoever that you really know what they should sound like, man. It's only indicative that you've had a lot of time to make personal observations and form personal subjective opinions/preferences but those preferences are yours and no more valid than any other passerby's, except to you personally of course!

G

 

[tansand]

You forgot this part, "You can't make the jump from, "many people like this", to "this is, therefore, good."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

 

[old tech]

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...

I respect your choice, we all have different subjective experiences. III is my favourite led zep album but I never really liked the Diament CD. It sounded different, very bland, compared to my LP and cassette recording of it which is how I listened to it in my youth. I didn't like the Marino remaster either and it wasn't until the 2014 remaster that I preferred my digital copy to the LP.

 

[old tech]

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??

There are a lot of kooks over there. Analogsurvivor would feel at home.

 

[gregorio]

You forgot this part, "You can't make the jump from, "many people like this", to "this is, therefore, good."

Huh? So what you're suggesting is therefore: The opinion of many random passerbys is worthless because one other random passerby says it's not "good"?

BTW, your quote of the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy is absurd because the proposition is itself based on populism. If a piece of popular music is not designed to be popular then it's not a piece of popular music in the first place!

G

 

[old tech]

They're not wrongheaded if purity sounds better. Remastering = ****, imo. Listen to the original Diament mastering of Heartbreaker or Ramble On and tell me with a straight face they could be improved.

As good as it is I prefer the Ludwig "hot master" LP, it does sound more compressed but it suits that album and those two tracks in particular.

 

[old tech]

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.

Actually I don't mind the early RCA UK Bowie LPs, I'd only rate the early RCA CDs as better. The Ryko and EMI remasters don't sound anywhere near as good IMHO. Those RCA CDs sell for good money these days.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

The 2014 ones are the last I remembered...



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

Davis.

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

It's great that they made such high-res tran

As good as it is I prefer the Ludwig "hot master" LP, it does sound more compressed but it suits that album and those two tracks in particular.

Which brings up a point: Do engineers with a particular mastering 'style'(such as Lord-Alge and Ludwig) impose that on their clients' projects automatically, or does a discussion take place, prior to mastering, where the artists' visions and desired direction of the project are discussed?

I have read, and heard in person, lots of Bob Ludwig's take on the Density Wars, and he seemed to come out mostly against the current 25-yr trend. By the same token, I have also read plenty of complaints about loud, dense mastering on albums Ludwig was associated with.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Input from a random passerby is a curiosity, nothing more - I agree with this statement and would take it further, it may not even be much of a curiosity. The problem with your statement is that you are a random passerby yourself! Having listened to those records since you were 10 is no indication whatsoever that you really know what they should sound like, man. It's only indicative that you've had a lot of time to make personal observations and form personal subjective opinions/preferences but those preferences are yours and no more valid than any other passerby's, except to you personally of course!

G

Man, this response really seems to come from a pro-remastering stance if I may say so. A lot of us grew up with certain albums or singles that we played until we wore them out, and are familiar with. Then, twenty-thirty years later, a new version is issued, either remixed or remastered, sounding nothing like the version we grew up on. Some of us obtained DAWS, and in the cases of 'then and now CDs' have also visual evidence of the modifications.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

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??

There are a lot of kooks over there. Analogsurvivor would feel at home.

Seems to me whoever made that statement might have been trying to steer owners of the original Led Zeppelin CD catalog to buy subsequent remasters of it, or, first time CD buyers also to do so. Hmmmm.

 

[old tech]

It's great that they made such high-res tran



Which brings up a point: Do engineers with a particular mastering 'style'(such as Lord-Alge and Ludwig) impose that on their clients' projects automatically, or does a discussion take place, prior to mastering, where the artists' visions and desired direction of the project are discussed?

I have read, and heard in person, lots of Bob Ludwig's take on the Density Wars, and he seemed to come out mostly against the current 25-yr trend. By the same token, I have also read plenty of complaints about loud, dense mastering on albums Ludwig was associated with.

Thoughts anyone?

I think it is a bit of both. Like most mastering engineers they do need to produce what their clients want and Ludwig is no exception. However, like Ian Sheppard and probably many others they do try and educate their clients if it is the artist that is calling the shots and offer alternative masterings for them to choose from - ie the loud, brickwalled mastering they wanted and a more dynamic version to consider. I suppose guys like Ludwig can influence better due to the weight of their reputation and awards. Then there are others, like the guys at AP productions that tell clients who insist on crushed productions to go elsewhere as they have a reputation (for producing dynamic music) to protect, but the market they cater to is more botique and quite small.

There is an interesting interview with Ludwig on Sheppard's site in the link below.

http://themasteringshow.com/episode-32/

One developmet that intrigues me is the rise of the so called automated mastering. I wouldn't mind hearing the opinion of Greg and others in this field what their thoughts are on that, and whether AI will ultimately be mainstream.