|
Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Forums > Запросы и муз. флeйм \ Requests > The best talk about Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains the Same |
| Posted by: Someone on 19-11-2008, 01:13 |
|
Is it better than the last japan remaster 2008?
|
| Posted by: yury_usa on 19-11-2008, 01:22 | ||
 ЗЫ вроде ты по-русски понимаешь  Новое издание - это ремикс, насколько я понимаю. Сравнивать ремикс и оригинал сложновато будет. Я пробовал с альбомами Дорз (Perception Box vs Elektra), и мне по душе оригиналы. Та же история с Genesis SACD
|
| Posted by: bertox on 19-11-2008, 03:00 |
The last remasters are NOT only (bad)remixes...., but are the worst thing that i've ever heard!!!  It's practically the sound Compression definition by itself... Pure Ear-Bleed enjoying (?!)..., i'll compare this with Red Hot's Californication... 
|
| Posted by: Someone on 19-11-2008, 03:26 | ||||
Я про японские ремастера 2008 (10 CD с педро) было тут недавно (кстати где они теперь непонятно). Почему ремиксы? Нет, там просто ремастеры(а). |
| Posted by: yury_usa on 19-11-2008, 03:30 | ||
|
| Posted by: bertox on 19-11-2008, 03:38 |
|
Well, i've listen the last Vinyl 2008 The Song Remains The Same release..., and sounds like bullshit.., ...Bullshit in my ears: 
|
| Posted by: Sartre on 25-11-2008, 20:50 |
|
Has anyone compared this to the 2003 Japanese release? Topic Link: Led Zeppelin - 1976 Song Remains the Same (http://netlab.e2k.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=15824 |
| Posted by: yury_usa on 25-11-2008, 21:07 | ||
1986 = Barry Diament Mastering (most flat transfers) 1994=2003=2005 = Page/Marino Remaster (a bit compressed and kinda loud/bright) 2007/2008 = Bob Ludwig Remix (completely remixed, heavily compressed) |
| Posted by: bertox on 26-11-2008, 07:26 |
|
just a question: the Mono 2010 (384KHz/32Bits) remasters will look like a 'flat' square wave?? 
|
| Posted by: Sartre on 26-11-2008, 08:08 |
| I was under the impression that this album was never remastered by Page/Marino. A quick search at Hoffman's forums "confirms" it, so the 2003 "remaster" is supposedly just a level boosted Diament mastering. |
| Posted by: bertox on 26-11-2008, 14:43 |
|
Please.., put the links of th SH forum that are you talking about... Well, i say to you that 'just a level boost'.., in fact.., means that it IS a remaster..., and they didn't use a CD copy (EAC (!)) to do any process, but a copy (of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...) of some 'kind' of master tape..., which means, an Page/Marino brand(bad) new sounding remaster. Remaster = any kind of processing to any previous master tape. 
|
| Posted by: Sartre on 26-11-2008, 21:31 |
|
I can't give you definitive "proof" from the Hoffman forums - they're just a bunch of audio geeks - but most every reference to the albums mastering noted that it wasn't remastered with the rest of the LZ albums in the early 90s. Here's a Usenet post (alt.music.led-zeppelin) from 1996 with a number of people commenting that it wasn't remastered: http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.music.led-zeppelin/browse_thread/thread/18f49b7ff82688c3 (http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.music.led-zeppelin/browse_thread/thread/18f49b7ff82688c3? I believe TSRTS was owned by WEA so Page/Marino didn't have the rights to remaster/re-release it. As for whether a level boost constitutes "remastering", well, compared to what was done with the rest of the catalog I'll say no. It was likely just a digital copy of the previous release with boosted levels. Upload a flac of Rock & Roll (30 seconds even) from the "Diament mastered" version you have so I can compare with the 2003 import. Maybe the difference is significant; I don't know until I can hear. |
| Posted by: bertox on 27-11-2008, 08:41 | ||||||
Well...,
Master = 1st tape made and mixed in the mastering studio from direct band recordings.. Remaster = processed (new mix, boost, effects, new technology, etc ,etc..) new tapes made from previous (mastered or not) tapes.. Simple, a Remaster is the 2th and upper versions of a disc previously mastered with just (little or not) different sounding.  Another thing is what called 'Re-issue'.., new edition/press/release but without any modification at all...
Well.., i don't know why you don't have it yet?  ...to much priced maybe? 
I don't matter if the 'difference' is significant or not.., i always look for the best stuff around... Question: If i have to choose between MP3 or Flac, what i choose? ... Well, in this case.., i must say.., past far i did a lot of 'tests' like this.., but now i just 'almost' always trust in my friends..: Yury_usa say: 1994=2003=2005 = Page/Marino Remaster (a bit compressed and kinda loud/bright) If you want, do the test and tell us what you got... greetings. 
|
| Posted by: OlCh on 27-11-2008, 11:22 |
| split from Topic Link: Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains the Same (1976) (2CD) (http://netlab.e2k.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=90577 |
| Posted by: Sartre on 27-11-2008, 11:28 |
|
I'm not going to argue about semantics, but needless to say, it's definitely not a Page/Marino remaster so it doesn't suffer from that particular treatment. Yury posted a waveform of Rock and Roll from the Diament CD here (http://netlab.e2k.ru/forum/index.php?showpost=848052:  (http://ipicture.ru/Gallery/Viewfull/3709643.htmlI don't have the flac file of the 2003 version on hand so I used a 400kbps AAC file and got a virtually identical waveform so it's hardly loud or compressed. In fact, I'll bet it's identical.  (http://ipicture.ru/Gallery/Viewfull/9609022.html
|
| Posted by: yury_usa on 27-11-2008, 19:25 |
|
I could have been wrong for TSRTS - might have been re-released, not remaster, as it's indeed not Atlantic, but WEA division. I'd still prefer Barry's flat transfer. The cool thing about 2007 release as it contains longer versions of some songs and bonus tracks
|
| Posted by: bertox on 27-11-2008, 20:55 |
|
OlCh: Why do you move mi discussions to btw place?
|
| Posted by: bertox on 27-11-2008, 21:01 |
|
Yes! But.., i'll prefer to maintain my ears without blood than sacrifice them just for bonus tracks..., ..there are present in my archive only.  ----------------- ... |
| Posted by: OlCh on 27-11-2008, 22:27 |
|
Because here not a place for discussions on 2 pages and more. You wish to talk? Open there Forum Link: Запросы и муз. флeйм \ Requests (http://netlab.e2k.ru/forum/index.php?showforum=87 or there Forum Link: Флейм (http://netlab.e2k.ru/forum/index.php?showforum=8 a theme... |
| Posted by: bertox on 28-11-2008, 06:38 |
|
Ok. Thanks. I just want to know.., there are new disposition 'rules'? cause'.., i see very very long threads around there.. Or maybe English are not welcome here... (my native language is spanish.., despite of this i wrote in english for everybody understanding me..)
|
| Posted by: bertox on 28-11-2008, 07:48 | ||
Viewing the first pic that you've posted (i can't see the second one, this image server don't work fine here  )..,..i say to you: i don't think so.., reeally i don't think so!  Just is Rock & Roll.., this songs is 'hardly' played all the time..., ..and, if you look for a 'hardly loud or compressed' thing.., you don't find there, cause' normally look like a 'brickwalled' (almost or not) square wave, like your 2007 remaster screen :  (http://imagesocket.com/view/2008_07_16_180155148.pngNow if you look for (i.e..) 'Rain Song' or 'No Quarter'.., your mind will change... Here are the pics:  RAIN SONG:  (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs233&d=08484&f=rs953.jpgNO QUARTER:  (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs233&d=08484&f=nq540.jpgFinally, i say to you, i've never do the 'image test' with this disc.., i've only trust in my ears.., and them say to me: hoooly shit!!! this is one of the less compressed and well mastered discs that i've ever heard!! ...now.., ..i've seen the pictures.., and confirms it. p.s: Yury, give us this please: The Song Remains The Same (1976) {Japanese Swan Song 24bit-96kHz vinyl}  
|
| Posted by: OlCh on 28-11-2008, 07:57 |
The best language is music language  bertox Thank you for releases, we wait for the following... 
|
| Posted by: bertox on 28-11-2008, 09:20 | ||
Yes.., i'll release a lot more... ..but.., now..., why you don't answer my question?:  --> there are new disposition 'rules'? cause'.., i see very very long threads around there.. I like to know where i'm standing now... 
|
| Posted by: OlCh on 28-11-2008, 09:30 |
|
Tell to me that I should cut off and I will make it...
|
| Posted by: bertox on 28-11-2008, 09:52 |
|
No, i don't tell you what you should cut!!! ...except my topics, don't you? I don't understand.., forums mods have the habit to be very sincere-less lately.. I don't insult people.., i don't offend people.., i don't abuse people.., i don't get fun kicking people.., but.., i'll be banned and censured always, always often, and ever, and ever, forever... It makes me sad.
|
| Posted by: Гордый on 28-11-2008, 10:09 | ||
We talk to match!  And cut... 
|
| Posted by: yury_usa on 28-11-2008, 10:12 | ||
|
bertox First of all, no need to get frustrated or angry. We all know netlab is a great place to be a part of , and it is the music that counts more than all the comments. Lemme try to explain
Forum Link: Запросы и муз. флeйм \ Requests (http://netlab.e2k.ru/forum/index.php?showforum=87 is the place where you can create threads on "sound quality", "original vs. remaster" or any other thread that could encourage others to express their pt of view on the particular subject. OlCh Просьба, пока не стирай посты тут. Я пытаюсь товарищу помочь, найти взаимопонимание так сказать. Ему тоже сложно с его худо-бедным английским понять тебя, меня, и остальных. Послать или указать дорогу всегда можно, но гораздо труднее найти общий язык и прийти к компромиссу edit Хотя можешь и перенести. Главное, чтобы bertox и остальные увидели пост
|
| Posted by: OlCh on 28-11-2008, 10:20 |
|
не вижу никаких причин для обид, когда реплики переносятся в соответсвующее место - не стираются же и не создавайте сами проблемы на пустом месте. было бы у меня побольше свободного времени - побольше бы и переносил флейма сюда 
|
| Posted by: bertox on 29-11-2008, 07:16 | ||||
|
Thanks Yury.., i understand when you write..., you speak clearly and honestly. ..i know a lot Mods that are reaaally intolerant. And i truly saw the people fearing them.., i don't like this kind of treating between people. Fear isn't a good thing for me. I want the things clear, the rules clear. Fear is created when the rules are not clear and some guys have more power than others...
Yeah! It happens often.., hehehe.., i know this.. 
Perfect.., i understand this from the beginning.., i have no problem with this.., but.., this 'rule', i think, should be for everyone, not only for me. Some times, i feel discriminated..., and not in vain. |
| Posted by: yury_usa on 29-11-2008, 08:16 | ||
bertox
|
| Posted by: bertox on 29-11-2008, 13:53 | ||
I couldn't say it better! People are not robots. Releasers are not robots. People that listen to music definitely aren't robots... Robots don't listen music. Robots don't feel.., anything. I don't want a lot of 'thanks point' in my bank account..., already it's big enough. It doesn't work for me. I want to know what people thinks about music. Robots don't have opinions, they don't feel music. I want to see the people alive. Luckily, people are not robots. 
|
| Posted by: Sartre on 01-12-2008, 03:47 | ||||||
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say but, to recap, I'm saying that the 2003 "remaster" isn't more compressed or louder than the Diament mastered version, contrary to your quote from Yury:
Again, I'm not sure what your point is but here's an image of the 2003 "remaster" version of No Quarter (from 400kbps m4a) and as you can see, it's virtually identical. Whatever differences there are between the 1986 Diament and 2003 releases appear to be minimal, at least based on the waveform. Feel free to upload a flac sample of the 1986 version so I can compare.  (http://img43.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=92212_nq2003_122_781lo.jpg |
| Posted by: bertox on 01-12-2008, 06:30 |
|
Perfect! i've only say that the Barry Diament isn't compressed at all, flat tranfers... Sorry, i don't upload a sample for you.., but.., i don't understand why you don't 'load' my release yet.. There, you can pic all the samples what you want...Don't you have sufficient HDD space? ___ Well, by now., you're discovered that the Barry version and the 2003 one have the same master, based on the waveforms screens, obviously... I don't have the 2003 version.., and i don't want to 'load' it.., cause' i'm feel happy with my Diament one, and really i don't think that the 2003 will sounds better.., at least, they 'appear to be the same'.. Thanks for your tests and efforts anyway. Greetings. p.s: I'll very recommend you to swap your LOSSY disc for a LOSSLESS one.., the quality gain is so much..., just pic the mine (or btw 2003...)..
|
| Posted by: Sartre on 01-12-2008, 20:56 | ||
I have the FLAC version, it's just at another location. I usually listen to ~400kbps AAC that I can use on my ipod. It's indistinguishable from lossless on the equipment I'm using. |
| Posted by: bertox on 01-12-2008, 21:06 | ||
Perhaps your Lossless 'equipment' are bad..., cause' lossless are very 'distinguishable' at all..., maybe you are using an on-board soundcard with cheap speakers..., or maybe is time to wash your ears... Maybe you'll try to find the way to 'load' our releases.., if not.., they aren't any sense to discuss anything here.., sorry. I can't argue with people who listen to AAC or btw Lossy format..., i don't wanna waste my time. Greetings.
|
