Is it better than the last japan remaster 2008? :rolleyes:

QUOTE (Someone @ 18-11-2008, 17:13)

Is it better than last japan remaster 2008? :rolleyes:

Well, 2008 remaster is a remix with bonus tracks. It's kind of hard to compare remix with the original version :music:

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 :rolleyes:

The last remasters are NOT only (bad)remixes...., but are the worst thing that i've ever heard!!! :fu:

It's practically the sound Compression definition by itself...


Pure Ear-Bleed enjoying (?!)..., i'll compare this with Red Hot's Californication... :laugh:

QUOTE (yury_usa @ 19-11-2008, 01:22)

QUOTE (Someone @ 18-11-2008, 17:13) Is it better than last japan remaster 2008? :rolleyes: 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 :rolleyes:

Гм.
Я про японские ремастера 2008 (10 CD с педро) было тут недавно (кстати где они теперь непонятно). Почему ремиксы? Нет, там просто ремастеры(а).

QUOTE (Someone @ 18-11-2008, 19:26)

Я про японские ремастера 2008 (10 CD с педро) было тут недавно (кстати где они теперь непонятно). Почему ремиксы? Нет, там просто ремастеры(а).

Я так и понял. Song Remains The Same был ремикширован, из того что я читал на SH форуме. Остальные диски - да, ремастеры Пейджа/Марино

Well, i've listen the last Vinyl 2008 The Song Remains The Same release..., and sounds like bullshit..,

...Bullshit in my ears: :shit::music::shit:

Has anyone compared this to the 2003 Japanese release?

Topic Link: Led Zeppelin - 1976 Song Remains the Same

QUOTE (Sartre @ 25-11-2008, 12:50)

Has anyone compared this to the 2003 Japanese release? Topic Link: Led Zeppelin - 1976 Song Remains the Same

Just letting you know:

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)

just a question:

the Mono 2010 (384KHz/32Bits) remasters will look like a 'flat' square wave??

:lol1:

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.

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.

:hi:

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?

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.

Well...,

QUOTE (Sartre)

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.

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. :insane:
Another thing is what called 'Re-issue'.., new edition/press/release but without any modification at all...

QUOTE (Sartre)

Upload a flac of Rock & Roll (30 seconds even) from the "Diament mastered"...

Well.., i don't know why you don't have it yet? :dunno:
...to much priced maybe? :actu:

QUOTE (Sartre)

Maybe the difference is significant;

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. :walkman:

split from Topic Link: Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains the Same (1976) (2CD)

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:





I 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.

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 :)

OlCh:

Why do you move mi discussions to btw place? :dunno:

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. ;)
-----------------

...

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 or there Forum Link: Флейм
a theme...

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... :dunno:
(my native language is spanish.., despite of this i wrote in english for everybody understanding me..)

:hi:

QUOTE (Sartre)

..so it's hardly loud or compressed.

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! :smash:

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 :

Now if you look for (i.e..) 'Rain Song' or 'No Quarter'.., your mind will change...

Here are the pics:
:wub:

RAIN SONG:


NO QUARTER:



Finally, 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.

:hi:


p.s: Yury, give us this please: The Song Remains The Same (1976) {Japanese Swan Song 24bit-96kHz vinyl} :wub: :shuffle: :mol:

The best language is music language :freu:
bertox
Thank you for releases, we wait for the following... :clap:

QUOTE (OlCh)

bertox Thank you for releases, we wait for the following... :clap:

Yes.., i'll release a lot more...

..but.., now..., why you don't answer my question?: :unsure:

--> there are new disposition 'rules'? cause'.., i see very very long threads around there..

I like to know where i'm standing now... :boat:

Tell to me that I should cut off and I will make it... :rolleyes:

No, i don't tell you what you should cut!!!

...except my topics, don't you? :fu:

I don't understand.., forums mods have the habit to be very sincere-less lately.. :rolleyes:


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. :(

QUOTE (bertox @ 28-11-2008, 07:52)

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. :(

bertox, you are not alone! ;)
We talk to match! :diablo: And cut... :nlo:

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

QUOTE

I don't understand.., forums mods have the habit to be very sincere-less lately..

It's a misunderstanding. OlCh is trying to make your threads easier to read. For example, if there ~20pages discussion on sound quality, that could be moved into a discussion forum (especially with Led Zeppelin)
Such topic would be messy, and it will eventually dry out to something unrelated or far-fetched (i.e Led Zeppelin thread trolling off to rock taste and current line-up)
I cannot judge whether OlCh moved all related (partially related?) posts from this thread. (he is the Mod of this subforum) But this has happened many times (e.g look at Pink Floyd threads, too many to list)

QUOTE

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...

Face it, it is kind of hard to communicate with non-russian (and non-english) speaker here. I am not saying that you are not allowed to express your opinion here, but try to be consise and to the point.
Forum Link: Запросы и муз. флeйм \ Requests 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 :hi:

edit
Хотя можешь и перенести. Главное, чтобы bertox и остальные увидели пост :rolleyes:

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 :drag:

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...

QUOTE (yury_usa)

(i.e Led Zeppelin thread trolling off to rock taste and current line-up)

Yeah! It happens often.., hehehe.., i know this.. :lol:

QUOTE (yury_usa)

Forum Link: Запросы и муз. флeйм \ Requests 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.

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.

:hi:

bertox

QUOTE

i think, should be for everyone, not only for me. Some times, i feel discriminated..., and not in vain.

You're actually one of the few individuals who does care and is not afraid/lazy/indifferent to express his/her opinion. This is generally a good quality, and I wish more people would share their musical taste. Otherwise it's just "click->thank you", "click->thank you", or simply "click and close" :drag:

QUOTE (yury_usa)

Otherwise it's just "click->thank you", "click->thank you", or simply "click and close"

I couldn't say it better! :lol:

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. :)


:plan:

QUOTE (bertox @ 28-11-2008, 07:48)

QUOTE (Sartre) ..so it's hardly loud or compressed. 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! :smash: 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 :

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:

QUOTE

Yury_usa say: 1994=2003=2005 = Page/Marino Remaster (a bit compressed and kinda loud/bright)

Maybe you're misinterpretating my words. Here are the two pics combined into one:

QUOTE

Now if you look for (i.e..) 'Rain Song' or 'No Quarter'.., your mind will change... Here are the pics: :wub: RAIN SONG: NO QUARTER: Finally, 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.

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. :music:

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..:dunno: 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. :hi:


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...).. ;)

QUOTE

Don't you have sufficient HDD space?

I access a small wireless ISP where bandwidth is highly variable so I'd rather use it on stuff that I need. I'm behind an ISP router as well so emule transfers are slower than for most people (low ID).

QUOTE

p.s: I'll very recommend you to swap your LOSSY disc for a LOSSLESS one

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.

QUOTE (Sartre)

It's indistinguishable from lossless on the equipment I'm using.

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... :dunno:

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. :hi: