Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by anodizingstatic

  1. I don't know. A lot of these are obviously plagiarism, a lot aren't. Either way - they had such an energy that delivered it in a completely new way, I would call it innovative. Sometimes all it takes is a spark - and Page seems like the type that does that - its a cover to critics, but to me - it's an entity of its own.
  2. Yeah, Page didn't add phase mods until the 80's after LZ broke up, which is a common misconception.
  3. There are tabs....but using your ear is the best tool you can refine. It's frustrating at first, I sometimes use Amazing Slow Downer or similar programs to hear it bit by bit. You kind of have to "feel" Page's playing, and translate that to yours.
  4. Let me ask you: How many Zep comedians can you name off the top of your head? .... exactly. This guy's the only one. That's precisely why we take it seriously at first.
  5. Topics like this are particularly sensitive, usually I don't put my thoughts into them but I will regarding the 9/11 attacks being a lifetime New York-er, around 14 at the time it all happened. The idea is that controlled demolition was the cause of the twin towers collapsing, which is made out to seem really convincing to viewers on youtube, make logical conclusions, use persuasive rhetoric....the list goes on. But I choose not to believe it (it's rather absurd) for several reasons. The quickest way to disprove most of them is simply by searching google images and taking a fast look yourself. This guy, Myles who I know via his blogs does an excellent series of videos (7 parts) disproving all of the conspiracies. Before you have infinite "truth" from a conspirator, I recommend you watch all seven of these, objectively and scientifically so. Definitely worth your time, well made for one guy. The end bit of the psychology of conspirators I found quite interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc&list=PLcIKuuE3KJDHEHIGtNKx-nQervL8OGjaD Again, these topics get VERY hostile. That's why I'm not going any farther with this. Sad, eh that's a part of life though. I only write all of this because it came up here, and since I'm from the area, wanted to put my thoughts out.
  6. Sweet. American Hustle, now this. Don't really care about that ad besides Zeppelin, but hey, the more the merrier.
  7. It's not just louder - the musical presence is simply closer. 90's CD's (I have Dark Side of the Moon for instance) sound like the mic is ten feet away from the amplifier. Why? That's a woz70 question lol. Has t do with remasters.
  8. Here's the thing, and my honest opinion. Strats are more dynamic due to the floating tremolo and the cutaway design of the guitar for more efficient playing. Especially the HM ones of the late 80's with Floyd Rose systems. Can they do Page? Yes, better if you have a HSS rather than SSS and a rosewood neck. But if you're really going for the Page tone, you've got to get a Les Paul. Not a Studio, the real GIBSON deal, and add a phase mod in the later years of owning it. In my book, it also MUST be honeyburst and nothing else. Color has no base of scientific support, but hey - it might just convince you. Also, get a Marshall (I'm talking super lead or jmp). Nothing else. Orange amps are pretty good (tiny terror) for home use. Page even used an AD50. But is it all worth it? Les Paul Standards / Traditionals can get pretty pricey...you'd be lucky finding one for less than $1500 used and in good shape. Why? They are more boutique, fancier, use more expensive parts. I mean, look at the paint job and attention to detail, and laugh at a guy saying his monocolor strat costs more to paint. I love strats, but in all honesty, they are cheaper because, well....they are cheaper. Fender knows this but it doesn't make them think twice. People love strats for that reason, and they deliver great tone. Look at EVH's Frankenstrat. That's not how I imagine a good guitar, but he made history with it. As did Page and his worn down no. 1. The point is, if you don't have the money for a real deal Gibson, don't sneeze at getting a strat. You can still learn LZ on either one and be just as effective if you understand your limits. Besides, IMO, strats are better to learn on because of their musical range and then progress to a Gibson Les Paul. If money is no issue, why not buy both? Or sell things you don't use? Lastly, all of this doesn't matter. The sound of Page is in your hands 96%. The other 4% is your gear. Half of that 4% is your guitar, half is your amp. Oh, and 1% if I will be mathematically incorrect is your pick. Sure, there is a certain standard of quality you should meet, but consider that sounding like Page is something some have, and others don't.
  9. <<< NAMM 2014 >>> With NAMM taking off, I thought this would be a great time to share your thoughts on new products from Marshall, Gibson, Fender,Orange, etc. as well as anything you found particularly interesting and / or cool. I'll start it off: New Gibson guitars 2014, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okxZghpmR8Y
  10. Music Hall MMF-5 ...oh yeah, and a Sony PS-LX300USB
  11. WTF. My vinyl is 200 gram....but NEVER seen a clear version. Rock on mate!
  12. -11 a few days ago in NYC. Chicago's got it worse...
  13. Haha! Whatever you say mate...if you INSIST. I'm still ok with Winamp though,,, :-)
  14. Haha! Well...it still is an approximation, if impractically so in bits. But yeah, the stairstep is indeed a fallacy. Look mate, I prefer analogue not based on science, but simply it's sound. High quality ANYTHING, be it digital or analogue I like. I'd take either any day over mp3 :-) I'm all for the future technology, I embrace it as well as the past.I guess I'm a "ubiquitous multi chronological technology embracer" if you catch my drift. :-)
  15. Woz, see this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir7J0tAAdIQ I wouldn't call it a great comparison, but there are subtle background noise differences in the two. Not by much. ? Dude, that's not how you originally posted. There is no "preferred" program, like woz said, the're all the same basic thing...I don't think you understand the vinyl process if only for people who like vinyl and have the collections / equipment. The best method is by far the CD, it's quicker and more efficient. My method, again originally stated in my first post, is NOT for everyone. Vinyl and CD's are both superb quality if you rip them right. Sorry, but you can't claim things you never said.......And as for how we listen to LZ?! It's all different my friend, that's the beauty of musical variety - it gives us options we all can like and not be limited to one particular method insisted ;-)
  16. Before assumptions are made, I'd like to say a bit about myself: I'm a Led Zeppelin purist. I prefer vinyl based on the numerous tests and comparisons I've done to CD's. No math or data analysis involved, simply listening. And, vinyl simply sounded "better" to my ears, despite the noise. That's where I'm coming from. Speaking of noise, my rips do have a slight amount, but that isn't something that particularly bothers me as it doesn't interfere with the sound quality. That's the nature of vinyl (I like ironically). All your nifty comparisons are indeed true; I tend not to worry though. Everything is pristine; ultra-sharp and clear. Sorry, but I simply don't get that from my CD's...no, they are not the early issues. All of my vinyl is the remasters , not new , not original pressing. However, on paper, digital audio is superior as you have made ultra clear. In fact, I am actually considering running a few more tests, as you have convinced me analogue is not "the best". If you can elaborate on digitizing a CD into FLAC more, I'd be more than willing to try. I believe my rips are the absolute best in terms of vinyl out there at the moment. Hell, you learn something new every day. I'm actually buying into your persuasion strongly against my thoughts for once, just to give it a go. You know more about this stuff than I do. :-) And yeah, I guarantee you .0001% of readers will actually try my method, it's a chore. Thanks for the analysis and help. PM sent.
  17. 1. I'm talking the post-conversion bitrate of vinyl in FLAC codec. You're right, vinyl itself has no bitrate O.o 2. Really? I thought CD's are instantly converted into mp3, which is usually maxed out @ 320 kbps. Learned something new today :-) .Either way, talking kilobits, vinyl still has a bit more dynamic range than a CD, arguably. 3. Should have specified a bit more. When I say "best possible quality" , I mean consumer - attainable. I ( a NY-er) am close to Atlantic's headquarters, but still, I don't have the guts to just walk in and ask for 10 years of uncompressed & thee original LZ recordings, for free. No one does. 4. My vinyl rips - Coda, for instance, was ripped @ 24bit, 96kHz far above 48kHz, roughly in the 3000's in terms of kilobits / second. I'm not going to waste my time to find out I only did 16bit. Sure, someone might be able to find a better bitrate, but from my experience, that's pretty damn good for vinyl. -And of course, if someone did this and listened on $10 earbuds.........I'll leave that to be pondered.
  18. Ever though your LZ mp3's were best quality? Think again. ***This is NOT for everyone, only those who have the TIME, LP collections, and $$$. This is pretty complicated stuff only intended for audiophiles. If you said yes to the first question, this isn't for you. Just a kindly heads up*** Today I will show you the utmost of proper methods to obtain the absolute BEST, no-catch Led Zeppelin audio quality. Disclaimer: You will need some LP's (or a friend with some) in order to do this for the songs you want. If you aren't concerned with digital copies, plug your speaker/headphones into your record player. Inarguably, the best bitrate is of vinyl. CDs are not analogue, and thus a digital approximation and usually max out at 320 kbps. Vinyl? Can get in the 3000's. No joke. There is nothing like the sound of lossless audio. It's incredible. The format we will convert to is FLAC, (Free Lossless Audio Codec), which is compressed uncompressed, but being lossless, loses no quality. Complicated, but trust me. If you want to save a few days, find a professional nearby. Costly, but time-saving. 1. First step is to check your record player. Needs to have a USB function to connect to a computer. Something like this will do: http://bit.ly/19Vp2GF . Or, http://www.ionaudio.com/products/details/iLP within the $100 range. 2. Read these articles thoroughly. I'm not going to explain it all here as it would take pages. Again, this requires TIME. http://bit.ly/1fUv0bw AND / OR http://bit.ly/1bwKgHc .These two are what I used a few months ago for my collection. 3. Programs. I use Winamp for all of my collections, as it supports FLAC. http://www.winamp.com/ . You'll need to install this plugin after dragging/dropping your newly converted audio into the program. http://www.winamp.com/plugin/flac-plugin-with-library-support/143614 And that is it. I truly wish I could just send you all my collections so you only have to do step 3, but that constitutes some major piracy. If you have ANY questions, feel free to ask away. I will assure you though that are willing, the process is worth it. ;-)
  19. This was back in 2011, but it's still quite interesting how a guy simply woke up one day and decided to mold his future name after the magnitude of LZ LINK: http://www.musicradar.com/us/news/guitars/cool-64-year-old-man-changes-his-name-to-led-zeppelin-ii-498123 His motive - "to be a better person than I used to be"
  20. No, but you can try this **handy** tool called the Amazing Slow Downer. I use it more often than tabs for such intricate solos. http://www.ronimusic.com/ . This guy is quite helpful also since he is proficient with every LZ instrument imaginable, and nearly nails every song. http://www.youtube.com/user/larzgallows for visual reference.
  21. ^ +1 Whoa, lemme get this straight my man. You're saying your television refreshes 240 x a second ("hertz") yet all film including TSRTS is shot in 24 fps? Knowing the core basics of upscaling frame rates, it's technically an artificial "240 fps", where 24 of those are actual, 216 are CGI I believe. Is it a placebo effect or does the experience feel any more exhilarating or smoother (I imagine it would seem more lifelike / saturated?? From my experience in film, I'm telling you - you're tv is pretty sweet ;-}
  22. TSRTS - re-edit to original to release early 2014.

  23. I made this in photoshop today (in 10 minutes haha) trying to depict TSRTS through LZ's characters. Not really "funny" except Robert's face of course :-) Let me know what you think of my "attempt" for my first (and somewhat shitty) PS image. I'm still proud of how it turned out though.
  24. 3D - that sounds really cool. How is it converted? I'm guessing some sort bi-layering of the images to create a stereoscopy. Wikipedia says "This technique is distinguished from 3D displays that display an image in three full dimensions, allowing the observer to increase information about the 3-dimensional objects being displayed by head and eye movements." Are 3D televisons worth it? Might consider one :-}
  • Create New...