woz70 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 These tapes are going on 45 years old, they've got to be getting thin by now. I don't expect analog tape technology to advance enough to warrant another remaster. The medium we use to consume it may change, so we might see re-releases, but I think this is it on the sound quality front. And that isn't a bad thing. This is the best these songs have ever sounded. There are no real advances in analogue tape technology, and there haven't been since Dolby SR noise reduction was introduced in the early 90's. Even if there were you can only play back what's already on the tape - the quality of playback is dependent not just on the playback machine, but the quality of the media and the the quality of the signal recorded on the media. Some people seem to be under the impression that this remastering process has improved the sound on the master tapes. All it has done is get us, the consumer, closer to the sound on those original tapes thanks to the more transparent digital processing we have nowadays. Frankly it's subtle and really down the taste and ears of the guy in the mastering suite. Most of the difference people are hearing in the new remasters is down to the difference in personality, hearing and work processes and personal taste between George Marino and John Davis. If the catalogue is ever mastered again (and I can't see it myself) there will be no increase in quality (they've already worked from 192kHz/24bit transfers - if you know anything about digital sound you'll know that anything higher is absolutely pointless when transferring from tape). They may sound subtly different, and noise reduction algorithms may have improved to the point where they can actually take away some of the noise floor without adding artifacts to the original sound, but unless they remix first and then remaster - like some bands have done - then you really are getting the same picture in a different frame. Some people might prefer that subtly different sound, but it will purely down to personal taste rather than an actual and measurable increase in quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glyn Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Even if there were you can only play back what's already on the tape - the quality of playback is dependent not just on the playback machine, but the quality of the media and the the quality of the signal recorded on the media. That was my point. We've gotten all we can get off of them. There will be no further advances in tech (analog or digital) that allow us to extract more detail from the tapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woz70 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 That was my point. We've gotten all we can get off of them. There will be no further advances in tech (analog or digital) that allow us to extract more detail from the tapes. Totally in agreement with you, just adding a bit more detail for the unbelievers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glyn Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Sorry if that came across in a negative way, wasn't intended. Totally disappointing that there's no single today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azad Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 There are no real advances in analogue tape technology, and there haven't been since Dolby SR noise reduction was introduced in the early 90's. Even if there were you can only play back what's already on the tape - the quality of playback is dependent not just on the playback machine, but the quality of the media and the the quality of the signal recorded on the media. Some people seem to be under the impression that this remastering process has improved the sound on the master tapes. All it has done is get us, the consumer, closer to the sound on those original tapes thanks to the more transparent digital processing we have nowadays. Frankly it's subtle and really down the taste and ears of the guy in the mastering suite. Most of the difference people are hearing in the new remasters is down to the difference in personality, hearing and work processes and personal taste between George Marino and John Davis. If the catalogue is ever mastered again (and I can't see it myself) there will be no increase in quality (they've already worked from 192kHz/24bit transfers - if you know anything about digital sound you'll know that anything higher is absolutely pointless when transferring from tape). They may sound subtly different, and noise reduction algorithms may have improved to the point where they can actually take away some of the noise floor without adding artifacts to the original sound, but unless they remix first and then remaster - like some bands have done - then you really are getting the same picture in a different frame. Some people might prefer that subtly different sound, but it will purely down to personal taste rather than an actual and measurable increase in quality. woz70 you have nailed it. Thanks for explaining it in such an understandable way! A remix / remaster would always interest me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lif Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 There will be no further advances in tech (analog or digital) that allow us to extract more detail from the tapes. Not to be snippy about it, but how can you know what advances in science and technology will occur in the future? All that can be factually stated is that with today's technology there can be no further extraction from the tapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glyn Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Because audio tape is literally iron filings that are aligned by a magnet, which are then read with another magnet. I don't see any other possible way of improving tape transport or head design. The tapes themselves cannot be made to sound better (as woz70 said), the only possible thing that could be improved (and has been improved since 1992) is the accuracy of the reproduction from Tape -> Digital - and even that is pretty much at a plateau with 24/192 digital processing. Analog tape is very much a dead format. As far as I can tell there's only one company that even makes tape decks anymore let alone engineers that are actively designing improved circuits/components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pujols05 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Seems like the only way to improve what we have is to time travel back to the sessions and record with modern equipment. Somebody call The Doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgeholder Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Analog tape is very much a dead format Go watch "Sound City" again. Nothing beats 2" tape for bass and drums. Many bands record basic tracks to tape. You can't get that tape saturation from digital recording. But I know what you mean, it is a very retro thing and there aren't new analog machines being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woz70 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Not to be snippy about it, but how can you know what advances in science and technology will occur in the future? All that can be factually stated is that with today's technology there can be no further extraction from the tapes. It doesn't matter how clever technology gets - you still can't extract any more information from a source than is already contained within that source. Also, every single time those tapes are played, friction and magnetism do a very nice job of removing some of that information that is already there, another one of the reasons why Page went for the highest available encoding rates - just so that the original sources don't have to be put through the playing process again and suffer further losses. I reiterate - the only technology that is moving forwards is in the arena of digital recording and reproduction. No advances have been made in analogue tape recording & reproduction for about 20 years. As Glyn says, there are only one or two companies still making machines and the availability of spare parts for existing machines in studios is dwindling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azad Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Hey woz70, do you think analogue can still be utilized along with digital for new recordings with great affect rather than just digital? The colouring and warmth of analogue along with the clarity of digital? It's something I have been really thinking about a lot and as confusing as it all can be to me I reckon theres room for the combo in new recordings if done properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lif Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Because audio tape is literally iron filings that are aligned by a magnet, which are then read with another magnet. I don't see any other possible way of improving tape transport or head design. The tapes themselves cannot be made to sound better (as woz70 said), the only possible thing that could be improved (and has been improved since 1992) is the accuracy of the reproduction from Tape -> Digital - and even that is pretty much at a plateau with 24/192 digital processing. Analog tape is very much a dead format. As far as I can tell there's only one company that even makes tape decks anymore let alone engineers that are actively designing improved circuits/components. I have more optimism about advances in technology than you do, I guess. It appears that with nanotechnology things that are not directly perceived can still be recreated. True this is only for spacial mapping right now, but it seems to me that given the breakthroughs in quantum physics that are being made these days, it wouldn't be that much of a leap to rebuild from the "memory" of a physical object. Of course we might not see such a development in our own lifetimes - and maybe it would never be applied to Led Zeppelin tapes - but who knows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woz70 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Hey woz70, do you think analogue can still be utilized along with digital for new recordings with great affect rather than just digital? The colouring and warmth of analogue along with the clarity of digital? It's something I have been really thinking about a lot and as confusing as it all can be to me I reckon theres room for the combo in new recordings if done properly. People have been doing this for years. One nice trick some people use is to record direct to multitrack tape and digitize directly from the playback head. That way you get the tape sound, but don't have to worry about degradation from repeated playback. People still use analogue outboard gear (pre-amps, eq, compression etc....) in the recording signal path, and also during mixdown. There is no 'analogue is better' or 'digital is better' argument as far as I'm concerned. They are two equally valid tools to use for recording & playing back sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azad Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 People have been doing this for years. One nice trick some people use is to record direct to multitrack tape and digitize directly from the playback head. That way you get the tape sound, but don't have to worry about degradation from repeated playback. People still use analogue outboard gear (pre-amps, eq, compression etc....) in the recording signal path, and also during mixdown. There is no 'analogue is better' or 'digital is better' argument as far as I'm concerned. They are two equally valid tools to use for recording & playing back sound. Cool, and thanks for your answer woz70. It makes good sense to me to use both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woz70 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I have more optimism about advances in technology than you do, I guess. It appears that with nanotechnology things that are not directly perceived can still be recreated. True this is only for spacial mapping right now, but it seems to me that given the breakthroughs in quantum physics that are being made these days, it wouldn't be that much of a leap to rebuild from the "memory" of a physical object. Of course we might not see such a development in our own lifetimes - and maybe it would never be applied to Led Zeppelin tapes - but who knows! I have great optimism about advances in technology, and am more than happy to use those advances as they come along. However my optimism is also based on realism and background knowledge on the physics and mechanics involved. Let's make an analogy for you. You scratch your name into a piece of wood with a chisel, and then put that piece of wood in a drawer and leave it there for a number of years. Later you come back, take the piece of wood out of the drawer and look at the name. It's still there, but the piece of wood has been bashed a bit by other things in the drawer over the years and is a bit scratched and scuffed. You can polish or sand the bit of wood again to make it look less damaged, but the name you scratched in it cannot magically become more detailed than it was the day you made the scratch. This is pretty much directly analagous to making a recording on tape - except every time you play it you're 'sanding down' the surface, losing, not gaining, details. It doesn't matter what's on that tape, if it wasn't there in the first place you can't play it back. I urge you to look into the physics around tape recording and reproduction to help you understand a bit better this one fact - if a signal wasn't recorded, there is no way you can reproduce it. It's not about perception or quantum entanglement - it's about ferric dipoles glued to a length of mylar being arranged in a pattern analogous to the signal that was recorded. And you seem to be putting a lot of faith in advances in technology in a medium that a very small group of people are using less and less - it just ain't gonna happen. Unless somebody invents time travel (backwards, that is) and goes back with some of today's signal processing equipment and gets the guys to record those songs with greater detail and less of the limitations that tape recorders in the 1960's & 70's imposed on recording..... in which case we wouldn't have 196 pages worth of discussion about the new remasters! One other thing.... that article on spacial mapping you posted.... did you actually read past the headline? They were not suggesting that you can recreate a 3D picture from a standard 2D photograph in the macro-scaled world (the world we perceive). They were talking about a specific piece of research regarding the nano-properties of atoms arranged in a crystalline lattice being measured with a specialised form of electron microscope. You simply cannot take something on the quantum or nano level and extrapolate to the macro level, or 'real' world, otherwise we would live in utter chaos - there would be no such thing as cause and effect, the direction of time wouldn't matter, and due to the uncertainty principle cops wouldn't be able to measure the speed of your car and then catch you (wait, that's a good thing....). The key sentences in that article were 'Sounds impossible? Not in the nanoworld.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azad Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I have great optimism about advances in technology, and am more than happy to use those advances as they come along. However my optimism is also based on realism and background knowledge on the physics and mechanics involved. Let's make an analogy for you. You scratch your name into a piece of wood with a chisel, and then put that piece of wood in a drawer and leave it there for a number of years. Later you come back, take the piece of wood out of the drawer and look at the name. It's still there, but the piece of wood has been bashed a bit by other things in the drawer over the years and is a bit scratched and scuffed. You can polish or sand the bit of wood again to make it look less damaged, but the name you scratched in it cannot magically become more detailed than it was the day you made the scratch. This is pretty much directly analagous to making a recording on tape - except every time you play it you're 'sanding down' the surface, losing, not gaining, details. It doesn't matter what's on that tape, if it wasn't there in the first place you can't play it back. I urge you to look into the physics around tape recording and reproduction to help you understand a bit better this one fact - if a signal wasn't recorded, there is no way you can reproduce it. It's not about perception or quantum entanglement - it's about ferric dipoles glued to a length of mylar being arranged in a pattern analogous to the signal that was recorded. And you seem to be putting a lot of faith in advances in technology in a medium that a very small group of people are using less and less - it just ain't gonna happen. Unless somebody invents time travel (backwards, that is) and goes back with some of today's signal processing equipment and gets the guys to record those songs with greater detail and less of the limitations that tape recorders in the 1960's & 70's imposed on recording..... in which case we wouldn't have 196 pages worth of discussion about the new remasters! Yes, rust never sleeps. Anologe tape is constantly changing deteriating even whilst stored properly. I like what you said about "recording direct to multitrack tape and digitize directly from the playback head". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glyn Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I forgot about reading this, Sony has recently been working on a new kind of tape for data backup and archiving: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201404/14-044E/ Doesn't change what was recorded on tapes nearly 50 years ago, though. But I know what you mean, it is a very retro thing and there aren't new analog machines being made. I'm not at all advocating against tape use. I have somewhere around 50 reels of tape and two decks that I regularly use for music playback and recording. The only brand new R2R I know of retails for $8,000 - http://www.otari.com/product/recorder/mx5050/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStanley Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I'm more than happy with the SDBS releases, if only for the heirloom-quality packaging of multiple formats and improved sound quality. The bonus material is just that...a bonus. The outtakes have been interesting and entertaining to varying degrees but they do not make or break the project. They're like watching the outtakes from a movie. They may add some entertainment value or insight but they probably won't change your opinion of the movie and you can usually understand why they ended up on the cutting room floor. While I've spun the vinyl from each of the first three boxes a few times, I've been listening to the hi-res downloads more than anything. They sound great and they are simply the most convenient to access from anywhere in my home. I haven't actually listened to the CD versions at all except to do some comparisons with the original boxed sets and the HD files for sound quality. I immediately ripped each of the CD's to an NAS server as 44.1kHz/16bit FLAC files, returned them to their sleeves and have not seen them since. Technically, I guess my CD's have never been played. The hardcover books are also a nice bonus although I can't say that I've looked through them more than once yet. I think my LZII book is still shrink-wrapped actually. From a completist's perspective, I'm eager to see all nine boxes lined up on my shelf. At some point, I plan to frame the cover prints for display as well. At the end of the day, I'll consider it a thousand dollars well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nirvana Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 My pardon but can all the audiophiles here discussing the minute intricacies of analog vs digital vs hi-res vs 24 bit vs 64 bit please start a new thread focusing on their topic? Very high tech talk and interesting but wrong thread here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANONYMOUS Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 My pardon but can all the audiophiles here discussing the minute intricacies of analog vs digital vs hi-res vs 24 bit vs 64 bit please start a new thread focusing on their topic? Very high tech talk and interesting but wrong thread here. If I can politely interject, I've found these last few bits quite interesting. It's a pleasure to be educated about the audiophile aspects. Curious though - what else would you discuss in a thread about the new releases except bonus tracks and sound quality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glyn Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Sound quality is what we're discussing, just in a slightly more technical way. So...............current prices of the super deluxe boxsets: Importscds: $95 Bull Moose: $106 Amazon: $118 Still have mine on pre-order at Amazon, along with JP's book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IzzyBlues Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 My pardon but can all the audiophiles here discussing the minute intricacies of analog vs digital vs hi-res vs 24 bit vs 64 bit please start a new thread focusing on their topic? Very high tech talk and interesting but wrong thread here. I disagree, this thread is the appropriate place to discuss such things. Considering the lack of movement in this thread as well over the past week I would say it's a welcome and encouraged discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lif Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 One other thing.... that article on spacial mapping you posted.... did you actually read past the headline? Yes I did. I realize this is research and I also realize my thoughts on the ability to recover lost data (lost iron filings) arise from my wild speculations. But if history has taught us anything, it is that "never" may not be a good word to use when it comes to future technology. I fear you are totally correct in that the tapes are done and that we will never get the information back that was originally there, but I hope that you are not. <grin> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lif Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 So...............current prices of the super deluxe boxsets: Importscds: $95 Bull Moose: $106 Amazon: $118 Still have mine on pre-order at Amazon, along with JP's book Shipping would be a factor. Amazon Prime members would only pay the $118 - would there be shipping/handling on top of these prices Importscds and Bull Moose? I have never used them but I know that often the S/H would bring the price up to or over Amazon's. (The $99/year fee for the Prime membership would have to be factored in but for some of us <grin> that fee is more than outweighed by not having to cough up for shipping over a year's time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woz70 Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Yes I did. I realize this is research and I also realize my thoughts on the ability to recover lost data (lost iron filings) arise from my wild speculations. But if history has taught us anything, it is that "never" may not be a good word to use when it comes to future technology. I fear you are totally correct in that the tapes are done and that we will never get the information back that was originally there, but I hope that you are not. <grin> If tape technology had been based around some very interesting nickel-based compounds (the so-called 'memory metals'), then your wild speculations may have had some grounding! As it is, these current remasters are without doubt the best quality that anyone outside of the Zep camp will have ever heard (especially the hi-res downloads) - probably clearer than the original vinyl pressings, so in a way you've already got your wish of the greatest attainable clarity. I'll shut up now, in case I stray any further from the root of this thread. Sorry Nirvana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.