tictac Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Hi there. I guess this have been covered in the past, but I have to ask it. Am I the only one thinking the first version of The Song Remains The Same sounds better than the 2007 remaster? In 2007 version I have: louder sound. heavier sound. more songs. The 1st and 3rd points are great but the 2nd I do not like it. I feel like it was mixed for hearing it in MP3. Cheers. tt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Almost everyone will agree that the first version is much better than the remastered one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tictac Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) This drives me to 2 questions. How How The West Was Won will have sounded if it was mixed with the techniques/attitude of the first The Song Remains The Same? Do we have to be worried about the extended new versions of Led Zeppelin catalogue, specially if they will include (and I hope so) live stuff? Cheers. tt. Edited March 2, 2013 by tictac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 This drives me to 2 questions.How How The West Was Won will have sounded if it was mixed with the techniques/attitude of the first The Song Remains The Same?Cheers. tt. Tictac That's an easy one... You can listen to three tracks off the June 72 Long Beach arena multi tracks that surfaced on the early nineties silvers 'Studio Daze' (Scorpio) and 'One More Daze' (Dynamite Studio)... What is and what should never be, Dancing Daze and the majority of Moby Dick. Pure and simple, EddieKramer engineered 16 track recordings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matjaz1 Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Well I like the new version better in some ways! Especially Dazed and confused, the sound of it and also all the sections that are in the film, and especially Stairway, because the solo sounds like it should! What I don't like at all and feel is terrible is a different guitar solo in Celebration day and the missing part of Jonesys solo in No quarter and also the electronic drum effects in Moby dick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I like what was supposed to happen with the remaster... sweeten the guitar, fix the mud, move the bleeds throughs out of sight and scrub the drums. Nope. Pushed the levels and chopped that bi***. I only listen to the original unless I want to hear the additional songs. **Sigh... heavy, heavy sigh.... maybe on the next set of remasters ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melcórë Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) Gotta' disagree with the "majority" opinion - the original mixe(s) of The Song Remains the Same are too muddy, and feature far too many studio overdubs. Or, rather, bad edits which do not mask what they overdubbed in 1976. Although the 2007 remaster does suffer from some of the musical decisions (one mix, generally catered to the limits of the film) and loudness, it sounds like an actual concert...it's better. Get a vinyl copy and take a listen. Also: Did they really add "electronic effect" (I'm assuming phasing) that wasn't there to "Moby Dick"? Or is it just more prominent? EDIT: I guess they did extend the phasing effect from the tympani section to the entrance of Pagey and Jonesy at the end of the song...never noticed, because I like the effect, I guess. Edited March 2, 2013 by Melcórë Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ady Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I've got both versions and wouldn't want to part with either, mainly for the longer version of "No Quarter" on the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mielazul Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I think they made horrifying, unforgivable cuts in the new version. There are many examples, but I was really personally saddened by their tampering with Celebration Day. The second solo on the original was a brilliant, smoking hot moment in rock and roll...and they took it out and replaced it with an inferior one. The original was a true live version, too - no studio overdubs. Kevin Shirley said they were trying to match the music to the footage available, but there's so many video-to-music mismatches on that project, I feel that's no excuse for getting rid of awesome music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzepfilm Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Here are my thoughts on both the new and the original: 1) The new one has improved sound. This is obviously superior than the older version. But, it's too over loaded for me. The old one seems raw and untampered, which I like about it. 2) The edits. The old version has some AWFUL edits, but most of us who are used to the old film don't mind this. The new version cleans up these edits, but leaves these god awful timing problems to sync the audio to the visuals. And, not to forget during the Boogie Mama solo where a cymbal crash has been overdubbed to match the out of sync (correct night, by the way) footage. It sounds like an amateur! 3) The tampering. Did they really have to fix EVERY crack Robert made? The new versions sound too perfect that it ruins the momentum. 4) I love how Kevin Shitley tried to sync the visuals to the audio, but STILL, some are awfully out of sync, even some have no excuse to not be. 5) I absolutely HATE the similated audience noise. I've also noticed some differences in the visuals they used. On the new DVD, it seems like they tried to have as many clips weaved in as possible, not minding how bad the sync is. I've seen shots from the SIBLY solo from Dazed and Whole Lotta Love! Thank god they didn't tamper the visuals on the new TSRTS. Did you guys notice how bad they struggled to sync video to OTHAFA? Even for SIBLY. The TSRTS SIBLY is basically all from the same song (although not synced correctly), but the new DVD is taken from all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tictac Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 @ledzepfilm I agree with your opinions about the manipulation Audio vs. Video. Talking about the CD only, I find the new version quite noisy, in the sense that the different instruments are too melted. In the first version, the instruments were clearer. As I never had the opportunity to see Led Zeppelin live I can not say which reflects more the reality. @Zep Head CD vs Vinyl. I do not want to enter this discussion that I am pretty sure arised several times in this forum and several places elsewhere. There is a lot information in the net but let's be clear about this: you rip a vinyl to a CD and sounds exactly the SAME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melcórë Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 The original was a true live version, too - no studio overdubs. If you're talking about the original album - wrong. Full of overdubs - more, too, or at least much more noticeably. In many cases on the 2007 release, sections of music from the nights was either used or repeated in favour of the 1976 studio overdubs. Reading Eddie Edwards' dissection of "Celebration Day" over at The Garden Tapes, I see no mention of studio overdubs on the new disc, meanwhile, the original album version was much more of a construction than the remastered/remixed one. @Zep Head CD vs Vinyl. I do not want to enter this discussion that I am pretty sure arised several times in this forum and several places elsewhere. There is a lot information in the net but let's be clear about this: you rip a vinyl to a CD and sounds exactly the SAME. Huh? That is simply wrong - vinyl and CD never sound identical, and vinyl rips cannot truly embody the sound and feel of an actual listen to the analog product. That being said...the 2007 vinyl sounds better (and is mastered less loud, obviously) than the CD edition - at least in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Not one to diss someone's personal taste, I prefer the sound of vinyl. I uploaded a vinyl capture of Battle of Evermore to my soundcloud. If you listen to it and think it sounds like the CD maybe you have a really great CD. https://soundcloud.com/search?q=Dallas%20Knebbs vinyl and CD never sound identical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tictac Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 Huh? That is simply wrong - vinyl and CD never sound identical, and vinyl rips cannot truly embody the sound and feel of an actual listen to the analog product. That being said...the 2007 vinyl sounds better (and is mastered less loud, obviously) than the CD edition - at least in my opinion. I do not want to enter in a muddy discussion here, but I can assure you if you rip a vinyl with a good hardware and you do a blind hearing you can not difference the two sources. There is a lot information in the Internet deconstructing the mith of vinyl and CDs. However, let everybody choose their weapon, excuse me, their sources. What is correct is that labels invest more production effort and care in vinyl than in CDs. If you take a CD produced by Sony and JVC (XRCDs) they simple sound amazing. Cheers. tt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melcórë Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I do not want to enter in a muddy discussion here, but I can assure you if you rip a vinyl with a good hardware and you do a blind hearing you can not difference the two sources. There is a lot information in the Internet deconstructing the mith of vinyl and CDs. However, let everybody choose their weapon, excuse me, their sources. What is correct is that labels invest more production effort and care in vinyl than in CDs. If you take a CD produced by Sony and JVC (XRCDs) they simple sound amazing. Cheers. tt. ...Huh? Why would you blindly compare two digitial versions of an analog recording? You're wrong...simply wrong. For one thing, the pops and clicks - even of the cleanest, clearest vinyl - are a dead give away. Not to mention the differences in terms of mastering based on the medium. But...whatever. I wouldn't say that the companies put more production effort into vinyl, what with the horror stories of late. :s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mielazul Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Hey, Melcore...all I know is that I have the MSG audience recording - I can't remember which date, I think the 29th - and that Celebration Day is pretty much note-for-note what they put on the original SRTS. I'm not saying they didn't sweeten the sound...but the performance is authentic. The Garden Tapes is a good site though...I could be wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melcórë Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Hey, Melcore...all I know is that I have the MSG audience recording - I can't remember which date, I think the 29th - and that Celebration Day is pretty much note-for-note what they put on the original SRTS. I'm not saying they didn't sweeten the sound...but the performance is authentic. The Garden Tapes is a good site though...I could be wrong... Well...then you'd still be a bit off. Most of "Celebration Day" comes from the 28th - the guitar solo is from the 29th on the original album, whereas it is (mostly) from the 28th on the remix. I'm not saying it's entirely better - maybe I shouldn't use those terms at all. But I feel that the original album (and film soundtrack) are, in terms of the way they actually sound, much more of a dry, studio construction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DewieCox Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Love the new additions to the soundtrack and the first time I popped the remaster in I was immediately blown away at how much better it sounded and I don't think it's close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tictac Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 Why would you blindly compare two digitial versions of an analog recording? Maybe I expressed myself wrong. When I say blindly, I say that you, take 3 sources. 1. an original CD pressed. 2. and original vinyl pressed. 3. a CD ripped from a vinyl. Then, you hear the tree versions, without knowing which source are you hearing (that is what I say blindly). Obviously, it there are clicks you recognize immediately the vinyl. However and I stand here. If you rip, I repeat with good equipment, the vinyl to a CD, you'll hardly notice the difference. I have to retrieve a test like I the one am telling you when several audiophile music critics were gathered to have an audition of classic music, a quartet if I am not wrong. They were confronted to several sources: MP3, CD, Vinyl, FLAC, etc. All the sources were behind a curtain and, supposedly, they were not able to know what they were hearing. The most part of the critics criticized one source as "lacking of power, very flat, not dynamic, without deepness, etc." Do you know which source was that? The quartet live itself. Cheers. tt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zafreth Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Maybe I expressed myself wrong. When I say blindly, I say that you, take 3 sources. 1. an original CD pressed. 2. and original vinyl pressed. 3. a CD ripped from a vinyl. Then, you hear the tree versions, without knowing which source are you hearing (that is what I say blindly). Obviously, it there are clicks you recognize immediately the vinyl. However and I stand here. If you rip, I repeat with good equipment, the vinyl to a CD, you'll hardly notice the difference. I have to retrieve a test like I the one am telling you when several audiophile music critics were gathered to have an audition of classic music, a quartet if I am not wrong. They were confronted to several sources: MP3, CD, Vinyl, FLAC, etc. All the sources were behind a curtain and, supposedly, they were not able to know what they were hearing. The most part of the critics criticized one source as "lacking of power, very flat, not dynamic, without deepness, etc." Do you know which source was that? The quartet live itself. Cheers. tt. This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 this 1:15+ no CD gets here https://soundcloud.com/dallas-knebs/iv-boe-box-set-collectors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.