The Absolute BEST LZ Audio Quality, Digital - Tutorial

[juxtiphi]

?

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 ;-)

My claim is 100% true. In the trading communities I am part of, EAC is the preferred tool for ripping audio from Silvers or trade CDrs. EAC is the only ripper that can accurately read through errors and reread problem sectors again and again in order to give you a file without errors which can be introduced due to the scratches or dings in your cds. That is why Traders rely on this program rather than other single pass rippers like the ones you mentioned.

[anodizingstatic]

My claim is 100% true. In the trading communities I am part of, EAC is the preferred tool for ripping audio from Silvers or trade CDrs. EAC is the only ripper that can accurately read through errors and reread problem sectors again and again in order to give you a file without errors which can be introduced due to the scratches or dings in your cds. That is why Traders rely on this program rather than other single pass rippers like the ones you mentioned.

Haha! Whatever you say mate...if you INSIST.

I'm still ok with Winamp though,,, :-)

[Little Robert Anthony II]

I've gotten a lot higher than 320 kbps when uploading CD tracks, like more than twice that number. But I do like the digital vinyl sound and I'm sure that it's superior to CD in a lot of cases. Uploading from a CD almost always sounds better than a straight MP3 copy (unless it's like a really old CD that hasn't been remastered or something).

[kirchzep27]

I followed this thread since it went and found it interesting to read. Yet if I heard it in conversation, my brain would have glazed over in about 15 seconds. In regards to cds, I noticed they played louder in the early 90s and agree that they got too loud in later 2ks. I think I liked the 90s production a bit more, although enjoy the new cds, maybe they are still finding a balance with the technology. I thought the new sabbath, soundgarden, alice in chains, megadeth cds from last year were all great. yet notice I don't listen to them that loud, because everything is high, more control on the soundgarden record though.

With the vinyl vs cd question, I've noticed several musicians during interviews, that I've listened to on youtube, say that vinyl is better for some stuff and cd better for other.

[woz70]

I followed this thread since it went and found it interesting to read. Yet if I heard it in conversation, my brain would have glazed over in about 15 seconds. In regards to cds, I noticed they played louder in the early 90s and agree that they got too loud in later 2ks. I think I liked the 90s production a bit more, although enjoy the new cds, maybe they are still finding a balance with the technology. I thought the new sabbath, soundgarden, alice in chains, megadeth cds from last year were all great. yet notice I don't listen to them that loud, because everything is high, more control on the soundgarden record though.

With the vinyl vs cd question, I've noticed several musicians during interviews, that I've listened to on youtube, say that vinyl is better for some stuff and cd better for other.

It's less to do with the technology and more to do with perceived loudness. There has been a 'loudness war' going on for the last couple of decades, and I can see why people go for vinyl more purely for that reason. Despite CD (or digital audio) having a far greater dynamic range than vinyl, many modern releases just go for as loud (and, in many people's opinions, as unmusical) as possible.

The thing with CD's, or any digital audio, is that you can use a lot of compression and 'brick-wall' limiting to make the music play as loudly as possible (the downside being that you lose all the dynamic range and colour that the artist may have put in the un-mastered recording). You simply cannot use the same amount of compression & limiting on vinyl - it can literally cause the needle to jump out of the groove!

Thankfully we seem to have reached the limit of the 'loudness war' and taste is once again dictating that dynamic, rather than uniformly loud music is better.

[anodizingstatic]

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.

[kirchzep27]

Pre loudness wars in cd production, were the loudness,bass,mega bass features in home stereos,car stereos and boom boxes around the mid 80s....so we are talking about records and cassettes there. That feature/button...was popular since way back then and I haven't used it since the early 90s. I am not an audiophile at all, but I remember reading that any stereo amp, boom box, car stereos best loud sound, is volume at halfway. I've tried that out and found that basically true. With the modern cds, I find I'm hitting that optimal volume, before distortion, about 3/4ths to the halfway mark. They actually play better at lower/medium volume to my ears. So hopefully, as already stated in the thread, this loudness popularity wave has cycled through. It would be good if they level them out and let the listener control their own volume. Although I could see hip hop, metal production staying loud and the more dynamic stuff varying amongst artists/bands and track to track per album.

[OutsideOctaves]

(Hi, new here, but I'll skip the rest of this intro)(I also missed the 2nd page somehow... lol)

For recordings originally captured on tape, you're not going to get much better than the CD if properly ripped "losslessly" (which somehow has spelling correction suggestion of "bloodless"... interesting analogy). The problem like one has already said is the noise floor. That is the only real significant difference between vinyl and CD, if both are properly handled. What most hear as a "better" sound when listening to CD's is the fact that the CD is played back on all digital equipment, whereas vinyl is usually played back on either all, or mostly, analog equipment with vacuum tubes (valves for the more "proper" English folk). And a "better" reproduction of the 3rd order harmonics on the vinyl side... Though both "colour" the sound differently. Digital playback generally can be perceived by listeners as "cold" which is just that the valves are not "warming" the sound up which really, in all real terms, is nothing more than "colouring" the sound with a bit of a different um... EQ for lack of a better word to describe this. Like when you take the EL34s out of a guitar amp and put in 6L6's... You will get a different sound and a different amount of "drive/overdrive" from the otherwise relatively same system.

Now Digital, with 24 bit (or 32bit if you've got the software), 96,000 Hz is a far superior medium (no matter the codec or encoder) for recording and playback. It has a far superior noise floor, so to speak. Thus, if LZ had originally recorded in digital 24/32 bit, with 96k or better HZ... Then the FLAC conversions would be the "better" (read "with less noise") medium to hear it from, as it would most closely resemble what LZ wanted us to hear. But sadly, they recorded on mostly I would imagine 2" tape... which has it's limitations as compared to the digital processes of today... including varying distortions of 3rd order harmonics... Digital is usually quite good at not doing that if the equipment is good enough to capture that (at the same signal levels that is)... then again on all accounts one has to assume the best equipment... Heh, and both tend to be very good at these things when you get to high level studio equipment... but digital will just do it better today.

Then again, we are not talking about today are we? We are talking 1970's recording technologies. Sadly they were just not up to par with the actual output of the artists' instruments and equipment of the day. When one listens to both the vinyl and the standard CD both made by the same people with the same master tapes and as little tech between both as possible... you will actually not hear much of a difference at all outside of noise in the signal... Though, we are talking about the music industry. And trust me folks, you WILL hear a difference between an original 180 or 200 gram vinyl and the standard release on CD (talking remasters here). CD just doesn't have the ability to reproduce what that kind of vinyl can because the CD, in any instance that I've come across, is compressed to hell and back to fit it to 16 bit, 44.1khz tech...

Now, I'm perfectly willing to say that I'm not the most well educated person around. And if I'm wrong in any of this, please feel free to educate this ignorant young man. But in the end, CD IS capable of doing better than it usually does, but just doesn't because the greedy studios don't want to put the money and thus time into these kinds of projects... But, have you ever listened to a properly ripped vinyl vs a properly ripped CD of the same song from the same master tapes? Trust me, the two are mutually exclusive... quite so at that. CD WILL NEVER do what a proper heavy vinyl can, and forever will do... because of the studio's compression and leveling... if they don't have that... the cd is quite capable... but not quite as detailed as 24/96... but that's getting into ...(trails off mumbling incoherent nonsense)

...

...

...

Oh, ah, ehem... well uh?

...

...

...

NOW!

now now now......

Now, bring in the DVD-A and Blu-Ray-A disks, and you get into a totally different realm than CDs ever could touch lol. In those realms, BD-A disks far eclipse the CD-A and vinyl on all accounts.

Now, does vinyl have a warmer sound usually? yes, and to audiophiles warmer sound usually equiates into better sound for some odd reason. It's the listener's subjective experience that dictates that. I myself prefer warm over cold audio, but digital doesn't always mean cold does it now-a-days? BD-A level audio, or in my case the same idea visa vi the 24/96 HD releases online are quite the audiophile's wet dream .

I know it's not something originally pressed into heavy vinyl, but check out MUSE's The 2nd Law for a real comparison of CD vs "HD" (24/96 flac)... you can see that what was originally only the domain of vinyl is now quite the domain of digital. I mean listen to the lush level of audio going on beyond what the CD can produce (with inappropriate leveling and mastering)... omg! I now need to go change my britches due to the stain on the front. Now, I bet the vinyl cut of this sounds just like it but with hiss and noise introduced via the stylus and other such equipment but with the same level of audio going on minus a few things here or there that even the hardest core audiophile would have a hard time discerning. So... noise being the enemy of the audiophile... I'm with the others that say digital is (now) better than anything analog in the realm of playback of recorded material(s)... now that digital is quite capable of being "warm".

Now, don't get me wrong. CD is capable of reproducing virtually everything we humans can hear. The problems arise in the processes that bring an original analog signal to the digital realm. It's NOT, repeat NOT, the actual process of going analog to digital if you are talking about using the best and most appropriate equipment. It's in the fact that studios tend to want their CD to be louder than other CDs... so they compress it and do other nasty, totally disgusting things, to the signal(s). And thus we get a VERY bad approximation of the sound. Then you compress it further for the .99 mp3, and well... you can plainly see the pile of sick in front of me now. So I will go clean myself and the area up and be back in a second.

...

minutes later

...

Ah, ok. So now we all can agree that digital has, for the most part, been perfectly capable of reproducing analog signal (almost) all along... it's just the labels tend to dirty things up along the way.

Then people, can we stop buying CD's and mp3s and contact the companies that make the reproductions of what the artists originally made in the time we now have to tell them we want 24/96 or better recordings and releasing of ALL artists/bands/concerts/et cetera in the future including BD-A copies of these master-pieces or better? And btw, the only REAL reason for wanting these is so that we can have better, non-compressed versions of the recordings... And of course having a more detailed digital image of the original analog output that was recorded due to more samples per second on today's equipment.

So, what's all this got to do with remastered CD's you ask? Well, think of it this way:

I do not want to hear a compressed version that was mastered and what not in this loudness war we are in the middle of.

I want to hear a BD-A with ZERO compression AND thus a MUCH lower noise floor... Meaning I get to hear every part of the crack of that violin bow against the steal guitar strings when jimmy is in the middle of Dazed and Confused at The Forum or at Earl's Court!... I mean let that sound caress every part of my ears, let Bomham's bass rumble my lobes.... let Plant's voice squeeze my...... wow ok is it getting inappropriately steamy in here or is it just me? Ehem!

Anyways you get my points right?

CD vs Vinyl... if we are strictly talking those two... HUGE differences due to the techniques that compress the information before being put on CD in and out of the production studio vs the fact that vinyl just didn't have that. Though vinyl does have it's limitations too...

So why not just cut those two out of the equation and go straight for proper HD audio (no matter if it's a digi-online release, or BD-A physical release) version properly remastered with no loudness war implications? Well, if only we could right?

[woz70]

Oh Jeez.
Where to start?
This is just so filled with wrongness.

For recordings originally captured on tape, you're not going to get much better than the CD if properly ripped "losslessly" (which somehow has spelling correction suggestion of "bloodless"... interesting analogy). The problem like one has already said is the noise floor. That is the only real significant difference between vinyl and CD, if both are properly handled.

Nope. Noise floor is a significant difference, but of more significance is dynamic range - the range between silence and the loudest sound a medium can handle.

The dynamic range available on CD is much larger than even the best set-up vinyl deck can possibly hope to achieve. The dynamic range available to CD is about 90dB. The dynamic range available from the very best tape sources (in the 70's) was about 60-70dB - with noise reduction systems in the 80's & 90's they got it to about 80-90dB. The best dynamic range you can get out of vinyl (on the very first play, on the outer grooves - don't forget every time you play you're wearing away those grooves...) is 70dB - but it averages out to about 50-65dB.

What most hear as a "better" sound when listening to CD's is the fact that the CD is played back on all digital equipment, whereas vinyl is usually played back on either all, or mostly, analog equipment with vacuum tubes (valves for the more "proper" English folk).

What?
This is utter bollocks.
CD is a digital STORAGE medium. If it was digital on playback it would be just very horrible noise. Vinyl is an analogue storage medium. Both need to be converted to an analogue source in order to drive an analogue loudspeaker to cause the air compressions and rarefactions we call sound.

The major component of a CD player (even on a computer) is the DAC - digital to analogue converter. This means than the encoded digital information is converted to an ANALOGUE signal before the audio amplifier (an analogue amplifier) boosts it and sends it to the analogue loudspeakers.

The major component of a turntable is the cartridge which converts the encoded analogue information - the variations in the groove - into an electrical signal.

You can listen to CD's on valve systems too!!! They sound great. So does vinyl.

You said : 'And a "better" reproduction of the 3rd order harmonics on the vinyl side... Though both "colour" the sound differently. Digital playback generally can be perceived by listeners as "cold" which is just that the valves are not "warming" the sound up which really, in all real terms, is nothing more than "colouring" the sound with a bit of a different um... EQ for lack of a better word to describe this. Like when you take the EL34s out of a guitar amp and put in 6L6's... You will get a different sound and a different amount of "drive/overdrive" from the otherwise relatively same system.' (quote function didn't work!)

3rd order harmonics on vinyl?

Nope.

3rd order harmonics are what you get if you overload a digital sytem and 'clip' the sound - it's horrid, really nasty. Trent Reznor loves that stuff (and so do I).
2nd order harmonics can be added by certain analogue playback systems (valves being a particularly nice example) and they do add a perception of warmth.
BUT - if you've added 2nd order harmonics that means you have distorted the sound - you are getting farther from the sound that the artist originally intended. You have added sound that wasn't originally there. It might sound great, but it's NOT what the artist intended.

You can't equate the way that valves are used in a guitar amp and the way they are used in a music amplifier - yes they're the same objects, but they're being used VERY differently.

Digital playback may come across as cold (well..... in it's very early days - like until about 1986 when they started to get the hang of the medium), but it is actually more accurate - less harmonic distortion has been added by the encoding process. And as I said before - play the CD back on a nice (slightly overdriven) valve amp and you'll soon get some of that perceived warmth back.

I'll come back to EQ later, as it's very important when it comes to the difference between mastering for vinyl and mastering for CD.

Now Digital, with 24 bit (or 32bit if you've got the software), 96,000 Hz is a far superior medium (no matter the codec or encoder) for recording and playback. It has a far superior noise floor, so to speak. Thus, if LZ had originally recorded in digital 24/32 bit, with 96k or better HZ... Then the FLAC conversions would be the "better" (read "with less noise") medium to hear it from, as it would most closely resemble what LZ wanted us to hear. But sadly, they recorded on mostly I would imagine 2" tape... which has it's limitations as compared to the digital processes of today... including varying distortions of 3rd order harmonics... Digital is usually quite good at not doing that if the equipment is good enough to capture that (at the same signal levels that is)... then again on all accounts one has to assume the best equipment... Heh, and both tend to be very good at these things when you get to high level studio equipment... but digital will just do it better today.

Er... What?
32 bit encoding of sound is utterly pointless for popular music.

Yes the dynamic range is vast.

More than the human ear can cope with in fact, so even the loudest rock band won't be able to make use of it. Most popular music actually has a dynamic range of about 10-15dB!!!! 32 bit gives you 196db. You just don't need it!

Even full classical orchestral recordings, which have a far greater dynamic range than any popular recordings are more than happy with 24 bit (that's 144db of dynamic range). As for sampling rates above 96kHz.... there's a lot of debate about it, but most sensible people seem to agree that anything above is a waste of hard disk space. Do some reading of your own about that.

And why have you suddenly started to talk about FLAC now? That's a way of compressing digital audio files into a smaller space - it has nothing to do with playback sound.

As for 2" tape - why are you so sad they recorded on that? Led Zep's first 3 albums were recorded on 1" tape and they sound absolutely fabulous. What we hear is pretty much what they wanted us to hear. Yes, the noise floor is higher, but there's very few points on any of those recordings where the music isn't significantly louder than the noise floor. And the human ear does this amazing thing called 'masking' where it pretty much ignores sounds too quiet to be heard (that's how mp3's work, but that's another whole text book, a degree in psychoacoustics and an understanding of Fourier analysis). They were recording on the best equipment available at the time, and the recordings still hold up as benchmarks today.

Will digital do it better? It all depends on the engineer and the producer, the same as it ever did. Analogue and Digital recording systems are just tools for the musician. Both have amazing plus points, both have drawbacks. The best engineers will work with whatever they are more used to or whatever suits the job. Neither is 'better' or 'worse'.

When one listens to both the vinyl and the standard CD both made by the same people with the same master tapes and as little tech between both as possible... you will actually not hear much of a difference at all outside of noise in the signal... Though, we are talking about the music industry. And trust me folks, you WILL hear a difference between an original 180 or 200 gram vinyl and the standard release on CD (talking remasters here). CD just doesn't have the ability to reproduce what that kind of vinyl can because the CD, in any instance that I've come across, is compressed to hell and back to fit it to 16 bit, 44.1khz tech...

If you listen to a CD and a vinyl record of the same recording you are NOT listening to the same master tapes. There will be a tape that has been mastered for CD, and a tape that has been mastered for vinyl.
You really cannot compare the two, because they will have been EQ'd differently to cope with the limitations of both of the media.
I'm not going to go into detail here but I suggest you read about RIAA curves, and pre-emphasis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization is a good start.

You should also be aware that the mastering process, whether for CD or Vinyl, involves and always has involved a lot of EQ and compression. If you think that when you play a vinyl record that this is an uncompressed recording you are sadly mistaken.

And, as I've explained before in this thread, you don't have to compress the audio 'to hell and back' to make it 'fit onto 16 bit, 44.1Hz tech..'. It's got more than enough dynamic and frequency range to at the very least match anything you think vinyl can do. Compression is used heavily in the recording process too - the drums in 'When the levee breaks' wouldn't sound like they do without masses of compression. There's a great interview with Glyn Johns (the engineer) where he talks about it (google it!). Compression isn't bad - it's another tool the engineer/producer/mastering engineer uses to shape the sound. It can be used brilliantly, and it can be used badly, just like any tool.
Do a little reading about sampling technology, the Nyquist frequency and why it is so important, and also learn some stuff about the human ear too. You'll learn a lot and you might stop taking a lot of the audiophile bunkum for granted.

I do not want to hear a compressed version that was mastered and what not in this loudness war we are in the middle of.

I want to hear a BD-A with ZERO compression AND thus a MUCH lower noise floor... Meaning I get to hear every part of the crack of that violin bow against the steal guitar strings when jimmy is in the middle of Dazed and Confused at The Forum or at Earl's Court!... I mean let that sound caress every part of my ears, let Bomham's bass rumble my lobes.... let Plant's voice squeeze my...... wow ok is it getting inappropriately steamy in here or is it just me? Ehem!

You're never going to hear anything with zero compression from those days. Full Stop. The noise floor is what it is because of the medium - tape. Later on successive iterations of Dolby Noise Reduction systems helped to lower those noise floors, and do you know how they did it?

Multiband COMPRESSORS!!!!
If you actually heard a recording of a rock band that used no compression at all you would say things like 'that snare drum sounds rubbish - it's just flat, there's no depth to it', or 'man that singer is crap, whenever he hits the low notes he's really quiet, but his voice is distorted when he goes high', or 'the guitars have no sustain, that dude must be using a cheap guitar he found in cash-convertors'.

Yes - the loudness wars have been CRAP. But that doesn't really apply to Zep (unless you count Mothership which was truly horrid). But that hasn't been down to the artist, in general. It's down to the record company who want the records to sound super-amazing at first listen and to sell LOTS OF UNITS. The 'kids' like it loud, they say, so that's how it is. Don't blame the producers, the engineers or the artists. Blame the bosses who hear a beautifully mastered record and say 'that's great, but can it be louder, more exciting?', and take it back to the poor mastering engineer who just wants to get paid.

Thankfully that seems to be passing now though, and hopefully we can get back to some music with decent dynamic range that sounds great on whatever medium you choose to listen to it on.

Rant over.

[juxtiphi]

[woz70]

Chortle.

[Tone_Boss]

The best way to hear Zep will be the upcoming digital downloads which will also be on HDtracks.com. So many people view vinyl as a holy grail while sonically it is inferior to digital. What your liking is the sound of vinyl. There are many limitations to vinyl, more than digital, if you like the sound fine but technically its not a superior medium.

[OutsideOctaves]

OOps, by noise floor, I was referring to what you are talking bout there, sorry. But yea, in the end you're right on that part though cd does have a higher dynamic range in theory. It's the original tapes though that matter you can't get better than what was originally recorded...

And now I realize I need to read through your entire post before going as some of the stuff I though I knew seems to be getting me into "trouble" here...

I thought the 2nd/3rd order harmonics were basically, for lack of better wording here, the frequencies we can hear that make an instrument sound warm in real life, but what make it sound "cold" so to speak (and lifeless) when they are missing... like what you can hear when you play an electric guitar through an older valve based amplifier... and what's missing in the digital amps of today. Looks like I either misread or misinterpreted what someone said on a forum, or they got it wrong and thus I learned a falsity of information. Sorry bout that.

As for digital over analog, we only know what we know, and we get that from reading whatever sources we have available or go on word of mouth heh... I've always seen that digital, as of lately, in theory, has a much higher ability for various different things... higher dynamic range, and blablabla... but here I get proven wrong again... and I do agree with you that it's in the hands of the artists, engineers and producers. You can make crap with either type. you can make master pieces with either type. But I've never heard it cleaner, clearer, or better than I have with digitally recorded, 24/96 files... flac or otherwise. And every 24/96 file I've heard of a vinyl has just played more information back than what standard cd's have because of the engineering and what not.

You are also right that that dynamic range beyond 24 bit doesn't really matter, that was more of a theoretical thing anyways right... cause if you're recording noise higher than a certain frequency and playing it back at original volume and pitch... you'll blow your ear drums heh. But then no one plays it back at original volume anyways for louder stuff, unless your Ted Nudget.

As far as comparing CD and Vinyl like I did and in mentioning master tapes... I mislabeled what I meant there. By master tapes, I meant the original tapes that they recorded to before mixing and mastering. Sorry for the mistake there. Heh.

As far as... wow I say << that<< too much... compression goes, i know it can be used to great effect. I'm just stating from what I know... today's CD's (remasters) have all been volume leveled, "compressed", and badly EQ'ed (so to speak, depends on the album and bla bla bla), and what not "to hell and back". The dynamic range is missing from the albums I have compared... that is to say, It's had it bass neutered, and it's highs cut off way to early to better fit the loudness that the boss(es) want. When I've listened to a vinyl that's been "properly" (so to speak) digitized, it always has allowed me to hear every instrument and vocal better. The bass you can actually tell is being played on a real instrument, the guitar has a greater vibrancy and "depth". I mean when you listen to the CD remasters of dazed and confused as to the digitized vinyl version... on the vinyl I can actually tell Jon Bonham is actually playing that bass, you can hear the strings being hit, but on the CD you just hear the notes and even those are a bit... muddled.

And as f...... not again! Oi, Yea... the flac is just a method of compresing the file down to size. And you are right about the conversion into analog sound by the loudspeakers. I understood both of those points, and have understood that, for a while. I'm just saying that the flac file itself is a lot better than the mp3 as the mp3 is a highly "compressed" file that chops even more off of the overall sound in the way that the system compresses it. Case in point, ever listened to an mp3 and then the cd track of the same song back to back and noticed how bad the mp3 sounds in comparison? Yea... Pile of sick again to clean up. Never in my life heard an mp3 that had anything that I would want to listen to outside of a 2 dollar set of ear buds... as it sounds the same when played through both the buds and a good speaker system...

And I think I might have to re-read what I wrote earlier... as I don't think I said that vinyl was a superior medium, just that the producers and engineers (to specify it better this time around) force on us a very bad sound on today's CDs... especially the "digital remaster" albums...

The CD is a far superior medium, but only if handled right. And it usually isn't.

I support TurnMeUp.org for a reason . Dynamics are missing... And we all agree on that little fact, even if I might have h... nay DID indeed have some mis-education going on.

As far as zero compression... yea without it a recording would suck... but I'm really getting into that whole thing of the last compression that gets done to the recording as a whole... I hope I'm talking with the right labels here, heh.

Well I learned a thing or two, thanks for clearing up some stuff.

And as far as valv..... did I just use those 4 words again? GAH!... valves go, I was being QUITE over aggressive in generalizing. They are indeed used in VASTLY different ways... but both produce a signal in the way that a valve does... and thus introduces the... uh (for lack of better words) "errors" in the signal path that digital doesn't... those "errors" being what gives valves their "organic" quality so to speak.... wow I am a bad linguist.

Ok, so thanks for the corrections

Man, in the end. Don't you wish we had been in studio to hear the version of the "master" they had before it was messed with for CD or Vinyl, or anything else for that matter? Well, guess we might get that with the HD download heh, but who knows.

[woz70]

Man, in the end. Don't you wish we had been in studio to hear the version of the "master" they had before it was messed with for CD or Vinyl, or anything else for that matter? Well, guess we might get that with the HD download heh, but who knows.

Yes, that would be awesome.

But don't forget that Zep were pretty unique in the fact that a member of the band was also the producer. You've got to be sure that Jimmy would have been present for the mastering process - both for the original vinyl, and for the first set of remasters in the 90's - so you're still hearing pretty much what he wanted us to hear. The only really bad versions were the Barry Diament transfers on the first run of CD's where he was using master tapes that had already been Eq'd for vinyl (the RIAA curve had already been applied). I think we're in for a treat with the new re-masters, especially considering the advances in digital signal processing technology in the last 20 years.

Let's wait and see!

[The Rover]

Easier solutions for anodizingstatic/others:

1. Buy current CDs;

2. Buy the "Mastered for iTunes" lossy tracks -- honestly, the best digital versions I've heard;

3. Wait for the remasters;

4. Go to your local flea-market and pick up the original vinyl issues for pennies.

I agree with you Melcórë, the "Mastered for iTunes" tracks are indeed, the Best digital versions available that I have ever heard.

I was a listener/owner of the RL pressed LZ II LP in October of 1969. So, I do know what great LZ music sounds like, and that, listening with a pair of "big" KOSS Headphones on a Garrard turntable. That said, I was impressed and pleased with the Mastered for iTunes LZ II tracks that I listened to with Bose Headphones.

[OutsideOctaves]

I have to say, I'm another "big" headphone user in addition to my 5.1 systems, this Analog 7.1 Headset (RAZER Tiamat 7.1) ... there's something about headphones isn't there? The spacial differences are just so much more apparent I guess. But then something has to be said about how you perceive the bass frequencies from a good stereo system in comparison no? I love both ... though that tiamat has more bass than anything I've ever owned in that it can vibrate the cheeks and blur your vision if you push it hard enough... which I've done and won't do again lol... I guess each has their time for use no?

BTW, before anyone goes there... yes I'm an audiophile in training... even still I will push the equipment beyond proper listening levels to do stunts like what I said above. Then I'll turn it down to proper levels and love on that lush atmosphere that zep and others made ...

and how can anyone listen to stuff as lush as zep's albums on anything but the very biggest headphones? I mean those ear buds are just ... bad, especially the ones most have... those 10 dollar walmart crappies, or skull candy bud... I've done that and it's just... tiny. Guess if you don't care it don't matter?

Anyone else get made fun of at work for having the big headphones on? I take my koss out and it's instant laughter for some people heh. I take it in stride knowing they have the ear bud style and know that I just hear more than they do .

[anodizingstatic]

Okay my friends, here s an update!

With the new 2014 CD and Vinyl remasters being released, there isn't a better time to update your library.

Rip these CD's in FLAC codec or any other losless codec and you're set.

Now go buy a good pair of speakers and headphones and TRULY appreciate the beauty of Zeppelin, the way they should be heard.

[JTM]

Okay my friends, here s an update!

With the new 2014 CD and Vinyl remasters being released, there isn't a better time to update your library.

Rip these CD's in FLAC codec or any other losless codec and you're set.

Now go buy a good pair of speakers and headphones and TRULY appreciate the beauty of Zeppelin, the way they should be heard.

If you have the CDs why would you want to rip them into flac if you are listening via a speaker set up. That is pointless.

[juxtiphi]

If you have the CDs why would you want to rip them into flac if you are listening via a speaker set up. That is pointless.

He probably means on a computer, My cd drive is very loud and I hate having to hear it when listening to music so I have all my cds ripped to my comp in flac.

[anodizingstatic]

If you have the CDs why would you want to rip them into flac if you are listening via a speaker set up. That is pointless.

If you even bothered to read the title, it's for a digital conversion, the way most people listen to music today. Yes, CD"s are digital but if you were following all posts you would realize we've been referring to FLAC conversion the entire time.

It isn't pointless at all to listen via FLAC my friend. I can utilize it on my laptop, phone -- anywhere I can connect an aux cable which 99% of speaker sets have nowadays.

Plus, if you bought all the remastered albums, it would be so much more efficient to conveniently have them stored in FLAC on your devices so you could make playlists and jam out in your car, or whatever.

I also mentioned headphones and speakers, meaning good audio listening equipment in general. I never said a direct speaker set up waas the only way to go.

This whole thread is for LZ fans to attain the highest quality possible in the modern era's technology. CD's are becoming more obsolete every day, and to be honest, take up space when travelling. I have the whole LZ vinyl collection but of course am preferring the new remasters.

There's still nothing wrong with listening via CD or vinyl. I prefer it when I'm by my speaker set.

"He probably means on a computer, My cd drive is very loud and I hate having to hear it when listening to music so I have all my cds ripped to my comp in flac."

Exactly!