moryoga Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 Hi Jimmy and anyone else that might be reading this, I'm hoping to get the official, clarified confirmation on whether the Vinyl reissues have been converted to a digital format, which I believe is what I read. While this may provide some apparent sonic clarity, the Vinyl purists out here would appreciate, adore, love, celebrate, riot and pillage, go on hunger strikes etc. to have a pure analog > analog > analog reissue. Call us crazy, out of date, out of touch, but to our ears that digital sound just about strips the soul right out of the music. I'm sure the digital versions will be incredible for digital but we're begging you, BEGGING, please let us have an all analog pressing, to have a chance to experience as close as possible the magic, brilliance and heart that was captured in the original pressings. Thanks, Michael Quote
woz70 Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Looks like you're going to go hungry for a while.... They're not re-issues, but re-masters - that's the point. The idea is they sound better than the original pressings. So...of course they're from digital transfers. The master tapes have been encoded at 24bit/192kHz. If you want all analogue signal path, buy a pre 1990 remasters pressing and be happy with it. You could have found all of this out, and more, if you looked through this thread:http://forums.ledzeppelin.com/index.php?/topic/18626-new-box-sets-including-unreleased-material/ Quote
moryoga Posted May 5, 2014 Author Posted May 5, 2014 ''...The idea is they sound better than the original pressings. So...of course they're from digital transfers. " That's the whole point. For a lot of people even the best digital sounds like crap compared to properly mixed and edited analog. Thanks for the thread link though. Quote
Glyn Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Not trying to star a war or anything , but how exactly does digital "strip the soul out of the music?" Quote
Melcórë Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 More to the point: The vinyl has been prepared for months. They aren't going to trash what they have and restart because some people are unable to appreciate music if it comes from a supposedly "lesser" source. I have heard some samples from an inside source, and the remastered vinyl sounds at least comparable to the best vinyl already available. Quote
The Dark Lord Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 More to the point: The vinyl has been prepared for months. They aren't going to trash what they have and restart because some people are unable to appreciate music if it comes from a supposedly "lesser" source. I have heard some samples from an inside source, and the remastered vinyl sounds at least comparable to the best vinyl already available. Nice! You are a tricksy little Hobbit. Quote
Melcórë Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Nice! You are a tricksy little Hobbit. Haha, I'm not the only one. To be fair, I've only heard samples from vinyl rips, but they have been comparable (aside from some defects with the equipment used) with the best of those. I should also note that I didn't find the samples that I've heard to be nearly as revelatory/enjoyable as the digital (lossy aac, lossless flac) remastered files. Quote
woz70 Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Not trying to star a war or anything , but how exactly does digital "strip the soul out of the music?" Yes, I'd like to know this too. In some detail please. Quote
Triplet Kick Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 If folk are all agog for the full analogue wet dream, there are always the extremely pricey Classic Record 200g all-analogue editions from 10 years ago. All deleted, of course. And yes, he wrote trying not to rub salt in the wound, those copies do sound rather spectacular. I look forward to comparing those to the 2014 remastered LPs. First world problems, eh? Quote
The Dark Lord Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 If folk are all agog for the full analogue wet dream, there are always the extremely pricey Classic Record 200g all-analogue editions from 10 years ago. All deleted, of course. And yes, he wrote trying not to rub salt in the wound, those copies do sound rather spectacular. I look forward to comparing those to the 2014 remastered LPs. First world problems, eh? Those are sweet, but getting very expensive. I recently sold a duplicate copy of LZ II for $375. Quote
tmtomh Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 There's been no official confirmation yet, but all indications are that the new LPs are digital sourced, from the same 24/192 high-res digital masters that are the source for the other formats (CDs, high-res downloads, iTunes, Spotify). The Classic Records LPs are indeed great, although Zep II, III, and Houses are not best of breed. I think the upcoming new remaster LP of Zep III will please a lot of people, especially those who find the original issue LPs a little veiled/rolled off. The Houses LP, not so much, alas. Quote
moryoga Posted May 7, 2014 Author Posted May 7, 2014 First, yes, total first world issue, no doubt. Perhaps not really important in the big picture. But for me, music is one of lifes greatest things, a hobby and passion that I take pretty seriously. For the casual listener, there's not the appreciation so there's very little interest in quality. Second, perhaps "strips the soul out" is a bit dramatic but màybe not. The analog chain is a still in the physical domain, something that I think registers not only on the sonic level but on an overall physical level. A digital file is converted into ones and zeros and is then reconstituted into an audible signal. I hold that on a really fine audio system, a pure, well mixed analog album is more organic and natural sounding and there is an obvious difference in quality from a digital source. The Beatles last LP release from digital files was a relative sonic and financial flop, panned by consumers and critics. I'm sure Paul's not losing any sleep. For serious listeners, it's like the difference between fast food and a meal prepared with top ingredients by a master chef. And frankly, if you've never heard a really excellent analog system, it would impossible to make an educated critique of the difference between the two formats. That's why companies that sell DACs that can cost up to $30,000 still say things like "analog sound"; they know that's still the gold standard and they're still pretty far away from it. Conversely, The Doors re-issue from master tapes, done with time and care were a total success. People really appreciated and acknowledged the effort put into preserving the treasure that these pieces of music are. That being said, if there was an opportunity to clean up, clarify and make whole things that Jimmy felt needed to be done and the only way he felt he could do that is with a digital mix, which is what he's obvioisly done, then I'll just have withhold judgement until the release is out and hope for the best. When restorations are done on great pieces of art, they don't just take a digital picture of it, clean it up in Photoshop and then slap it on top of the original. I hope that's not what's happening here. Quote
The Dark Lord Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) First, yes, total first world issue, no doubt. Perhaps not really important in the big picture. But for me, music is one of lifes greatest things, a hobby and passion that I take pretty seriously. For the casual listener, there's not the appreciation so there's very little interest in quality. Second, perhaps "strips the soul out" is a bit dramatic but màybe not. The analog chain is a still in the physical domain, something that I think registers not only on the sonic level but on an overall physical level. A digital file is converted into ones and zeros and is then reconstituted into an audible signal. I hold that on a really fine audio system, a pure, well mixed analog album is more organic and natural sounding and there is an obvious difference in quality from a digital source. The Beatles last LP release from digital files was a relative sonic and financial flop, panned by consumers and critics. I'm sure Paul's not losing any sleep. For serious listeners, it's like the difference between fast food and a meal prepared with top ingredients by a master chef. And frankly, if you've never heard a really excellent analog system, it would impossible to make an educated critique of the difference between the two formats. That's why companies that sell DACs that can cost up to $30,000 still say things like "analog sound"; they know that's still the gold standard and they're still pretty far away from it. Conversely, The Doors re-issue from master tapes, done with time and care were a total success. People really appreciated and acknowledged the effort put into preserving the treasure that these pieces of music are. That being said, if there was an opportunity to clean up, clarify and make whole things that Jimmy felt needed to be done and the only way he felt he could do that is with a digital mix, which is what he's obvioisly done, then I'll just have withhold judgement until the release is out and hope for the best. When restorations are done on great pieces of art, they don't just take a digital picture of it, clean it up in Photoshop and then slap it on top of the original. I hope that's not what's happening here. I'm old school and not like a lot of the sound enthusiasts here. I like my music on vinyl and I have a huge library of the stuff. I don't get hung up on the differences, as I generally find that for every pro, there is a con, and it almost comes out a wash. What I will say, is that I agree with you on some level, and there is a difference. I have solid state equipment and tube equipment, and each has its own subtleties and color. Certain things are meant by some people to be heard in certain ways, so I understand where you are coming from. I just don't allow myself to dwell on these aspects, as we are in a rapidly changing world, and I am just damned pleased that vinyl has done the unthinkable and made a return. I watched it get replaced by CD's and I lamented that loss. Now its back, and I'll take it as it comes. Besides, the quality of pressings is a thousand times better than it was when I was a kid buying low quality pressings. My advice to most people is feel the music, and don't over-analyze the minutia. Edited May 7, 2014 by The Dark Lord Quote
Kingofpunk Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 I honestly feel people are being extremely pretentious regarding "an all analog" sound vs Vinyl cut from digital files. I had various Beatles LPs (some original,some 70s/early 80s pressings) & the 2012 LP remasters dumped on them sonically . My Zeppelin lps are from late 70s , early 80s (no barcodes) & sound a bit hit & miss. I never heard the classic records lps but I am hoping & confident the 2014 remasters will sound cleaner & clearer Quote
tmtomh Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 I predict the upcoming LPs of Zep III, Physical Graffiti, and ITTOD (and maybe IV) will be among the best-sounding vinyl Zep out there. Quote
ledastray Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 I predict the upcoming LPs of Zep III, Physical Graffiti, and ITTOD (and maybe IV) will be among the best-sounding vinyl Zep out there. Why not I and II? Quote
Jimmy's Dragon Suit Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I predict the upcoming LPs of Zep III, Physical Graffiti, and ITTOD (and maybe IV) will be among the best-sounding vinyl Zep out there. Why not I and II? I haven't ordered I - III remasters because because I have the US, Canadian, UK original pressings and Classic Records pressings of all the Zep albums so I find it hard that these remasters will be a step up from the originals or the Classic records pressings. Zep III, PG, and ITTOD remasters have the potential to be better than the originals and the Classic. Zep III - US 1st press Monarch, Red label Canadian, UK A5/B5 and Classic Records 200g all have their strengths and weaknesses but none of these pressings are a complete audiophile dream PG - I have a US and three UK 1st pressings. Was not crazy about the Classic Records pressings but the UK sounds great and the US is fine but this album can sound better with some great mastering. Tied with Presence as my favorite Zep album so I will buy the remaster regardless. ITTOD - I have US, UK, Canadian and Classic Records pressing. Classic and the Canadian are best of the bunch but it still has flaws probably due to the mastering. I will definitely purchase the remastered vinyl. Edited June 2, 2014 by Jimmy's Dragon Suit Quote
houseofhits Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 If folk are all agog for the full analogue wet dream, there are always the extremely pricey Classic Record 200g all-analogue editions from 10 years ago. All deleted, of course. And yes, he wrote trying not to rub salt in the wound, those copies do sound rather spectacular. I look forward to comparing those to the 2014 remastered LPs. First world problems, eh? I bought 1V & Houses Of The Holy a few days ago. I'm a musician, & sound engineer for 35 yrs. Something didn't sound right to me. I got out my US HOH & Australian 1V pressings & AB'd them. Older pressings win, sorry, & they're not even "classic" pressings. Too much high mid eq'd into the remasters. One thing I will say about the remasters is that they are very quiet. Definitely a more natural, more comfortable listening experience with the old pressings though. Sometimes remastered vinyl is better, often it isn't. This isn't the place to go into a technical dissertation about the effects of digitizing the original 2 track masters, but it always has a deleterious effect. I'd be curious to see if the cds, or hi res downloads, sound better than the remastered vinyl, which they may well do, as they haven't had to go thru another digital to analog conversion. I'm obviously pretty picky because of what I do for a living, but I'll be attempting to return the reissues & will look for the best all analog pressings I can find. Quote
Stairway is NOT stolen Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Not trying to star a war or anything , but how exactly does digital "strip the soul out of the music?" here is the waveform of Digital Music and Analog The smooth, wavy line is the Analoge waveform, and the sharp, jagged line is the Digital waveform. As you can see, the analogue is much smoother and nicer to look at (and hear) The digital is more harsh and not as nice to look at (or hear) Edited November 1, 2014 by Stairway is NOT stolen Quote
woz70 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 here is the waveform of Digital Music and Analog The smooth, wavy line is the Analoge waveform, and the sharp, jagged line is the Digital waveform. As you can see, the analogue is much smoother and nicer to look at (and hear) The digital is more harsh and not as nice to look at (or hear) This is complete and utter bullshit. There are NO STEPS IN DIGITAL. Please do a bit of background reading before you continue to perpetuate this misconception. Look at this video and perhaps educate yourself a bit:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM#t=389 Quote
Glyn Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Edit: woz70 beat me to it That video was pretty interesting, thanks! Edited November 1, 2014 by Glyn Quote
MCAN Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I am ok with the LP remasters being cut from high-res digital files but I would have preferred if they were cut from the original master tapes like the Beatles in Mono vinyl box set was. Quote
Stairway is NOT stolen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 To me, i don't really care what they are cut from. Jimmy has done a flawless job of remastering these Zeppelin albums, and as a Result, this is the best Led Zeppelin has ever sounded IMO. Quote
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.