Jump to content

Opinions needed on LZ repurchases


Recommended Posts

I just recently started getting heavy into Led Zeppelin again. I own all their 80s cds from back when I first started to dig them. Recently I imported those to my iTunes, but decided I wanted to me more updated on their releases. I stumbled on 3 used 90s remasters, Zep I, II and HOTH. Then I decided to purchase form iTunes, the recent reissues (single set, not deluxe) remasters, in 256 kbps for 9.99 per album. Now, today I'm strolling through Wal Mart and decide to just check out the Zep cd section for kicks. I found all the single set hard copy 2014/15 reissues for only 9.00 (Not including the yet to be released hard copies of Presence and ITTOD). For some reason, I was under the impression that only the deluxe sets were available in hard copies. They didn't have a non deluxe set of PG so it was 18.99. Anyway, I bought them because the price was too hard to pass up at only 9 bucks for all the new reissues on hard copy cd (Except for PG, which was 18.99, but I bought it too) So now the question. I haven't opened them yet and I have my receipt. So, seeing as I have all the 80s cds, 3 of the 90s cds and all new reissues purchased from iTunes, including Presence, ITTOD and CODA. Is there any reason to keep these hard copies of the new reissues from Wal Mart, for sound purposes? Sure it's kinda nice having the new covers for the price, but is that enough for me not to return them? The PG is the 40 year anniversary one so it's kinda cool. I don't have a high tech stereo system, just a run of the mill decent living room cd player stereo and of course my iPod. Are there certain ones that are better in the new issues than before, and others that aren't, or certain ones better than the iTunes ones compared to others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stick with the new remastered CD's, they're the real deal, properly remastered by John Davis and Jimmy Page, the Zep have never sounded so good (at least in the digital realm), whereas the iTunes versions are only remastered in the sense of being new digital transfers to the iTunes format, they're not the new remastered versions as far as I'm aware. Well-produced/mastered music (of which the new Zep remasters most certainly are) will invariably always sound better on a nice stereo system - and not necessarily an expensive one either - over and above a digital device, plus you don't get lovely packaging on a digital download.

Your money, your choice, but my opinion is keep and thoroughly enjoy the remastered discs... physical music products for the win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a no-brainer...keep the new remasters you got at Wallmart. Especially since Atlantic fucked up the 80s cd releases of PG, II and III.

Although why you didn't get the deluxe CD editions is beyond me...especially for I and III, which has some cool stuff on the bonus disc. Then there's the matter of vinyl, which to me is still the best hard format to have Led Zeppelin. You really should invest in a turntable and get the vinyl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I didn't get the deluxe ones because they were 6 more bucks a disc (14.99 vs 9 bucks on the nose) which adds up quick. And I sampled a lot of the bonus stuff off of iTunes and you can download individual tracks from there as well. As for the concert from 69 in Paris, I have the 1970 Royal Albert Hall downloaded from YouTube and I have from iTunes the BBC sessions, How the West Was Won and The Song Remains the Same. I know many aren't big on iTunes, but there 256 kbps downloads are pretty tight. I'm far from an audiophile so I can't really tell the difference. My system is just a basic cd stereo system that you get at retail stores and my iPod.

You mentioned that Atlantic fucked up Zep II, II and PG in the 80s. For sure on II and PG but I couldn't tell much on III. What do you think of the 90s remasters?

Edited by price.pittsburgh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 90s were an improvement on the 80s but these new ones are the best sounding cds yet...proper channel balance restored, much warmer bass, and no brickwalling.

As for the 80s cd of III, I found it hissy...especially on the acoustic tracks. Same with IV. I don't think Atlantic used the best master available.

Edited by Strider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you mean.

And back to your comments about vinyl. I would love to get a new turntable system and re buy a bunch of new vinyl of old albums but it's not financially practical right now. Neither was buying all those Wal Mart cds I just did or dropping 30 bucks on the 2003 DVD last week, lol but it is what it is. But yeah, I love vinyl, always did. I lost all my album covers when a basement I was storing them in flooded back in 87. After that I sort of little by little replaced everything with cassette tapes and eventually cds. I do own those novelty record players you get at retail stores, just to put old album on for kicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2014-15 remasters are the definitive editions of this material.

Keep the new CDs! They sound great, you will be surprised at how much more you hear. Totally worth it!

Pretty much says it all. I would say that anyone who cannot hear the improvement in these new remasters has bad ears, a bad stereo...or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that in a nasty way I work with SLP's and audiologist a and just know 9/10 people over 50 have some change in their hearing so I guess many of us on here have "bad ears". These remasters just sound shrill to me(cd) compared to the 94's and th cardboard packaging is a freakin nightmare for cd scratches. I did not even finish listening to PG after 5 and a half listenings looking for something that I can't find...FWIW I did end up with 7 mint discs as I refused to accept scratched maybe someone will get some use out of them.

Edited by ksgemini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was playing them today on my living room stereo, as well as in my vehicle (yes it has an old cd player in it) and then on my computer after I imported them to iTunes under the lossless encoder. As of now I honestly can't tell the difference between them and the Mastered for iTunes ones I purchased in 256 kbps lossy.

I also can't tell a big difference between them and the 94 remasters but I think I do sense the brick walling thing on the 90s ones, in comparison, but I could just be fooling myself.

I'm starting to wonder if these types of remasters really aren't just for the audiophiles or for people with extremely expensive equipment.

So basically, I'm chalking it up to owning in hard copy, cd format, the the re issues for collection purposes :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i do think a lot depends on your system i listen in the car on the computer and upload ti itunes and plug phone into car aux thats all the stereo I have and honestly am happy with Definitive 08 box....I try to hear nuances in the new cd's but I can barely tell andam going to get rid of first 6 remasters as they will give an audiophile somewhere much more pleasure. I am not denying the mastering just saying it is for the elite as I dont even have a home stereo other than a UE speaker for i phone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am 53 and have listened and played loud music all my life,not to mention played with drummers who are hellbent on bashing their way to China.Also worked in noisy factories for 27 years.I do have industrial deafness.However I feel there are some big improvements in the new remasters.HOTH is smoother,not as shrill,PG springs to life.I own ordinary stereoes x3 and a big PA system for band work.I have A and B'd all of the old and new remasters on all of these stereos.However I 'listen' to music,I listen to what each instrument is doing,etc,whereas my mate who loves Zep can't tell the difference because he doesn't listen as intently as me.To him a good song is a good song no matter what it comes it out of unless its a $10 tranny.I think it all boils down to how much you appreciate the music.Go with the new ones.

Edited by grasbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U know u are basically saying because of your way of listening u are superior or a better "fan" . Music is for fun not picking apart and analyzing every time u listen. That's ok. The only people that matter are music students with expensive systems ... I get it The past few years must have been miserable for your ears til these came out.

Edited by ksgemini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe u missed ...not everyone can afford them.. The SD boxes that is

Sorry about that....i guess anyones decision would be based on the sound system they have to play it on. Personally i prefer the vinyl offering of the remasters for all of the aspects they offer. That being said the cd's sound great as well so you can't go wrong with any format of the latest remasters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the best Led Zeppelin has sounded on CDs period. As for vinyl, the only way you can equal or better these vinyl remasters is if you have a mint first pressing of the original vinyls or the Classic Records 180g vinyl releases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until Warner decides to squeeze more $ from the fans and issues the re remasters ultimate box. I get they are probably the best for people with great home systems but as cd is a dying format and more people will be using iTunes and Amazon music are they worth 100 bucks for those people? I guess it is an individual decision based on disposable income and is any catalog worth 1000-1500 for SD boxes ... Again up to what people can afford comfortably. I probably inherited my parents' conservative spending ways out of necessity. On Steve Hoffman's forum I see people prefer the 80's releases to 94.. I had access to a good home system then and to my perfect ears at the time the diament remasters sounded either too flat and thin or overloaded with bottom depending on the song. I can't tell u what is defective in my listening brain but I guess I am just not as attentive to nuances. Strider is undoubtedly right because he always is but it really depends on how they are being played and where for the differences to come through dramatically.

Edited by ksgemini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until Warner decides to squeeze more $ from the fans and issues the re remasters ultimate box. I get they are probably the best for people with great home systems but as cd is a dying format and more people will be using iTunes and Amazon music are they worth 100 bucks for those people? I guess it is an individual decision based on disposable income and is any catalog worth 1000-1500 for SD boxes ... Again up to what people can afford comfortably. I probably inherited my parents' conservative spending ways out of necessity. On Steve Hoffman's forum I see people prefer the 80's releases to 94.. I had access to a good home system then and to my perfect ears at the time the diament remasters sounded either too flat and thin or overloaded with bottom depending on the song. I can't tell u what is defective in my listening brain but I guess I am just not as attentive to nuances. Strider is undoubtedly right because he always is but it really depends on how they are being played and where for the differences to come through dramatically.

Dude, you've posted at least 50 times in various threads that you can't hear much of a difference, can't afford the new releases, and/or think the whole project is just a money grab. 6 out of 22 posts in this thread alone. We get it, you're on the record. End of rant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...