gperkins151 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I have recently become more aware of the differences between remastered CDs and their previous incarnations. I have a few questions: 1. When a CD is remastered is it usually amplified as well? 2. Does this amplification result in less detail, lost information? (I think it's yes, I just want to be sure) 3. Do you prefer your rock CDs in the latest remaster or an earlier CD version and why? I ask because I have been viewing some tracks on Audacity, freeware that allows you to see a graphic representation of the track. While comparing the Mothership version of Good Times and the remastered version from the CD, I noticed that the Mothership version has been amplified considerably and it looks as if much detail has been lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footsteps of Dawn Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 1. Usually? I'm not sure, sorry. 2. I think the amplification you're talking about is called "compression." From what I understand, compression makes the mix louder overall (which initially makes the song jump out at you more; this is used a lot for big, mainstream radio singles so they sound louder than the preceding song and make you take notice), but it also causes the loss of dynamics, so the loud parts don't seem quite as loud, but the soft parts aren't very soft - the whole thing's just sort of flat. 3. Depends on the remaster. Some sound better, some sound worse. Some you're screwed no matter what because the original recording sucked and nothing you can do at this stage is going to fix it. Like III, for instance. The mix on the vinyl sounds muddy to me (and it's not just because it's vinyl...IV sounds quite nice by contrast), but the CD remaster, in trying to fix that, sounds harsh and piercing (screechy, I guess?) in the treble, so it's sort of a toss-up to me. I just want whichever version sounds the best, whether that ends up being the '60s version or the state-of-the-art remaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 2. I think the amplification you're talking about is called "compression." Is compression when you amplify the track beyond the level where distortion begins? I ask because I just amplified "Travelling Riverside Blues" from the complete studio set because the peak levels didn't reach the levels of the other tracks and it sounded distant. I wonder why Jimmy decided to not boost this song as he has done with every other one that I have heard by him. Could it be that the tape was deteriorated and he didn't want to emphasize this by making it louder? It sure sounds like it, especially at the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Not only remastered cds, but pretty much everything released now (rock related) is like this. Pretty sad to see clipping on the waveforms from your only source for the music. yea, heres a wikipedia article about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 Not only remastered cds, but pretty much everything released now (rock related) is like this. Pretty sad to see clipping on the waveforms from your only source for the music. yea, heres a wikipedia article about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war Yes, that is sad. Has anyone noticed that their Led Zeppelin CDs (the remaster by Page and Marino) sound loud even when played low? They seem to be mixed with a small amount of distortion, enough to sound like you are blasting your stereo. Is this a different phenomenon than what we have been discussing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 More discussion on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaztor (slight return) Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Funny to read complaints about the Zep remasters. If there's one band that could've used remasters it's Zep, because the old cd's sound deader than dead (I know a few vinyls, they sound nice). I love the batch of remasters from the mini-vinyl cd versions, although Ramble On has been shortened . There's an American series of Jimi Hendrix remasters from the early 90's (Reprise label) that's A HELL OF A FUCKING LOT better than the ones his family came with (those ones are the standards now). The old Pink Floyd-cd's all sound better than the remastered ones and that also counts for quite a few Zappa cd's (not all). The best remasters I've heard are the Doors ones I have from, I think, 1999. Those are ABSOLUTELY FUCING KILLER!!!! The worst I've heard is The Stooges - Raw Power, mixed by Iggy. What a damn fucking shame! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleNecker Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Some remasters are for the better (Raw Power is a fine example) but some should've never been. Like Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of A Madman.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 More discussion elsewhere on this topic. Looks like most folks prefer the 1990 remaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 More discussion elsewhere on this topic. Looks like most folks prefer the 1990 remaster. I need to hear for myself, so I just ordered the NON REMASTER of Houses of the Holy. Are the others difficult to find? Any suggestions of where to look online? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 I need to hear for myself, so I just ordered the NON REMASTER of Houses of the Holy. Are the others difficult to find? Any suggestions of where to look online? No one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 Amazon.com has many used cd's for sale as well as Ebay. You just need to scroll through the offering, see if they mention it in the descriptions and/or email the seller. They should be able to tell you. Or if you have used cd shops near you, most often people sell their old non-remasters and they could be easily found there, depending on the extensiveness of their stock. As usual, great advice! Thanks! Some remasters are better, some have that compression/boost that obliterates the dynamics. It just depends on the record company and how independent of action the remastering engineer has. Most don't want to compress/boost because they know of the degredation in sound quality, ironic how they 'sound' better initially, eventually you realize everything is the same volume. Great if you're listening where there's sonic competition, sad when you listen intimately without noisey distraction. Yes, I live in NYC and the remastered stuff is excellent on the subway and out on the noisy streets. What's you opinion of the Led Zeppelin CDs, say the original CD vs the 1990 remaster vs the Mothership remaster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 I prefer the 1st remasters over the first issues and over Mothership. IMO, the very best cd's of many groups were the first 'masters' Do you mean remasters? Where in the city are you ? East Village/Union Square area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 No...I meant 'masters' Gotcha. So in most cases, Zeppelin excluded, you prefer the first mastering? If an original tape is handled well....mastered originally very well...the transfer is all that has to be done.....no tweaking is necessary sometimes if done meticulously.... Makes a lot of sense to me. I stayed over in W. New York, NJ for 4 months, went into the city daily. Used to ride my bicycle down thru Union Square area to the Twin Towers area... Yes, I prefer to walk, but very much enjoy a stroll southward, usually to JandR to pick up some CDs. There's a great used CD shop on 18th between 5th and 6th if you ever visit, you should check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Funny to read complaints about the Zep remasters. If there's one band that could've used remasters it's Zep, because the old cd's sound deader than dead (I know a few vinyls, they sound nice). I love the batch of remasters from the mini-vinyl cd versions, although Ramble On has been shortened . I like the original HOTH cd over the Marino remaster. Compare the intro to the Rain Song on both, the difference is quite noticeable. There was definitely some Noise Reduction being used on the remaster. The acoustic guitar overtones are missing plus the stereo image was narrowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 I like the original HOTH cd over the Marino remaster. Compare the intro to the Rain Song on both, the difference is quite noticeable. There was definitely some Noise Reduction being used on the remaster. The acoustic guitar overtones are missing plus the stereo image was narrowed. Thanks. I am now that much happier that I ordered the original. What do you think of the remasters on the other studio albums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Thanks. I am now that much happier that I ordered the original. What do you think of the remasters on the other studio albums? Not much difference really between the originals and the remasters. I - both sound good. II - remastered sounds less harsh, has more midrange. III - remastered probably wins. IV - prefer original. HOTH - original is best sounding Zep cd I've heard. PG - prefer original. Presence - prefer remaster. ITTOD - prefer remaster. YMMV. However, if you really want to hear Zep in all its sonic glory, I would definitely seek out the vinyl. The CD's just can't match them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaztor (slight return) Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Not much difference really between the originals and the remasters. I - both sound good. II - remastered sounds less harsh, has more midrange. III - remastered probably wins. IV - prefer original. HOTH - original is best sounding Zep cd I've heard. PG - prefer original. Presence - prefer remaster. ITTOD - prefer remaster. YMMV. However, if you really want to hear Zep in all its sonic glory, I would definitely seek out the vinyl. The CD's just can't match them. Interesting. It's the same with Zappa. One edition eclipses the other and vice versa.. From some cd's you need the remaster, from others you need the first cd release, from yet some others you need a second cd release... etc. I collect him like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 YMMV. However, if you really want to hear Zep in all its sonic glory, I would definitely seek out the vinyl. The CD's just can't match them. 'sonic glory' to me means they are warmer and more comfy than the cds. Having things so crystal clear isnt all that. Interesting. It's the same with Zappa. One edition eclipses the other and vice versa.. From some cd's you need the remaster, from others you need the first cd release, from yet some others you need a second cd release... etc. I collect him like this. My experience is with Deep Purple with this scenario. I grew up with the record and got the 1st gen cd...which basically sounded the same. Then the Roger Glover remaster came out and everything was crystal clear, boomy, more dynamic....everything that would be considered 'better', but I dont play that one anymore. It lost the vibe....and added the UK only intro to Speed King (which is think the US was right to cut out; it was lame). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 I prefer vinyl, but I like the remasters more than the old ones. I was listening to an old copy of PG and it sounded really cold. I got the remasters one and it was as bad. It still had that cold cd sound, thoguh, but it wasn't as bad. If you want the best sound possible I say get yourself a turntable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gperkins151 Posted December 23, 2007 Author Share Posted December 23, 2007 I prefer vinyl, but I like the remasters more than the old ones. I was listening to an old copy of PG and it sounded really cold. I got the remasters one and it was as bad. It still had that cold cd sound, thoguh, but it wasn't as bad. If you want the best sound possible I say get yourself a turntable. Yes, I am beginning to consider it. How much does a decent (not top of the line) turntable cost, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaztor (slight return) Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 It lost the vibe....and added the UK only intro to Speed King (which is think the US was right to cut out; it was lame). You mean that kick-ass smack in the face at the start before it cools down with the organ? I adore that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Mine was about 100, but remeber your power amp and speakers. I have a pioneer pl-990. It has a strobe light for speed adjust a play, stop, and elevation buttons. I can also play 45s on it. If you want a basic turntable I reccomend this one. I'm 14, and I like it, my dad who was around when turntables were your only choice also likes it. So now you have two opinions. Edited: This is exactly the turntable I have: Pioneer Pl-990 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 You mean that kick-ass smack in the face at the start before it cools down with the organ? I adore that! When I first heard that organ part it was like......whats the point of that...kicking me in the shin, then saying sorry? I grew up with with the riff jumping in at 1,000mph and not taking prisoners until Child In Time. good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cecil. Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 I prefer the 1st remasters over the first issues and over Mothership. IMO, the very best cd's of many groups were the first 'masters'..not necessarily remastered cd's that came out of Japan. They just seemed to treat the original recordings with so much more care. I have a few mid 80s Japanese cd's and they sound great. Not as LOUD..but so what..just crank you own stereo, but the dynamics are the best. Where in the city are you ?you mean they sound fuller or sharper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.