Mothership, a rip-off or a revelation?

[robertkincaid96]

Mother of reinvention

They're remastered and re-released, but does messing with Led Zep's classics make them sound any better? Dominic Maxwell risks his hearing to find out | December 01, 2007

IS Led Zeppelin's new album, Mothership, a rip-off or a revelation? The recently released two-CD best-of heralds the 1970s rock gods' live reunion with a track listing remarkably similar to their previous two-CD best-of. Remasters, released in 1990, sold in airshiploads, thanks to the acclaimed restoration work by the band's guitarist, Jimmy Page. Seventeen years later, he has done it again, with a new remastering engineer.

Has some 21st-century sonic hoodoo been applied to these blues-rock anthems? Are all previous versions of these songs now second-rate, redundant? Or is this remastering lark all just a bit of a gimmick?

Opinion, so far, is divided. The album is a must, argues Uncut magazine, "for those who wish to hear Zep at their heaviest, deepest, softest and crispest". The influential American music site pitchformedia.com also digs the new sound: "revelatory on even the shittiest stereos," it assures us. At amazon.co.uk, though, at least one little boy reckons the emperor has no clothes: "You'd have to have ears like K-9 to hear any perceptible hike in quality from Remasters."

So who's right? In the Abbey Road studios, north London, the chief remastering engineer, Peter Mew, and I are trying to find out. Using Mew's 40 years of experience and his seriously expensive playback equipment, we're searching for the ultimate listening experience. We have Mothership, Remasters and -- just for fun -- some old LPs to compare. And we're not leaving the room until we figure out if Led Zep are really rocking harder than before.

One thing's for sure: they're rocking louder than before. We start off listening to the 1990 version of the hard-riffing 1971 number Black Dog. Mew listens intently, then nods approvingly: "Fairly close to the original master tape," he says, "without much done to it." It's dynamic, clattery, rock'n'bloody roll.

Then we stick on the new mix. It comes out of the speakers like a steam train. "Which one do you prefer?" asks Mew. Well, the new one is more appealing initially, I say. More powerful. Then again, maybe it's just louder. "Yeah, it's louder," shouts Mew disapprovingly. "And to make it louder, you have to compromise on some of the detail, because there's only so much information a CD can process."

The trend for CDs is to make them very loud. Mastering engineers do that by reducing the difference between the very quiet bits and the very loud bits, so that everything occupies a muscular middle range. It reduces subtlety and finesse. But like television adverts, which use similar compression techniques to be louder than the programs they interrupt, it sure as hell makes an impression. This becomes clear when we play Good Times, Bad Times from 1969. On the LP, the drummer, John Bonham, sounds like a hyperactive giant swinging a sledgehammer around a quarry. Then we hear the 1990 CD version. "Doesn't quite make it, does it?" says Mew. It doesn't. But I can't quite work out why.

Mew explains using sonic compression means that when the snare drum kicks in, the cymbals fade. There's not enough room for both of them at the same time. That still happens when we hear the 2007 version, but less so. This time the detailed, upfront sound really delivers. "Not bad," Mew concludes "It's better than Remasters, not as good as the vinyl."

We play the Middle Eastern-infused Kashmir, first released in 1975. Mew raises a weary eyebrow at the 1990 version -- "Not a very powerful sound" -- but we both find the new version irresistible. It's more vibrant, more articulated, loud but not careless. "It's got more life to it," Mew says. "Doesn't really need the extra level, though." Then we stick on a crackly vinyl version. It's not as in-yer-face, not as detailed, but it has a flow and a sense of space that you didn't realise you were missing before. It gives me goosebumps. "You could listen to that all day, couldn't you?" Mew says. But why? "Because it hasn't had digital things done to it."

Mew does digital things to old albums for a living. He has remastered David Bowie, Deep Purple, Bob Marley and Syd Barrett. His aesthetic, he says, is to get as close as possible not to the vinyl version or even necessarily to the master tape, but to what the engineer and producer heard at the time, "maybe with a little bit of updating".

What does updating mean? "Fashions in sound change," he says. "People expect a slightly more compressed sound, slightly brighter." So has he mastered CDs that improve on the original LPs? "I have had people come back to me and say that they are as good as the vinyl but without the clicks and pops. Sometimes people tell me it doesn't sound as good as the vinyl; well, hey, I try my best.

"I have to make my judgments based on selling as many records as possible. That's my brief. So even though there might be audiophiles who say you shouldn't do this, well, I'm sorry, audiophiles, you're a very small part of the market."

The leader of the audiophiles is the maverick American remastering engineer Steve Hoffman. I wonder

if Mew has been on Hoffman's internet forums (www.stevehoffman.tv), where his work has been criticised? "Don't talk to me about Steve Hoffman!" Mew says. "I don't want to criticise other people, but ... hold on, yes I do, he hates me."

Hoffman's heresy is to suggest the less you mess around with the original master tapes, the better the remaster. Which means, he suggests, that some '80s CDs sound better than their upgrade. You just have to turn them up a bit. So if you're reinventing a back catalogue, as Mew did for Bowie, or as the producer Nick Davies has done for Genesis, mind your back.

"It hurts me when I listen to some things on the Hoffman forum," Davies says. "They're so offensive." He has spent the best part of three years remixing Genesis's albums, helped by the band's keyboard player, Tony Banks. Working for new formats such as 5.1 and SACD, which boast twice the frequency range of CD, they've gone back to the original multitrack tapes, remixing rather than remastering.

Their aim, suggests Banks, has been to make the songs sound superficially similar to the old versions yet offer more depth and detail on a closer listen. But the further you depart from the vinyl versions that your fans grew up with, the more you risk polarising opinions. "I went on Amazon," Banks says, "and I read five-star reviews, and then I saw one guy giving one of the new versions zero stars, complaining it was too highly compressed. I honestly think there was something wrong with his system."

Perhaps they should have tried the Hoffman way, saved themselves some grief, just transferred the tapes flat? Davies sighs. "That," he says, "just sounds awful."

Back at Abbey Road, listening with Mew to the various versions of Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and Bonham, one thing becomes apparent. While the vinyl soothes the soul, they all sound pretty bloody good. But as soon as you change formats, suggests Mew, you have to intervene. "I'm trying to second-guess what the original engineers would have wanted with these modern facilities at their disposal. All the time you have to make judgments."

Mew is fairly impressed with Mothership; he would have made it less in-your-face, he suggests, "but that's just personal taste". Further listening, he suggests, should reveal a cleaner sound than Remasters, more detail.

But while he finds Mothership fatiguingly loud, he admits he would have upped the volume from Remasters.

Why? "Because of fashion. No other reason."

So current ideas of how a record should sound can seep into even the most loyally archival process. "We tried not to do too much of that," says Tony Banks of Genesis, "but I suppose part of what we're doing is making something old acceptable to a contemporary ear. Maybe in 20 years' time someone else will come in and change it again."

Should loyal Zep fans rush out and buy a bunch of songs they already own? They'll certainly get a different take on them albeit one that, after a while, they'll struggle to differentiate from the previous versions.

"It's true," says Mew, "it only takes about 30 seconds of listening to something and it sounds like the best one." But if you miss this Mothership, don't fret. There'll be another one along in a couple of decades.

Link

[gperkins151]

Thanks for the topic. I read that review and haven't done a side by side comparison yet, but as soon as my girlfriend runs off, I intend to do some comparison. I could do this with headphones, but to be it's best done with speakers.

[gperkins151]

Thanks for the topic. I read that review and haven't done a side by side comparison yet, but as soon as my girlfriend runs off, I intend to do some comparison. I could do this with headphones, but to be it's best done with speakers.

Ok, I just compared the first 2 minutes of Ramble On.

Results:

Mothership sounds too loud (am I too old?) and too tinny, especially when the song kicks in for the chorus. It seems like you get closer to the music, but I am doubtful if that comes at a cost.

The 94 Remaster - Sounds much more natural, still plenty of kick IMO and I can't say I ever thought that the remastered levels were too low, in fact they seem pushed to distortion. I guess that's the sound Jimmy wanted. It just took me awhile to get used to and now I love it, though I certainly don't listen in the same way that I listen to my Pink Floyd CDs.

Will compare another song soon and I look forward to other people's ideas.

[SteveAJones]

Thanks for the post. Mothership is intended to replace the Early Days and Latter Days

releases, which they were never overly happy with in the first place. Those titles will

be phased out.

[Angel With A Broken Wing]

I don't have an ear for fine distinctions but can easily tell that Mothership sounds MUCH better on my laptop than the few other things I have stored on it (not necessarily LZ, so this is not direct comparison).

[Soccerzubs]

I usually can't tell unless I listen very closely on speakers, but I'll have to download them and put them on my MP3 I can really make out every single detail on earphones.

[ledzeprolls]

I don't have an ear for fine distinctions but can easily tell that Mothership sounds MUCH better on my laptop than the few other things I have stored on it (not necessarily LZ, so this is not direct comparison).

I havent got to do a comparison as of yet. However remasters can do a nice clean up job. It has to do with compression and the original recordings. We used to get remasters in vinyl (boy those were the days...quad sabbath/floyd/etc.

Anyways....

Rolls>>>>

[ledzeprolls]

1. 
   
   

I usually can't tell unless I listen very closely on speakers, but I'll have to download them and put them on my MP3 I can really make out every single detail on earphones.

then you should go with shn files...mp3's are quite lossy..

[Hotplant]

Gollly, That's to bad about the "package."

Now I'm rethinking myself.

To me the RAW sound on like the first album is absolutely the best. That is just how I hear it.

Bonzo' drumming was amazing and loud and hard.

All these re, re, re, could go on and on, and on.

I personally like bands to sound just like they did in the studio...before any super duper tweaking.

As well as live. It takes away the whole "live" imperfect but still mind blown experience of being there.

[Evster2012]

When I'm at home, I can relish in my 200 gram master vinyls. When I'm in my truck, Mothership sounds fucking awesome! Better than my Complete Studio Remasters box set. Compression and format notwithstanding, when I'm cruisin on the freeway, road noise and all, this sucker kicks ass! Well worth a few bucks.

[euro]

When I'm at home, I can relish in my 200 gram master vinyls. When I'm in my truck, Mothership sounds fucking awesome! Better than my Complete Studio Remasters box set. Compression and format notwithstanding, when I'm cruisin on the freeway, road noise and all, this sucker kicks ass! Well worth a few bucks.

I guess you cant wait till Mothership comes out in vinyl?

[Electrophile]

I like it. I had a copy of Early Days/Latter Days, but it went missing. So this, along with HTWWW and BBC Sessions is a nice grouping of live/compilation albums highlighting some of their best stuff. I like the packaging for Mothership as well.

[Jonesy]

My understanding was they didn't change or re-remaster the track on mothership.. aren't they the same as the remasters?

If they did, its safe to assume they're re-releasing the entire catalog.

[SIBLY]

My understanding was they didn't change or re-remaster the track on mothership.. aren't they the same as the remasters?

If they did, its safe to assume they're re-releasing the entire catalog.

Mothership is not the same as Remastered it's been done again. Whether they do the whole catalogue depends on how busy Jimmy is in the next year or so!

I'm really enjoying MS (I think Ramble On Sounds fanrtastic) and leys not forget the people in the above story had to go into a studio to really appreciate the pros and cons of this new remaster. Most of us don't have that kind of audio equipment at our disposal.

Anybody new or a Zepaholic should enjoy MS it's well worth buying. It's not like we have to give up the previous albums. Initially there are songs that sound better on MS but others where the previous remaster is better. So I'll still listen to both.

[kirchzep27]

I've made a few comments on the old board about -mothership, i'm sure some off base. But i'm still liking the sound...love the stuff off of physical graffiti and i think certain songs like -all my love reacts very well to this remastering process.

[GetTheLedOut]

When I'm at home, I can relish in my 200 gram master vinyls. When I'm in my truck, Mothership sounds fucking awesome! Better than my Complete Studio Remasters box set. Compression and format notwithstanding, when I'm cruisin on the freeway, road noise and all, this sucker kicks ass! Well worth a few bucks.

EVSTER

It's so good to see you.