We've been hearing that the LPs' sound surpasses expectations. I've ordered the vinyl, has anybody heard the Redbook CD versions?
Curious to know if they are joining the "Loudness Wars."
Curious to know if they are joining the "Loudness Wars."
Led Zep Reissue on vinyl
Anyone listen yet? I haven't committed to getting them yet and am curious to hear any impressions and opinions. Thanks
110 responses Add your response
Listened to LZ l and ll. I thought LZ l sounded fantastic, crisp, clear, tight, dead quiet backgrounds, very impressive. ll sounded a little muffled to my ears, Plants vocals sometimes a bit more in the background, a little bass heavy, somehow not as cohesive sounding as LZ l. After hearing how great LZ l sounded I was a bit disappointed but all in all it's still pretty good. I'll give it another go tomorrow but overall so far so good. |
General consensus is that these are from digital sources. I picked up Zep 1 in Montreal this week, and will soon be comparing it to my Classic pressing. Then in my hunt at the next vinyl shop, they had the pressing with the live music for around $50. I don't expect the sound to be on the level of a first press or the Classic, but it would have made sense to get the dlx set w/ the live stuff. The HMV had Zep 3 in stock fwiw. |
Moryoga: I think the 'muddy' sound of LZII (at least on several tracks) is due to the huge amount of crude processing done when the album was originally assembled- you can hear the overdubs and the layering of different tracks- it is very evident on the 'RL' of II where a track with heavy processing, like 'Whole Lotta Love' seems to suffer from generation loss due to all the gimmicks. There are some web discussions and articles about how the album was made that support this. I still haven't listened to my new copies yet, but hope to do so soon. |
Good point by Whart on Whole Lotta Love. On the guitar switching channels back and forth it's as if someone is playing with the balance control. There's background noise switching back and forth also. That's masked by the usual murky pressings of LZ II. For better or worse I think it is a credit to the pressing that it shows the the mixing so vividly. |
Moryoga: I think the 'muddy' sound of LZII (at least on several tracks) is due to the huge amount of crude processing done when the album was originally assembled- you can hear the overdubs and the layering of different tracks- it is very evident on the 'RL' of II where a track with heavy processing, like 'Whole Lotta Love' seems to suffer from generation loss due to all the gimmicks. There are some web discussions and articles about how the album was made that support this. hi Bill, the Classic Records 45rpm pressing of 'Whole Lotta Love' is not muddy sounding, the layering is very clearly heard and not fuzzy sounding. back in 2004 during my room project, i listened to this track in my system with one of the engineers for LZII, Chris Huston (who was my room designer and was staying with me at the time). he did say that they did venture into the 'then' mostly unknown reaches of mixing methodology to unleash the magic of that track. which we all continue to enjoy to this day. too bad that the Classic 45's were still a couple years away from release when Chris was in-home.....i would have loved to get his take on them. |
Mike: I have never heard the Classic (either 33 or 45) of LZ II. At this point in the game, I'd probably just go for the 45 if it was find-able. My comments re the 'RL' really don't lean toward 'fuzzy' but I can understand 'muddy': at least on the RL, there is a loss of immediacy when all that 'tape bouncing' is going on, compared to some of the other tracks where less 'processing' is going on; I hear it as generation loss due to the 'tape to tape' transfers that were apparently used to get the effects on that track. I still haven't listened to the new LZII, but did have a little time to listen and compare a couple tracks on the new LZI. I'll post my comments separately. Nice to see ya, Mike. Winter is over! Back in NY for a little while, and brought a nice big crate of old records back from Texas. |
A few quick observations on listening to the first two tracks of LZ 1, admittedly a 'once through' with each of the different records mentioned below. The new vinyl sounds very good, quiet and has no apparent digital artifacts that stand out- something I'd usually hear as a flattening of the presentation, i.e., detail, but no life. It doesn't suffer from that, dynamics are good- if forced to choose between some older pressing of questionable provenance, with the surface noise and other hazards associated with old records, this is a winner and a bargain to boot. That said,... The '74 Piros/Monarch sounds far more 'filled in' tonally- the drum skin sound is more vivid; i'm not sure that the record has more dynamics than the new recut, but the bass tone is more fleshed out. It just sounds more 'saturated' tonally; I suppose you could call this 'richness' or 'warmth' but to my ears (and I've been listening to copies of LZI since it came out), this was never a great sounding record, it always sounded a little 'pinched' when things got going, and a little muted (I used the word 'canned,' as in 'muffled') when I commented on this record, generally, earlier in this thread. The Piros has more life than the standard issue from back in the day (I have a bunch of copies) and the Monarch pressings just seem to be the most vivid of the bunch. (The best original I ever heard, owned by a neighbor, is a first press Monarch, which I'll try to compare on his system with the '74 when we get together in a couple weeks). The Classic 45- same two cuts- Good Times/Bad Times & 'Babe I'm Gonna Leave You'- just sounds more spectacular than the Piros in some ways- whether it is a difference in EQ, the 45 rpm iteration, or something else, I have no idea. It is also more organic and filled-in sounding, tonally, than the new remaster, and has more 'air' and spaciousness to the whole presentation, but we are talking about a very expensive, hard to find record today. What's interesting is the comparison between the Piros and the Classic...but I'll save that for more listening and a different posting/thread. Bottom line, as a preliminary reaction: the new re-cut doesn't come as close to the uber copies as I had hoped, but I don't think that's damning by any means. (I was hoping for the best on these and I'm not disappointed). I've heard lots of lousy copies of LZ1 and frankly, for new, gettable, quiet vinyl, this is a very good record. Final caveat: this album, in my experience, has a lot of track to track variability in sound quality, so even if I thought my conclusions were somehow 'definitive' for me (and they aren't, I'll listen to the rest of the record and do more comparisons), other tracks on LZI may present a different result than my comparison of just the first two tracks. (I also have a copy of the Classic 33, but I figured I'd just skip over that one, for now). Needless to say, I'm hardly an arbiter of what any of you may think, given your ears and your systems, but I promised to share my reactions, within the limits of my system and my listening bias (which tends toward wanting an absolutely grainless, unprocessed sounding midrange, and having a system that does not deliver gargantuan bass, but has very good 'tone,' midrange clarity and a fair amount of life, using horns and SET amps). |
I was just listening to my Classic 'LZ' S/T ... I thought it sounded "damn" good. The title I have the most problem with is "Physical Graffiti". I've vascilated for years as to my favorite LZ lp, the S/T is way up there, III is probably 2nd, then Physical Graffiti. Is there a great sounding Physical Graffiti lp out there??? |
I compared Zep 1 to the Classic 180gr. The new remaster appeared to be about the same weight, so it's a nice slab of vinyl. Many times vinyl that's NOT all analog sounds better than the actual digital version. I bet that's true here, if your analog rig is up to snuff with your digital. BUT, it still doesn't have that analog like flow, which Harry Pearson describes using the word, Continuous. The Classic sounded better to my ears. It was bigger, and more open. Everything sounded more natural, including Plant's voice. Whatever they did with the new one makes for an interesting listen. It sounds quite fleshed out, with details appearing a bit more obvious. It's just a tad sterilized to my ear. They made great music, just wish it was recorded better. I'm glad to have my Classics, and my 1st US press of Zep 2. I will continue to look for early presses including the more elusive Original UK's, which I have yet to find. |
I have LZ III Deluxe vinyl version. It is very good. My Classic Records 180gm reissue sounds better - as Fjn04 said, more continous, more 3d with better extension. The 2014 digital sounds very good thou. The companion LP of the alternate and instrumental tracks is the star of the show and well worth the additional $7. Bargin in fact. Even thou I have Classic reissues of all the LZ lp's, I am very much looking forward to the companion lp on LZ II cheers |
Without being negative and just bitching, doesn't it seem a shame that the great analog pressings, UK, Classic etc. of all these albums seem to be universally considered to sound better? Why even bother with digital in the analog mix at all. Fine to do a hi res file if you want to offer options, but why add a digital mix when obviously the all analog sounds better when done right? It's just lame to me. I guess we live in a world where mp3's on Beats headphones, McDonalds, selfies and Facebook is as good as most people want. Sorry, I couldn't help being negative and just bitching :) |
Without being negative and just bitching, doesn't it seem a shame that the great analog pressings, UK, Classic etc. of all these albums seem to be universally considered to sound better? Why even bother with digital in the analog mix at all. Fine to do a hi res file if you want to offer options, but why add a digital mix when obviously the all analog sounds better when done right? It's just lame to me. I guess we live in a world where mp3's on Beats headphones, McDonalds, selfies and Facebook is as good as most people want. Sorry, I couldn't help being negative and just bitching :) it's very simple. the rights owners of these recordings make archival digital copies for remastering. they won't allow the original masters out of their control with rare exception. and then it's with heavy guard and at considerable expense. this perspective is many times combined with a lack of understanding of the limitations of the digital archived file. |
here is more info on the issue of analog masters and thier restrictions. |
Moryoga: to your point, and as more grist for bitchin,' after all the controversy over the Beatles vinyl set released a couple years ago derived from a digital master, they are now being released as mono pressings, purportedly straight analog, no digital in the chain. http://www.thebeatles.com/news/beatles-get-back-mono Maybe there is hope after all. I agree with Mike that tapes are supposed to be treated as the Crown Jewels. My copy of LZIII Deluxe finally arrived today. |
Mikelavigne has explained a major reason why analogue tapes are not used in the digital remastering or reissue process. Also, you would not want to risk damaging these tapes rewinding and fast-forwarding on the various tape machines during a remix/remaster session. Many original tapes were stored in less than optimal conditions (improper temp, humidity, dirty rooms) and may have creases or oxide peeling from the tape. In that case, the studio will have to try and have them restored before archiving them to digital. It's the same deal with original film and videotape storage. The Library of Congress has a large department devoted to the restoration and archiving of all formats to digital. |
one must realize these tapes already lost HALF of information after over 40 years. analogue mastering is simply no-go or no way for successful release-remaster and so any of further re-issues. classic records reissue to me is very 'down south'. today's releases are solid C vs. original US or UK releases. Mo-Fi sucks all the way on all of releases and all albums of LZ or it's just i don't like the way mo-fi sounds on almost all of records they've made. |
Whart, Looking forward to your review of the LZ3 as you have the proper sense to use horn speakers ;) I bought all three albums and I have to say I'm impressed. I and III are really good, II suffers the issues (described elsewhere) of side 1 being a little distorted and side 2 sounding wonderful. I have heard cut one of the Classic Records II on my system and have to admit it sounded slightly better. For $22 however, these re-issues are a no brainer. |
Thanks for the kinds words, Jeff. I haven't gotten around to III yet, but I did a quite comparison of LZ II which I just posted on the Hoffman forum. Here it is verbatim, omitting the picture: I just compared a very clean 'RL' SS/narrow side two (PR) with the new issue of LZII. Here's what I heard, listening only to 'Whole Lotta Love' and "Heartbreaker": the new record sounds similar in overall tone, but there is simply no comparison in the overall propulsive thrust or 'punch'- the 'RL' wins hands down. Both records reveal the distortion when Bonham's drums come crashing through after the 'effects' passage in 'Whole Lotta Love,' it just seems to be part of the overall sound of this cut- which always sounded over-processed to me, from day one. (Not taking away from its musical merit, just saying). Plant's voice also seems far more 'open' on the 'RL' -perhaps that's a result of how this thing was EQ'd (I don't know enough about what source material was used for the digital transfer to comment intelligently on that). The new record has Plant's vocals sounding a little 'canned' to my ear. Heartbreaker- same kind of difference- the recording is heavily overloaded, particularly the guitar- and the distortion is obvious in both the 'RL' and the new record, but somehow, perhaps an artifact of digital, the old 'uber' pressing just sounds more organic. A couple of side notes: my system is not bass heavy, if anything, it is tuned to avoid discontinuity between the dynamic woofers and the midhorn, so if real bass is on the record you hear it, but it isn't normally a bone-crushing kind of system (I could adjust it that way, but the woofers would sound out of whack with the horns). The propulsive effect, the so-called 'freight train' delivery of the 'RL' is something you can hear immediately, not a 'golden ears' kind of thing. I think these new records are great, a good value, I haven't even begun to explore the bonus tracks, but just wanted to weigh in. Here's a snap of the front end, as I was warming the system up for this comparison. (Both records were cleaned using the Audio Desk). |
one must realize these tapes already lost HALF of information after over 40 years. analogue mastering is simply no-go or no way for successful release-remaster and so any of further re-issues. classic records reissue to me is very 'down south'. today's releases are solid C vs. original US or UK releases. Mo-Fi sucks all the way on all of releases and all albums of LZ or it's just i don't like the way mo-fi sounds on almost all of records they've made.. You are talking out your arse. 50% of info lost on the tape masters ? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. MoFi only released LZ2. I have RL, Classic 45 and 33 rpm, RL and 1st issue plum and orange UK LZ 2. They all have their benefits and sound great as long as you have great condition of each version. |
I don't have any Classic pressings of LZII, but the Classic 45 of LZ 1 is an impressive listen; the Classic 33's of 1 and III are very good, though I still prefer the older Piros/Monarch remaster of LZ1 to the Classic 33 of that album. I did break down and buy a first UK of LZIII (early, with the Peter Grant credit), so I'll be able to do a comparo of the new record against a Classic (33) of III and the UK first pretty soon. I guess for ZoSo, et al, we'll just have to wait and see. Fremer's review of LZII is online, if any of you are interested. |
Nice job by Mr. Fremer. You have to give him credit for telling it like it is. Darn, if I could only afford the 45 set. I have the Stairway to Heaven 45 that came w/ the 200gr box, and it's fantastic. If the other 45's sound as good, the box must be fantastic! In the mean time, I will have to keep my eyes peeled for a UK first press. Does anyone know how one distinguishes these MONARCH presses? |
Fjn- easiest way is to look on the label of the record- the Monarch's are distinguished by an 'MO' suffix after the catalog number. There are other indicia as well. There are several places on the web that discuss how to identify a Monarch, which is more common on the West Coast. Occasionally, you'll see the pressing plant identified in the ads. The 'hot one on LZ1 is actually not a first press, but a remaster by Piros, done circa 1974, with various indicia including matrix info, described in detail on the Hoffman site. That's a very nice sounding copy. I'm hoping to compare it to a Monarch first press of LZ1 that a friend has soon, which, as mentioned, sounded spectacular on my system, given that the recording itself just isn't great. |
Act, no not yet. The releases are in batches, the first, released at the beginning of June 2014, was the first three albums in various formats and combination packages with optional extras, bonus tracks, etc. Page had announced all this over a year ago, if memory serves, promising that all the Zep albums would be re-released as remasters during 2014. Not sure what the next milestone date is for the next wave. Obviously IV will draw a pretty big audience. I saw somewhere that Zep is now 'charting,' at least in the UK for the first time, probably, in decades. |
I'm wondering if anybody here has found any manufacturing defects in their vinyl? Overall I've found quite a few defects in NEW VINYL that I have purchased. My Led Zep 1 came with a major defect; as I removed the disk from it's sleeve, I saw what looked to be a hair hanging from the record. I went to pull it off the disk and found it was excess edge vinyl, so I pulled and off came a piece of vinyl from the edge to the lead-in groove. So it looks like someone took a little bite out of my record. I've encountered records with rough edges before, but this is a new one for me. |
Not being able to return new vinyl seems to be the industry standard now. When Music Direct asked me if my record will play and I said yes (even with a piece of the vinyl broken off), they said then it is not defective. Even though it's missing the edge, if I can get the needle onto the first groove and play music, it is non-exchangeable. Pisses me off since I'm a collector. I know the record labels are making it hard on venders to return a record, but after all the hype about high quality remastering and cutting at a world-class record plant, there's no excuse for defects that can't be returned. Even before its first play, my mint state record has dropped to F if I decided to sell it.... Just venting. |
Low- that just seems wrong. My dealings with Music Direct are largely limited to the occasional new MoFi (since they own that label). I've spoken over the phone and by email on a few occasions with the MD people and they were usually helpful and nice, but I'm not doubting what you reported. What if you contact the label itself~that just sounds wrong, if there is some chip in the vinyl edge, the record is defective; if the label had been defaced, or the cover bent or torn, it would be a defective 'item' even if the record itself was playable. |
Whart, it does seem just plain wrong. This is their response to my email; mind you I'm looking for an exchange and not a refund. "I am sorry to hear that you are having an issue with your copy of Led Zeppelin I. However, we only take returns on defective music. Since there is no issue with playback, the record is not defective and we will not be able to accept a return." I will make an appeal to them, but I doubt they will reverse this decision. And I agree with you that even a damaged cover means a defective product. (I'm sure Amazon would have exchanged this record). |