I came across this tonight, looks like I'm gonna be keeping my CD after all.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ar...e=led+zeppelin
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ar...e=led+zeppelin
As I say, it’s not bad, by any manner of means and it brings home the often repeated axiom that Led Zeppelin were so good that rudimentary chrome tapes of their concerts, taken from a microphone tied to a broomstick held aloft at a live concert were worthy of a listen. Well, they probably were. But we’ve moved on. The Hammer of the Gods was not in the total Digital Domain methinks. I bet the vinyl pressings are wild. And, I wonder. Did anybody tape any of these gigs using a mike on a broomstick?I think the reviewer is actually recommeding the disc from the above paragraph, but that is not clear. Of course a 30 year old live recording is not going to be the pinnacle of recording quality...who expected that in the first place?
I am still going to pick this disc up, as the referenced review does nothing to clarify the recording qualty, 2 channel versus multichannel, and CD versus DVD-A. Quite useless and incoherant, and I am not sure the reviewer knows what a DVD-A actually is. Does anyone at HFR proofread these articles before putting them up online? I think not.
J
I agree that the review is rather vague and the author comes across as a pompous ass, but I think in the end, he was saying that the surround mix sucks and the high-rez stereo is no better than the cd version, so why bother with a dvd-a version.You got that from the review?
My take was the guy did not understand what DVD-A was, and had more to say about the packaging then the actual audio quality. I am still looking for an actual information as to how the 5.1 was mixed.
J
As I say, it’s not bad, by any manner of means and it brings home the often repeated axiom that Led Zeppelin were so good that rudimentary chrome tapes of their concerts, taken from a microphone tied to a broomstick held aloft at a live concert were worthy of a listen. Well, they probably were. But we’ve moved on. The Hammer of the Gods was not in the total Digital Domain methinks. I bet the vinyl pressings are wild. And, I wonder. Did anybody tape any of these gigs using a mike on a broomstick?Ramble on! Ramble on!
Getting intellient, incisive reviews of audio and/or visual software is so hard these days. :frowning:
I trust people at sites like this more than anything. People who have actually listened to the music rather than just "heard a few tracks" and then left for a 3-hour lunch.
Gordy
I hope someone gets the DVD-A and compares the extra length of those two tracks to the CD to see if it's real or not.The Garden Tapes site (http://www.simplyled.net/thegardentapes.html) will certainly have all the info regarding any differences.
Andy has already mentioned that the recordings show their age, which applies equally to the dedicated stereo track (which offers nothing over the CD counterpart) as it does to the surround alternative, but what most listeners, myself included, are likely to be somewhat disappointed by is the nature of the multi-channel presentation.
What we have, via both the Meridian Lossless Packing and Dolby Digital versions, is largely an augmented, right heavy (due to the prominence of Page’s guitar) L/R mix. There is very little content to be found in the centre channel, but by far the most contentious issue is the contribution made by the surrounds, they carry nothing more than artificially created ambience, and of the worst kind. It’s hard to draw comparisons, but think of the most obnoxious receiver ‘DSP’ “hall” or “stadium” mode and you’re on the right lines.
The Dolby Digital version is worse – and that’s saying something – because the LFE channel has not been pre-filtered in the mastering stage. Contrary to popular belief, Dolby Digital’s bandwidth limited channel does not stonewall at 120Hz (or lower, as is the case with DTS); it can convey frequencies up into the lower midrange region. If you happen to run your LFE channel without a low frequency filter – at 60 or 40Hz in your processor or sub – the result is a conglomerate, muddy mess.
Given the importance of the material, both historically, musically and for the DVD-Audio format, one wonders why it has to suffer the indignity of the woeful multi-channel mix presented on this disc; a high-resolution stereo-only release would have been more fitting and respectful.I'm curious to hear more opinions on this disc, as I've been waiting to see how the DVD-A compares before purchasing either it or the CD-set. And I don't expect these recordings to sound pristine; I just want to get the version that sounds best.
And how about a dvd-audio from Tool,*drool*
Mmm, Parabola in sourround sound... imagine...
Jeez, why didn't they pick a popular studio album to debut LZ on dvd-audio?? Can you imagine the talk around water coolers: "Yea man, I just listened to 'Stairway' last night in 5.1 surround. It was f****n AWESOME!. You gotta a HT system too? Hell, I'll bring it over tonight then......."I think I would (or hopefully WILL) be sportin' a serious woodrow if they ever put LZ II in hi-rez MC.
I would almost trade a nut to hear the theremin part in the middle of Whole Lotta Love in MC. And there is sooooo much ambience all over that that record.
I read that Page would always mic his speaker cabs with one mic right in front of the cab, and another back a bit, into the room. That should do nicely in the rear channels.
OK, back to the real world now......
BGL