Led Zeppelin DVD-A details (1 Viewer)

[Steve Meskell]

http://www.noblepr.co.uk/Press_Relea...d_zeppelin.htm

Looking forward to this

 

[Chris Brunner]

You and me both Steve.

Thanks!!

C

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Only 24/48 on the high-res, but that may simply be the resolution of the production itself.

Some of my best-sounding rock discs (Fagen, Zappa) are from 24/48 so I've got no problem with that.

I'd love to see some albums or even a compilation like the
mini box released in high-res next.

 

[Dan Stone]

Exactly what Michael said, hopefully this is just the start of many more Zeppelin high resolution releases!

 

[LarryDavenport]

I'm curious as to what the packaging will be like but even if it came wrapped in dog crap I'd buy it. Led Zeppelin was meant to be heard in surround!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

This is great news Steve - thanks for posting. I'll definitely pick it up but I wish it were 24/96.

 

[Carlo_M]

i'm all over this! Now if only Page'd go back and re-release the catalog in hi-rez...I'll be sound as a pound!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Only 24/48 on the high-res, but that may simply be the resolution of the production itself.

The more I thought about this today, the angrier I got. Led Zeppelin tapes exist in analog form. Why would such a high profile release not get proper 24/96 treatment? It is no more expense to do this...

...smells of another blown hirez marketing opportunity.

The thing is that I was talking with some studio and mastering people I know today and we were wondering what is going on because every major mastering studio has 24/96 A to Ds in house. Even if they did not have the tapes (very unlikely) and used a 44k source, then the remastering benefits are guaranteed to be small.

I wonder if we will get the full story on the pro sound boards. I'm too much of a Led Zep fan to be happy at this near redbook resolution. I'd rather have an XRCD made from the original masters.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

The more I thought about this today, the angrier I got. ... I'm too much of a Led Zep fan to be happy at this near redbook resolution.

I agree 100%. As far as their studio work, I like the remastered CDs that they did, but I'd go back to the vinyl before I'd pay more money for such an small incremental improvement as 24/48.

*Maybe* we can hope that they will do 24/96 later on.

And record companies say that they don't understand why SACD/DVD-A aren't catching on as much as they'd like... :rolleyes

 

[Justin Lane]

Going from 16 to 24 bits can have just as much effect on quality of the recording as increasing the sampling rate, plus if the mastering of the CD is any indication, this disc is going to be top notch.

I would have like to see 24/96, but we do not know when work on this release was actually started. Considering it was rumored for some time, I wouldn't be surprised if work first started at 24/48 before 24/96 rigs became more of the standard. Whoever mastered this disc could have also been more comfortable using a 24/48 rig. Either way, I will let my ears be the ultimate judge in this case, and there is no way I am passing on Zeppelin at any level of Hi-res.

At least with a DVD-A, we have some idea as to how the digital work was accomplished allowing us to even debate these fine points. Once again, kudos for truth in labeling and recording, as the powers in charge could easily mandate all discs be upsampled to 24/96 or 24/192, performing unessary upsampling which alters the original digital master.

And record companies say that they don't understand why SACD/DVD-A aren't catching on as much as they'd like...

Outside of audiophiles who frequent boards like this one, the common music buyer does not give a rats ass or even have a clue about different sampling rates and word length. With all the problems plauging both Hi-res formats, knowledge of sampling rates/word length is the least of the music industry's worries.

J

 

[Ralph Summa]

I bought the HTWWW DVDs but purposely held off on the CDs because of the pending DVD-A. I thought I'd be getting it in the spring though. GREAT NEWS!

Ralph

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Outside of audiophiles who frequent boards like this one, the common music buyer does not give a rats ass or even have a clue about different sampling rates and word length.

All the more reason for DVDA to do a real high rez release like Led Zeppelin and educate the public on the key differentiating features of their product.

By the way, I am not sure the hirez marketing focus is on the "common music buyer", they are still early stage formats seeking to go from audiophile or HT base to wider acceptance. A little marketing might just help that along, and then the music business can focus on the mainstream (or not - like leave it to MP3).

 

[Justin Lane]

You also have that as well on many Super Audio discs where there is an indication of whether it was an original DSD recording or was based on analog tapes to DSD transfer. There does need to be some standard for sources, but the labels have always been mysterious about this.

I have seen very few if any SACD discs from the major studios (Sony, Universal) which mention source for the DSD transfer. Friends in the business have informed me many of the excellent Sony Jazz SACDs actually are sourced from 24 bit PCM masters. Ever wonder why we first get the 24 bit re-mastered CD to market and then the SACD afterwards? Hint: An analog to DSD master converted is not used for these 24 bit downconverted CD releases (makes you wonder). I do agree we need some standardized information on all releases. Truth in advertising is good.

J

 

[John Kotches]

Justin,

I think Lee's a closet "relativist", as he is quite fixated on the time domain (fs) as opposed to the amplitude domain (sampling depth).

What's the quantum partner for frequency anyway, amplitude as I said earlier? I'm wondering when we'll have a high enough fs for the Uncertainty Principle to kick in.

For those that don't realize it, this is some good natured kidding

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I think Lee's a closet "relativist", as he is quite fixated on the time domain (fs) as opposed to the amplitude domain (sampling depth).

John, I actually want BOTH-more bits, more sampling!

I do feel that more information (the output of faster sampling) is more important that the accuracy of extra word length. This is my opinion your mileage may vary. I have just made and heard too many 24/96 and 24/88.2 recordings to think differently.

One might think about it this way (simplified) to draw the audio curve (think jagged sine waves added together), you need an "X axis" (more detail with more sampling) and a "Y axis" (more accuracy with finer height gradations).

Now think a minute about transient notes, these are a matter of musical details that happen fast. With a doubled sampling rate, you are drawing a smoother, more accurate curve and capturing the transient detail.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I actually also believe that sampling freq is more important than bit length. But let me approach it this way:

First, most DVD-A and SACD players these days only get to about 18 bits of resolution. That's what S&V says in their eqp measurements. So 24 over 16 isn't as big an improvement as you'd think on modern gear.

Two, is that you're trying to model an analog waveform by taking timed chunks of that waveform, and putting a number to it in terms of amplitude of a specific freq. OK. Bit length is mainly for dynamic range. So if we consider modern mastering, which actually because of compression and limiting, doesn't even use the full 16 bit resolution of CD, going to a higher bit rate gets you absolutely nothing.

But, being able to apply a *finer* model of the digital representation of that analog waveform (smaller chunks), does seem to me to have a better potential of giving you better sound.

I.e., my biggest gripe with CD vs lp for example, is that the highs represented by PCM always seem too edgy, harsh, and grating. More bits won't do anything to fix that. But a higher sampling freq can go a long ways to smoothing the digital model of that wave.

Both are important, but I think sampling freq is more important.

That's my impression, anyways...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

But a higher sampling freq can go a long ways to smoothing the digital model of that wave.

My point exacly, more detail and smoothness in the waveform.

 

[Justin Lane]

My point exacly, more detail and smoothness in the waveform.

I am missing your point here Lee. No one said sampling at a higher rate was bad. It is perferable when we are not talking about upsampling an existing digital master. We don't know how these discs were mastered (many outfits still use 24/48 rigs), or the condition of the master tapes.

If the master tapes were not that great, sampling at a lower rate could actually improve the final sound quality by not capturing as much of the "bad" information contained on the tapes. A trade off yes, but it may be necessary.

Storage space could also be an issue, as this release is already scheduled to be two discs long. There may have been space compromises made, but I would expect the engineers working on this disc as well as the band to approve of any downconversions, especially if it could effect the sound quality.

Also, lets not jump to conclusions as to the information contained within these press releases. Warner has made mistakes in the past between release and actual disc content (ex. Chicago II with a 24/96 stereo track not 24/192 as reported, Kamakiriad with a 24/96 stereo track derived from a 24/48 master recorded to analog, etc.)

J

 

[Lin Park]

Were we talking about Led Zeppelin?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

If the master tapes were not that great, sampling at a lower rate could actually improve the final sound quality by not capturing as much of the "bad" information contained on the tapes.

Justin, I can't agree with this. You always want to use a higher sampling rate, here at 96k, and then edit out bad information. Unless the tape was destroyed, they should have gone this route.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. We will have to see what the final product is.