I thought the CD version was terrible. I gave it away.
33 responses Add your response
I had the chance to listen to the new improved version (Mother ship) and it seem to me that the sound is more analog like smoother presentation , more silent, extended detail whitout any harshness except for the sound Whole Lotta Love that was a bit dull sounding.
The atmosphere of the recording was a +++.
It is like if you were listening to a cd treated with an Accoustic Revive RD 2 or even a Bedini.
Highly recommended for nostalgic fans, could not comment compare to the vinyl vrsion......
Sorry didn't mean to confuse you about the CD and the lp.
The cd sounds better than all of the previous zep cd's. So compared to them it sounds better. However the cd doesn't sound as good as the vinyl version.
Now the vinyl remixes don't sound as good as the classic record versions because the new releases are smoothed out.
Wow couldn't disagree with you more about the vinyl. I do agree with the cd though.
There are somethings about the vinyl that are better than the classic records like better detail. There are things on there that I never heard before but they just smoothed it out too much for my taste. The highs are rolled off. It reminds me of when I used to own all CJ gear. Sure CJ paints a beautiful sonic picture but it's just boring.
Old thread I know....I had a copy of the Mothership vinyl box set in my hands yesterday at Barnes and Noble. It says the LPs were remastered at HALF SPEED by Stan Ricker--does anyone know if this is correct? I have the two CD set which to my ears sounds pretty lousy. I've got two Japanese pressings--Houses of the Holy and Zep II--which sound much better than the CD version of Mothership. I have not heard the Mothership vinyl box however and may be interested.
that's weird. According to the Official Dynamic Range Data Base Mothership suffers from overly aggressive compression. Yet it sound sounds very good. What's up with that? Now, I could give a rat's behind if recording engineers wish to compress some pop music but for heaven's sake keep your twitchy fingers off my Zeppelin and Stones and Dylan which happen to be among the worst cases extant of severe dynamic range compression.
Use your ears...who cares if a data base claims this or that...fwiw...rock is recorded with compression...so those who seek out early CD/pressings of classic rock hoping to get a compression free recording ate misled...its similar to running vocals through a PA...every heard "dry" vocals with no reverb,etc...sounds terrible
Phasecorrect, I'm not sure at least judging from your response that you understand the severity of the problem. Compression is logarithmic so there really is no such thing as "no compression" as you infer. What j referring to is very heavy handed dynamic range compression that has been used not only for remastering rock classics but also for new releases. One need look no further than Dylan's Modern World about six years ago or the Stones' A Bigger Bang about the same time to see how crazy the problem is. I'm not hot dogging you.
The problem is it's not judicious. That's my whole point. The examples I gave are eviscerated dynamic range wise. It's like a color photo that's been made black and white. Think of it like this, you've got a Miss America contestant who has a beautiful face, gorgeous figure, except for one thing: she's bow legged. Kinda ruins the whole thing, no? The big selling point for digital was supposedly dynamic range. What they did was take away their big selling point.
Let's put things in prospective...Mothership is a comp...songs every Zephead already has...but it was a good primer for try those that had older CDs which IMHO never sounded up to snuff...Cday vs new remasters... Apples vs oranges...modern live recording vs original band/recordings...Cday is good for what it is...but no match for orig releases...