Yes, I note from your other posts that you're in a playful mood today -- always good when us wrinklies show some signs of life ... :b
Frank
Frank
Depth, the final frontier.
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
Hi Phelonious Ponk,
As the mastering engineer for the original Altlanic Zep catalog (with the exception of "IV" which was done by Joe Sidore at Warner in L.A.), please allow me to clarify what is apparently a widespread myth or unknown (to me) origin.
First, *none* was a flat transfer. Almost nothing I've done is a flat transfer because most masters need help, period. I once believed flat transfer were desirable. Then I got to hear what real master tapes sound like. There are exceptions of course, such as most (but not all) of Enya's "Watermark" and my original remastering (unannounced by the label) of Phil Collins' first two solo albums on CD. But most of the time, most pop mixes need help. I can think of one example in particular that helped convince me of this. I won't name the album but I will say that if the master has treble that will loosen dental fillings and I can take away the *pain* by using EQ, then EQ is a good thing.
Now to the Zep tapes Atlantic provided me with. None was a "copy of a copy of a copy of a master made for vinyl". None was the original mixes either. I was told Jimmy Page said those tapes were lost. What we had were copies - supposedly flat transfers of the masters but my experience has shown me there are many ways to make a "flat transfer". Most were recorded too hot so what treble there may have been on the mixes was certainly diminished at best and eradicated at worst. There was some clipping evident too - either from the original mixes or likely, from overloading the record side of the deck on which the copy was made.
I wouldn't exactly consider any of those demo quality but neither would I the original recordings either. I had to make the best of what Atlantic gave me to work with, despite my (daily) requests for originals. (There were some instances, with other artists, where I found originals in the tape library and used those for the CD masters.)
As with all the masters I created while at Atlantic, I used to carry my own cables to work and bypass the bulk of the "room". So, there was no desk, no console, no patchpay, no switching network in the signal path. I wired directly from the output of the analog machines (through EQ) to the input of the Apogee retrofit filter-equipped Sony 1630 A-D.
So regardless of what you think of them, what you are hearing is the very best I could get from the tapes I was provided with and told to use as the sources. Whatever their failings, they were not hyped in the treble and the dynamic range was not compressed - both of which I'm proud of.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
As the mastering engineer for the original Altlanic Zep catalog (with the exception of "IV" which was done by Joe Sidore at Warner in L.A.), please allow me to clarify what is apparently a widespread myth or unknown (to me) origin.
First, *none* was a flat transfer. Almost nothing I've done is a flat transfer because most masters need help, period. I once believed flat transfer were desirable. Then I got to hear what real master tapes sound like. There are exceptions of course, such as most (but not all) of Enya's "Watermark" and my original remastering (unannounced by the label) of Phil Collins' first two solo albums on CD. But most of the time, most pop mixes need help. I can think of one example in particular that helped convince me of this. I won't name the album but I will say that if the master has treble that will loosen dental fillings and I can take away the *pain* by using EQ, then EQ is a good thing.
Now to the Zep tapes Atlantic provided me with. None was a "copy of a copy of a copy of a master made for vinyl". None was the original mixes either. I was told Jimmy Page said those tapes were lost. What we had were copies - supposedly flat transfers of the masters but my experience has shown me there are many ways to make a "flat transfer". Most were recorded too hot so what treble there may have been on the mixes was certainly diminished at best and eradicated at worst. There was some clipping evident too - either from the original mixes or likely, from overloading the record side of the deck on which the copy was made.
I wouldn't exactly consider any of those demo quality but neither would I the original recordings either. I had to make the best of what Atlantic gave me to work with, despite my (daily) requests for originals. (There were some instances, with other artists, where I found originals in the tape library and used those for the CD masters.)
As with all the masters I created while at Atlantic, I used to carry my own cables to work and bypass the bulk of the "room". So, there was no desk, no console, no patchpay, no switching network in the signal path. I wired directly from the output of the analog machines (through EQ) to the input of the Apogee retrofit filter-equipped Sony 1630 A-D.
So regardless of what you think of them, what you are hearing is the very best I could get from the tapes I was provided with and told to use as the sources. Whatever their failings, they were not hyped in the treble and the dynamic range was not compressed - both of which I'm proud of.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Thanks Barry.
Barry:
The timing of your post is most interesting. I just watched It Might Get Loud last night and yet
again was delighted. I realized that I had not yet ripped my Zep Cds. I have 4000 and the ripping has
been a long slow process! I have a huge library of live Zep soundboard recordings on my server so I have been a bit lazy with the studio albums.
But anyway, I have to say, the CDs have always sounded very good to me. I have discussed with fellow fans on numerous occasions that they might not be from the original mixes, but none the less, they are far from dull or unexciting. I think you did a great job. I also think you have been very consistent through out all the classic rock projects you have been involved in.
Thank you for clarifying the situation. Unfortunately there is so much disinformation out there and there is also a huge disconnect between the fantasy world of audiophiles and the way music is really recorded, mixed, and mastered.
Barry:
The timing of your post is most interesting. I just watched It Might Get Loud last night and yet
again was delighted. I realized that I had not yet ripped my Zep Cds. I have 4000 and the ripping has
been a long slow process! I have a huge library of live Zep soundboard recordings on my server so I have been a bit lazy with the studio albums.
But anyway, I have to say, the CDs have always sounded very good to me. I have discussed with fellow fans on numerous occasions that they might not be from the original mixes, but none the less, they are far from dull or unexciting. I think you did a great job. I also think you have been very consistent through out all the classic rock projects you have been involved in.
Thank you for clarifying the situation. Unfortunately there is so much disinformation out there and there is also a huge disconnect between the fantasy world of audiophiles and the way music is really recorded, mixed, and mastered.
Hi Andre,
Thank you for your kindness.
As I mentioned in my previous post, when I started out as an engineer, having already become an audiophile, I thought flat transfers were the only way to go. Then I got to hear master after master and see just how those were created. I believe it took years to understand how to properly use EQ so it achieved what I wanted yet remained "invisible". I suppose I could think of it as a complement that so many of the CD masters I made are thought to be "flat transfers" (in a good way ;-}).
Starting my own label (Soundkeeper Recordings) allowed me to use mics as I believe they should be used and to create recordings that don't compress dynamics and are not EQd or processed because the output of the mics already contains what I heard while standing at the position of the mic array at the recording session.
Could I do those Zep (and other) CDs better today? Without a doubt. I have much better gear than existed back then and (I'd like to think) an approach that has benefited from the decades of experience. Who knows? Maybe one day...
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Thank you for your kindness.
As I mentioned in my previous post, when I started out as an engineer, having already become an audiophile, I thought flat transfers were the only way to go. Then I got to hear master after master and see just how those were created. I believe it took years to understand how to properly use EQ so it achieved what I wanted yet remained "invisible". I suppose I could think of it as a complement that so many of the CD masters I made are thought to be "flat transfers" (in a good way ;-}).
Starting my own label (Soundkeeper Recordings) allowed me to use mics as I believe they should be used and to create recordings that don't compress dynamics and are not EQd or processed because the output of the mics already contains what I heard while standing at the position of the mic array at the recording session.
Could I do those Zep (and other) CDs better today? Without a doubt. I have much better gear than existed back then and (I'd like to think) an approach that has benefited from the decades of experience. Who knows? Maybe one day...
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Barry, don't get me wrong, while I was repeating the conventional wisdom (probably not such a good idea), I have those first 3 origiinal Atlantic CDs, and I have some of the remasters, and I listen to the originals. They're quiet. At first comparison to the remasters, which jump out at you, they don't impress. I just turn them up, and they sound better to me than the "improved" versions. But I thought that was something DaveyF should hear for himself, so I offered to send him one to listen to. Some people prefer the remasters. Besides, while I prefer the originals, I sure wouldn't characterize them as deeper than DSOTM. Our friend Frank has a penchant for overstatement.
Tim
Yes, nice to read a insider story and to know that recording isnt without fault as well (recording mics and so on ).
You have a reputation for remasters that don't sound "remastered." Coud you remaster the Springsteen catalog for me
? I love the music but some of the recordings are challenging.Tim
Just please. Please tell me you had nothing to do with Adele's 21. Please, dear God, tell me this isn't the case.
*prays*
If you do, I'd like to have a few words with you.
*prays*
If you do, I'd like to have a few words with you.
Hi jazdoc,
Thank you. You are very kind.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Thank you. You are very kind.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hi Tim,
They're not Reference Recordings by Keith Johnson either. ;-}
They're just the best I could do at the time, with the sources and gear I had available to me.
I fully understand that different folks will have different priorities and different favorite masterings.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Barry, don't get me wrong, while I was repeating the conventional wisdom (probably not such a good idea), I have those first 3 origiinal Atlantic CDs, and I have some of the remasters, and I listen to the originals. They're quiet. At first comparison to the remasters, which jump out at you, they don't impress. I just turn them up, and they sound better to me than the "improved" versions. But I thought that was something DaveyF should hear for himself, so I offered to send him one to listen to. Some people prefer the remasters. Besides, while I prefer the originals, I sure wouldn't characterize them as deeper than DSOTM. Our friend Frank has a penchant for overstatement.
Tim
They're not Reference Recordings by Keith Johnson either. ;-}
They're just the best I could do at the time, with the sources and gear I had available to me.
I fully understand that different folks will have different priorities and different favorite masterings.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hi Tim,
Rest assured my friend.
I don't do compression and I don't do autotune.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Just please. Please tell me you had nothing to do with Adele's 21. Please, dear God, tell me this isn't the case.
*prays*
If you do, I'd like to have a few words with you.
Rest assured my friend.
I don't do compression and I don't do autotune.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hi Barry:
I hear all you say. Certainly converters are much better today than 20 years ago along with most
other things. God it would be amazing to hear the tapes, what ever generation they may be, archived to DSD or to 96/24.
Certainly it is possible to create a great sounding master tape, but from my limited experience in recording studios, there is much against it. First the monitoring situation is usually not optimal. Secondly, after being involved in the project and hearing countless playbacks, it is virtually impossible
to listen with fresh ears. Certainly you hear about cases where a true blue original master tape was put up on the machine and sounded great.
I know there has been a lot of postings about compression. Compression, as Bob Ludwig said, is part of the sound of rock an roll. What makes those 60s and 70s classic rock recordings so irresistible is beautifully compressed vocals, drums, bass, etc. Totally different today with hard limiting and entire mixes that are squashed to death. No need to go on about that...it has been done to death.
Your input here is very much appreciated! I always believe in hearing good information from the source, not filtered through the fantasies of audiophiles, who tend to be Experts On Everything. Lol.
Never met an audiophile who did't think they were a recording engineer, an electrical engineer, a mastering engineer, or an audiologist.
I hear all you say. Certainly converters are much better today than 20 years ago along with most
other things. God it would be amazing to hear the tapes, what ever generation they may be, archived to DSD or to 96/24.
Certainly it is possible to create a great sounding master tape, but from my limited experience in recording studios, there is much against it. First the monitoring situation is usually not optimal. Secondly, after being involved in the project and hearing countless playbacks, it is virtually impossible
to listen with fresh ears. Certainly you hear about cases where a true blue original master tape was put up on the machine and sounded great.
I know there has been a lot of postings about compression. Compression, as Bob Ludwig said, is part of the sound of rock an roll. What makes those 60s and 70s classic rock recordings so irresistible is beautifully compressed vocals, drums, bass, etc. Totally different today with hard limiting and entire mixes that are squashed to death. No need to go on about that...it has been done to death.
Your input here is very much appreciated! I always believe in hearing good information from the source, not filtered through the fantasies of audiophiles, who tend to be Experts On Everything. Lol.
Never met an audiophile who did't think they were a recording engineer, an electrical engineer, a mastering engineer, or an audiologist.
Hi Andre,
I would agree (and posted as much earlier today) that the monitoring in most studios is somewhere around the level of a mediocre car system - but louder.
As to hearing an album multiple times, this is routine when I master; I hear an album over and over again, sometimes 8 or more times in a day. Decisions have to be made early on. Nowadays, I take the luxury of mastering an album without feeling like it must be done by day's end. I'll create a ref and listen for a few days, getting impressions of things I might want to change and others I feel are good as they are. Then, I'll go back into the studio/mastering room and make the final adjustments.
A big part of long-term listening is the quality of the monitoring and of course, remembering to *not* listen at the levels I've heard in some studios. Long ago, Peter Walker said words to the effect that every recording has one correct playback level. Experience has led me to agree.
I have a different take on compression. While I would agree it is part of the sound of rock and roll *recordings* as we've gotten used to them, I completely disagree that it is intrinsic to the music itself. For me, nothing beats being in the presence of a great rock band - without their being hampered by a PA system and "sound man". The sound of the real band has an "in your chest" impact that I've *never* heard on a rock record before ("Confluence" may be the first exception). The reason, to my mind, is the use of compression. Personally, I think dynamics are the last frontier in getting great sounding non-classical recordings (this hasn't been an issue with the best classical recordings). So I record, mix and master with no compression whatsoever.
One of the great "secrets" I've shared with friends and clients who do recordings is, generally speaking, the *less* they do, the more music will make it to the finished product. Those who have taken advantage of this have delighted themselves with the results they've achieved.
I never used compression on the 60s and 70s albums I mastered. Would they were recorded and mixed without compression as well. Then, we'd have some *truly* heavy metal and some *truly* hard rock. Or reggae - I did the Marley catalog in 1990, again, with no compression allowed in the building. ;-}
To be clear, I can see compression as a "special effect", such as used to get the "whoosh" of Ringo's cymbals on certain songs. But the routine use of it is something I deem as a prime reason so many records sound like "records" instead of like the Music itself.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
I would agree (and posted as much earlier today) that the monitoring in most studios is somewhere around the level of a mediocre car system - but louder.
As to hearing an album multiple times, this is routine when I master; I hear an album over and over again, sometimes 8 or more times in a day. Decisions have to be made early on. Nowadays, I take the luxury of mastering an album without feeling like it must be done by day's end. I'll create a ref and listen for a few days, getting impressions of things I might want to change and others I feel are good as they are. Then, I'll go back into the studio/mastering room and make the final adjustments.
A big part of long-term listening is the quality of the monitoring and of course, remembering to *not* listen at the levels I've heard in some studios. Long ago, Peter Walker said words to the effect that every recording has one correct playback level. Experience has led me to agree.
I have a different take on compression. While I would agree it is part of the sound of rock and roll *recordings* as we've gotten used to them, I completely disagree that it is intrinsic to the music itself. For me, nothing beats being in the presence of a great rock band - without their being hampered by a PA system and "sound man". The sound of the real band has an "in your chest" impact that I've *never* heard on a rock record before ("Confluence" may be the first exception). The reason, to my mind, is the use of compression. Personally, I think dynamics are the last frontier in getting great sounding non-classical recordings (this hasn't been an issue with the best classical recordings). So I record, mix and master with no compression whatsoever.
One of the great "secrets" I've shared with friends and clients who do recordings is, generally speaking, the *less* they do, the more music will make it to the finished product. Those who have taken advantage of this have delighted themselves with the results they've achieved.
I never used compression on the 60s and 70s albums I mastered. Would they were recorded and mixed without compression as well. Then, we'd have some *truly* heavy metal and some *truly* hard rock. Or reggae - I did the Marley catalog in 1990, again, with no compression allowed in the building. ;-}
To be clear, I can see compression as a "special effect", such as used to get the "whoosh" of Ringo's cymbals on certain songs. But the routine use of it is something I deem as a prime reason so many records sound like "records" instead of like the Music itself.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
If only all the others had your dedication to purity!
Just to clarify a few points.
As far as hearing an album numerous times, i meant during the tracking phase. I have heard from recording engineers and producers that due to numerous takes, rearrangements, and technical issues, they had to endure thousands of playbacks which drove them to the edge of insanity. Couple that with insane monitoring levels and deadlines and you start making bad decisions. Bruce Springsteen and Jimmy Iovine documented that the Born to Run Darkness On The Edge Of Town sessions almost drove them to the brink due to Bruce's endless quest for perfection and they lost all perspective.
As far compression, I meant it as part and parcel of the sound of rock and roll when used during tracking, and sometimes mixing. The ultimate goal is to get that lead vocal to "sit" in the mix just right. Unless you have a singer who has amazing mic and dynamic control, compression is the tool. Same for drums and acoustic guitars, big time, to ensure consistency and smoothness.All the Beatles records and beyond were constructed with compressors. You even hear famous producers wax poetic about vintage compressors, crediting them, when coupled with specific microphones, with being the foundation of their sound.
Tape its self also produces a natural kind of "compression" that is just irrepressible to those of us who grew up listening to music recorded on it.
Certainly, in rock there is a huge difference between "records" and live. In rock, documentation is generally not the goal, hence the use of double tracking, echo, panning, phasing, flanging, reverb, and fades. I mean the very use overdubbing nullifies any relation to live performance.
I had all those Marley CDs you did and they were terrific. I think it was the Tuff Gong lablel. Did you do the Bad Company CDs too? They sound great, and further examples of Ludwigs's statement..
I understand the need to Normalize tracks when producing an album to ensure consistency, but it has all gone to hell with the massive squashing of a completed album.
Just to clarify a few points.
As far as hearing an album numerous times, i meant during the tracking phase. I have heard from recording engineers and producers that due to numerous takes, rearrangements, and technical issues, they had to endure thousands of playbacks which drove them to the edge of insanity. Couple that with insane monitoring levels and deadlines and you start making bad decisions. Bruce Springsteen and Jimmy Iovine documented that the Born to Run Darkness On The Edge Of Town sessions almost drove them to the brink due to Bruce's endless quest for perfection and they lost all perspective.
As far compression, I meant it as part and parcel of the sound of rock and roll when used during tracking, and sometimes mixing. The ultimate goal is to get that lead vocal to "sit" in the mix just right. Unless you have a singer who has amazing mic and dynamic control, compression is the tool. Same for drums and acoustic guitars, big time, to ensure consistency and smoothness.All the Beatles records and beyond were constructed with compressors. You even hear famous producers wax poetic about vintage compressors, crediting them, when coupled with specific microphones, with being the foundation of their sound.
Tape its self also produces a natural kind of "compression" that is just irrepressible to those of us who grew up listening to music recorded on it.
Certainly, in rock there is a huge difference between "records" and live. In rock, documentation is generally not the goal, hence the use of double tracking, echo, panning, phasing, flanging, reverb, and fades. I mean the very use overdubbing nullifies any relation to live performance.
I had all those Marley CDs you did and they were terrific. I think it was the Tuff Gong lablel. Did you do the Bad Company CDs too? They sound great, and further examples of Ludwigs's statement..
I understand the need to Normalize tracks when producing an album to ensure consistency, but it has all gone to hell with the massive squashing of a completed album.
Hi Andre,
I've been on sessions that seemed to go on forever - not a good sign musically or "feel"-wise for the record. When I've worked with producers who wanted to listen at levels that would damage one's pancreas, I always worked out an arrangement: I'd work at a level I thought was correct, then, I'd leave the room and go outside the double doors, at which point they could listen to a playback at any level they liked. Then, I'd re-enter the room.
When I do recordings, if more than two takes is needed, I move on to the next song. One can bang on a song until it is beaten into submission. The result might be mechanically "perfect" but after that many takes, everyone hates the farking song.
I understood about compression. I would agree it is part of the sound of rock and roll *records* as we've come to know them but I wouldn't agree that it is at all part of the Music. We've just gotten used to a few decades of not-so-good records. Musical magic but sonic something else. Okay, it is a "sound" but I'd rather hear the sound of the band than the sound created by a producer.
In my opinion, compression is not needed, nor is it desirable, for vocalists that can really sing well.
It can be useful for vocalists that don't have control of their own dynamics or when one seeks the type of sound that results. To my ears, it isn't a sound like one a good vocalist makes. With drums, I think compression makes them sound like they're coming from a large table radio, no longer anything like real drums. Again, to be clear, it is a "sound" and I would not argue with what anyone prefers to listen to. It just isn't my cup of sonic tea. I want "Life" in the drums, the vocals and everything else.
As far as the Beatles, I'm aware compression was a big part of their sound. Unfortunately.
The tracks that sound the most alive to me are the ones where there was less of the compression. I can only image what they would sound like without the compression. This, separate from the "special effect" achieved by heavily compressing Ringo's cymbals to get the "whoosh" sound. I think compression did a great deal of damage to their amazing voices.
Clearly some folks like the sound of compression and certain compressors. I'm just not among them as my own preference is for the sound of being in the presence of the band rather than being in the presence of a nice recording of the band. Both legitimate goals in my view but producing very different results. Different flavors. I can enjoy them all but find I enjoy some more than others.
I think one of the reasons rock has never seen a documentary approach is because it blossomed at the same time as the tools for the studio blossomed. It took a different path, with overdubs, punching in, mixing and all sorts of special effects. (All of which worked particularly well with certain substances. ;-}) However, I've always felt there was a price paid in that as great and magical as so many rock records are, none, not even the "live" ones, sounds anything like being in the presence of the band. (This was a long term dream of mine that was partially realized when I recorded "Lift" and realized to a greater degree when I did the rock tracks on "Confluence". I believe there is more to be heard in terms of rock records that bring the listener to the band.)
I did the first Marley catalog released on Tuff Gong (in 1990). I don't at all feel these are exemplars of the use of compression. The tapes in fact, are quite dynamic, as you can hear on the CDs I did vs. the compressed CDs done before and since. Did a few Bad Company CDs too. No compression at all in the mastering. If only it had been omitted from the recording and mixing, I'd feel even more proud of those. ;-}
As always, just my perspective of course. I realize different folks hear it differently and have different preferences. I make no claim to Universal Truth (add reverb to those words ;-}), just how I hear it. And how I'd like to hear it.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
I've been on sessions that seemed to go on forever - not a good sign musically or "feel"-wise for the record. When I've worked with producers who wanted to listen at levels that would damage one's pancreas, I always worked out an arrangement: I'd work at a level I thought was correct, then, I'd leave the room and go outside the double doors, at which point they could listen to a playback at any level they liked. Then, I'd re-enter the room.
When I do recordings, if more than two takes is needed, I move on to the next song. One can bang on a song until it is beaten into submission. The result might be mechanically "perfect" but after that many takes, everyone hates the farking song.
I understood about compression. I would agree it is part of the sound of rock and roll *records* as we've come to know them but I wouldn't agree that it is at all part of the Music. We've just gotten used to a few decades of not-so-good records. Musical magic but sonic something else. Okay, it is a "sound" but I'd rather hear the sound of the band than the sound created by a producer.
In my opinion, compression is not needed, nor is it desirable, for vocalists that can really sing well.
It can be useful for vocalists that don't have control of their own dynamics or when one seeks the type of sound that results. To my ears, it isn't a sound like one a good vocalist makes. With drums, I think compression makes them sound like they're coming from a large table radio, no longer anything like real drums. Again, to be clear, it is a "sound" and I would not argue with what anyone prefers to listen to. It just isn't my cup of sonic tea. I want "Life" in the drums, the vocals and everything else.
As far as the Beatles, I'm aware compression was a big part of their sound. Unfortunately.
The tracks that sound the most alive to me are the ones where there was less of the compression. I can only image what they would sound like without the compression. This, separate from the "special effect" achieved by heavily compressing Ringo's cymbals to get the "whoosh" sound. I think compression did a great deal of damage to their amazing voices.
Clearly some folks like the sound of compression and certain compressors. I'm just not among them as my own preference is for the sound of being in the presence of the band rather than being in the presence of a nice recording of the band. Both legitimate goals in my view but producing very different results. Different flavors. I can enjoy them all but find I enjoy some more than others.
I think one of the reasons rock has never seen a documentary approach is because it blossomed at the same time as the tools for the studio blossomed. It took a different path, with overdubs, punching in, mixing and all sorts of special effects. (All of which worked particularly well with certain substances. ;-}) However, I've always felt there was a price paid in that as great and magical as so many rock records are, none, not even the "live" ones, sounds anything like being in the presence of the band. (This was a long term dream of mine that was partially realized when I recorded "Lift" and realized to a greater degree when I did the rock tracks on "Confluence". I believe there is more to be heard in terms of rock records that bring the listener to the band.)
I did the first Marley catalog released on Tuff Gong (in 1990). I don't at all feel these are exemplars of the use of compression. The tapes in fact, are quite dynamic, as you can hear on the CDs I did vs. the compressed CDs done before and since. Did a few Bad Company CDs too. No compression at all in the mastering. If only it had been omitted from the recording and mixing, I'd feel even more proud of those. ;-}
As always, just my perspective of course. I realize different folks hear it differently and have different preferences. I make no claim to Universal Truth (add reverb to those words ;-}), just how I hear it. And how I'd like to hear it.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hi Barry, thanks for chiming in here and clarifying things. Frank's CD would seem to be a Aussie or Euro release pressing made in Germany. The US pressing that Tim has, is according to Tim, not of the quality that Frank professes his to be.( which means either Frank is exaggerating a little bit....He's not known for that or we may be comparing different versions). I'm no expert in US vs Euro pressed CD's, BUT I do know that the variables in sound from US vs Euro or UK pressed vinyl, is sometimes considerable. Did you do the mastering for the Euro or German pressed version of the Led Zep album in question?
or we may be comparing different versions). I'm no expert in US vs Euro pressed CD's, BUT I do know that the variables in sound from US vs Euro or UK pressed vinyl, is sometimes considerable. Did you do the mastering for the Euro or German pressed version of the Led Zep album in question?
Hi Barry, thanks for chiming in here and clarifying things. Frank's CD would seem to be a Aussie or Euro release pressing made in Germany. The US pressing that Tim has, is according to Tim, not of the quality that Frank professes his to be.( which means either Frank is exaggerating a little bit....He's not known for that
I don't think Frank was exaggerating so much as he was cueing up for another round of "I can make bad recordings sound good (in this case better than DSOTM), by turning off wireless devices and soldering my fillings to the wall." He knows the rep those discs have and was just setting up his usual game.
Tim
