Hey everybody,

does anyone of you got an access to pre-JEMS transfers of Millard recordings of the mighty Led Zeppelin?
Those sourced from low gens of course, not bootlegs.

Thanks,
PK

There's no pre-JEMS recordings as all MM cassettes are processed (not remastered!) by the JEMS crew and a couple of good friends.

All you might get is JEMS's presentation of MM material.

No, there are some pre-JEMS non-remastered Millards.

I am just looking for other versions to check if these have similar marks, edits and gaps.

Some of them are also sourced from faulty burned CDRs and/or DATS, and because of that, they're plagued by some digital flaws.

So you are LOOKING for the ones that are from faulty CDRs, DATS and have digital flaws?

No, I am after those without dolby B applied. They're some copies. that's for sure. Just sayin' that my copy of 6/23 has minor issues, that's all.

[www.royal-orleans.com]
Might be helpful.

Maybe a search on guitars101?

Quote
pkrl5758
No, I am after those without dolby B applied. They're some copies. that's for sure. Just sayin' that my copy of 6/23 has minor issues, that's all.

I see. I will say that I have never seen a copy Millard made himself that was not Dolby encoded, save for the VHS Hi-Fi copies he made.

There are lots of copies that have been transferred without using dolby B. These are pre-2010 versions made by you . Most of them are taken from VHS dubs, but some are also taken from 1st gen cassettes.

I am wonderin' if you considered to release entire Zepp Millard catalogue without dolby B applied.

JEMS, what would be your answer to it?
Any chance to hear all these Millard tapes without dolby B applied is real?
I do love transfers you did but speaking honestly, when I am listening to any of Millard recordings, I am often choosing older versions, that have no dolby applied. And it's not my personal choice only.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-09-10 09:57 by pkrl5758.

It is an interesting request.

Intellectually, it doesn't make sense to me, in that Mike recorded his masters with Dolby on and made his copies with Dolby on. Transferring with Dolby off would leave intact an artificial high-end boost (emphasis) that is not accurate to what he captured, in that Dolby decoding would tame (de-emphasis), which is how the Dolby system works in a nutshell (see longer explanation below from Wikipedia).

Emotionally, I get it, as you are not alone in thinking things sound better with Dolby off.

I have seen posts where people claim Mike transferred with Dolby off, but I have personally seen perhaps 60-80 first gen tapes Mike made for other people. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is marked Dolby B on in his handwriting. If he was an advocate for Dolby off, why record with it in the first place, why give out copies with it on?

For me, I think the best path (as Winston has followed) is to master our Dolby on transfers, and bring back some of those highs. But I would point out, the sound you prefer in the older versions and assign to Dolby off may also be caused by mastering someone did, deck alignment, chrome/normal switching, etc.

I am working on a lot of other Millard tapes at the moment, many new to circulation or previously un-attributed to him, so I can't really prioritize doing the LZ tapes again (which were borrowed and would have to be reacquired though I may have access to a different set at some point soon). Any change would be on the margins regardless and there are already so many versions floating around, not sure doing so helps matters as it is all personal preference. At least the transfers we did were unique in presenting the recordings as he intended. The flat masters, so to speak.

I've probably transferred 50+ Millard-made first gens at this point, and I can only think of two where I thought Dolby On was the wrong setting (perhaps he forgot it when he dubbed but noted it as on).

In other news: Given this is a Stones forum I will let you know some Millard '89 Stones tapes will be coming down the road as well as Mike's own personal best-of compilation from LA '75.


FROM WIKIPEDIA

Dolby noise reduction is a form of dynamic preemphasis employed during recording, plus a form of dynamic deemphasis used during playback, that work in tandem to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. While Dolby A operates across the whole spectrum, the other systems specifically emphasize the audible frequency range where background tape hiss, an artifact of the recording process that is similar to white noise, is most noticeable (usually above 1 kHz, or two octaves above Middle C).

The Dolby preemphasis boosts the recorded level of the quieter audio signal at these higher frequencies during recording, effectively compressing the dynamic range of that portion of the signal, so that quieter sounds above 1 kHz receive a proportionally greater boost. As the tape is recorded, the relative amplitude of the signal above 1 kHz is used to determine how much pre-emphasis to apply - a low-level signal is boosted by 10 dB (Dolby or 20 dB (Dolby C). As the signal rises in amplitude, less and less pre-emphasis is applied until at the "Dolby level" (0 VU), no signal modification is performed.

The sound is thus recorded at a higher overall level on the tape relative to the tape's overall noise level, requiring the tape formulation to preserve this specially recorded signal without distortion. On playback, the opposite process is applied (deemphasis), based on the relative signal component above 1 kHz. Thus as this portion of the signal decreases in amplitude, the higher frequencies are progressively more sharply attenuated, which also filters out the constant background noise on the tape when and where it would be most noticeable.

Quote
JEMS

I will let you know some Millard '89 Stones tapes will be coming down the road as well as Mike's own personal best-of compilation from LA '75.

Thanks!

Quote
dcba

Quote
JEMS

I will let you know some Millard '89 Stones tapes will be coming down the road as well as Mike's own personal best-of compilation from LA '75.

Thanks!

Great news!
Thanks you in advance JEMS!

Hello JEMS,

Sorry it took me so long to answer but comparing all the Millard recordings is not the easiest job...

Thx for your detailed explanation, it gave me a really in-depth reading and understanding of the whole process of how the Mike Millard taped all his shows.

I have to say that it's quite difficult to me to say which version is better, as both reveals some details that are completely missing on the other ones. And it's not only because of the quality and the way of how they were transferred. For example, the famous "Eddie" show from June 21, 1977 exists in at least two different forms: as Winston Remaster and your own version. Between them not only the quality makes the difference as Winston adds more than minute more of actual show before No Quarter.

The biggest difference that is notable from the very first minute of listening is the dynamic range. The non dolby versions shares a very heavy top end and lacks mid range significantly, mostly due to a different deck alignment and other details mentioned. On the other note, all dolby B transfers have much better bottom end and in most of the cases, they are a bit more complete than other versions circulating.

I'd say that there's no strong prioritization of doing a fresh transfer but it could be nice to get dolby off versions, just to compare them with already existed transfers.

What I am missing mostly from your copies is fact they are somewhat muddy / muffled sounding transfers, and it's not because they were played with dolby on switched. It's rather something related with head azimuth, also your copies might have been transferred ion a different gear than copies we got already.

Anyway, we're looking forward for new uncirculated Millard recordings.

Thx!

Quote
JEMS

...

In other news: Given this is a Stones forum I will let you know some Millard '89 Stones tapes will be coming down the road as well as Mike's own personal best-of compilation from LA '75.

...

Great! Any ETA ?

If your answer was directed straight to me, then I have to say you have completely no idea of what we're talkin' about here .

The difference between commercially released bootlegs and its original sources is more than huge, at least for more advanced collectors/listeners.

True, the guitar101 has lots of stuff and it's a great place to search. But if you're after some less common sources, and especially raw tapes, then this is not the best place to go with at the start.

The main point of pros & cons of Millard recordings is the way of how they have been transferred and who was the owner of 1st gen copies. As we all know, Mike Millard intentionally marked all his copies as he was much aware that some of them were used by the bootleggers, of which he hated them so much. To make this subject more complicated, not only edits but also the differences with head azimuth and gear used made all these tapes sounding different.

The JEMS transfers are very good. I'd even say they're great in some aspects, as explained above. The dynamic range is truly awesome, and the gear used makes these copies sounding superior to all what have been done previously. However, lack of top end lead me to the position that I am still missing something. Over the years these tapes deteriorated much, and the first and most notable significant sign of that is lacking the top end. I know that from my own experience, I am the one who started music journey while trading and taping music on cassettes. Few years back I was trying to transfer them to see if they're still sounding superior to some of my digital copies. What I found a little time after as I started playing them was fact its quality wasn't as good and bright as before. They deteriorated much over all these years and we cannot do nothing to stop that. They have been recorded with Dolby and as soon as I started listening to them, I have had to switch it off because the sound was so dull and muddy.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I am upset or unsatisfied with JEMS. I just wanted to point out that there's still some space to create alternate versions of these recordings, just to see if they could sounding a bit more sharper.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-09-30 18:50 by pkrl5758.

I appreciate the dialogue and your POV. But one thing I can say for sure is that the JEMS transfers were meticulous in terms of azimuth alignment on playback. That's why we have the gear we do. That's a critical piece to our workflow/transfer path.

Could deterioration be an issue? Maybe. A lot of the previously circulating LZ transfers were made by Mike onto VHS hi-fi in the early '90s. Very different medium.

I can only second to this part - JEMS transfers are the best in terms of azimuth alignement when compared with any other copies circulating.

BTW I do noticed that two of Zeppelin Millard sources weren't torrented in 96/24 rate: the (in)famous March 12th, 1975 Long Beach and legendary Badheholders June 23rd, 1977 LA shows.

Any idea why this happened?

The Badgeholder 6/23 show is IMO one of the best shows ever. Higher rate would only improve this rating as well.

Just curious...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-11 14:28 by pkrl5758.

I did not realize those two remain unshared in 24/96. They were not purposely excluded as far as I know. I have the original source files for all the transfers. Let me try to address that. Thanks for mentioning.

Quote
JEMS
I did not realize those two remain unshared in 24/96. They were not purposely excluded as far as I know. I have the original source files for all the transfers. Let me try to address that. Thanks for mentioning.

That would be GREAT!!

Quote
JEMS
I did not realize those two remain unshared in 24/96. They were not purposely excluded as far as I know. I have the original source files for all the transfers. Let me try to address that. Thanks for mentioning.

Hey,

did you eventually ask the team about these 24/96 transfers?

On my list.