The 2016s are totally different masterings done in 2012, but also by Andy. He took a very different approach with EQ, though. I find the 2012/2016 too bright. If they announce deluxe editions for the next albums, and I doubt they will, they would most likely also be using the 2012. The reason I doubt they'll do deluxe editions is because the 2016 DEs just used the 2009 bonus material and the archive of tapes used for those only covered the first 3 albums. Since you like the 2016s, you maybe should wait to see if they announce a US CD release of Vol 4. Or you could buy the hi-res download, which is the 2012 mastering.
Seriously, nab the Rhino reissue on vinyl, it's fantastic. Not sure if you play vinyl, but if you do, look no further.
Oh, really? I thought this was a super treble-heavy recording to begin with. I thought I read in the DE thread that the 2016s were clones of the 2012 hi-res remasters. Maybe that person was mistaken, or maybe I was. Don't do downloads either, so that rules out that option. If there's no expectation for new deluxe sets I'll just get the 2009 digipak CDs. Thanks for clarifying everything there. I don't. Vinyl is too expensive and too inconvenient for me (small living quarters, move around a lot, not always at home, short attention span, already have 500+ CDs, etc.). That's a problem for me as I generally dislike the thin sound of old CDs, but dislike the compression on a lot of remasters. There's not a big window that fits that criteria on CD.
Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were asking if the 2016 CDs were fresh remasters vs 2009. Yes, the 2016 use the 2012 Pearce masterings (which are completely different to the 2009 Pearce masterings). I honestly don't think there's much chance for DEs of the next albums, but I wouldn't be surprised if they issue the 2012 masterings as single discs for the rest of the albums at some point.
Yes, okay, that's what I thought. I think the only difference is that, being redbooks, the 2016 deluxe sets aren't hi-res, while the 2012 downloads were.
Basically, yes. For Paranoid, it is exactly just a downsampling of the hi-res for red book. For BS & MoR, though, there have been slight changes made. But once volume matched (some I believe are different track to track) and the hi-res down sampled, I detect no real difference in sound. EDIT: Except for Wicked World, which is a completely different mastering (possibly different source) between the 2016 and 2012, for whatever reason.
Hmm, that's odd. Are the 2012/2016s (or for that matter the 2009s) mostly or all from the original tapes?
It gets even more odd with the bonus discs. Paranoid is the same basic mastering as the 2009, but made louder with hard limiting (when there was no need since the 2009 volume was a better fit for the 2016 main album - now the 2016 bonus disc is much louder than the main disc). BS and MoR are different masterings for the bonus discs, which are less loud than the 2009s with less compression, much less for MoR. It's all pretty strange. The 2009s were said to come from the original masters, but there is some question as to the validity of that since Paranoid is based off the digital mastering used for the 1996 (with the same NR on Caravan) and Andy Pearce has confirmed that TE & NSD weren't released the way he mastered them. So we're not sure if that means his remasters were further messed with or a totally different mastering and/or source was substituted. The 1996 Paranoid very well might've been from the master and so the 2009 would be from a digital transfer of the master, but certainly not a new transfer and barely any difference in mastering between the two (no dropouts on the 2009 at least, but I don't like the sound at all on either). Now, the 2012 vinyl were also claimed to be from the original masters. Then when an article was put out about the mastering process, they mentioned comparing multiple tapes of each album and using the best one. Which would mean the original masters might not have been used for parts even though that's how it was advertised.
Wow. That's pretty confusing. So the 2016 Paranoid bonus disc is louder than the 2009's (although the rest of the 2016 series is quieter, I believe), the album proper is from questionable sources, and it's likely that Andy's masters were futzed with before release. That's odd that the 2012/2016 bonus disc isn't a different basic master when all the others are.
Nope. Get the 1986 Castle and be done with it. As long as your CD player decodes Pre-Emphasis then you will be all set. Or get the 2009 although as I recall some people feel the Side 2 tracks on the 2009 are a bit bright. All those old Warner masterings of the Sabbath catalog definitely have jacked up treble, IMO. Some albums more than others, but man whoever did them used some weird EQ moves to my ears. Other than Sabotage (too bright but excellent source) and Mob Rules I find all the WB discs to be poorly mastered.
Yes, the Paranoid bonus disc is louder than the 2009 bonus disc, while BS & MoR bonus discs are mastered less loud than on the 2009. BS & MoR bonus discs are actually different masterings between 2009 and 2016 while Paranoid 2016 bonus is based off the 2009 mastering and made louder. I prefer the 2009 for Paranoid bonus disc (but 2016 for the main album) and 2016 for BS & MoR bonus discs (but 2009 for the main albums as I prefer less bright mastering for Sabbath). Wicked World sounds way better on either the 2012 or 2016 (but like I said, are totally different mastering/possibly different source for this track) than the 2009. It sounds awful on the 2009. I believe the only ones in question of being possibly futzed with or, at least in the case of Paranoid, not even Andy's work are Paranoid, TE & NSD. The rest sound nice and like his work. These are the 2009s I'm talking about. There has been no talk of that being an issue with the 2012 but there is the issue of what tapes they used going by that article I mentioned. It all gets very confusing and even though I know what I'm saying, it's confusing when I read it back.
Well, thank you very much for all the help! It looks like I'll stick with my 2016 deluxe editions for the first three albums, and the Pearce remastered 2009 digipaks for the next three. I've yet to delve any deeper into their catalog but if I do I'll be sure to return to one of these threads.
You're welcome. Those are all fine choices. Do you have the WB Sabotage? That's my preferred digital mastering. It's missing "Blow on a Jug" but I don't believe I've ever listened to that after the first time.
IMHO there really isn't a great sounding version of Vol. 4 on CD. I think the '86 Castle is the closest representation of the original recording. It's my preference, but I'll bet there isn't much of a consensus on it. It may be slightly OT, but I prefer the '86 Castles for all of the first six Ozzy albums, except for MOR, where I really like the SHM SACD, which is not mastered by Andy Pearce. It may go against the grain, but I'm not a fan of any of the Pearce stuff for the Sabbath catalog.
I believe I do have it. Catalog 2822-2, UPC 075992728720? I've not fully listened to it. I believe the only song I've listened to is "Symptom of the Universe", sounded a bit weird but I think that's just the recording itself. I have the original Warner CDs for the first six albums. Does the 2009 have "Blow On A Jug"?
Yes, the 2009 has Blow on a Jug. It also sounds nice. It's been a while since I compared, but I believe it wasn't as bright as the WB but had some compression.
Cool, thanks. I think I'll still pick up the 2009 (drives me nuts when I have CDs from multiple series) but I'll definitely compare the two. IIRC the WB was a little bit light on the bass, but I haven't listened in a long time.
Yeah, that used to drive me nuts, too, but it's gotten to the point where it's hard to avoid. Especially with Sabbath. If only Paranoid was a new Pearce mastering for 2009, I'd have been happy with the first 6 from that series (aside from the swapped channels on SBS, but that's easily fixed if it bothers you). I've always wondered if they just didn't have him do Paranoid or if he did a 2009 mastering that they rejected.
Wow, that's actually quite-good for a metal/hard rock album remaster. I would probably choose the '96 version, but I expected the dynamic range to be AT LEAST an 8 or lower for that 2009 issue. Glad to see the record company didn't have their heads wedged completely up their asses.
Yeah, I mentioned it a while back among the other stuff. The 2009 is from the 1996 (by Ray Staff) with minimal difference to the sound. I mean just very slight if you compare them directly. Planet Caravan has the same NR and the wave forms match up for the whole album. It doesn't have the dropouts of the 1996, so it's an upgrade there. But the mastering style is nothing like the other first 6 albums from 2009. Andy was credited, but what was released in 2009 wasn't his work. I'd love to know what exactly happened here.
That's odd. The 2012/2016 is a new remastering without NR on "Planet Caravan" or dropouts or anything? I know this is the first time "War Pigs" has been released on CD without the weird volume spike toward the middle.
Correct. The 2016 is a completely new mastering from a different transfer. No NR, no dropouts. I like it much better than the 1996/2009. I would've probably liked a real Pearce 2009 mastering better, though, as I prefer the 2009s over the 2012/2016s for the other albums. Either they didn't have him do Paranoid or his real mastering is sitting on a hard drive somewhere.
Interesting. Were the dropouts and NR and all that present on the Warner or '86 Castle (or Black Box, for that matter)? Is that exclusive to the '96 Castle and '09 Sanctuary? (Actually, I might have the label wrong, was just looking over Kinks CDs and Sabbath may not be on Sanctuary, forgive me if I'm wrong)
