I have a physical copy of the UK porky and pbthal's vinyl rip. Im just listening on my laptop atm with Sony MDR-V700DJ headphones. The black box mastering is louder and brighter but it still sounds closest to the Porky vinyl to all other versions I've heard. I think the UK vinyl would have been the sound the band were looking for and the Porky mastering is the definitive version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analyzed folder: Black Sabbath-Vol. 4 Black Box 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Filename ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR7 -0.34 dB -9.33 dB 01 Track01.wav DR8 -0.22 dB -9.85 dB 02 Track02.wav DR10 -0.34 dB -13.37 dB 03 Track03.wav DR14 -2.99 dB -24.17 dB 04 Track04.wav DR8 -0.34 dB -10.53 dB 05 Track05.wav DR7 -0.34 dB -8.93 dB 06 Track06.wav DR8 -0.34 dB -9.42 dB 07 Track07.wav DR11 -0.34 dB -14.10 dB 08 Track08.wav DR8 -0.34 dB -9.51 dB 09 Track09.wav DR8 -0.34 dB -9.72 dB 10 Track10.wav ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of files: 10 Official DR value: DR9 ==============================================================================================
Well, that's better than I was expecting, I confess. Nevertheless, how does it compare in terms of EQ to the original Warner CD?
I agree. It sounded the closest to my Porky on my system when I used to spin vinyl. I no longer have any vinyl since I sold it all off a couple years ago. I think the mids were the closest on the Black Box version and the Porky on my system.
The Black Box does sound the closest to the Porky. I compared them a couple years back and on my system that is what I heard. On my system the Black Box version sounds pumped in the mids compared to the Warner. Almost like the guitars are remixed higher. As you probably know, you can't turn the Black Box version up much. I actually listened to the Black Box version to learn some of the guitar parts on the album. The detail in the guitars is much more present on the loud Black Box version.
Exactly! That's why I don't understand a lot of the criticism the black box gets! Yes its more compressed but you get more detail in the sound! Same with many other modern remasters. You get most people on here preferring older CDs mastered with early equipment and you just don't get the same detail that is revealed with a modern remaster in most cases.
You get more detail because it's more compressed. Adding compression 'presses' everything together, which results in lower-level details being brought closer to the surface and 'revealed'. This can be nice when listening at lower levels, but really, it's just a better idea to turn the volume up. I agree that a modern remaster, when done properly, can blow away an older mastering, but sadly that's not always the case.
My only complaint is you can't listen to the Black Box at a louder than speaking voice level or your ears get fried after a while. However, if you want to hear detail at a low volume, the Black Box is the way to go.
And that is exactly why it's not what I'm after. It certainly has its points, but as I said... The 2009 looks like the way to go. Thanks to all who have contributed.
I just posted the DR for Vol. 4 on the Dynamic Range Database. It is definitely not the best if you want to turn it up.
This thread made me revisit this debate and I must say if there is any Sabbath recording where IMO it has a murky sound it is Vol. 4. IMO it is not a warm sound either like comparing the 1986 Castle of the debut to other versions. The Vol. 4 versions other than the Black Box do sound like they have a towel thrown over the speakers. As I said, the only way for me to really figure out some of the guitar parts on this album when I did write ups on the Sabbath ABA thread was to go to the Black Box. A lot of the guitar overtones are lost on the other versions.
What's the old Warner Cd like? I've got a chance to pick one up cheap and wonder if it's worth getting.
If you have warm sounding speakers, you don't mind it sounding a little flimsy, and you don't mind the yellow version of the cover, then consider it. It's not awful, but it's not great, either.. There seems to be a lot of indecision & debate about the various Vol 4. masterings going on right now. Read through this thread and come to your own decision. If you don't mind me asking, how cheap is "cheap"?
1) SHM-SACD - excellent, while not the best recording , it's pretty near an audiophile mastering. Great mids and lows. Sadly I've heard this is already out of print and now goes for over $75US. A shame as this is the one to get for those who are not vinyl equipped but have mature non-thin SACD channel 2) 2009 Andy Pearce remaster [Sanctuary] - my favorite redbook. Nice Mid's 3a) 1986 Castle - OK and at one time I felt was the best digital version . There are many excellent older CD's this one though is only average. 3b) original Warner , OK, overall close enough to the 1986 Castle that it's not worth more me writing any more about it. The first 2 on the list to me show A remaster can be excellent and that Dynamic compression during mastering is horsecrap Not listed above: I think the Black Box version is sonic excrement - that is not hyperbole I totally loathe the sound quality on that mangling, uh I mean mastering
I don't mind at all. It's £5. I've heard the old castle version and I liked it, but the volume levels of each track seemed to vary somewhat, if I remember correctly. I could be wrong though, it's been a while.
this is my preferred playback digitally, too. sounds about as good as this album ever can sound. The Black Box mastering is for folks listening to Black Sabbath on laptop speakers.
At that price, I'd advise you to go for the 2009 Sanctuary remaster instead, but I'm sure someone will disagree. Better sound, better artwork, better booklet. The US Warner CD seems to suffer from either a tape source distant from the master, or oxide loss (or both). As I said in the OP, the 2009 has been compared in tonality to the 1986 Castle CD. Anyone else want to chime in?
It is not that bad IMO. If you can get it for cheap it fits the bill if it is your only version or an alternative to the loud remasters.
I'm generally not a fan of loud remasters so it would be a toss up between grabbing this or holding out for an early Castle.
I think the 2009 CD is far and away the best-sounding redbook of the album and if it can still be had cheaply, I'd recommend it wholeheartedly
The 2009 Sanctuary remaster is far from loud, according to the Dynamic Range Database. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/29049 Being that that's a UK release, and that you're in England, I would think that it would likely be possible for you to find it easily, without having to pay the import prices that we over across the pond are stuck with. Correct?
I like the Castle. Here is one for $20 USD. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Black-Sabba...158?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33a5c220f6
