I always listen to all my albums with headphones and compared to the Warner CD....and yes, I am sure.
Just re-reading this thread for the 4rth time or so and stumbling over this statement again. I am sorry, but this doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If two analog tapes differ by one or more tape generations, they are simply different. Accordingly, when they are transferred to digital, both digital files will be different too. Whether those differences will be audible for a listener, will of course depend on their hearing and the equipment they use for listening. IF, hypothetically, the differences between the analog tapes were so extremely minor that they completely 'got lost', so to speak, during the digital transfer and thus result in two digitally identical files, then those files, by definition, simply couldn't have "different sonics". A digital file consists of data alone, so if the data is identical, the files are identical. IF the two files, when played, have "different sonics", then that cannot be due to the files, because those were identical; and it cannot be due to any differences between the original analog tapes either, because there is logically no way that those differences could be represented in two digitally identical files. Thus, the difference in sonics would have to be some other explanation, e.g. the playback equipment or whatever. Anyway, that was really a purely hypothetical example. In reality, there is simply no way that identical digital files could result from transfers of analog tapes differing in any way. Actually, even if one and the same analog tape is digitized two times on the same machine etc., the resulting files will, to my understanding, never be 100% digitally identical.
Let's go so far as to say the analog sources sent out to the CD mastering houses and then pressing plants were identical. Does this mean that all digital mastering and pressing machines will produce exactly the same sonics even if they are not the same machines? Does this mean if one CD is pressed in real time, 1X, and one is pressed in 4X they will sound exactly the same just because they are from the same identical source? They will read the same on peak and DR readings because the mastering itself is still the same.
The answer to that first question is no. Because identical analog sources is not possible. Every playback of an analog source is different. And every conversion of analog to digital is different. The only way to get digitally identical audio is to have it derive from the very same conversion to digital. It won't be identical even if you playback the same tape on the same machine immediately after the first conversion. It might sound the same to you, but it will definitely not produce digitally identical audio. A DR reading is a very vague reading. It's not usable to confirm identical pressings.
Here's what CUETools tells me about the NELCDs and the CLACD of SBS: Black Sabbath -Sabbath Bloody Sabbath (1986 Japan for UK, NELCD 6017 Castle) 01 100,0 [E0BA773E] [A1D7D4D6] 02 100,0 [AF3DB5C3] [830F8C42] 03 61,3 [FCB46B31] [2D1D5C6A] 04 100,0 [79AF53AC] [2AF7C956] 05 100,0 [FEC0A3F5] [27C1E3D7] 06 100,0 [34879036] [53A03011] 07 100,0 [5B3915B7] [63268964] 08 99,6 [FB3CB8B8] [790B5573] 09 78,8 [E385BBC7] [AD5BEC98] Black Sabbath - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath (1986 France for UK, NELCD 6017 Castle) 01 100,0 [C19B0ECE] [D3E57676] 02 100,0 [1155B5DF] [9AD4F2F8] , 03 61,3 [865BD33B] [D6A4E5DC] 04 100,0 [0079C9C1] [85B3E1D4] 05 100,0 [5339E36B] [BD6B59EA] 06 100,0 [0EC41164] [167495F7] 07 100,0 [717BA26A] [F6A64AA6] 08 99,6 [B4CC5A06] [D9A16093] 09 78,8 [B89926FB] [1FD24884] Black Sabbath - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath (1986 France for UK, CLACD 201 Castle) 01 100,0 [E6CD890E] [D3E57676] 02 100,0 [7057D7F6] [9AD4F2F8] 03 61,3 [847B5F0D] [D6A4E5DC] 04 100,0 [931A4BED] [85B3E1D4] 05 100,0 [6609E66B] [BD6B59EA] 06 100,0 [4B408135] [E54E1D4C] 07 100,0 [1DEDFF9D] [BFD65EF4] 08 99,6 [F995EC5C] [D9A16093] I am pretty sure that at least one more person told me they compared the WAV images too and they were identical except for the offset. The differences Dave heard might indeed have resulted from some problem with the pre-emph tag. I am pretty sure I have never before heard anybody claim that any of the Sabbath NELCDs or CLACDs sounded different from each other.
What "problem" could it be making it sound better? I guess the Japan 2fer 1st pressing 33PD-353 has this problem as well as it sounds identical to the JVC Japan NELCD releases.
Actually, many problems can make a recording sound better for some people - that's because listening is subjective. E.g. sometimes some people like a recording better that comes with Pre-emphasis, but lacks the PE tag; or isn't pre-emphasised, but has a PE tag. It's like EQ: For many people here, the 2012 remasters sound bad because they have so much high end; for others, they sound good precisely because they have so much high end. As for the Paranoid twofer and NELCD, are you talking about the following releases? Paranoid + Black Sabbath (1987 Japan, 33PD-353 Vertigo) 01 75,0 [0C78B07B] [68181B19] 02 70,2 [61F359DD] [08122A97] 03 53,4 [547D4953] [1F5AA807] 04 54,1 [0BF70A99] [0387D899] 05 96,1 [D4BC0C22] [D00F83D1] 06 100,0 [C4855F91] [16E92826] 07 63,2 [24F80E7E] [8886F882] 08 99,8 [62F8E9B6] [7780285F] 09 74,6 [B8B96633] [F20A7BD7] 10 79,6 [6077AE98] [B426438A] 11 83,2 [19130EC3] [E34EA757] 12 74,8 [D23AAE42] [16D9727E] 13 73,9 [FC88A9FF] [65B89785] Paranoid (1986 Japan for UK, NELCD 6003 Castle) 01 88,9 [25E845E7] [8273278F] 02 72,4 [517F8180] [45459019] 03 50,4 [FCBAA577] [AE70FE31] 04 64,4 [4557F0C1] [92DB4319] 05 89,3 [925A4392] [503A0950] 06 92,3 [A44C6834] [FE478074] 07 51,4 [7C301B3D] [7168A5D3] 08 99,3 [4E0CE93E] [EFAF6FC5] 09 94,4 [B96C179D] [B672B411] Honestly, I guess the burden of proof is on your side now. If my memory is intact, pretty much everyone else I have talked to has agreed that the 1986 Castle sound the same, while sounding different from the Japan twofer. You asked for peak values, I gave you peak values. Feel free to present counter evidence (e.g. WAV pictures that show pronounced differences between the 1986 Castle releases, or similarities between the Japan NELCD and twofer.
Strange. I will have to re-listen and check that out sometime. I take it you're exclusively referring to the 2009/2010 Sanctuary remasters, not any earlier ones, right?
It honestly doesn't matter to me having done the listening comparisons. You've already shown that the Japan Castle has different offset numbers so to say it sounds identical to the other Castle pressings seems a little contradictory to me. I really shouldn't have used "100% identical" because they're not. However, the sonic presentation of the 33PD-353 being relaxed and non-fatiguing with good definition is a lot closer to the Japan Castles than they are to their UK and France pressing cousins that sound slightly smeared and lack imaging definition by comparison when turned up loud. I really wish some, read any, members lived closer who have the MPO pressings or the Nimbus pressing so they could come over and listen for themselves. I have a suspicion that the non-Japan Castles may have been pressed at a faster speed than the Japan pressings and could possibly be the reason why they sound different. Have you, or anyone who says they are all the same because of the identical or close to identical numbers, ever burned a CD-R at 1X and at 4X or 2X and at 8X or... before and compared them by listening? They do not sound exactly the same even though they are from the same source. This is a proven fact by more members than just myself. Presentation and imaging depth loss is apparent from my experience and the faster you go the worse it becomes. It's all right though people can believe what they like. I'll bow out now and have fun everyone!
Seriously? First you asked for evidence and then, after somebody took the time and checked their files and posted exactly what you asked for, you are now basically saying that you don't care, because you trust your ears more anyway? ??? Are you saying that a difference in the offset changes the listening experience? I am perfectly familiar of the problems with CDR discs burnt at higher speeds. I don't know if the same can be true for pressed discs or not (and if so, was such high-speed disc pressing even possible in 1986?). With burnt CDRs, if they do sound different, then in my understanding, a rip to WAV of the respective disc should show digital differences in the WAV. Besides, in my experience, the differences between some fast-burnt CDRs and slower-burnt CDRs do not at all sound like differences between different masterings. Rather, they sound like the difference between a defective disc and a non-defective one. You seem to believe you're the only one who has these CDs, and who has really listened to them. You really just aren't. Anyway, I just gave War Pigs and Electric Funeral from all 4 releases of Paranoid - the France CLACD, the France CELCD, the UK NELCD and the 33PD - a listen. Both songs sound 100% identical to me between the 3 Castles. Electric Funeral from the 33PD sounds very similar to the 3 Castles, while War Pigs sounds clearly different on the 33PD. Not dramatically at all, but notably. Now, I did one more thing and compared Electric Funeral from the France CLACD to the Japan NELCD with EAC's WAVE Compare tool. In case you're not familiar with it: that tool compares two WAV files and will report any difference it finds in any sample of the file. Below you see the results for Electric Funeral. What this means is that the ONLY difference between the two tracks (France CLACD vs Japan NELCD) is some samples (very likely just digital silence) in the very beginning of the track that are included in one, but missing from the other. Everything else, from the beginning to the very end of the song, is digitally identical. And indeed, on my system, they sound perfectly identical. Accordingly, if these two tracks sound any different on your system, then the problem is with your system or your disc - whether it has to do with not reading the PE tag correctly or whatever.
Great and thanks for that. It shows the Castles are different even if only by offset. I can only rely on what I hear not files numbers. I have actually listened and compared every one of these CD's. Take from that what you will. Maybe, I'm not a recording or mastering engineer so I can only say it's a possibility. This is where we differ substantially. The similarities are there. I'm not suggesting the industry was pressing at any higher than 4X so it would be extremely noticeable but they were experimenting with speed increase to meet the overwhelming demand for CD releases by 1986. How exactly do you suppose they were able to do that? A prime example is Pink Floyd's Meddle. The 1985 Japan 1st pressing without the TO or CDP 7 46034 2 catalog number in the matrix, guaranteed pressed at 1X, sounds completely different and better than the 1986 release with TO in the matrix which sounds more similar to the 1988 release with the CDP 7 46034 2 catalog number in the matrix yet they all share the exact same peak levels and maybe even the offset numbers. Fair enough, but I know if it were me I would be questioning why am I not hearing what this guy is saying rather than keep stating it isn't possible. The actual CD's or a file? I'd like to do this again with you but I sold off my S/T/Paranoid after getting the Japan NELCD's so I'm unable to. I gather you mean the France NELCD MPO CD and not CELCD, yes? That's still speculation saying "very likely just digital silence". How do you know, prove it to me please? The old digitally identical according to a computer program just doesn't hold up in the real listening world and never has for some of us, but you're free to believe what you want to. Others who know this information will never correspond in a thread like this because it always ends up the same. The only reason I did is to keep this knowledge alive for those whom it may matter to. Take good care and enjoy your listening time.
Dave, if you are seriously considering that offset might affects the listening experience, you should maybe first read a little about the definition of offset. As for your Pink Floyd example, identical peaks are, at best, an indicator for two recordings having the same mastering - not a prove. They are most definitely not a prove for two recordings' being digitally identical - and offset doesn't really have any relevance at all in this context. If those two Pink Floyd releases do actually sound different, then there is simply no reason to assume they are digitally identical, as long as there is no prove for that. It has long been established by countless studies that people tend to hear differences between two recordings if they believe them to be different. That is why double-blind listening tests exist. Apart from that, as someone who hears a difference that nobody else here seems to be able to hear, plus all available evidence suggests that what you're hearing isn't there, there's also a very good chance that something is wrong with your specific disc or equipment. I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. Have you even looked at the screenshot I shared? Those samples are within the first 0.173 seconds of the song. If you believe that the digital content of those first 0.173 seconds have any affect on your (or anybody's) listening experience of the subsequent 4.5 minutes, let me know - I can send you an audio sample from the beginning of both files so you can check them in a WAV editor and see and tell us what secret magic is hidden in those 0173 seconds. Fact is that during those 0.173 seconds nothing happens, and it has no relevance at all for what we're talking about (again, having a look at the definition of "offset" might help). If you want to be a little more convincing in your attempt to totally redefine the way that digital audio works, it might help if you first spend a little time to understand the basics about it. You will never be able to establish that those basics don't work in the real world as long as you haven't grasped what they are all about. And I am most definitely not a sound engineer or other kind of expert myself - I am really only talking about the very basics. Finally, if you raise a claim that contradicts both logic and most others' experience, then it is really your job to prove it. Refusing to prove it, while asking others for more and more evidence to support THEIR case, and then either telling them that it doesn't matter because your hearing is the only prove you accept, or re-interpreting their evidence in a way that seems to support your case but is actually plain crazy, may be fun for you; but it is not exactly convincing. OK, I am moving on. Already spent much too much time and energy on this madness.
It's really moot point for me. As I mentioned you're free to choose what you want to believe. I notice you've convieniently avoided some of my questions in the same breath while trying to convince me of your theories I already know don't hold water. Nothing but actual CD pressing comparisons on this side. What about you? Wanting only the best I really don't care where they're made so your psychological theory doesn't work here and yes, I've been blind tested before. It could be Guatemala or China where they are made for all I care. Yes, I've read your results sheets and nothing is new for me there. The why is more interesting for me to know and even dedicated mastering engineers have been unable to say they know why, only that they are aware of it. Enjoy your listening.
Appreciate all the opinions shared. I personally started getting the 2016s for the Ozzy era, and the original WBs as my backups, which actually cost more right now. Nostalgia maybe? It's partly the case for me admittedly. I just can't really have enough Sabbath, already having original US Warner vinyl and the colored vinyl reissues. Dio, I'm not as sure about yet but I do know I want US silver face CDs but not as primary listening. Maybe 09 issues for CD. Hopefully Rhino reissues that era sometime on vinyl. The US originals seem like they can be improved and foreign issues are costly, plus parcel postage rates on top.
As you are probably aware after reading this thread, many people here strongly prefer either the 1986 Castle or 2009 Sanctuary releases over both the original and the 2016 WB for most of the 1970ies Sabbath albums. If you are interested in getting an idea of how different (and, IMO, better) some of these albums can sound, try and get e.g. the MOR 2009 Sanctuary or the s/t 1986 Castle (be aware that the Castle are pre-emphasised).
Yes. I'm aware, and I am a firm believer in never having too much Sabbath around. I will check some of them out eventually. Probably some of the Dio first, but also the classic stuff. Thank you for your recommendation.
I know I am very late to this party. I am pretty sure someone brought this up before, but I don't find that comment anymore, so here's what I have been wondering about regarding the Creative Sounds s/t pre-emphasis tag issue: Is there any evidence, other than its bright sound, that the respective CS s/t (6006 Made in USA, matrix: INTER SERVICE PRESSE DIGIP 6006, I think it is this one: Black Sabbath - Black Sabbath ) was actually supposed to have the PE tag? The background of my question is this: I have listened to several CS releases recently and before, and some of them sound pretty awful in varying ways, incl. what seems to be weird EQ choices, but also simply bad tape sources etc. Accordingly, if a Creative Sounds CD sounds too bright but otherwise good, I just tend to think: "Oh, this sounds surprisingly good, although it does need a little EQ tweaking" rather than "Oh, this must been missing the PE tag". More generally speaking, I can totally imagine that some of the original WB CD releases, or the 2012 remasters (available on 2014 and 2017 digital files and 2016 WB CDs), might benefit from having a PE tag added too; however, at least in case of the 2012 remasters, that's obviously not because they were supposed to have a PE tag, but simply because they have been EQed too bright (for some people's ears, incl. mine). Accordingly, adding a PE tag to any of these would be a way of tweaking the sound, rather than simply correcting an error. Thus, rather than adding a PE tag, I would think that the better method of improving them would be having them EQed. My assumption that that would be better than adding a PE tag is based on my thinking that what the PE tag does is prompt the CD player to apply a certain, global EQ setting, which is identical for all CDs it is applied to. In contrast to that, if we manually change the EQ of a recording, we can better account for the individual characteristics of the specific recording we're working on. On the other hand, of course these threads are about the best available Sabbath CD masterings, NOT about those Sabbath CD masterings that might sound best if we remaster them in a certain way. Adding a PE tag to the CS INTER SERVICE PRESSE DIGIP 6006 might be seen as giving it an unfair advantage over other CD releases we haven't tweaked. I have just done a little test: I compared one song, "Behind the Wall of Sleep", from the Castle 1986, all three Creative Sounds releases I have of the s/t, the 1987 Vertigo, 1987 Warner, the Japan SACD and two very nice needledrops of the original UK LP. The 3 CS releases I tested are these: USA, 6006, matrix: INTER SERVICE PRESSE DIGIP 6006 USA, 6006-2, matrix: 6006-2 Germany, 6006-2, number on disc: 449805-2, matrix: Pilz CD 449805-2 103 In order to be able to switch the PE tag on and off, I used FLAC-rips of all of these and played them on my PC in Foobar with the deemph plugin filter turned on; at the same time, I used MP3tag to add and remove the PE tag to several of these releases whenever I felt like it. Here's my conclusions: (1) The SACD just rules, easily (IMO). (2) Actually the SACD (which is sourced from a flat tape transfer, AFAIK) and the two needledrops sound significantly brighter than the Castle (with deemph filter properly applied to the latter). At the same time, when I remove the PE tag (and thus the deemph filter isn't applied) from the Castle, it sounds significantly brighter than the needledrops and the SACD. With the PE tag, the Castle actually sounds a bit dull for my taste (or maybe "muffled" is the term I am looking for? not being an English native speaker, I am not sure - the opposite of "bright"). (3) I think I can see how you got the idea of adding a PE tag to the CS, especially given that you wanted to combine it with the Castle: Without PE tag, all 3 CS releases sound very bright; with the PE tag, they sound pretty close to the Castle (with PE tag). (4) But - and now it gets interesting - how about adding a PE tag to the Warner and Vertigo as well? Now, actually, with the PE tag added, the Vertigo suddenly sounds pretty close to your CS (with PE tag as well). Obviously, when all aforementioned redbook releases (not the SACD, not the needledrops) are played with PE tag (and thus deemph filter active), they all sound less bright than usual. In this unusual setting, the Warner is still the brightest; the other redbook releases all sound surprisingly close to each other, and all a bit dull/muffled for my taste. At least EQ-wise, the Warner wins this unusual contest of arbitrarily added PE tags against the other redbook CDs involved - simply because it sounds a little less dull/muffled than those. The SACD and the needledrops (without PE tag, of course) are still far ahead all others though. (5) Having removed the PE tag from all but the Castle again, the Warner and the CS releases simply sound much too bright. The Vertigo is less bright, but doesn't really sound right - not sure why. My conclusion: Adding a PE tag to the CS (each one of the 3 I tested) does make it sound much closer to the Castle; but the same goes for the Vertigo and (to a lesser extent) for the WB. If we want to compare these CD releases the way they have been mastered, we should rather not add a PE tag to any of them. If we add a PE tag to the CS, we should add a PE tag to other, similarly bright-sounding releases too; but then, we are not talking about original masterings anymore. And IF we want to tweak them, then proper (reasonable) EQing would give us much better options than adding a PE tag. Thus, I am pretty sure that even the Castle, which is the only one of these CDs that does actually come with pre-emphasis, would sound better if we removed the PE tag and instead did a little EQing, such that it would sound closer to the SACD or original vinyl. My personal favourite version of the s/t would include most tracks of the SACD, an EQed copy of Wicked World from the 2012 remaster, and probably some version of Evil Woman that has yet to be found (given that the SACD version of the song, which otherwise sounds best, shows some tape problems at certain points, as rnranimal has pointed out several times). By the way, I love these threads! Many thanks to you, Roland, they continue to be the best and most comprehensive source on Sabbath CD masterings available on these forums.
I came up with that conclusion (I think) - and please excuse me if I don't remember all the details anymore - because "Master of Reality" on Creative Sounds was the same mastering as the Castle CD once you manually add the PE flag to it. So, I figured if they forgot the PE flag on that CD, they maybe also forgot it on the S/T. I tried it and it sounded so much better. I don't remember all the details, but I am pretty sure I have posted my findings in this forum somewhere.
Thanks for your reply! Aha, that makes sense. I will check it out sometime. What I am also wondering about is: How can we be sure that the original WB (which sounds even brighter than the Castle when played without deemph) and Vertigo were not pre-emphasised as well? (I don't know which companies used PE and up to which year it was done.) EDIT: This (incomplete) list Pre-emphasis (release list) - cdHistory seems to suggest that pre-emphasised CDs were released up to about 1990, and the list includes at least one WB and several Vertigo CDs. So maybe it is a real possibility that the original s/t WB and Vertigo CDs were pre-emphasised, but had the PE tag missing? If so, then maybe those CDs would need to be re-evaluated...?
I remember doing comparisons and finding that the creative sounds cd seemed to me like it could be analog copy of the WB cd. It was extremely similar in sound and both are super bright. CS was more pleasant sounding but that might come from being an analog copy. This is just from memory. Since better sources, imo, have come out I haven't bothered with further comparisons.
Interesting, thanks! Maybe the WB was really pre-emphasised but lacked the PE tag, and the CS guys who did the copy noticed the over-brightness and used a little EQ to remove just a bit of it? Or it was really coincidentally that the high end became slightly reduced (and thus improved) during the transfer.
Warner would not have been using PE encoding when their CD reissue of the first album was issued in 1988. In fact I'm not sure they ever used it even on their earliest CD releases. Also, CS already had issued the album on CD by then. Which isn't to say some later versions on CS didn't copy the WB CD. I have no idea.
I've always leaned towards not making the assumption something was missing the PE, especially something pressed when these were. But I really don't have any evidence to offer in either direction. To me, they are simply extremely bright masterings and I don't care for them with PE or without. The CS is too dull for me with PE and too bright without. And the very similar sound to the WB seems too suspicious to be coincidence. Especially given the mess CS discs are. Seems like they just grabbed whatever source. Now, there is something interesting about the debut and Paranoid CS CDs. However, this is again going from memory and I don't have notes and can't see myself finding time to revisit this matter since these discs no longer interest me. But here's what I remember finding out. And one of the details would go along with the CS debut having been mastered with PE. So maybe. I had two different catalog numbered pressings of the debut and Paranoid. Each had one pressing with -2 added. The -2 pressing of each the debut and Paranoid are brighter than the non -2 pressings. The non-2 pressings had their brightness toned down some but not enough to make them sound normal. And I recall discovering that the -2 Paranoid was the same mastering as the Castle '86 but missing the PE flag (can't remember if it was digitally identical or not). So while the non-2 pressing was less bright, the brightness wasn't reduced enough and now can't have the PE flag added to make it sound right because the brightness was already altered. Of course the debut CS is not the same as the Castle '86, but it also has both a brighter mastering (-2) and the less bright one. I firmly believe that, like Paranoid, the less bright one was altered from the brighter mastering. So when it is said that the debut CS sounds better with a PE flag, that is going to work better with the -2 pressing as the non-2 has already been altered to reduce the brightness some. I personally find even the -2 pressing too dull once the PE flag is added, so adding the PE flag to the non-2 must really make it dull. Basically, the CS discs are a shoddy mess. It's possible there might be a needle in the haystack among them, but I haven't found it and gave up trying. There are multiple masterings for every album I've checked out and no rhyme or reason to them. Also, while I'm quoting the -2 vs non-2 catalog numbers, it's very possible this isn't accurate for all pressings with -2. I can only speak for the pressings I had. I still have the debut -2, so I can post matrix numbers. I may have rips of the others and will check to see if they have any scans with them.
