Black Sabbath CD's - 86 Castles vs. 2016 Remasters

"Black Sabbath CD's - 86 Castles vs. 2016 Remasters" specifically & "Black Sabbath" dynamic range ratings in general.

 

For SBS on CD, how would you rate the 86’ Castle, the original WB and the 2016 in relation to one another? I have these and like them all.

 

The Black Sabbath SHM-SACDs are better as the Castle CDs. Period

 

I find the SHM-SACD of Vol. 4 particularly good; it's way better than any other CD version IMO. It sounds like some really good vinyl pressings I've heard but even better. The only thing with the Black Sabbath SACDs is that they're all very quiet, even quieter than most original masterings (not sure if that's an SACD characteristic since I don't own many). As for Sabbath SACDs, I only own Vol. 4 at the moment, but I've heard them all. I ripped the SACD to FLAC and amplified the album by about 3.3db (the wave forms were SUPER tiny). I'm sure that's sacrilege to some folks, but I can finally crank it on my system and rock out.

 

SACD are lower volume by design. I believe the standard was supposed to be 6db lower that would be made up upon decoding but a lot have less than 6db headroom to spare. I recall the Sabbath SACDs all having less. No shame in raising gain to close up wasted headroom. I did the same.

 

Right on, thanks for the explanation! And I feel a bit better knowing I didn't commit an audiophile cardinal sin lol.

 

I really like the Black Box, I think it's unfairly deemed as unlistenable crap, but I don't find that to be the case at all. It's compressed and loud but it has it's place IMO. For low-mid range systems (that don't amplify original masterings enough), car stereos, MP3 players the BB really comes in handy IMO. I got it upon release because I just couldn't get my US WB copy of Vol. 4 loud enough in the car. When the box arrived my expectations were surpassed by just how good and powerful all the albums sounded in my car.

While the 2016 remasters have replaced the BB versions of the first three albums for me, I've kept Vol. 4, SBS, Sabotage, and Technical Ecstasy (I don't like the BB NSD). They're great when you need a little extra "oomph". For those particular albums the BB offers a nice alternate "flavor" compared to the 2009 or 2016 versions. And like you said, the BB version of Vol. 4 is as clear as you'll ever hear it. In fact, the BB Vol. 4 is right behind the SACD as far as my favorites versions go.

 

After reading this...I'm glad I stored it, rather than sold it.
I'm curious about Vol. 4 and SBS since you (and Vinyl Fan 1973) enjoy the mastering.

 

That’s quite a departure from the severe bullocking The Black Box received here in the past, that’s for sure... What changed?

 

Nothing has changed for me. It's still just as bad as ever. Copy tapes, terrible EQ, compressed and limited to death.

 

Most people still hate it lol. And I totally get it...I mean, it's very compressed and limited. But I think it still serves a purpose specifically because of the compression. I wouldn't want them as my only copies of the Ozzy era, but they've come in handy for certain applications (cars and mp3 players mainly). Some of the Black Box albums (like Vol. 4) sound completely different than any other CD or LP version....which people either love or hate. They're just a cool alternative IMO. Not all remasters serve this purpose well though, like certain Judas Priest or Iron Maiden remasters for example; with a couple of exceptions there's no use at all for those.

 

This is greatly exaggerated. Vol 4, SBS, Sabotage and TE sound good. Hell im listening to Sabotage now, Ozzy’s vocals are so clear, the bass emphasized, and the guitars sound crunchy.

I agree that the debut, Paraonid and MOR do nothing for me, but I don’t get the outright hate for the mastering on the other albums. Are they the best? No, but they offer up another option and it’s clearly enjoyable.

Let’s put it this way. I’ve heard much worse where I couldn’t make it through two songs. This box isn’t that.

 

It's not an exaggeration in the least. Copy tapes and low DR are simply fact. The EQ being terrible is my opinion, but the treble is really jacked up.

Hearing much worse isn't a great defense. But if you like it, that's fine. We all have different tastes. Mine are the complete opposite of the Black Box. The only mastering sin that one didn't hit was NR (that I recall).

 

Anyone know what the deal is with the Castle box set from 1991 called "The Ozzy Osbourne Years"...

Black Sabbath - The Ozzy Osbourne Years

It's a 3 disc set with their first 6 albums except each one has a couple of songs missing. It's a weird set as it's a nearly complete collection but not quite, one more disc would have done it.

Anyway, it's a set I've got and it's not the same mastering as the original Castles (I've got a couple of CLASCD versions from the 80s), anyone know what mastering it uses.

 

A buddy of mine has that one. It's sourced from substandard tapes and doesn't sound as good as the original Castles or even the US WB discs IMO. Sorry, not to trash your set, I'm just passing along what I've read here and also by what I learned comparing it to other masterings.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but for the 4 albums I like from the Black Box, I like them despite the "shortcomings". They were advertised as being from master tapes, but since I know things aren't always as they're advertised I'll take your word about the copy tapes. Perhaps they are from master US tapes, which I've heard are copies. And yes, they are compressed, but they don't bother me like most compressed remasters. So even if it's not that much of an exaggeration I find they still serve a purpose. That's just my opinion though, I understand not everyone feels the same way.

 

That's cool. I don't have a problem with people liking what they like. I was just stating my feelings on the set.

Yes, they are from the US tapes which are copies. They get pretty loose with the "master tape" labeling.

 

No worries. I'd compared the few original Castles I have two to the 91 box and heard they weren't as good already. I'd like a full set of CASCDs but as it is I've only got a few.

 

Everything is a sacrilege or cardinal sin to at least a few people, but that alone is not a good reason to not do it. AFAIK, SACD-rips do indeed need their levels to be increased when ripped to PCM/redbook, see rnanimal's comment. I did it with his help. Nothing bad about it at all. The alternative would be to use the volume control of your amplifier. I am pretty sure that doing it digitally is better.

Exactly. Some people have always liked the Black Box. Some have always hated it. Some were probably in the middle. And maybe a few changed their minds, but I don't believe that opinions on the Black Box have generally shifted in a different direction.

Outside this forum and even among some people on this forum, strongly compressed releases are quite popular, not least because they do sound crunchy etc. I did like that myself, until I noticed the strain on my ears when I listened for longer than a minute, the lack of room for my ears to 'breathe' etc.

'Worse' or 'better' does of course depend on taste - if the Black Box does not sound bad to you, I am totally fine with that. Objectively, there is at least one aspect in which the Black Box does stand out: all in all, it contains the most highly compressed versions of most of the 1970ies Sabbath albums. Three examples:
Album list - Dynamic Range Database
Album list - Dynamic Range Database
Album list - Dynamic Range Database

And the difference in dynamic range to what I consider to be better releases of the same albums is huge. Obviously, if you like, or don't mind, compression, the Black Box's being compressed won't bother you. But for someone who really cannot stand compression, there's hardly any reason to NOT hate the Black Box.

 

A bit off topic here, but since I’m the thread starter, I figured... what the hell! Check out this book... I’m presently reading it - pretty cool. It’s on sale at the moment, so it might be just the the thing as a stocking stuffer for the Sabbath fanatic in your life...

https://www.amazon.ca/Black-Sabbath...ng+by+song&dpPl=1&dpID=51BuF8UFQML&ref=plSrch

 

Good points. It’s important to note that the albums I said I enjoyed in the black box have the best DR values compared to the other CDs in the box. The albums with the worst DR values, the debut, Paranoid and MOR, are the ones I don’t care for.

Vol 4, SBS, Sabotage and TE I feel sound just fine, I can crank them and they provide a clarity and crunch that I really appreciate. Also, the DR for those albums vary which is really frustrating. Each song ranges from 8 all the way to a 13 for some tracks. Why they couldn’t maintain a healthy DR all the way through, I’m not sure. To me a DR value of 8-9-10 isn’t reason to not listen. I’ve seen releases with DR 2 and 4.

I understand that some of the EQ choices won’t work for everyone, and perhaps I’m lucky that these CDs sound nice on my system. Either way I feel the albums I mentioned have their place in my collection and when I want that presentation I’ll pull them out.

 

To me it seems more natural to compare the DR of an album to the other releases available of the same album. A drop from DR11 or 12 to 8 (SBS, Sabotage) or 9 (Vol4), or from 13 to 9 (TE) is very serious. And I fail to see how the fact that the Loudness War has created masterings (including Sabbath's "13" and Heaven & Hell's "The Devil You Know", both DR5) with even much lower DR values than these makes any difference to that. My reference in terms of DR are not such horrible masterings, but masterings of the same album from the times before the Loudness War began.

I fully agree that DR is not everything. The reason why I focused on DR in my previous post was that DR values are easy accessible and not very hard to interpret. Along with the other defects that rnranimal has mentioned (copy tapes, EQ, compression and limiting), we have several rather objective ways in which the Black Box deviates from the sound these recordings were originally supposed to sound like (as exemplified by early vinyl releases and some early CD releases).

Again, this does of course not imply that you cannot like the Black Box, or parts of it. It's just that for me, the original 1970ies sound is a significant part of what I like about early Sabbath albums in the first place. So personally I prefer releases that are not missing or corrupting that sound.

 

I'm glad I don't like BS enough to collect their CDs, seems like a mess.

 

Take an album like Vol 4 for instance. One could argue that the murky sound, is the sound of the album, sound intended by the band, etc etc, but as a big fan of that album, hearing the version from the BB is really cool. It allows you to hear more details that is a little harder to do with other versions. I can't even get into the debate of the best sounding version because that is all down to perception.

I have spoken to fans that love the original UK vinyl and other fans that don't like that presentation at all. Others like the veiled sound of the US greenie label vinyl, others don't. Some say the SACD is the best they have ever heard the album, I've read others state their fave is the Pearce remaster. It goes on and on.

Since we can't have a debate on which is the best sounding, we could at least talk about the differences between all the versions out there, and why we might prefer one over the other. In truth I've never been a big fan of the SOUND of Vol 4, but it is my fave album. I love the songs and the playing. I would say when I want to really listen to the album, I'm probably going to grab the Rhino vinyl done by Chris Bellman. I think it's fantastic and a well rounded presentation. When I want to remove that little bit of veil or muddiness I'll play the BB version because no other version gives you that perspective, that clarity. None. DR values be damned, I just don't care.

If I put something on and I can listen all the way through and get something out of it, then all the DR values and graphs and bla bla bla mean very little.

The funniest thing to me is reading comments from people that crap all over the BB, go on and on about DR values and yet never heard the damn thing.

I'm hear to say the BB isn't that bad, and no a drop from 11 to 9 isn't that serious, if you care about such things. I've heard plenty of CD's that sound great and the DR is anywhere from 8-10. A DR value drop of 12 to 4, now that is serious.

People go on and on about how much they love the Steve Hoffman remastered Metallica albums for Ride and Puppets. Have you seen the DR values for those??

 

Excellent post. I feel the only true measure of what sounds good and what doesn’t are one’s own two ears. DR values are merely a guide... as you’ve said, you can have one remaster of an album with an almost infinite number of opinions. That said, I choose to listen for myself.

Some examples... I happen to like the sound of some of Iron Maiden’s 98 remasters, such as Killers, Piece Of Mind and Live After Death. Others will say all the 98’s are a compressed mess. I feel that the sound of Motörhead’s remaster of Orgasmatron sounds just as good as my GWR copy, but some may disagree.

Then, we also have the added variable of listening equipment. What sounds good on one system may sound like crap on another. In short, it’s all somewhat subjective. This site has given me some valuable insight on which version of various releases is worth having, and which to discard. At the end of the day though, I’m the one who’s listening to the music, no one else. As such, I’ll consider all opinions equally, but will still decide for myself.