No dropouts on the any of the 70s LP versions? I'm seeing some Yellow WB Lp's on e-bay? Thanks for the reply BTW
Is that the Castle 1996 remaster you're referring to? What do those who have the Castle 1996 remaster think of its comparative (to other issues they've heard) SQ? .
Yes. It's wasn't bad sounding, but I recall it being somewhat bright and hard sounding. Also, I think the channels were flipped. I find the 2009 to be far superior.
How does the newest Vol 4 Rhino CD from 2016 compare to the other issues, like especially the original silver Warner CD? I went back and saw a few opinions in general. Just wondering if anyone did any direct A/B comparisons.
The 2016 cd isn’t as bright as the original Warner, to be sure. However, it’s still too much high end for my liking. If you’re looking for the best bang for your buck, go with the 2009.
AFAIK, the Sabbath SACDs that do sound good (s/t, MOR, Vol4 and SBS) are flat transfers of original UK master tapes, NOT remastered. Actually IMO these 4 sound amazing.
Doesnt really matter. Its a great album, but a sonic turd. Maybe worse than classic Deep Purple. And thats saying something!
I hope you will like it. (Sorry for being late, I only just came across this thread.) If I remember correctly, the 2009 remaster and the 1986 Castle are the best-sounding Redbook CD releases of this album. The two are still pretty different though. The 2012 remaster used on the 2014 and 2017 LP box sets and digital files as well as on the 2016 CDs is so bright it just makes me wanna run away. Yes, it has a lot of details, and I can see how some people like it. It's just way too far removed from what the album originally was supposed to sound like (as documented by early LP releases and the flat tape transfer on the SACD - it's a pity that the SACD version has never been released on Redbook). I also think that "details" are not necessarily a good thing per se. Some details were meant to be just that, minor: possibly inaudible details. When a recording is remastered in such a way as to throw those details in my face, they are not really "details" anymore, and they are likely to distract me from those characteristics of the recording that were originally meant to be in focus. Some elements of a recording serve it better when they're in the background. Let us know how you like the 2009 remaster when you have it. In case you don't, you might consider getting the 1986 Castle: Black Sabbath - Black Sabbath Vol 4
Good move, it's the pick of the CD versions I've owned. It's refreshing in that it doesn't have to be complicated for this one. The original Castle isn't some lost treasure in my opinion, so don't spend heaps on it if you're thinking of trying one.
Does the 2009 cd version sound closest to the original Warner greenie LP? If not, which one would you say does?
I'm probably going to get a 2009, but I'm also open to an original US Warner silver face, if I come across one. Vol 4 is one of my favorites from the Ozzy lineup, so to me, can't really have too many versions. It's fun doing shootouts from time to time too. I remember the 80s/90 US cassette (with bar code) sounding pretty decent, not sure the source. Wondering if its source was the same as the original US CD. I'd buy a cassette copy if I saw one. Never do.
I had the cassette in the 80’s ( without the barcode) and it sounded great, from what I can remember of it, anyway. The original WB cd is a different story... it’s completely bereft of any low end; very harsh and shrill sounding. If you want the cd to do a first hand comparison, go for it. Otherwise, don’t waste your money. I’m almost positive that the cassette tape came from a different source... can anyone confirm?
I doubt the source was different. The difference is the mastering. Most of the original Warner CDs clearly added a lot of top end and on some of the albums it really sounded awful. Vol. 4 was probably the worst. I also wonder what kind of EQ Warner’s house team was using by the late 80’s. Some of their CD releases from that period sound really shrill to me.
Was there a particular reason why this was done? E.g.(why would they not have kept the mastering the same as the cassette tape, or for that matter, the original vinyl pressing?). Perhaps the mastering engineers who did the cd were tone deaf! Lol
No idea, but I think at the time one of the theories for CD being pushed was how clear they could sound. Seems by the late 80’s WB was really boosting the treble on some of their catalog.
Just found an original US WB Van Halen 1984 CD. When was that issued, I wonder? Good Lord that have some top end! I also did pick up a Sabbath Bloody Sabbath US original cd, same store, but seems to have less top end, but it certainly wasn't dull.
I have the original WB cd for SBS that I bought when it first came out... it’s not bad, but my go to version is the 86 Castle.
It says on the link that the release of the album was 1984. Also, I would be surprised if any domestic CD pressing of 1984 was released prior to Warner's Olyphant plant switching to CDs in 1986.
You're right, I overlooked the note in the very beginning of the list: That's a new one for me on Discogs - I was familar with false release dates, but not with false release dates being generally pointed out on the list for all releases of an album, rather than being corrected. Sorry for the misconception.
