Ok I started listening to the original WB Paranoid the volume spike around the 3:00 mark does not really bother me as the tracks after it stay about the same in volume. The source for the WB discs in general just seems better than the 1986 castle cds although the WB cds in general are bright sounding. But not to bad in my opinion. I still think the 1988-90 WB discs sound better than the compressed,bright and at times bloated 2016 remasters.
I believe my UK Spaceship label of Paranoid does not have the drop outs, I'll confirm tonight. My go to for this album has always been that LP and I love the stereo mix from quad in the 2016 deluxe box set.
Thanks. I never listened to the WB Paranoid, hopefully I'll get to that sometime. I don't think the 2012 remasters (on the 2016 CDs) are compressed. Super-bright, yes. Reduced bass stereo image, yes. Compressed, no.
Very, very bright. I just quickly compared to needledrops of both the US and UK LP again, and yes, the 2016 Paranoid CD is very, very bright in comparison.
Yes, please let us know about the Spaceship LP. The Vertigo Swirl 1st UK pressing needledrops I checked don't have the drop-outs. Yes, the 2016 Quad > stereo downmix is very nice! The 1985 CD with the awful Nazi SS logo on the cover? Black Sabbath - The Sabbath Collection Here's 3 WAV samples: Samples
How do those 2016 discs have such good midrange without being compressed? Master Tape being used? Then they just boosted the crap out of the treble and bass then? To me the 2016's seem like goosed versions of the Original WB cds The Castle 86's, 33pd and the Sacd's seem to be similar as far as mastering and volume Intercords and the 09's (the good ones) also seem to be fairly similar I think the 09 Paranoid had it been done right would probably be similar to the Intercord? Reasonable assessment? What are your preferred masterings for there albums studio and live? I don't think I saw you post that anywhere
Yes! I couldn't agree more. And that's something that applies to so many remastered CDs out there, something plenty of us had to learn the hard way.
Yep! And I would like to add that it doesn't just apply to remastered CDs, but can equally apply to LPs and non-remastered CDs - as the case at hand confirms.
I am planning a Sabotage shootout. It's one of my favorite albums, yet I never compared multiple releases. The 1986 Castle CD has the tape damage on 2 songs, which seems to leave me with the 2009 remaster, original WB CD... any other digital release I should check out? And which old LP release is recommended for that album? I would like to include one LP-transfer in the shootout as a reference. Suggestions are welcome!
Best CD: 2009 Remaster. Best vinyl: Original NEMS + Holland 1987 VERTIGO pressing (same sound, but on better vinyl) !!! By the way: It is also my favourite album
It's gotta be the 2009 for me (although admittedly I haven't heard a creative version). The 2009 is just the most consistent and tonally balanced option to my ears. I occasionally pick up the castle 86 but the tape damage is just too much of an issue for me.
Yes the 1986 Castle has a bit of tape damage on 2 tracks, still I think it is a very good one to use in a compare. At least for me I like a mix of the 86 Castle, original WB and the 2009 Pearce. I believe I posted my results elsewhere in this long thread?
Yeah, there were two many questions at once that I either felt unable to answer, or at least didn't feel I was the right person to ask (there are a lot of people here with way more expertise, let alone insider knowledge, than I). Also, I feel that the answers to some of your questions can already be found in this thread. Anyway, I'll try: I am not even aware that one (good midrange) has anything to do with the other (being compressed). What I know is: the 2012 remasters are not compressed. This has been answered several times already: we don't know if the master tapes were used. Rnranimal and probably others have already said it several times in this thread: on the one hand, Universal claimed the 2012 remasters were from the master tapes, on the other hand, Pearce claimed they chose the best-sounding ones from multiple tapes, in which case tape generation would be unknown. We do know (again, from multiple earlier posts from multiple people) that those remasters are very bright and have the bass stereo image reduced (thanks again to Sathvyre for pointing that out). They may sound to you like that, but as you surely noticed reading the posts in this thread, they are fresh tape transfers, so no. ? I don't think so. ? I am only aware of two Intercord Sabbath CDs, SBS and Paranoid. I haven't given a closer listen to SBS yet, but Paranoid is very different IMO. So, no. ? Again, how would I know? I have never posted my preferences for ALL Sabbath albums (or 1970ies' Sabbath album). But I have mentioned multiple times that the SACDs of the s/t, MOR, Vol4 and SBS are my favorite digital versions of those albums so far (though the s/t SACD is missing Wicked World, so that one has to be added from one of the US releases - probably the 2014 HDtracks, the 2016 WB CD or the original WB CD). I have also mentioned multiple times that the Deluxe of H&H is great and well-liked, but I still like the original WG Vertigo maybe a tad better (possibly because that's how I have listened to the album a Billion times). For Paranoid, I have done several shoot-outs lately, and the Intercord CD has always won. As for The Eternal Idol, I prefer either the Deluxe or the original Vertigo CD, currently I am leaning a little towards the Deluxe. Last time I checked, my favourite CD release of NSD was the Spectrum. Mob Rules: original WB CD or Deluxe, not sure yet. Live Evil: probably the original WB CD or the Deluxe, but IIRC, maybe something was wrong with the Deluxe... Born Again: PHCR-2054 or possibly the Deluxe, not sure yet. Dehumanizer: HDtracks hi-res version. For all other albums, I haven't done any systematic comparisons yet. Thank you all for your very helpful comments! ricks, I found the following earlier comments of yours suggesting a hybrid if the original WB CD (SotU and Megalomania) and the 1986 Castle (all other tracks) is your favorite version, and you found the 2009 remaster decent. Now your last comment suggested a hybrid of all 3 releases? Which songs from which? Thanks again!
In the 90's the band released a 3-disc set featuring almost all of the first six albums (like one or two songs was omitted from each record), and those are the versions I have been listening to ever since. They all sound great to me. Where do those rate on the scale for sound quality?
It has been stated multiple times that the 33pd and Castle 86 Paranoid sound similar but that the 33pd sounds clearer. The Castle 86 discs and the Sacd discs seem fairly similar sounding except the whole pre emphasis debacle. They seem to be the less futzed with discs. That has also been stated here a few times
I am not sure about that. The most important thing is: Do YOU think it sounds clearer? For me, it does not matter that much anymore because I like the Intercord better AND a little clearer than both the Castle and the 33PD. Is that something you notice when you're comparing those releases, or just something you read here? Also, are you talking about all 6 Sabbath SACDs, or just some of them? The 1986 Castle CDs and the 4 SACDs that I like do seem to to be less futzed with alright, but that doesn't automatically make them sound similar; anyway, it also depends on what you mean with 'similar', of course. They may sound more similar to each other than they sound to other releases, but there may still be important differences. They have been transferred with different settings and technology, the tapes may sound different because they have been in store for decades, and it is even possible that different tapes were used (e.g. copy tapes for the Castle CDs and master tapes for the SACDs of the s/t, MOR, Vol4 and SBS). To me, the Castle CDs and the SACDs do sound different, even though they sound certainly closer to each other than e.g. the Vol4 2012 remaster of Vol4 sounds to the Castle CD. Anyway, my main objection against your original post was that you said "similar as far as mastering and VOLUME": AFAIK, the volume of SACDs (or it is only SACD>PCM rips?) is always significantly lower than the volume of redbook CDs. That's simply to differences between digital audio technologies (DSD vs. PCM). If your SACD>CD rips have a similar volume level as the Castle CDs, that's because the person who did the rip adjusted the volume. In any case, it has nothing to do with mastering similarities or differences. What's your point in emphasizing the similarities between the Castle CDs and the SACDs (and again, which SACDs anyway?) so much? Do YOU find them to sound very similar?
Yes the good Sacd's against the Castle 86 discs overall tonality is closest to any other Cd's Plus the good 2009's
