Yeah, the RMS values can vary slightly even on digitally identical discs. I've seen it before. My guess is that the value is right on the fence of being rounded up or down and an offset difference between the discs causes the averaging of the RMS across the track to change ever so slightly.
I am not very savvy using Audacity but do have the software on my computer. Would you be so kind to provide instructions on how to reduce the volume by 30%?
I mostly use Goldwave as an editor but I also use Audacity for ripping vinyl. I'll check and PM you in the next day or so.
Is there an audible issue you're hearing associated with azimuth or are you just talking about the delay between channels?
Simply press the mono button and you will recognize a weird and washy / burbling sound in the treble range.
Thanks, I find this all very interesting! Does that mean that the washy/burbling sound in the treble ranger is there even if I listen in mono, just less noticeable? Or is in an artifact that really only occurs in mono? And either way, will it automatically disappear when the offset between the left and right channel is corrected, or does correction require more?
It is audible in mono only. Yes, if you fix the azimuth with special software, it will sound perfect (even in mono).
I messaged you how to accomplish this. For anyone else who uses Audacity and is familiar with it, set the New Peak Amplitude for Wicked World TUC version to -3.5 and save the track. This will get you the 30 percent reduction, and will sync up with the other tracks for the de-emphasized '86 Castle.
Yeah, I can definitely hear it in mono. And then it sounds fine in mono if I correct the delay first. But I can't hear a difference in stereo before vs after adjusting for the delay so I'm not finding it to be an issue for me. Also, I've found delays of similar amount (1-3 or more) on different masterings of the 1st album. The 2009 has them on every track except Evil Woman. The HDtracks only has it on some and the delays are shorter (usually about 1 sample @44.1khz). Of the US based WW digital releases, the Creative Sounds 6006 had the most delay (2.8 samples) and Black Box had the least (0.5).
In hunt for the best Heaven And Hell on CD, I compared different pressings and would like to know your opinions here: UIGY-9088 (2012 SACD): Once recommended by RJStauber as the best available pressing, I bought it and... was not really blown away, but not disappointed. It's a good sounding, but rather midrangey version. Given the amount of detail and balance, I could imagine it's a flat transfer from the original mixdown tapes. It really could use more bass, but it's not bad in any way. What puzzles me is that nobody mentions it anymore here. Do you guys really think it is THAT bad? 830 171-2 (1987 WG Vertigo): The original pressing, so to say, as it was one of my fist CDs. You refer a lot to it, so I took it out for comparison again. The detail is great, and given it's age (1987), most probably this was done with the original vinyl master tapes at hand. Interestingly, discogs says "remastered", and indeed, I feel (before I read it in discogs) this version was slightly EQed for pleasing the ear. I'd say it has a really nice sound, but it also sounds a bit shaped and less alive. I'm not satisfied wth my wording here, and it's all very subtle - little things you notice while comparing, you know. 2735073 (2010 deluxe edition): A friend lent me his copy as I wanted to compare it with my pressings - you tend to agree here this might be the best version (this one or the WG). Well, I must say I was rather surprised when I heard it! It's really bass-driven, and while it's a recording that benefits from more bass, I think it's just too bassy: It's not sounding muddy, but a bit like a blanket pulled over the record - again, VERY subtle and not making it unlistenable AT ALL! Like it has been said before, we're blessed with the fact that there is no real stinker with all the different pressings, it's just, IF you differ, than you have to differ. ALMOST no detail gets lost in comparison to the SACD, it's just soaked in a very warm environment with the consequence you feel the high frequencies are pushed aside - on a regular stereo much more than on my Presonus 4.5 studio monitors! Could it be THIS is a flat transfer from the original mixdown tapes (and not, like I thought before, the SACD) that was then "tamed" in order to create the vinyl? From my point of view, the lows/lower mids are simply a tad too prominent here. Yes, Sabbath should not sound too harsh, and this sound ain't muddy at all, but a little less could have been more here. So, I'm not satisfied by 100% with any of the releases - SACD rather harsh, WG EQed, and deluxe too warm. Of course it's all down to personal opinions, but I'm having a hard time to decide here, and I just would like to know your thoughts regarding mine. BTW, what's the updated consensus for "Mob Rules" here?
IMO, those are all very accurate descriptions of how those discs sound and imo, there is no clear best digital release. But if you can hunt them down, I'd suggest having a listen to the 32PD-129 Japan CD and maybe the HDtracks to see how you think those sound. I've settled on the '10 because I just could not longer take the bright and light bottom of other masterings. I have an original US LP and it sounds quite good but leans towards bright/bottom light so I think that's the basic tone of this album. When comparing the SACD and 32PD-129 to my LP years ago, I found that they were similar sounding. The SACD and 32PD-129 were brighter and leaner in the bottom, but had the same basic overall feel and since I was using a cartridge that was known to lean warm, I figured that was helping the LP correct those problems a bit and that a totally neutral playback of the vinyl would probably yield close results to the SACD and 32PD-129. At that time, I found the '10 to be just too boosted in the bottom and too dulled in the top. It sounded nothing like the LP. But over time, I just wasn't enjoying listening to the SACD or 32PD-129 (which is a little less bright than the SCAD). It didn't matter that they came closest to the LP because I just didn't enjoy listening to them. So I gave the '10 another chance and it was refreshing to have bottom and not have a piercing top end. I do not believe it's anywhere near a flat transfer. I think it was a matter of Andy Pearce's style at that time. He also made the debut album sound darker than any other release. The SACD was not a flat transfer of the mix down tape either. It may've been a flat transfer, it's not stated, but it would've used a Japanese tape copy. Possibly the one they used for the early Japanese CDs. No digital release has the right balance, imo. There's too bright vs too dull. Mob Rules- I think both the WB CD and the '10 are great choices.
Thank you very much, very interesting! Are you sure that Roland aka RJStauber ever recommended the HaH SACD? If so, I must have missed that, last time I checked he recommended the Deluxe 2xCD. The SACD does not seem to be very well-liked by most people here. Rnranimal is right that it is very likely sourced from Japanese tape (same situation as with the Paranoid SACD); what is surprising to me, though, is how different the SACD sounds from the Japan 32PD-129. But I guess that the tape's being about 26 years older, plus different transfer equipment and settings, might be responsible for that. As for the Deluxe 2xCD, IIRC, several people suggested that it sounded relatively 'flat'. I agree with rnranimal that's likely just because Pearce mastered it very dark (opposite approach to his 2012 remasters); I feel that some of those who prefer darker sound tend to equate 'dark' with 'original' or 'flat', while in fact some of the original LPs sound less dark than e.g. some of the 1986 Castle CDs. I am usually leaning towards a darker sound too, but to my ears the Deluxe does sound darker than the LP-rips I've heard. My HaH shootouts will likely include the WG Vertigo, the Deluxe 2xCD, the Japan 32PD-129, the SACD and the HDtracks, but that will likely not happen very soon. As for Mob Rules, most people here seem to prefer the original WB CD. The Deluxe 2xCD has its fans too - and a great bonus disc in case you haven't got the Hammersmith live recording already. Recently someone recommended the original Vertigo CD to me, and I would like to check out the HDtracks as well.
My memory was that they weren't very different (but with the SACD being noticeably brighter), so I'll need to revisit these two.
They sounded like they could indeed be from the same tape, but with significantly different EQ. And IIRC, you were right and the SACD was brighter. I think the main reason why I was puzzled was that a friend had told me that SACDs were usually from flat tape transfers because otherwise the recording would have to be converted from PCM to DSD after the mastering - which, according to my friend, was usually avoided. So when I listened to the SACD and it sounded very EQed, I was confused. Anyway, I am always interested in your opinion, so please go ahead and compare.
Nope.... the SACD was mastered from an Japan analog tape. P.S. I don't like the sound of the SACD. I do prefer the LP.
There's been a lot of funniness with SACD releases due to the limitations of mastering in DSD. Some are converted to PCM for processing, some have just sections converted (like beginnings and endings where NR was used), some were simply transferred and mastered in PCM and then converted to SACD. But then of course there are others which were true DSD transfers all the way. One way to achieve that is to just issue a flat transfer, but then another is to use analog EQ during the transfer. I know early on only basic editing was available for DSD but I'm not sure what was available by the time the Sabbath SACDs were done.
First of all, thank you for your kind reply! I can't find Roland's post, maybe I mistook it with his recommendation for the Rainbow Rising SACD? Anyway, nice to see you know what I'm talking about! As for the 32-PD, I definitely won't look for that one (too risky of being a waste of SOME money). I want something as close as possible to the mixdown tapes here - besides, you say it uses the same tapes as the SACD, so there's really no appetizing. Most likely, I will check out the HDtracks version. I also want to thank you for the Mob Rules recommendation - is there a difference between European Vertigo (830 777-2, mastered by Gert van Hoeyen) and the US WB? I couldn't find any info on discogs...
You're welcome. I'm only guessing that the SACD and 32PD may've used the same tapes. I do think the 32PD sounds better than the SACD but not enough that I'd recommend paying big money for it. I still personally find the HDtracks to be too bright so I wouldn't recommend buying it without hearing it first. At least listen to the samples on the site first. The WB and Verigo are different and I like the WB better. But I like the '10 better than both of them.
Well well... Heaven And Hell isn't on HDTracks anymore, at least not in Germany... as for now, the DE seems to be my future go-to version... I really was hoping there would be a definitive consensus here, but no. Okay, there are worse things in life. And for Mob Rules, I'll check the DE, also in my friend's possession.
I don't know about other bands, but I am not aware of any Sabbath album for which there is really a consensus on the best mastering. My impression is that the original WB CD is the forum favorite for MR and the Deluxe 2xCD is the forum favorite for HaH, but I haven't really counted votes, plus it is possible that I am unconsciously giving priority to the votes of people who I know better or like better than others. ;-) And there are of course people who find the HaH Deluxe too dark-sounding (or feel, like I do, that the bass guitar sounds better on the WG Vertigo CD), or say that the MR WB sounds not laid-back enough enough or whatever, just as there are people who find the s/t SACD too bright or not 'smooth' enough... Damn, I have even heard of people who dislike the MOR SACD (which is insane IMO), or like the Vol4 2012 remaster (which I find equally insane). Even among those who are mostly leaning towards darker sound (like Roland, rnranimal, Tim, Kevin, or me), there isn't that much of a consensus. LOL, if there were, this thread would probably have been closed looooong ago.