I looked at his original tutorial thread. Definitely needs updating as the pics are all gone. He is using the same audacity data I am using, just a little differently. Also, unless I missed something, it's not clear whether he is editing the tracks beforehand to level match them or not.
In Audacity Effect>Amplify is non destructive. Try a null test after amplifying and cutting. Level matching though is not that simple. I think some sort of RMS matching would be best. Maybe an expert on the forum can help.
Thanks for all the helpful comments. The fact that COTG is an outlier may partly explain why some people who usually prefer dark masterings don't find the 2012 MOR that bad - I bet that some of them focused on COTG when they checked. Here's two of Kevin's graphs: Roland's favorite CD versions of Black Sabbath albums (part2) Roland's favorite CD versions of Black Sabbath albums (part2)
I’m still unsure between the original WB and the 09’. The 09 has better bottom end, but I find Ozzy’s vocals very harsh on this one. Oddly enough, in contrast to what you said, Ozzy sounds more natural on the WB, imo.
I really like both, which is not too bad. Even though I usually like having one clear preference, having two is quite the luxury, considering how frustrating it is to not have any fully satisfying digital release at all - cf. Paranoid, TE, NSD, Born Again (of course, the problem with the latter is not the mastering but the mix).
For listening purposes, I usually apply ReplayGain "track gain" in Foobar; then select the track, right-click, select "convert", and select the following settings: Output format: WAVE Destination > Name format: "%filename% (track gain applied) Processing > ReplayGain > ... > Source mode: track, Processing: apply gain and click "Convert". I am not sure if that's helpful for the kind of EQ comparison we're discussing now, because ReplayGain adjusts perceived loudness rather than pure volume level. Best, Linda
Normally ReplayGain is used as a non destructive tag. But your method encodes it permanently in the audio file. It does the same as 'Amplify' in Audacity, it actually changes the amplitude.
Maybe I misunderstood what was asked for. I thought we were looking for a method to adjust the volume for for the EQ graphs. And for that purpose, I assumed that just adding a ReplayGain tag to each audio file wouldn't suffice. Just adding ReplayGain tags is what I do if I just want to compare the sound playing the files in Foobar. When I do blind tests, in contrast, I use a different software which, I believe, doesn't read tags, so I have to bake the volume adjustment into the files first.
Your method works for adjusting the amplitude. What I was contemplating was how the levelmatching must be implemented so a 'fair' comparison of EQ frequencies is possible. For example, you could match to the highest or lowest peak above or below a certain frequency, or to some calculated average. I don't know what algorithm ReplayGain applies.
Gain adjustment is a destructive process unless it's an increase in 6.02db increments (which exactly one bit), assuming the audio had that much headroom to give before clipping (which it rarely does). Or if you process the file in 32-bit, I believe you can return it to the original volume (only if it has remained in 32-bit with no dither having been added) and truncate it back to 16-bit or 24-bit but I don't know if I've ever confirmed that. But for our purposes here, gain adjustment is not an issue and won't affect the EQ curve. It's just moving it up/down. Method isn't very important either as long as it's simply adjusting gain. I like to match RMS and then switch between the graphs I'm comparing. I might make adjustments based on where the EQ curves match up if I think it better illustrates where the difference is.
If you boost and cut a 16-bit file in Audacity at 32-bit float, even beyond clipping point, you'll end up with the original bit perfect file.
I had a chance to look at the rest of MoR. Solitude is another track which shows to be the same brightness for both HDtracks and SACD on the graphs. The rest of the tracks were substantially brighter on the HDtracks. Sometimes just treble was boosted and sometimes a wider frequency range was going upward vs the SACD. I didn't look at the 2 short instrumentals.
Any opinions on this early 90's German issue which can be had a lot cheaper: Black Sabbath - Heaven And Hell
It is identical. Grab it. I don’t agree that this version is as good as the Deluxe by Andy Pearce, but unlike NSD, the Spectrum of H&H is a clone of the WG Vertigo.
Thanks, is the consensus that these German versions easily beat the original US CD? I don't hate that CD by the way, recall you really can turn it up loud.
Last I checked, the consensus is that the 2009 remaster by Andy Pearce is best. The original US CD is too damn bright. Way too much top end EQ.
You're right. I've ordered the '93 German version. Probably the only redeeming value of the original US is that it's not overly compressed but it lacks in warmth severely.
It is really hard to say. Most people whose taste I usually share clearly prefer the 2009. I am used to the 1980ies WG Vertigo (probably same mastering as the one that Jam757 mentioned above) because that's the version I've listened to for 20 years, and I find the bass guitar more defined. I would need further listening to the 2009 to really make up my mind.
The WB does have more top end it’s ok sounding The 2009 or the first Japanese Disc are favorites of mine Vertigo/Spectrum also good
How about some brand new Sabbath mastering polls? I am wondering which discs would come out on top? With a lot of different masterings at this point Could be interesting!!!!!
