They differ only in offset. Re-read my previous reply: Basically, every track has a few samples of silence added or removed somewhere. It is 100% irrelevant for the sound. These are 100% identical masterings, and the files are 100% digitally identical after correcting for offset. (And again, they aren't even good masterings.)
Thanks for the information. Maybe it will be а good idea to make a reference table with the data in which edition which remaster is used? It will help avoid similar question as mine in future
That could certainly be helpful. If you like, start a thread for it, beginning with what you know; others will add, and you should from time to time post an updated table with their info added. I will certainly contribute.
Yeah, always a good idea to avoid over-listening. I already did that with Iron Man. For a long time, I didn't notice those drop-outs myself (they are on my Castle Legends 1991 CD too, as well as on the 1986 Castle), but since I learned about them, I cannot really un-hear them any more. Oh well... Looking forward to any further comparisons you will carry out, this one was a great read.
Yeah, I had a few too many beers the other night which resulted in me having a mild bout of tinnitus yesterday. Not the best thing for critical listening. Doh! Still a bit ringy, but I should be back to it soon.
Yes, I can hear the dropouts on Iron Man. The first one would sound like it’s part of the guitar sound (if there weren’t other versions to compare it to). The second one is the worst and sounds like classic tape dropout. The third is noticeable but not too bad. Does it bother me? Not too much. I could live with it. Here’s my evaluations of the rest of the samples you sent. I must say it’s mostly all subjective (bar the compression) and will no doubt sound different on other people’s sound systems. This is what it sounds like to me on mine: Masters Of Reality - Into The Void 1. 2009 Sanctuary This appears to be the most compressed of the three. The sound ain’t bad though. It’s bright but not so much as to ruin to music. Quite punchy and in yer face and to my ears perhaps the “heaviest” sounding of the three CD versions. Has some bottom end. 2. 2011 Japan SHM-SACD The least compressed of the three, It sounds a bit thin after hearing the Sanctuary version, but there’s more clarity and air in the sound which makes it more percussive in a way. 3. 2016 Warner - Rhino This is the warmest sounding to me which is a bit surprising. It doesn’t jump out of the speakers quite like the Sanctuary version, nor have the clarity, but I quite like it. The vocals sound natural and it still has plenty of oomph overall although it could be a bit more punchy. Only one song to compare, so it’s hard to give a recommendation for the whole album. What’s interesting is that in all three versions the volume peaks are at different points in the song. In all of these comparisons the CD’s sound quite different to each other, which is a bit startling to me. I thought in buying an album you got what everyone else got. That is until I joined the forum. Vol 4 - Tomorrow’s Dream / St Vitus Dance 1. 2009 Sanctuary Fat fat fat. A big midrange wallop. Vocals are somewhat screechy, but that’s Ozzy I guess. Overall pretty good, just weirdly fat, especially the guitar on St Vitus Dance. Less top end (cymbals & the suchlike) than the others compared. 2. 2012 Japan SHM-SACD The least compressed and most natural sounding of the three. It grooves and the music really gels together, especially the bass drum which is clear and punchy. Top end is bright and clear, yet the vocals sit back a bit, albeit still a tad screechy in places. I found myself drifting off and enjoying the music to this version more than the other two. Great. But it’s not nearly so fat as the Sanctuary version. 3. 2016 Warner - Rhino The most compressed of the three. It’s also the brightest. The guitars on this are fizzier, but the whole thing sounds indistinct and difficult to listen to. The least palatable version to my ears. The middle section of Tomorrows Dream is particularly horrible sounding. Sabbath Bloody Sabbath - Killing Yourself To Live 1. 2009 Sanctuary Again, a fat sounding CD. It has an almost live feel to it as it’s punchy sounding and the guitars are thick with bottom end. It’s not particularly hyped in the top end. I like it. 2. 2012 Japan SHM-SACD Wonderful. Even Ozzy sounds well balanced. Again, this one’s the least compressed version. It’s not as thick and punchy sounding as the Sanctuary version, but more detailed and still rocks well. If it were a tad thicker in the midrange it would be perfect, but it’s pretty close to it anyway. I like it a lot. 3. 2016 Warner - Rhino The most compressed and a bit smeary, but not bad. A bit too bright, but it’s a well produced album which helps and it doesn’t suffer too much. I still prefer the others though. Conclusion - The Sanctuary CD’s are fat and live sounding, but a bit compressed with not so much hi-fi finesse as the SACD’s, which are clear, airy and percussive. I don’t know which is best really as I suppose it depends on how any individual might like their Sabbath. The Warner Rhino seem to be a mixed bag, but overall not so good. Many thanks for sending the samples. It's been good fun to listen and compare, but a bit scary too as I didn't realise CD's could be so different.
I'm actually liking the Dehumanizer Deluxe Edition over the HDTracks one. The HDTracks one might be a bit more dynamic (one or two dB depending on the song), but I found it brighter compared to the Deluxe Edition master. So my ranking for it is as follows: 1. Deluxe Edition 2. HDTracks 3. Original CD
Thank you very much for these thorough comparisons and reports, fantastic read. I just re-listened to the MOR SACD vs. 2016 CD after reading your comments, and on my system and to these ears the 2016 CD sounds a bit brighter and less warm than the SACD. I will send you more tracks soon. ;-) Thanks! Interesting, I will have to give them another listen.
Well, if I had included samples from the 1986 Castle CDs, 2004 Black Box, 1996 Castle remasters and some Japanese remasters, THAT would have been scary in terms of large differences. :-D
After someone recently claimed that the 2016 Deluxe 2xLPs sounded better than the 2016 Deluxe 2xCDs, I had a quick listen to disc 1 of the s/t 2016 2xCD vs. a needledrop of the LP version. To me, they sound as close as an LP can sound to a CD. 100% the same mastering.
Yes, you could be right, and it's quite possible that different sound systems will emphasise different parts of the frequency spectrum. Also the different dynamics of the compression on the CD's means that at the same peak volumes the average volumes will be different and vice versa, so it ain't the easiest thing to compare and I did find making the comparisons quite difficult. It's not like pictures where you can directly compare side by side. Ah well. I enjoyed having a go at it though. Thanks again for the downloads.
Here is the quote from Tim himself I know that post was a dig at me blacksabathrainbow No offense Tim Interesting. Well, the Deluxe LPs were cut by Sean McGee at Abbey Road, iirc. He is pretty good. They are digital but sounded a bit better than the CDs to me. But I only have them for the bonus tacks. Tim1954, Jul 9, 2019
I am sure it also depends on which song one is listening too. I usually use Replay gain to adjust the perceived volume level of multiple tracks I am comparing to the same level, which does not work perfectly (because obviously the actual"perceived volume", o r loudness, depends on individual hearing abilities etc.), but pretty good most of the time.
It also depends on the content of the audio. If one mastering has more bass than another then normalising will adjust it so that the treble will sound less loud than the other, whilst that may not actually be the case. I'm no expert in this stuff though.
ReplayGain doesn't really normalize, since normalizing usually means adjusting the volume level so that the (absolute, objective) volume levels of two or more recordings will be the same, while ReplayGain means adjusting the volume level so that the perceived loudness of two or more recordings will be the same. This goal can not always be fully achieved due to to the specific hearing abilities (and inabilities) of the individual listener, but my personal experiences with ReplayGain have been rather positive. If both tracks are EQed differently, the EQ difference as such will of course be unchanged and audible, which is good, because otherwise the test would be distorted.
I just listened to Sabotage, all the way through (original WB CD). IMO it is an amazing album from start to finish, more consistent than I find SBS or the s/t debut to be.
Where there is overlap does anyone know if the tracks on the Intercord Greatest Hits CD are the same as the Intercord Paranoid & Sabbath Bloody Sabbath? Also what are people's thoughts on the sound quality of NIB, Black Sabbath, Sweet Leaf, etc on this? I think they sound amazing but I don't have other versions to compare to.
Yes, I understand that, but it's still normalising, just normalising of average volume levels (weighted to the response of the ear), as opposed to normalising of peak volume levels, and what I said should still hold true. Of course, when one compared track is compressed and the other is not then it becomes somewhat more complex. Also the ear hears the frequency spectrum differently when listening at different volume levels (in accord with Fletcher Munson curves). But yes, it's not a bad way of doing it. I didn't mean to cast doubt upon the method, just pointing out that any method is somewhat of a compromise.
I just recently purchased the Intercord "Greatest" and I own the Intercord "Paranoid" so I can try and compare this weekend. I also have an '87 NEMS press of "Greatest Hits" from the USA that sounds entirely different than the Intercord version. I'm getting an original '86 Castle "Greatest Hits" and will compare all 3 in the near future. But the NEMS and the Intercord "Greatest" were so different when I did a quick comparison, earlier in the week, I couldn't believe it. "Greatest Hits" was the first Sabbath cd I ever purchased in late '87 or early '88 and I always thought the NEMS was decent because I never had anything to compare it to and because it fit with what I thought Black Sabbath should sort of sound like - dark, distorted, sludgy, etc
I remember assuming the ‘86 Castle ‘Greatest Hits’ would have pulled the tracks from the album releases themselves, but such was not the case at all. GH sounded a bit smiley in the EQ dept., iirc.
