Will check it out shortly as I've got my system on at the minute listening to some Priest. I also remember some weird sound on Crossfire also, I remember the vocals sounding a bit hot there too.
Think I hear what you're talking about but just sounds like the recording to me, it's very faint and just sounds a tad hot on some of the snare hits to me. I guess your speakers are showing it up more. What about the vocals on Crossfire? During the chorus sections it sounds a tad crackly to me. Again, just sounds like the recording itself, although hard to tell whether it's Klaus's voice crackling or just recoded a tad hot (probably the latter). A similar sound can be heard on many of Dio's albums where it sounds like he recorded his vocals too hot.
Lucky me. Definitely hear what you are talking about on Crossfire, though there it clearly is tied to the vocal attacks, where in Rock You Like A Hurricane's intro, I hear static pops that seem to be independent of the music surrounding it.
Anybody out there who recognized that LAFS sounds identical on both the 1997 MERCURY CD and the AUDIO FIDELITY CD ??? Slightly different level, but same sound...and exactly same tape speed !!!
??? It doesn't matter if it is a digital or analogue recording...there are different masterings available...but to buy the 1997 MERCURY CD is a much cheaper option than the AFZ
If I understood you correctly: - The AF Gold CD sounds the same to you as the 1997 Mercury CD (I don't own the 1997 Mercury CD, so I can't compare) - The two run at the same speed, which would be expected in a digital recording - They have similar levels (but not 100% identical) Are you stating that the AF CD just reused an already existing digital mastering? Based on the information listed above, I would not be able to conclude that. Did you make an EQ comparison? Was that 1997 Mercury CD a remaster? US pressing? Discogs reference?
Sound-wise, the 1997 sounds the same as the AFZ...only the level is slightly different. Yes, you are right about the digital recording. I think there are also analogue masterings out... Here is a link to the 1997 CD: Scorpions - Love At First Sting
How was this information not known till now , I think a lot of us spent a bunch on the AF maybe for nothing ? I though it's digital . How can there be a analog recording ?
It's always the same here: Blind (or better: deaf) people buy expensive pressings / releases because they were done by labels highly recommended here instead of LISTENING and ASKING for cheaper options...it saves me so much money sometimes to use my brain...
The 1997 Mercury is same mastering as the 1984 CD - according to the catalog number and the DR database [same peaks]. Huge difference in sound IMHO. The 1984/1997 appears sourced from a high gen analog copy of the digital master, but that is only my guess. It lack coherency [fuzzy, out of foucus, bass lacking, lack of proper decay] especially at louder volumes. Vastly inferior to the AF which has different and I feel more pleasing EQ and the AF has a far nicer low end. The 1984/1997 does have slightly greater DR numbers on some tracks but I attribute that to the "flawed" algorithm that penalize stronger bass. My comments of course are based on the disc sathvyre has as being identical to the 1984. There has not been enough data supplied to confirm that. There is also the 90's 20bit remaster. If that is the one sathvyrec has let me know and I'll post my feelings on that one.
A A high-generation analogue copy ??? C'mon, now it becomes funny...take a song from the AF HDCD and the same from the USA MERCURY CD, import them to a multitrack and see that they stay in synch...level-match both tracks and make an A/B comparison...and they will sound the same !!!
I mentioned the 1984 Mercury might be mastering same as the disc you have but that yours might be the 1990's 20bit remaster. Based on your post your 1st instinct was to insult me rather than mention which disc [1984 or 20bit] you are compared to the AF. I standby 100% my opinion of the 1984 based Mercury mastering and I have not commented on the sound quality 20bit other than to say if that is the one you have I'd post my findings, after doing them. Which to be clear meant I was going to exactly investigate as you suggested... if you are serious about people doing what you suggested please provide some 30 seconds samples from the 20bit as from your postings it appears to be the one you have. BTW digital recording and sources I believe they always stay in sync it's analogue transfers that won't. Lastly the 1984 Mercury also has much more noticeable hiss on the "Coming Home" intro, which leads me to my belief it's an analogue copy of the digital master.
Apologies for quoting that part out of context, but that's maybe the cause of some misunderstanding, at least for me. How can it be the same mastering if there is a huge difference in sound? Maybe you could clarify which discs you think are the "same" and what the evidence there is for being the "same".
Andreas, I guess I need to trot out this old warhorse once again. The pros don't even know exactly why, believe me after asking both Steve H. and Barry Diament, but the first time I discovered this a Forum friend came over and gifted me a copy of the MFSL Elvis Presley That's The Way It Is after upgrading to a better conditioned copy. Both shared the same source, obviously, and the exact same matrix numbers. The sonic presentations however were night and day. The lessor copy he gave me clearly trounced his newer M- condition copy in no uncertain terms. Why? Unfortunately, we'll apparently never know with any certainty.
Did you check if both versions were binary identical? It is easily done with Exact Audio Copy. ...or are we speaking vinyl now?
Dave, They are not the same mastering! I never stated sathvyre was the same as the 1984. Please read what I posted. None of what you mentioned in your post applies as result! There is a 90's repackagings of the 1984 mastering and the 20bit. From what sathvyre has described his is clearly the "20bit" remastering. The 20bit unlike the 1984 was made from the digital masters. This is why it stays in sync with the AF also made from the masters. Not saying this occurred but one takes digital masters and transfers them without additional Eqing and only adjusts "volume" levels then what has mentioned is the result. If that is/was the case then the 20bit which he says is from 1997 would only require level adjustments to match the AF in sound. Of course if the 20bit was jacked up in volume and dynamic range is lost then they can not match. sathvyre - please do read what i have posted. I am agreeing with you.
I checked the SCORPIONS again and compared the following MERCURY CD with the AF HDCD: Scorpions - Love At First Sting Both sound identical, only the levels (peaks) are slightly different. If you match the levels, they sound the same !!! They stay 100% in sync !!!
