Ten Year War

[Sabbabbath]

I buy everything with the Sabbath stamp on it Linda, I’m a fanatic.

I am a fanatic too, I just cannot afford to buy it all. :-D

[IRON-MaN]

Thanks for your great post too, Alex. You are of course right. I think my asking for a comparison of the LPs was naive. The reason why I asked nevertheless was that I was (still am) pretty puzzled about the fact that several people still seem to believe that the 2017 vs. the 2012 box are sourced from different, if somewhat similar, masterings, or at least sound different. I simply don't hear those differences on any of the digital files I have checked, plus the huge digital similarities suggest that there hardly COULD be any notable difference. I was just wondering if this contradiction might be due to the fact that the people who purchased the vinyl box have listened to the LPs, while I have only listened to the digital files. But then again, both IRON-MaN and the Doc have confirmed they are referring to the digital files too. So the puzzle persists even for the digital files, regardless of how the vinyl records sound.

I don't think there is debate much on whether or not those new remasters were taken from the very same source , most likely they are (one way or other) but I guess there are many other factors or technologies that could improve them or make them sound better ? The way I think about it , its like listening to the same CD on a cheap sound system vs an expensive Hi Fi quality home theater , its the same source yet a completely different experience ! (not a very accurate resemblance ) , but I guess you get the point ! Andy could have used the same sources for those remasters but whatever process of 'cleaning' them up or using a more advanced technology could've made the difference , also I'm not technically sufficient to understand such digital parameters you've posted previously and how it translates to how it exactly sounds , I mean I do get the basics of it for sure ! but is there more than meets the eye ? I don't know ... I think you and many members here should have joined the launching TYW box set held at regent sounds studios a couple of months back and laid all your questions on Andy , Tom Allom and everyone else that were involved with such project

[Sabbabbath]

I don't think there is debate much on whether or not those new remasters were taken from the very same source , most likely they are (one way or other)

I didn't claim there was a debate on whether the releases (2012 etc. vs 2017) are from the same SOURCE. Given how similar the recordings are in every important aspect, it would be plain crazy to doubt that they are from the same tape source (and transfer! - even though the article you posted clearly seems to suggest at least a different transfer - which is 100% impossible). What I did claim was that there was a debate on whether they are different MASTERINGS. That's a very different claim, and this is the one on which we disagree, obviously, since you keep referring to the new release as a "new remaster" (e.g. "those new remasters" or "Andy could have used the same sources for those remasters") - which clearly suggests it is a different mastering, and that's what I dispute. :-) I do accept that we have different opinions, I am now just trying to reach a state where we can at least agree on what it is that we disagree about. :-D

I think you and many members here should have joined the launching TYW box set held at regent sounds studios a couple of months back and laid all your questions on Andy , Tom Allom and everyone else that were involved with such project

Well, that's a very good point - now I honestly wish I would have done that! Anyway, a few months ago, there seemed to be no reason to ask any questions about the mastering used for this release, because all sources I read plainly stated that the Ten Year War release would simply use the mastering of the well-known 2009 Sanctuary releases. Thus, even our beloved webmaster here wrote on <https://www.black-sabbath.com/2017/06/the-ten-year-war-box-set/>: "The mastering work here is the same done for the 2009 Universal Deluxe Edition series by Andy Pearce." And I don't blame Joe because that was the information given to him an others by the people who should know. The hi-res official download version of the TYW release still has the words "(2009 - Remaster)" included in the filenames of every single audio file included. I may be wrong, but based on the sources I have, it seems that the marketing strategy switched to the "new remaster" claim only recently (maybe in order to better correspont to the MQA hype). Thus, the article you posted was from 13th December 2017. Be that as it may, it was only recently that I was first confronted with the claim that the TYW box would include a new mastering. That was around the same time that Alex, Jeff and a few other people convinced me that it actually uses the 2012 mastering. Now I would love to be able to get a clear confirmation or rebuttal from Andy Pearce on whether he did ANY new work for the 2017 release or not. I am sure he would clarify that he didn't, but his words would obviously weigh more than mine.

[OzzyIsDio]

I am a fanatic too, I just cannot afford to buy it all. :-D

I have gone through times of not buying shoes or new clothes just to buy Sabbath.

[Jeff]

Thanks for another great post, Jeff. However, if we talk about limitations of digital audio, we should maybe keep in mind the many limitations of vinyl LPs (NOT analog per se) too. If I understand correctly, the music stored in a vinyl record needs to be compressed and EQed and frequencies due to limitations of the format. Thus, the sound of LPs is also necessarily "chopped off" in many ways. Nevertheless, I have experienced, like you and the DOC, that original LPs (and possibly any vinyl record?) tend to sound warmer and more 'alive' than digital copies of the same recording. So I can easily agree with both of you that something is 'missing' from digital recordings that is 'present' on vinyl. Anyway, Jeff, what do you think of Reel-to-Reel vs. vinyl? Some articles I read would imply that an AAA Reel-to-Real should (other things being equal) sound even much less "chopped off" than an AAA vinyl of the same recording.

Also, do you agree or disagree with the Doc that "Digital cleaning Will NOT always show up on measurements" and that digitally identical audio recordings can sound different? And can you confirm or falsify that the TYW Just curious for your opinion.

IMO, the degree to which there are inherent "limitations" in terms of vinyl's ability to reproduce music is greatly overstated by some digital enthusiasts. It is perhaps traced to the nonsense the industry used to sell us the superiority of the CD medium. And guess what the result of that medium was?

Many of us bought music we had already purchased; again.

;-)

With respect to your specific points, Linda, I'll just say that no general characterization can be used about vinyl's sonic possibilities or "limitations." Most rock music does not have dynamic range significant enough to require much compression for vinyl mastering, but compression can be used as a "tool" just like anything. This stuff is all a part of the final picture. Kevin Gray's cut of Paranoid for Rhino (2004) was probably as dynamic as I've ever heard the album. The slam was astonishing. It had too much treble for my taste and was not my cup of tea overall, but the point is that I would not doubt if we just use Paranoid as an example, different LP versions could differ by 3-4db in terms of their compression.

Often these things are as much or more about a mastering engineer's sonic goals than vinyl's needs. Vinyl can handle plenty.

Classical music, yes. Having the additional dynamic range can be an advantage. But in my view the notion that most rock music can't be mastered to vinyl without sacrifice is arguably an idea put forth by someone with something to sell in nearly every case. Either that's why you need the CD instead. Or that's why you need the NEW vinyl version instead, because "technology advances." IMO, this is exaggerated gobbledygook.

As for R2R, forget it. It will never be cost effective. Acoustic Sounds has been doing some Classical titles on R2R. Know how much they are? $500 each. And yes that's two zeros after the five. So this is niche market. Vinyl is the most cost effective way for most of us to get pure analogue sound. And I doubt that will change any time soon. Cassettes have made a comeback, but I don't think it will amount to a pimple on vinyl's overall reach if one considers the "used" market on Discogs, eBay, local record shops and so forth ...

In the end, to some extent ... music either moves us or it doesn't. I could listen to Sabbath on a transistor radio and hear the inherent magic. OTOH, I do think for people to act like sound doesn't matter when it comes to music are kidding themselves. As you know, I listen to Sabbath bootlegs of any sound quality; but music IS sound. How could one listening to music NOT care about it? Even bootlegs I don't want futzed with by some amateur who starts using his little software tools without much TLC. And when it comes to albums, I've just realized that (for me) analogue speaks to me. And for me vinyl does the job of conveying that sound more than adequately.

[Wicked Cricket]

Totally agree vinyl is a much warmer sound that captures the "space" between notes in the studio. Growing up with vinyl, I was never a big fan of the digital CD medium when it eventually took over. CDs may be more convenient, but there's a reason vinyl has made a comeback. And yea, I still remember listening to transistor radios on the beach as a youngster I have a distinct memory of turning up the volume when The Who's Join Together came on the radio one hot Summer day!

[AlexBarghest]

IMHO, vinyl sound is just a matter of acquired taste. Same as tape cassettes, 8-tracks, reel-to-reel.............same as everything else. I'm sure if our grandparents would be alive they would tell how much vinyl sucked versus shellac And their grandparents would say that nothing sounded like a good old wax cylinders, and shellac & vinyls were for wimps.

I'm all up for hi quality sound. No clicks, pops and hiss. I find all those artifacts disgusting and irritating. And this late trend of issuing stuff on vinyl only just pisses me off as you can easily hear how much inferior this stuff to the original digital stuff it's all pressed from. I'm talking not Sabbath releases/reissues, but some new bands releases. Especially having in mind, that there's almost no new equipment left, it's all pressed on machines, that mostly almost 40 years old.

[Jeff]

IMHO, vinyl sound is just a matter of acquired taste. Same as tape cassettes, 8-tracks, reel-to-reel.............same as everything else. I'm sure if our grandparents would be alive they would tell how much vinyl sucked versus shellac And their grandparents would say that nothing sounded like a good old wax cylinders, and shellac & vinyls were for wimps..

Heh. Surely true.

I'm all up for hi quality sound. No clicks, pops and hiss. I find all those artifacts disgusting and irritating.

This I've never really understood. I doubt I come across one out of fifty albums where any kind of noise or clicks are a problem. But then I usually buy at least VG+ vinyl and clean it with an Okki Nokki before playback. "Hiss" is a different matter. As Andy Pearce (rightly, IMO) points out, no technology exists to remove it without damaging the sound. I personally don't mind tape hiss at all. As Neil Young has stated, that is where the magic of music is. It's in there WITH the hiss. That's just how analog tape works. Besides, so many albums from about the early to mid 70s were recorded with Dolby A, which reduced hiss to such minor levels I'm surprised anyone would even be worried about it.

And this late trend of issuing stuff on vinyl only just pisses me off as you can easily hear how much inferior this stuff to the original digital stuff it's all pressed from. I'm talking not Sabbath releases/reissues, but some new bands releases.

Yeah, I don't listen to many "new" artists, but using the same exact digital source used for a CD and putting it instead on vinyl makes no sense to me. Then again, some new releases (13 and TDYK being perfect examples) have been found to be far more dynamic on vinyl than their CD counterparts. This is, of course, down to the mastering decisions. Perhaps in general vinyl is often treated with a different approach?

Especially having in mind, that there's almost no new equipment left, it's all pressed on machines, that mostly almost 40 years old.

Some of the very best "machines" in the world are forty or more years old. If anything, I find the newer the equipment the more chance of lower quality, not better. This extends to almost anything whether audio equipment or appliances for that matter. Seems like at one time things were built to last. I'd take a copy of Paranoid mastered on Bernie Grundman's vintage, all tube cutting system over Andy Pearce mastering at a digital workstation any day. Just MO.

[Jeff]

Just TBH about one thing in terms of the new box. SONICALLY speaking, only ...

Vol. 4 has had so much treble added that it's not be believed. It sounds really wonky to me and is just too far removed from the album I know and worship. It reminds me a bit of that awful color vinyl version issued last year. Maybe it is the same mastering?

Even things like Tony's right hand screeching during fast chord movements in "Wheels Of Confusion" ("Lost on the wheels of confusion ... ") seem like they've been digitally altered.

Any "warmth" of vinyl isn't going to be heard when mastered like this. I know some people feel parts of Vol. 4 were kind of muddy, but this is like killing a fly with a bazooka.

[Sabbabbath]

this is like killing a fly with a bazooka.

LOL, just trying to picture that. :-D Thanks for your comments. I just compared the Vol4 TYW (hi-res digital version) vs. the 2012 Japan SACD. Huge difference indeed. I can see why some people like this super-bright thing, but these albums just need to sound darker IMHO.

[Billy Underdog]

like killing a fly with a bazooka.

Is that actually a saying/proverb or just something you made up yourself? 'Cause in Norwegian we've got the saying "shooting sparrows with canons", but i've never known an English equivalent.

[Sabbabbath]

Is that actually a saying/proverb or just something you made up yourself? 'Cause in Norwegian we've got the saying "shooting sparrows with canons", but i've never known an English equivalent.

The exact same saying as your Norwegian version exists in German too.

[zzzptm]

Is that actually a saying/proverb or just something you made up yourself? 'Cause in Norwegian we've got the saying "shooting sparrows with canons", but i've never known an English equivalent.

It's the *American* equivalent. A bazooka is a cannon that has eaten a few cheeseburgers.

[Sabbabbath]

It's the *American* equivalent. A bazooka is a cannon that has eaten a few cheeseburgers.

:-D That's really funny to imagine too! :-)

[Billy Underdog]

The exact same saying as your Norwegian version exists in German too.

Didn't know that, but i know it's used in Denmark, so it makes sence.

A bazooka is a cannon that has eaten a few cheeseburgers.