Announcement

Collapse

Google Ads Question

Hey gang. I just posted something asking about Google Ads on my website. I'd like people's input (and help possibly) on this. Please go over here and have a read:

https://www.black-sabbath.com/vb/for...ads#post645883

--- Joe
See more
See less

Ten Year War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Billy Underdog View Post
    Man, am i happy that i care more about the music being played than in what format it's being played on...
    LOL, amen to that! :-)

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Billy Underdog View Post
      Man, am i happy that i care more about the music being played than in what format it's being played on...
      Some people feel passionately about both.

      Since music is sound, it only stands to reason that many become interested in how something sounds.
      "It is not opinion that Ozzy peaked on Sabotage, it is a measurable fact."
      -WTB

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Jeff View Post
        Since music is sound, it only stands to reason that many become interested in how something sounds.
        Sure. The fact that alot of the 80's extreme metal demo's was recorded on a cassette player with horrible, almost inaudible sound is part of the charm. Still prefer what's actually being played, though...
        But yeah, i can understand audiophiles. I'm just glad i'm not one of them.

        My biggest problem with modern day compression is, as you mentioned, the dynamics disappear. And sometimes it feels like needles to the eardrums. Smooth is nice, rough is nice too...
        Last edited by Billy Underdog; 11-21-2017, 04:14 PM.
        95% of everything i say is pure bullshit just for the fun of it. The other 95% is damn serious!
        Til rs ok friar ok forn sir

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
          Thanks and no need to say sorry, hard to keep track of what's written here. :-)

          I doubt that a technology like MQA is the most important factor for how good a recording sounds. One of several things that Jeff has taught me, and that I can strongly confirm based on my own experience, is that the mastering is usually the most important factor. Thus, the best-sounding versions of MOR, SBS, Vol4 and most songs of the self-titled album for me are those released on SACD - not because of the SACD technology (my redbook CD copies of those SACDs sound just as good to me), but because they used the original mastering, which happens to sound better than any other (re-)mastering of those albums (to my ears, of course). Even if the band members themselves have all really listened and tested those MQA versions, they have done that on their (or their company's) equipment in their rooms AND with their taste of course, and I fail to see how exactly that is meant to secure any specific sound in my room on my equimpment (and with my own taste!) that they don't even know anything about.

          Also, listening experience is largelly influenced by our opinions etc., as has been demonstrated scientifically uncounted times. Thus, if you listen to an album first on redbook CD and then with MQA technology, and you KNOW you're listening to different formats, and you KNOW which is which, and you know that MQA is a new technology that is claimed to sound better, than you are pretty likely to really HEAR the difference you expect. That's how listening works in human beings, and it is a reason that we need so called double-blind studies in order to test that there really IS a difference. The same goes of course for other technologies: SACD vs. redbook CD, hi-res vs. 16/44.1 etc. (Most scientific tests that I have seen seem to confirm that hi-res, while being better for remastering/sound-editing purposes, is not better for listening than redbook CD 16/44.1 format.) Mastering, in contrast, has of course a large influence on the listening experience.

          Interestingly, I have not found a single double-blind study on MQA vs. redbook or hi-res on the internet - anybody?

          If I were a big enterprise that owned a new audio format/codec or what that is REALLY better than anything else on the market, then I would commission a large-sample scientific double-blind study to prove it - because that's the ONLY reliable way to prove it. If the company hasn't bothered to do this, then I think the critics who claim that MQA is mainly an attempt of parts of the music industry to control and profit from every aspect of music-listening are probably just right. But I am very open to evidence to the contrary if anybody can offer that.
          Doc does listening sessions with Bob Stuart the creator of MQA, he may even be with him tonight? Meridian audio.
          Doc is more of a purist when it comes to sound, so not sure how much of a fan he is when it comes to streaming music

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
            I don't get the idea of MQA (except if the idea is for music companies to make more profit). It has been claimed that MQA guarantees that we hear exactly the same as the mastering engineer heard in the studio. And to me that seems to be logically impossible.

            Why? Well, it is well known that the equimpment used for playing a file - amp, speakers etc. - was well as the room it is played in has large impact on how music sounds. For example, I moved to a new place a while ago. I use exactly the same equipment (computer, CD-player, amp, speakers, cables) as before, and I often listen to the same music in the same format (mostly redbook CDR, sometimes hi-res FLAC files). But the room where it is placed is very different - smaller, different form etc. I use what I consider to be good speakers and an OK amp. Well, in my old place, the sound was very crisp anc clear - great but just a little too bright for my taste. Now, in the new place, the sound is bassy, almost muddy - not really bad, but definitely worse than before.

            Now my question is: HOW exactly would MQA guarantee that the sound I hear (with my speakers and amp, in my room) sounds exactly the same as it was intended to sound by the mastering engineer? Let's just for a moment assume that that would be even possible: what information exactly would the MQA file or player need to have in order to be able to do that? Well, at the very least, it would need to know which amp and cables and speakers I use and how they sound; and it would need to know the size and form and material of the room the music in which the music is played; it would even need to know where the windows and curtains and pictures are located and which other things in the room (like beds, blankets, carpets...) would affect the sound, and how exactly. If the MQA system does not have all that information, then it has no idea how the music played in my room will sound, which means it will be unable to do what it is supposed to do: guarantee a specific sound. Now, when I get my MQA files and whatever other equipment I need to play them properly, does it ask me for all that information?

            To be sure, I don't have any MQA files, so I cannot rule out the possibility that there may be something about the MQA format that makes it sound better than other digital files. If that's the case, than maybe they should do a better marketing i.e. explain how that is possible. What we can rule out by pure logic, however, is the chance of guaranteeing a specific sound without knowing anything about the equipment and environment where it is played.
            Linda, you're spot on with your commentaries, regarding what effects the sound, when dealing with speakers and acoustic systems, however the message from the people marketing MQAs is that while unpacked (processed through DAC by means of software or hardware) the resulting set of info is as close to original recording as it could be (allegedly).

            The playback is something they cannot have influence on, but it's abosultely the same with any audio media - CD, LP, MC, digital files. When you have any intermediate between your ears and any audio source you have a lot of factors.

            And your comments are actually pointing out at another very important issue - how much audio equipment itself has influence on the resulting sound one hears. I'm of the firm belief, that quality depends mostly on acoustic conditions of the space you are listening at (configuration of the space, materials used in construction, etc) , rather than equipment itself.
            http://vk.com/barghestboots

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by AlexBarghest View Post
              Linda, you're spot on with your commentaries, regarding what effects the sound, when dealing with speakers and acoustic systems, however the message from the people marketing MQAs is that while unpacked (processed through DAC by means of software or hardware) the resulting set of info is as close to original recording as it could be (allegedly).

              The playback is something they cannot have influence on, but it's abosultely the same with any audio media - CD, LP, MC, digital files. When you have any intermediate between your ears and any audio source you have a lot of factors.

              And your comments are actually pointing out at another very important issue - how much audio equipment itself has influence on the resulting sound one hears. I'm of the firm belief, that quality depends mostly on acoustic conditions of the space you are listening at (configuration of the space, materials used in construction, etc) , rather than equipment itself.
              Thanks for your valuable comments, Alex. I have listened to some of your own recordings from live gigs, and their quality is absolutely amazing. So I know for a fact that you're good with sound.

              As for MQA, if, as we agree, environmental factors are hugely relevant for the actual sound of music, then the idea of exactly reproducing the studio mastering sound is nonsense. You wrote: "the message from the people marketing MQAs is that while unpacked (processed through DAC by means of software or hardware) the resulting set of info is as close to original recording as it could be (allegedly)." Now, if that does NOT refer to actual playback sound, then I am wondering why this should be better than 'classical' lossless hi-res at all. What does it even mean then that the "resulting set of information" (and I am not criticizing you here - you are summarizing their marketing claims very well here) is maximum close to the original recording? If they were talking about the actual digital data, the stored information, being identical, then that would be exactly the same effect that lossless audio has - and that's an arena where MQA, as a lossy process, cannot win against lossless audio. And as we agreed, it is entirely impossible to secure that the actual sound in studio and in my flat will be the same. So what's left that MQA could (logically, at least) achieve? Are they claiming the "resulting set of information" is almost identical to the actual studio mastering sound? What would that even mean? How can such a claim be tested? And how would that help? Would it mean that if I had exactly the same equipment and environment as they had in studio, then the actual sound would be identical? Again, that's something that 'traditional' lossless audio is definitely better equipped to do than any lossy codec or process like MQA. Moreover, even if that was the way to go, they would have to add you a very, very long text to every MQA file set then that gives you all relevent data about the studio environment and equipment. And then, what? Were we all supposed to build an identical studio in order to reproduce the original sound?

              Honestly, that sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

              EDIT: Or is what they claiming simply that the MQA process guarantees that the digital-to-audio conversion happaning when playing the files most closely resembles the analog-to-digital conversion they did in studio, probably by giving our DAC very accurate information on the algorythms of the original digital-to-audio conversion? I am totally a laywoman, but that would be something that I understand might be possible. Many of their marketing claims would still not be warrented by this, since those claims often refer to our actual listening experience, and that's something they definitely cannot control; additionally, they would still have to prove by double-blind testing that the increased congruence of analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion has any positive effect on the average listening experience performance. But of course marketing is profit-oriented, not truth-oriented, so I am not expecting any miracles there.
              Last edited by Sabbabbath; 11-22-2017, 05:25 AM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Going back to the main topic, did anybody already compare the sound of the vinyl LPs (as opposed to the MQA files) from the Ten Year War box to the 2012 LPs (as opposed to the MP3 files)? Are they any different? (I apologize in case I overlooked any comment that already answered my question.)

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
                  Going back to the main topic, did anybody already compare the sound of the vinyl LPs (as opposed to the MQA files) from the Ten Year War box to the 2012 LPs (as opposed to the MP3 files)? Are they any different? (I apologize in case I overlooked any comment that already answered my question.)
                  I haven't compared any LPs , but apparently I was a bit mislead about the MQA digital files myself ! I didn't notice I was comparing on different soft wares and the differences is unbelievable ! Will have to give further listens and compare different version on different soft wares to give some final thoughts about it (but I do get where Alex is coming from indeed) , also for anyone listening to those MQA files , make sure the software and settings are made to decode and enhance those files.

                  P.S - For some reason , those digital files sound a NIGHT and DAY different using VLC software ! much better in every single aspect even when compared to an MQA decoder software like Roon ! no explanation yet , I have followed the exact steps and setting recommended on Roon to hear those MQA files and some how they sound way better on VLC !
                  Last edited by IRON-MaN; 11-22-2017, 04:53 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by IRON-MaN View Post
                    I haven't compared any LPs , but apparently I was a bit mislead about the MQA digital files myself ! I didn't notice I was comparing on different soft wares and the differences is unbelievable ! Will have to give further listens and compare different version on different soft wares to give some final thoughts about it (but I do get where Alex is coming from indeed) , also for anyone listening to those MQA files , make sure the software and settings are made to decode and enhance those files.

                    P.S - Those digital files sound a NIGHT and DAY different using VLC software !
                    Thanks very much for your reply and info! Hm, that's odd that the files sound different with different software. Yes, the most obvious reason would be if one player can do MQA and the other one cannot, so the latter one will use the more traditional information also stored in MQA files in order to be compatible with traditional systems. Alternatively, maybe one of the players as some plug-in, EQ or whatever activated and the other one hasn't? For example, I sometimes activate compression in the tools > effects section of VLC in order to make very silent movies a bit louder; then when I forget to turn that off, the next music I listen to will of course sound different (more compressed) too. Even if ReplayGain is activated in one player and not in the other, this could have an effect, if you then try to counterbalance the volume difference using the analog volum control of your amplifier (because analog and digital volume control seems to work a bit different, or so I was told). Anyway, I guess Alex or one of the other people here with expertise in digtial audio can give you helpful advice. Good luck!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
                      Thanks for your valuable comments, Alex. I have listened to some of your own recordings from live gigs, and their quality is absolutely amazing. So I know for a fact that you're good with sound.

                      As for MQA, if, as we agree, environmental factors are hugely relevant for the actual sound of music, then the idea of exactly reproducing the studio mastering sound is nonsense. You wrote: "the message from the people marketing MQAs is that while unpacked (processed through DAC by means of software or hardware) the resulting set of info is as close to original recording as it could be (allegedly)." Now, if that does NOT refer to actual playback sound, then I am wondering why this should be better than 'classical' lossless hi-res at all. What does it even mean then that the "resulting set of information" (and I am not criticizing you here - you are summarizing their marketing claims very well here) is maximum close to the original recording? If they were talking about the actual digital data, the stored information, being identical, then that would be exactly the same effect that lossless audio has - and that's an arena where MQA, as a lossy process, cannot win against lossless audio. And as we agreed, it is entirely impossible to secure that the actual sound in studio and in my flat will be the same. So what's left that MQA could (logically, at least) achieve? Are they claiming the "resulting set of information" is almost identical to the actual studio mastering sound? What would that even mean? How can such a claim be tested? And how would that help? Would it mean that if I had exactly the same equipment and environment as they had in studio, then the actual sound would be identical? Again, that's something that 'traditional' lossless audio is definitely better equipped to do than any lossy codec or process like MQA. Moreover, even if that was the way to go, they would have to add you a very, very long text to every MQA file set then that gives you all relevent data about the studio environment and equipment. And then, what? Were we all supposed to build an identical studio in order to reproduce the original sound?

                      Honestly, that sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

                      EDIT: Or is what they claiming simply that the MQA process guarantees that the digital-to-audio conversion happaning when playing the files most closely resembles the analog-to-digital conversion they did in studio, probably by giving our DAC very accurate information on the algorythms of the original digital-to-audio conversion? I am totally a laywoman, but that would be something that I understand might be possible. Many of their marketing claims would still not be warrented by this, since those claims often refer to our actual listening experience, and that's something they definitely cannot control; additionally, they would still have to prove by double-blind testing that the increased congruence of analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion has any positive effect on the average listening experience performance. But of course marketing is profit-oriented, not truth-oriented, so I am not expecting any miracles there.
                      Thank you very much for your comment, Linda, and I really appreciate your comment on my live recordings, while my actual interference with recordings usually is very minimal, I never use EQ as many tapers do, I only do compression and amplifying basically.

                      Now to MQA thing. They claim to offer a high quality lossy substitute to hi-res files. Basically they maintain, that MQAs, though being lossy in essence, offer you almost the same quality as hi-res lossless files. All else is not relevant. So you should compare MQA with hir-res FLACs/WAVs. Period. And again playback conditions are of no influence for them (just like for any media ( CD, LP, MC) manufacturer. How can a CD manufacturer be eligible for the fact, that you listen to something at open air/under water/God knows where and on laptop internal speakers?). You summarized it all pretty good in your 1st EDIT question, so the answer to it is - YES.

                      And again, MQAs are a marketing niche for streaming services mainly. It’s obvious, that serious audio connoisseurs should stick to lossless sources when possible, because lossy is lossy no matter how good it is, So MQA should be seen as an upgrade to current MP3, AAC, etc standards, being closer to hi-res, but it’s in no way an upgrade to hi-res lossless, just (allegedly) superb alternative to enable listeners to achieve a quality close to hi-res audio in streaming mode.
                      The question, which arises here, what is better – a standard 16/44 lossless file and lossy 24/48 (packed from 24/94)?

                      I can tell you the following thing. When I have only started taping I did recordings in 16/44, but one of my friends had identical equipment – the same mics and recorder, so we stood side by side at a gig and tried to make parallel recording : me - in 24/96 and he – in 16/44. The resulting difference in quality was amazing. However, the resulting 24/96 file sounded almost the same , when being downgraded to 16/44 AFTERWARDS, and considerably superior in sound, than original 16/44 recording.

                      Originally posted by IRON-MaN View Post
                      I haven't compared any LPs , but apparently I was a bit mislead about the MQA digital files myself ! I didn't notice I was comparing on different soft wares and the differences is unbelievable ! Will have to give further listens and compare different version on different soft wares to give some final thoughts about it (but I do get where Alex is coming from indeed) , also for anyone listening to those MQA files , make sure the software and settings are made to decode and enhance those files.

                      P.S - For some reason , those digital files sound a NIGHT and DAY different using VLC software ! much better in every single aspect even when compared to an MQA decoder software like Roon ! no explanation yet , I have followed the exact steps and setting recommended on Roon to hear those MQA files and some how they sound way better on VLC !
                      IRON-MAN, I would recommend you actually to try to crosscheck MQAs (with proper equipment) against Hi-Res FLACs. They should sound the same as the source is identical (maybe Hi-Res will sound better, but at such sample rate, I think this difference should be inaudible). VLC player, to my knowledge (as well any other non-specific player), will treat MQA encoded files just as simple FLACs. And also headphones are quite important (of course), Sennheiser HD 800 make it a whole new experience vs. Sennheiser PXC 550 with a plugged-in cord.
                      Last edited by AlexBarghest; 11-22-2017, 06:34 AM.
                      http://vk.com/barghestboots

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AlexBarghest View Post
                        Thank you very much for your comment, Linda, and I really appreciate your comment on my live recordings, while my actual interference with recordings usually is very minimal, I never use EQ as many tapers do, I only do compression and amplifying basically.
                        Thanks again for your comment too, Alex, I like to learn from you and others here. I am aware you're not tampering with your recordings a lot. Instead, I believe you use very good equipment and take good care of choosing a good location for taping, right?

                        Originally posted by AlexBarghest View Post
                        Now to MQA thing. They claim to offer a high quality lossy substitute to hi-res files. Basically they maintain, that MQAs, though being lossy in essence, offer you almost the same quality as hi-res lossless files. All else is not relevant. So you should compare MQA with hir-res FLACs/WAVs. Period. And again playback conditions are of no influence for them (just like for any media ( CD, LP, MC) manufacturer. How can a CD manufacturer be eligible for the fact, that you listen to something at open air/under water/God knows where and on laptop internal speakers?). You summarized it all pretty good in your 1st EDIT question, so the answer to it is - YES.

                        And again, MQAs are a marketing niche for streaming services mainly. Its obvious, that serious audio connoisseurs should stick to lossless sources when possible, because lossy is lossy no matter how good it is, So MQA should be seen as an upgrade to current MP3, AAC, etc standards, being closer to hi-res, but its in no way an upgrade to hi-res lossless, just (allegedly) superb alternative to enable listeners to achieve a quality close to hi-res audio in streaming mode.
                        Totally makes sense. And this means that about 75 percent at least of the marketing claims on MQA are plain bullshit: talking about "a whole new listening experience" and similar claims made by the company itself and by magazines etc. alike is just nonsense when in fact MQA are at best nothing more than kind of a better MP3. People with good internet connections don't need compressed audio anymore anyway, and even if they do, then only for streaming, but not for saving to HD and listening from HD (which is what I do).

                        Originally posted by AlexBarghest View Post
                        The question, which arises here, what is better a standard 16/44 lossless file and lossy 24/48 (packed from 24/94)?
                        I can tell you the following thing. When I have only started taping I did recordings in 16/44, but one of my friends had identical equipment the same mics and recorder, so we stood side by side at a gig and tried to make parallel recording : me - in 24/96 and he in 16/44. The resulting difference in quality was amazing. However, the resulting 24/96 file sounded almost the same , when being downgraded to 16/44 AFTERWARDS, and considerably superior in sound, than original 16/44 recording.
                        Yes, that's what most real experts seem to agree on: recording in hi-res makes a lot of sense, mastering or remastering in hi-res makes a lot of sense, listening in hi-res makes no or minimal difference.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
                          Thanks again for your comment too, Alex, I like to learn from you and others here. I am aware you're not tampering with your recordings a lot. Instead, I believe you use very good equipment and take good care of choosing a good location for taping, right?
                          Yupp, you're absolutely right. As a rule I try to find a balance between a good viewpoint and a good sound. Usually I position myself dead center. You know, which equipment I use - it's pretty standard stuff for audio bootleggers. But sometimes I choose to sacrifice a better point soundwise for a better viewpoint.

                          Originally posted by Sabbabbath
                          Totally makes sense. And this means that about 75 percent at least of the marketing claims on MQA are plain bullshit: talking about "a whole new listening experience" and similar claims made by the company itself and by magazines etc. alike is just nonsense when in fact MQA are at best nothing more than kind of a better MP3. People with good internet connections don't need compressed audio anymore anyway, and even if they do, then only for streaming, but not for saving to HD and listening from HD (which is what I do).
                          Yupp, I don't buy MQA claims until I see any solid proofs of their claims. But streaming is definitely where the future of the mass music industry is: you don't have to have a storage space (even virtual space wise, not mentioning physical one), you can have access to your content almost anywhere with WiFi/LTE connection, the stuff doesn't become worse with years unlike physical media and so on. It's more so for movies and books than music for now, but the vector is clear.
                          http://vk.com/barghestboots

                          Comment


                          • So I spent sometime today adjusting all settings needed for MQA and went over again to compare 3 main versions (Black Box Remasters , Vinyl Boxset 2012 and obviously the Ten Year Wars MQA) , and here in my humble brief summary and opinion :

                            1. The MQA are definitely the best version of all 3 with the 2012 Vinyl Box set extremely close.
                            2. At full volume the MQA versions has amazing brilliant clarity compared to the Black Box Remasters which tends to get a bit more muddy.
                            3. The greatest feature that edges the MQA versions in my opinion is how all instruments seems to be separated and crystal clear to spot with all its tiniest details , The 2012 Vinyl versions are very close in that matter , but I felt that the instruments channels through my headphones were incredibly more defined , so while you hear the song as a whole my ears could easily pick any instrument , its hard to explain but it really has that warm studio feel to it more than the rest.

                            Kindly notice that I've only compared those 3 main versions (there might others out there that other fans might consider or reference as better versions) , also I made sure to compare all different versions on different soft wares , and to be more clear , my main focus was on the those three Sabbath classic albums (Vol.4 , SBS and Sabotage) , the reasons why I've picked those 3 in particular were :

                            1st.They're my favorite Sabbath albums
                            2nd. They had a lot of experimentation , layers and textures specially when compared to the first 3.
                            3rd. I think the first albums were sonic ally incredible anyway and their mix were absolutely perfect , I've always the later albums had some major room for sound improvement and enhancement one way or the other.

                            Also my method was quite simple , pick certain songs and some particular parts and start playing them over and over comparing all 3 versions almost instantly , it was LOUD and my ears kinda of hurt now.
                            Last edited by IRON-MaN; 11-23-2017, 03:18 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by IRON-MaN View Post
                              So I spent sometime today adjusting all settings needed for MQA and went over again to compare 3 main versions (Black Box Remasters , Vinyl Boxset 2012 and obviously the Ten Year Wars MQA) , and here in my humble brief summary and opinion :

                              1. The MQA are definitely the best version of all 3 with the 2012 Vinyl Box set extremely close.
                              2. At full volume the MQA versions has amazing brilliant clarity compared to the Black Box Remasters which tends to get a bit more muddy.
                              3. The greatest feature that edges the MQA versions in my opinion is how all instruments seems to be separated and crystal clear to spot with all its tiniest details , The 2012 Vinyl versions are very close in that matter , but I felt that the instruments channels through my headphones were incredibly more defined , so while you hear the song as a whole my ears could easily pick any instrument , its hard to explain but it really has that warm studio feel to it more than the rest.

                              Kindly notice that I've only compared those 3 main versions (there might others out there that other fans might consider or reference as better versions) , also I made sure to compare all different versions on different soft wares , and to be more clear , my main focus was on the those three Sabbath classic albums (Vol.4 , SBS and Sabotage) , the reasons why I've picked those 3 in particular were :

                              1st.They're my favorite Sabbath albums
                              2nd. They had a lot of experimentation , layers and textures specially when compared to the first 3.
                              3rd. I think the first albums were sonic ally incredible anyway and their mix were absolutely perfect , I've always the later albums had some major room for sound improvement and enhancement one way or the other.

                              Also my method was quite simple , pick certain songs and some particular parts and start playing them over and over comparing all 3 versions almost instantly , it was LOUD and my ears kinda of hurt now.
                              Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Quite interesting!

                              IMO, Black Box if of little help in any comparison. Just too much compression and in some cases the EQ is way over the top to my ears. Vol. 4 especially was a bit of a screechy mess in my view.

                              Do you have the JAPAN SACDs? The 1986 (not '96!) Castles? These would seem to me to be a much better basis for comparison for Vol. 4 and SBS.
                              "It is not opinion that Ozzy peaked on Sabotage, it is a measurable fact."
                              -WTB

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jeff View Post
                                Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Quite interesting!

                                IMO, Black Box if of little help in any comparison. Just too much compression and in some cases the EQ is way over the top to my ears. Vol. 4 especially was a bit of a screechy mess in my view.

                                Do you have the JAPAN SACDs? The 1986 (not '96!) Castles? These would seem to me to be a much better basis for comparison for Vol. 4 and SBS.
                                Yes , I totally agree those Black Box versions sounds a bit compressed and harsh on the ears when really played loud , and just to be clear , I do enjoy all versions one way or the other and they're quite comparable in many different aspects , I do own many 96' castles but none of the 1986 Japanese versions you've mentioned ! Also it have to be clear that the MQA versions sounds extremely close to those amazing Vinyl 2012 Box Set versions (and which were my favorite till I've heard those new ones) , also the differences is minor and definitely none would really ruin any listening experiences , with that been said , and at very high volumes I felt the MQA sound saturates really nicely and warmly , the whole sound doesn't get distorted or muddy while the clarity and separation of each instrument is quite impressive and quite comfy to the ears as well.
                                Last edited by IRON-MaN; 11-23-2017, 05:20 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X