Dire Straits SACDs

[Stormboy]

Hi

Yesterday, I discovered that Acoustic Sounds have a set of Japanese inport SACDs for all of the Dire Straits albums up to Borthers in Arms (including Alchemy). At US$ 60 ea, they are expensive but if they are a step up from the CDs, I am interested. Does anyone know if these are any good.

 

[Al ears]

For this sort of money these are, I presume, SHM-SACD's. If not do not bother with them.

Sound quality on these discs is very good assuming you have the right equipment for playback.

....are these any good??? I suppose that's down to what you happen to think of Dire Straits!

 

[BigColz]

I have regular 16/44.1 remasters on FLAC that i got of a torrent site and it's some of the best remastering i've heard and my kit is very reveiling so i'd save your cash as it sounds incredible as it is.. Unless you're a die hard fan i guess

 

[MajorFubar]

I'm not sure it was wise to admit that on a public forum, do you?
Back on topic...
Now this is IMO where SA-CDs and hi-res remasters get a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that certainly Brothers In Arms is a 'DDD' recording, ie it was recorded, mixed and mastered on digital recorders, which in those days would probably have only captured in 16/44 to start with. So what exactly is being achieved by giving us a 'HD' remaster?

 

[malthus80]

If you have a hdcd player you could save yourself some money and sultans of swings the very best of dire straits. These hdcd remasters are stunning even on a none hdcd player.

 

[hoopsontoast]

I'm not sure it was wise to admit that on a public forum, do you? Back on topic... Now this is IMO where SA-CDs and hi-res remasters get a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that certainly Brothers In Arms is a 'DDD' recording, ie it was recorded, mixed and mastered on digital recorders, which in those days would probably have only captured in 16/44 to start with. So what exactly is being achieved by giving us a 'HD' remaster?

They probably boost the treble a little for some extra 'Detail' :rofl:

 

[MajorFubar]

Worrying thing is, you're probably not far off.
Even if there was no dispute at all that HD audio sounds superior to 16/44, you can't put back what's already been lost.
(BTW I'm not saying such material won't benefit at all from a remaster: mastering is a process and a skill in its own right, unrelated to bit-depth and sample-rates, it's just that where the source was only 16/44 to start with, any perceived improvement in SQ can't be related to the fact it's now in a HD format)

 

[Al ears]

All above talk of 'remastering' not much help to the OP.

Does anyone actually know the difference between SACD and SHM-SACDs is? For this is what the SACDs he refers to actually are.

 

[BigColz]

I'm not sure it was wise to admit that on a public forum, do you? Back on topic... Now this is IMO where SA-CDs and hi-res remasters get a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that certainly Brothers In Arms is a 'DDD' recording, ie it was recorded, mixed and mastered on digital recorders, which in those days would probably have only captured in 16/44 to start with. So what exactly is being achieved by giving us a 'HD' remaster?

Sue me. I thought everything was recorded 24/96 or 24/192 since way before the mid 80's and thats why everyone bangs on about vinyl being so great.. I may be wrong. Either way the 16/44 remasters sound fantastic

 

[MajorFubar]

Why should I sue you? If you want to openly admit to being a scummy thief on a public forum that's up to you, stupid as that is. You do know this site records your IP don't you?

And no, studios haven't routinely recorded in resolutions hugely greater than 16/44 for very long, comparatively. Don't ask me for an exact date because there won't be one, but 1985 certainly wasn't it.

 

[ReValveiT]

I'm not sure it was wise to admit that on a public forum, do you? Back on topic... Now this is IMO where SA-CDs and hi-res remasters get a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that certainly Brothers In Arms is a 'DDD' recording, ie it was recorded, mixed and mastered on digital recorders, which in those days would probably have only captured in 16/44 to start with. So what exactly is being achieved by giving us a 'HD' remaster?

Exatcly this.

Back in the late eighties/early nineties 99% of recordings were mixed down onto the (then) new-fangled DAT tape @ 16/44.1. So THESE are the original master tapes.

And as MajorFubar mentions, BIA was indeed multi-tracked to 16/44.1 so it would be impossible to extract a true 24/96 master even by going back and remixing.

If ever proof were needed that 16/44.1 is good enough, BIA is it.

 

[BigColz]

Why should I sue you? If you want to openly admit to being a scummy thief on a public forum that's up to you, stupid as that is. You do know this site records your IP don't you? And no, studios haven't routinely recorded in resolutions hugely greater than 16/44 for very long, comparatively. Don't ask me for an exact date because there won't be one, but 1985 certainly wasn't it.

It's an expression.. As in put the cuffs on, take me away.. Sorry you feel so strongly about it but I support the bands and music I love and then stuff I wouldn't buy anyway I download.. Mainly to show my ol' man music he likes as he may get back into it. He was vinyl mad with a nice rotel setup before the devil children came along.. Fair enough I assumed they had been recording in 24/96 for a long time as everyone says vinyl is better sample rates and heard that 16/44 was just a compromise decided in the 80's when CD was invented and apparently it's legth 80 mins was decided as the inventor wanted to the whole of beethoven 5th syphony on one disk.. But I was 1 in 1986 so don't have a leg to stand on :bounce:

 

[MajorFubar]

I'm going to have to offer my sincerest apologies to the O/P for taking this thread off topic but:

Sorry you feel so strongly about it but I support the bands and music I love and then stuff I wouldn't buy anyway I download..

...no matter what your reasons are, that doesn't make what you're doing 'ok'. It's like saying you buy from the shops you respect but you steal from the rest.

 

[BigColz]

I'm going to have to offer my sincerest apologies to the O/P for taking this thread off topic but:

Sorry you feel so strongly about it but I support the bands and music I love and then stuff I wouldn't buy anyway I download..

...no matter what your reasons are, that doesn't make what you're doing 'ok'. It's like saying you buy from the shops you respect but you steal from the rest.

Thing is I wouldn't have bought it in a shop so I certainly wouldn't steal it.. Think of it like I borrowed the CD of a mate, ripped it on my computer to see what it sounds like on my Hifi.. They haven't lost money because I would never have bought it in the first place.. You're right it's not 'ok' but meh it doesn't bother me.

 

[MajorFubar]

Think of it like I borrowed the CD of a mate, ripped it on my computer to see what it sounds like on my Hifi.

Which, as I'm sure you know, is just as illegal. Even though your anology is inaccurate.

You're right it's not 'ok' but meh it doesn't bother me.

What a strange forum this is sometimes. We've got at least one contributor who venomously opposes buying 2nd hand CDs because the original artists and producers don't get paid. Then at the other end of the scale we've got you: someone who openly admits on a public forum that he illegally downloads CDs, in such a carefree laidback manner that frankly it leaves me amazed.

I hope Admin are able to trace your IP and report you.

 

[BigColz]

Think of it like I borrowed the CD of a mate, ripped it on my computer to see what it sounds like on my Hifi.

Which, as I'm sure you know, is just as illegal. Even though your anology is inaccurate.

You're right it's not 'ok' but meh it doesn't bother me.

What a strange forum this is sometimes. We've got at least one contributor who venomously opposes buying 2nd hand CDs because the original artists and producers don't get paid. Then at the other end of the scale we've got you: someone who openly admits on a public forum that he illegally downloads CDs, in such a carefree laidback manner that frankly it leaves me amazed.

I hope Admin are able to trace your IP and report you.

Good luck with that

 

[DandyCobalt]

I have regular 16/44.1 remasters on FLAC that i got of a torrent site and it's some of the best remastering i've heard and my kit is very reveiling so i'd save your cash as it sounds incredible as it is.. Unless you're a die hard fan i guess

If you illegally downloaded it, because you wouldn''t have bought it, then found it was really good...er, get yer wallet out or its theft.

How about a compromise BigColz - £1 to the next charity box you pass in the street?

 

[MajorFubar]

Good luck with that

I don't need the luck, you do.

You sit there thinking you're untouchable and you sleep at night because as far as you see it you're committing a crime without a victim. But you're wrong. It's still theft.

Just about the least I'd do if I was a mod on here is hit the 'Ban' button on your account. But it seems moderators round here are like policemen: never around when you want one.

Shame you don't live up to your name, BigColz. Theft is not big.

 

[daytona600]

you can get brothers in arms on sacd for under a tenner , 60bucks is just a joke

if you have a high end sacd player , they can sound superb in stereo or 5.1

or rip them on a PS1 and play them on a DSD Dac like playback , mytek , benchmark

DSD direct stream digital downloads with replace Sacds in the future

 

[altruistic.lemon]

"Brothers in Arms" was recorded in 16/44. Any difference you hear is in the remastering, not the format. Avoid the 2005 release.

 

[Fee]

"Brothers in Arms" was recorded in 16/44. Any difference you hear is in the remastering, not the format. Avoid the 2005 release.

How do you know if it's the 2005 release? My copy, which sounds pretty good, says Newly Remastered with new sleeve notes etc on it but has 1996 copyright all over it, no mention of 2005 that I can see, but I can't remember exactly when I got it.

 

[stevebrock]

i have the copy thats says digitally remastered on the spine looking at the front of the case - sounds excellent to me!

 

[ReValveiT]

Exactly. (In reply to altruistic.lemon)

It can never 'sound better' than CD because it was both recorded AND mastered (the original studio master) in 16/44.1.

As I said earlier, a complete remix would not yeald a higher bitrate, because the original tracking was done in 16/44.1.

The only possible way would be to re-record the album from scratch. Better get on to Mark.

 

[BenLaw]

I'm going to have to offer my sincerest apologies to the O/P for taking this thread off topic but:

Sorry you feel so strongly about it but I support the bands and music I love and then stuff I wouldn't buy anyway I download..

...no matter what your reasons are, that doesn't make what you're doing 'ok'. It's like saying you buy from the shops you respect but you steal from the rest.

Thing is I wouldn't have bought it in a shop so I certainly wouldn't steal it.. Think of it like I borrowed the CD of a mate, ripped it on my computer to see what it sounds like on my Hifi.. They haven't lost money because I would never have bought it in the first place.. You're right it's not 'ok' but meh it doesn't bother me.

Self justifying nonsense. You are pathetic.

 

[dariushifi]

Hi

Yesterday, I discovered that Acoustic Sounds have a set of Japanese inport SACDs for all of the Dire Straits albums up to Borthers in Arms (including Alchemy). At US$ 60 ea, they are expensive but if they are a step up from the CDs, I am interested. Does anyone know if these are any good.

Few months ago I took a plunge , I mean a real plunge and ordered two shm-sacds Queen Innuendo, and another tubular bells ( sold on e-bay the next day). If you are in UK you will be charged additional £ 15 by customs. So I ended up paying £138. I know, I know...

I kept Innuendo album ( long time Queen fan), although I have to admit I was expecting more from it. Yes, Sound was clean, polished, Superb Stereo image and looked like well recorded CD, but not as a true SACD and not for this price. In the end it is 1991 recording and it is only 're-mastered'. Studio can not travel back in time and re-record it with SHM SACD technology in mind.

However I believe that this two chanel only SACD format properly recorded in real time would be the best what we ‘Quality sound seekers’ can only wish for. It is shame that these CDs are made only in Japan and only local artists can record it in real time and embrace this format.