A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: dustyvalentino on September 13, 2013, 08:07:28 AM
-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brothers-Arms-Dire-Straits/dp/B00DI5DPE2/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1379052248&sr=1-2&keywords=brothers+in+arms
Lost count of how many times I hadn't bought this album....
-
This seems a new version of the SACD. I'd need to rake it out, but from memory my version of the SACD from years back isn't the "original master recordings" one like this is.
-
But what does this part of a review from Mr Agnew mean:
"[...] even with the actual, unpublished song ending [...]".
This list shows the actual lengths of the tracks on the new release:
01. So Far Away (5:13)
02. Money For Nothing (8:26)
03. Walk Of Life (4:13)
04. Your Latest Trick (6:34)
05. Why Worry (8:30)
06. Ride Across The River (6:58)
07. The Man's Too Strong (4:40)
08. One World (3:41)
09. Brothers In Arms (7:01)
Track lengths of the first release(s):
CD and cassette
"So Far Away" 5:12
"Money for Nothing" 8:26
"Walk of Life" 4:12
"Your Latest Trick" 6:33
"Why Worry" 8:31
"Ride Across the River" 6:58
"The Man's Too Strong" 4:40
"One World" 3:40?
"Brothers in Arms" 7:00?
?
LP
Side one?
"So Far Away" 3:59?
"Money for Nothing" 7:04?
"Walk of Life" 4:12?
"Your Latest Trick" 4:46?
"Why Worry" 5:22?
Side two?
"Ride Across the River" 6:58?
"The Man's Too Strong" 4:40?
"One World" 3:40?
"Brothers in Arms" 7:00?
Thanks to this thread/poster:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mofi-dire-straits-brothers-in-arms-sacd-july-2013.318631/page-4
-
Got my one in front of me now and it's the 20th anniversary SACD. This is mixed for SACD stereo, SACD surround and CD. Mixed by Chuck.
It seems this new one comes from the master tapes (don't know about the one I have) and isn't the anniversary edition (obviously - it isn't 2005 any more). The anniversary edition has "an appreciation" inside the front cover by Robert Sandell.
If you want a one second longer version of SFA then I advise you get this new one pronto! ;D
-
...and there's at least one second more to ask yourself "Why Worry" as well....
-
...and there's at least one second more to ask yourself "Why Worry" as well....
I
-
;D
I'd only kill to get crimson!
-
...and there's at least one second more to ask yourself "Why Worry" as well....
I
-
This appears to be just another way to make fans cough up the cash for an old product. The 20th anniversary BIA was mixed by Chuck from the master tracks and I can only see this version differing in packaging, probably in need of a rebrand as we now approach the 30 th anniversary.
As an aside BIA was recorded entirely on digital recorders at Air and therefore even clones of the masters will sound hot!
-
The audiophiles on that forum daft that the 2005 sacd sounds credo and that these guys know their stuff...
-
For those amongst us, who haven't read the "sound on sound" article on BiA yet, head over there:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may06/articles/classictracks_0506.htm
-
For those amongst us, who haven't read the "sound on sound" article on BiA yet, head over there:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may06/articles/classictracks_0506.htm
Justme, thanks, very interesting read. :)
-
You're welcome. :D
-
The audiophiles on that forum daft that the 2005 sacd sounds credo and that these guys know their stuff...
I think one poster on that forum sums it up well
"I keep telling you guys, unless the original master file is totally different from what was released on CD, you're not going to get a huge amount of difference"
-
:)
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8 % success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50 % that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.
-
:)
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8 % success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50 % that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.
::) :P ;D In this order...
Now that is what I call a good marketing plan. Selling the same product over and over again. And I am one of the fools...
-
:)
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8 % success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50 % that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.
::) :P ;D In this order...
Now that is what I call a good marketing plan. Selling the same product over and over again. And I am one of the fools...
I have the original release from 1985, the 1996 Bob Ludwig remaster, and the 2005 two sided disc release with the 5.1 DVD-A remix on one side and the same remaster from 1996 on the other. So I'm probably a fool too. :) I can hear an obvious difference between the 1985 and 1996 versions and Bob Ludwig did an excellent job on the remaster, but I feel like anything after that is just overkill unless 5.1 surround is your thing. I have some 24/96 releases of albums by others bands and to tell you the truth I can't hear the difference between them and the CD releases.
-
I know exactly what you mean Dan. I have the BiA album in 5-6 formats (CD, SACD, DVD, Vinyl, XRCD and I think I also have it on a cassette) and some of the editions I have multiple times (vinyl from many countries around the globe, CDs new and old). I guess you have to heva a very expensive hi-end system and ears to match to listen to the differences, although from format to format and country there are some.
-
:)
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8 % success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50 % that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.
::) :P ;D In this order...
Now that is what I call a good marketing plan. Selling the same product over and over again. And I am one of the fools...
We are fools to buy forms of our Brothers In Arms. ;D
-
Ok, OMR (Original Master Recording) is a marketing thing.
1) the real meaning is that this recording is the same as the original one, they are not re-recording or cover version.
But that doesn't tell what generation tape has been used (it was especially thruth during the vynil years) and dot not certificate they had access to the master tape recording itself.
2) MOFI (Mobile Fidelity) is not remixing, they use already mixed tape and do remastering only. That said 2 differents mastering will give differents audible results as mastering is making a personnal (subjective) choice.
3) BIA being one of the first digital only recording you can't hope to great improvement. I have read that part of some process (Eq?) that are now done as post treatment where then done live recording and thus a already part of the available digital master.
4) personal opinion but this 85 all digital sound sucks on many tracks (and MK feel the same and has been back to recording analog). The analog safety that was done then is reputed to sound even worse. OES on that matter is way better and should be now used as the standard in digital sound recording. Being already perfect no need to remix/remastering, just producing a multi channel version.