Mofi Dire Straits Brothers In Arms SACD - July 2013

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by eelkiller, May 20, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Remasters need as much "futzing" as they need, ideally no more or no less than required. The flat transfer is not common in mastering or remastering. The I think issue is not the futz, it's whether the futz is a good futz or a bad futz.
     
    Plan9, Pinknik and DPM like this.
  2. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

  3. Paul W

    Paul W Senior Member

    I need to start a company that releases material that has never been reissued or remastered in any format. Like many here, I'm bored of the constant reissuing of albums that, frankly, sound either perfectly fine as is, or are too flippin' boring to listen in yet another "improved" remaster. Please....spare me.
     
    ponkine and Cousin It like this.
  4. soundboy

    soundboy Senior Member

    http://www.kickstarter.com/
     
  5. S. P. Honeybunch

    S. P. Honeybunch Presidente de Kokomo, Endless Mikelovemoney

    What do you like better about the sound on Love Over Gold?
     
  6. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    A lot of the early digital recordings have a thin bass shy sound to me. I especially notice it on drums, which sound more powerful on analog recordings from the same time frame. The Brothers in Arms drums (to the best of my ear/brain recollection) have a very thin snare sound and tizzy cymbals without much "character" for lack of a better word. A good copy of Love Over Gold sounds fuller and more realistic (for a built in the studio rock album). I love both albums. I think people love Brothers in Arms' production more than its actual sound. I personally feel it would have sounded better had it been recorded and mixed analog. I don't think Brothers in Arms sounds awful, just not as good as it could. I don't think mastering can fix it, but it may "improve" it. All my opinion and conjecture, of course. :)

    P.S. I can't tell modern digital recordings from a new analog recording. Not on my system at least. Something about the sound of early digital OR the way it was being used in the studio just stands out to me, and I don't like it as well. I think the first albums that tipped me off to that sound were Rush's Moving Pictures and Presto. Moving Pictures (tracked analog mixed to digital of some sort) has umph that Presto does not.
     
  7. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    Yeah, how much damage is MFSL doing to their business model by releasing this title? Releasing non-audiophile material on an audiophile label.
     
    SteelyTom and PROG U.K. like this.
  8. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    Yes you should. Then you could inform those on this forum how difficult it is to do -- and the reasons (legal and otherwise) why certain albums get released in various formats over and over (and others never get done)
     
  9. Carlox

    Carlox Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portugal
  10. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan

    Location:
    Atlanta
    Interesting perspective but I will be a bit generous and say perhaps they feel they can do it a bit better than what has been done before. The current versions are a bit digital sounding in many ways. Perhaps the MFSL mastering chain and some smoother HF will do this release some good.
     
  11. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    I'll counter and say that an 80's 16 bit digital recording on SACD is an insult. :D
     
    clmt55 likes this.
  12. ponkine

    ponkine Senior Member

    Location:
    Villarrica, Chile

    I'm with you :righton:

    I'm sick and tired to see the same albums recycled all over on different audiophile labels, while there's so much wonderful classic albums from several genres that has NEVER been on any audiophile lables. Not on DCC, not on MFSL, AF, Analogue Productions, etc
     
  13. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada

    Step one: abolish the RIAA + any music/media conglomerate. ;)
     
  14. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    Billy Joel, Bob Dylan & The Stones are the main culprits. The funny thing is a lot of people would buy another version of The Stranger on SACD, I don't get it.:confused:
     
    Paul W likes this.
  15. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    Oh, I dunno. Seems to me like the Stones have only really had one major re-issue campaign for early albums and another (perhaps two) for later material. Neither were boutique label campaigns either. Dylan and Joel are definitely getting more re-issues right now, but I don't think they're really in Pet Sounds / Kind of Blue territory yet. Now, if they're not your cup of tea, I understand that. Labels really do have to weigh being interesting and staying afloat, but yeah I wish they'd pull a few more recent or "off the beaten path" albums. I'm signed on for more MFSL Weezer vinyl. I'm also signed on for the MFSL Billy Joel's Greatest Hits :hide::D
     
  16. Carlox

    Carlox Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portugal
    :D
     
  17. KeithH

    KeithH Success With Honor...then and now

    Location:
    Beaver Stadium
    I must be one of the few in this crowd who see Brothers in Arms as audiophile material. It's a great album and it sounds great. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

    Also, I doubt seriously that MFSL is damaging their business model here. This disc will sell.
     
  18. KeithH

    KeithH Success With Honor...then and now

    Location:
    Beaver Stadium
    Do you like the SACD or the '96 remaster? There are better-sounding versions available, in my opinion, and I am confident that the MFSL SACD will sound better than your discs. The numbers game aside, I don't think you have a well-mastered version of the album there.

    (Just an opinion. I'm not looking for an argument.)
     
    Carlox likes this.
  19. KeithH

    KeithH Success With Honor...then and now

    Location:
    Beaver Stadium
    Brothers in Arms has been recycled over and over on different audiophile labels? Where are the Analogue Productions and Audio Fidelity releases? Where are the gold CDs from DCC or the original MFSL? The XRCD is 12 years old and is generally not well regarded here. The 20th anniversary SACD and DVD-Audio discs were released by the major labels (Universal and WEA, respectively), not audiophile labels. The SACD is an abomination, and the DVD-Audio disc is only slightly better. The SHM-SACD was cancelled (by Universal, not an audiophile label).

    I don't know what you are complaining about here.
     
    PROG U.K. and trumpetplayer like this.
  20. PROG U.K.

    PROG U.K. Audiophile-Anglophile

    Location:
    New England
    I have a good feeling about this release. Let's wait to critique until we have heard it. :cool:
     
  21. Carlox

    Carlox Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portugal
    Well Keith, i have the two (three, on vinyl too:D) versions, SACD and CD. Like you said, Brothers in Arms is a great album. The remaster of 1996, sincerely, sounds ok, to my ears of course. But, however, I bought a SACD player, and i decided to buy the SACD of Brothers in Arms, like some others (Talk Talk, David Bowie, Elton John...),so, i'm a amateur yet... . I believe there are better-sounding versions available, i will take your advice to get a better one.
     
  22. SteelyTom

    SteelyTom Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    It may be just peachy in its 16/44 low rez-ness. The question is, why reissue it as an SACD?

    MoFi will do some EQ tweaking, enough to distinguish it from the redbook versions; it will sound "different" and therefore, to some, "better"; and that will suffice to annoint the reissue as a success, at least in the opinion of some here.
     
  23. MikeT

    MikeT Prior Forum Cretin and Current Impatient Creep

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Why are you so down on Mofi releasing this on SACD. Don't buy it, but at least be fair and wait for its release to make judgements about what Mofi will do and how members that purchase the disc will respond.

    What bone do you have to pick with MOFI? If it is the fact they are releasing an early digital recording on SACD; if so, then ignore the release, this thread and those who might just want to purchase it for their collection.

    How is tweaking eq, and making the album sound different than any redbook version already released any different than all remastered music, be it from an analog or digital source?
     
    trumpetplayer likes this.
  24. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    It reminds of the criticism that AF received for doing Rush Counterparts because "it was a 16 bit 44100/48k release yadda yadda", completely ignoring the fact the original CD was clipped, compressed, and artificially boosted. If they can't even appreciate a SACD release where the mastering doesn't have the unnecessary processing, how could they appreciate this?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine