Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms" Remaster?!?!?!

Hi all,

I saw this in a store recently and it struck me as odd since the original non remaster version cd is DDD - completely digital. While having the better complete artwork available with the remaster would be nice, I wonder if this upgrade would be sonically better?

Any comments? I am skeptical!

Matt

 

Matt,

There's an old Lounge thread, "Regular CDs that don't s--k," that addresses whether the original or remastered Brothers In Arms is better. I believe forum members split on the issue, though.

 

Matt,

I'll save you a little time. I think the new Warner Brothers SBM remaster of Brother In Arms is sonically superior with respect to audiophile qualities. It is smooth and balanced to my ears. All of the SBMs I've heard can be a tad bright though, but it doesn't necessarily detract from the musical enjoyment in this case. I think it's worth the upgrade.

 

I concur, the remastered version is better than the original version.

 

I prefer the remastered version to the original, but in my opinion, the XRCD beats both.

 

Not only do I prefer the remastered SBM to the original, I think its one of the best remasters with Bob Ludwig's name on it (and I've been less than kind about some of his work). Can't say I've heard the XRCD.

I bought several of these Dire Straits remasters when they hit the stores in the USA about a year and a half ago, but someone told me that they've been available in Europe since '96. Can anyone confirm this?

 

I bought all the Dire Straits remasters. I am very impressed by them, particularly "Communique", which, in my opinon, sounds sublime. They remind me of all the good things I liked about Dire Straits on vinyl. I have the records in storage and cannot listen to them (a continent away). The remastered CDs fill the gap nicely.

Regards,
Metralla

 

Keith, I haven't heard the remaster but IMHO the XRCD is a hair better than the original and now there's one in between!

 

I bought the remaster with the preconceived notion that it couldn't sound any better than the original but I also have to agree that it does indeed sound better somehow. It seems to have a nicer soundstage to me and it's nice and mellow.

The original was pretty darn good to begin with!

 

Drew,

The person that told you that was right, I have the European Brothers In Arms. I have not heard the American version to see if there's any differance. I have the other WB remasters and they sound great. I just wish that they would remastered "On The Night", that is one of the few live Lp's that I really like.

Elton

 

I saw them for the first time here around 1998 or 1999, but definitely later than 1996.

It was a digital recording to begin with, but can it be that even then it was done at a higher resolution/sampling rate? If so, it could benefit from better conversion to regular CD format that is available today.

 

SLV,

The Dire Straits remasters by Bob Ludwig came out in 1996 in Canada and Europe.
The U.S. copies did not show up until circa 1999.

 

If you carefully match the volume levels of the two CDs (the original and the remaster), I think you'll find that the two sound virtually identical.

I can recall the disappointment I felt upon first hearing the LP. Unlike the group’s four earlier albums, this one sounded thin and tipped up throughout much of the midrange and treble, and grossly lacking in dynamic contrasts. It sounded very homogenized. Upon buying the CD version of the album two months later, though, I discovered that the two sounded almost identical. Any differences I heard were probably a result of my equipment and not the software. The CD version of Brothers was the very first CD I bought, and since the CD compared so well with the vinyl I was positively impressed with the then new medium from the outset. I didn’t consider at the time that the new album’s sound differed so greatly from the earlier LPs because it, as the album’s jacket so proudly proclaims, is “a full digital recording,” but only that my one CD sample, by its similarity to the vinyl, must be indicative of the medium’s promise.


It's not clear whether the remastered CD came from original analog safety backups or a digital source. Since the record industry was cautious of the new medium, they often archived original digital recordings to analog safety backups because it was not known how well digital tapes could survive in storage. It is nearly impossible, then, for music buyers to determine the original sources for much of the music they are buying. Are some coming from these analog safety backups? But more importantly, the issue of how an early digital recording was originally made casts some doubt on its serviceability as digital recording processes improve, and improve they have. Unless the goal were to modify the original source through equalization or some other such alteration of the original sound, using current 24/96 technology to remaster a digital source originally recorded at 16/44.1 or below would be meaningless. The result would be nothing more than a 16 bit recording passed through a 24 bit system.

If you’ve heard “Money For Nothing” too many times to ever want to hear it again, though, you’ll be happy to read here, that, other than its higher volume level, the newly remastered CD is nearly impossible to distinguish from the original. And don't get me started on the XRCD version.

 

The remaster is the better version!

I have the i) original version, ii) the SBM remaster and iii) the JVC XRCD (produced by HongKong company but pressed in Japan).

On first impression the XRCD is better but later found that the XRCD version has bloated the low frequency. The XRCD lacks the detail as in the SBM remaster. I am not sure whether the XRCD version uses the orginal master. Once at AudioAsylum, Joe Harley, of JVC, USA did mentioned about some "dubious" XRCD from Hong Kong.

I haven't play the XRCD version at all ever since I did the extensive comparison with the SBM remaster.

 

Hi,

This is a very interesting thread since everyone seems to agree that the remaster is better (or at least equal) to the original release. I thought the last time this title was discussed, many of the posters found the original release to be superior. I also thought that many posters felt that the remaster was remixed. Does anyone recall any of this or is it all a dream?

-Jeffrey

 

Isn't the XRCD a counterfiet from China?

 

Yes, Jeffrey, this is what I was trying to get at with the second post above. The old Lounge thread is called "Regular CDs that don't s--k," for anyone who's interested.

 

The original Brothers in Arms, although good, was recorded far too low IMHO. I had to turn my amp up to 10 / 11 oclock which resulted in unnatural hiss from the amp current.
The Re-master sounds pretty much the same to me..maybe a hair cleaner/more bass, but definately recorded at an average volume.

 

Aside from the newer hits collection, the best sounding Dire Straits CD is On Every Street, IMHO.

I recently found a British pressing of this one in a local used store, and was surprised to read that it is an analog recording. There's nothing on the USA pressing to indicate this.

On vinyl, the British pressing of Communiqué is hard to beat.

 

I'm almost positive my CD of On Every Street indicates DDD on the back cover at the top corner.

 

Sorry Beagle, I'm looking right at it, here's the lowdown on the USA pressing (I gave the British one to a friend when I found it sounded identical):

engineered by bill schnee & chuck ainsley
asst engineers, steve orchard, andy strange and jack puig
mixed by neil dorfsman (except heavy fuel mixed by bob clearmountain)
mastered by bob ludwig at masterdisk, new york
recorded at air studios, london

Incidentally, for those of you who still maintain that the remasters sound better than the originals, consider that the volume levels are at least 6 dB louder than the earlier versions which should clue you in that they are compressed more. (sorry.)

As for On Every Street being recorded in analog, Dire Straits fanatics take heart: IF it really is analog, that means that if and when it's ever remastered to SACD or DVD-A, you'll be hearing more info than you would be if it were a standard PCM master that would be interpolated to produce the higher bit rates in either format. That's encouraging news, I hope.

I'll be emailing the friend who's got that British pressing for the details on its recording history.

 

No.

Just because something is louder doesn't mean it is compressed. The Canadian Who's Next CD is "pretty loud" and some songs have max peaks of 90% or so. The Japanese CD is even louder and has max peaks of 100%. Does that mean it was "compressed"? Of course not. It just means the Canadian CD wasn't mastered as loud as it could have been.

Now, for all I know, the new DS CDs could be compressed - I don't know. However, simply because something is louder doesn't mean it's compressed.

 

sgb,

It's nice to have opposing views on this. It keeps things in perspective. I am known for having opposing or unpopular viewpoints.

 

Luke,

be assured that my mention of at least a 6 dB increase in volume levels was, to put it mildly, conservative. The remaster of Love Over Gold is the loudest CD I've ever heard, with volume levels reaching ear-shattering levels at about 8:00 o'clock on the control knob, while the typical CD ranges somewhere between the 10:00 and 11:30 settings (depending on the particular CD). Trust me, the Dire Straits remasters are VERY compressed.

 

Why would they compress a re-issue of an older title? It's not going to get any more airplay so what's the point? Is the catalogue remaster market not intended for audiophiles rather than boombox owners?