HiRez Poll Dire Straits - BROTHERS IN ARMS [SACD/DVD-A DualDisc]

[Failed Muso]

I have the SACD. It took 3 players to find one that played the 5.1 layer properly. Pioneer BluRay players are crap SACD players, avoid. Only plays in 2.0

My SACD plays fine in all three of my Pioneer players (2x DV-575A's and 1x BDP450), as do every single one of my other SACD's. Have you got the latest firmware installed? A common problem is having the player play the right layer. On the BDP's, it's not as clear as it could be. To switch between layers, firstly make sure the disc is stopped. Press the STOP button twice to ensure you're out of playback mode fully. The display should read SACD with an SACD loaded. Then press the CD\SACD button on the remote and you will cycle through the layer options. The display will cycle through the following...

[CD AREA > SACD2CH > SACDMCH]

Apologies if you already know this, but when I first got my BDP, I spent ages hunting through the menu pages looking for the option that appeared in my DV players. A serious case of RTFM sorted me out

I'm not, the SACD sounds fantastic.

Agreed. Even though, for me, the content suffers from playback overkill, it is a highly enjoyable mix

 

[IMachine]

I'm not, the SACD sounds fantastic.

Just heard Why Worry and Brothers In Arms.
I also think it is fantastic. Wish there were more Dire Straits 5.1 mixes.

 

[bmoura]

I'm not, the SACD sounds fantastic.

It's an excellent 5.1 Surround Sound SACD. Heard it at the Audio Engineering Society Conference when it first came out on SACD with the Producer and Remix Engineer Chuck Ainley. He said the SACD sounded "just like in the studio".

 

[cupboy]

Was in a spinning class at the gym yesterday and they played Money For Nothing. Problem was it was edited. They had removed a certain word. You know the one. Is that typical? I never listen to the radio. Do they edit it then too?

 

[Blrac]

This is one of my few 10 rated discs. Amazing sound. This is as close to perfect as I have. Sounds much better loud--especially Money For Nothing. A must have disc.

 

[ProgRules]

This is one of my few 10 rated discs. Amazing sound. This is as close to perfect as I have. Sounds much better loud--especially Money For Nothing. A must have disc.

I agree the sound on this is amazing- and immanently crankable. What's interesting is the fact that the album was originally recorded in 16/44, so despite the transfer to dsd, this is not hi-rez, merely up-rezzed. Being among the best sounding sacd's I've heard, seems to be evidence that hi-rez is pretty insignificant, something I've believed for a while.

:slap: (I was hoping to find an emoticon for ducking, but minus that, I just illustrated the psychic reaction some may have...)

 

[steelydave]

It would be interesting to see spectral analysis of the DVD-A version to see if it was sourced from the SACD master, like the Beck Sea Change HFPA BluRay was, or if they managed to find the PCM master.

 

[rusinurbe]

It would be interesting to see spectral analysis of the DVD-A version to see if it was sourced from the SACD master, like the Beck Sea Change HFPA BluRay was, or if they managed to find the PCM master.

If I remember rightly the transfer is something like what happened with Karmakiraid or Nightfly where the original digital recordings were transferred at their native rates to analog and then retransferred at the higher bit rate to Digital.

My understanding was it was a PCM mix which then became DSD.

Not many pure DSD surround mixes at all due to the lack of workstations especially at the time this was originally mixed, and the difficulty ion mixing DSD as apposed to PCM.

 

[blue.monk]

I enjoyed this album when it came out back in '85 but lost enthusiasm for it over the years. As a result I was in no hurry to pick up the SACD upon its release. However, I'm glad I eventually did. It's a great sounding disc with a very satisfying surround mix. I still find the material somewhat of a mixed bag but it is an enjoyable listen.

9

 

[delarog]

And that's a 10 from me as well. I've never been too big a Dire Straits fan, I often find their music a bit too smooth. But I read so many good reviews of this SACD (and it's available for less than 7 pounds at Amazon UK), so I thought I'd give it a try. And I'm glad I did, the music is very enjoyable and wow... what a great sound and an excellent surround mix.

 

[Franklin]

My opinion on this might not be popular. I listened to this last night with a friend, and it was tough. The mix is drenched in reverb, and is overcompressed. Knopfler's vocals sound really boxey, and over reverbed too.. It was not a nice listen for me nor my friend. *That* drum moment on Money For Nothing is one of the weediest parts of the album - I wanted that bit to be great, and it could/should have been a highlight of the album. The Man's Too Strong seemed to lose the impact and subtlety of the stereo mix as heard from a previous master. Maybe it was down to the over compression, but the rears seemed too dominant for my tastes as well. The title track appeared to have the most promise for my taste, and started really well. This is an album I haved known for a long time (albeit mainly in it's shorter original vinyl form) and enjoyed a lot of.

My review is from listening to the SACD.

 

[fredblue]

Your opinions might not be popular for long if you keep giving discs with over 100 "10" votes on here a "3"...

I'm only kidding of course! It's your opinion and if you hate it, you hate it, fair enough.

However, I would say this;

There are 166 votes in this QQ Poll so far.

156 of them make up the "8", "9" and "10" votes for this mix.

I'd like to think votings largely kept in proportion here, though some Poll results are out of kilter imho (I won't detract from this Poll by discussing them here) but I don't feel this is one of them, in this instance your "3" vote begs the question "can all those people really have got it so wrong?"

 

[wavelength]

Your opinions might not be popular for long if you keep giving discs with over 100 "10" votes on here a "3"...

I'm only kidding of course! It's your opinion and if you hate it, you hate it, fair enough.

However, I would say this;

There are 166 votes in this QQ Poll so far.

156 of them make up the "8", "9" and "10" votes for this mix.

I'd like to think votings largely kept in proportion here, though some Poll results are out of kilter imho (I won't detract from this Poll by discussing them here) but I don't feel this is one of them, in this instance your "3" vote begs the question "can all those people really have got it so wrong?"

For me the important thing here is that Mike posted his thoughts as to how he arrived at a 3. Just hitting 3 with no comment is kind of meaningless.

 

[fredblue]

For me the important thing here is that Mike posted his thoughts as to how he arrived at a 3. Just hitting 3 with no comment is kind of meaningless.

I don't disagree in the slightest

Mike has justified why the "3" vote and I respect that.. the point I'm making is, for me, it opens up a wider debate here.. how can 150 QQ members be so wrong!? Any thoughts anyone?

When Mike was scoring the R.E.M.'s with consistently low votes, I chipped in trying to be helpful as ever with suggestions over setup (my default setting when comments about lack of bass or many mix elements are found missing or buried in a surround remix) but after chatting with Mike about it was found not to be the case = all was well with his gear.

So, in the words of Marvin; "What's Going Onnnn?"

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I don't disagree in the slightest

Mike has justified why the "3" vote and I respect that.. the point I'm making is, for me, it opens up a wider debate here.. how can 150 QQ members be so wrong!? Any thoughts anyone?

When Mike was scoring the R.E.M.'s with consistently low votes, I chipped in trying to be helpful as ever with suggestions over setup (my default setting when comments about lack of bass or many mix elements are found missing or buried in a surround remix) but after chatting with Mike about it was found not to be the case = all was well with his gear.

So, in the words of Marvin; "What's Going Onnnn?"

There are flaws in the surround poll; but it's almost unavoidable with different personalities and in some cases extreme bias towards formats. I shared with you the one example that I found that was absurd; and others outside this forum were scratching their heads at that one. But even in that extreme example, something good emerges. When I see one person that is way off from the consensus(either plus or minus the majority) on a consistent basis, I just don't factor their opinion into my decision to make a purchase of the disc being discussed. What I try to do is find a small core group that have felt the same way about discs that I already own, so I know their perception is close to mine. This core of people can give me a good feeling about a potential purchase. Of course YOU are in that core group. I reviewed every title on here and studied how voters felt about the various titles and you were very close to my own observations about discs.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

My opinion on this might not be popular. I listened to this last night with a friend, and it was tough. The mix is drenched in reverb, and is overcompressed. Knopfler's vocals sound really boxey, and over reverbed too.. It was not a nice listen for me nor my friend. *That* drum moment on Money For Nothing is one of the weediest parts of the album - I wanted that bit to be great, and it could/should have been a highlight of the album. The Man's Too Strong seemed to lose the impact and subtlety of the stereo mix as heard from a previous master. Maybe it was down to the over compression, but the rears seemed too dominant for my tastes as well. The title track appeared to have the most promise for my taste, and started really well. This is an album I haved known for a long time (albeit mainly in it's shorter original vinyl form) and enjoyed a lot of.

My review is from listening to the SACD.

I never got the feeling of compression on that SACD, in fact that album has generous amounts of Dynamic Range HERE

 

[Franklin]

Interesting chart. It's good that this is opening up debate (and that Fredblue took the time to check set up with me - incredibly politely and diplomatically too.) I imagine some of the high scorers and I do have *something* in common, and that's wondering if the other party(ies) actually listened to the thing!

Also, for transparency, I don't think I have a particular loyalty to any surround format, and don't expect one to sound better than another (except for the LFE issue I seem to have DVD-A, but that's a system problem - not the format.) I have wondered if SACD/DSD or its encoders have a sonic signature in the past. I don't think this has coloured this review. Also, for some kind of bench mark, some surround mixes I've really enjoyed are: Billy Joel The Stranger, pretty much all of the Queen stuff, most of The Marvin Gaye Collection, and Rumours. So please be assured I'm not trolling

 

[fredblue]

I hope all 166 members listened to it (preferably more than once!) and considered a number of things before they voted in the Poll.. the "human" element, in all its forms, is ever present when we vote.. we are 'only human' after all.

We can get carried away by the sheer visceral excitement of hearing something old sounding new.. then there's the subjectivity that comes from interpretation of what makes a good mix.. the variables of hearing abilities.. then where human traits meet machinery: our systems' capabilities (and set up as prev. mentioned)..

..still, factoring in all that and more, how does a situation come about such as this where 150+ people love a disc so much they give it 8's, 9's and 10's and yet someone like Mike comes along who has clearly listened carefully and hates a previously almost universally well-loved surround disc so much he gives it a 3...?

Maybe I should start a new thread?

 

[HomerJAU]

It's worth a new thread. BIA SACD sounds great to me. It's not dynamically compressed so (to me) it's a setup issue. (Example, my Oppo converts DSD to PCM for HDMI connectivity and can do 5.1 via analogue cables, is there an incorrect connection or setting. Does the amp say its receiving 5.1 or is it stereo converting to 5.1 with DTS neo or similar or other 'reverb' setting? I remember taking a 5.1 DTS CD to a mates place and it sounded terrible. Turned out his amp was set to 'stadium' reverb effects. Once that was turned off, beautiful discrete surround music)

 

[Franklin]

Good questions. I checked the settings as I wasn't liking the mix much (and haven't on a previous player too.) It is quite possible there is a system issue of course The SACD was playing six channel analogue out (with no PCM conversion beforehand that I'm aware of) into multichannel analogue in, and I checked the dynamic range settings when I was playing it too. I also played about with the bass management and speaker management in the player too. After I played the SACD I tried out some of Eric Clapton's 461 Ocean Boulevard on SACD which sounded fine, and didn't demonstrate nearly as much difference when I tried player sound management on and off. In theory the AV amp should be taking care of all those adjustments, with double adjustment when the player's settings are engaged. In theory...