Dire Straits SACDs

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!

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

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?

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.

 

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

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)

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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 

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

...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. 

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

 

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