Dire Straits SACDs

Sorry Alears, I'll try to write things in a way which is less confusing Please bear with me.

Yes, the analogue part of the DAC uses low-pass filters to remove noise beyond 20kHz. The filters have to be quite steep. With oversampling, the theory is the filters can be much gentler, which is said to be beneficial for the sound quality.

'Remastering' is quite a simple term, which literlly means 'making a new master'. Yet, it covers a multitude of potential processes. With analogue recordings, it can mean re-sampling the original tape using better equipment or sampling it at higher resolutions and bitdepths. From that new capture they would make a new digital master. It can also mean taking the current digital master and changing the eq curve, adding compression/volume maximisation and other processes to create a new master which has a more pleasing sound than the original.  

This is probably what they've done with the HD version of BIA, and yes, it could end up sounding better than the original CD because of it.  But one thing any improvement can't be because of is the fact that it's now on a HD medium, because the multitracks were only 16/44 to start with. Convert the audio on your BIA SACD to 16/44 CD accurately and it will probably sound the same, assuming your player is as equally good at playing normally CDs.

I hope I've clarified things.  Please ask again if you're more confused than you were to start with!

Like you, I'm amazed both at the gall of bigcolz and also that the number of people willing to speak out on the issue appears to be 4-2 in favour of illegal downloading 

Ah well Ben if you can't beat them...reckon I'll just download BitTorrent.  There's a few CDs and DVDs I fancy, as well as BDs, that it being near Xmas I can't really afford.  But hey, who cares?  I'll torrent them.  Let me know what you want mate and I'll post them to you on a memory stick.

Will do Major, ta. I'm in town tomorrow anyway so I thought I might just pop into HMV and grab a handful of CDs. I wouldn't buy them normally anyway, so it seems fair enough. 

Fair do's Ben. Pop them on the memory stick I'm sending to you with the films on it and post it back to me. Cheers mate.

Frankly with spotify/napster (which any self respecting music lover must have by now) I can see no justification for illegal downloads at all. I don't steal any music (I won't even rip borrowed CDs) and I don't accept any of the arguments for such activity I have seen in the above posts. 

I have had arguments with friends on the subject before, and I have friends who illegally download everything. I guess we all have different ethical codes. I break other laws that I consider harmless, but I don't intentionally steal from anyone. 

What a load of feeble generalistion and semantic twaddle.

The days of cash-strapped students or teens taping a pal's LP is one thing, but cynical torrent-downloading when you own Cyrus/Naim/ProAc hi-fi is rather different. Nor was LP-taping so prolific - one LP didn't yield thousands of copies, unlike one torrent.

And I bet most 'cassette pirates' subsequently replaced their C90s with official CDs or LPs, whereas a torrent downloader will not go on to buy a legit version. And justifying torrent-downloading as a means of try-before-you-buy is total cobblers - join Spotify, it's £4/month or free.

Applying the 'everyone does it' analogy re, for example, motorway speeding is utterly facile:

The 70mph limit was decreed in 1965, when the average car - eg, a Ford Anglia 105E, with drum brakes front/rear, nil passive/active safety kit - would rollover/skid/spin-like-a-top if emergency-braked and/or swerved at 70, with obvious lethal consequences. In comparison, today's average car - eg, a Ford Focus, with four-wheel disc brakes, ABS, ESP etc - will merely come to an abrupt halt when emergency-braked at 70, or 80, or 90.

Thus, cruising at 80mph in a contemporary vehicle, when weather/traffic conditions permit, is not wrong in a practical or moral sense, which is why most police turn a blind eye. (Although there is an argument re CO2 output...) Meanwhile, the 70 rule remains to reign-in the inept and idiots distracted by mobiles, ICE etc.

There is, however, no moral or practical justification for illegal downloading merely because 'lots of people do so' - you're still denying artists their livelihood, especially those starting out.         

Interesting side track of topic!

So, I have Blue Lines on vinyl and CD. If I were to illegally download* the remastered version, who exactly, am I defrauding?

I will, of course buy it as it's not exactly a fortune, but I've already paid for the license to play/royalties for this music, twice. 

Of course, if the original cd had been the quality it should have been, I wouldn't have this dilemma.

I'm not out to rattle anybody's cage here, just posing a question.

*Not condoned or encouraged.

I often wonder if people actually read posts properly or just skim through the first few lines and assume the rest. If you did read my posts you'd know that that wasn't the point I was making. The analogy to other crimes, including speeding, was to point out a hypocritical attitude whereby a person considered that one illegal act was OK and another wasn't.

Neither have I implied that because "everyone does it" it's OK, what I said was:

"Well, I can't condone it because it is illegal and it is affecting the music business but it's also something that is widespread, virtually impossible to police and maybe needs looking at."

Have to agree that someone with the cash to burn on a Cyrus/Naim/ProAc set up should pay for their music. 

It's what's commonly referred to as 'marketing BS'.

Hahaha if we all buy an album, after the record company takes its 95% of course we might be able to russle up enough for a gram of coke and a bottle of wine for them to enjoy in their mansion.. 120 million + album sales.. No I don't care and neither do they.. Small amazing punk bands driving around the world in a EDITED van with no money purely for the love of music i support, go to their shows buy their albums and merch and sometimes meet them after gigs and buy them a beer.  Nice to know you 'think' you're making a difference tho hey (pats on back)

I was signed to a record deal. I was in a band that toured. The record company does not take 95%- a lot of the mark-up is the distributor and the shops. The bands on the label that sold more records got the better touring support- labels fronted the money for the tours, and all monies paid were more a bet than a loan, so the labels are in a pretty high risk part of the industry. A lot of music pirates try to justify by saying "oh, I'lll go watch the band live, buy the merchandise" etc. Unfortunately it's getting more expensive to transport bands and gear, hiring rates are going up, and people aren't going out to the smaller gigs anymore. There will be a point where national gigs just stop happening, and part of it is because of people not putting the money into the bands via record sales. That will creep up. Sure, the mega-artists like U2, Rihanna and Pearl Jam will still keep touring no matter what happens, but I can see everything up to those bands just starting to break through being the most affected, the ones where playing music is starting to transition from being something they love to a career (and the two are definately not mutually exclusive).

Not having a go, just putting out how I see things from my end.

double post

Perhaps now might be the time to move this tedious 'ripping off the music industry' thread / slanging match elsewhere so people can get back to answering the OP's original question.

No problem with your post apart from as bolded.  I doubt very much that prices would drop, the music industry has always milked consumers for as long as they possibly can.  As has every other industry until competition/new product etc has weakened their position.