Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, Roxy Music, Prince coming to blu-ray Audio Dolby Atmos. Blu-ray: The New Ultimate Standard for Audiophiles?

[restorer-john]

Hmm. Why?

All these albums (assuming you think they are worth listening to in the first place) sound perfectly fine on Redbook CD or equivalent. Seems to me like yet another pointless cash grab to sell you the music you already own in a new DRM infested format ...

Aimed at Boomers/Gen X'ers who foolishly threw out their 'old' 1980s original CDs in the 2010s and 'upgraded' to iTunes/streaming and yearn to recapture their glory days listening to "classics".

For people like me, we bought the original pressings on CDs, still have them in perfect condition and have zero interest in pimped-out, "re-imagined", "fully immersive" sonic-salad versions sold at stupid prices. Pay a few dollars, find an original Japanese CBS/Sony pressing of Make It Big or an early German 'atomic' full silver pressing of Songs From the Big Chair.

Early Japanese Paul Young, No Parlez:

 

[restorer-john]

Is it the new standard in terms of audio presentation in the home? I would say absolutely yes.

The reference is the original. Remixes have no intrinsic, historical or artistic value. Just another boring cash grab, milking the poor, worn out, old cash-cow one more time.

 

[levimax]

injecting some opinion, I find it awfully close minded to suggest the oldest version of a thing is the most pure from from which any deviation is undesirable. if talented and well resourced mix engineers are given the opportunity to recreate a mix using modern approaches, and the original artists not only have sponsored this effort but given their blessing, why should we not consider it a legitimate candidate. in this case, everyone who has heard these bluray versions gushes over them.

People argue over this type of stuff all the time but a different perspective and opinion does not necessarily mean "close minded".

Unless there are some large technical flaws I will give the benefit of the doubt to the original version. They were working with the "best" version that has ever existed or will ever exist, which was the original, fresh, undamaged master tapes. They also had the artists input and the sound was influenced by the recording styles and technology of the day. I find most remasters to push the sound to be the same as contemporary recording styles and seldom actually contains additional sonic information, just different EQ and compression. This makes no sense to me as I enjoy hearing the differences in recording styles over time but others like their old music with a modern sound which is fine as well.

Rather than "close minded" I think my perspective is more "cynical" in that I don't think most remastering is done to "improve the original art" rather it is done to sell more units.

 

[Jean.Francois]

Is there a reason to buy these Blu-Rays over streaming the Dolby Atmos mixes on Apple Music or some other streaming service?

Streaming uses Dolby Digital Plus Atmos at 768 kbit/s, unlike Blu-ray which uses Dolby Digital TrueHD Atmos, a lossless format with a bit rate of up to 10,000 kbit/s. To give you an idea of the difference, I've made a comparison of the formats “Dolby Atmos comparison: Dolby Digital TrueHD vs Dolby Digital Plus” .

 

[masterhw]

People argue over this type of stuff all the time but a different perspective and opinion does not necessarily mean "close minded".

Unless there are some large technical flaws I will give the benefit of the doubt to the original version. They were working with the "best" version that has ever existed or will ever exist, which was the original, fresh, undamaged master tapes. They also had the artists input and the sound was influenced by the recording styles and technology of the day. I find most remasters to push the sound to be the same as contemporary recording styles and seldom actually contains additional sonic information, just different EQ and compression. This makes no sense to me as I enjoy hearing the differences in recording styles over time but others like their old music with a modern sound which is fine as well.

Rather than "close minded" I think my perspective is more "cynical" in that I don't think most remastering is done to "improve the original art" rather it is done to sell more units.

like any medium, its how it is used that determines whether or not it is worthwhile. i took issue with the perceived dismissal that a new edition is incapable of sounding better than the old. agree the old is always the benchmark.

i have listened to some superb Atmos/5.1 versions of Abbey Road, Sgt Peppers, DSotM, and Rumours. sure this multichannel spec didn’t exist when these albums were created, but I still think it possible to create tasteful versions artistically faithful to the original. i have access to both and when the multichannel mix is good, I opt for it almost every time.

I insist you guys give these things a try before declaring it inferior to difficult to find out of production versions. I often have to ask myself in audio, is this thing actually better or is it just more expensive, harder to find, and more work? what sounds best can’t cant always be that.

 

[kyuu]

Rather than "close minded" I think my perspective is more "cynical" in that I don't think most remastering is done to "improve the original art" rather it is done to sell more units.

I find that viewpoint silly. The original was made to sell units as well. If you take issue with the fact that something was done to make money, then I'm afraid you're going to have to throw out your entire music collection. I don't think you'll find much content there that was made for charity. In reality, that's completely orthogonal to whether there's artistic merit.

The reference is the original. Remixes have no intrinsic, historical or artistic value. Just another boring cash grab, milking the poor, worn out, old cash-cow one more time.

That's about as myopic a viewpoint as I can imagine. Seems to imply that concerts have no value either. After all, it's just a rehash of the original recording, perhaps with some minor changes, for the purpose of making more money. Hell, even the original recording isn't the "original" in all likelihood. Deciding that the version of a song that ends up on an album (and only the very first release of it) is the only version that matters or has any merit? Absurd.

 

[Timcognito]

I find that viewpoint silly. The original was made to sell units as well. If you take issue with the fact that something was done to make money, then I'm afraid you're going to have to throw out your entire music collection. I don't think you'll find much content there that was made for charity. In reality, that's completely orthogonal to whether there's artistic merit.

That's about as myopic a viewpoint as I can imagine. Seems to imply that concerts have no value either. After all, it's just a rehash of the original recording, perhaps with some minor changes, for the purpose of making more money. Hell, even the original recording isn't the "original" in all likelihood. Deciding that the version of a song that ends up on an album (and only the very first release of it) is the only version that matters or has any merit? Absurd.

These are good points about content, packaging and new formats but the audible quality will not improve beyond redbook unless there are flaws in the original recording formats such hiss that is later altered. The problem comes from being marketed as better sounding which can not be heard as has been tested, documented, argued and challenged many many times on ASR.

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

The ear decides which version sounds the best. For me the version of 2022 had a more natural sound on my equipment than the original CD of the 80s which I own. On Spotify you find both versions. Try and judge.

 

[Chrispy]

I prefer bluray for the latest multich recordings, plus the 2ch versions they can accommodate easily. Multich SACDs aren't being made for newer stuff either let alone DVD-A.....so....

 

[levimax]

I find that viewpoint silly. The original was made to sell units as well. If you take issue with the fact that something was done to make money, then I'm afraid you're going to have to throw out your entire music collection. I don't think you'll find much content there that was made for charity. In reality, that's completely orthogonal to whether there's artistic merit.

I don't have a problem with anyone making money even if it is done by making a few EQ changes and saying it is "The best version in the history of the world". I just don't believe in most cases that remasters are a real improvement and I don't think the changes are made to improve anything, just to sound a little different so they can be hyped to sell more units. Of course there are exceptions and some remasters are materially different and better. Most however are like DSOTM, where there are over a dozen versions which all sound good with only subtle differences compared to the original.

 

[kyuu]

These are good points about content, packaging and new formats but the audible quality will not improve beyond redbook unless there are flaws in the original recording formats such hiss that is later altered. The problem comes from being marketed as better sounding which can not be heard as has been tested, documented, argued and challenged many many times on ASR.

Well, if you're talking about whether there's any audible improvement going from redbook to higher sample- or bit-rates, then sure we're in total agreement. I would be perfectly fine if the multichannel recording was in one of the lossy Dolby/DTS formats, frankly. But there can certainly be an audible improvement in other ways, such as going multichannel in the first place. Of course the mixing has to be done well, which is not always the case.

 

[Chrispy]

I don't have a problem with anyone making money even if it is done by making a few EQ changes and saying it is "The best version in the history of the world". I just don't believe in most cases that remasters are a real improvement and I don't think the changes are made to improve anything, just to sound a little different so they can be hyped to sell more units. Of course there are exceptions and some remasters are materially different and better. Most however are like DSOTM, where there are over a dozen versions which all sound good with only subtle differences compared to the original.

Still, depends if the remaster is for different media or not....or if it even improved mastering/needed remastering for the same media you've already got. Starting with a great recording is key in any case.

 

[levimax]

Starting with a great recording is key in any case.

To me it seems like the better the original recording the more often it gets remastered. An example is DSOTM compared to "Exile on main Street".

 

[Robin L]

All I can say is that I don't see Blu-Ray audio discs when I go to "record" stores. Plenty of vinyl. Some CDs (still). But no Blu-Ray. And I've got three discs in that format from a while back. The format has been around for some time, but the interest simply isn't there.

 

[EJ3]

Is there a reason to buy these Blu-Rays over streaming the Dolby Atmos mixes on Apple Music or some other streaming service?

Because they are NEW and will make someone money.
If you do not posses it already (and want it [or are not happy with the one you do have for some reason), sure, try this version.
Otherwise: (I won't).
But...you never know: pet rocks were a hit in many places for a while.

 

[EJ3]

I find that viewpoint silly. The original was made to sell units as well. If you take issue with the fact that something was done to make money, then I'm afraid you're going to have to throw out your entire music collection. I don't think you'll find much content there that was made for charity. In reality, that's completely orthogonal to whether there's artistic merit.

That's about as myopic a viewpoint as I can imagine. Seems to imply that concerts have no value either. After all, it's just a rehash of the original recording, perhaps with some minor changes, for the purpose of making more money. Hell, even the original recording isn't the "original" in all likelihood. Deciding that the version of a song that ends up on an album (and only the very first release of it) is the only version that matters or has any merit? Absurd.

concerts=a large portion of my music because, on stage & with time constraints more of their own doing, the musicians CAN be (but don't HAVE to be) more innovative & perhaps even more true to what they wanted it to be.
Extreme Example (written by keyboardist Rod Argent and done with his band at the time, The Zombies) "Time of The Season":

In my opinion, it's fairly good! But PALES VASTLY to:
And done live by Rod Argents Band: ARGENT:

I only own one copy and it is definitely NOT the first "original?" one (or any other) than the second one presented here.

 

[bluefuzz]

There's a new trend, particularly for reissues, to have a blu-ray edition with little or no impact from loudness war,

I've never found the so-called 'loudness wars' problematic. Yes there is a small handful of releases I regularly listen to that I would consider over-compressed but they are mostly from the last couple of decades, and released by artists (or their record labels) who presumably intended them to sound like that. In the case of 'classic' rock and pop remasters from before the advent of the CD I find (if I can identify any difference at all) the remasters invariably sound better than early CD releases or vinyl. Sometimes a lot better. For music originally released on CD then that original release is as good as it's going to get.

In other words these new blu-rays are a solution in search of a problem ...

 

[restorer-john]

In the case of 'classic' rock and pop remasters from before the advent of the CD I find (if I can identify any difference at all) the remasters invariably sound better than early CD releases or vinyl. Sometimes a lot better. For music originally released on CD then that original release is as good as it's going to get.

I mostly agree with that sentiment.

There definitely were however a bunch of otherwise technically good recordings made in the early years of CD before the artists, recording engineers and producers started to truly explore the depths of digitally recorded bass and purity of treble. Once they started exploring distortion free, high level, deep bass, things got better very quickly. I would say by 1985 progressive recording artists and engineers were producing some truly incredible recordings.

The Tears For Fears example above (Songs from the big chair and the Hurting) are examples of that. They were well recorded, but a bit dry in the bottom end. Same with Paul Young, and Wham's Make it Big. Great for the time. Take some of 1985/6 stuff recorded on the Mitsubishi X80 like Icehouse, some early Midnight Oil and you get an almost subterranean bass. They discovered what they could capture, press and translate to really augment the performances.

 

[Chrispy]

To me it seems like the better the original recording the more often it gets remastered. An example is DSOTM compared to "Exile on main Street".

It's easier?

 

[spiral scratch]

I used to be upset with the way David Bowie was reissuing his catalogue every few years. At some point I understood that what he was doing was reissuing his licensing agreements, so of course the new recipient wanted to sell new versions of the material. Then I was OK with it, I figured it's his stuff to do with as he pleases, if he wants to give time limited licensing agreements for his catalogue and make as much money as he wants with it. If you are familiar with his his CD output, the original West German pressings are generally the ones that are most sought after for their sound qualities, later remasters not so much. Those West German CDs are very expensive nowadays. Ziggy Stardust is one exception that was redone in 2012 and became the definitive version.

Rolling Stones' Beggars Banquet was released on tapes that ran too slow. It wasn't until 2002 that a version with correct tape speed was released. So those original CDs and vinyl don't really reflect what was actually recorded.

I guess my point is that original CDs weren't always so great, sometimes remasters were an improvement, sometimes not so much. I don't think it's correct to make blanket statements about either one. Not everyone loves the loud sound of remastered CDs. Yeh, there's a lot of cash grabs and upgradeitis. Not everyone wants to trawl used CD bins looking for stuff and would rather just pick something off the shelf at Best-Buy or online.

I was reading something about what Bernie Grundman said about different digital formats and I'll be paraphrasing here but if I remember correctly the gist was that mastering being equal if you take that digital medium and rip it onto a hard drive and play it back you will not hear a difference. If you play that medium in your CD player, SACD player, BluRay or whatever you may hear a difference as there is a lot a variable with how that data gets handled by the different gear. So what may be perceived as a difference in quality may just be a difference in hardware.