add to wish list | library

223 of 239 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

Support this site by purchasing from these vendors using the paid links below. As an Amazon Associate earns from qualifying purchases.
  Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms
  "Brothers in Arms, 20th Anniversary Edition"

Dire Straits:
Mark Knopfler (guitars & vocals)
Alan Clark (keyboards)
Guy Fletcher (keyboards & vocals)
John Illsley (bass & vocals)
Omar Hakim, Terry Williams (drums)
Track listing:
  1. So Far Away
2. Money For Nothing
3. Walk of Life
4. Your Latest Trick
5. Why Worry
6. Ride Across The River
7. The Man's Too Strong
8. One World
9. Brothers In Arms
Recording type:
Recording info:
  Recorded at Air Studios, Montserrat, West Indies
Original recording: Produced by Mark Knopfler and Neil Dorfsman
Engineered by: Neil Dorfsman

Produced by Mark Knopfler and Chuck Ainley
Mixed by Chuck Ainley
Assisted by Rupert Coulson and Jon Bailey
Transfers assisted by Graham Meek & Chris Myring of Tickle Music Hire
Mixed at British Grove Studios
Mastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering & DVD, Maine

read discussion | delete from library | delete recommendation | report errors
Related titles: 8 show all

Reviews: 33 show all

Review by JW June 4, 2005 (17 of 18 found this review helpful)
Performance:   Sonics:  
I can make a comparison between the SA-CD and the 1985 RBCD (1), the 2000 Remaster (2) and the 1985 Vinyl version of this album (3).

(1) sounds flat and veiled in comparison with (2) which sounds bolder with more body and definition and air. On (3) the drums stand out more, there seems to be more air around the bass drum, and the tic on the rim is dryer on the record. The voice is less defined (less resolution perhaps). (3) sounds better in my system than (2). It has a warmer, more expansive sound with more body. Massive difference it ain't, but it's there. I am glad this hobby is not a science ...

The interesting thing is that the SA-CD sounds almost more analog than my vinyl. There is a roundness to the sound, especially the voice, which has a softer edge that is more akin to records than discs. At the same time I also think the SA-CD is more transparent than the LP - not sure that is the right way to describe it, but you can see through the music more if you know what I mean. Not a big difference, subtle.

The CD layer of the SA-CD sounds more expansive to me than (2). The intro to track 4 is a good example in my view. On Track 7 (The Man's Too Strong) the guitar is recorded dryer and sounds more articulate than on (2). And the main instrumental theme of the song is spread wider between my speakers. On its own the remaster is a nice sounding CD. The SA-CD improves upon it though. And my judgement about the orginal RBCD - recorded at a much lower level btw - still stands. It's left in the dust.


PS: I am gaining more experience with this disc, listening to it on higher resolution systems than my own, and it must be said that the PCM origins form this recording are clearly distinguishable. IT's the best BIA I have ever heard, so SA-CD has done its job, but compare it to modern DSD recordings and you'll find that BIA cant match the extension and musicality of those discs. It's all relative.

Was this review helpful to you?  yes | no

Review by boguspomp December 10, 2005 (12 of 26 found this review helpful)
Performance:   Sonics:  
I'm reading the reviews here for a while and mostly they really helped me a lot to decide whether to buy or not to buy a certain SA-CD.

As almost everybody on this forum praised this SA-CD I went along and got it for the higher inport prize it costs here in the US.

The sound is certainly much better than the RBCD was but the M-ch mix is just not what I had expected after all these 5 star reviews.

And how can some of the reviews refer to this SA-CD as "the best sounding CD ever " ? Mind you that it was recorded in pure 1985 44.1 kHz 16 bit and you can hear that. The sound is sharp, sterile and no comparison to some 1980's analog recordings that were remixed for SA-CD/DVD-A ( Steely Dan comes into mind)

Songs like "Money for nothing" are so outdated that after listening to this version twice I will trade it in and hopefully get something more staisfactory than this over-sterile canned music.
2 stars for the music and 3 for the sound ( to give 5 stars to a 44.1 kHz/16 bit recording makes this forum obsolete, don't you think ?)

Was this review helpful to you?  yes | no

Review by Vladimir May 28, 2005 (9 of 10 found this review helpful)
Performance:   Sonics:  
Excellent! I can't imagine this album getting any better than this. I already had the Cd version and even though it was a very good sounding cd it's not even close to the amazing sound of this sacd. And the surruond mix really makes this album come alive, it's a very good surround mix with a lot of use of the rear channels, it fits percectly with the music. This album will be one of my first choices for surround music demonstration. It's not as good as Dark side of the moon, but not far behind.

My favrite track is money for nothing (surprice?). The intro of this song is spectacular, it always has been but the new 5.1 really makes me smile, even after several times of just listening to the intro... (My neighbour probably thinks I'm retarded after listening to the same two minuits of money for nothing over and over again, on very high volume).
But of course there are more nive tracks on this album, So far away, Why worry and Brothers in arms are all beautiful songs, and they all have very good surround mixes. These four song I've mentioned are excellent, the rest are "ok". I would like to have at least one more rock song like money for nothing, maybe instead of Walk of life. I used to think Walk of life was a pretty nice song but I guess my taste has changed. now it just feels wrong.

Summary: Very good sound, transparent and clear, I can't think of anything to complain about. There might be few albums in my collection that sounds even better, but this is more than I expected from this album. The samething with the surround mix, very good! It fits perfectly with the music. (I only give it 4½ stars because there are one or two albums that are even better,)

Was this review helpful to you?  yes | no