MOFI remasters first 4 albums on 45rpm 2LP and SACD

[ustas]

Maybe it's better to post some arguments, facts, knowledge, etc. than just saying somebody is wrong. If you know better, please explain and make everybody learn something!

It's too enough to begin:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD ,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital
I hope nobody banned by Google :-)

[herlock]

Yes I do.

I have bad news for you. You absolutely do not understand what you talk about. Sorry.

Then please tell me what I said wrong instead of judging.
I just said that SA-CD provided so-called hi-res sound, with higher sampling rate or horizontal resolution (e.g. 192khz instead of 44.1) and higher bit depth or vertical  resolution (i.e. 24 bits instead of 16) than normal Redbook CDs.
This was by no means a complete description of SA-CD (I didn't talk about DSD for instance) because it was not intended to be - just to tell my doubts about the usefulness of high-resolution audio. The DSD technology, which I am well aware of, don't worry, does not change the fact that we are talking about high-rez audio, just like DVD-A which uses PCM. You will tell me DSD is one-bit, and you'll be right, but at the end it's just high-rez audio. Besides, according to the Wikipedia article you quoted yourself, research conducted in 2007 proved with double blind testing that people could not make the difference with Redbook CDs - all things being equal of course. I am also well aware of this (excellent) research.
I don't like to praise myself but I have been a mathematician and a computer engineer for 20 years, so I don't take lectures on this tone.
I challenge you to find anything wrong in the simple facts I stated. Others on this forum perfectly understood what I meant.
Arrogance and lack of argumentation will lead you nowhere.

[ustas]

I just said that SA-CD provided so-called hi-res sound, with higher sampling rate or horizontal resolution (e.g. 192khz instead of 44.1) and higher bit depth or vertical  resolution (i.e. 24 bits instead of 16) than normal Redbook CDs.

Do not kidding me here. You said:

SA-CDs, aside for surround mastering when it exists, offer higher horizontal (192khz instead of 44.1) and vertical (24/48/96 bits instead of 16) resolution than CDs.

It's a nonsense.

I don't like to praise myself but I have been a mathematician and a computer engineer for 20 years, so I don't take lectures on this tone.
I challenge you to find anything wrong in the simple facts I stated. Others on this forum perfectly understood what I meant.

Everything is wrong. Instead of to declare your job experience, first, my offer (not lecture) for you (as a mathematician) to study a basic things of Nyquist  (also known as Whittaker–Nyquist–Kotelnikov–Shannon)  sampling theorem, and second - Sony/Phillis Scarlet book.

[herlock]

I just said that SA-CD provided so-called hi-res sound, with higher sampling rate or horizontal resolution (e.g. 192khz instead of 44.1) and higher bit depth or vertical  resolution (i.e. 24 bits instead of 16) than normal Redbook CDs.

Do not kidding me here. You said:

SA-CDs, aside for surround mastering when it exists, offer higher horizontal (192khz instead of 44.1) and vertical (24/48/96 bits instead of 16) resolution than CDs.

It's a nonsense.

I don't like to praise myself but I have been a mathematician and a computer engineer for 20 years, so I don't take lectures on this tone.
I challenge you to find anything wrong in the simple facts I stated. Others on this forum perfectly understood what I meant.

Everything is wrong. Instead of to declare your job experience, first, my offer (not lecture) for you (as a mathematician) to study a basic things of Nyquist  (also known as Whittaker–Nyquist–Kotelnikov–Shannon)  sampling theorem, and second - Sony/Phillis Scarlet book.

Again you don't give any justification whatsoever. Discussing with you is pointless.
Thanks a lot for pointing to Nyquist, as if I had not heard of that !
I rest my case, this is leading to nowhere.
I suggest you (and everybody interested in the issue) read the following excellent paper. Very well written and enlightening. I have nothing to add or to withdraw.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[Jules]

It would be nice if someone could explain it in words to someone like me that doesn't understand a technical word 

I asked if I buy any of those SACD and play them in my DVD player (a Phillips home cinema that plays Dolby surround and DTS) I will notice any significant difference in sound than the CDs, the original ones and the 1997/98 remasters...

[superval99]

It would be nice if someone could explain it in words to someone like me that doesn't understand a technical word 

I asked if I buy any of those SACD and play them in my DVD player (a Phillips home cinema that plays Dolby surround and DTS) I will notice any significant difference in sound than the CDs, the original ones and the 1997/98 remasters...

I have the 1997 remasters too, which I still listen to very happily and would like the same explanation, please.       All of those phrases mentioned above are just gobbledygook to me!   

[herlock]

It would be nice if someone could explain it in words to someone like me that doesn't understand a technical word 

I asked if I buy any of those SACD and play them in my DVD player (a Phillips home cinema that plays Dolby surround and DTS) I will notice any significant difference in sound than the CDs, the original ones and the 1997/98 remasters...

Hi Jbaent,
To put it simple:
1) To play SA-CDs you need a dedicated player that is specifically designed for that. They become rather scarce these days, as the format is a niche. You would need one of those "universal" Blu-ray players with SACD playback enabled. They will not play on a normal DVD player. Or rather, chances are that those SA-CDs will also feature a normal CD layer for compatibility, so you would play this layer - with none of the claimed advantages of SA-CD.
2) As many have said, recording/mixing/mastering processes are way more important that any debate about the format. So you should really wonder where the master comes from, regardless of the physical format.
3) All things being equal, some people claim that SA-CDs have a higher audio quality than CDs. There is no evidence of this belief. There is evidence of the opposite, see the double-blind tests performed in 2007 and mentioned in the paper I quoted above.

My take: play a well recorded/mixed/mastered plain Redbook CD into a great CD player with great speakers. It will be as good as it gets. The good old CD format is good enough for our ears - and will be forever, as the paper concludes.

[Jules]

Actually Tracker sound amazing in the DVD player!

So a bluray that actually support SACD, DTS and Dolby surround would be the best buy for this?

When BIA, STP and SL were released in SACD and dvd-audio I bought them in both formats and my DVD played the CD audio layer of the SACD CDs and they sounded very good, even better than the normal CDs to my ignorant ears... And the DVD audio sounded very well in 5.1 but, except the BIA that was properly mixed for surround, the others were nothing extraordinary...

[superval99]

 I notice that the albums from Shangri-la onwards were mastered by Bob Ludwig, Portland Oregon, not at BG.

[herlock]

Actually Tracker sound amazing in the DVD player!

So a bluray that actually support SACD, DTS and Dolby surround would be the best buy for this?

For a modern good Blu-ray player, Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-Master Audio support will come built-in.
SACD and DVD-Audio will only come on so-called "Universal" players - you need to check. DVD-A is virtually dead (too bad the STP MK album was released in this format) and SA-CD, although not dead, is quite rare. There are still new releases though, especially classical.
To me, SA-CD, DVD-A and their successor, Blu-Ray pure audio, are stillborn formats. Redbook CD is good enough for audiophiles, vinyl is the way to go for nostalgic, geeks go for high quality downloads and teenagers could not care less about sound quality for their stuff, so they go for MP3

[herlock]

Actually Tracker sound amazing in the DVD player!

So a bluray that actually support SACD, DTS and Dolby surround would be the best buy for this?

When BIA, STP and SL were released in SACD and dvd-audio I bought them in both formats and my DVD played the CD audio layer of the SACD CDs and they sounded very good, even better than the normal CDs to my ignorant ears... And the DVD audio sounded very well in 5.1 but, except the BIA that was properly mixed for surround, the others were nothing extraordinary...

Chances are you also played the compressed DTS layer of the DVD rather than the real DVD-A Layer who cares if it sounded good !

[Jules]

Actually Tracker sound amazing in the DVD player!

So a bluray that actually support SACD, DTS and Dolby surround would be the best buy for this?

When BIA, STP and SL were released in SACD and dvd-audio I bought them in both formats and my DVD played the CD audio layer of the SACD CDs and they sounded very good, even better than the normal CDs to my ignorant ears... And the DVD audio sounded very well in 5.1 but, except the BIA that was properly mixed for surround, the others were nothing extraordinary...

Chances are you also played the compressed DTS layer of the DVD rather than the real DVD-A Layer who cares if it sounded good !

It sounded in 5.1 for sure... I checked all the speakers one by one

[Jules]

Several websites announce remasters of the first four Dire Straits albums on SACD and 45rpm 2LP by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. Great news! These guys really know what they're doing and really can make a difference In getting out the very best of a recording soundwise.

So...
Anyone with just a normal CD player, or a DVD like me... Does it worth to buy these new versions?

[herlock]

Actually Tracker sound amazing in the DVD player!

So a bluray that actually support SACD, DTS and Dolby surround would be the best buy for this?

When BIA, STP and SL were released in SACD and dvd-audio I bought them in both formats and my DVD played the CD audio layer of the SACD CDs and they sounded very good, even better than the normal CDs to my ignorant ears... And the DVD audio sounded very well in 5.1 but, except the BIA that was properly mixed for surround, the others were nothing extraordinary...

Chances are you also played the compressed DTS layer of the DVD rather than the real DVD-A Layer who cares if it sounded good !

It sounded in 5.1 for sure... I checked all the speakers one by one

Indeed. But lossy 5.1

[herlock]

Several websites announce remasters of the first four Dire Straits albums on SACD and 45rpm 2LP by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. Great news! These guys really know what they're doing and really can make a difference In getting out the very best of a recording soundwise.

So...
Anyone with just a normal CD player, or a DVD like me... Does it worth to buy these new versions?

Unless they improve drastically on the already excellent masters, which I seriously doubt, and that these masters are also reflected on the CD layer of the SA-CD, or released on CDs, I would say yes, pretty useless...