Album Reviews

Born out of desperation (hence the name), with the release of its eponymous debut album containing "Sultans of Swing", Dire Straits was an instant commercial success. Cynics at the time said the tune made Dylan safe for average folks. The album was eventually certified double platinum.

As popular as was the group and its previous three albums, this, their fifth was the one that did for them what DSOTM did for Pink Floyd. What made it so attractive in 1985 to the music buying public? Audiophiles might say the sound and impeccable production (which was also true of DSOTM and others might say the attractive cynicism and outright bitterness of "Money For Nothing", which takes swipes at both MTV and the in vogue at the time "New Wave" synth-pop—not to mention rock-stardom generally as observed by a particularly bitter, homophobic laborer.

I'd say it was a combination of factors that included "Money For Nothing" but more to the point was the album's blending of old school, then fading guitar-based rock with the era's glossy recording and production techniques then being applied mostly to synth based pop.

Thus both current popsters and greying hippies could enjoy a glossy sounding protest album. The older listeners might hear Buddy Holly and The Everly Brothers in "Why Worry", while the younger ones might hear the chorused guitars and tinkly synths.

Springsteen fans might be attracted to the imagery in the lyrics of "Your Latest Trick", while some might catch the Peter Gabriel influenced "Ride Across the River" and those needing a genuine toe-tapping sugar rush have only to wait for the goofy "Walk of Life", which recently made its way into a Farxiga commercial (is the drug manufactured in Albania?), thus ruining it for everyone except for those with type 2 diabetes (what that song is doing on the album has always been a mystery to me).

Lyrically and musically there was something for everyone on this album and for audiophiles there was the sound. Well for some audiophiles. For this one, while the production is astonishing and the recording "pristine" the sound is everything I hate about digital sound combined with its good qualities—and that goes for the original LP and CD, the latter of which was both one of the first true DDD CDs and at the time a "break out" disc for the format.

I don't claim to be a Brothers in Arms authority though I know that the original LP's songs were "manicured" so they'd all fit on a single LP. I don't know how the longer songs on the CD differ, nor do I know which ended up better—there's a case to be made for shorter songs. The recent Mobile Fidelity SACD is the full 55 minute album originally on the CD version.

I took the time to note each LP song's length and what you get here is what appears to be the full CD length songs. I write "appears" because there are some inexplicable discrepancies. Below is a comparison of the Mo-Fi's SACD timing versus the LP's (SACD on left):

5:13 5:05
8:26 8:15
4:13 4:02
6:34 6:26
8:30 8:20
6:58 6:50
4:40 4:37
3:41 3:32
7:01 6:48

Some allowance must be made for fade outs, but still I found the differences unusual. Did I play the discs synched? No. But clearly this reissue includes the full album, not the truncated original. I have contacted Mo-Fi to find out if they know why these timings differ.

By the way, I did locate the older, double LP reissue cut by Stan Ricker and though the label lists the edited shortened song lengths, the reissue does contain the full length songs and we'll publish a comparison.

Surely this would be a release the digital folks would say proves that vinyl fans are out of their minds. Why would you buy a vinyl LP version of a DDD production when you can buy the CD? After all, the Sony 3324 used to record the album is a 16 bit machine capable of at best 48k sampling and given that this release was meant for CD, it's quite possible it is CD resolution (which makes you wonder why Mobile Fidelity bothered with an SACD release not to mention vinyl!).

Since first posting this review I contacted co-producer Neil Dorfsman and got some interesting information, beginning with the fact that contrary to the SPARS code, this was not at "DDD" production! The original digital multitrack recording was done at 48K/16 bit but because it was mixed via an analog SSL (Solid State Logic) mixing board, the digital tracks first had to be converted to analog and then mixed to two-track DAT at 44.1K/16 bit resolution. Therefore, this double 45 was mastered from a CD resolution tape. If it was the original tape, it was a DAT tape.

Now while cynics might say "why not just get the CD"? It's not that simple. "Get the CD" and use what to decode the digits? Your CD player or DAC? Is it as good as the one Mobile Fidelity uses? Or do you think all DACs sound the same? When listening to this double 45 you are hearing a combination of Mo-Fi's D/A converter, the mastering engineer's EQ choices and what the analog cutting process does or does not do to the resulting analog signal, just as when you listen to the original CD or LP you are listening to the gear used for those back "in the day" and the EQ choices made by Bob Ludwig.

Comparing the original Bob Ludwig mastered LP (Warner Brothers WB 9-25264-1) with this double 45rpm edition is easy: there is no comparison. Ludwig was stuck with an early D/A converter and while there still are those declaring those and digital "perfect", you can hear that early converter ringing and if that's not what causes the bright, annoying global glare, then something else is responsible—like maybe the A/D converters in the 3324? In that case nothing could solve the problem other than to apply EQ that would probably kill the record.

Happily, Mobile Fidelity has managed to eliminate the glare without damaging the goods. This reissue at 45rpm is so superior to the original that I think (I wrote I think) even Tom Port, who, in a just published story on wired.com called me "deaf" for saying that four original copies of Steely Dan's Aja sounded identical (except that I didn't), will find this reissue superior to the original (I'm not upset at Port. I think his tongue got away from him and at this point, who cares?). True I only have one original copy, but what afflicts the original record is not a pressing variation! And I understand Stan Ricker cut a version of this a few years ago but I've not heard it or for that matter heard of it so I can't tell you how it compares.

Here's the thing though: I currently have three great 'tables set up with three different cartridges: The Continuum, the Sperling and the George Warren (which is affordable and crazy-good) and so I can definitely say that depending upon your set-up this new version (or any version of this DDD production) will sound either really good (for a digital production) or, despite Mobile Fidelity's best efforts, still kind of sterile, hard and ultimately fatiguing as any "pure" digital production vintage 1980s does.

As much as I love XTC's Big Express and admire its subterranean super tight bass and explosive dynamics, its overall sound is so similar to Brothers In Arms, I'd be surprised if it too wasn't recorded on the Sony 3324. By the way, there's one for sale on Ebay as I write this for $2300. Who says digital doesn't have a "sound" (not me)? Analog has a "sound" too, but it's one I much prefer.

In any case, Mark can't go back and re-record this album. He can only go forward in the analog domain. This version features explosive dynamics, super-tight and deep bass, pristine "crystalline" highs (in the best and worst meanings of that word) and yet gone to a great degree is the original's ear-fatiguing glare. Inner detail resolution mesmerizes, the guitars transients are oh-so-cleanly rendered and there's even air and space, but though the drums have been especially well recorded in terms of miking and microphones used, the cymbals remain "pristine" and overly polite, and Omar Hakim's snare hits hard, ringy and lacking in skin (if it's a drum pad they are perfect, though to be fair, a great deal of purposeful processing has been applied to the drum hits to give them a particular sound that the resolution of this record makes abundantly clear). Much of it, though, is surface, little goes deeply into textures or tonalities—it's like M&Ms minus the chocolate center. However, it's fair to say that's what was intended.

Meanwhile if you think Ringo was bummed being replaced by Andy White on "Love Me Do", consider poor Terry Williams who had to sit out the entire album because he couldn't deliver on drums what Knopfler and Dorfsman wanted/needed (but he did play on the supporting tour).

What I most like about the sound of this album—original or reissue—is that it perfectly captures, for better or worse, the glossy, digital frontier emerging in the mid-eighties. It is, as they say, a "time capsule", though at times a headache inducing one, despite Mobile Fidelity's best efforts but if you're a fan of the music and the sound, this is the vinyl version to have. It rocks!. BTW: this sealed copy was perfectly pressed by RTI and I do mean perfect.