Bob Dylan Remastered SACDs question (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Porter]

I've been downloading loads and loads of Bob Dylan from the internet (legally) thanks to a little website called allofmp3.com . My question is this, how good are the newly remastered SACDs? I can't tell if what I've downloaded is ripped from the new masters or not. So I'm in a dilemma where I've bought all the essentials, (BOB, H61R, JWH, BIABH, BOTT and more) but now I'm questioning if the sound quality is the best I could be listening to. So I was thinking about forgetting about my MP3s and just buying the 15 disc box set. I don't have an SACD player, so my question is are these good on regular CD players too? I was just going to rip them all to the computer and put them on my iPod so I was just wondering if the sound quality is significantly better to warrant the purchase. Would the purchase only be beneficial to those who own SACD players or should I plop the $96 and go for the whole package?

 

[Phil A]

Some of the SACDs are really good. Like anything else, regardless of format, there are things that are mastered at different quality levels. If you like Dylan, and don't have the CDs, then $96 is not a bad deal.

 

[ElevSkyMovie]

allofmp3 is not legal in the US. It's a Russian website and no one knows if they are actually paying royalties or not.

 

[dpippel]

Ripping the remasters to MP3 and listening to them on your iPod will negate any increase in audio quality they may have over previous releases. If you're not going to listen to the CDs themselves on a good system, I'd say save your money. If you ARE going to listen to the CDs then it's $96 well spent for any Dylan fan IMO. Even the Redbook on the remasters is excellent, the SACD layer even moreso.

 

[Rachael B]

I'd suggest that you'll graduate from MP3 eventually. By then you might be glad you picked up the set...?

 

[Rich Malloy]

If you want the SACD/CD hybrids, you'll need to get them now as Sony is not printing anymore and the only ones left are the stock on the shelves. Before long, they'll be available only on eBay and likely at astronomical prices.

If you're only interested in the CDs, you can wait until and if MP3 no longer sounds good enough for you.

 

[Matt Birchall]

$96 for the box set? Man alive. I paid somewhere around $170 about a year ago, and thought that was a good deal at the time. So either I got taken, or someone is selling it for a crazy low price.

Either way, $96 for that set is a steal. I say jump on it.

 

[Grant B]

I believe MP3s are big because people play them on their 2 inch computer speakers were they can't tell the difference.

Crappy system and it don't matter

 

[Kevin Porter]

I actually have what would be considered a nice system. I have two sets of the Klipsch 2.1 Promedia set, one for my room (with an line-out from the iPod dock) and one for the computer. Hardly a candyass set of speakers.


I think that I would be able to tell a difference with my speakers. I'm asking
A) If it would be possible to rip the SACDs
B) If the only improvement in sound quality, the remastering, is on the SACD layer of the disc.

 

[Rich Malloy]

If your MP3s are not the remasters, then yes they will sound a great deal better.

Even if your MP3s are from the remasters, the CDs will still sound better.

The SACDs do sound even better still, and some have multichannel tracks if you go for that sorta thing, but they aren't "rippable" in the traditional sense. I understand some folks run an analog line-in and convert to digital, but I suspect this has the effect of "down-rezzing" to PCM, which means it's only an improvement over the CD if the CD mastering in a given instance is poor. This occurs quite frequently between CD and SACD mastering, most recently with Keane's "Hopes and Fears", which sounds exceptionally better on SACD than either CD or Dualdisc. But in this instance the Dylan CD remasters are mastered to PCM very well, so you'll likely only hear an improvement from the straight DSD track played back on a SACD player.

 

[Matt Birchall]

I made an MP3 disc from the old Dylan releases over three years ago. Most of the key '60's albums were on it, including a couple that haven't been remastered yet (The Times They Are A-Changin' and New Morning). At the time, the general sound quality between the albums was about the same.

Last year, I made another MP3 disc with pretty much the exact same material, only I substituted in all of the new hybrid remasters for their older versions. I still left in the old The Times and New Morning discs because those were the only versions I had. Going between the remastered albums and the non-remasters (and vice-versa), I could easily tell a difference in the sound quality.

I'm not exactly for sure if that's what you're getting at, but from what I heard, yes, there was a noticable difference in the sound quality between the old and new versions, even on the regular, non-SACD layer. I believe everything's been remastered on the new discs, not just the SACD layer.

Hope this helps.

 

[matthewRaz]

1 - allofmp3 is very uptodate so they may have used the remasters
2 - if so the sample rate you select would have the biggest impact - they offer a multitude of formats and rates (if using a mac you can even select various levels of aac variable bit rate - something itunes doesn't even do)
3 - the dylan remasters are improved on both cd and sacd layers
4 - you cannot rip the sacd layer
5 - allofmp3 is legal for them because of russian copyright laws
6 - downloading music is not illegal anywhere (as far as i know) - it's "sharing" that is against the law
7 - the immorality of stealing an artists work is just as true with allofmp3 because they pay no one but themselves - hence the cheap price
8 - i have downloaded several albums from them that i own but cannot put on my ipod due to lame copyprotection
9 - to emi et all - thanks for making me use a download site