Step one - upload the images to http://www.tinypic.com/

That will give you a link to the jpg hosted which you can copy by highlighting and pressing control-C

Then come on here and click the "Img" button above the response window, press control-V and then click the "Img" button again. That will give you something like [ Img ] www.tinypic.com/yourjpg.jpg [ /Img] (but without the spaces).

Click "Preview Post" and it should all be ready to post.

Hope that helps

i really don't hear a difference between the two versions (except for the obvious volume). i certainly hope this is not the last word on how these recordings should sound. question is: once prince gets the masters into his hands, will he remaster them or will he remaster & re-edit them (as in editing out lyrics that do not fit his religious outlook e.t.c. ...)?

Bravo christobole. That's the comparison I was looking for. Thank you for your efforts. Remember that Ultimate was remastered per approval by Prince and WB from a digital source, and these SHMs were not. So the noticed wave-form differences reflect this scenario.

I'm real sorry, but I must insist to disagree about the way the new SHM's sound. Somebody there in Japan went through a lot of trouble to make them sound better than ever before. I don't think they are remastered though, but they do really sound improved, believe me. As said before already, it all depends on the equipment used. I myself have the 3-2-1 entertainment set from Bose at home (which is not that much of a big deal in terms of audio) and even I heard a much clearer sound and certainly more detail, much more bass and prominent drums. Then, when I did the second test, I used a SACD-player (Super Audio) and here the difference was even more stunning. Very audible in cd's like Lovesexy: Eye No had its bass so clear and driven to the fore, it was coming right out of the box. In all the tracks, there's much more detail to be disovered. OK, I agree, a SACD-player's laser can read the data on the disc much better/detailed so maybe that's the big difference, just like a Blu Ray-player I suppose. But even with my fairly simple equipment, there's a huge difference. F.e. yesterday, I played Eye No and Alphabet St. (on 80's original) and it all sounds 'compact' as in one package and it stays distant. Then, when I played the SHM on those 2 tracks, drums and bass were coming sort of loose from the rest and were very prominent - it all sounds much more clearer and detailed. In this case, it has got nothing to do with just increasing the sound. If I play the 80's original at the same volume, I still won't hear what I'm hearing on the SHM-one (less detail, the compactness is still there). And you can see on the SHM sound-waves as well that there's nothing lost in terms of dynamic (= the difference between slow, silent passages and louder, hard ones). I mean, sometimes remasters sound so horrible - all its volume has been peaked to a maximum, so all the dynamic gets lost which can make a record so alive. Apparently, the 25th anniversary edition remaster of Michael Jackson's Thriller seems to suffer from this very problem. So, maybe if you know someone who has real good equipment (I'm not saying you have lousy equipment), please run some tests with the SHM's and their 80's counterparts in the same player. There's really much to be discovered yet, even with Prince's old music. Besides that, I don't think remasters on these old albums will ever see the light of day as I don't think Prince is willing to (a) supply Warners with any more money on his catalogue + (b) he's not into the old albums anymore because of the apparent sexual contents of his early stuff.
[Edited 7/26/09 0:33am]

squirrelgrease said:

The sources are the original 2-track album masters and they are analog tapes (except for his latest stuff) so Ultimate is not sourced from digital. Maybe they just used a digital copy (of the original analog source) for remastering, but i would like to think WB are not this stupid or lazy these days.

Warner Japan, however, must've used a digital master (a copy, sent to them by WB) they just added their usual extra care and technical perfection, and these, together with the benefits of the SHM disc, give us an overall better quality sound.

I'm real sorry, but I must insist to disagree about the way the new SHM's sound. Somebody there in Japan went through a lot of trouble to make them sound better than ever before. I don't think they are remastered though, but they do really sound improved, believe me. As said before already, it all depends on the equipment used. I myself have the 3-2-1 entertainment set from Bose at home (which is not that much of a big deal in terms of audio) and even I heard a much clearer sound and certainly more detail, much more bass and prominent drums. Then, when I did the second test, I used a SACD-player (Super Audio) and here the difference was even more stunning. Very audible in cd's like Lovesexy: Eye No had its bass so clear and driven to the fore, it was coming right out of the box. In all the tracks, there's much more detail to be disovered. OK, I agree, a SACD-player's laser can read the data on the disc much better/detailed so maybe that's the big difference, just like a Blu Ray-player I suppose. But even with my fairly simple equipment, there's a huge difference. F.e. yesterday, I played Eye No and Alphabet St. (on 80's original) and it all sounds 'compact' as in one package and it stays distant. Then, when I played the SHM on those 2 tracks, drums and bass were coming sort of loose from the rest and were very prominent - it all sounds much more clearer and detailed. In this case, it has got nothing to do with just increasing the sound. If I play the 80's original at the same volume, I still won't hear what I'm hearing on the SHM-one (less detail, the compactness is still there). And you can see on the SHM sound-waves as well that there's nothing lost in terms of dynamic (= the difference between slow, silent passages and louder, hard ones). I mean, sometimes remasters sound so horrible - all its volume has been peaked to a maximum, so all the dynamic gets lost which can make a record so alive. Apparently, the 25th anniversary edition remaster of Michael Jackson's Thriller seems to suffer from this very problem. So, maybe if you know someone who has real good equipment (I'm not saying you have lousy equipment), please run some tests with the SHM's and their 80's counterparts in the same player. There's really much to be discovered yet, even with Prince's old music. Besides that, I don't think remasters on these old albums will ever see the light of day as I don't think Prince is willing to (a) supply Warners with any more money on his catalogue + (b) he's not into the old albums anymore because of the apparent sexual contents of his early stuff.
[Edited 7/26/09 0:33am]

An orger close to the Ultimate project used to post here. They were not allowed access to the analog mix-down tapes, so they used a digital source for Prince Ultimate.

SHM is a con. You'll probably find that the masters used for these CDs happen to be first gen instead of what's been used previously. I would bet all of my money on this. The plastic material used in the CD will not make a difference to the sound. The master source will.

christobole said:

i thought warners owned the masters (the mix-down tapes). wouldn't they likely still have possession of them after manufacturing the orignal records? i don't see how p. could not allow them access to those tapes (unless the tapes in the warner archive have been destroyed or got lost)?

interesting and very sensible theory! maybe there's hope for deluxe re-masters after all. imagine, for example, a sign 'o the times set: original album on 2 cd + 3rd cd of extended versions and remixes + 4th cd of outtakes + 5th cd of live material. miles davis' back-catalogue has been given this kind of deluxe treatment for ages. i think we're either going to get something special like that or nothing at all.

Those wave forms just appeared 2 have a hotter gain.

Graycap23 said:

So applying ReplayGain to our current CDs and they'd sound the same?

Even just in iTunes, I've adjust the volume preset to max and it sounds way better.