TheDigitalGardener said:

djdaffy1227 said:

Who has that kind of money for a CD??? Crazy....

Amazing price.

I'm not going to criticize the buyer at all, but look at the amount of really great rare Prince cd's/records/whatever that could have been bought with that $7,500, mind you it's a fair bet that someone spending that much on one item will have everything else there is to have anyway.

I can see spending that much before the 1994 version was released. I guess if you've got everything else, this could be the crown jewel in your collection. However, now that we have the 1994 release, the only reason I would buy that CD would be to rip it and check to see if the 1987 original CD really has identical mastering. But I wouldn't need a sealed copy for that purpose.

Another $100 record I just got:

[img:$uid]http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u257/djdaffy1227/101_0425.jpg[/img:$uid]

Genesia said:

Mine is probably One Nite Alone - Solo Piano. If memory serves, I paid around $120 for it.

Sexy Dancer (Extended) cost me over a hundred bucks, too. And God (Instrumental) was close to that.

Come to think of it, I should probably have those indexed on my homeowners insurance.

$85AU. [gonna kick your ass] double album. side a-b-c live in frace & holland 1987.

side d- live in san francisco & japan 1986. excellent recording. 19 tracks all up.

I'm from Latin america So for me It's very difficult to find his work

I Have to say that the most expensive record I've ever bought It's Lovesexy, And it was very Hard to find! When I saw It In the Wrecka Stow I almost Wet my pants XD

I PAID LIKE 135$ FOR IT, AND IM PROUD OF IT! THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO SPEND MONEY!

GIOShokadelica said:

I'm from Latin america So for me It's very difficult to find his work

I Have to say that the most expensive record I've ever bought It's Lovesexy, And it was very Hard to find! When I saw It In the Wrecka Stow I almost Wet my pants XD

I PAID LIKE 135$ FOR IT, AND IM PROUD OF IT! THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO SPEND MONEY!

Never tried ebay?

I have sold numerous items to people in Latin American countries.

djdaffy1227 said:

Another $100 record I just got:

[img:$uid]http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u257/djdaffy1227/101_0425.jpg[/img:$uid]

Oh wow, i wasn't aware of the value for the vinyl. Bought once the cd-single from it.

I know you are all proberly going to jump on me for being soooo stupid, but I think I may be abit younger than most of you.

Here goes:

Is there a difference of sound from vinyl to CD? or is it that they are now unavailable to buy new which makes the vinyl so expensive?

I only ask because I have have never owned a vinyl record or ever knowingly heard one being played.

I would think that you can own all of Prince's music now on CD or digital files, so why would you need a record?

Otherwise why was there a need for CD's to exsist?

About $18 for Musicology.

I didn't even know Prince exsisted until I was 14

mysterymum said:

I know you are all proberly going to jump on me for being soooo stupid, but I think I may be abit younger than most of you.

Here goes:

Is there a difference of sound from vinyl to CD? or is it that they are now unavailable to buy new which makes the vinyl so expensive?

I only ask because I have have never owned a vinyl record or ever knowingly heard one being played.

I would think that you can own all of Prince's music now on CD or digital files, so why would you need a record?

Otherwise why was there a need for CD's to exsist?

If you have goot headphones/speakers, there's a huge difference. Vinyl sounds more analog, warm and direct (if well-kept) and the sonic spectrum fitted on a vinyl is usually broader than that on a CD (although many argue that the difference is not audible - I say it is, because of the subtle overtones that are created by those overlapping frequencies we wouldn't be able to hear on their own).

Apart from that, vinyl serves as a much richer artistic experience, because it's bigger (more room for artwork etc), more details and because it is parted in two sides with less room on each.

There are still new vinyls coming out, many of them at an affordable price. Lotusflow3r and MPLSound were released as vinyl too.

The need for CDs to exist is simple: They are smaller, cheaper, quite robust, there's more space on them, you can transport them more easily and it was completely new to listen to them on the road back then (as opposed to cassettes, which had to be taken good care of as much as vinyls).

However, the longevity of CDs is ridiculous compared to vinyls. A CD will "lose" its audio data after 25-30 years, sometimes even earlier. Vinyls - if taken good care of - will retain their full sonic spectrum for ever, theoretically.

Dave1992 said:

mysterymum said:

I know you are all proberly going to jump on me for being soooo stupid, but I think I may be abit younger than most of you.

Here goes:

Is there a difference of sound from vinyl to CD? or is it that they are now unavailable to buy new which makes the vinyl so expensive?

I only ask because I have have never owned a vinyl record or ever knowingly heard one being played.

I would think that you can own all of Prince's music now on CD or digital files, so why would you need a record?

Otherwise why was there a need for CD's to exsist?

If you have goot headphones/speakers, there's a huge difference. Vinyl sounds more analog, warm and direct (if well-kept) and the sonic spectrum fitted on a vinyl is usually broader than that on a CD (although many argue that the difference is not audible - I say it is, because of the subtle overtones that are created by those overlapping frequencies we wouldn't be able to hear on their own).

Apart from that, vinyl serves as a much richer artistic experience, because it's bigger (more room for artwork etc), more details and because it is parted in two sides with less room on each.

There are still new vinyls coming out, many of them at an affordable price. Lotusflow3r and MPLSound were released as vinyl too.

The need for CDs to exist is simple: They are smaller, cheaper, quite robust, there's more space on them, you can transport them more easily and it was completely new to listen to them on the road back then (as opposed to cassettes, which had to be taken good care of as much as vinyls).

However, the longevity of CDs is ridiculous compared to vinyls. A CD will "lose" its audio data after 25-30 years, sometimes even earlier. Vinyls - if taken good care of - will retain their full sonic spectrum for ever, theoretically.

I agree with all this except the bolded sentence. I have copies of the first Prince CDs that were ever pressed (West German and Japanese Target CDs), and they still play fine almost 30 years later. If CDs get scratched they can become corrupted or stop playing, but if they are kept in pristine condition they could last indefinitely (or at least we don't know the lifespan, because CDs haven't been around long enough to say for sure). There is a phenomenon called "laser rot" but it has not been shown to affect all CDs. Note that I am talking about Red Book CDs and not CD-Rs. Even so, it's a good idea to back them up in case the data is lost.

[Edited 3/22/12 6:30am]

electricberet said:

Dave1992 said:

If you have goot headphones/speakers, there's a huge difference. Vinyl sounds more analog, warm and direct (if well-kept) and the sonic spectrum fitted on a vinyl is usually broader than that on a CD (although many argue that the difference is not audible - I say it is, because of the subtle overtones that are created by those overlapping frequencies we wouldn't be able to hear on their own).

Apart from that, vinyl serves as a much richer artistic experience, because it's bigger (more room for artwork etc), more details and because it is parted in two sides with less room on each.

There are still new vinyls coming out, many of them at an affordable price. Lotusflow3r and MPLSound were released as vinyl too.

The need for CDs to exist is simple: They are smaller, cheaper, quite robust, there's more space on them, you can transport them more easily and it was completely new to listen to them on the road back then (as opposed to cassettes, which had to be taken good care of as much as vinyls).

However, the longevity of CDs is ridiculous compared to vinyls. A CD will "lose" its audio data after 25-30 years, sometimes even earlier. Vinyls - if taken good care of - will retain their full sonic spectrum for ever, theoretically.

I agree with all this except the bolded sentence. I have copies of the first Prince CDs that were ever pressed (West German Target CDs), and they still play fine almost 30 years later. If CDs get scratched they can become corrupted or stop playing, but if they are kept in pristine condition they could last indefinitely (or at least we don't know the lifespan, because they haven't been around long enough to say for sure). There is a phenomenon called "laser rot" but it has not been shown to affect all CDs. Note that I am talking about Red Book CDs and not CD-Rs. Even so, it's a good idea to back them up in case there is a loss of data for one reason or another.

[Edited 3/22/12 6:28am]

My oldest CD (20 years old; I think it was "Riptide" by Robert Palmer - I had to throw it away three years ago!) simply stopped playing. And God knows I take care of my CDs - no scratches, no humidity, no extreme temeratures - it simply stopped playing. And I have heard of other occasions where the first pressings of CDs in the 80s start to start losing their data nowadays...

But the material used differs vastly from label to label, from year to year, from production state to production state etc., so, of course, there's no general consensus or "one truth" about the longevitiy of CDs.

Dave1992 said:

electricberet said:

I agree with all this except the bolded sentence. I have copies of the first Prince CDs that were ever pressed (West German Target CDs), and they still play fine almost 30 years later. If CDs get scratched they can become corrupted or stop playing, but if they are kept in pristine condition they could last indefinitely (or at least we don't know the lifespan, because they haven't been around long enough to say for sure). There is a phenomenon called "laser rot" but it has not been shown to affect all CDs. Note that I am talking about Red Book CDs and not CD-Rs. Even so, it's a good idea to back them up in case there is a loss of data for one reason or another.

[Edited 3/22/12 6:28am]

My oldest CD (20 years old; I think it was "Riptide" by Robert Palmer - I had to throw it away three years ago!) simply stopped playing. And God knows I take care of my CDs - no scratches, no humidity, no extreme temeratures - it simply stopped playing. And I have heard of other occasions where the first pressings of CDs in the 80s start to start losing their data nowadays...

But the material used differs vastly from label to label, from year to year, from production state to production state etc., so, of course, there's no general consensus or "one truth" about the longevitiy of CDs.

There have certainly been cases where CDs have stopped playing over time, but it can often be traced to defects in manufacturing. I suppose that in the next few decades we'll find out whether all CDs eventually stop working after a certain time. But there is no perfect storage medium. I try to take good care of my vinyl records, but if we had a long power outage in the summer heat they might be damaged. Tape can get twisted up in the player and break. Ultimately we are all on this world only for a short time and I'm guessing the chances my son will appreciate the nuances of hearing Dirty Mind on vinyl versus CD are pretty slim.

Al lthe vinyl boots I have I paid like $40-50 USD for. I think the most expensive ($50) was "...Jewel..." and The Nude tour (colored wax), both containing 3 lp's.

The boot cd's I've never paid more than $20. Most were $10, except The Black Album (the 1994 release) and the Act Tour 2.