Yeah um...i'm sure it's a mental thing, but i've noticed it with the three prince records i have....and it's weird cuz i know his albums front to back...any body have any idea why i feel this way? has anybody felt like this?


p.s.=> im not a person who thinks all vinyl sounds better even tho it does give audio a "warmer" sound....just thought i'd drop that in there









i know this thread sucks and contributes to the fall of the org but im bored

The important years of Prince all sound better on vinyl because recordings were mastered with that medium in mind. The terrible sonics of his 80's catalog on CD is the prime reason they need to be remastered, with, or without, a bonus disc or discs of material.

Wall said:

point taken....the one that really struck me off guard was black album....even though i've listened to it over and over again....once I set the needle on the groove...i could hear the sonic darkness, vs the lyric darkness that shone thru on CD

SirPsycho said:

I think it's a good thread.

I don't know the exact details on Prince's ownership rights with his WB catalog, but surely he must have some say in the matter, else I find it hard to believe that WB wouldn't already have issued remasters. This is a case where it's too bad he has any control over the records at all, for he obviously doesn't know what's best for himself or his legacy as a vital recording artist. See his current Youtube debacle for another example of this. As has been said time and again, his religious beliefs are likely the ultimate reason for no remasters. I know that Erotic City was removed from the Ultimate discs because Prince objected to its content, which of course, leads one to believe he'll be dead and buried before something like Dirty Mind will be remastered and repressed onto cd, dvd, or whatever the format should be at the time.

The sonics on the Black Album are indeed abysmal. Slightly surprising as it was issued in the early 90's and Come and The Gold Experience don't suffer from the same 'playing under water' sound that the Black Album does.

I certainly agree his 80s catlog sounds terrible on CD and they could really use a remaster series or similar.

I remember when I got my first CD player around 87 or so and got 1999 on CD - this was the only Prince album I didn't have on LP - this was a real dissapointment so I never bothered replacing the other LPs until years later when I ditched the record deck.

That CD at the time didn't include DMSR - allegedly to enable it to fit on one CD - that really annoyed me - I mean there were other candidates for exclusion from my POV. I love that track...

I'll let you on on a little secret...
ANALOG RECORDING KICKS DIGITAL RECORDINGS ASS 10000-0.
VINYL ALWAYS SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD.

If you think CDs sound better than better than vinyls, you are either deaf or just plain stupid.

End of discussion.
[Edited 9/26/07 10:42am]

Efan said:

I agree, this is an excellent thread. We can raise folks' vinyl awareness

Ummmm...because everything sounds better on vinyl?

Genesia said:

Yes... and that's not even a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.

FuNkeNsteiN said:

thats bullshit...the only reason anolog gets the great wrap it does is because digital sound is easier to distort, and most artists who recored before digtal were forced to be more creative with less tracks...music heads have come to prefer analog because we have the ability to recall analog recordings against the familiarity of digital sound (and it doesn't hurt that most analog houses better musicians playing better songs). Super-dvd (which is an actual format in case anyone mistakes this for a joke) can top analog sonically anyday....so i wont jump on the "analog is better" wagon...even if i am an "old soul"

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Not for nuthin' that I just spent a couple hundred bucks on a new cartridge for my turntable.

SirPsycho said:

Nope.

FuNkeNsteiN said:

lmao....why did i know it would be that simple

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Gawd damn



Tell us what you really think, FuNkeNsteiN

Genesia said:

What turntable ya got, mate?
I got a Denon pro DJ turntable. They only made one pro dj model, before they started concentrating on dj cd decks.

jess555ja said:

And that's not what I think, that's just how it is

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Ok, boo

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Y'know...I can't remember off the top of my head. Technics, maybe?

I should know...I had to write down the info to buy the right cartridge...

FuNkeNsteiN said:

so a DJ says vinyl is better.....i assume with no bias at all right?

FuNkeNsteiN said:[quote]I'll let you on on a little secret...
ANALOG RECORDING KICKS DIGITAL RECORDINGS ASS 10000-0.
VINYL ALWAYS SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD.

Bullshit - that's a massive generalisation and is very wide of the mark.

e.g. every LP after the 2nd edition pressing of Kind Of Blue has one side at the wrong speed - you saying that just cause it's on wax they sound better than the remaster CD or SACD? lol! get a grip.

Also, if you've got a crappy deck etc etc...

I do personally prefer wax in many cases thou - especially recordings after the mid 90s - but then i don't like (the actual tunes) many of them anyways

SirPsycho said:

I am not a DJ, I just have DJ turntable

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Compelling argument.

I play both and think it depends on when it was recorded and how it was mastered. I'm not enough of an audiophile to make a case for either, but I think the analog is warmer argument is presented with a layer of nostalgia more than it is sonic fact.

Regardless, while you can make a case whether or not a current Prince record sounds better than its cd counterpart, there's no question that in regards to the majority of his WB catalog, the cds sound terrible for reasons beyond the listener being deaf or dumb.

harbars said:[quote]

FuNkeNsteiN said:

It would be easier for me to explain myself in Finnish, but since y'all wouldn't understand a word I say...
Anyways, cd's have their highest and lowest sounds 'cut off'. It never sounds as good as vinyl.

jess555ja said:

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Well, I'm not looking to start a fight here and I've some other things to do, so I'll back off.
Y'all can listen to CDs all you want, but if you don't listen to vinyl you're missing out. Just sayin'...

FuNkeNsteiN said:

sure - the low and (especially) high end are lost for the most part - but dude - how many folk got a decent enough set of speakers (e.g. upto 70kHz) and room in which to use them properly or indeed *hearing* to be able to tell....

Blimey, there's a fair amount of rubbish being thrown out about the differences between cd and vinly here!

For a start, the "warmth" of vinyl is actually produced due to "rumble" - this is the resultant sound of a metal stylus being dragged across plastic. It shouldn't actually be there and colours the sound. A cd doesn't suffer from this problem (as its light, not actual physical contact) and, therefore, the only sound you here is what should be there (there are other things that colour the sound, but let's keep this short.)

CDs do not have their low or top ends cut and, in fact, have a greater dynamic and frequency range than vinyl. Most people have speakers able to cope with this particular range (erm, where on earth have you heard of speakers going up to 70Khz??!!! Please tell me which model does that!) and, seeing as the human ear can only detect sounds within the range of 20Hz to 20000Hz anything outside of that just adds "theoretical ambience". For example, in my audiophile hi-fi setup, my speakers are designed to go to 30000Hz - you can't hear it, but it apparently gives the illusion of greater headroom at the top end - so there is an airiness about the treble. It does seem to work, as the top end is detailed and sweet, but as a human cannot physically hear this extra 10000Hz of information, its a difficult point to prove.

The only FACT is that its a subjective experience - some will prefer the sound of vinyl, others will prefer digital. And, £ for £, (until you start spending in excess of £5/6000 on a turntable) a cd player will outperform a turntable without any problem.
[Edited 9/26/07 11:34am]

Mindflux said:

Speakers such as these
http://www.amazon.com/Son...B0000VB7O2
have a response of upto 70kHz.

Please note I am not advocating Sony speakers




100% agree with that.



100% again. It's *all* subjective. Plus getting the setup right - having a decent base for the seakers, no windows etc.