serpan99 said:

There will also be a European release for all albums (mine sleeved etc), which will be much cheaper btw

Did U know that Sign O' The Times CD was actually mastered from a cassette version? Seriously.

xenophobia2002 said:

Sorry?....Source?

thanx

love2thenines2003 said:

why ??? It is like it is

EmeraldSkies said:

Give us a review when you get them.

Giovanni777 said:

No it wasn't!

The CD was mastered in the same way as virtually all CDs were for most of
the 80's. Via a digital transfer from the original 1/4 inch Stereo Master onto
U-Matic 3/4 inch tape (which looks like an extra big VHS cassette, which is
probably where the confusion has come from).

But anyway, that's not really the issue with regard to sound quality, the
reason why most early CDs sound flat and harsh compared to their vinyl
versions is because they DID master them from the same source material,
but DIDN'T correct the eq to account for the differences between CD and
vinyl. Original Masters were usually created a lot harsher sounding than
how the finished release was supposed to sound, as engineers knew that
the transfer onto vinyl lost a lot of this, as vinyl tended to mellow out the
sound somewhat. Of course this meant that when the same masters where
then used for CD, this mellowing didn't happen. This, coupled with the fact
that the mastering process for CDs also tended to make things sound a bit
flat meant that early CDs rarely sound as good as their vinyl counterparts.
[Edited 6/20/09 8:02am]

squirrelgrease said:

You expect me to actually play them?

EmeraldSkies said:

Did you get them? Yes, please. Oh, and pics too.

Giovanni777 said:

No it wasn't!

The CD was mastered in the same way as virtually all CDs were for most of
the 80's. Via a digital transfer from the original 1/4 inch Stereo Master onto
U-Matic 3/4 inch tape (which looks like an extra big VHS cassette, which is
probably where the confusion has come from).

But anyway, that's not really the issue with regard to sound quality, the
reason why most early CDs sound flat and harsh compared to their vinyl
versions is because they DID master them from the same source material,
but DIDN'T correct the eq to account for the differences between CD and
vinyl. Original Masters were usually created a lot harsher sounding than
how the finished release was supposed to sound, as engineers knew that
the transfer onto vinyl lost a lot of this, as vinyl tended to mellow out the
sound somewhat. Of course this meant that when the same masters where
then used for CD, this mellowing didn't happen. This, coupled with the fact
that the mastering process for CDs also tended to make things sound a bit
flat meant that early CDs rarely sound as good as their vinyl counterparts.
[Edited 6/20/09 8:02am]

By using a U matic, there had 2 be one, maybe two levels of error correction, which degrades the sound.

Also, the A-D converters back then were laughable compared 2 now. Tons of error correction, and distortion at low levels.

It would be even better if WB/Rhino used something like THESE:

http://www.amazon.com/Ver...B00009WO51

I've Googled SHM-CD and they are just regular Red Book CDs, aren't they?

How are they supposed to sound better?

^ thanks for the pics, I have got mine as well

very fast delivery.

Is Lovesexy tracked?

Giovanni777 said:

I use those Vinyl Replica CD-Rs for my Prince stuff - love 'em. There's never enough purple ones, though. The downside is that there's hardly any space for writing the info.

emesem said:

I have just checked.... and NO, unfortunately Lovesexy is 1 track.

4 YOUR PLEASURE....SOME PICS§!!


[/img][img] [/img][img] [/img][img] [/img][img] [/img]