I'm not saying everything he's produced. Just every song that's been officially released. Not The Time or Madhouse, just Prince.

NONSENSE said:

Ah ok. Yes, then it's awfully efficient on one little usb stick for sure.

While the Beatles thumb drive looks kinda crazy, the fact that you get both lossless and lossy audio and tons of digital extras is the most ambitious digital form of media I've seen thus far. A little too pricey: I can get the CD's and rip them myself for less, but I wouldn't say the price is outrageous, and you get a thumb drive and extras.

I would love for something like this to be done with Prince, but his catalog is so vast I'd have to have a hefty chunk of stuff that was only on vinyl or websites to make it a worthy purchase.

PANDURITO said:

Don't tell ChronicFreeze, he claims there's no need for Prince remasters. (Still amazed a frikking SOUND ENGINEER said that. Like mastering technology and techniques haven't improved in the past quarter of a century.)

BTW DVD usually contains lossy compressed audio. DVD Audio + SACD are dead formats. What they should have done is the same thing as Neil Young on his Archives set: BLU RAY.

how much is this?

and, yes, I did click the lank but couldn't find a price...

MidasTouch said:

http://www.thebeatles.com/#/store

BartVanHemelen said:

yeah, that's what I looked at but I think my OLD-but-so-beautiful-I-can't-let-it-go mac won't load the part with the price.

BartVanHemelen said:

Think again. Your boy Trent Reznor was releasing DVD Audio on a DualDisk just 4 years ago.

MidasTouch said:

$279.99

BartVanHemelen said:

Give me a "lossy compressed" 5.1 DTS 96/24 mix and I sell you my soul

I still buy some of those occasionally but I'm afraid you're right there. It's a pity



SACD and DVD A are dead because people don't give a damn about sound quality. At least not enough to spend money on it. They want something they can download for free even if it is shitty mp3.

It would have to be in the shape of a cock surely?

ernestsewell said:

FOUR YEARS AGO, yes. NOT YESTERDAY. And that was mostly his record company.

PANDURITO said:

That, plus that there wasn't a good enough reason to update to a new format, especially not with yet another a format war.

But IMHO there is a market for BD-discs.

PANDURITO said:

Well, the truth is most people who claim to hear a big difference between lossy and lossless never do blind tests, and tests proof an insane amount of people cannot tell the difference between lossless audio and lossy encodes when using the AAC or Lame mp3 encoders, even on high-end equipment. Mainly, most environments and audio setups don't have the setup to allow you to hear the subtle differences in the frequencies that lossless files have, unless you have thousands of dollars in equipment (not just nice speakers or a $1,000 set of headphones... but literally tens of thousands of dollars of equipment).

Many people fall to the placebo effect. A 192kbps VBR mp3 encoded from a lossless source is going to indistinguishable from the source for like, 99.9% of people.

i'd easily pay twice that amount to have Prince's entire catalog on USB.

squirrelgrease said:

well SqirrelGrease you just he'ping me out all over the boards!

I think that's pretty good value.
It looks small, though.
I would lose it.
false economy.

squirrelgrease said:

Yikes, that's a lot of money, I'll just enjoy my old Beatles CD's for now.

Superstition said:

I must fall into that 1%. It takes a 320kbps file before I can live with the sound. It's not a placebo effect either. I actually get physical headaches from listening to lesser bitrate lossies. That missing data was there for a reason, and mp3/wma's faults are exacerbated on a good listening station. Zoom in on a jpeg vs a tif image file - same concept, same results. You can blow up a tif with excellent results, but you can't with a lossy jpeg (though there are algorithmic equations that try to "replace" the missing information).

In this day and age of giant hard drives and fast broadband, there is really no excuse for the antiquated lossy format. Well, except for DVDs and the iPod & it's ilk - which is why I can live with 320kbps.

squirrelgrease said:

There is an excuse for the lossy format... it's that most people don't have to convince themselves that they hear something they don't, and unless you've done blind tests, then everything is without merit. I highly doubt headaches are caused by lower-bitrate music, but hey, do what's best for you.

I've done blind testing and can't distinquish a properly encoded 128kbps LAME mp3 from the lossless source, so there's no need for me to waste drive space with massive files. And the truth is those frequencies that are thrown away with lossy encoding can't be heard on anything but extremely expensive equipmen, and as I said earlier, we're talking REALLY expensive equipment, not stuff you can buy at Best Buy or anything like that.

Now, I'm not calling you a liar or saying you don't hear what you hear, but you are most certainly in the minority of minorities. And this is just my guess, but I would say 99.99% of people can't truly tell a 192kbps VBR mp3 from the lossy source, and I'd say 99.99% of the .01% who can are probably lying.

I don't think the selling point is going to be about certain pitch notes only dogs can hear, i think the selling point is the convenience. Almost all my music ends up on a usb flash drive anyway regardless of the format. It just make things simpler
[Edited 11/6/09 15:23pm]

violetblues said:

I agree

A box set would be nice

i'll take a box set but I'd like to have the complete catalog. I want MP3's of every song he's released on a USB. I could carry around & play what I want, when I want. It's also such a neat little package. At one point in time, I've owned every album in some format. But folks knowing I'm a huge fam have always borrowed my stuff. I'd probably purchase two copies because they'll be collectors items and i'll use one regularly.
[Edited 11/7/09 9:05am]

A blank Prince branded USB would be just as nice. I would pay a couple bucks extra for a cool looking flash drive to put prince related stuff on it.

Instead on marketing tacky stuff like the perfume for a quick buck, that in the long term actually drives down his marketability.
I don't think the handlers of the Beatles or Led Zeppelin branded products would ever allow their products to be cheapened like Prince has with such tacky Items.
Marketing Rock music legends is big business, and if Prince handled it correctly with his treasure trove of images and sounds he wouldn't need to be peddling perfume or $77. websites.
[Edited 11/7/09 11:06am]