If you cannot get the 1999 album from hd-tracks, you can try qobus.com: http://www.qobuz.com/albu...3497923762

Just convince their server you are in France and you can download the stuff for the fee they ask.

As you may now understand I am now an unofficial inhabitant of le Pays de France.

OK, download was completed.

I chose the flacs. (of course).

I received a tar file which contains a directory, 11 songs and a JPG of the front cover plus Warner logo.

LPWM sounds delicious.

[Edited 4/28/13 8:22am]

udo said:

dualboot said:

udo said:

OK, download was completed.

I chose the flacs. (of course).

I received a tar file which contains a directory, 11 songs and a JPG of the front cover plus Warner logo.

LPWM sounds delicious.

[Edited 4/28/13 8:22am]

What source did they use? Has it the mastering flaw as on the cd? Is it really that different? Edit found this http://prince.org/msg/7/395226 [Edited 4/28/13 12:06pm]

Which of the flaws do you mean?

There is a very slight hiss in certain spots.

There is the weird noises in some places that sound out of place, even on this album. (does anybody know the story behind those? please comment!)

I can play this stuff through a tweaked Zhalou D2.0 via the Squeezebox or play it upstairs off of a DVD-A through a Zapfiltered D2.5A.

Of course the snobs will dismiss this gear but it sounds plenty good to me at this price level.

[Edited 4/28/13 23:16pm]

It definitely means that WB still owns it and that P's statement that he had the masters back after 30 years was bullshit.

databank said:

It definitely means that WB still owns it and that P's statement that he had the masters back after 30 years was bullshit.

Hmm.

That COULD be a bomshell indeed.

OTOH:

There is also the possibility that mr P has full control over the older masters but has (in this case) agreed on a one-off deal with the 1999 masters for a bit of quick income as the LOL-tour does not pay too well yet (versus shows in larger venues).

Hmm. would mr P re-release the lyrical content that is on 1999 at this point in time?

I do not have any insights in ownership of said masters but we must approach this with an open mind. Any insiders are welcome to comment!

udo said:

databank said:

It definitely means that WB still owns it and that P's statement that he had the masters back after 30 years was bullshit.

Hmm.

That COULD be a bomshell indeed.

OTOH:

There is also the possibility that mr P has full control over the older masters but has (in this case) agreed on a one-off deal with the 1999 masters for a bit of quick income as the LOL-tour does not pay too well yet (versus shows in larger venues).

Hmm. would mr P re-release the lyrical content that is on 1999 at this point in time?

I do not have any insights in ownership of said masters but we must approach this with an open mind. Any insiders are welcome to comment!

These hi res site as far as I know have nothing to do with WB so P could have licenced the album to them directly and there wouldn't be a WB logo, so no offense or anything but this scenario doesn't make sense. WB obviously holds the masters.

udo said:

databank said:

It definitely means that WB still owns it and that P's statement that he had the masters back after 30 years was bullshit.

Hmm.

That COULD be a bomshell indeed.

There is no bombshell. Everybody with half a brain and the ability to read already knew this. As if record companies would just had over those rights without a fight.

BartVanHemelen said:

udo said:

Hmm.

That COULD be a bomshell indeed.

There is no bombshell. Everybody with half a brain and the ability to read already knew this. As if record companies would just had over those rights without a fight.

So you see this highres sale as proof that 1999 is still owned by WB?

(WB logo on the cover art JPG...)

udo said:

BartVanHemelen said:

There is no bombshell. Everybody with half a brain and the ability to read already knew this. As if record companies would just had over those rights without a fight.

So you see this highres sale as proof that 1999 is still owned by WB?

(WB logo on the cover art JPG...)

How would you xplain WB being involved in Prince licencing the record to a third party if it wasn't? There already have been a few reissues of early albums by WB these last few years, they definitely own these masters. The battle for For You should happen this year

databank said:

udo said:

So you see this highres sale as proof that 1999 is still owned by WB?

(WB logo on the cover art JPG...)

How would you xplain WB being involved in Prince licencing the record to a third party if it wasn't? There already have been a few reissues of early albums by WB these last few years, they definitely own these masters. The battle for For You should happen this year

It could be a one-off deal as I explained. (if he had control over teh masters in the first place)

But For You is to be decided on this year?

udo said:

databank said:

How would you xplain WB being involved in Prince licencing the record to a third party if it wasn't? There already have been a few reissues of early albums by WB these last few years, they definitely own these masters. The battle for For You should happen this year

It could be a one-off deal as I explained. (if he had control over teh masters in the first place)

But For You is to be decided on this year?

A one-off deal for what? Prince doesn't need a label to licence his music to independent websites, why on earth would he want to give WB money if they do nothing? Don't you see it makes no sense at all? It's not as if it was sold on WB's online store or hard copies manufactured by WB, it's just as if Prince decided to licence Planet Earth, which he owns, to a website and ask WB if they'd accept some money in exchange for putting their logo, it's absurd.

The only possibility that I can think of, if Prince really got his masters back after 30 years indtead of 35 is that the deal involved that, even though Prince owns the masters and the income, he has to put WB's logo on the release (just like Paramount agreed to reverse distribution rights for Marvel films to Disney under the condition that the Paramount logo would still appear instead of Disney's, even though they weren't involved anymore).

databank said:

udo said:

So you see this highres sale as proof that 1999 is still owned by WB?

(WB logo on the cover art JPG...)

How would you xplain WB being involved in Prince licencing the record to a third party if it wasn't? There already have been a few reissues of early albums by WB these last few years, they definitely own these masters. The battle for For You should happen this year

The battle for For You:

Prince : No, there's no money for me in this one you keep it.

WB : We don't want to put any money into this album, you can have it.

etc.

udo said:

BartVanHemelen said:

There is no bombshell. Everybody with half a brain and the ability to read already knew this. As if record companies would just had over those rights without a fight.

So you see this highres sale as proof that 1999 is still owned by WB?

(WB logo on the cover art JPG...)

Sigh... Udo, spend less time on making up shit and simply look at the facts: Hi-Res 1999 is absolutely, definitely licensed from WB. No need to invent nonsense about a one-off deal.

BartVanHemelen said:

udo said:

So you see this highres sale as proof that 1999 is still owned by WB?

(WB logo on the cover art JPG...)

Sigh... Udo, spend less time on making up shit and simply look at the facts: Hi-Res 1999 is absolutely, definitely licensed from WB. No need to invent nonsense about a one-off deal.

Well, indeed, it loks that way, but it could have been given the apparant nonsense about gaining masters back starting around this decade.

More audio-related question:

The noises that dualboot referred to, e.g. the sound at 2:56 into the file 01-07-Prince-Something_In_The_Water_Does_Not_Compute-SMR.flac, does anybody know any backgrounds?

Were they intentional? Some problem that happened?

This very one sounds to be an issue in the two track master (I cannot discern other sounds continue while these 'pops' happen) which would be weird for a remaster but understandable for a digital transfer of the original two-track master. (same source as used for the CD or LP)

udo said:

The noises that dualboot referred to, e.g. the sound at 2:56 into the file 01-07-Prince-Something_In_The_Water_Does_Not_Compute-SMR.flac, does anybody know any backgrounds?

Were they intentional? Some problem that happened?

Aaah you found it. I read it in this part of the answer that it still is present.

It sounds like a tapeslipup or needle skip (or coffeedrop) during transfer.

I am not sure if it is on the original vinyl.

Always found that weird as it is but also know the disclaimer about analog to digital transfer in the booklet .

[Edited 5/1/13 5:04am]

dualboot said:

udo said:

The noises that dualboot referred to, e.g. the sound at 2:56 into the file 01-07-Prince-Something_In_The_Water_Does_Not_Compute-SMR.flac, does anybody know any backgrounds?

Were they intentional? Some problem that happened?

Aaah you found it. I read it in this part of the answer that it still is present.

It sounds like a tapeslipup or needle skip (or coffeedrop) during transfer.

I am not sure if it is on the original vinyl.

Always found that weird as it is but also know the disclaimer about analog to digital transfer in the booklet .

I do think this highres thing is true to the CD/LP audio, but is not a true remaster.

That remaster would have gone back to the (also digitalised?) multitrack recordings and at least have corrected this flaw, while explaining how it came to be in the first place.

Why spoil millions of CD's and not correct it at the first real possibility?

I have no vinyl here so if anyone can confirm if that 'pop' is on their copy as well then we know that the two-track taht wa sthe basis for CD, LP and this highres thing has at least one major flaw.

@dualboot: what are the other flaws you meant? What should I check for, where?

I was too harsh. The mentioned 'flaw/ feature' was the actual one I meant.

In the Foefur version I cannot find it (he mostly used US Vinyls for his 'Takes' but I didn't check with him if he masked it).

dualboot said:

I was too harsh. The mentioned 'flaw/ feature' was the actual one I meant.

In the Foefur version I cannot find it (he mostly used US Vinyls for his 'Takes' but I didn't check with him if he masked it).

It's also on the 180g 2xLP released a couple of years ago.