databank said:

bfunk said:

The HDTracks release has the full version of Still Waiting.

Interesting, thx 4 the info. Must have been done using the original master not a CD, then. Interesting that they wouldn't simply rip CD's on that website.

.

Oh for crying out loud, CDs are 16/44, HD audio is 24/88, 24/96, 24/192 etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Audio

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...r_Audio_CD

BartVanHemelen said:

databank said:

I have to admit that I've never taken the care to calculate how long SOTT is (79:58 according to Wikipedia), the mere fact that it was released on 2 CD's by WB made me think that it was the only option (why not one CD if possible? why make it more expensive that it should be and why, then, not release 1999 on 2 CD's as well?

.

1999 was originally edited: the original CD lacked one song. This was later fixed.

.

.

It was nothing to do with saving money, but with convenience.

.

I'm also totally against adding bonus tracks on the CD that contains the original album or, if doing so, that means putting at least 2-3 minutes of silence between the last track and the bonus tracks. I'm sorry but when Adore ends (or Purple Rain, or Sometimes It Snows In April) I don't want to immediately being jumped at by another song when, actually, the story's over.

.

Practically that's simply impossible. If you look at some recent reissues by e.g. Cherry Red in the UK, they always try to squeeze as much music as possible and if that means adding bonus tracks to the original album so the reissue can be just a 2CD set instead of a 3CD set that has merely 2 CDs of content... (It's also more practical: a 2CD set can still fit into a regular jewel disc package, a 3CD set inevitable needs to be housed in a bigger box.)

I swear 2 God if they reduce a single one of these remasters in2 a cheap 2 CD set I'm gonna boycott their ass until the middle of the next century!

.

Thing is I agree with Olb99, we're living strange days because digital sale now surpass physical sales but in people's (and label's, and artists' minds) CD remain the main media and that's particularly true when it comes 2 deluxe boxsets, remasters and shit. This will be totally irrelevent 10 years from now because what's left of physical sales will only be deluxe products and therefore being expensive will be part of the mere concept, but that's where we r now, kind of stuck between 2 worlds. Personally I may buy the CD's if there's a really mindblowing booklet that's a little book in each of them (à la Miles Davis' deluxe boxsets by Sony) but it's very likely that I'm gonna buy only the digital versions. Anyway as long as I'm in India I'm gonna buy the digital version and the physical releases will only be an option whenever I go back 2 Europe. So I don't understand that shit about saving space and stuff. Honest: if I'm gonna buy the physical releases it'll be an exceptional deluxe present I'll make myself and then I won't go 4 anything cheap or "convenient", I want a hell of a beautiful object of collection that I can one day proudly put on a shelf at home and all the better 4 it if it's gonna cost me a hundred bucks!

Maybe the ideal solution, if WB and wanna play us cheap and "save space" would be the solution Thomas Dolby and EMI opted 4 when they remastered his first 2 albums back in 2009. Whatever wouldn't fit into the physical release was available for download on Dolby's website, thru a code u got alongside the purchase (whether digital or physical). That way poor fans who can't afford a 10 CD deluxe boxset because they'd rather spend their 50 bucks at the pub can have a cheap 3 CD package and I can have my Crystal Ball alongside SOTT, non-album tracks and additional outtakes.

Another option would be a decent NPG online store that 's not gonna wipe out of existence after 2 years like he always do, that would allow us 2 buy digital versions of the hundreds of songs and shows that can't economically be made in2 physical releases, but I have a feeling this is the thing that ain't, ever, gonna happen because of being .

BartVanHemelen said:

databank said:

Interesting, thx 4 the info. Must have been done using the original master not a CD, then. Interesting that they wouldn't simply rip CD's on that website.

.

Oh for crying out loud, CDs are 16/44, HD audio is 24/88, 24/96, 24/192 etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Audio

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...r_Audio_CD

I had no idea, with all the hysterions claiming Flac/Wav is the top shit out there I thought CD quality was the best available.

I'm on mp3 320, remember? So i'm not too much concerned about those things But thx for the info nonetheless, I stand corrected

BartVanHemelen said:

databank said:

My message is that while I understand they wouldn't amputate 's last, new album from a track when released in 87 (contrarly to 1999 which was an older release), why didn't they make it a single CD as soon as the technology allowed it (circa 1991 or 1992 IIRC)? To this day it's avalaible as a double CD, which is absurd if the record, as such, could fit on a single CD.

.

Most likely because the 1999 reissue fixed a significant problem: a missing track. Putting SOTT on one disc wouldn't fix anything, and would perhaps cut into their profits?

Also: it would change the album significantly.

The missing break in the one-disc phantom version versus the two disc set we currently have gives the user a pause when the discs are changed.

This way the first disc can do a proper ending and the next disc can do a proper opener.

This part of the character should not go missing due to this weird change.

BartVanHemelen said:

stillwaiting said:

If you add up all the times of all the songs, it is right around 80 minutes. Bart correctly noted you could edit off a few seconds. To clarify this, the "Seconds" you would edit off would simply be the empty space between tracks that do not bleed into one another like SOTT/Play Sunshine.

.

I'm pretty sure there are some seconds of silence at the end of one or more tracks that can be removed so SOTT fits on a single disc, I doubt you'd even need to cut into actual music/crowd noise.

Both of you are so right.

udo said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Most likely because the 1999 reissue fixed a significant problem: a missing track. Putting SOTT on one disc wouldn't fix anything, and would perhaps cut into their profits?

Also: it would change the album significantly.

The missing break in the one-disc phantom version versus the two disc set we currently have gives the user a pause when the discs are changed.

This way the first disc can do a proper ending and the next disc can do a proper opener.

This part of the character should not go missing due to this weird change.

IDK about that: 1999 was a double too and as Bart says this is true for even sides of "simple" albums. I started buying them albums on cassettes, each had the same break as LP's save 1999 and SOTT which were 2 sides instead of 4, and 4 me those breaks were very important, even now when I listen 2 them in mp3 I still have this notion that I'm jumping from side A to side B. I hink SOTT wasn't conceived 4 CD or cassette but 4 LP, i.e. 4 sides, my feeling is that the first time really thought an album in terms of a single side was maybe GB because he made the CD version different than the LP version (no fade at the end of JIR), then with D&P it was a done deal, and even still I suspect thought cassette at this point because there's still a feeling of sides "pause" with D&P and , the first true 1 side album 4 me is Come (or maybe Carmen Electra and Gold Nigga if u include side projects). Even Lovesexy, despite being conceived as a single track on CD, was thought in terms of sides, u can clearly feel the need 4 a break between the end of AS and the begining of DO, there r definitely 2 chapters 2 this story. So in the end I'm not sure, only can say, but I think at the very earliest his first album really thought 4 CD would b Lovesexy, the CD 4mat was still marginal in late 86 when he conceived SOTT.

So that doesn't stand: SOTT doesn't need 2 sides more than 4 sides or than 1, nor does it need a break between FIYL and UGTL more than, say, PR needs a break between the "hello how are u" segue and WDC or ATWIAD between Tamborine and America. The question remains: can, yes or no, SOTT fit on a single CD? According 2 what was said above it couldn't be done without wiping out a few seconds of silence between tracks and obviously (or WB) wouldn't allow that because it would have been butchering. I also wonder whether agreed on 1999 being released without DMSR of whether WB forced that on him. It's very possible that he made a fuss about it and that WB decided to leave SOTT untouched to avoid further turmoil, IDK. It would REALLY b interesting 2 hear some old WB execs addressing those subjects as well as what the fuck happened with Still Waiting.

thedance said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

I'm pretty sure there are some seconds of silence at the end of one or more tracks that can be removed so SOTT fits on a single disc, I doubt you'd even need to cut into actual music/crowd noise.

Both of you are so right.

You all forget that the 'silence' belongs to the album.

The silence is not there because of technical problem or oversight, it is there because the musicians) wanted the silence there.

Screenshot....

SOTT on 1 disk:


----> It's a matter of 80 minutes & 1 second only...



[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/ecnirp2004/SOTT-80Minutes_zps6357384f.jpg[/img:$uid]

this is according my Mp3 list..........................................................................................................................................................................................^^^^^

Ps) Ripped to Mp3 from the original 2CD.

[Edited 6/18/14 4:02am]

thedance said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

I'm pretty sure there are some seconds of silence at the end of one or more tracks that can be removed so SOTT fits on a single disc, I doubt you'd even need to cut into actual music/crowd noise.

Both of you are so right.

Yes but no. I don't understand y'all guys. 4 years I've heard y'all complain that the CD transfers sounded horrible, that only Flac is listenable, that it's a shame that half of 's catalogue is OOP, that u're afraid that old tapes r rotting in the vault instead of being well preserved, that u fear if ever rereleases those albums he may censor the lyrics or exclude the most explicit songs or do a poor loudness wars remastering and now that AT LONG LAST it seems we're gonna have decent remasters, under WB's precious supervision, y'all go and say "let's wipe out a few seconds to save 5 bucks", "let's edit some crowd noise out of the album because I don't like it", "let's replace the short version of Computer Blue by the original long edit IN the album instead of adding it as a bonus track", "let's edit Tony M. out of D&P", and so on... This is weird, u know. I don't understand u guys. 4 years u treat those albums as the holy bible in need of decent preservation and now that it's coming u wanna fuck them up. That's really freaking the hell out of me: we have 1 new thread a week about how horrible it would be if replaced "grinding" by "browsing" but at the same time it's like fans should be allowed to have a comitee in order to change the albums as they please? Do u realize how twisted this is, how sick? Let's just LEAVE THE BLOODY ALBUMS EXACTLY AS THEY WERE, period. Is that such a difficult thing to admit? Let's discuss what should be added as bonus material and what shouldn't to death but let's take it for granted that the albums themselves should be left alone! I don't know what's wrong with y'all, no offence but this is nuts, NUTS! I don't even know why we're discussing this in the first place, no other fan community save us would even think of butchering their favorite artists' original albums 4 remastering 4 chrissakes!

databank said:

thedance said:

Both of you are so right.

Yes but no. I don't understand y'all guys. 4 years I've heard y'all complain that the CD transfers sounded horrible, that only Flac is listenable, that it's a shame that half of 's catalogue is OOP, that u're afraid that old tapes r rotting in the vault instead of being well preserved, that u fear if ever rereleases those albums he may censor the lyrics or exclude the most explicit songs or do a poor loudness wars remastering and now that AT LONG LAST it seems we're gonna have decent remasters, under WB's precious supervision, y'all go and say "let's wipe out a few seconds to save 5 bucks", "let's edit some crowd noise out of the album because I don't like it", "let's replace the short version of Computer Blue by the original long edit IN the album instead of adding it as a bonus track", "let's edit Tony M. out of D&P", and so on... This is weird, u know. I don't understand u guys. 4 years u treat those albums as the holy bible in need of decent preservation and now that it's coming u wanna fuck them up. That's really freaking the hell out of me: we have 1 new thread a week about how horrible it would be if replaced "grinding" by "browsing" but at the same time it's like fans should be allowed to have a comitee in order to change the albums as they please? Do u realize how twisted this is, how sick? Let's just LEAVE THE BLOODY ALBUMS EXACTLY AS THEY WERE, period. Is that such a difficult thing to admit? Let's discuss what should be added as bonus material and what shouldn't to death but let's take it for granted that the albums themselves should be left alone! I don't know what's wrong with y'all, no offence but this is nuts, NUTS! I don't even know why we're discussing this in the first place, no other fan community save us would even think of butchering their favorite artists' original albums 4 remastering 4 chrissakes!

You do realise that you are quoting and replying to people that only ask for omitting a few seconds of silence in order to have SOTT on one disc instead of two?

funkaholic1972 said:

databank said:

Yes but no. I don't understand y'all guys. 4 years I've heard y'all complain that the CD transfers sounded horrible, that only Flac is listenable, that it's a shame that half of 's catalogue is OOP, that u're afraid that old tapes r rotting in the vault instead of being well preserved, that u fear if ever rereleases those albums he may censor the lyrics or exclude the most explicit songs or do a poor loudness wars remastering and now that AT LONG LAST it seems we're gonna have decent remasters, under WB's precious supervision, y'all go and say "let's wipe out a few seconds to save 5 bucks", "let's edit some crowd noise out of the album because I don't like it", "let's replace the short version of Computer Blue by the original long edit IN the album instead of adding it as a bonus track", "let's edit Tony M. out of D&P", and so on... This is weird, u know. I don't understand u guys. 4 years u treat those albums as the holy bible in need of decent preservation and now that it's coming u wanna fuck them up. That's really freaking the hell out of me: we have 1 new thread a week about how horrible it would be if replaced "grinding" by "browsing" but at the same time it's like fans should be allowed to have a comitee in order to change the albums as they please? Do u realize how twisted this is, how sick? Let's just LEAVE THE BLOODY ALBUMS EXACTLY AS THEY WERE, period. Is that such a difficult thing to admit? Let's discuss what should be added as bonus material and what shouldn't to death but let's take it for granted that the albums themselves should be left alone! I don't know what's wrong with y'all, no offence but this is nuts, NUTS! I don't even know why we're discussing this in the first place, no other fan community save us would even think of butchering their favorite artists' original albums 4 remastering 4 chrissakes!

You do realise that you are quoting and replying to people that only ask for omitting a few seconds of silence in order to have SOTT on one disc instead of two?

Hell yeah!

Let's put it another way so maybe u understand y certain things r sacred 2 me: I'm a writer and I can tell u that if I put a comma somewhere and it's my final decision that this comma has 2 be here when I consider the book done, there's a reason 4 this comma to be there, for every comma and period in the whole damn book.

So if u come 2 me and tell me: "dude, u should remove this comma so your book can fit into 100 pages instead of 101 because I'd like 2 pay 1 dollar less when I buy the paperback", I'm gonna kick your ass away and tell u 2 go do ur job and let me do mine instead of giving me clueless advices because obviously u have no idea what u're talking about. I take criticism on my work by fellow artists and I will often change things when I show a work in progress 2 them and I consider their advices relevant, and I know from past (and dreadful I must add) experiences that if it's a publisher then u can argue but he'll have the last word 4 better or worse and if I wanna get your check you have no choice but to shut ur mouth and comply, but if the work is finished and some readers who ain't even writers or artists in the first place want 2 trade my comma 4 a dollar then they can go 2 hell and buy someone else's book 4 all I care...

So if there are 4 seconds of silence between 2 songs instead of 2 seconds I'm gonna assume the musician thought about it and there's a reason 4 it and I'm not gonna let anybloodyone speak nonsense about removing those 2 seconds!

Besides being a purist 4 keeping works of arts intact for the sake of historicity, it also happens 2 be my job (well, one of them 4 un4tunately it won't pay the rent) 2 make works of art so I know that every detail counts, it's not just "there" randomly, people happen 2 think about those details, make choices about them, and those little choices are quite important 2 them if not 4 anyone else.

"Take my coffee but don't touch my cream" if u c what I mean

So please, if u won't respect historicity at least show some respect 4 the work of others

databank said:

funkaholic1972 said:

You do realise that you are quoting and replying to people that only ask for omitting a few seconds of silence in order to have SOTT on one disc instead of two?

Hell yeah!

Let's put it another way so maybe u understand y certain things r sacred 2 me: I'm a writer and I can tell u that if I put a comma somewhere and it's my final decision that this comma has 2 be here when I consider the book done, there's a reason 4 this comma to be there, for every comma and period in the whole damn book.

So if u come 2 me and tell me: "dude, u should remove this comma so your book can fit into 100 pages instead of 101 because I'd like 2 pay 1 dollar less when I buy the paperback", I'm gonna kick your ass away and tell u 2 go do ur job and let me do mine instead of giving me clueless advices because obviously u have no idea what u're talking about. I take criticism on my work by fellow artists and I will often change things when I show a work in progress 2 them and I consider their advices relevant, and I know from past (and dreadful I must add) experiences that if it's a publisher then u can argue but he'll have the last word 4 better or worse and if I wanna get your check you have no choice but to shut ur mouth and comply, but if the work is finished and some readers who ain't even writers or artists in the first place want 2 trade my comma 4 a dollar then they can go 2 hell and buy someone else's book 4 all I care...

[Edited 6/18/14 6:53am]

Databank:

sorry to correct you,

1) but why do you call Prince " " ????? That's his old name, since 2001 he is Prince again.

2) Please don't write in bonics (r, u, 4, 2 etc..), also this is hard to understand, I am often giving up reading it...... much easier if you could write in plain language....?

Finally:

3) I simply don't understand your need to have SOTT on a 2 cd when it easily can be on 1 cd.

Remember - if you choose to have a SOTT 1-cd - the second disk can then include the ext versions and b-sides, maybe outtakes too... ok?

I own CD's that lasts 80min and a bit. so it is possible to burn cd's which are a bit over 79.57min

so it's possible to get SOTT on one cd without any edits of silences or whatever.

if you're so desperate to save space, you can probably fit two of the early albums on one disc as well ...

If you play them a bit faster, you can probably even squeeze in three LPs (and have a brand new Camille album in the process)

Some double albums are legendary double albums ... 2CDs respect that, 1 CD doesn't ...

thedance said:

Databank:

sorry to correct you,

It's cool

1) but why do you call Prince " " ????? That's his old name, since 2001 he is Prince again.

Just 4 fun, I liked it when he was , it was cool as hell I was really sorry when he became Prince again, it's much less fun

2) Please don't write in bonics (r, u, 4, 2 etc..), also this is hard to understand, I am often giving up reading it...... much easier if you could write in plain language....?

Oh c'mon this is a PRINCE forum, if I can't write in bonics here then where? (c, I wrote Prince this time ) But honestly I don't do it 2 b princey, it's just a habit I took 2 type faster, sorry if it's uncom4table 4 u, I've been here 4 13 years now and u're the 1st 1 ever 2 complain about it so I assume it's not 2 much of a problem 4 the purple crowd

Finally:

3) I simply don't understand your need to have SOTT on a 2 cd when it easily can be on 1 cd.

If u can find a way 2 put it all on one disc without removing anything -b it a second of silence- from it, then I'm all 4 it. It's not about 1 or 2 CD's it's about not altering the original album. + I'm not only addressing this, I've read various suggestions about changes that should be made to various albums according to various orgers' personal deliriums and I'm quite shocked by the general carelessness and indifference regarding preserving and respecting works of art.

Remember - if you choose to have a SOTT 1-cd - the second disk can then include the ext versions and b-sides, maybe outtakes too... ok?

I don't understand this absolute need 2 b cheap 4 a DELUXE boxset (that's what we're talking bout, remember?). If it needs 5 CD's instead of 4, or 8 instead of 7, or 10 instead of 9, etc., what difference does it makes? Who said it had 2 b 3 CD's period? So OK we don't know what WB has in mind but the insider infos we have 4 PR say that there's gonna b a 1 CD version 4 casual listeners (that one not being the one we're interested in) and a DELUXE boxset 4 us fans. If it's gonna b deluxe and expensive then why in the world r we even talking saving space in the 1st place? It's gonna take as many CD's as it needs. I doubt a price of, say, 65 bucks instead of 60 because there's one more CD will make much of a difference considering the audience since we're talking about a niche audience who'll buy it anyway no matter how much it costs as long as quality is there. Honestly if they're gonna play it cheap on us I won't buy anything, I'll show my disapproval by downloading it illegally, because I already have all the albums and all the b-sides/extended/mixes and I'm perfectly happy with how they sound, so I ain't gonna pay 4 that and 3 outtakes. Now if they make it worth my while then I'm ready to pay in order 2 get more of the same

.

And more importantly: I LIKE 2 RANT on this forum, it's my way of evacuating the tensions of the day I guess, which doesn't mean I'm not absolutely convinced of the points I'm trying 2 make, but if some people have different ways -even ways I consider sheer insanity- I'm not gonna love y'all any less because if I didn't enjoy wasting time with y'all I wouldn't have been here 4 the last 13 years

[Edited 6/18/14 8:22am]

Ymaginatif said:

if you're so desperate to save space, you can probably fit two of the early albums on one disc as well ...

If you play them a bit faster, you can probably even squeeze in three LPs (and have a brand new Camille album in the process)

Some double albums are legendary double albums ... 2CDs respect that, 1 CD doesn't ...

I love u!

Anyway more seriously do u remember the aborted Chocolate Invasion boxset? 7 CD's including The War (26 mn) and One Nite Alone (about 30 mn IIRC), each filling a whole CD. That says it all about how sees the whole notion of "saving space" I guess

udo said:

thedance said:

Both of you are so right.

You all forget that the 'silence' belongs to the album.

The silence is not there because of technical problem or oversight, it is there because the musicians) wanted the silence there.

Thanks 4 understanding

thedance said:

Screenshot....

SOTT on 1 disk:


----> It's a matter of 80 minutes & 1 second only...



[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/ecnirp2004/SOTT-80Minutes_zps6357384f.jpg[/img:$uid]

this is according my Mp3 list..........................................................................................................................................................................................^^^^^

Ps) Ripped to Mp3 from the original 2CD.

[Edited 6/18/14 4:02am]

tomds said:

I own CD's that lasts 80min and a bit. so it is possible to burn cd's which are a bit over 79.57min

so it's possible to get SOTT on one cd without any edits of silences or whatever.

It seems there's no problem, then

databank said:

olb99 said:

I did an 80-minute version of SOTT on CD-R a long time ago (more than 10 years I guess) and I only had to remove bits of silence here and there. Which can already be a problem, actually, as it slightly changes the flow of the album. You might not be aware of it, but your brain *knows* how much silence there is between "If I Was Your Girlfriend" and "Strange Relationship".

HA! Thanks for confirming what I was saying above and help me put an end to the horrible wishes of vandalism some people 4mulate on this forum

There is also some silence at the end of the last track on each cd. (Forever In My Life, The Cross)Since it is the end of the Cds, you could eliminate that, and still get it under 80 minutes.

databank said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Oh for crying out loud, CDs are 16/44, HD audio is 24/88, 24/96, 24/192 etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Audio

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...r_Audio_CD

I had no idea, with all the hysterions claiming Flac/Wav is the top shit out there I thought CD quality was the best available.

I'm on mp3 320, remember? So i'm not too much concerned about those things But thx for the info nonetheless, I stand corrected

Blue Ray Audio is the best available, but is not widely used.

FLAC and CD are EXACTLY THE SAME! ----Every now and then I see some sound loss in the bass, which is likely because whoever converted from CD to FLAC did something wrong.

As great as FLAC is, MP3 continues to be the norm, and sadly, labels and artists want to over compress the files so they are so distorted, you can't really hear clear music anymore. It makes no sense at all.

WAV files do not sound like CD quality to me, but are simply breadcrumbs from it

MP3-320 is pretty good, but a strong ear can hear the difference

stillwaiting said:

databank said:

I had no idea, with all the hysterions claiming Flac/Wav is the top shit out there I thought CD quality was the best available.

I'm on mp3 320, remember? So i'm not too much concerned about those things But thx for the info nonetheless, I stand corrected

Blue Ray Audio is the best available, but is not widely used.

FLAC and CD are EXACTLY THE SAME! ----Every now and then I see some sound loss in the bass, which is likely because whoever converted from CD to FLAC did something wrong.

As great as FLAC is, MP3 continues to be the norm, and sadly, labels and artists want to over compress the files so they are so distorted, you can't really hear clear music anymore. It makes no sense at all.

WAV files do not sound like CD quality to me, but are simply breadcrumbs from it

MP3-320 is pretty good, but a strong ear can hear the difference

.

As Bart pointed out, FLAC is 24bit, and CDs are 16bit, so no, they aren't the same at all. WAV is also 24bit. That being said, a properly mastered CD sounds great. Where you would really hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit, would be anything with acoustic instruments, which includes all strings, horns, woodwinds, voice, etc. Personally, I won't go near an mp3, and will never pay for one.

Giovanni777 said:

stillwaiting said:

Blue Ray Audio is the best available, but is not widely used.

FLAC and CD are EXACTLY THE SAME! ----Every now and then I see some sound loss in the bass, which is likely because whoever converted from CD to FLAC did something wrong.

As great as FLAC is, MP3 continues to be the norm, and sadly, labels and artists want to over compress the files so they are so distorted, you can't really hear clear music anymore. It makes no sense at all.

WAV files do not sound like CD quality to me, but are simply breadcrumbs from it

MP3-320 is pretty good, but a strong ear can hear the difference

.

As Bart pointed out, FLAC is 24bit, and CDs are 16bit, so no, they aren't the same at all. WAV is also 24bit. That being said, a properly mastered CD sounds great. Where you would really hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit, would be anything with acoustic instruments, which includes all strings, horns, woodwinds, voice, etc. Personally, I won't go near an mp3, and will never pay for one.

I have yet to hear a FLAC file that wasn't simply a direct transfer from a CD, so I can't, and nobody will be able to tell the difference. Since labels typically use MP3, the sound on a transfer from Master to Direct likely won't matter here, as Warners and Prince could care less about sound quality, and this will likely be released on Cd and MP3, and Vinyl only. Hopefully it won't be over-compressed

Reluctantly, I won't be buying this. Too rich for my wallet, just like the Neil Young box set was. Why do artists think they can gouge us like this? It just puts me off buying anything by the artist.

McJagger said:

Reluctantly, I won't be buying this. Too rich for my wallet, just like the Neil Young box set was. Why do artists think they can gouge us like this? It just puts me off buying anything by the artist.

It remains to be seen what the actual price is, and what is presented for the price. As far as why overpriced sets exist? Because single cd reissues/remasters do not sell well. The only ones that do are cds that had huge numbers in their original incarnation. For Prince that means Purple Rain, 1999, and maybe ATWIAD and DAP. As I've said a billion times before, just look in your local Best Buy bargain bin, or even the regular section, and look at the prices for the Madonna, Van Halen, or Michael Jackson remasters...4.99 to 7.99 for almost every single one. And most are 4.99 or 5.99.

Since most actual profit comes from big box sets with extras, that is where they will go. Even the Beatles remasters were not as big as they thought, but having every album in a box as a choice probably provided them with a nice profit. It would be nice if there was a box with every single album, and all the extras each individual release would have.

udo said:

thedance said:

Both of you are so right.

You all forget that the 'silence' belongs to the album.

The silence is not there because of technical problem or oversight, it is there because the musicians) wanted the silence there.

.

That's your speculation, we don't know for sure.

databank said:

y'all go and say "let's wipe out a few seconds to save 5 bucks",

.

This has got NOTHING to do with saving money, but with convenience.

.

"let's edit some crowd noise out of the album because I don't like it",

.

No, I said remove superfluous silence to fit SOTT on one disc. And perhaps this isn't even necessary:

.

Playing times beyond 74 minutes are achieved by decreasing track pitch beyond the original Red Book standard. Most players can accommodate the more closely spaced data.[18] Christian Thielemann's live Deutsche Grammophon recording of Bruckner's Fifth with the Munich Philharmonic in 2004 clocks at 82:34.[19] The Kirov Orchestra recording of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker conducted by Valery Gergiev and released by Philips/PolyGram Records (catalogue number 462 114) on October 20, 1998, clocks at 81:14.[citation needed] The Mission of Burma compilation album Mission of Burma, released in 1988 by Rykodisc, previously held the record at 80:08.[20]

.

So, no edits required.

.

"let's replace the short version of Computer Blue by the original long edit IN the album instead of adding it as a bonus track",

.

No, I say: release this as a Blu-ray audio where listeners can select their own configuration, i.e. the original one vs one that plays the full-lenght version of tracks much like we would have gotten if it hadn't been for vinyl's limits vs whatever. Ditto for SOTT + Camille + CB (+ DF). Branching perfectly allows that, much like you can put multiple edits of the same film on one Blu-ray.

databank said:

funkaholic1972 said:

You do realise that you are quoting and replying to people that only ask for omitting a few seconds of silence in order to have SOTT on one disc instead of two?

Hell yeah!

Let's put it another way so maybe u understand y certain things r sacred 2 me: I'm a writer and I can tell u that if I put a comma somewhere and it's my final decision that this comma has 2 be here when I consider the book done, there's a reason 4 this comma to be there, for every comma and period in the whole damn book.

.

This is nonsense. Even the most succesful authors have editors, and those often remove far more than a mere comma.

.

So if there are 4 seconds of silence between 2 songs instead of 2 seconds I'm gonna assume the musician thought about it and there's a reason 4 it and I'm not gonna let anybloodyone speak nonsense about removing those 2 seconds!

.

I wouldn't be surprised if the silence between SOTT tracks on CD is different from the ones on vinyl.