Vinyl Re-issue Box Set - Price and Mock-up Photo

That's the biggest rip off in the music industry for a long, long time. Even if it is 180gm, those Simply Vinyl reissues a few years ago that were just like these retailed at around the £17 mark. Who on Earth thought people would pay £120 for this?

I can think of better things to spend £120 on. £40 a record, you'll be able to get all 3 re-issued deluxe CD's for that.

kino zon wrote:

Hélène's friend wrote:

Spotnick wrote: Vinyl?

People still have turn tables?

What's wrong with NO/JD releases...

I still have mine but can't use it since it turns at 48/37 rpm. I don't know how to select the speed like it should be. I probably have to open the whole thing and surely could not close it properly after. it's not JD/ NO only, unfortunately.

i have a friend that selling his 1200 technics, u interested??:D

if I buy a new one, it will be a USB one to make mp3s easily.

i'll stick with the CD's ta.

Doctor? wrote:

Kevin Smith wrote:

Hélène's friend wrote: 120£ for a very bad sound in 2.0, noway!!

In my case an excellent sound

£120? Fuck that!

Excellent sound? With all the bass removed and replaced on playback with a preamp, fuck all signal to noise ratio and a THD value that looks like a misprint.

It may sound, subjectively, more pleasant, but from an actual audio analysis point of view, it's pants.

There also appears to be a habit of saying vynil is better than, say CD based on testing a £350 Technics SL1210 (though the same sort of person who says these things probably also loves the sl1200 and swears that 1210's give you bollock-ache), plugged through a £400 mixer with pro quality preamps, against a CD player that cost £11.99 from argos. Try testing the plastic turntable atop a home midisystem against a £600 Dennon broadcast cd deck and see how your results turn out.

Time to make you look stupid.

I have a Linn Sondek LP12 and a Naim audio CDX2 through Naim audio amplification.

They probably blow the bollocks off most people's hifi on here.

The Linn is a more expensive machine than the Naim CDX2, but £3000 is still a lot to pay for a CD player and is light years away from your £11.99 cd player.If CD really is better than vinyl, wouldn't the CD player sound better at that level?

Amazon UK

LWTUA

"The vinyl box set is very limited, with a restricted worldwide pressing."

I guess this is what accounts for about two thirds of the price?

...and no mention of 'Twenty Four Hours' on Still (on the Amazon tracklist)

Kevin Smith wrote:

Time to make you look stupid.

I have a Linn Sondek LP12 and a Naim audio CDX2 through Naim audio amplification.

They probably blow the bollocks off most people's hifi on here.

The Linn is a more expensive machine than the Naim CDX2, but £3000 is still a lot to pay for a CD player and is light years away from your £11.99 cd player.If CD really is better than vinyl, wouldn't the CD player sound better at that level?

You spend three grand on a CD player and you call others stupid?

oldmonkey wrote:

Kevin Smith wrote:

Time to make you look stupid.

I have a Linn Sondek LP12 and a Naim audio CDX2 through Naim audio amplification.

They probably blow the bollocks off most people's hifi on here.

The Linn is a more expensive machine than the Naim CDX2, but £3000 is still a lot to pay for a CD player and is light years away from your £11.99 cd player.If CD really is better than vinyl, wouldn't the CD player sound better at that level?

You spend three grand on a CD player and you call others stupid?

I'm sure said CDplayer sounds delicious. But if he can post specs showing it has lower signal to noise or frequency response than his record player (oh and some THD numbers would be good), I'll wear an "I'm a thick cunt" T-Shirt.

There's a difference between what sounds subjectively better to the ear, and what is actually better. Classical music on vinyl for instance.....

Chris Nash wrote: £120 quid for 3 albums? You could buy better quality Factory originals for half the price. London need to FCUK OFF! Sorry, not even I will buy this.

I bought Still (actually re-bought, having sold my original vinyl years ago) from a charity shop for 99p recently. I think that's a more reasonable price. Even so I only bought it 'cos of the odd feeling of nostalgia I got at seeing the sleeve FULL SIZE again.

oldmonkey wrote:

Kevin Smith wrote:

Time to make you look stupid.

I have a Linn Sondek LP12 and a Naim audio CDX2 through Naim audio amplification.

They probably blow the bollocks off most people's hifi on here.

The Linn is a more expensive machine than the Naim CDX2, but £3000 is still a lot to pay for a CD player and is light years away from your £11.99 cd player.If CD really is better than vinyl, wouldn't the CD player sound better at that level?

You spend three grand on a CD player and you call others stupid?

Trouble is, the most expensive piece of hi-fi kit you can buy is a decent sized house with thick walls to put the damn thing in. Not much point spending a fortune on hi-fi if you either can't use it without headphones or can't hear it anyway over the thump-thump-thump coming through from the flat downstairs or next door. That's been my experience anyway!

Anyway, cd players seem like old technology to me. It feels a bit silly to spend a fortune on a quality transport mechanism just to make up for the fact that the technology is so dated - after all PCs can read perfectly from dirt cheap ones because they have proper error correction.

Doctor wrote:

I'm sure said CDplayer sounds delicious. But if he can post specs showing it has lower signal to noise or frequency response than his record player (oh and some THD numbers would be good), I'll wear an "I'm a thick cunt" T-Shirt.

There's a difference between what sounds subjectively better to the ear, and what is actually better. Classical music on vinyl for instance.....

I have no idea what you are talking about. The bass response is far superior on the Linn, the whole range is wider as CD is compressed. How can something that sounds far superior not be better? Have you used any Johnson's Cotton Buds lately?

If all you are interested in is numbers, then you're obviously not interested in actual sound. High end hifi is lost on you and you've never heard a Linn Sondek in action.

There is very little signal loss on the record deck as it has a Naim audio Prefix phono pre-amp built into the chassis, powered by a Naim audio Flatcap 2. All part of Naim's philosophy.

I'm sure you could find those numbers on the web if you really wanted to.

The box set is available from HMV online for £59. Ive already pre-ordered mine. I'll also get the CD versions which include the live gigs. In the vinyl vs CD debate, I prefer vinyl. I think its just wrong that great music can be reduced to a stream of 1's and 0's

Kevin Smith wrote:

Doctor wrote:

I'm sure said CDplayer sounds delicious. But if he can post specs showing it has lower signal to noise or frequency response than his record player (oh and some THD numbers would be good), I'll wear an "I'm a thick cunt" T-Shirt.

There's a difference between what sounds subjectively better to the ear, and what is actually better. Classical music on vinyl for instance.....

I have no idea what you are talking about. The bass response is far superior on the Linn, the whole range is wider as CD is compressed. How can something that sounds far superior not be better? Have you used any Johnson's Cotton Buds lately?

If all you are interested in is numbers, then you're obviously not interested in actual sound. High end hifi is lost on you and you've never heard a Linn Sondek in action.

There is very little signal loss on the record deck as it has a Naim audio Prefix phono pre-amp built into the chassis, powered by a Naim audio Flatcap 2. All part of Naim's philosophy.

I'm sure you could find those numbers on the web if you really wanted to.

CD is not compressed, 16bit=96dB SnR, no need at all for compression. Vinyl IS compressed, as well as viciously Eq'd. Why do you think you need a special phono pre-amp....it's to try and put back the stuff removed to get it onto a bit of plastic.

I say again, have you heard classical music on vinyl? It's ruined. Also, if vinyl is so good, why is it not used for mastering?

I was thinking too, I bet you buy that 15.99 a metre speaker cable too.....snake oil, makes a difference so small it doesn't appear on metering equipment, never mind the human ear. Been in several big studios including BBC-NI's main music recording one (live room large enough for an orchestra) and I don't see no daft cable in those.

As I said, Vinyl has it's place, clubs. But then even "DJ mix" CD's that you buy aren't done with vinyl, but from CD using a hard disc audio editor. Smelly, crackly poppy nonsense may be OK at 2am in a tunnel, but not once you can hear it "warts and all".

And I say once again.....Digital can record 20Hz, 10Hz, 2Hz, 0Hz (DC), no analogue format can do that.

Aye, like I said, viyl rocks for club use cos of the feedback (as long as it is controlled), of course the drawback is that it tends to make your records wear out very fast.

Remember the first CD's? Two layers of toughened, optical grade glass with the information and reflective layer between them....hence all the demo's on TV of eating off them and driving cars over them. But what do we get now? a single sheet of plastic with the info on the surface, covered only by reflective paint and the label print. Result: a disc dropped on soft carpet can be damaged.

For the record, since you'd be forgiven for missing this based on my posts on this thread, I don't much care for Digital, I hate it's horrid white noise glitches, and particularly the way it goes "work work work work work fucked" unlike analogue which degrades smoothly from working to fucked. I just can't hear silly statements about vinyl being sonically superior without calling bullshit. It's time I found a good article on how records work, I wonder how far back soundonsound's archives go.

If I might digress..... I particularly dislike digital video for the same reason, with analogue TV, if there are shitty atmospherics, your picture is there but all furry, bu the oh-so-amazing freeview will just be gone, not there, no channels. Oh, and being an F1 fan, it's a bit sad to see the diagonal lines by the side of the track looking like stairs. And as for HD? If they'd asked me to design it, I'd have started with 50 frames a sec and then worried about raising the resolution (to about half what a Pc monitor, costing 25% as much as an HD telly, can do). And watching standard DVD/digital-telly on an HD screen....yikes, it's an object lesson in aliasing.

All vinyl these days will be mastered from a digital source so it's hard to avoid digital somewhere in the chain. You're really choosing analogue or digital for the end product only.

One thing that can be said about vinyl pressings is that all the noise-war nonsense going on in the CD mastering world nowadays isn't really possible when you cut vinyl, so often you get a far truer and much more dynamic sound from the vinyl pressing as opposed to the completely ruined CD version. Check WFTSC on both CD and vinyl to see. This kind of mastering totally negates any money spent on high-end CD players.

With this in mind vinyl will definitely sound better than CD, mainly due to the corrupt mastering done for the CD.

I wish I understood what Doc & johnny james have just posted. but i don't.

what i do know is that vinyl has always seemed like a fuller sound to me - with me headphones on i always feel like i can hear further into the music - i mean i can pick out & follow parts that are way down in the mix(1); whereas with cd that depth never quite feels the same. to me.

(1)tape was the same too - sometimes clearer than my vinyl, but the beats didn't seem as full/loud/whatever on tape as they did on vinyl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

...the Wiki piece on loudness wars.

Doctor? wrote:

I particularly dislike digital video for the same reason, with analogue TV, if there are shitty atmospherics, your picture is there but all furry, bu the oh-so-amazing freeview will just be gone, not there, no channels.

Maybe its just me, but I find I _really_ notice what I would call 'MPEG artifacts' when watching digital TV. Depending on the nature of the image its sometimes horribly noticable and really distracting (its absurdly intrusive if its a scene with lots of smoke or something). It seems to be worse on the '+1' channels, maybe they use higher compression? Or is it just my cheapo freeview box?

And I'm puzzled by HD TV. As its going to be digital, where will all the extra bandwidth come from to support it? And as it all seems to be massively compressed anyway how much benefit will the increased resolution give - will it just have higher compression to make up for the increased number of pixels?

johnny james wrote: All vinyl these days will be mastered from a digital source so it's hard to avoid digital somewhere in the chain. You're really choosing analogue or digital for the end product only.

One thing that can be said about vinyl pressings is that all the noise-war nonsense going on in the CD mastering world nowadays isn't really possible when you cut vinyl, so often you get a far truer and much more dynamic sound from the vinyl pressing as opposed to the completely ruined CD version. Check WFTSC on both CD and vinyl to see. This kind of mastering totally negates any money spent on high-end CD players.

With this in mind vinyl will definitely sound better than CD, mainly due to the corrupt mastering done for the CD.

A valid point, but I think it's at least partly due to there being many Jedi cutting engineers out there. A good cutting engineer is worth more than all the multiband mastering compressors you can get your paws on. Loudness wars are retarded, doubly so since CD offers by far the greater dynamic range.

404 error wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

I particularly dislike digital video for the same reason, with analogue TV, if there are shitty atmospherics, your picture is there but all furry, bu the oh-so-amazing freeview will just be gone, not there, no channels.

Maybe its just me, but I find I _really_ notice what I would call 'MPEG artifacts' when watching digital TV. Depending on the nature of the image its sometimes horribly noticable and really distracting (its absurdly intrusive if its a scene with lots of smoke or something). It seems to be worse on the '+1' channels, maybe they use higher compression? Or is it just my cheapo freeview box?

And I'm puzzled by HD TV. As its going to be digital, where will all the extra bandwidth come from to support it? And as it all seems to be massively compressed anyway how much benefit will the increased resolution give - will it just have higher compression to make up for the increased number of pixels?

Shut the fuck up, stop asking questions, get your hole down to dixons and buy a new telly like a good little consumer.

darran clarke wrote: The box set is available from HMV online for £59. Ive already pre-ordered mine. I'll also get the CD versions which include the live gigs. In the vinyl vs CD debate, I prefer vinyl. I think its just wrong that great music can be reduced to a stream of 1's and 0's

Just looking at pre-ordering from HMV meself... I'm just a bit concerned though about why next to number of discs it says "1"...

Just a mistake I hope...

What's going on here? That 3rd vynyl doesn't look like Unknown Pleasures.It looks like it's got some big writing on the front , not the Pulsar thingy

johnny wrote: What's going on here? That 3rd vynyl doesn't look like Unknown Pleasures.It looks like it's got some big writing on the front , not the Pulsar thingy

Maybe the Still re-release is in its Hessian sleeve?

It might be the ribbon on the spine of 'Still', if they've recreated the Hessian sleeve.

(beat me to it!)

johnny james wrote:

One thing that can be said about vinyl pressings is that all the noise-war nonsense going on in the CD mastering world nowadays isn't really possible when you cut vinyl, so often you get a far truer and much more dynamic sound from the vinyl pressing as opposed to the completely ruined CD version. Check WFTSC on both CD and vinyl to see. This kind of mastering totally negates any money spent on high-end CD players.

With this in mind vinyl will definitely sound better than CD, mainly due to the corrupt mastering done for the CD.

I have a feeling I'd be interested in that if I understood it!

What's the noise war?

Doctor? wrote:

Kevin Smith wrote:

Doctor wrote:

I'm sure said CDplayer sounds delicious. But if he can post specs showing it has lower signal to noise or frequency response than his record player (oh and some THD numbers would be good), I'll wear an "I'm a thick cunt" T-Shirt.

There's a difference between what sounds subjectively better to the ear, and what is actually better. Classical music on vinyl for instance.....

I have no idea what you are talking about. The bass response is far superior on the Linn, the whole range is wider as CD is compressed. How can something that sounds far superior not be better? Have you used any Johnson's Cotton Buds lately?

If all you are interested in is numbers, then you're obviously not interested in actual sound. High end hifi is lost on you and you've never heard a Linn Sondek in action.

There is very little signal loss on the record deck as it has a Naim audio Prefix phono pre-amp built into the chassis, powered by a Naim audio Flatcap 2. All part of Naim's philosophy.

I'm sure you could find those numbers on the web if you really wanted to.

CD is not compressed, 16bit=96dB SnR, no need at all for compression. Vinyl IS compressed, as well as viciously Eq'd. Why do you think you need a special phono pre-amp....it's to try and put back the stuff removed to get it onto a bit of plastic.

I say again, have you heard classical music on vinyl? It's ruined. Also, if vinyl is so good, why is it not used for mastering?

I was thinking too, I bet you buy that 15.99 a metre speaker cable too.....snake oil, makes a difference so small it doesn't appear on metering equipment, never mind the human ear. Been in several big studios including BBC-NI's main music recording one (live room large enough for an orchestra) and I don't see no daft cable in those.

As I said, Vinyl has it's place, clubs. But then even "DJ mix" CD's that you buy aren't done with vinyl, but from CD using a hard disc audio editor. Smelly, crackly poppy nonsense may be OK at 2am in a tunnel, but not once you can hear it "warts and all".

And I say once again.....Digital can record 20Hz, 10Hz, 2Hz, 0Hz (DC), no analogue format can do that.

quite quite ridiculous. earlier you cite a technics is a high qualidee turntable, then you argue with an audiophile, you talk figures over what it actually sounds like & then bring up decent cabling & claim it offers no improvement to sound & so switch to subjectivity, ignoring the very graphs you earlier counted on.

sorry steve, i've watched you blathering on, as usual, on this thread as if you're the font of all knowledge, but sometimes you should just leave it be, it's okay to do so, you don't have to post on every thread.

fwiw i have a much cheaper system than the naim/ linn set up but even on mine spending a bit of cash on some decent interconnects made a noticeable difference.