Red Dead Redemption's Soundtrack Released On Vinyl Record - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26218314]but its inefficient. You cant put vinyl on your ipod or computer. Nobody has a record player except for hispters, dj's, old people, and hipsters. Also I can fit infinitely more music in a 3.5" harddrive than I can on a record[/QUOTE] Noone is asking you to buy it. So stop bitching. I have a harddrive and a wopping good stereo with a turntable. You do what you do, and leave the rest of us alone.

[QUOTE=Panda X;26212299]Well that's new. Or old depending how you look at it. Is there any particular reason as to why it's translucent?[/QUOTE] They're making vinyls prettyful in an attempt to attract people to them.

I genuinely need to get this but it's sold out damn it.

[QUOTE=johan_sm;26212312]That's so hipster.[/QUOTE] DJs use vinyl retardo.

[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;26227307]Real men use .FLAC Mp3s are BAD[/QUOTE] Real men listen to mp3s at 320kb/s because I'd rather have 10x more music than storing gigantic files for barely any difference. Yes there is a difference, but I don't give a shit. With my medium range equipment there probably isn't an audible difference anyway.

[QUOTE=Akayz;26225741] Pink Floyd - Animals[/QUOTE] lol my copy is from the 70's and it's so fucking worn down that the guitars are starting to sound like banjo's just part of the charm

Totally buying it, i wish i still had that old record player.

[QUOTE=Akayz;26223457] To be fair, not all music on vinyl sounds great. But the audio engineers put more effort into most albums on vinyl to get the best possible sound, than most people do when they chuck it compressed on a CD.[/QUOTE] clearly all artists record their music as lossy mp3 files and burn them to cds [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=PunchedInFac;26227307]Real men use .FLAC Mp3s are BAD[/QUOTE] flac isn't even that great. for the best possible quality, you want to use wav (or even w64/rf64)

if anything, vinyl is more compressed

Well my dad did fish out the old stereo....

I have a great vinyl collection, including a copy of [I]The White Album[/I] signed by McCartney & Starr. This will undoubtedly go into my collection.

[QUOTE=Doriol;26238972] flac isn't even that great. for the best possible quality, you want to use wav (or even w64/rf64)[/QUOTE] the differences are undetectable to the human ear

Does anyone know what the new track sounds like?

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;26232738]Real men listen to mp3s at 320kb/s because I'd rather have 10x more music than storing gigantic files for barely any difference. Yes there is a difference, but I don't give a shit. With my medium range equipment there probably isn't an audible difference anyway.[/QUOTE] I feel sorry for your ears [img]http://media.audiojunkies.com/akg-k702-k-702-headphones-head-phones-earphones-audio.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;26225457]You've made this claim before, but you've never once backed it up. It sounds like it may be plausible, but I'd like to see at least five or six different albums on which this has happened. It's not. After a few plays the effect of wear on the record places a sort of high-pass filter that's lower than 22.05Khz (Nyquist of CD). It's not even comparable to 24Bit/96Khz FLAC, granted, 24/96 is useless because no one can physically hear the difference above 320Kbit/s MP3 anyway. (If you can pass an AB/X test this w/ a p-value of < 0.01 I will personally give you $100). This doesn't even really matter too much because of this, however: [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/RIAA-EQ-Curve.svg[/img_thumb] This is the standard EQ applied to all vinyl playback because Vinyls are cut with huge emphasis on the highs (for various reasons, mainly longer playback and allowing lower quality turntables to actually work). This does a great job of applying a flat frequency response at first. However, after a few playbacks, this EQ produces a roll-off of most mids and highs as the peaks of the record erode and the groove widens, producing a "warm feeling". This effect, coupled with the wear and tear placed on a record as it goes through multiple playbacks is a significant drawback compared with digital formats. [b]Edit:[/b] All of this isn't to say that I have an issue with vinyl. I like it, it's drawbacks are where the charms sometimes lay. The preparing of a record, inspecting it to make sure nothing is wrong with it before playing, and having to make sure things are set up just right for it. Only thing I have a problem with are people making the (false) claims that it's somehow superior and we foolishly discarded quality for ease of use.[/QUOTE] Well done. Digital is Superior. The metric volume of three records surpasses that of an ipod, which can hold exponentially more data. The human ear can only pick up on so much, so it isn't really a huge loss. I like records for the reasons you described.. almost ritualistic.

this wont fit in my ipod?

-

I like Vinyls because I can't find a CD copy of any of my 'the macc lads' Records in HMV [editline]23rd November 2010[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOm8uv22e2U[/media] if that ain't art, ain't nothing that is

[QUOTE=strayebyrd;26246772]I like Vinyls because I can't find a CD copy of any of my 'the macc lads' Records in HMV [editline]23rd November 2010[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOm8uv22e2U[/media] if that ain't art, ain't nothing that is[/QUOTE] I have So What by Anti-Nowhere League on 7". [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6MlrPESdDI[/media]

[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;26244811]I feel sorry for your ears [img_thumb]http://media.audiojunkies.com/akg-k702-k-702-headphones-head-phones-earphones-audio.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] i'm sorry, but i don't jerk off to the audio quality of the music i listen to.

God dammit. I wish I had a vinyl player. I would buy this in a heartbeat.

[QUOTE=Daemon;26246689]I want proof that vinyls are 'coming back'. It would only be for hipster reasons if they do.[/QUOTE] hipster reasons? dude vinyls are coming back because people are sampling them again kanye west actually samples vinyl on his new album

-

[QUOTE=johan_sm;26213244]No it's not but resurrecting old things that are not better than new ones is.[/QUOTE] Well that's unfair. So I automatically become a hipster for buying an old NES system off of eBay?

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;26253966]Well that's unfair. So I automatically become a hipster for buying an old NES system off of eBay?[/QUOTE] it's about the intention really. While I disagree with the concept that these people are the new 'hipsters', the 'hipsterish' side of liking retro really relates to the fact that they do retro for the sake of retro

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;26213289]"hipster" basically means whatever the hell the speaker wants it to mean. An accusation of "hipsterism" cannot be defended against because the definition of the term is fluid and transient[/QUOTE] how about "someone who likes obscure things for the sake of liking obscure things"

[QUOTE=Turnips5;26254210]how about "someone who likes obscure things for the sake of liking obscure things"[/QUOTE] what's wrong with that usually obscure things are cool

[QUOTE=thisispain;26254251]what's wrong with that usually obscure things are cool[/QUOTE] you're missing the point man, I like obscure things too, but I don't like them because they're obscure, I like them because I get enjoyment from them anyway a lot of stuff is obscure because it's shitty

[QUOTE=Turnips5;26254866]you're missing the point man, I like obscure things too, but I don't like them because they're obscure, I like them because I get enjoyment from them[/QUOTE] huh?

[QUOTE=thisispain;26254885]huh?[/QUOTE] by my definition, hipsters are people who like obscure things purely for their obscurity, not for their artistic value or personal enjoyment, hence the irony thing