# Rare classical CDs



## Diabolico

I spend a lot of time browsing second-hand records and cds, both online and in stores and markets. About half of my CD collection and 100% of my vinyl collection consists of what I just happened to come across, and I've found many a gem this way.

To help finance this hobby, I sometimes sell items as well. Now I wonder if there's some kind of list of CDs that are rare and highly collectible, so I can look out for those even if don't feature the repertoire I'd look for in the first place.

I'd really appreciate any info on specific items, labels, pressings, etc. So far I've found what superficial google searches turn up, and while there seem to be interesting collector's guides on vinyl, I've found no such thing for CDs...


----------



## bigshot

There aren't many particularly valuable CDs, especially in classical music. In all my collection of somewhere between 10-12,000 discs, I can only think of one that has special value. That's a gold audiophile disc of Ansermet conducting Borodin symphonies. But in a month, that will be worthless, because a bargain box set of Ansermet playing Russian music is coming out and guess what's on it!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Diabolico said:


> I spend a lot of time browsing second-hand records and cds, both online and in stores and markets. About half of my CD collection and 100% of my vinyl collection consists of what I just happened to come across, and I've found many a gem this way.
> 
> To help finance this hobby, I sometimes sell items as well. Now I wonder if there's some kind of list of CDs that are rare and highly collectible, so I can look out for those even if don't feature the repertoire I'd look for in the first place.
> 
> I'd really appreciate any info on specific items, labels, pressings, etc. So far I've found what superficial google searches turn up, and while there seem to be interesting collector's guides on vinyl, I've found no such thing for CDs...


---
Lot's of rarities here:

http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/


----------



## bigshot

By the way, the third party prices on Amazon are no indication of the actual second hand value of out of print CDs.


----------



## Radames

bigshot said:


> By the way, the third party prices on Amazon are no indication of the actual second hand value of out of print CDs.


How is the value determined? To me if it's rare and out of print it's valuble - untill it's reissued like your Ansermet conducting Borodin symphonies. I would like to get Max Bruch's Odysseus conducted by Botstein, but the price is $60 becsue it's hard to find and out of print.


----------



## SimonNZ

The amazing bargains you're talking about - the ones you have no intention of keeping and only want to resell for profit - should be left for the people who are searching for them and will play and love the music.


----------



## Diabolico

Thanks all. Maybe I should add that it's not only veritable treasures I'm after. If I pay $1 or 2 for a cd that I know will do $15+ on my local Ebay equivalent, it's worth the while. But I guess the real money's at rare vinyl...


----------



## SimonNZ

And the rare vinyl should go to the people who love the music.

You know this is the way ticket-scalpers justify their actions, right? "If I buy two pairs of tickets then sell one pair later at twice their value them I'm going for free - I'm a genius!" No, you've just screwed somebody else. Its entirely selfish

Even if I could think of such a list of cds I wouldn't offer it for this use.


----------



## Bulldog

SimonNZ said:


> And the rare vinyl should go to the people who love the music.
> 
> You know this is the way ticket-scalpers justify their actions, right? "If I buy two pairs of tickets then sell one pair later at twice their value them I'm going for free - I'm a genius!" No, you've just screwed somebody else. Its entirely selfish
> 
> Even if I could think of such a list of cds I wouldn't offer it for this use.


I could easily come up with such a list, and I actually own one of the most coveted discs. But like you, I don't go for the idea of screwing any classical music enthusiast for a few bucks.


----------



## Diabolico

@ Simon: It's usually me or a pro scavenging those boxes for the interesting stuff. It's banal and counter-intuitive, indeed, which is why up to now I only sold some of what I initially bought to hear. But I'm poor and could use the green for more expensive cd's and, not least, concerts.


----------



## Diabolico

I also wonder why one would think either me or someone buying from me online (like I do from others) would be less of a classical enthousiast than someone (like, again, myself) who sometimes picks up something good for cheap and loves it to death.

Like in the ticket-mob analogy, and the business of selling $0.012 shiny disks for $30 a piece, there is no fraud in reselling stuff. it's called added value. No-one's screwed over. If this really bothers you I suppose you must have a grave problem with business and the functioning of markets in general.

I could, by the way, raise a similar argument at any collector possessing 1000+ records, all but one of them sitting idly in their jackets- When are you going to listen to them all? Could you even, in your lifetime? You're selfishly keeping them from the culturally starving, watery-eyed classical music enthousiast! Hand them out at once, comrade- especially the ones you like best!

Now the real ethical thing to do for me would be to destroy all records with sub-par, boring performances I come across. I sell them instead- that's what bothers _me_.


----------



## bigshot

Radames said:


> How is the value determined? To me if it's rare and out of print it's valuble - untill it's reissued like your Ansermet conducting Borodin symphonies.


The Borodin symphonies disk is a special case. It was an audiophile CD on a gold disk and Japanese audiophiles latched onto it for its sound quality. It's an audiophile fetish thing that has very little to do with the music itself.

Just because something is out of print, it doesn't make it valuable. People on Amazon put outrageous prices on obscure things in the hopes that someone is desperate enough to plunk down way more than it's worth to get it. Bruch's Odysseus by Botstein would probably still sell for four or five bucks if you found it in a used record store. They can charge $60 at Amazon because they know that it comes up in google searches, and all they need to make a profit of $56 is one sucker. It might take years for that one sucker to come along though, so they dump a wide variety of out of print stuff at inflated prices into Amazon's database and just sit back and wait.

It's a scam for losers. You should develop a better career than that.


----------



## bigshot

Diabolico said:


> Thanks all. Maybe I should add that it's not only veritable treasures I'm after. If I pay $1 or 2 for a cd that I know will do $15+ on my local Ebay equivalent, it's worth the while. But I guess the real money's at rare vinyl...


I've had tens of thousands of classical records given to me outright because no one even offered a dime a disk on them. You're really on the wrong end of the curve on this. Making money in records was in the 80s. And again, it was fetish items mostly for Japanese collectors. 99% of LP records were only worth a buck or two a disk tops back then too.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> You're really on the wrong end of the curve on this. Making money in records was in the 80s. And again, it was fetish items mostly for Japanese collectors. 99% of LP records were only worth a buck or two a disk tops back then too.


This isn't true in the UK so maybe we're behind the curve or maybe we just like the sound of vinyl more. Rarities sell well here and specialist shops thrive but my local shop manages to sell current double disc LPs of single CDs for almost twice as much as the single CD price. I'm not sure about "99% of LP records were only worth a buck or two a disk tops back then too" as that might've been so in the US but not here.

I'm not a vinyl nutter by the way as I have a few thousand CDs also but I do like my LPs though.

I've never been considered a fetishist before and must tell my wife as she thinks I'm dead boring.


----------



## Vaneyes

Re "rare", some collectors like unwrapped OOP CDs. These prices can get pretty steep at times. They never listen to the music.


----------



## bigshot

RudyKens said:


> This isn't true in the UK so maybe we're behind the curve or maybe we just like the sound of vinyl more.


Charter one of those big barge boats and send it to Los Angeles to load up on vinyl. You could make a killing. Gold just laying in the street! (next to the trash cans)


----------



## PetrB

Diabolico said:


> I also wonder why one would think either me or someone buying from me online (like I do from others) would be less of a classical enthousiast than someone (like, again, myself) who sometimes picks up something good for cheap and loves it to death.
> 
> Like in the ticket-mob analogy, and the business of selling $0.012 shiny disks for $30 a piece, there is no fraud in reselling stuff. it's called added value. No-one's screwed over. If this really bothers you I suppose you must have a grave problem with business and the functioning of markets in general.
> 
> I could, by the way, raise a similar argument at any collector possessing 1000+ records, all but one of them sitting idly in their jackets- When are you going to listen to them all? Could you even, in your lifetime? You're selfishly keeping them from the culturally starving, watery-eyed classical music enthousiast! Hand them out at once, comrade- especially the ones you like best!
> 
> Now the real ethical thing to do for me would be to destroy all records with sub-par, boring performances I come across. I sell them instead- that's what bothers _me_.


I'm fine with making the effort, investing your own funds, and selling the thing for whatever the market can bear, while I'm not fine with researching and doing some of the legwork for someone else, especially if you are that same one who is going to try to sell me that OOP CD of Rameau for $36 after I've told you about it 

Many of us have been in debt and hard-working 'starving students' and then later 'young starving artists.' While in that second category, I would buy and sell vintage and antique merchandise, and that would help make ends meet, or get me the price of a concert ticket or recording where otherwise I would not have had the means.

Rare recordings, BTW, are an extremely limited market with very few of them having any significant real market value. How many 'rare' OOP CD's (or LP's) there are makes your thought to make that a focused endeavor, an effort in an exceedingly tiny market, hardly worth your while.

You are better off finding something else to buy and sell, online or at local flea markets.


----------



## bigshot

I agree. The only reason to deal in classical music is because you love the subject and you enjoy serving collectors like yourself. I smell none of that here, just good old greed.


----------



## PetrB

bigshot said:


> I agree. The only reason to deal in classical music is because you love the subject and you enjoy serving collectors like yourself. I smell none of that here, just good old greed.


...and a notion to work within and capitalize in an area about as large as a bottle-cap, which is more to the point, completely impractical if you are looking for a viable means of making a livelihood.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Charter one of those big barge boats and send it to Los Angeles to load up on vinyl. You could make a killing. Gold just laying in the street! (next to the trash cans)


I like my vinyl and have just ordered http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rhapsody-Bl...083566&sr=1-21&keywords=classical+music+vinyl.
I don't know how much gold is or isn't lying in your street but the implication seems that you see vinyl's place as next to the trash cans which is a bit narrow-minded in my opinion.


----------



## Vaneyes

PetrB said:


> ...and a notion to work within and capitalize in an area about as large as a bottle-cap, which is more to the point, completely impractical if you are looking for a viable means of making a livelihood.


I've heard it said that Japan has an inordinate number of fanatical collectors, so, if one can tap into that market....


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

PetrB said:


> ...and a notion to work within and capitalize in an area about as large as a bottle-cap, which is more to the point, completely impractical if you are looking for a viable means of making a livelihood.


People who deal in music should know their stuff but rarity selling is done by a different breed who service a different breed where such knowledge is related to misprints or labels or limited editions or some other minimalist appeal thing rather than the quality of performance or something directly related to the actual music on the disc.

I know that brand new vinyl sales are increasing in the UK and that's a good thing in my opinion. I steer clear of the rarities market as that seems more about collecting and investment. I like to play what I own and whilst my albums are in excellent condition the idea of keeping any shrink-wrapped is anathema to me as there's no pleasure in ownership for me apart from my having a disc to enjoy.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Vaneyes said:


> I've heard it said that Japan has an inordinate number of fanatical collectors, so, if one can tap into that market....


The Japanese seem to love retro but there's a world of difference in collecting for collecting's sake and collecting to savour. I savour my vinyl and my collection isn't so much a collection as an accrual of stuff I like listening to if that makes sense.


----------



## bigshot

RudyKens said:


> I like my vinyl and have just ordered http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rhapsody-Bl...083566&sr=1-21&keywords=classical+music+vinyl.
> I don't know how much gold is or isn't lying in your street but the implication seems that you see vinyl's place as next to the trash cans which is a bit narrow-minded in my opinion.


Two problems there... Firstly, that isn't a "six eye" Columbia pressing. It's a later reissue. Secondly, that particular recording has been released on SACD with vastly improved mastering. Here in LA, that particular record would be in the two buck bin.

The records that knowledgeable collectors want and will pay big money for (read: Japanese collectors) are very specific titles and pressings. The reason they pay so much is that these particular titles are needles in haystacks of reissues and inferior pressings. You have to know exactly what to look for, and you have to be willing to go out to the estate sales and thrift stores where they might turn up and cherry pick. I kinda know what I'm talking about here.

If you are still convinced that vinyl is gold, I would like to make you an offer you can't refuse... my collection at two dollars a disk. You would have to take them all though.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> If you are still convinced that vinyl is gold, I would like to make you an offer you can't refuse... my collection at two dollars a disk. You would have to take them all though.


I rarely buy second-hand discs and would never buy blind as condition matters a lot to me. I'd also never buy an entire collection since there'd be likely duplication and unwanted versions of stuff besides it'd take ages to vet every disc. As I said I am not a collector even though I've collected a lot more discs than in your collection. These things make your offer one I'll pass on as vinyl isn't gold but neither is it trash.

I meant to add that I have the Sony SACD you refer to which does benefit from having the Grand Canyon suite on it. It is well-mastered but as a CD it obviously lacks vinyl's warmth which a rich recording like this benefits from. I am not a vinylholic luddite nutter either and have obviously added far more CDs than LPs to my collection over the last 20 years or so which means I appreciate both kinds of media where you seem quite disparaging of vinyl.


----------



## Jos

The real money in vinyl is in jazz; very, very specific Blue Notes, mint condition and ultra-rare. Stay away unless you really know what you are doing, or are very rich and like jazz...
In classical one can find gems at a dollar, pound or euro a piece. More fun to give a musicfriend that old Heifetz HMV than selling it at a profit, it will be "small beer" anyways

View attachment 41979


2 euro's, not mint but well playable. Profitprojection over 10 years anyone...?

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## bigshot

I love vinyl as a format, but for the variety of music that isn't available on other formats. Not for sound quality, because that isn't its strong point.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I love vinyl as a format, but for the variety of music that isn't available on other formats. Not for sound quality, because that isn't its strong point.


This doesn't compute when 5 minutes ago you were wanting to offload the lot on me at 2 bucks a pop. As regards your opinion on vinyl sound quality I'd guess that's why you see it as suitable for placing by the trash cans where mine won't be going as I see things differently.


----------



## Don Fatale

Jos said:


> In classical one can find gems at a dollar, pound or euro a piece. More fun to give a musicfriend that old Heifetz HMV than selling it at a profit, it will be "small beer" anyways


I very much agree with this. I've acquired a few small collections in the last few years and found myself with many duplicates. Thankfully I have a couple of friends who appreciate my well chosen gifts to them of great performances on pristine vinyl. That's far more pleasurable than trying to obtain a couple of quid for them on Ebay.

As to why I prefer vinyl... it's how it makes me feel. The sound of the needle as it takes a quarter mile journey through vinyl grooves. The sleeves and booklets, with big pictures and readable font size in the librettos, and the news clippings and reviews that previous owners sometimes put in the boxes.


----------



## Vaneyes

Sound not vinyl's strong point? That's a new one.


----------



## bigshot

As a format, CD bests vinyl on just about every aspect except for cover art and variety of programming. Vinyl is the equivalent of 12 bit digital audio. Higher noise floor. More limited dynamic range. Less frequency extension. Higher distortion, particularly at the inner grooves. The last part of a record side has much lower resolution.


----------



## Morimur

Does anyone know why Hungaroton's complete Bartok Edition went out of print? What a bone head move.


----------



## KenOC

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Does anyone know why Hungaroton's complete Bartok Edition went out of print? What a bone head move.


Well, classical music being less than 3% of recorded music sales, perhaps the labels can be forgiven for not catering attentively to our individual tastes...


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Vinyl is the equivalent of 12 bit digital audio.


I'm assuming you've read this somewhere amongst the 'internet chaff' we all encounter BUT it patently isn't that simple and, also therefore, isn't 'strictly' true ...

A few years ago there was a listening test involving 44.1/16 digital audio which was converted to '15, 14, 13 etc.' bits. Most listeners present (within this 'fair-sized varying age and sex grouping') could distinguish 11 bits whilst many could 12 BUT only a small minority could tell 14 with only one person identifying 15 and none 16 (even within a 'better than 50-50' identification rating). QED, even if all things were equal and a vinyl disc was on a level par with a '12 bit digital' CD the latter's own distortion issues would outweigh the former's benefits. I'm not saying that LPs are better than CDs or _vice versa _ as they are just different in the, not dissimilar, sense to the way that valve and 'solid state' amplifiers differ.

In respect of distortion vinyl and CD both suffer from this though 'digital distortion' sounds worse to many and the 'colder, more analytical', sound when compared to the 'warmth' of vinyl is preferred by many. The LP record's perceived 'warmth' is also itself a distortion BUT nothing is perfect in reproduced audio (or completely natural) and every bit of equipment in use 'colours' that sound 'one way or another' since even any solid state electronics elements in use are not 'straight through'. I prefer to hear my records, in whatever medium, 'warts and all' BUT know others prefer tone control and/or equaliser usage to give a 'more pleasing sound' to them. A 'more pleasing sound' is just that and neither worse nor better for anyone other than the individual listener.

*Apologies for straying from a topic already strayed from which was about 'Rare Classical CDs' rather than any benefits of CD over vinyl.*

Anyway, 'I'm with Vaneyes' whose last word on this will, hopefully, be mine also and we can get back to discussing the thread's topic.



Vaneyes said:


> Sound not vinyl's strong point? That's a new one.


----------



## bigshot

Bit rate governs dynamic range and noise floor. LPs have a dynamic range of no more than 45-50dB tops. CD with aliasing is 96dB. 45-50dB is right around 12 bits. Distortion is not a problem with CDs. The distortion level is well below the thresholds of audibility. Inner groove distortion is a problem with even the best LP pressings. There just isn't as much groove to render the sound as at the outside edge of the record. Analogue warmth is a rolloff of the high frequencies done at the cutting stage to prevent premature record wear. CDs don't require any rolloff.

LPs have the capability to sound good, but the capabilities of CDs are MUCH higher.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Svelte Silhouette said:


> *Apologies for straying from a topic already strayed from which was about 'Rare Classical CDs' rather than any benefits of CD over vinyl.*
> 
> Anyway, 'I'm with Vaneyes' whose last word on this will, hopefully, be mine also and we can get back to discussing the thread's topic.


I'm afraid the fraying of the thread is partly my fault as I'd read a response saying I've had tens of thousands of classical records given to me outright because no one even offered a dime a disk on them and then responded to that.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Distortion is not a problem with CDs. The distortion level is well below the thresholds of audibility.
> 
> LPs have the capability to sound good, but the capabilities of CDs are MUCH higher.


Distortion with CDs is not inaudible except where the hearing ears can't hear it.

CDs are technically or theoretically better sounding and often practically better sounding too but not always more pleasing to listen to. The poster you responded to said that vinyl is not strictly the equivalent of 12 bit digital audio and I'm sure it isn't in the case of an analogue recording. The capabilities of CDs may be MUCH higher but the end result isn't always more pleasing and I listen for my pleasure.

Anyway, I think we should get back on thread as the OP I responded to before this response said or someone should start a new one.

It has to be restated though


Vaneyes said:


> Sound not vinyl's strong point? That's a new one.


or maybe my collection belongs beside the trashcan like you think yours does in offering the lot to me at 2 bucks a pop as long as I took them all off your hands.


----------



## bigshot

I already explained that 16 bit refers to the depth of the noise floor. There's no LP on earth with a noise floor as low as 16 bit. 12 bit is pretty close to the capability of LPs.

Distortion in CDs is inaudible.

The only time when an LP is more pleasing to listen to is when the mastering is better. Put the same mastering on a CD and the CD will sound better. The format itself is clearly inferior. Vinyl is inexpensive, there's a wider variety of music released on the format and the covers are bigger and easier to read. CDs have better sound, are more convenient, less susceptible to damage, and take up less space.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Distortion in CDs is inaudible. The only time when an LP is more pleasing to listen to is when the mastering is better. Put the same mastering on a CD and the CD will sound better.


This is a pointless argument as CD distortion is audible to my ears though maybe not to yours. Distortion in this instance isn't something necessarily measurable in terms of bitrate or frequency response but an audible difference between what I have on LP and what I have duplicated on CD. It's possibly better expressed that I prefer the sound of some recordings on vinyl that I have duplicated on CD as the same mastering just isn't good enough and proper remastering from the original tapes is required to make a CD version more acceptable. AAD and ADD just don't cut it in the real world whatever you think and only DDD will naturally sound better on CD but still too analytical for some who prefer that missing warmth even though it was never there at all on the DDD original.

My ears are not yours and I am not going to leave my vinyl by the trashcan though where you leave yours is your business.

Some of the vinyl you wanted to offload to me for peanuts maybe won't be available on CD so if you liked that music at all how on earth are you going to listen to it without spinning it on a turntable?


----------



## bigshot

I'm talking about human ears. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough.

Distortion on redbook audio is vanishingly small. The speakers on your system probably produce distortion that's an entire order of magnitude higher, probably two orders of magnitude

A $300 Marantz CD player has a frequency response of 20Hz to 20kHz stone flat, a dynamic range of 100dB, THD of .002% and a signal to noise ratio of 110dB. LPs don't even come close to any of those specs.

Think about the groove on your records... At the outside edge one rotation is a very long way. Lots of vinyl to accurately pack the information in. But at the inner groove, the same rotation is a fraction of the real estate of the outer groove. If records had side lengths around 8 minutes with all the grooves packed at the outer edge, LPs would have very good distortion. But they don't. It doesn't matter how good your turntable tracks or how little wear there is on a record. The inner grooves have hundreds of times higher levels of distortion than CDs.

Like I say... I'm a serious record collector. I know about the format. But I don't assign magical properties to the format. I understand its strengths and weaknesses. I'm not married to any format. I just want really good sound. In order to get that, you have to understand how sound reproduction really works.

In answer to your last question, I never play a record without digitizing it. I have thousands of hours of digital rips of LPs. And since 16/44.1 is a better recording format than LP, all the music and sound quality contained on the record ends up on the file. Best of both worlds.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> In answer to your last question, I never play a record without digitizing it. I have thousands of hours of digital rips of LPs. And since 16/44.1 is a better recording format than LP, all the music and sound quality contained on the record ends up on the file. Best of both worlds.


This now all makes sense unless you have access to the original master tapes of every recording you digitise and a home studio. However good your turntable/arm/cartridge and CD recorder you are creating the worst of all possible worlds with the warmth of vinyl on whatever quality of turntable/arm/cartridge then making your very own AAD nightmare and actually worst of both worlds.

As long as you like what comes out then that's all that matters but I now see the sense in what you can and can't hear and why what seemed unreasonable to me isn't at all to you. As I said a few days ago it's obviously a case of my having newer ears but who cares as we both have what is acceptable to us.

The statement I'm a serious record collector still doesn't compute when you said If you are still convinced that vinyl is gold, I would like to make you an offer you can't refuse... my collection at two dollars a disk. You would have to take them all though at 20:15 yesterday.


----------



## PetrB

RudyKens said:


> This now all makes sense unless you have access to the original master tapes of every recording you digitise and a home studio. However good your turntable/arm/cartridge and CD recorder you are creating the worst of all possible worlds with the warmth of vinyl on whatever quality of turntable/arm/cartridge then making your very own AAD nightmare and actually worst of both worlds.
> 
> As long as you like what comes out then that's all that matters but I now see the sense in what you can and can't hear and why what seemed unreasonable to me isn't at all to you. As I said a few days ago it's obviously a case of my having newer ears but who cares as we both have what is acceptable to us.
> 
> The statement I'm a serious record collector still doesn't compute when you said If you are still convinced that vinyl is gold, I would like to make you an offer you can't refuse... my collection at two dollars a disk. You would have to take them all though at 20:15 yesterday.


...all this because some people don't recognize off-handed humor. Good Grief.


----------



## bigshot

I'm serious about that offer! I could use the room the records take up for something else. I have better sound and a bigger library in my media server.

By the way, I don't use a CD recorder. I have a dedicated digitization computer that captures video and audio and scans images too. I test all my equipment thoroughly. My digitizing processor can capture everything in an LP's grooves and reproduce it so you can't detect a difference between the digital copy and the LP itself, even with the most golden ears.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I'm serious about that offer! I could use the room the records take up for something else. I have better sound and a bigger library in my media server.
> 
> By the way, I don't use a CD recorder. I have a dedicated digitization computer that captures video and audio and scans images too. I test all my equipment thoroughly. My digitizing processor can capture everything in an LP's grooves and reproduce it so you can't detect a difference between the digital copy and the LP itself, even with the most golden ears.


Wow, I'd consider that my worst nightmare but each to their own as all our ears are different


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

PetrB said:


> ...all this because some people don't recognize off-handed humor. Good Grief.


I'm assuming you thought the offer a joke as I did initially but the OP's subsequent post suggests otherwise quite clearly.


----------



## bigshot

$2 a pop! There's a lot of wonderful things in there... audiophile pressings, complete operas, historical recordings, pressings from the 50s, all in pristine shape! A real treasure trove!


----------



## bigshot

RudyKens said:


> Wow, I'd consider that my worst nightmare but each to their own as all our ears are different


I don't have nightmare ears. I have human ones. Good enough for human ears is all I need.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I don't have nightmare ears. I have human ones. Good enough for human ears is all I need.


I think you're being a bit sensitive here about your ears. As I said earlier mine are probably newer. Good enough for whatever age human ears one has is good enough in my book so please don't get upset about it as my 21:02 posting never suggested anyone had nightmare ears.

The worst nightmare scenario for me would be digitising my albums except for convenience sake as even though I've a good turntable/arm/cartridge and a good CD recorder I don't have access to the original master tapes my albums grew out of and neither do I have studio facilities even if I did have those tapes. All of that means that I'd be digitising something less than perfectly reproduceable using a less than perfect copy mechanism and that'd lead to worse reproduction of the new product than just playing the source things direct. That must surely be common sense and why I'm not ditching my treasure trove or relegating it to sit beside the trash cans.


----------



## PetrB

bigshot said:


> I'm serious about that offer! I could use the room the records take up for something else.


But _they are there, i.e. not in the garbage can,_ right ;-)


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I trawled this 'somewhat derailed thread' about '*Rare classical CDs*' this morning. Of note was 'To help finance this hobby, I sometimes sell items as well. Now I wonder if there's some kind of list of CDs that are rare and highly collectible, so I can look out for those even if don't feature the repertoire I'd look for in the first place. I'd really appreciate any info on specific items' and 'The amazing bargains you're talking about - the ones you have no intention of keeping and only want to resell for profit - should be left for the people who are searching for them and will play and love the music' then 'it's not only veritable treasures I'm after. If I pay $1 or 2 for a cd that I know will do $15+ on my local Ebay equivalent, it's worth the while. But I guess the real money's at rare vinyl...' followed by 'and the rare vinyl should go to the people who love the music. Even if I could think of such a list of cds I wouldn't offer it for this use.' and finally 'I could raise a similar argument at any collector possessing 1000+ records, all but one of them sitting idly in their jackets- When are you going to listen to them all? Could you even, in your lifetime? You're selfishly keeping them from the culturally starving, watery-eyed classical music enthousiast! Hand them out at once, comrade- especially the ones you like best!'.

There's a heap of 'right-mindedness' in here … Gekko was wrong as 'Greed isn't good' and leads to deprivation elsewhere in some way, shape or form. *On reflection this posting looks, to me, like someone 'fishing for detailed advice' on what to look for in order to then 'make a killing on the markets' ... a bit like 'insider-trading'.* I have never ever bought a recording I didn't want to listen to though have, obviously, bought some in past times which are now bettered by other performances and/or better recordings/remasterings. Following on from that … almost 4 decades of collecting mean I have thousands of 'recordings' (with some on vinyl but others on CD) and certainly a lot more than 10,000 though not 'tens of thousands' (well, maybe 2 [or even 3] of these across the lot I suppose). I have listened to all of my LPs and CDs at least once and, yes, it's fair to say that I may not listen to some again in my lifetime … sad, but likely true. That may make me guilty of 'hoarding' BUT 'Hand them out at once, comrade- especially the ones you like best!' would be inappropriate since these will, naturally, be the ones I play most. Notwithstanding this, I guess I should prune my collection, at least a bit, and offer a bundle to charity shops as I don't need to sell them and would rather someone else got the benefit of the music whilst someone 'deserving' got any profit from the sale. I don't care about 'rarity value' as only the music on a disc means something to me so said charity shops will get any rare discs too if I don't feel the music thereon warrants my keeping these (and I wouldn't even bother looking at valuations of whatever I 'gift away' as that might just encourage me to keep something I don't really want for purely mercenary reasons) ... that sounds pompously altruistic, I know, but isn't meant to.

The thread derailed into a 'pros and cons of vinyl' and why, for some, 'vinyl belongs by the trashcan' (or hid away in a cellar. or wherever, 'never to be used again' in which case it belongs at the aforementioned charity shop) and, though I particularly liked Alexander's 'As to why I prefer vinyl... it's how it makes me feel. The sound of the needle as it takes a quarter mile journey through vinyl grooves. The sleeves and booklets, with big pictures and readable font size in the librettos, and the news clippings and reviews that previous owners sometimes put in the boxes', there are other threads discussing vinyl v. CD and hearing ability and perfection elsewhere in here but such discussion doesn't really belong on this thread imho. As an example … http://www.talkclassical.com/3750-do-natural-sounding-recordings-10.html discusses hearing and the pursuit of perfection within the confines of our pockets and hearing abilities.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Points taken. A lengthy, considered and most colourful posting too :tiphat:

Profiteering and excessive hoarding are both bad things but hoarding something one never intends using again seems criminal to me when that treasure could be put to good use. 

Profiteering was a crime in past times and treasure is only treasure if treasured or it might as well be dross.

Any rare classical CDs around should be treasured and loved not kept pristine in their shrink-wrap as an investment. Savour the art gluttonously and share it with friends as a banquet rather than stick it in the deep freeze.


----------



## bigshot

RudyKens said:


> I think you're being a bit sensitive here about your ears. As I said earlier mine are probably newer.


14 Karat Gold!

I already explained that the sound quality of a record is significantly lower than the sound quality of digital audio. Everything on a record comes through on the digital capture. It's like putting a cup of milk in a quart jar. No problem.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I already explained that the sound quality of a record is significantly lower than the sound quality of digital audio. Everything on a record comes through on the digital capture. It's like putting a cup of milk in a quart jar. No problem.


Pointless anyone in the recording industry going back to the original master tapes of anything then as any LP can be remastered perfectly to sound better than it ever would on the turntable by simply using a dedicated digitization computer that captures video and audio and scans images too" since the "digitizing processor can capture everything in an LP's grooves and reproduce it so you can't detect a difference between the digital copy and the LP itself, even with the most golden ears".

Maybe there should be a new acronym for this process of perfecting our imperfect vinyl and I suggest GIPO which is Garbage In Perfection Out.

I'd suggest that the end result of such a conversion process is different but can't ever be better but I'm abandoning ship here as it's foghorn has obviously deafened me 

I wonder if it's time to get back to discussing the thread topic though.


----------



## Morimur

I don't understand this thread. Is something that's gone out of print considered 'rare'? If so, who cares? Get a different recording. Albums/records/CDs should be valued for the quality of their content.


----------



## bigshot

RudyKens said:


> Pointless anyone in the recording industry going back to the original master tapes of anything then as any LP can be remastered perfectly to sound better than it ever would on the turntable by simply using a dedicated digitization computer that captures video and audio and scans images too" since the "digitizing processor can capture everything in an LP's grooves and reproduce it so you can't detect a difference between the digital copy and the LP itself, even with the most golden ears".


What do master tapes have anything to do with what we're talking about? I was simply pointing out that a digitized LP sounds exactly like an LP, so there's no reason to play records over and over... just digitize them once and have the best of both digital and analogue worlds.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> What do master tapes have anything to do with what we're talking about? I was simply pointing out that a digitized LP sounds exactly like an LP, so there's no reason to play records over and over... just digitize them once and have the best of both digital and analogue worlds.


I think you missed something in some earlier posts of mine as "The worst nightmare scenario for me would be digitising my albums except for convenience sake as even though I've a good turntable/arm/cartridge and a good CD recorder I don't have access to the original master tapes my albums grew out of and neither do I have studio facilities even if I did have those tapes. All of that means that I'd be digitising something less than perfectly reproduceable using a less than perfect copy mechanism and that'd lead to worse reproduction of the new product than just playing the source things direct. That must surely be common sense and why I'm not ditching my treasure trove or relegating it to sit beside the trash cans".

The digital distortion I can hear with my newer ears coupled with whatever analogue distortion exists within my record playing equipment and the LP record itself means I'd have the worst of all possible worlds and I don't see how you can't understand such a simple thing. I either want something original untarnished by what limited digital conversion capability you and I have or something properly remastered by a pro from the original master tapes my original was created using.

Anyways, you and are way off thread and I am tired of going around in circles so why don't we respond to Lope's point rather than continue down this cul de sac eh?


----------



## bigshot

I still fail to see why master tapes have anything to do with replacing an LP in your collection with a digitized copy of the LP. All of the sound contained in an LP can be captured to a digital file with no loss in sound quality. A digitized LP is indistinguishable from playing back the LP itself.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I still fail to see why master tapes have anything to do with replacing an LP in your collection with a digitized copy of the LP. All of the sound contained in an LP can be captured to a digital file with no loss in sound quality. A digitized LP is indistinguishable from playing back the LP itself.


Digitizing an analogue waveform is just that and sampling rates etc. come into play whereby 'the big curvy wave' gets sampled and a 'bar chart' version is created. This makes the 'bar chart' version sound like 'a recipe for disaster' which it obviously isn't BUT neither is it a perfect copy either (albeit though it's gotten a lot closer to perfection over the last 3 decades than it was when those first CDs 'hit the shelves') ... it is, at the very least, 'technically' better BUT, obviously, dependant on the studio re-mastering. I think what Rudy is saying is that even if you used the original master tape (which had spawned an LP's 'mother') and digitized that you'd just get a different sound and, in reproduction of it, would lose the apparent 'warmth' of vinyl BUT, most certainly, if using simple home kit to digitize an LP (even with 'a better than average' turntable as the 'source player') the resulting conversion would have any/all of vinyl's deficiencies coupled with those newly created deficiencies by, at best, an amateur attempt at digitization. Now, compounding this (particularly if using a 'rubbishy' CD player as a 'frontend'), there's the capacity to make the whole 'end result' thing an 'even worse picture' when it comes to playback of the new creation. Obviously, when using original master tapes, a lot more goes into the digitization process and what comes out may still displease some who prefer the 'warmth' of vinyl BUT most re-masterings are done well today though many may have been re-done 'along the way' to get us where we are now. Vinyl's apparent 'warmth' is neutered by digitization and the 'clinical coolness' of CD in playback compounds things whilst 'error-correction' algorithms etc. 'come at a price' ;-)

As a case in point I'll use 'The Beatles' since these are a prime example I can easily and directly compare ... 

I bought a copy of their 'Abbey Road' album on LP in my youth which later got replaced by a far thinner vinyl version in my very early 20s ('wear and tear' having taken it's toll on the original) and a couple of years later I also got a Japanese pressing on 'heavyweight virgin' vinyl and an MFSL one for comparative purposes (and very occasional demonstration in my hi-fi shop). By my early 20s I was really getting into 'classical' music and was deeply into hi-fi so thereafter everything I acquired was really well looked after BUT never left unplayed albeit though I'd 'rest' records between replays etc etc.

Anyway, I digress ...
In 1983 along came CD and I bought an AAD version of said album 'rushed out' like many early LP replacements BUT still costing maybe £12 compared to the standard LP's £5. After all, this new medium was newer, better and indestructible ... well, one out of three wasn't bad. Did the AAD CD improve on either of my vinyl versions 'soundwise', um, no (and that was using a £500 'range-topping' player from the co-inventor of the new medium [Sony]). In 1986 the entire Beatles collection got re-mastered 'properly' BUT obviously not 'properly enough' else we wouldn't be on a '999' set currently.

I have all of my recordings of this album (barring that original 'worn' vinyl version I 'gifted' away since it wasn't even vaguely 'unplayable' BUT simply was no longer acceptable to my 'higher-fi accustomed' ears) and I've grown to know the album very well. Hence, I can compare all versions with one another and have done so over the years up to and including the latest 2009 re-mastering (on successively improved CD transports also). The MFSL vinyl version is the best of that medium's bunch BUT the thin vinyl version easily outstrips that first CD version (always has and, likely, always will) ... so much for having access to the original tapes when a 'poor quality vinyl' version sounds better BUT, to be fair, that first CD version did suffer from being 'rushed out'. The 1987 CD re-master was far better BUT simply different to my MFSL favourite and still less pleasing to listen to. Moving on to the '999' re-mastering, well, that's 'in a different ball park' BUT still 'simply different' albeit though my ears have aged between 1987 and 2009 and I am now 'past 50 not out'. In 2012 the '999' re-master appeared on vinyl and I don't have that version BUT why would I want to 'analoguize' something so well 'digitized' other than to add 'warmth' not in the 2009 version ie. to 'distort' that latest version.

To avoid upsetting any 'classical' sensibilities, by just talking 'Beatlemania', the 1957 Strauss Rosenkavalier recording (conducted by Karajan) came out first on CD as AAD in the 80s (in that same 'mad rush' to 'get media on the shelves' so the new medium would gain momentum fast) though was only re-mastered as ADD in 1997 BUT then re-mastered as ADD, yet again, a mere 4 years later in 2001.

Along with digital recording it seems that re-mastering is no more 'perfect' than analogue recording BUT just different (and *re-*re-mastering wouldn't be done if the first re-master were seen as even 'anything like perfect' unless some embellishment were being applied such as 5.1 or whatever which hasn't, um 'yet', been the case with either of my cited examples) ... *however, home digitization, is 'a far cry' from professional studio recording/re-mastering which, itself, isn't perfect (and my motto remains 'if it ain't broke don't fix it')*.

If anyone believes they have been able to 'perfectly' copy their LP record at home, using home kit (and a turntable of any quality), so that it sounds just as good as on that turntable then they are deceiving themselves or weren't able to hear the recording's subtleties on that turntable in the first place in which case they have, indeed, created a perfect copy ie. 'perfect for themselves' and there's nothing wrong with that idea of perfection.

*Sorry, Lope, I did mean to respond to get us 'back on thread' but it seems that no-one is interested in the original thread topic anymore ...*


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I don't understand this thread. Is something that's gone out of print considered 'rare'? If so, who cares? Get a different recording. Albums/records/CDs should be valued for the quality of their content.


As regards 'Is something that's gone out of print considered 'rare'?', well, sometimes 'yes' and sometimes 'no' ... as a case in point I'd miss Maria Callas but not Maria Carey BUT the rest of the world might feel different ;-)

'Rarity' is subject to the law of 'supply and demand' whereby a well-regarded performance (or, better still for some, a well-recorded well-regarded performance) which 'disappears from the shelves' is 'mourned' and having to 'make do' with a different recording saddening for some (and, in some cases, many). It is the very fact that 'Albums/records/CDs should be valued for the quality of their content' which is at issue here as Beethoven's 9th isn't always Beethoven's 9th except on 'the printed score' and performances vary wildly as do playing speeds and recording venue acoustics etc etc even before we consider the actual quality of the recording. Now, 'supply and demand' should mean that something doesn't become 'OOP' but 'classical' music is still minimalist compared to 'the Billboard Hot 100' and with so many versions of whatever sometimes only the newest and/or most highly regarded vintage recordings survive. Could I do without Furtwangler's 9th from 1942 (or even 1951) ... of course I could, BUT would I rather not ... of course I wouldn't. If I was new to 'classical' music and a Furtwangler version I'd just read about, and was now seeking, had disappeared before I'd been able to get a copy then I'm subject to 'profiteering' or 'making do' with 'the next best thing' and 'pocket depth' will determine the choice since 'profiteering' has no bounds.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Svelte Silhouette said:


> even if you used the original master tape (which had spawned an LP's 'mother') and digitized that you'd just get a different sound and, in reproduction of it, would lose the apparent 'warmth' of vinyl BUT, most certainly, if using simple home kit to digitize an LP (even with 'a better than average' turntable as the 'source player') the resulting conversion would have any/all of vinyl's deficiencies coupled with those newly created deficiencies by, at best, an amateur attempt at digitization. Now, compounding this (particularly if using a 'rubbishy' CD player as a 'frontend'), there's the capacity to make the whole 'end result' thing an 'even worse picture' when it comes to playback of the new creation. Vinyl's apparent 'warmth' is neutered by digitization and the 'clinical coolness' of CD in playback compounds things whilst 'error-correction' algorithms etc. 'come at a price' ;-)


This about sums up what I was trying to get at.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Svelte Silhouette said:


> If I was new to 'classical' music and a Furtwangler version I'd just read about, and was now seeking, had disappeared before I'd been able to get a copy then I'm subject to 'profiteering' or 'making do' with 'the next best thing' and 'pocket depth' will determine the choice since 'profiteering' has no bounds.


This about sums up the whole horrid 'profiteering' thing for me


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I think SS and RK have given us the long and the short of the off-thread topic :lol:

I know I couldn't record an LP digitally so that Media PC, CD player, iPhone, etc replay of the new file would sound as good since there is always loss in such copying and subtle nuances or warmth goes out of the window on replay. I prefer my records on a turntable and my CDs in a CD transport and reserve media player playing for casual listening. 

Maybe that'll be the end of it but we'll see as I doubt it.

I'm glad we're back on-thread and feel that we shouldn't help those who seek to profiteer with no interest whatsoever in the music. These scavenging profiteers are like those who buy up companies for a song then make overtures on their future ahead of breaking them up into little pieces for more profitable resale.


----------



## bigshot

I can guarantee you that none of you would be able to tell the difference between an LP being played and a digital transfer of the same LP as long as levels were matched and the test was blind. Not a chance. You guys may fancy yourselves as having superhero hearing abilities, but until you are able to fly and shoot laser beams out of your eyes, I'm going to assume you hear with human ears and are subject to the limitations of human hearing.

The reason that people waste so much time and money on their stereo equipment is because they never bother to compare the sound a piece of equipment produces to the sound they are able to hear. They chase phantoms down rabbit holes instead of simply making an effort to figure out the thresholds of perception. I think ego has a lot to do with it, particularly in the most extreme cases.

I'm sure the lurkers know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I can guarantee you that none of you would be able to tell the difference between an LP being played and a digital transfer of the same LP as long as levels were matched and the test was blind. Not a chance. You guys may fancy yourselves as having superhero hearing abilities, but until you are able to fly and shoot laser beams out of your eyes, I'm going to assume you hear with human ears and are subject to the limitations of human hearing.
> 
> The reason that people waste so much time and money on their stereo equipment is because they never bother to compare the sound a piece of equipment produces to the sound they are able to hear. They chase phantoms down rabbit holes instead of simply making an effort to figure out the thresholds of perception. I think ego has a lot to do with it, particularly in the most extreme cases.
> 
> I'm sure the lurkers know what I'm talking about.


:tiphat: Haut Parleur was right that the show would go on with interest in the OP's thread disappearing down a rabbit hole for some and just hobby-horsing around :tiphat:

"I can guarantee you that none of you would be able to tell the difference between an LP being played and a digital transfer of the same LP as long as levels were matched and the test was blind" is false not simply flawed. I've done this and said as much earlier but your belief is yours and I'm fine with that and think that "ego has a lot to do with it" as you said.

"The reason that people waste so much time and money on their stereo equipment is because they never bother to compare the sound a piece of equipment produces to the sound they are able to hear" is very demeaning to the buying public as I'm sure many do compare and equally sure few part with their money foolishly. I appreciate that some of the wealthy few will buy the most expensive stuff simply because it is the most expensive and looks really good but these are stupid stupidly rich people and are few in number. Most people count their pennies and want value for money.

As regards 'thresholds of perception' I couldn't comment as I only know what I hear or don't but I do know that newer ears make a difference and this is probably why you feel the way you do. I know that our hearing is a complex thing though.

It seems this thread is dead now as it has derailed from the OP's topic to a never winnable argument that home-digitised vinyl sounds as good as the real thing on a platter to how rubbish most people's ears are and how easily conned they are in a hifi shop.


----------



## bigshot

Tag. You're it.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Funny how some like having the last word


----------



## bigshot

Switch accounts again.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Switch accounts again.


?

Would you care to expand on what you're suggesting?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Agreed, as such a suggestion as been made once before by 'a lone voice faltering in the wilderness'.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

RudyKens said:


> Am I missing something here?


Nowt more than idle chatter


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Haut Parleur said:


> Nowt more than idle chatter


I'll get back to listening I think as it seems less fraught.


----------



## bigshot

Never mind. You did it.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

This gets weirder and wierder


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Like a 'whodunnit' BUT I'm tiring of all this nonsense, rapidly, so goodnight (and may 'the last man standing' turn out the lights on this thread).


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

It looks like I'm the last man so I'm doing the lights now :tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes

The lights remain off, but did someone mention *Last Word* again?


----------



## bigshot

According to Haydn, there were seven.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Vaneyes said:


> The lights remain off, but did someone mention *Last Word* again?


I see they soon came back on :lol:

Some are afraid of the dark and I've a partially sighted friend who often leaves the light on all the time as he can just see the shape of something if it's held real close to his face. He also refuses to use a cane and sometimes falls over stuff like children's bikes left on the pavement but mostly he's ok. He's a proud man but one who does a lot for other blind folk too. Until I met him I thought the blind had increased sensitivity in hearing but it turns out to be a bit of an old wives tale.

He loves classical music and used to play records until CD came along though had taped some for ease. It horrified me seeing him handle a record on his ancient Garrard 301. He used to feel the record edge with one hand once on the platter and guide the pickup arm's cartridge edge with the other before cueing levering the stylus 9 out of 10 times into the groove. I suspect his stylus wasn't always in the best of nick but he took it to a shop for regular checking and got it replaced if they said it need to be.

Someone may misread this all as something it isn't but it is completely true even it could be misread.

Some with poorer hearing are possibly afraid of quietness too.

We all have our weaknesses and today mine is Haydn on the way to work then home again.









*Not a Rare classical CD but a rarely played one if that counts as getting back on thread.* :angel:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Out of curiosity I bought this LP record ages ago when it first came out. It was my first sight of what electronics could do to a piece I knew well. I know I should've known better but was still a child and there were no internet reviews back then to advise me against this travesty. In fact there was no internet or PCs or cellphones or even huge flat 24/7 tellies so I've no idea how we all survived :lol:

There was some recording rights issue and the LP was rapidly withdrawn from sale at which point it became a rarity. I told a friend about this a while ago and they got me the CD which isn't rare though is remastered in Dolby Surround to enhance the torture 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Planets-Ultimate-Edition-Isao-Tomita/dp/B004RRVB1Y shows the horror continuing with apparent profiteering of a different kind.

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isao_Tomita says that This album sparked controversy on its release, as Imogen Holst, daughter of Gustav Holst, refused permission for her father's work to be interpreted in this way. The album was withdrawn, and is, consequently, rare in its original vinyl form.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I can play doubles too 

A girl bought me the LP of this uninteresting Yes album with classical pretensions in the late 70s. It has a movement on each side and lasts 80 mins. Moving forward a quarter of a century another girl bought me the remastered CD. The CD was a vast improvement as it came in a smaller package :lol:


----------



## Deontologist

OOP CDs only have value for collectors, and so the value is whatever someone's willing to pay.

I've noticed over the past couple of decades that upscale collectors in major urban centers (e.g., Wall Street financiers) have driven up the prices.

On the other hand, sometimes people sell used OOP CDs without any knowledge of them, and so sometimes you can get a "bargain"--if you're a collector, that is.

Some [younger] people now don't care to collect the actual CD itself, preferring MP3 files.

But CD collecting can be a hobby like stamp collecting, etc.


----------



## bigshot

Asking price isn't necessarily value either. Amazon is full of hundred dollar out of print CDs. But I seriously doubt that many of them are selling at that price.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Deontologist said:


> OOP CDs only have value for collectors, and so the value is whatever someone's willing to pay.
> 
> I've noticed over the past couple of decades that upscale collectors in major urban centers (e.g., Wall Street financiers) have driven up the prices.
> 
> On the other hand, sometimes people sell used OOP CDs without any knowledge of them, and so sometimes you can get a "bargain"--if you're a collector, that is.
> 
> Some [younger] people now don't care to collect the actual CD itself, preferring MP3 files.
> 
> But CD collecting can be a hobby like stamp collecting, etc.


All true and some more saddeningly so


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Asking price isn't necessarily value either. Amazon is full of hundred dollar out of print CDs. But I seriously doubt that many of them are selling at that price.


Also true I'm sure as pricing is sometimes about taking a punt since the seller can always reduce if no-one bites.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

My evening rarity is this James Bond 10th anniversary Double album. Sides 1 and 4 back one another as do sides 2 and 3 to suit turntables which dropped the records of multi disc sets onto the platter one at a time so that each side could play one after the other automatically. In this instance side 1 finished and record 2 then dropped onto it so side 2 could play almost immediately. After side 2 finished you'd flip the pair onto the spindle and side 3 would drop and play then after it finished side 4 would drop onto that and play. This pressing was a misprint as the practise of backing sides in multi disc sets had ceased by 1972 in the UK.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I thought we were keeping rarites secret


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Ooh you started it with The Planets :tiphat:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Hoist by my own petard


----------



## techniquest

RudyKens said:


> View attachment 42159
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity I bought this LP record ages ago when it first came out. It was my first sight of what electronics could do to a piece I knew well. I know I should've known better but was still a child and there were no internet reviews back then to advise me against this travesty. In fact there was no internet or PCs or cellphones or even huge flat 24/7 tellies so I've no idea how we all survived :lol:
> 
> There was some recording rights issue and the LP was rapidly withdrawn from sale at which point it became a rarity. I told a friend about this a while ago and they got me the CD which isn't rare though is remastered in Dolby Surround to enhance the torture
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Planets-Ultimate-Edition-Isao-Tomita/dp/B004RRVB1Y shows the horror continuing with apparent profiteering of a different kind.
> 
> Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isao_Tomita says that This album sparked controversy on its release, as Imogen Holst, daughter of Gustav Holst, refused permission for her father's work to be interpreted in this way. The album was withdrawn, and is, consequently, rare in its original vinyl form.


I have one of those original issue LP's. I also have an early release of Tomita's "Bermuda Triangle" on salmon pink vinyl with gatefold sleeve.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

bigshot said:


> Asking price isn't necessarily value either. Amazon is full of hundred dollar out of print CDs. But I seriously doubt that many of them are selling at that price.


I saw a Grammofono 2000 Stokowski/Philadephia cd I wanted. It was originally around seventy USD. I watched it; waited-- and then I found one for around twelve dollars. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> I saw a Grammofono 2000 Stokowski/Philadephia cd I wanted. It was originally around seventy USD. I watched it; waited-- and then I found one for around twelve dollars. Ha. Ha. Ha.


There was a CD that I was really thinking of paying the full $70 or whatever for ... but then Harmonia Mundi reissued it and I got it for normal price.

Thank goodness - it turned out not to be that great!

View attachment 44094


And the sellers are still asking for $100.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Some people are willing to pay silly money for original label artwork or some defect in it but that's just collecting for collecting's sake in my opinion as I pay for music and not any attached artwork.

Paintings and drawings are for galleries and wall décor but music is for concert halls and stereo systems.


----------



## Vaneyes

bigshot said:


> According to Haydn, there were seven.


Certainly, no one here is saying, "Forgive me father, for I have sinned."

Rather, "I am the truth, and the light."


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

This thread is unravelling onto religious ground but light always overcomes the dark and helps those in it.

In the beginning was darkness and then some other stuff came along after which someone turned on a light to extinguish the darkness. 

Some time later a man realised he was naked and hid his shame which is where we are now even with our wheel, jet engine, mobile telephony, CDs, internet and flat screen tellies.

Of course if a big fuse blows we'll all be stuffed now and if I'm struck dead on the way to work I'll blame Vaneyes :lol:


----------



## SONNET CLV

Svelte Silhouette said:


> I thought we were keeping rarites secret





Svelte Silhouette said:


> Ooh you started it with *The Planets *:tiphat:





Svelte Silhouette said:


> *Hoist by my own petard *


Hoist? Don't you mean "Holst by my own petard"?


----------



## Badinerie

CD's are compressed to the paramaters of 20 to 20,000 Hz. Vinyl standard is 15 to 38,000 hz. 
Early Cd's were so badly made that many Pianist complained they couldnt hear the to 6 notes of a concert grand. The dye in the disc decaying, the reflective surface of the CD oxidising and the occurrence of pin holes gave them a bad reputation. Nothing is perfect. however, I do listen to CD's Mini Disc Vinyl and 78's The only format I gladly dumped was Cassette Tape! 
Yak! 

Old CD's shouldnt be worth anything but as long as one person has what someone else wants, badly enough...


----------



## Vaneyes

Svelte Silhouette said:


> This thread is unravelling onto religious ground but light always overcomes the dark and helps those in it.
> 
> In the beginning was darkness and then some other stuff came along after which someone turned on a light to extinguish the darkness.
> 
> Some time later a *man realised he was naked and hid his shame* which is where we are now even with our wheel, jet engine, mobile telephony, CDs, internet and flat screen tellies.
> 
> Of course if a big fuse blows we'll all be stuffed now and if I'm struck dead on the way to work I'll blame Vaneyes :lol:


'til Eve insisted he wear a glow-in-the-dark wrapper.


----------



## Vaneyes

Badinerie said:


> CD's are compressed to the paramaters of 20 to 20,000 Hz. Vinyl standard is 15 to 38,000 hz.
> *Early Cd's* were so badly made that many Pianist complained they couldnt hear the to 6 notes of a concert grand. The dye in the disc decaying, the reflective surface of the CD oxidising and the occurrence of pin holes gave them a bad reputation. Nothing is perfect. however, I do listen to CD's Mini Disc Vinyl and 78's The only format I gladly dumped was Cassette Tape!
> Yak!
> 
> Old CD's shouldnt be worth anything but as long as one person has what someone else wants, badly enough...


To be fair, some early CDs. Also, one should always keep in mind what most human ears are capable of hearing.

The number of my defective (as you list and others) CDs, out of thousands, was miniscule.

Philips label had success in large numbers with early LP to CD transfer. Other majors, less so, but still respectable. :tiphat:


----------



## bigshot

Badinerie said:


> Vinyl standard is 15 to 38,000 hz.


That isn't true. Back in the day, I worked on an LP project. The disk cutters applied a rolloff starting at 15kHz, because the groove modulations for ultra high frequencies are very delicate, and are very subject to record wear. The highest can turn to mush in just a few playings, and when they do, it creates distortion in lower frequency ranges. Also, low frequencies at high volumes can cause the needle to jump right out of the groove. Most LPs were band limited to avoid returns. Any very high frequency information on LPs is most likely noise.

The redbook CD standard exceeds vinyl on every spec... frequency response, dynamic range, distortion... LPs can sound very good. They are certainly capable of excellent sound. But redbook is consistently better in every aspect. Wider frequency response, lower noise floor, better dynamics and MUCH better distortion. Inner groove distortion on LPs is terrible.


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> The disk cutters applied a rolloff starting at 15kHz, because the groove modulations for ultra high frequencies are very delicate, and are very subject to record wear.


It's quite true that most LPs purposely limited high and low frequencies as well as dynamic range. There was one format, though, with extended high-frequency response. This was JVC's Quadradisc, used in many RCA rereleases. It used a 30 kHz "carrier wave" on each groove wall to provide information used to decode the two stereo channels into four discrete channels for true "quadraphonic sound."

The system required a special phono cartridge and stylus and, of course, the ability of the associated electronics, up to the point of separation, to handle extended high frequencies. The Wiki article on this system notes that the high frequencies were, in the final analysis, reduced from the usual stereo approach, and record life was reduced as well.

Added: Why didn't they make LPs to track from the center to the edge? After all, much classical music popular in those days had the loudest parts at the end!


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> Why didn't they make LPs to track from the center to the edge? After all, much classical music popular in those days had the loudest parts at the end!


Because most people are right handed, and having the tonearm on the left instead of the right would be hard to negotiate with the left hand.


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> Because most people are right handed, and having the tonearm on the left instead of the right would be hard to negotiate with the left hand.


Easy. Simply cut the groove in the opposite direction...


----------



## SixFootScowl

I only see this one listed for nearly a hundred dollars used:


----------



## Pugg

​This one: someone asking over a hundred dollars.


----------



## jegreenwood

Glad I picked this SACD up when it was first released. $441 used at Amazon. Although it looks like a new SACD version was released in Japan. That's going for under $200.

Speaking of Bach Cello music on SACD (in transcription in this case), this is also going for a tidy sum.









Both of these are available much cheaper as hi-rez downloads.


----------



## Pugg

​Debussy: Preludes Book 1+2

Monique Haas

​Chopin / Stefan Askenaze

​
Beethoven / Arrau/ Bernstein.

Impost from Hong Kong.


----------



## chill782002

I have a DG CD of Karajan's final performance of Bruckner's 7th with the Wiener Philharmoniker which, when played, plays Barry Manilow. It's clearly an error and Mr. Manilow is not really my thing but I keep it as a curiosity. Doubt it's worth anything though.


----------



## labarker

I think the idiots on Amazon think that all Classical music lovers are STILL the highly educated high earner professional types (doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, etc). But times have changed. I'm very much working class and spent all my working life bashing first a manual typewriter, then an electric one, followed by electronic and word processor, and finally a Macintosh (in the last case working for a newspaper). Mac operators get more reasonable wages today, but I was getting no more than when I bashed the CPT word processor. I sold my LPs on TradeMe. After all, they hadn't been played for over 20 years. I got an average of about 50c and it was very frustrating to see many of the exact same product fetching $15, and often more, on eBay. Grr! I've often seen Americans complaining about America being a philistine society. My answer to that is, "At least you live in a big philistine society. You should try living in a very small one!" I do buy CDs on Amazon if the price is right, but it's usually on amazon.co.uk or amazon.ca because postage on amazon.com is way too high: US$14.95 at the cheapest. That is NZ$20.44 at today's exchange rate, and where I usually buy (presto music.co.uk) most full-price CDs are NZ$21.50.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

labarker said:


> I think the idiots on Amazon think that all Classical music lovers are STILL the highly educated high earner professional types (doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, etc). But times have changed. I'm very much working class and spent all my working life bashing first a manual typewriter, then an electric one, followed by electronic and word processor, and finally a Macintosh (in the last case working for a newspaper). Mac operators get more reasonable wages today, but I was getting no more than when I bashed the CPT word processor. I sold my LPs on TradeMe. After all, they hadn't been played for over 20 years. I got an average of about 50c and it was very frustrating to see many of the exact same product fetching $15, and often more, on eBay. Grr! I've often seen Americans complaining about America being a philistine society. My answer to that is, "At least you live in a big philistine society. You should try living in a very small one!" I do buy CDs on Amazon if the price is right, but it's usually on amazon.co.uk or amazon.ca because postage on amazon.com is way too high: US$14.95 at the cheapest. That is NZ$20.44 at today's exchange rate, and where I usually buy (presto music.co.uk) most full-price CDs are NZ$21.50.


Bro, I ain't nothing but a working class dog myself. An over educated one, but still.


----------



## Anna Strobl

I have a feeling those prices are supremely arbitrary. Rarity comes into play, how many CDs made and performers/performance but of course, by golly, a little disc of plastic is NOT worth $$$. I used to sell LPs online. Certain pressings, covers, labels,etc. ran some of my stock sky high and spurred incredible bidding wars. Japanese collectors were the most avid.


----------



## billeames

Hello, Regarding the comments that CD is more accurate. 

I listened to a recording on a $80,000 turntable a few years ago at an audio show. And on a $120,000 cd player then too at that same show. While the CD player lis likely much more accurate, I liked the 'round' sound of the turntable, a seemingly addictive quality. That said, I still listen to CD's almost exclusively at home on a 2007 CD player, Simaudio Andromeda or Teac/Esoteric K01x (2016). Thanks. 

CD was DCS Vivaldi. Turntable was a clearaudio upper model, could be reference, not sure, sorry. 

Bill


----------



## bigshot

I've never found any correlation between price and sound quality with audio equipment, except with speakers and headphones. I've got a $40 Walmart DVD player that sounds just as good as my Oppo HA-1. With electronics, the differences between price range involves features, not sound.

Any speaker based system requires room correction to sound good. If you roll off the top end of the frequency response (like LPs do) it makes it a lot easier, because the troublesome frequencies are attenuated or just plain not there. If a player puts out a perfectly balanced response from 20Hz to 20kHz, the speakers and room have to be perfectly balanced as well.

That said, LPs are perfectly capable of sounding very good. It's a high fidelity format. It's just not perfect for the full range of human hearing like CDs are.


----------

