SPIN: Rock/Metal Albums that have been certified Gold & Platinum since 2007

S.D. wrote:

B&W white films also look amazing on blu ray.

Most of them look the same on DVD. There's no difference on Dracula (the Bela Lugosi one) between DVD and Blu Ray. I really love Hitchcock, there's no difference between those remastered DVDs and the later BRs, so why should i pay 3x more for a BR?
And i really like non-american movies. Italy, Spain, Japan, they never took care and used inferior videotapes to film. From the Sergio Leone movies to Akira Kurosawa to some Bud Spencer & Terence Hill movie, they have so much dirt, rips and other crap on the tapes that can't be fixed and a BR-Transfer doesn't make them suddenly look awesome, in fact the higher resolution make them sometimes even look worse and there's no chance to clean up the things.
As said, BR looks good or modern movies and i guess with some high quality clean up work, those first rate Hollywood movies make look better....but the movie world isn't limited to Hollywood (thank god) and with movies from other countries, there's really no difference. Italian movies always looked bad, doesn't matter if they're from the 60's or 80's, it was always the same low quality camera, low quality tape, low quality mastering.

Another good example is the 30th Anniversary Ultra Deluxe whatever Edition of one of the best known german movies, Das Boot. Picture quality? Same as the last DVD release. Audio Quality? 5.1 has a bit more bass, that's it. Of couse it has a lot more bonus material and includes every version of the movie (original long tv version, german cinema version, that crappy extremely shortened north american version, the crappy north american directors cut) and comes on THREE Blu Ray Discs but in the end, it looks like the DVD version.
The only advantage is to have the original version on just one disc as it rans for nearly 5 hours instead of having it on 2 DVDs but that's about it (but then again i know nobody who can watch the movie in one session, so to switch a DVD was never a real problem)

Infinite wrote:

Well, that was a depressing read.

S.D. wrote:

Shadowangel, older movies look fantastic on blu ray...but it depends on how well the film was cared for and what type of film was used (Technicolor film looks fantastic and barely degrades...though many movies from the late 70's and early 80's used the inferior Eastmancolor process which degrades badly).

The best looking transfer I have ever seen is "The Shining" on blu ray, I've seen the movie in the theater multiple times, on VHS, on DVD...but that blu ray just floored me, it was like watching it for the first time again. In fact all the Kubrick movies look great on blu ray.

B&W white films also look amazing on blu ray.

Primarily the films that look bad on blu ray were films where the technical quality wasn't so hot in the first place.

I just bought my first two Blu ray discs last week. REALLY excited about the possibility of some classic B&W/Technicolor movies making it to Blu ray.

EmoElmo wrote:

James B. wrote:

I have a couple a thousand lps that prove nothin really dies. Bands are pressing them still this very day. They even sound better too.....imagine that !

Betamax? VHS? Floppy disk? Cassette Tape? Video game cartrige? MiniDisc?

What makes you think that the CD is something 'special' ?

The only permanent thing in this world is Change

Nothin special about none of it......you said it (CD) would be dead in three years. I gave an example of something people like you said was dead (25 years ago) when cds first came out, that being vinyl. Too many people dig sound to be "actual" and not "compressed" for older formats to disappear.

AND..............you speak of change and technology. Be prepared for no matter what format of entertainment tickles your fancy, the concept of downloading "anything" will be possible only with payment being made previously.
Kinda/Sorta how things hitchhike on files to follow where ya go online or wreck havok to your harddrive. Algorithms on a file can detect if it went through a proper procedure (as in payment) before download and if it moves to other destinations/devices not registered to or by the original purchase(r) than the file will deteriate.

In three years I doubt you'll be able to go to a reatil store and purchase a new desktop PC. I'd rather lug my vinyl around and enjoy the sound that was captured when it was made than rely on having 10.000 songs in my pocket and the device crash and have to spend/waste alot of time downloading it all again. Who knows, all these lil toys that cost hundreds of dollars can with a push of a button be malfunctioning fo no apparent reason. What happens then ? It usually coincides with the marketing/availability of the new/better/faster model at the mall/box store or online website. Imagine that. I have a turntable and stereo system that was bought in 1975. Besides a few tubes here and a new cartridge/stlus there, it still works great. Sounds better than any digital format media device will ever attain. I'd love to see any Ipod or hard drive still be working 35 vyears from now.

James B. wrote:

In three years I doubt you'll be able to go to a reatil store and purchase a new desktop PC. I'd rather lug my vinyl around and enjoy the sound that was captured when it was made than rely on having 10.000 songs in my pocket and the device crash and have to spend/waste alot of time downloading it all again. Who knows, all these lil toys that cost hundreds of dollars can with a push of a button be malfunctioning fo no apparent reason. What happens then ? It usually coincides with the marketing/availability of the new/better/faster model at the mall/box store or online website. Imagine that. I have a turntable and stereo system that was bought in 1975. Besides a few tubes here and a new cartridge/stlus there, it still works great. Sounds better than any digital format media device will ever attain. I'd love to see any Ipod or hard drive still be working 35 vyears from now.

plus its pretty hard to amazon or apple to follow or remove whats on your record player. I am not an alarmist but the day is coming when music will be tagged as having been paid for or not and all of a sudden people who download for free will have lots of devices scanned by companies and organizations. But yet I am still looking at a tablet

the worst thing about blu-ray? It gave George Lucas yet another opportunity to go back and mess with Star Wars.

exact33 wrote:

James B. wrote:

In three years I doubt you'll be able to go to a reatil store and purchase a new desktop PC. I'd rather lug my vinyl around and enjoy the sound that was captured when it was made than rely on having 10.000 songs in my pocket and the device crash and have to spend/waste alot of time downloading it all again. Who knows, all these lil toys that cost hundreds of dollars can with a push of a button be malfunctioning fo no apparent reason. What happens then ? It usually coincides with the marketing/availability of the new/better/faster model at the mall/box store or online website. Imagine that. I have a turntable and stereo system that was bought in 1975. Besides a few tubes here and a new cartridge/stlus there, it still works great. Sounds better than any digital format media device will ever attain. I'd love to see any Ipod or hard drive still be working 35 vyears from now.

plus its pretty hard to amazon or apple to follow or remove whats on your record player. I am not an alarmist but the day is coming when music will be tagged as having been paid for or not and all of a sudden people who download for free will have lots of devices scanned by companies and organizations. But yet I am still looking at a tablet

That is kinda/sorta what I was trying to say but maybe used too many or the wrong words sayin it. Afterall I am not only a biker, but a drummer too. It is hopeless for me

ShadowAngel wrote:

S.D. wrote:

B&W white films also look amazing on blu ray.

Most of them look the same on DVD. There's no difference on Dracula (the Bela Lugosi one) between DVD and Blu Ray. I really love Hitchcock, there's no difference between those remastered DVDs and the later BRs, so why should i pay 3x more for a BR?
And i really like non-american movies. Italy, Spain, Japan, they never took care and used inferior videotapes to film. From the Sergio Leone movies to Akira Kurosawa to some Bud Spencer & Terence Hill movie, they have so much dirt, rips and other crap on the tapes that can't be fixed and a BR-Transfer doesn't make them suddenly look awesome, in fact the higher resolution make them sometimes even look worse and there's no chance to clean up the things.
As said, BR looks good or modern movies and i guess with some high quality clean up work, those first rate Hollywood movies make look better....but the movie world isn't limited to Hollywood (thank god) and with movies from other countries, there's really no difference. Italian movies always looked bad, doesn't matter if they're from the 60's or 80's, it was always the same low quality camera, low quality tape, low quality mastering.

I have to disagree on the "they look the same" argument in regards to older films. I've seen a few of the Hitchcock blu-rays and they are a definite improvement over the DVDs. As long as the proper restoration work is done these older movies can look just as good as if they were filmed yesterday. Have you watched any of the Criterion blu rays? They are amazing.

Plus the audio capability of blu ray far outshines what a DVD can do. There is no comparison between the formats.

thejokeriv wrote:

S.D. wrote:

You could purchase from iTunes or Amazon or eMusic or HDTracks, etc.

HDtracks is cool - I wish more bands would release music at that high quality. Actually, I would love it if the record labels would start selling albums in Blu-Ray format for those that want to hear high quality recordings

I think the offerings will continue to expand, the audiophile market is clamoring for them. The more they sell, the more we'll get. Once you get used to listening to music sampled at 24bit/96khz it's very hard to go back.

[quote="thejokeriv"]

ShadowAngel wrote:

EmoElmo wrote:

Betamax? VHS? Floppy disk? Cassette Tape? Video game cartrige? MiniDisc?


Oh and Betamax was great, it had a better quality than VHS but just like MP3...the cheap crap is what attracts most people because they don't care about quality, they just want to own everything at the cheapest prices and sadly, they win most of the time.

Yep, Beta was the better quality of the two. A couple things happened - Sony invented the BetaMax, JVC the VHS. JVC licensed the technology to other manufacturers so they could also make VCR's. Sony did not license Betamax out and was the only company making Beta VCR's. Because of competition between the companies manufacturing VHS VCR's, the price was able to come down. It also helped that VHS had a longer running time at first. But the decision of Sony not to license the technology out is what killed Beta. Had Sony done what JVC did, it could have gone the other way as Sony was able to lengthen the time on a Beta tape later on and VHS could have died. And that is now the text book case of how to lose a format war.

Actually it was the porno industry that killed Betamax. Porn industry went with exclusive VHS distribution, some of the major movie houses followed suit, and Betamax lost hand on the market and was history shortly after.

Betamax were also used in the audio recording industry during the 80s. The very grandfather of the digital recording was done on Betamax, using a PCM (Pulse Code Modulator) unit which converted the audio signal into pixels, which were then recorded on Betmax tape. A lot of studios used it in the pre-DAT days, and plenty of early to mid-80s bands got their masters on Betmax tapes.

Veering back to the topic...

The other album on this list that surprises me a little is The Beatles in Mono box set. I understand the value, it's a completely different mix and this is the way many people were originally introduced to this music...but I thought the market would be a little smaller for it. Cool though.

[quote="stormspell"]

thejokeriv wrote:

ShadowAngel wrote:

EmoElmo wrote:

Betamax? VHS? Floppy disk? Cassette Tape? Video game cartrige? MiniDisc?


Oh and Betamax was great, it had a better quality than VHS but just like MP3...the cheap crap is what attracts most people because they don't care about quality, they just want to own everything at the cheapest prices and sadly, they win most of the time.

Yep, Beta was the better quality of the two. A couple things happened - Sony invented the BetaMax, JVC the VHS. JVC licensed the technology to other manufacturers so they could also make VCR's. Sony did not license Betamax out and was the only company making Beta VCR's. Because of competition between the companies manufacturing VHS VCR's, the price was able to come down. It also helped that VHS had a longer running time at first. But the decision of Sony not to license the technology out is what killed Beta. Had Sony done what JVC did, it could have gone the other way as Sony was able to lengthen the time on a Beta tape later on and VHS could have died. And that is now the text book case of how to lose a format war.

Actually it was the porno industry that killed Betamax. Porn industry went with exclusive VHS distribution, some of the major movie houses followed suit, and Betamax lost hand on the market and was history shortly after.

Betamax were also used in the audio recording industry during the 80s. The very grandfather of the digital recording was done on Betamax, using a PCM (Pulse Code Modulator) unit which converted the audio signal into pixels, which were then recorded on Betmax tape. A lot of studios used it in the pre-DAT days, and plenty of early to mid-80s bands got their masters on Betmax tapes.

Beta was used extensively in the TV news world also because the quality was better! The porn industry went VHS because they placed their bets that VHS would win after they saw the price difference over Beta and realized people were going with the lower cost option which happened due to competition.

S.D. wrote:

Veering back to the topic...

The other album on this list that surprises me a little is The Beatles in Mono box set. I understand the value, it's a completely different mix and this is the way many people were originally introduced to this music...but I thought the market would be a little smaller for it. Cool though.

I think a lot of people that originally heard the mix in mono wanted the way they originally heard the songs and it created an interest among other buyers that became fans later as well. Do yo remember the scene in Lemmy where he goes and buys all the albums in mono? He wanted to hear it the way he first heard the albums.

I've said this before in other threads...but for me (and many others) there's a technology ceiling. There's only so much smaller/better/faster a human can process til it all looks the same (for most).

People who work in the industry (like S.D., music producers, audiophiles, etc) can hear/notice things that the majority of the population cannot or perhaps even care to.

Blu-Ray, 5.1, yadda yadda...all that means is I have to spend more money to try and enjoy something I already enjoy plenty for me.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I've said this before in other threads...but for me (and many others) there's a technology ceiling. There's only so much smaller/better/faster a human can process til it all looks the same (for most).

People who work in the industry (like S.D., music producers, audiophiles, etc) can hear/notice things that the majority of the population cannot or perhaps even care to.

Blu-Ray, 5.1, yadda yadda...all that means is I have to spend more money to try and enjoy something I already enjoy plenty for me.

This is where I am at also, I will concede that Blu-Ray may look better but I don't care, I am going back and rebuy the same old movies (in my case concert DVD's) on Blu-Ray.

I maybe a dinosaur, and so be it, but I have never enjoyed listening to music on an ipod or even my PC unless I am on youtube, and I do not feel like owning a file is owning anything, I like having a physical tangible product in my hands.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I've said this before in other threads...but for me (and many others) there's a technology ceiling. There's only so much smaller/better/faster a human can process til it all looks the same (for most).

People who work in the industry (like S.D., music producers, audiophiles, etc) can hear/notice things that the majority of the population cannot or perhaps even care to.

Blu-Ray, 5.1, yadda yadda...all that means is I have to spend more money to try and enjoy something I already enjoy plenty for me.

Well that's good to know. I thought I was the only one who didn't really seems to notice these things. I just never got it. I got a Playstation 3 for Christmas and finally rented a blu-ray disc (Horrible Bosses). Although it looked good , it didn't seem much different to me than a normal dvd played through my other player.

I can't upgrade to Blu-Ray till I update my TV as well (which is about ten years old) and I'm in no hurry to do that anytime soon. So I'm fine with plain ole DVD for now.

...and the most up-to-date video game system I own is a Sega Genesis, so obviously I'm not exactly in a hurry to catch up in that department either

Fat Freddy wrote:

I can't upgrade to Blu-Ray till I update my TV as well (which is about ten years old) and I'm in no hurry to do that anytime soon. So I'm fine with plain ole DVD for now.

...and the most up-to-date video game system I own is a Sega Genesis, so obviously I'm not exactly in a hurry to catch up in that department either

When your TV dies and your are forced to upgrade, the good news is that prices on TV's and Blu Ray have come down tremendously in the past few years I would expect that trend to continue. The big plus is you don't have to upgrade your DVD's to Blu Ray since Blu Ray plays DVD's too. Outside of the Pixar releases (which look 100 times better on Blu Ray) I only have a few DVD to Blu Ray upgrades and that was because they were they cheap-o bargain bin special. I've just started buying Blu-Ray for new purchases. Funny thing is I have more kids movie blu rays than my movies.......

thejokeriv wrote:

When your TV dies and your are forced to upgrade, the good news is that prices on TV's and Blu Ray have come down tremendously in the past few years I would expect that trend to continue. The big plus is you don't have to upgrade your DVD's to Blu Ray since Blu Ray plays DVD's too. Outside of the Pixar releases (which look 100 times better on Blu Ray) I only have a few DVD to Blu Ray upgrades and that was because they were they cheap-o bargain bin special. I've just started buying Blu-Ray for new purchases. Funny thing is I have more kids movie blu rays than my movies.......

Oh yeah, my kids have a bigger DVD collection than I do, too.

When cds first came out I noticed right away that they didn't sound as good as my vinyl did. Guess ya had to be a heroin addict (like I was then) to notice these things.

I have a couple of Beatles mono on vinyl, as well as the very first Grateful Dead lp. The GD one actually sounds better in that format than the stereo version. The Beatles really don't matter to me because I raely listen to much of their stuff before 1966.

I'm not usually an early adaptor but I got on the blu-ray bandwagon when I saw what Bonnie & Clyde and Flash Gordon looked like. Having them on all formats over the years there was no way I could pass up the upgrade. I tend to stick to upgrades from dvd of movies I either love and watch all the time or those that are more visual/audio focused. I'm perfectly happy to just stay with most of my comedy and documentary dvds. Although that is likely to change now that blus are getting so cheap. Just scored the Karate Kid for 3.00 which is far cheaper than I paid for the dvd.

Anyone not convinced of blu-ray's full capabilities needs to check out Apocalypse Now on the format. I'm nowhere near a tech expert but even I was floored with how it looked and sounded.

Quote :

Veering back to the topic...

The other album on this list that surprises me a little is The Beatles in Mono box set. I understand the value, it's a completely different mix and this is the way many people were originally introduced to this music...but I thought the market would be a little smaller for it. Cool though.

Also isn't that one that has been bootlegged to death. I'm always afraid of buying it from the stories I've read. Wonder if the boots were factored into the sales number.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Blu-Ray, 5.1, yadda yadda...all that means is I have to spend more money to try and enjoy something I already enjoy plenty for me.

Anyone can see the difference between blu ray and DVD, I could show a side by side comparison to just about any person on the street and it would be very obvious.

I can understand how some people can't tell the difference between audio sources, that's less immediately tangible if you don't know what you are listening for.

But video sources are like night and day. I had a friend just like you in Austin, he refused to upgrade from DVD, kept saying "it's good enough". So I asked him to bring over a couple of his DVDs, I rented the blu ray's from Netflix and we did a side by side comparison. We went to Best Buy the next day and he bought a blu ray player.

S.D. wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Blu-Ray, 5.1, yadda yadda...all that means is I have to spend more money to try and enjoy something I already enjoy plenty for me.

Anyone can see the difference between blu ray and DVD, I could show a side by side comparison to just about any person on the street and it would be very obvious.

Let me rephrase...I just don't care. I have a "good enough for me" threshold and DVD (using an HDMI cable hooking up to an HDTV) is good enough for me. I don't feel like I'm missing anything and I don't feel the need to spend money in an attempt to somehow enjoy it "more".

S.D. wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Blu-Ray, 5.1, yadda yadda...all that means is I have to spend more money to try and enjoy something I already enjoy plenty for me.

Anyone can see the difference between blu ray and DVD, I could show a side by side comparison to just about any person on the street and it would be very obvious.

That's probably what I would need to do. Like I said,it definitely looked good but not much different to me from a regular dvd. I'm sure side by side,I'd tell.

007 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I've said this before in other threads...but for me (and many others) there's a technology ceiling. There's only so much smaller/better/faster a human can process til it all looks the same (for most).

People who work in the industry (like S.D., music producers, audiophiles, etc) can hear/notice things that the majority of the population cannot or perhaps even care to.

Blu-Ray, 5.1, yadda yadda...all that means is I have to spend more money to try and enjoy something I already enjoy plenty for me.

Well that's good to know. I thought I was the only one who didn't really seems to notice these things. I just never got it. I got a Playstation 3 for Christmas and finally rented a blu-ray disc (Horrible Bosses). Although it looked good , it didn't seem much different to me than a normal dvd played through my other player.

I thought that I was the only one as well. I wear glasses, so with them off I don't notice between HD, Standard(It's all blurry ) or degraded VHS and with them, on I notice a slight difference.

exact33 wrote:

interesting list. I didnt expect to see GNR on there.

This surprises me as well. Are you sure there are "actual sales" and they're not the million Best Buy had to purchse for their exclusive deal?