Self explanatory. It could be due to limited quantity, high price, rarity etc. For me I just don't wanna blow my life savings on something I can scratch in 5 seconds. Pic unrelated
Shit is that rare? I saw it when vinyl shopping yesterday, but I'm not really a MBV fan so I didn't pick it up.
>>60175978
>life savings
mbv was like $40 a year ago.
still way too expensive and I agree, but not life savings...
>>60175996
>pic unrelated
Ignore me, I'm dumb.
>>60175996
pic unrelated. nah it's not rare. I picked one up for $60 tho.........:(
>>60175978
Why would you post that pic, when you could used a pic of Loveless which would have been very relevant.
>>60176012
I think it's straight fire yo. Absolutely love the album
Every album. Vinyl collecting is a pathetic excuse of a hobby for preppy upper middle class manchildren who have too much of their parents' money to throw around.
>>60176044
I'm actually about as lower class as it gets without being unemployed, I just have no life and therefore have plenty of disposable income to blow on my hobby.
>>60176044
Part of me wants to agree with you as that's exactly what I do when you cut out the "muh feelings, artwork, wrong generation" part
>>60175978
I see it everywhere. It's overpriced AF. Like 60 CAD. I picked up my japanese Loveless bootleg for less.
>>60176044
Not true, some artists actually master their albums solely through analog (like MBV, or Phil Elverum) so vinyl is really the best experience.
>>60176044
this. I blew so much money on vinyl when i was 16-18 and I had nothing to spend my money on.
Now I wanna go travelling and shit, and the concept of buying vinyl seems absolutely ludicrous.
>>60176044
its ok to be poor anon
>>60176063
I feel like mbv falls into a category of bands where they make one or two albums that reach god-like status and then disband, only to realise later of it's acclaim and milk the shit out of it; i.e Neutral Milk Hotel, My Bloddy Valentine, Wu Tang Clan.
Eh if I was in a band and did something like that, I'd do exactly the same desu
>>60176080
Especially when you don't have a turntable like me...I just bought the 2 I have for the aesthetics
>>60176129
It's probably their label. Loveless would've been reissued several times by now if the band was tryna make extra $$$
>>60176193
ayo lookie here
http://www.amazon.com/Loveless-My-Bloody-Valentine/dp/B000093W39/ref=sr_1_1_twi_lp__3?ie=UTF8&qid=1446727412&sr=8-1&keywords=loveless
>>60176216
aw shit....used is $44
>>60175978
Picked it up for 15 dollars a year ago, couldn't believe it
Never ever.
>>60176044
This. Upvoted.
>>60175978
>>60176630
You should sell it for 100 now desu
>>60175996
>the entire history of music
i don't give a fuck about vinyls
>>60176792
it was to >>60175978
>>60176792
>vinyls
>>60175978
I once bought Enya's Watermark on vinyl at an inflated price.
Me and a friend schredded it one night during a crazy mashup session.
For some time i felt bad. It was literaly unplayable
Then i Downloaded a 24/192 from rutracker
I have never looked back....
>itt plebs
>>60176792
shut your damn mouth Yahtzee
>>60176891
For me record collecting is a hit or miss. I feel like it's very presonalised and greatly depends. Like records are an absolute luxury. You definitely don't need them.
There are a couple of short documentaries floating around youtube about why people decide vinyl is superior and half the time I see their point the other half I feel it's bullshit. They're explanations as to why vinyl is best all seem very generalised and they don't provide sources as to how the music got on the record. Also half the time it's sebtimental bullshit.
>>60176920
10/10
>>60176920
So? Whats so special about shitty black metal vinyl?
>>60176920
I literally have this
>>60176982
Most of the time the vinyl is from a better source and mastered with less dynnamic compression. Most Vinyl rips i download are 24/192 and have been beating the 201X SACD remasters in sound quality. this just happened to me recently REM's Document.
IF you want an explanation look at this link.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=R.E.M.&album=document
>>60177084
Dynamic range has nothing to do with sound quality but rather mastering. There are remastered albums that scale poorly in the dynamic range that sounds so much better that the original one.
>>60177084
ahaha thanks anon. will check out
>>60176193
They're on their own label
>>60177142
Excuse me but how many SACD's and 24/194 Flacs have you downloaded lately ?
Many modern studio remastered albums have sounded totally shit compared to the originals captured on a good setup. Because of the loudness war. I gave you a link. Ill give you some more. Listen yourself you fucking pleb. Compare
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4212881
and
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4397460
I would do dirty things for this record
>>60177368
>SACD's and 24/194 Flacs
Seriously you believe in this shit? Tell me how much our hearing can extend passed 22khz?
>>60176012
>>60176063
Is Loveless expensive? I picked it up for £12 recently and it plays fine
>>60178298
No i don't believe in anything. I have been building and designing hardware for 10 years and i am talking from personal experience.
Hi-Res Audio is not about ultrasonics but bit depth and impulse response. Once you step it up a few grand there is a another dimension to be heard.
