Target General Deals Thread

[DanTheMan]

Originally Posted by maverick22

Somebody pinch me!

When is the last time Target featured a 4k movie in their ad?! So Gladiator 2 will be in stores? Weird since they stopped carrying movies at my local stores.

They’re not. They’re simply letting you know those titles will be available online for sale that week lol.

When Target first made the switch from no physical movies in stores, the ads specified “online only” until they longer didn’t. Vinyls, you could find however.

[sephiroth61787]

The fact that a metal album is featured in the ad is wild to me.

Eagerly awaiting that one. Won't be getting it at Target though.

[kevin87]

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

They’re not. They’re simply letting you know those titles will be available online for sale that week lol.

When Target first made the switch from no physical movies in stores, the ads specified “online only” until they longer didn’t. Vinyls, you could find however.

It's crazy that vinyl came back but people look down on cd and any movie disc.

[Troy1973]

Originally Posted by kevin87

It's crazy that vinyl came back but people look down on cd and any movie disc.

Vinyl is the better format to be fair. I recently got back into vinyl and it's amazing the sound difference between records vs CDs. Also there's the nostalgic aspect to records as well. Finally, the presentation of vinyl from picture, splatter or colored vinyl and the sleeve presentation with artwork interior and exterior. I love it.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by Troy1973

Vinyl is the better format to be fair. I recently got back into vinyl and it's amazing the sound difference between records vs CDs. Also there's the nostalgic aspect to records as well. Finally, the presentation of vinyl from picture, splatter or colored vinyl and the sleeve presentation with artwork interior and exterior. I love it.

Nope.

Vinyl is fun and nostalgic but in no way is the sound better than CDs. 10% of the vinyl I buy has a flaw called non fill. Vinyl has to cut the bass or the needle would jump out of the groove. CDs give the best representation of what is heard in the studio. Just because it’s 1s and 0s does not mean a warm balances sound cannot be achieved.

I went crazy at the Barnes and Noble $5 vinyl clearance. One thing vinyl has an advantage over CDs is the larger size packaging.

Blu-ray/4K discs are also better than digital, but digital has the convenience factor.

[Troy1973]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

Nope.

Vinyl is fun and nostalgic but in no way is the sound better than CDs. 10% of the vinyl I buy has a flaw called non fill. Vinyl has to cut the bass or the needle would jump out of the groove. CDs give the best representation of what is heard in the studio. Just because it’s 1s and 0s does not mean a warm balances sound cannot be achieved.

I went crazy at the Barnes and Noble $5 vinyl clearance. One thing vinyl has an advantage over CDs is the larger size packaging.

Blu-ray/4K discs are also better than digital, but digital has the convenience factor.

No compression with vinyl. You can't say that about CDs. Even if the music is recorded "full digital" it will still benefit from no compression on vinyl.
Also, as to the "non fill", that is a manufacturing defect that does not appear or is considered rare on most pressings. CDs are prone to manufacturing defects as well. Not sure why you bring that up as it in no way is a representation of quality pressed vinyl. By your own admission you only experience it 10% of the time. That's not too bad and is comparable to manufacturing defects on CDs, Blurays, DVD or 4Ks.

[TheDean]

Originally Posted by maverick22

Somebody pinch me!

When is the last time Target featured a 4k movie in their ad?! So Gladiator 2 will be in stores? Weird since they stopped carrying movies at my local stores.

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

They’re not. They’re simply letting you know those titles will be available online for sale that week lol.

When Target first made the switch from no physical movies in stores, the ads specified “online only” until they longer didn’t. Vinyls, you could find however.

Since Paramount doesn't do stand alone Blu-ray. Gladiator 2 might get something like this.

[MasterTB]

Originally Posted by Troy1973

No compression with vinyl. You can't say that about CDs. Even if the music is recorded "full digital" it will still benefit from no compression on vinyl.
Also, as to the "non fill", that is a manufacturing defect that does not appear or is considered rare on most pressings. CDs are prone to manufacturing defects as well. Not sure why you bring that up as it in no way is a representation of quality pressed vinyl. By your own admission you only experience it 10% of the time. That's not too bad and is comparable to manufacturing defects on CDs, Blurays, DVD or 4Ks.

https://creativeaudioworks.com/audio...ecords-vs-cds/

[Troy1973]

Originally Posted by MasterTB

https://creativeaudioworks.com/audio...ecords-vs-cds/

Okay, and?

Compression is still compression. That article doesn't claim any different. Perhaps some may not notice or care to notice. So yes, you can sit a person down and play the same song on vinyl and then on CD and there are some who can't tell the difference.

But let's not kid ourselves, there is a difference. To my point, there are people on this very forum who claim to not notice a difference between Blu-ray and 4K. We know that's not true. Are there some underwhelming 4K releases? yes. On the whole, 4K is superior and there's no argument. The presentation is just better. That's the same with vinyl. For every one article you pull up to debunk vinyl there are 10 that reinforce it's superiority.

Also, in that article you linked the writer actual says that, in some definitive aspects, vinyl is superior. Maybe that wasn't the intention but you might want to go back and read that article.

[Troy1973]

Actually, all this reminds me that I need to get to Target and pickup that Deadpool vs Wolverine vinyl soundtrack. I'm gonna kick myself if that disappears and starts going triple digits on secondary market.

[kevin87]

Originally Posted by Troy1973

Vinyl is the better format to be fair. I recently got back into vinyl and it's amazing the sound difference between records vs CDs. Also there's the nostalgic aspect to records as well. Finally, the presentation of vinyl from picture, splatter or colored vinyl and the sleeve presentation with artwork interior and exterior. I love it.

Eh, better is just audio snobbery lol I'm not going to get up every 20 minutes to flip or change the disc because they can only fit 5 songs per side and you have to have 3 discs because of it. Also paying $40+ is going to make me buy one album a year, that's too expensive for me.. on top of having to spend a lot on decent equipment that won't damage it. I don't care what it looks like, it's either being played or it's in the case where I don't see it. Everybody's just always like CDs take up so much space! but then they're like hell yeah vinyl and it takes up more space, along with the equipment... and unless you're buying a variant, the artwork is just a larger version of what you get with the cd anyway.

The point was it's probably the least likely format to make a comeback, and yet people wouldn't even piss on a cd if it was on fire in favor of streaming.

[pinballmaster]

Originally Posted by Troy1973

Okay, and?

Compression is still compression. That article doesn't claim any different. Perhaps some may not notice or care to notice. So yes, you can sit a person down and play the same song on vinyl and then on CD and there are some who can't tell the difference.

But let's not kid ourselves, there is a difference. To my point, there are people on this very forum who claim to not notice a difference between Blu-ray and 4K. We know that's not true. Are there some underwhelming 4K releases? yes. On the whole, 4K is superior and there's no argument. The presentation is just better. That's the same with vinyl. For every one article you pull up to debunk vinyl there are 10 that reinforce it's superiority.

Also, in that article you linked the writer actual says that, in some definitive aspects, vinyl is superior. Maybe that wasn't the intention but you might want to go back and read that article.

Bro, you're misinformed.
I mix and master music myself. Less compression doesn't result in a better song. There's a myth that all records use a different audio source for the product. If you went and bought 100 random records from the past decade and compared the waveform you'd realize at least half of those are the exact same source file. No difference what so ever. The exact same master.
Records aren't mastered differently to improve the quality. They are mastered with less compression/bass because it's a limitation of the format.
If the bass/limiting was the same you'd get distortion.
The only situation where a record is better is when the CD product was mastered improperly. In the early 90's, the loudness wars began. You went from -14 masters to something closer to -8. Much louder recordings, but due to all of the limiting, some of the dynamics are lost. So in the situation where the CD is overly compressed you might find better versions on vinyl. That's maybe 10% of recordings..... Mostly rock stuff from the 90's or early 00's. Compression is very important in music. The loudness factor is important. Even with very basic acoustic music. You can't compare DVD to 4K Blu-ray or anything like that.... Why? Because the source files are completely different. One is a much higher resolution. That's not the case with vinyl. If anything 24 bit downloads these days are inferior to all.
I dare you to find me 10 records that justify paying $50 instead of $10 based on "higher quality" masters....

[JurassicBD]

Originally Posted by Troy1973

No compression with vinyl. You can't say that about CDs. Even if the music is recorded "full digital" it will still benefit from no compression on vinyl.

I haven't bought a CD in many years. Are they no longer using PCM? Because PCM is not compressed. Movies require audio compression solutions (DD and DTS) on disc, because the video files take up so much space and to lesser degree 5 or more channels of sound would too, if left uncompressed. Still, Sony and Disney did opt to author a number of early BDs in PCM surround, because most of the gear available did not support the latest Dolby (TrueHD) and DTS (HD-Master Audio) compression codecs yet and they felt maintaining lossless quality would give them an edge in the format war, where HD DVD was only using DD+ and DTS HD High Res. Sounds like you're talking about a difference between analog (vinyl) and digital (cd), which has always been subjective and more dependent on one's gear.

The real reason vinyl is selling is because it's being promoted well. The music industry has long desired to get people to buy their products again. For that industry, going digital was not by choice, unlike movies. Where Hollywood has always resented seeing their products liquidated and resold in the used market, and they're convinced they can make even higher profits from streaming, once there are no other affordable alternatives to compete with.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Troy1973

Okay, and?

And you're madly trying to justify your spending mad $$$$ on something that has no audible benefit when nearly all music is digitally recorded/mixed/mastered. Personally, I don't even buy CDs either, I purchase the high-res digital versions (typically 24-bit/96 or 192KHz) to be played back on my home theater or Sony studio headphones - hundreds or thousands of times if need be with no loss of quality and half of what you shelled out for it on a format from a century ago. The record companies are making a killing off you guys.

[erixon20]

I Still buy CD's(from the few remaining artists that actually put out stuff on CD that I like)...but I also still buy Blu-ray's and 4K's.....soooooooo...there....LOL!

[pinballmaster]

Originally Posted by JurassicBD

I haven't bought a CD in many years. Are they no longer using PCM? Because PCM is not compressed. Movies require audio compression solutions (DD and DTS) on disc, because the video files take up so much space and to lesser degree 5 or more channels of sound would too, if left uncompressed. Still, Sony and Disney did opt to author a number of early BDs in PCM surround, because most of the gear available did not support the latest Dolby (TrueHD) and DTS (HD-Master Audio) compression codecs yet and they felt maintaining lossless quality would give them an edge in the format war, where HD DVD was only using DD+ and DTS HD High Res. Sounds like you're talking about a difference between analog (vinyl) and digital (cd), which has always been subjective and more dependent on one's gear.

The real reason vinyl is selling is because it's being promoted well. The music industry has long desired to get people to buy their products again. For that industry, going digital was not by choice, unlike movies. Where Hollywood has always resented seeing their products liquidated and resold in the used market, and they're convinced they can make even higher profits from streaming, once there are no other affordable alternatives to compete with.

Both formats generally use 16 bit 44100 Wav files. I presume when he says "compression," he means the mixing/mastering term. Some vinyl masters are compressed/limited 2-5 levels less than the CD product. They smashed the crap out of some rock stuff in the 90's. Loud masters cause crackle/distortion on a record player. CD's can play at a louder level before distortion happens. Same with heavy bass. The human ear generally prefers a louder master. It doesn't really have anything to do with the quality "compression" of the file. Most original recordings are actually done at 24-32 bit. It's then down sampled for CD/vinyl. There's some argument that the human ear can't hear the difference. I tend to agree, but I still master everything at at 24 bit. Records only sound better than the CD when the CD is mastered improperly. Like too much limiting/clipping.
Back in the day you often found CD's in Japan with better quality than the American version. This is simply because the limiting/compression wasn't as strong. Like a song in the USA might be -7.5 LUFS and in Japan it was -10. Generally anything below 9 starts losing energy because the dynamics are suppressed too much. But... just because the dynamics are better doesn't mean everything else is.... It won't be as loud or have as much bass. Often times the EQ is also pushed down in the highs.... Meaning a record will never be as bright as the CD.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by Troy1973

No compression with vinyl. You can't say that about CDs. Even if the music is recorded "full digital" it will still benefit from no compression on vinyl.
Also, as to the "non fill", that is a manufacturing defect that does not appear or is considered rare on most pressings. CDs are prone to manufacturing defects as well. Not sure why you bring that up as it in no way is a representation of quality pressed vinyl. By your own admission you only experience it 10% of the time. That's not too bad and is comparable to manufacturing defects on CDs, Blurays, DVD or 4Ks.

Maybe one out of 10,000 CDs are bad.

Besides non fill, vinyl has other issues. Periodically pops, ticks, distortion. Some vinyl is quiet as a mouse.

CDs you never have to worry about this.

I understand the debate of vinyl vs CDs. I’ve been collecting music since 1966, I grew up with vinyl. CDs win out for me. I sold 3000 albums 8 years ago but I couldn’t resist that Barnes and Noble clearance. Vinyl is fun. When I hear non fill, pops, tics, distortion I ALWAYS know I have the “perfect” sounding CD of that vinyl title.

But as a kid the imperfections of vinyl did bother me. Had to return Elton John’s first album four times due to distortion before I waved the white flag and asked White Front if I could just exchange if for Joe Cocker Mad Dogs and Englishmen. That album played well.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by pinballmaster

Bro, you're misinformed.
I mix and master music myself. Less compression doesn't result in a better song. There's a myth that all records use a different audio source for the product. If you went and bought 100 random records from the past decade and compared the waveform you'd realize at least half of those are the exact same source file. No difference what so ever. The exact same master.
Records aren't mastered differently to improve the quality. They are mastered with less compression/bass because it's a limitation of the format.
If the bass/limiting was the same you'd get distortion.
The only situation where a record is better is when the CD product was mastered improperly. In the early 90's, the loudness wars began. You went from -14 masters to something closer to -8. Much louder recordings, but due to all of the limiting, some of the dynamics are lost. So in the situation where the CD is overly compressed you might find better versions on vinyl. That's maybe 10% of recordings..... Mostly rock stuff from the 90's or early 00's. Compression is very important in music. The loudness factor is important. Even with very basic acoustic music. You can't compare DVD to 4K Blu-ray or anything like that.... Why? Because the source files are completely different. One is a much higher resolution. That's not the case with vinyl. If anything 24 bit downloads these days are inferior to all.
I dare you to find me 10 records that justify paying $50 instead of $10 based on "higher quality" masters....

You know more than me and said it much more eloquently. I could only explain it in simple terms but I have read stuff similar to what you posted. My needle will jump out of the groove due to bass is just me parroting a line from a recording engineer who wrote an article CD v Vinyl.

Again vinyl is fun and nostalgic. The 12x12 art work for the Joni Mitchell Archives Volume 3 Highlights vinyl box is a definite advantage over the CD Box which is smaller but is complete. I’ll eventually buy it on CD.

Barnes and Noble sold the Joni Asylum Years vinyl box for $28, 75% off. Yeah I bought it, the vinyl for the most part is quiet but I also own the Complete Joni Mitchell on Warner/Asylum CD box as well.

My ears consistently tell me CD sounds better, vinyl does have a different sound and that sound is less perfect than CDs.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And you're madly trying to justify your spending mad $$$$ on something that has no audible benefit when nearly all music is digitally recorded/mixed/mastered. Personally, I don't even buy CDs either, I purchase the high-res digital versions (typically 24-bit/96 or 192KHz) to be played back on my home theater or Sony studio headphones - hundreds or thousands of times if need be with no loss of quality and half of what you shelled out for it on a format from a century ago. The record companies are making a killing off you guys.

Let’s take The Joshua Tree by U2, the vinyl is from a digital master.

Google Mobile Fidelity and how they were caught using digital masters.

I know for a fact that Universal Music Group has digitized their catalog and sent the tapes to be stored at Iron Mountain. It would take an act of god to use those tapes for a reissue. Bono, Eminem and Shania could get them. Not Mobile Fidelity.

I paid $5 each for the Half Speed Master of My Generation, The Who Sell Out, Tommy. Also the. Vinyl reissues of Wings Wildlife and Goats Head Soup both double vinyl $5. I listed many of the titles in the B&N retail thread.

I’m all in on $5 vinyl. The deal is over now. B&N was sending me the titles from their warehouse and free shipping. $5 vinyl free shipping, you do the math.

[drb999]

I haven’t heard a vinyl record since the early 80’s but from what I can recall CDs sound better.