Epic prog album with an ugly/insipid album art?

MoodyRush wrote: I agree about the octopus cover; both are good.   And may I say, what is it with prog bands and naked behinds of men...   Is a naked man really necessary? good album though.

This cover is awful but its not only the naked dude that kills it. I hate those ugly directional lines that zig zag all across the album.  And those buildings don't help either.

His butt is cute though!

Horizons wrote: Rush - Roll the Bones

What??? I love that one! Conceptually It doesn't make total sense, but so what? Nice and elaborate. It had the misfortune of being released just after the vinyl LP era.

THIS is Rush's worst album cover, IMHO...

Slaughternalia wrote: Horizons wrote: brido wrote: I think that most people accept that vinyl has a far superior sound to CD's!!!!!!! Its much warmer and altogether better! Ask anyone who knows about music and they'll prefer vinyl.  (don't ask me though....I just know what I like, and not even in your wardrobe! What? We're talking about album art? Slaughternalia wrote: thehallway wrote: I collect vinyl for recreational purposes. Every album I own on vinyl however, I also own on CD, because it's just better sound quaity. I would take the sound quality of a well preserved vinyl over a CD any day.

If you think vinyl is superior because a sample rate, no matter how high, can never get the full continuous sound....... then you'd be wrong. The CD sample rate is 44KHz, which is more than double the highest frequency humans can hear; hence, the sampling is impossible to notice and so, vinyls and CDs are equal in this respect.

The only difference is that vinyls crackle, they often don't have a big range (equipment dependent) and their sound quality gets worse and worse over time. That is why I prefer CDs, and to be honest, I haven't heard any (let alone most) people say that vinyl has a better sound quality apart from when they are just completely ignorant of anything digital.

If it's "warmer" then describe to me how a sound can have temperature.

Bauer's Astronauta Olvidado is one of the best albums I've listened this year, but the cover is terrible. Quite frankly, if they were not listed here, I would never check them out because the cover isn't attractive at all.

Edited by CCVP - June 14 2011 at 09:11

thehallway wrote: Slaughternalia wrote: Horizons wrote: brido wrote: I think that most people accept that vinyl has a far superior sound to CD's!!!!!!! Its much warmer and altogether better! Ask anyone who knows about music and they'll prefer vinyl.  (don't ask me though....I just know what I like, and not even in your wardrobe! What? We're talking about album art? Slaughternalia wrote: thehallway wrote: I collect vinyl for recreational purposes. Every album I own on vinyl however, I also own on CD, because it's just better sound quaity. I would take the sound quality of a well preserved vinyl over a CD any day. If you think vinyl is superior because a sample rate, no matter how high, can never get the full continuous sound....... then you'd be wrong. The CD sample rate is 44KHz, which is more than double the highest frequency humans can hear; hence, the sampling is impossible to notice and so, vinyls and CDs are equal in this respect. The only difference is that vinyls crackle, they often don't have a big range (equipment dependent) and their sound quality gets worse and worse over time. That is why I prefer CDs, and to be honest, I haven't heard any (let alone most) people say that vinyl has a better sound quality apart from when they are just completely ignorant of anything digital. If it's "warmer" then describe to me how a sound can have temperature.

Your forgeting about compression. Most CD's will be recorded at 24bit/96KHz which, at even just 40 minutes of music, is far too big in terms of memory to fit on a CD, so it has to be compressed loosing the frequencies that are outside of human hearing (and maybe more if they have to) and though you cant hear those frequencies they do have an effect on the frequencies you can hear. However, the vast majority of people dont have Hi-Fi equipment good enough to really notice the difference so its all moot.

sleeper wrote: thehallway wrote: Slaughternalia wrote: Horizons wrote: brido wrote: I think that most people accept that vinyl has a far superior sound to CD's!!!!!!! Its much warmer and altogether better! Ask anyone who knows about music and they'll prefer vinyl.  (don't ask me though....I just know what I like, and not even in your wardrobe! What? We're talking about album art? Slaughternalia wrote: thehallway wrote: I collect vinyl for recreational purposes. Every album I own on vinyl however, I also own on CD, because it's just better sound quaity. I would take the sound quality of a well preserved vinyl over a CD any day. If you think vinyl is superior because a sample rate, no matter how high, can never get the full continuous sound....... then you'd be wrong. The CD sample rate is 44KHz, which is more than double the highest frequency humans can hear; hence, the sampling is impossible to notice and so, vinyls and CDs are equal in this respect. The only difference is that vinyls crackle, they often don't have a big range (equipment dependent) and their sound quality gets worse and worse over time. That is why I prefer CDs, and to be honest, I haven't heard any (let alone most) people say that vinyl has a better sound quality apart from when they are just completely ignorant of anything digital. If it's "warmer" then describe to me how a sound can have temperature. Your forgeting about compression. Most CD's will be recorded at 24bit/96KHz which, at even just 40 minutes of music, is far too big in terms of memory to fit on a CD, so it has to be compressed loosing the frequencies that are outside of human hearing (and maybe more if they have to) and though you cant hear those frequencies they do have an effect on the frequencies you can hear. However, the vast majority of people dont have Hi-Fi equipment good enough to really notice the difference so its all moot.

And weren't a lot of vinyls compressed as well?

This looks like it took about 3 minutes to devise