elseq 1-5

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:19 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 5/21/2016 at 10:58 PM, caze said:

 

  On 5/21/2016 at 10:49 PM, goDel said:

Wrt buying lossy or lossless formats, I'm personally in the lossless camp. Regardless of hearing any difference, I'd like to be able to convert lossless files into any kind of lossy format myself. If a newer better format becomes available, I'd prefer having the freedom to switch.

The irony is probably that I'm using smaller lossy files than you could buy at warp/bleep. The warp/bleep mp3's are 320kps right? I'm more in the vbr-camp myself. So most likely smaller filesize. ;p

 

Yeah, v0 makes the most sense most of the time. And the lossless conversion point is valid, however, it's probably a lot easier to just download the thing again if you need a different format at some point in the future. Also, mp3 doesn't look like it's going anywhere any time soon.

 

 

I'm going the mp4 route. (true VBR, not the apple average VBR version...) Saw some test years ago where mp4 performed as good if not better (in some cases) as lame mp3. Especially in the problem-samples department, i believe. There were some mp3 specific artefacts not present in mp4, or something along those lines.

 

But that was a couple of years ago, so might not count any more. As long as the compression is optimal and the sound is indistinguishable from the original, it's good. And compression is important, because there's not a lot of space on my phone...

 

Hopefully, your phone isn't the main source for your Autechre listening sessions. :-)

feed1 broke my right ear!

Wouldn't surprise me if some cutting-edge musicians started selling 8kbps 22050hz mp3s. The vinyl and cassette market can only hold for so long.

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:24 PM, goDel said:

 

feed1 broke my right ear!

^ yeah the DACs in these are pretty good actually

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:15 PM, Jev said:

I dunno, there were situations where I compared some of my music in 16 and 24 bits and I could feel (not hear, so might be a placebo) a difference. As if the audio was less sharp in certain situations (transients affected? not a math guy, dunno). But nothing scientific for sure. Just a feeling.

yeah, that would definitely be all in your head. bit depth only relates to dynamic range (the bits represent the volumes sampled for each tick of the freq) and 16 bits already allows for a far greater range than the human ear is capable of hearing (i.e. quieter than the quietest thing you can hear and louder than the loudest most deafening thing you can handle), not accuracy in reproduction of the waveform in any way (which is related to the sampling rate - though higher sampling rates that 44.1 are likely of no use to us either).

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:26 PM, caze said:

 

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:15 PM, Jev said:

I dunno, there were situations where I compared some of my music in 16 and 24 bits and I could feel (not hear, so might be a placebo) a difference. As if the audio was less sharp in certain situations (transients affected? not a math guy, dunno). But nothing scientific for sure. Just a feeling.

 

yeah, that would definitely be all in your head. bit depth only relates to dynamic range (the bits represent the volumes sampled for each tick of the freq) and 16 bits already allows for a far greater range than the human ear is capable of hearing (i.e. quieter than the quietest thing you can hear and louder than the loudest most deafening thing you can handle), not accuracy in reproduction of the waveform in any way (which is related to the sampling rate - though higher sampling rates that 44.1 are likely of no use to us either).

 

Dynamic range should be influencing peaks and transients though, no? Also, if you are listening really loud on a big stereo system (and therefore moving the noise floor to the hearable range) more dynamic range will help to prevent noise from being heard, no? I appreciate your answers. Thanks.

Also, 96.33 dB isn't the loudest possible thing you can handle (the value is the SNR of 16 bit audio).

My dog prefers the higher sampling rate!

  Quote

 

sorry for the derail.

C16 deep tread knocks pretty hard. Cool song.

yeah, so back to the topic at hand. listened to 3, 4, and 5 today. a lot more mellow than the first two for the most part (though plenty of mental bits as well). definitely prefer these ones overall to the first two. mesh eastre, cinearelal and foldfree casual are particularly amazing, not sure the names of the other tracks I loved, will listen again later tonight.

Yeah, for the people still on a limp (Jev), at least get parts 4 and 5. As other people have mentioned: these most likely have the tracks you'd prefer out of the bunch. My favs are on these as well.

Caze, I have sent you a PM if you don't mind.

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:37 PM, goDel said:

Yeah, for the people still on a limp (Jev), at least get parts 4 and 5. As other people have mentioned: these most likely have the tracks you'd prefer out of the bunch. My favs are on these as well.

Thank for the tips. Will check it more but I will probably still wait for some youtube/warez version to check properly before buying. The stopping previews really sucks. Band Camp is more fair than this.

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:30 PM, Jev said:

Dynamic range should be influencing peaks and transients though, no?

No. Transients are most affected by sampling rate, and more importantly compression (which can smear a transient out over time in certain cases depending on the settings, leading to a softer attack - though that shouldn't be a problem with high bitrate mp3s, and most of these things have been fixed in the current VBR formats too).

  Quote

 

 

Also, if you are listening really loud on a big stereo system (and therefore moving the noise floor to the hearable range) more dynamic range will help to prevent noise from being heard, no? I appreciate your answers. Thanks.

In theory, but that's well within the limits of 16 bit still. Technically 16-bit only provides 96db range (which is below the limits of human hearing), in practice though using dither and noise shaping that's liften well beyond the human hearing range (so the noise floor should still remain undetectable (by several orders of magnitude) even when played really loud, you'll definitely hear noise from your equipment before you'll hear any noise from anything else, you're probably more likely to hear the noise from the electrons before you hear noise from the samples!).

Elseq will capture all of you. you have no chance. You too, Jev. Matter of time. When will you stop listening with analytical intent, when you will lower the defenses, Elseq will take you behind and you'll can do nothing. I was caught last night, suddenly. There is no way back.

el seq

S0 g0od

what the fuck I recognize that break on 13x0 step, the heavily flanged jazz walyz-y one. what the fuck. this is really good stuff

They should just release everything in 128kbps mp3 for $5 and call it a day tbh

most of this stuff is really fucking funky shit. Really. robot fucking hip hop.

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:54 PM, caze said:

 

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:30 PM, Jev said:

Dynamic range should be influencing peaks and transients though, no?

 

No. Transients are most affected by sampling rate, and more importantly compression (which can smear a transient out over time in certain cases depending on the settings, leading to a softer attack - though that shouldn't be a problem with high bitrate mp3s, and most of these things have been fixed in the current VBR formats too).

 

  Quote

 

 

Also, if you are listening really loud on a big stereo system (and therefore moving the noise floor to the hearable range) more dynamic range will help to prevent noise from being heard, no? I appreciate your answers. Thanks.

 

In theory, but that's well within the limits of 16 bit still. Technically 16-bit only provides 96db range (which is below the limits of human hearing), in practice though using dither and noise shaping that's liften well beyond the human hearing range (so the noise floor should still remain undetectable (by several orders of magnitude) even when played really loud, you'll definitely hear noise from your equipment before you'll hear any noise from anything else, you're probably more likely to hear the noise from the electrons before you hear noise from the samples!).

 

You are probably right. I have just finished reading an article about this.

But (!) they have made a very interesting point. 24 bit audio makes digital FX and processors work with less errors (bit depth when amplitude is being manipulated, sampling frequency when time is being manipulated) so a 24 bit render might sound different than a 16 bit render (if the signal chain is really big and complex, I believe you could hear some differences).

However, if AE rendered "master files" in 24 bits and WARP then converted them to 16 bit FLACs and MP3s there should be no hearable difference in the final signal.

Different story would be if AE rendered the files separately directly from a DAW directly to 24 bit WAVs, 16 bit FLACs and MP3s but since DAWs probably have some internal rendering resolution settings before they commit the signal to audio files that would probably doesn't matter either unless AE would deliberately tweaked the DAWs settings which would make them trolls and dicks and that is unlikely lol. So yeah. Seems like 16 bit FLACs are a perfectly complete product.

Workingman's Autechre, this is

spTh is like a well adjusted Osla for n... he's since stopped picking at his acne, maybe even got laid. Feeling more confident, cocksure

spaces how V is runrepik on benzodiazepines.. the paranoia is still there, but it's far more manageable. External stimuli is being filtered somewhat, everything is subdued. Less in a hurry, there's room to breathe. still, fucked up

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:57 PM, AE35unit said:

Elseq will capture all of you. you have no chance. You too, Jev. Matter of time. When will you stop listening with analytical intent, when you will lower the defenses, Elseq will take you behind and you'll can do nothing. I was caught last night, suddenly. There is no way back.

I would never deliberately listen without analytical intent. That would be just fooling oneself that a product is amazing even if it is not (hypothetically, as I believe it is really good but I am not sure about all the tracks).

  On 5/22/2016 at 12:22 AM, Jev said:

 

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:57 PM, AE35unit said:

Elseq will capture all of you. you have no chance. You too, Jev. Matter of time. When will you stop listening with analytical intent, when you will lower the defenses, Elseq will take you behind and you'll can do nothing. I was caught last night, suddenly. There is no way back.

 

I would never deliberately listen without analytical intent. That would be just fooling oneself that a product is amazing even if it is not (hypothetically, as I believe it is really good but I am not sure about all the tracks).

 

this is badass in a silly way

Yeah I hate it too when I enjoy music

Ill ask again in case my question got missed by someone with the facts...any information on who mastered this? The entire release has this weird dulled quality to it and it's irking me. I'm thinking it's related more to the production than the mastering, though I'm trying to round up information...

Lossless>lossy. Duh. Many people can't tell a difference, and I'm not saying I always can, but sometimes it is obvious and distracts from the music, so I rarely go MP3 if I can help it.

Currently 1 & 4 are the standouts to me, but there's some tasty on every one...strangely simple while simultaneously being very complex. I'm also wondering if this is their swan song with this version of their Max setup...after touring with it for years, releasing versions of those tour recordings (with hopefully more down the road!), and now his mass of tunes, maybe they're purging the archives in order to move on to a refreshed setup, or start working more with some hardware again...

  On 5/22/2016 at 12:22 AM, Jev said:

 

  On 5/21/2016 at 11:57 PM, AE35unit said:

Elseq will capture all of you. you have no chance. You too, Jev. Matter of time. When will you stop listening with analytical intent, when you will lower the defenses, Elseq will take you behind and you'll can do nothing. I was caught last night, suddenly. There is no way back.

 

I would never deliberately listen without analytical intent. That would be just fooling oneself that a product is amazing even if it is not (hypothetically, as I believe it is really good but I am not sure about all the tracks).

 

Maybe you, but at first I had an analytical approach, I was focused on the details, trying to find the relations between melodies and percussion, expecting a possible metamorphosis eccetera. Then - after I do not know how many plays - started doing other things, I felt overpower be something huge. All things have been clear. We all know how it is premature to judge Ae after only three days, but a feeling so powerful, pervasive and rapid, I never had it in the past. It seems to me that they have set a new standard.

I simply analytically enjoy music. There is a content and I want to hear it all if possible (not possible I know). What is wrong with that if the content matters? I am not satisfied hearing macro only. I am satisfied hearing micro and connecting it to macro. That was always the main reason why I enjoyed AE and some Drukqs material so much. Those incredibly detailed compositions with all those mutually interconnected elements creating amazing compositions - therefore creating amazing music, creating a final context. Every single piece of the music matters. If I can hear "mistakes" or stuff I don't like, they are still there and I hear them and that eventually influences my final emotion from the music. I think, guys, you misunderstand what analytical listening means in my context. I have a very good music memory (unfortunately) and once I find out about something I dislike it is there to stay. If there are elements that I can hear, those elements has to be good. Simple as that. What is wrong with it? Are you all listening to the music only on your way to work when sitting in a bus? I am not.

so are you content in having a fixed subjective musical interpretation of what sounds 'good' and 'bad' or do you leave room open for your interpretation to be changed?