Autechre Autechre - Oversteps (WARP210) [The MegaThread]

[BobDobalina]

yeah the 24-bit is where it's at. i can't wait to turn my KRK8's up...mmmmmm

pre-ordered CD + 16bit ...But the 24bit version, do you reckon that has been slapped out there to encourage remixing or just for high-quality listening wet-dream headphone pleasure??? OR BOTH?

 

I wonder. Being the audiophile I am I opted for the 24-bit version. I'm hoping it takes advantage of the dynamic range of 24-bit (eg uses less compression/has more depth or something). Quaristice would probably have benefited from that as well, it has a lot of super quiet and subtle things in the mixes.

 

Sorry guys but the 24-bit is quite pointless audiophile wankery. You could put Rudy van Gelder in an isolation booth better than anything in existence today with million dollar monitors, and he still couldn't tell the difference between 16 and 24.

 

At least Warp isn't charging more for 24-bit.

 

I tried hard to refrain from calling anyone an idiot but after reading some of the subsequent posts I can safely say that there are idiots afoot, yep

Edited January 28, 2010 by Bob Dobalina

[thehauntingsoul]

Sorry guys but the 24-bit is quite pointless audiophile wankery. You could put Rudy van Gelder in an isolation booth better than anything in existence today with million dollar monitors, and he still couldn't tell the difference between 16 and 24.

 

At least Warp isn't charging more for 24-bit.

 

from the link o00o posted:

Lets talk about sample rate and the Nyquist Theory. This theory is that the actual upper threshold of a piece of digital audio will top out at half the sample rate. So if you are recording at 44.1, the highest frequencies generated will be around 22kHz. That is 2khz higher than the typical human with excellent hearing can hear. Now we get into the real voodoo. Audiophiles have claimed since the beginning of digital audio that vinyl records on an analog system sound better than digital audio. Indeed, you can find evidence that analog recording and playback equipment can be measured up to 50khz, over twice our threshold of hearing. Here's the great mystery. The theory is that audio energy, even though we don't hear it, exists as has an effect on the lower frequencies we do hear. Back to the Nyquist theory, a 96khz sample rate will translate into potential audio output at 48khz, not too far from the finest analog sound reproduction. This leads one to surmise that the same principle is at work. The audio is improved in a threshold we cannot perceive and it makes what we can hear "better". Like I said, it's voodoo.

Edited January 28, 2010 by thehauntingsoul

[BobDobalina]

yep, that the technical shit. But you can't call x "better" than y if you can't hear any difference between them. Being able to discern between 16 and 24 is beyond the limits of human hearing.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Bob Dobalina

[thehauntingsoul]

yep, that the technical shit. But you can't call x "better" than y if you can't hear any the difference between them. Being able to discern between 16 and 24 is beyond the limits of human hearing.

You're missing the point. Some people can tell the difference after having listened to both several times, as the upper frequencies that are beyond the human hearing range alter the lower frequencies that we can here, so while we don't hear the higher frequencies, what we can still hear is going to sound better.

[BobDobalina]

You're missing the point. Some people can tell the difference after having listened to both several times, as the upper frequencies that are beyond the human hearing range alter the lower frequencies that we can here, so while we don't hear the higher frequencies, what we can still hear is going to sound better.

Nope, sorry but that's bullshit, anyone who claims they can tell the difference is either lying or deluded by their bias towards wanting the "hi-res" to sound better. It's why proper listening tests are conducted blindly - see this article on blind testing and this article on ABX at hydrogenaudio. No one has ever been able blindly tell the difference between 24 and 16.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Bob Dobalina

[gl0tch]

All this dork talk is making my dick soft. Did this shit leak yet or what? Can someone make this happen sooner than later?!? Geez.

[TwiddleBot]

There's some confusion here methinks.

 

Simply put, the -frequency rate- in KHz determines how high the frequencies go. 44Khz CD .wave file==frequencies up to 22Khz, but of course the filters will be rolling those top frequencies off. 96KHz records frequencies up to

 

-Bit rate- determines how loud and quiet the sounds can be and how much detail is in the dynamic range. With 16-bit, you have 65536 quantized steps from silent to maximum volume. With 24 bit, you have millions of steps from quiet to max.

 

Hence one should always record in 24-bit. As soon as you start adjusting volumes/levels in the mix, or have quieter sounds you want to bring out, you'll be SO glad you had all that extra information at your disposal. Double or quadruple the volume of a sound, suddenly you have huge quantized gaps in the dynamic range of the sound.

 

The hydrogenaudio tests above are hardly convincing--firstly they are on home user equipment. There is no 16 vs 24 bit test in that link. Having spent a chunk of my life around audio professionals, I assure you, a trained ear, in a decent room, on decent gear, will be able to tell 16-bit from 24-bit. 16-bit has nowhere near the noise floor or dynamic range of 24-bit. And no, you wan't be able to tell the difference on a pair of Ipod headphones. Try an isolated room with a pair of dynaudio air 25's and yes, you probably would.

[awepittance]

if only I could get my Fiancée to dig tunes like paralel suns..

 

there are plenty of fish in the sea

Edited January 28, 2010 by Awepittance

[azatoth]

all this audiophile crap is a lot like homeopathy or crystal healing. placebo BS.

 

also, how many listeners really have top-end super duper audio professional equipment at home? and those that do are sure to say they can hear the difference just to justify why they wasted thousands to buy crap they really didn't need.

Edited January 28, 2010 by azatoth

[TwiddleBot]

you can sure tell who failed their recording 101 classes. i mean, this shit is pretty basic ;)

 

those who don't have studio monitors and a decent room don't need the 24-bit version.

 

those who do have the gear and can tell the difference are going to enjoy the 24-bit version all the more. :)

Edited January 28, 2010 by TwiddleBot

[BobDobalina]

Having spent a chunk of my life around audio professionals, I assure you, a trained ear, in a decent room, on decent gear, will be able to tell 16-bit from 24-bit. 16-bit has nowhere near the noise floor or dynamic range of 24-bit. And no, you wan't be able to tell the difference on a pair of Ipod headphones. Try an isolated room with a pair of dynaudio air 25's and yes, you probably would.

Okay, then surely there must at least one research study out there where someone has successfully distinguished a 16- vs. 24-bit recording in an ABX test. Care to find one? Until then I cordially invite you to shut the fuck up.

 

You also can go on all you want about the theory, but it's a matter of human audio perception, and yeah 16 bits are quite enough for any human being.

 

But fuck it, if you think it's better, go enjoy it!

Edited January 28, 2010 by Bob Dobalina

[awepittance]

Bit rate- determines how loud and quiet the sounds can be and how much detail is in the dynamic range. With 16-bit, you have 65536 quantized steps from silent to maximum volume. With 24 bit, you have millions of steps from quiet to max.

 

Hence one should always record in 24-bit. As soon as you start adjusting volumes/levels in the mix, or have quieter sounds you want to bring out, you'll be SO glad you had all that extra information at your disposal. Double or quadruple the volume of a sound, suddenly you have huge quantized gaps in the dynamic range of the sound.

 

i have an audio engineering degree, and while what you've said here is technically true, the quantized steps thing. the 2nd part of what you say is a tad exaggerated. Only if you are mastering/mixing something that is super dedicated to the art of expressing the dynamic range like minimalist academic ambient music or quiet classical stuff would you hear anything remotely like what you described above. I would be really surprised if there was a perceivable difference between 24-bit oversteps and 16-bit oversteps. Most music doesn't try to have a very dynamic range these days, but hey i'll eat my Shoe if Oversteps was like Autechre's least compressed album.

 

there will always be people who like to play the flea circus in front of you and claim they can 'hear' things you can't but most of the time it's bullshit, if they are trained in audio engineering or not

Edited January 28, 2010 by Awepittance

[gl0tch]

I don't care. At this point I'd listen to 64kbps mp3s just to fucking at least know what this shit is about. Clearly you guys are bored waiting for this to leak/drop.

[Guest bitroast]

lol let's all post on the internet and whinge about bleep releasing the new autechre album in the highest quality format.

[oscillik]

Having spent a chunk of my life around audio professionals, I assure you, a trained ear, in a decent room, on decent gear, will be able to tell 16-bit from 24-bit. 16-bit has nowhere near the noise floor or dynamic range of 24-bit. And no, you wan't be able to tell the difference on a pair of Ipod headphones. Try an isolated room with a pair of dynaudio air 25's and yes, you probably would.

Okay, then surely there must at least one research study out there where someone has successfully distinguished a 16- vs. 24-bit recording in an ABX test. Care to find one? Until then I cordially invite you to shut the fuck up.

 

You also can go on all you want about the theory, but it's a matter of human audio perception, and yeah 16 bits are quite enough for any human being.

 

But fuck it, if you think it's better, go enjoy it!

 

your logic is as follows:

 

"i'm right, you're wrong."

 

i'm glad that your hearing is digital, and not analogue. i was under the assumption that humans had analogue hearing, but i see that you have strong evidence to the contrary.

[sweepstakes]

lol @ Back to the Future 2 cap

[Hautlle]

So is this shit gonna leak soon? You guys are getting blueballs and it's showing big time

[Guest Renivatio]

As long as there are tunes like 6IE.CR on oversteps, i'd be happy to wait even if no leaks turn up.

[Guest bardamu]

Nice Translator renders the same text as "Journal panel will add a bonus track in Japan" which, since all the track names are in Roman script, and the last note about the bonus track is in Japanese text, means that it's probably a descriptive sentence about the label adding a track, rather than a track name.

Other translators say "The board in Japan is bonus truck additional collecting", "Dial Japan Journal added bonus track", "As for the Japanese domestic board bonus track/truck additional recording".

My guess is that the "journal panel" or "board" is equivalent to English "tracklist" - so the sentence means that there will be an additional track added to the tracklist for Japan.

Man, I think it would be quicker to learn Japanese at this rate.

 

[[long time lurker; first post, hope its helpful]]

 

I speak Japanese. No idea where "dial the journal" came from in that google translation. It simply says the Japanese version will have an extra, exclusive track, but doesn't give any names/info.

[six]

Thanks dude, welcome to WATMM, read the rules.

[TwiddleBot]

Only if you are mastering/mixing something that is super dedicated to the art of expressing the dynamic range like minimalist academic ambient music or quiet classical stuff would you hear anything remotely like what you described above.

 

Thank you for an intelligent response :)

 

That probably explains it, as that is the circles I usually move in (being a musician myself) and the mastering rooms+mastering engineers I've gotten to hang out with are dedicated to that kind of music.. being in Montreal I'm in the middle of the acousmatic scene, folks like francis dhomont and robert normandeau, who are all about setting up big multichannel systems in spaces and using a great deal of dynamic range. Anyway, hence when opting for the 24-bit I'm hoping the new album takes advantage of the increased dynamic range. And of course you're totally right, for most compressed music the extra bits would make little discernible difference if any.

 

OK back to impatiently waiting for the new album :)

Edited January 28, 2010 by TwiddleBot

[splesh]

As long as there are tunes like 6IE.CR on oversteps, i'd be happy to wait even if no leaks turn up.

 

But that's not even a bad song.

[hot for baphomet]

The hydrogenaudio tests above are hardly convincing--firstly they are on home user equipment. There is no 16 vs 24 bit test in that link. Having spent a chunk of my life around audio professionals, I assure you, a trained ear, in a decent room, on decent gear, will be able to tell 16-bit from 24-bit. 16-bit has nowhere near the noise floor or dynamic range of 24-bit. And no, you wan't be able to tell the difference on a pair of Ipod headphones. Try an isolated room with a pair of dynaudio air 25's and yes, you probably would.

 

having spent a chunk of my life around god, i assure you, a trained theosophian, in a decent room, on decent gear, will kick more ass than anyone who worries about those 8 bits which seperate us all.

[hot for baphomet]

being in Montreal I'm in the middle of the acousmatic scene, folks like francis dhomont and robert normandeau, who are all about setting up big multichannel systems in spaces and using a great deal of dynamic range.

 

Acousmatic music is a form of electroacoustic music that deals specifically with acousmatic sound as a compositional resource. The practice has a historical basis in musique concrete. It can be created using non-acoustic technology, exists only in a recorded format (as a fixed medium), and is composed for reception via loudspeakers. The compositional material is not restricted to the inclusion of sonorities derived from musical instruments or voices, nor to elements traditionally thought of as 'musical' (melody, harmony, rhythm, metre and so on), but rather admits any sound, acoustic or synthetic. With the aid of various technologies, such as digital signal processing tools and digital audio workstations, this material can then be combined, juxtaposed, and transformed, in any conceivable manner. In this context the compositional method can be seen as a process of sound organisation: a term first used by the French composer Edgard Varèse[1]

 

holy FUCKING SHIT i swear i'm just going to go back and listen to lady gaga and start dancing pointlessly in the hope that my being a low-iq heathen will offset at least 10 of you acousmatic scene fucks.

 

THERE IS NO ACOUSMATIC SCENE. THERE ARE ONLY SUPPORT GROUPS!

[six]

Sacrifice yourself at the altar of Lady Gaga

Edited January 28, 2010 by six