Jump to content
IGNORED

Regarding ICBYD vinyl vs. CD


Guest Jackson Michaels

Recommended Posts

Guest Calx Sherbet

You're right about the frequencies. Partly. Most people can hear frequencies between 16-17 Hz. Some (particularly young people) can hear between 17-18 Hz. Above that it's just mumbo jumbo audiophile bullshit.

 

 

you're retarded

 

How?

 

Edit: The audiophile mumbo jumbo part is a joke.

 

audiophiles bother me to no end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You're right about the frequencies. Partly. Most people can hear frequencies between 16-17 Hz. Some (particularly young people) can hear between 17-18 Hz. Above that it's just mumbo jumbo audiophile bullshit.

 

 

you're retarded

 

How?

 

Edit: The audiophile mumbo jumbo part is a joke.

 

too late

classification has already been printed into next year's textbook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv_party

ICBYD at 192 sounds perfect to me.....Then again, I can't hear a difference between a wav file and an mp3 at 192...Try it. HERE'S A BOLD STATEMENT: NO ONE CAN. Welcome new member. You'll have to get over the fact that no one here wants to talk about anything. They just wait for the perfect opportunity to say something smart-ass..

 

...

 

ya it becomes difficult for me at 192, but I think with close scrutiny I could pick it out. I still always go 320 for insurance.

 

I know that infrasonic frequencies can subconsciously affect the listening experience, but can ultrasonic frequencies also do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine a lot of it is sampled sounds (banging metal gates, percussive hits and sounds from analogue synths etc). Around the time I would say a typical sampler would operate at a 32Khz sample rate which would result in the highest replayable frequency being 16Khz.. so nothing missing just never there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest no carrier

how much could i fetch on ebay with my ICBYD vinyl i wonder

 

I'll sell you my ICBYD vinyl...

 

Name your price

 

ITT: blasphemy.

 

btw i think i'm possibly some sort of a magnet for aphex twin records as i somehow ended up with an extra copy of the first 12". i gave it to a friend of mine as part of a birthday gift of vinyl doubles (check em).

 

holy shit! on discogs.com the vinyls range from $35.99 to $99.99 in american currency. i had no idea that this album would end up being even more valuable than the ventolin 2x12", which still stands as my most expensive vinyl purchase at $30 (it was there IRL staring me down and i think i damn near wet myself)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine a lot of it is sampled sounds (banging metal gates, percussive hits and sounds from analogue synths etc). Around the time I would say a typical sampler would operate at a 32Khz sample rate which would result in the highest replayable frequency being 16Khz.. so nothing missing just never there in the first place.

this seems to be the most logical conclusion. and also that pre-1995, none of aphex twin's output was particularly high fidelity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine a lot of it is sampled sounds (banging metal gates, percussive hits and sounds from analogue synths etc). Around the time I would say a typical sampler would operate at a 32Khz sample rate which would result in the highest replayable frequency being 16Khz.. so nothing missing just never there in the first place.

Akai S1000 could do 44.1KHz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holy shit! on discogs.com the vinyls range from $35.99 to $99.99 in american currency. i had no idea that this album would end up being even more valuable than the ventolin 2x12", which still stands as my most expensive vinyl purchase at $30 (it was there IRL staring me down and i think i damn near wet myself)

 

 

 

I bought the 2x12" for £1.99 each when it came out

 

IN YOUR FACE FUCKPANTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ha! that's nothing, the other day, i was walking down the street, and some guy in a passing car threw a whole bunch of shrinkwrapped, mint condition copies of the SAWII brown 3xLP at me! i managed to catch most of them, and the ones that got damaged made a great meal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol i wasn't trying to defend the integrity of the album. i don't really give a shit how it was mastered, it's one of his weaker releases imo. just thought you sounded like a pretentious dick so i wanted to call you out on it.

 

Do you still think I'm a pretentious dick?

 

Personally I think you sound like a teenager.

 

First you better stop waiving it like a feather-duster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jackson Michaels

lol i wasn't trying to defend the integrity of the album. i don't really give a shit how it was mastered, it's one of his weaker releases imo. just thought you sounded like a pretentious dick so i wanted to call you out on it.

 

Do you still think I'm a pretentious dick?

 

Personally I think you sound like a teenager.

 

First you better stop waiving it like a feather-duster.

 

IMG_01495.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine a lot of it is sampled sounds (banging metal gates, percussive hits and sounds from analogue synths etc). Around the time I would say a typical sampler would operate at a 32Khz sample rate which would result in the highest replayable frequency being 16Khz.. so nothing missing just never there in the first place.

 

most accurate observation in thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine a lot of it is sampled sounds (banging metal gates, percussive hits and sounds from analogue synths etc). Around the time I would say a typical sampler would operate at a 32Khz sample rate which would result in the highest replayable frequency being 16Khz.. so nothing missing just never there in the first place.

 

most accurate observation in thread

except that the Akai S1000 could do 16 bit 44.1KHz sampling, and that was released in 1988, and i would hazard a guess that the S1000 was quite popular amongst music makers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true, except i thought aphex had an affinity for using low bit rates to sample things. I know he used the Sequential Circuits Studio 440 which can sample almost up to 44.1 but has very small memory space. It had an adjustable sampling rate so it would make sense to me that he might have done it to save space or just for purely sonic purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true, except i thought aphex had an affinity for using low bit rates to sample things. I know he used the Sequential Circuits Studio 440 which can sample almost up to 44.1 but has very small memory space. It had an adjustable sampling rate so it would make sense to me that he might have done it to save space or just for purely sonic purposes.

yeah i'd agree with this...even the S900 could do 40KHz sampling. but yeah, space restrictions and all that.

 

anyway, i was just being a pretentious cunt by saying that his post wasn't wholly accurate :trashbear:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.