elseq 1-5

[vamos scorcho]

From yesterday's listen I felt the same way about spaces how V that someone previously mentioned. Seems to be an epilogue to Nodezsh. Super chill vibezzzz on elseq5.

 

To add some buzzkill to the discussion, the one I was least into upon yesterday's complete playthrough was elseq3. Would maybe work better if eastre and mesh cinereaL swapped positions? As it is you have 29minute build up to mesh cinereaL.

This was a listen while walking with headphones though, possibly elseq3 is more suited to sat-on-arse listening.

It was definitely sort of like the part of the movie where the character goes into a coma and is wandering around in some alternate universe.

[TheTransitionary]

fingers crossed for an interview soon, would be good to hear some of the background to this release

[dumplings]

curvcaten is blowing my mind, my car absolutely rattles with a little volume on this track.

 

Also, I love the last moment on pendulu hv moda; sounds like some alternate being talking or something.

 

It's been elseq 1 all day today. I might crack into 2 tomorrow.

[jaderpansen]

yeh obviously this is just leftover material from a night they accidentally left their msps and win audiorecorder running. the real record properly edited and composed is coming when they'll have more time on their hands, on good old vinylcassettes. yeah.

 

...

 

srsly, if they "jammed" this one out they really fucking made it in terms of realtime composing etc...

[baph]

I bought these but am waiting for a good time to digest. Still working on the last batch of AE_LIVE. Overwhelmed in the best way. AE for presidents.

[ScaldedBorneo]

yeh obviously this is just leftover material from a night they accidentally left their msps and win audiorecorder running. the real record properly edited and composed is coming when they'll have more time on their hands, on good old vinylcassettes. yeah.

 

...

 

srsly, if they "jammed" this one out they really fucking made it in terms of realtime composing etc...

It just feels like a Quadrange situation. This is stuff that they want to release in a more unedited form. But you're also kinda right, now that I think about it, so I will take some blame in saying some stupid things.

[Xayn]

 

 

Debbie Downer here,

 

I was over at sputnik and someone commented on the price. To clarify, $33 dollars for a ton of music seems reasonable. But does anyone know why it costs more and more to buy WAVs and FLAC when you purchase more music? I was looking around bleep and spotted an EP that costs 14% more from mp3 to wav, an album that costs 33% more, and finally this, which is 67% more. Seems kinda fucked up.

 

It's ok, there's no valid reason to buy anything other than the mp3, so just think of the markup as an idiot-tax and everything's right with the world.

 

 

 

The FLAC tax. Yeah, despite all the hype among audiophiles there is virtually no discernible difference between 24 bit WAVs and mp3s. I mean, it's real. But it's only slightly realer than the parables of Jesus.

 

 

Just copped the MP3s, downloading now.

 

 

Archiving. Even if I could never tell the difference, I always save the very best quality I can find; doing otherwise just seems silly to me. Why explicitely pay for an inferior version?

 

For me the increased price is completely inconsequential in that regard, but then again I'm not familiar with the employment status of most people here.

[caze]

what's inferior about it? in what exact way is it better quality? there is zero reason for the 24bit wav certainly (all you're paying for there is extra dynamic range which isn't being used), even if there might be some theoretical chance of a slight difference between the mp3 and the flac (even then it's unlikely anyone could actually tell the difference between anyway).

Edited May 21, 2016 by caze

[Hail Sagan]

 

 

 

Debbie Downer here,

 

I was over at sputnik and someone commented on the price. To clarify, $33 dollars for a ton of music seems reasonable. But does anyone know why it costs more and more to buy WAVs and FLAC when you purchase more music? I was looking around bleep and spotted an EP that costs 14% more from mp3 to wav, an album that costs 33% more, and finally this, which is 67% more. Seems kinda fucked up.

 

It's ok, there's no valid reason to buy anything other than the mp3, so just think of the markup as an idiot-tax and everything's right with the world.

 

 

 

The FLAC tax. Yeah, despite all the hype among audiophiles there is virtually no discernible difference between 24 bit WAVs and mp3s. I mean, it's real. But it's only slightly realer than the parables of Jesus.

 

 

Just copped the MP3s, downloading now.

 

 

Archiving. Even if I could never tell the difference, I always save the very best quality I can find; doing otherwise just seems silly to me. Why explicitely pay for an inferior version?

 

For me the increased price is completely inconsequential in that regard, but then again I'm not familiar with the employment status of most people here.

 

 

 

1) costs less

2) sounds the same

 

seems impractical and shitty to pay 66% more for the other version. the only cogent argument that's been made is wanting to put more money in æ's pockets, in which case it's understandable. Other than that it's complete bullshit that it costs that much more.

[caze]

 

 

 

 

Debbie Downer here,

 

I was over at sputnik and someone commented on the price. To clarify, $33 dollars for a ton of music seems reasonable. But does anyone know why it costs more and more to buy WAVs and FLAC when you purchase more music? I was looking around bleep and spotted an EP that costs 14% more from mp3 to wav, an album that costs 33% more, and finally this, which is 67% more. Seems kinda fucked up.

 

It's ok, there's no valid reason to buy anything other than the mp3, so just think of the markup as an idiot-tax and everything's right with the world.

 

 

 

The FLAC tax. Yeah, despite all the hype among audiophiles there is virtually no discernible difference between 24 bit WAVs and mp3s. I mean, it's real. But it's only slightly realer than the parables of Jesus.

 

 

Just copped the MP3s, downloading now.

 

 

Archiving. Even if I could never tell the difference, I always save the very best quality I can find; doing otherwise just seems silly to me. Why explicitely pay for an inferior version?

 

For me the increased price is completely inconsequential in that regard, but then again I'm not familiar with the employment status of most people here.

 

 

 

1) costs less

2) sounds the same

 

seems impractical and shitty to pay 66% more for the other version. the only cogent argument that's been made is wanting to put more money in æ's pockets, in which case it's understandable. Other than that it's complete bullshit that it costs that much more.

 

 

well from their point of view it costs more in terms of bandwidth and storage, but from the listeners point of view it isn't worth any more in any real sense.

[zlemflolia]

 

 

 

Debbie Downer here,

 

I was over at sputnik and someone commented on the price. To clarify, $33 dollars for a ton of music seems reasonable. But does anyone know why it costs more and more to buy WAVs and FLAC when you purchase more music? I was looking around bleep and spotted an EP that costs 14% more from mp3 to wav, an album that costs 33% more, and finally this, which is 67% more. Seems kinda fucked up.

 

It's ok, there's no valid reason to buy anything other than the mp3, so just think of the markup as an idiot-tax and everything's right with the world.

 

 

 

The FLAC tax. Yeah, despite all the hype among audiophiles there is virtually no discernible difference between 24 bit WAVs and mp3s. I mean, it's real. But it's only slightly realer than the parables of Jesus.

 

 

Just copped the MP3s, downloading now.

 

 

Archiving. Even if I could never tell the difference, I always save the very best quality I can find; doing otherwise just seems silly to me. Why explicitely pay for an inferior version?

 

For me the increased price is completely inconsequential in that regard, but then again I'm not familiar with the employment status of most people here.

 

 

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a6eb2cb4661896455617443fb72cf498?s=125&d=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.watmm.com%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_images%2Fchameleon_dark%2Fprofile%2Fdefault_large.png

Edited May 21, 2016 by Zeffolia

[zlemflolia]

 

 

 

 

 

Debbie Downer here,

 

I was over at sputnik and someone commented on the price. To clarify, $33 dollars for a ton of music seems reasonable. But does anyone know why it costs more and more to buy WAVs and FLAC when you purchase more music? I was looking around bleep and spotted an EP that costs 14% more from mp3 to wav, an album that costs 33% more, and finally this, which is 67% more. Seems kinda fucked up.

 

It's ok, there's no valid reason to buy anything other than the mp3, so just think of the markup as an idiot-tax and everything's right with the world.

 

 

 

The FLAC tax. Yeah, despite all the hype among audiophiles there is virtually no discernible difference between 24 bit WAVs and mp3s. I mean, it's real. But it's only slightly realer than the parables of Jesus.

 

 

Just copped the MP3s, downloading now.

 

 

Archiving. Even if I could never tell the difference, I always save the very best quality I can find; doing otherwise just seems silly to me. Why explicitely pay for an inferior version?

 

For me the increased price is completely inconsequential in that regard, but then again I'm not familiar with the employment status of most people here.

 

 

 

1) costs less

2) sounds the same

 

seems impractical and shitty to pay 66% more for the other version. the only cogent argument that's been made is wanting to put more money in æ's pockets, in which case it's understandable. Other than that it's complete bullshit that it costs that much more.

 

 

well from their point of view it costs more in terms of bandwidth and storage, but from the listeners point of view it isn't worth any more in any real sense.

 

 

It does not cost more in terms of storage, people keep repeating this but it's nonsense. A 1TB hard drive costs probably $60 when bought in bulk, server probably is RAID 10 so multiply that by 4. $240 for 1TB of storage with redundancy, let's pretend the FLACs take 4GB of space that's like $1 worth of storage space, one time.

 

Only real cost is bandwidth

Edited May 21, 2016 by Zeffolia

[sweepstakes]

You could argue that the textures and transients are more intact but yeah you'd probably need cat ears to hear the difference.

[Hail Sagan]

 

 

 

 

 

Debbie Downer here,

 

I was over at sputnik and someone commented on the price. To clarify, $33 dollars for a ton of music seems reasonable. But does anyone know why it costs more and more to buy WAVs and FLAC when you purchase more music? I was looking around bleep and spotted an EP that costs 14% more from mp3 to wav, an album that costs 33% more, and finally this, which is 67% more. Seems kinda fucked up.

 

It's ok, there's no valid reason to buy anything other than the mp3, so just think of the markup as an idiot-tax and everything's right with the world.

 

 

 

The FLAC tax. Yeah, despite all the hype among audiophiles there is virtually no discernible difference between 24 bit WAVs and mp3s. I mean, it's real. But it's only slightly realer than the parables of Jesus.

 

 

Just copped the MP3s, downloading now.

 

 

Archiving. Even if I could never tell the difference, I always save the very best quality I can find; doing otherwise just seems silly to me. Why explicitely pay for an inferior version?

 

For me the increased price is completely inconsequential in that regard, but then again I'm not familiar with the employment status of most people here.

 

 

 

1) costs less

2) sounds the same

 

seems impractical and shitty to pay 66% more for the other version. the only cogent argument that's been made is wanting to put more money in æ's pockets, in which case it's understandable. Other than that it's complete bullshit that it costs that much more.

 

 

well from their point of view it costs more in terms of bandwidth and storage, but from the listeners point of view it isn't worth any more in any real sense.

 

 

 

So how does band camp get by giving away a ton of albums, many of which are free, in any format you like without charging more cash? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't understand how this works (obviously). So there's some multiplicative factor involved when you scale up the file size of whatever you're selling? eps are approx 14% whereas a purchase consisting of 5 eps is marked up 66%?

[Bubba69]

honestly I like this shit better than most of their albums.

[caze]

It does not cost more in terms of storage, people keep repeating this but it's nonsense. A 1TB hard drive costs probably $60 when bought in bulk, server probably is RAID 10 so multiply that by 4. $240 for 1TB of storage with redundancy, let's pretend the FLACs take 4GB of space that's like $1 worth of storage space, one time.

 

Only real cost is bandwidth

 

true.

You could argue that the textures and transients are more intact but yeah you'd probably need cat ears to hear the difference.

 

more intact in which format vs which other format? there will be zero difference (in a mathematically provable way) between the transients in the flac and the 24bit wav.

[xox]

24bit audio makes sense only for audio files prior the mastering stage // cause headroom~noise floor

[goDel]

 

So how does band camp get by giving away a ton of albums, many of which are free, in any format you like without charging more cash? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't understand how this works (obviously). So there's some multiplicative factor involved when you scale up the file size of whatever you're selling? eps are approx 14% whereas a purchase consisting of 5 eps is marked up 66%?

 

 

I wouldn't assume bandcamp is 'getting by'. Haven't seen any numbers, but bandcamp might be doing just as good as Tesla. Meaning, they're still losing a lot of money but there's plenty of potential for investors to behave like angels. I wouldnt conclude that because bandcamp seems to be able to survive without having people pay the lossless tax, warp/bleep could do so as well.

 

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

[caze]

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.

Edited May 21, 2016 by caze

[TheTransitionary]

With disk space so cheap nowadays I don't see much reason not to go lossless if you're really into music, it's nice to have the .flac files (plus log and cue if it's from a CD) just so you know you have a true digitised exact copy of the CD that you can use to create more identical CDs in future or create as many transcodes in as many formats as you like from.

[Hail Sagan]

^That's how I like to think of band camp. I'm sure they're planning a global corporate take over just like every other business out there but man, it's a pretty sweet time to be customer.

[Hail Sagan]

sorry for the derail.

 

C16 deep tread knocks pretty hard. Cool song.

[caze]

With disk space so cheap nowadays I don't see much reason not to go lossless if you're really into music, it's nice to have the .flac files (plus log and cue if it's from a CD) just so you know you have a true digitised exact copy of the CD that you can use to create more identical CDs in future or create as many transcodes in as many formats as you like from.

 

I don't think we're quite there yet with the inconsequentiality of disk space, especially with the move to SSDs, and especially if your drives are filled up with HD video like mine are.

[Guest WNS000]

what's inferior about it? in what exact way is it better quality? there is zero reason for the 24bit wav certainly (all you're paying for there is extra dynamic range which isn't being used), even if there might be some theoretical chance of a slight difference between the mp3 and the flac (even then it's unlikely anyone could actually tell the difference between anyway).

 

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.

 

I would go for the FLACs. MP3s has lower quality but at 320 kbps it is hardly hearable (if at all and probably only in very specific situations). Unless you are an audiophile with a high quality system (headphones) 320 MP3s should be completely sufficient IMO.

 

Although FLACs are worthy if you wish to convert to other formats yourself because transcoding from lossy formats (MP3) is degrading the quality further. I prefer OGG to MP3s because of replaygain feature in my Rockboxed player so I would probably go for lossless. I am still not sure if I am going to buy this though. Previews aren't sufficient check for me.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Jev

[goDel]

 

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...