Jump to content

I Care Because You Do - Hidden Messages


Guest dsm1

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is why I love running WATMM ?

I just found out that if you reverse the tracklisting of the album, the songs will play in a different order.

Posted Images

Every release. I remember the good old days of OiNK and what.cd and ICBYD was ”flagged” as being lossy, so I assume it’s baked into the original master? I could have a look at the spectrals myself but can’t be bothered to start the computer right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm never heard about that for ICBYD. Lossy formats weren't really a big thing back in 1995 IIRC. I did remember reading that when they were trying to scrounge up gracks for 26 Mixes For Cash that they had to use some lossy formats for a few of the tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

given the varying dates on the tracklist, there may be a mix of lossy/lossless sources if anything. spectrals are super easy in audacity these days so i'll check it when at my desk.

related: a short while ago i dug up an mp3 copy of this album from a cd-r i made years ago. these mp3s were very slightly slower than the flacs i have now (i tried to invert them to see the difference) and i cannot explain why. i'm pretty sure they're both CD rips. could this have happened at Sire? or did some teenager think it would be funny to change the speed of each track by one or two seconds?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2020 at 1:23 PM, hijexx said:

Hmm never heard about that for ICBYD. Lossy formats weren't really a big thing back in 1995 IIRC. I did remember reading that when they were trying to scrounge up gracks for 26 Mixes For Cash that they had to use some lossy formats for a few of the tracks.

RE: lossy formats for 26 Mixes... - that was because they couldn't source even commercial material for some of the remixes - WARP reached out to me and others to see if we had the Gavin Byers remix, David Bowie, etc.

They were in a rush because another label was trying to release a compilation of exactly what 26 Mixes eventually became

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 3/13/2020 at 8:45 PM, jejunum said:

Every release. I remember the good old days of OiNK and what.cd and ICBYD was ”flagged” as being lossy, so I assume it’s baked into the original master? I could have a look at the spectrals myself but can’t be bothered to start the computer right now. emoji3064.png

That's just silly. That's like saying the original release was based on a lossy rip of a non-existing album. Or rather, RDJ ripped his own tunes lossy. And used those to put on an album. Euh....no!?

Maybe oink/what.cd flagged lossy because those were lossy rips of the album? Unless they flagged FLACs lossy as well. In that case it could mean they were considered transcodes of lossy rips. Which would be silly as well, as they should have been deleted right away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if it's being flagged as lossy because he mentioned recording to DAT players at slower speeds to get more length out of the tape which would explain the loss of higher frequencies. It was probably "lossy" since it's creation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, garbage_burner said:

Wonder if it's being flagged as lossy because he mentioned recording to DAT players at slower speeds to get more length out of the tape which would explain the loss of higher frequencies. It was probably "lossy" since it's creation.

I think the whole thing was recorded to 32 kHz DAT so rolls off steeply at 16 kHz. Which would look similar to the typical shelf in MP3 encodes and bad (lossy to lossless) transcodes.

This example is technically not lossy compression, but it could have been flagged as an "approved lossy" release on those dead private trackers regardless, as a way of saying: we're aware that the spectrals look funny, but this is how it was officially released (and not the result of a bad transcode or someone ripping their CD-R burned from MP3s) so don't bother trying to trump this upload with a better digital source.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

cow cud is a twin

if you analyse the song title you can see that cow cud = twin 

who is aphex then?

alberto starts with an a

aphex starts with an a

alberto balsalm = aphex

cow cud is = twin

aphex twin is a band confirmed

Edited by thumbass
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the whole thing was recorded to 32 kHz DAT so rolls off steeply at 16 kHz. Which would look similar to the typical shelf in MP3 encodes and bad (lossy to lossless) transcodes.
This example is technically not lossy compression, but it could have been flagged as an "approved lossy" release on those dead private trackers regardless, as a way of saying: we're aware that the spectrals look funny, but this is how it was officially released (and not the result of a bad transcode or someone ripping their CD-R burned from MP3s) so don't bother trying to trump this upload with a better digital source.

Nailed it! Some of the ICBYD bonuses from his Warp site has similar looking spectrals so it’s definitely a 32 kHz DAT thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

re 16k cutoff: i just happened to have rhubarb open with a spectral, and it turns out loads of tracks from saw2 not only cut off above roughly 16kHz, but also have a thin bar of noise/background hum going along that region all the way thru. my rips are from the warp CD.

plus, stone in focus on the bleep store has two of these bars, going side by side! (jesus what is my life coming to...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...