Ephel Duath - New album advance track

Sounds pretty good, but i'm pretty sure the album as a whole is gonna kick tits. this sounds much less desperate and aggressive than i expected, but still retaining the unpredictable nature of the pp stuff.

love the gangsta pimp section in the middle!

god damn though, that carnival in coal song twisted my head in half.
 
Yeah, that's good, albeit surprisingly brief... definitely looking forward to hearing the whole thing!

This seems as good a time as any to raise the question of encoding strategies. On my pc at least, the bass was very overdriven on that cut, though the sound overall is good and clear. I personally don't reckon it's worth encoding rock music (of any type) at higher than 160, maybe 192 top whack, and in fact I usually rip rock and metal CDs at 128 with perfectly satisfactory results (if something is exceptionally well-produced I'll use 160). I once got hold of some Dead Kennedys stuff that someone had encoded at 220 and it sounded terrible: the weak original production was just highlighted (and made worse) by the unnecessary space in the file. Kinda like dubbing a nth-generation demo ontp a chrome tape, if you've ever done that..?

Any thoughts? Lee, should I just piss off and start a separate thread so that everyone can ignore it? :)
 
xpv said:
I personally don't reckon it's worth encoding rock music (of any type) at higher than 160, maybe 192 top whack, and in fact I usually rip rock and metal CDs at 128 with perfectly satisfactory results (if something is exceptionally well-produced I'll use 160).
Click to expand...

what no stop :( you have your type of person at one extreme, and the CLASSICAL NEEDS LOSSLESS crowd at the other :(

it scares me :(
 
xpv said:
Yeah, that's good, albeit surprisingly brief... definitely looking forward to hearing the whole thing!

This seems as good a time as any to raise the question of encoding strategies. On my pc at least, the bass was very overdriven on that cut, though the sound overall is good and clear. I personally don't reckon it's worth encoding rock music (of any type) at higher than 160, maybe 192 top whack, and in fact I usually rip rock and metal CDs at 128 with perfectly satisfactory results (if something is exceptionally well-produced I'll use 160). I once got hold of some Dead Kennedys stuff that someone had encoded at 220 and it sounded terrible: the weak original production was just highlighted (and made worse) by the unnecessary space in the file. Kinda like dubbing a nth-generation demo ontp a chrome tape, if you've ever done that..?

Any thoughts? Lee, should I just piss off and start a separate thread so that everyone can ignore it? :)
Click to expand...

128 is shit.

You might not be able to hear the difference but some of us can and we don't need to suffer. :wave:
 
Hopkins-WitchfinderGeneral said:
128 is shit.

You might not be able to hear the difference but some of us can and we don't need to suffer. :wave:
Click to expand...


mrrrowwwrrr!! that told me then.

Except I reckon my hearing is as good as anyone's - at least in this arena - so I'll say it again, 128 is fine for most rock music!! now, ED are more of a textural band, so I would use something higher for them... but not that high! The point really is that of course there's a difference, same as there's always going to be a difference between a jpeg and a photographic print; it's a question of what degree of resolution is really necessary. My original point was that the mp3 on here is encoded at a very high level, creating a very large file for such a short piece of music; and not only does it not sound massively better, it doesn't actually sound all that great because of the distortion in the bass (could be my soundcard, never had the problem before though). I reckon the "lossless" brigade are losing sight of what's important.
 
It's especially not good for rock/metal because of the amount of high end cymbal/guitar fluff you get with a decent metal mix. That flanges away like a bitch at 128 (although it doesn't sometimes which is entirely a mystery to me, maybe some encoders do a high end cut or summat). I can hear that and i'm sure with decent speakers so can you, do you have decent speakers? :)

At the end of the day Lee has gone the right way imo by supplying this at full quality and thereby showing it in it's best light.

i do agree about the lossless posee tho. If you look at a flac file, for example, in a spectral analyser, the extra high end you get with that codec largely carries no data at all, except for the occasional really high end harmonic, which most people can't even hear.

So there you go.
 
Hopkins-WitchfinderGeneral said:
i do agree about the lossless posee tho. If you look at a flac file, for example, in a spectral analyser, the extra high end you get with that codec largely carries no data at all, except for the occasional really high end harmonic, which most people can't even hear.
Click to expand...

Yep - only very high frequencies suffer with a high bitrate lossy encode. Here's a 256kbps MP3 (blue) and the original CD source (red):

(This was generated with the Fraunhoffer encoder; I should imagine LAME would offer better results still.)

prod2565bh.gif


The human range of hearing is between 20 and 20,000Hz (some studies have even put it at 18KHz maximum, but most tend towards 20KHz); 256kbps MP3 only drops off slightly at 18,000Hz and upwards, which is more than good enough for virtually everyone.

FLAC is good for archival purposes, though; I'd rather back up music to FLAC and it take up 300MB than CD and it take up 700MB.
 
this is all well and good but dammit, you can't polish a turd, and ephel duath aren't shit! i mean, you can produce and compress and eq and whatever the Teletubbies version of the Crazy Frog theme tune, then encode it at whatever. it's still gonna be bollox.

what is essential is that what you can hear is decent material. and in this case, it is. now stop posting images of frequency analysis, and start posting porn.
 
bruxia said:
this is all well and good but dammit, you can't polish a turd, and ephel duath aren't shit! i mean, you can produce and compress and eq and whatever the Teletubbies version of the Crazy Frog theme tune, then encode it at whatever. it's still gonna be bollox.

what is essential is that what you can hear is decent material. and in this case, it is. now stop posting images of frequency analysis, and start posting porn.
Click to expand...


Well done for agreeing :confused:

You can't polish a turd, but you can turdify a... err... shiny thing.
 
xpv said:
Any thoughts? Lee, should I just piss off and start a separate thread so that everyone can ignore it? :)
Click to expand...

this is the best point made on this topic. you knows it. the golden rule of forums.
 
I found it a lot more pallatable than their other stuff (I'm still growing into it and I think To-Mera has helped that along :) ) and I must say that I'm looking forward to hearing some more.

(btw 192kbps encoding is my favorite bitrate)
 
Lee_B said:
Hmm. Weird. Have you tried right clicking the link and saving it to your computer instead?

If that fails there's another track available at http://www.myspace.com/elitistrecords

Lee
Click to expand...
Well it seems to be downloading now. The computer I was on when it was b0rked was at college so I'm putting the problem down to them.
And there's another new ED track? You really are spoiling us, Lee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lee_B
New EPHEL DUATH track!!!!
Replies
15
Views
582
To-Mera
Emi
E
Lee_B
EPHEL DUATH - The Painter's Palette
Replies
24
Views
1K
To-Mera
Lee_B
L
Lee_B
New Ephel Duath album cover preview
Replies
39
Views
2K
To-Mera
veil the sky
V
Lee_B
Ephel Duath in London!
Replies
37
Views
2K
To-Mera
Alyona
A
D
Ephel Duath - Pain Necessary to Know
Replies
8
Views
670
To-Mera
Of My Darkest Hour
O
Top Bottom
Back