• Daft Punk's New Album is Called Random Access Memories, Out May 21, Listed on iTunes
    192 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheHydra;40017093]meh. "one more time", "aerodynamic", "harder, better, faster, stronger", and "superheroes" are pretty good. "veridis quo" is nice too. what do you think of HAA/alive 2007?[/QUOTE] no its got solid tracks, i just didnt like it as much as homework alive 2007 is like way preferable to their last two albums, very good for a live album which is surprising because live electronic records usually are terrible and HAA is weird because its daft punk trying to experiment with new styles but they dont really know where to go with and i think they were a bit worried of how the album would be received, so it plays it pretty safe
[QUOTE=mysteryman;40016860]When it comes to m4a and mp3, vinyl's dynamic range is superior. The translated kpbs is better as well. Seeing as vinyl typically will hold the equivalency of 1030kbps. Music on the cd is superior usually and does not deteriorate as it's digital but its usually raped by the producers before heading to retail. A cd has like 1320kbps but when you get a typical mp3, even when ripped from a cd, you get a file that has a range like 16khz and a kbps of 320 at best. Digital is better, but varies greatly. What he said was that vinyl is superior than m4a and mp3, not all digital formats.. When it comes to the file types like m4a and mp3, vinyl is significantly better.[/QUOTE] Completely wrong. Everything you said. Literally everything. Vinyl doesn't have a kbps capacity, it's an analog format. It cannot be measured in terms of digital bitrates. A CD is capped out at a 16-Bit depth, vinyl doesn't have this digital limitation and as such can replicate the actual studio master entirely in terms of audio information (usually 24-bit for most modern digital productions). In terms of literal fidelity, vinyl has the capacity to surpass the CD in quite a handful of ways. Saying "it's usually raped by the producers before heading to retail" (the people that master would be a more appropriate term) is a useless generalization. Loudness wars have taken down dynamic range in a high number of albums, but if the people mastering it fucked up the CD, the vinyl is sourced from the same thing. Basing quality strictly off of bitrate is useless also. As compression formats improve the same bitrate can produce far better results, so it doesn't mean a whole lot in relation to the uncompressed ways of the CD. The majority of MP3/M4A files working about the web will be 44khz (substantial difference from 16khz) and be either VBR 0 MP3 or 256kbps ABR M4A files. Digital is better if it started off digital. If it was created on a computer, there is no uptake in quality that can be had from an analog transfer (although CDs can still be beat by other digital formats). If it started off from an analog source it will sound closer to that on another analog source, but the difference these days in small. We have pretty much perfected analog to digital (but if you want to be anal, it is impossible for digital to perfectly represent an analog source, although we don't know if the human ear can honestly hear the differences). I know the original question was "Mp3/m4a vs vinyl" but since CD will likely be the highest quality digital option for consumers, and most MP3/M4A copies around the web will be CD rips, it makes more sense to look at it in that way. I know you were just trying to answer his questions, but you were so totally wrong and absolute in your presentation of info that I had to fix that for you. In terms of this Daft Punk album it's probably worth getting it on CD if you want to actually own it. I brought this up earlier but vinyl will pollute the sound in that the surface noise and analog transfer will cause a warmth that isn't actually in the master copies.
[QUOTE=Lamar;40016931]what do you disagree on exactly, isn't what you wrote pretty much the same of what I said?[/QUOTE] On a technical level, vinyl has higher qualities than your typical mp3 or m4a formatted song. I was more clarifying than anything else. You just seemed to assume that what he said wasn't "its better than mp3 or m4a" but "it's better than all digital formats"
you guys are such nerds
[QUOTE=SourBree;40017310]Completely wrong. Everything you said. Literally everything. Vinyl doesn't have a kbps capacity, it's an analog format. It cannot be measured in terms of digital bitrates. A CD is capped out at a 16-Bit depth, vinyl doesn't have this digital limitation and as such can replicate the actual studio master entirely in terms of audio information (usually 24-bit for most modern digital productions). In terms of literal fidelity, vinyl has the capacity to surpass the CD in quite a handful of ways. Saying "it's usually raped by the producers before heading to retail" (the people that master would be a more appropriate term) is a useless generalization. Loudness wars have taken down dynamic range in a high number of albums, but if the people mastering it fucked up the CD, the vinyl is sourced from the same thing. Basing quality strictly off of bitrate is useless also. As compression formats improve the same bitrate can produce far better results, so it doesn't mean a whole lot in relation to the uncompressed ways of the CD. The majority of MP3/M4A files working about the web will be 44khz (substantial difference from 16khz) and be either VBR 0 MP3 or 256kbps ABR M4A files. Digital is better if it started off digital. If it was created on a computer, there is no uptake in quality that can be had from an analog transfer (although CDs can still be beat by other digital formats). If it started off from an analog source it will sound closer to that on another analog source, but the difference these days in small. We have pretty much perfected analog to digital (but if you want to be anal, it is impossible for digital to perfectly represent an analog source, although we don't know if the human ear can honestly hear the differences). I know the original question was "Mp3/m4a vs vinyl" but since CD will likely be the highest quality digital option for consumers, and most MP3/M4A copies around the web will be CD rips, it makes more sense to look at it in that way. I know you were just trying to answer his questions, but you were so totally wrong and absolute in your presentation of info that I had to fix that for you. In terms of this Daft Punk album it's probably worth getting it on CD if you want to actually own it. I brought this up earlier but vinyl will pollute the sound in that the surface noise and analog transfer will cause a warmth that isn't actually in the master copies.[/QUOTE] I pretty much said some of this. And one of the first things i even said was [QUOTE=mysteryman;40014965] Also it's converted bit rate since i think analogue formats technically dont have bit rate.[/QUOTE] I admitted that vinyl doesn't have a bit rate, hence why every time i talked about it i said TRANSLATED bit rate. When i said "raped by producers, i was even talking about the loudness war which is still present. I also stated earlier in the thread that it depends on the kind of music. New music doesn't really fit on vinyl now because its just too different: [QUOTE=mysteryman;40014920]It honestly depends now more on the type of music being listened. The music has to fit the medium. For instance, most pop songs of today's generation will just sound straight up weird on vinyl, because they simply don't fit in the setting. [/QUOTE] Granted i didn't say anything technical, if it was made on lo fidelity equipment it fits better on it. I wasn't wrong anywhere in my post. On a technical level, vinyl has does have a higher translated kbps rate. Regardless if it does sound better, it can have higher amounts when the math is crunched.
[QUOTE=thisispain;40017207]no its got solid tracks, i just didnt like it as much as homework alive 2007 is like way preferable to their last two albums, very good for a live album which is surprising because live electronic records usually are terrible and HAA is weird because its daft punk trying to experiment with new styles but they dont really know where to go with and i think they were a bit worried of how the album would be received, so it plays it pretty safe[/QUOTE] i think HAA is cool because it's kind of a weird paradox of an album when you think about it. it was very organically created through them jamming on guitars and improvising and shit, yet it's definitely their most repetitive and mechanical-sounding album to date. the result is a weird uncanny valley effect that stands in stark contrast to the bright cheesy happiness of discovery. i also like it because i can leave in the middle of a song, go to the bathroom, make lunch, walk my dog, come back, and not miss anything
[QUOTE=mysteryman;40017392]I pretty much said some of this. And one of the first things i even said was I admitted that vinyl doesn't have a bit rate, hence why every time i talked about it i said TRANSLATED bit rate. When i said "raped by producers, i was even talking about the loudness war which is still present. I also stated earlier in the thread that it depends on the kind of music. New music doesn't really fit on vinyl now because its just too different: Granted i didn't say anything technical, if it was made on lo fidelity equipment it fits better on it. I wasn't wrong anywhere in my post. On a technical level, vinyl has does have a higher translated kbps rate. Regardless if it does sound better, it can have higher amounts when the math is crunched.[/QUOTE] Even if that is the case, saying the "translated bitrate of vinyl" is aprox 1030kbps is a number out of nowhere. Guaranteed. If you heard that somewhere it's wrong. Your exact sentence was "Music on the cd is superior usually and does not deteriorate as it's digital but its usually raped by the producers before heading to retail". The way you phrased that sentence means that CD's are victims to the loudness war but vinyl isn't. As far as new music not fitting, that's subjective. But I would agree based on opinion. I don't see what lofi equipment has to do with it, many analog sources are not lofi (vinyl included). You're entire post was wrong, factually almost the entire thing could be proven false (with the exception of the bottom line point saying that vinyl > mp3). Bitrate is not the only matter in terms of audio fidelity, but if it were, and we translated the numbers, it is true that vinyl would have a higher rate.
Can I just say that I think this whole 16bit vs. 24bit thing is bunk, I have no idea how anybody could tell the difference between the two, or even between 2 values with a single step (16bit giving you 65,536 discrete values and 24bit giving you 16,777,216 discrete values)
Anything with a disagree rating is Furnost. Furnost is hate.
[QUOTE=valkery;40014081]I honestly think Moby is better than daft punk, although I feel all electronic music terrible.[/QUOTE] What a boring world you must live in.
Am I one of only, like, 11 people on earth who have never listened to Daft Punk?
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;40017951]Can I just say that I think this whole 16bit vs. 24bit thing is bunk, I have no idea how anybody could tell the difference between the two, or even between 2 values with a single step (16bit giving you 65,536 discrete values and 24bit giving you 16,777,216 discrete values)[/QUOTE] The only people I've known that can honestly tell the difference are some people I know that have been producing and engineering music for around 20+ years now. But that's due to a level of exposure combined with extremely good hardware that almost everybody who doesn't specialize in audio, doesn't get to have.
[QUOTE=valkery;40014081]all electronic music terrible.[/QUOTE] That's such a bold statement that I'm unable to believe. Electronic music encompasses SO MUCH MUSIC that you would have to be absolutely trying your hardest 24/7 to listen to all of it and hate it.
[QUOTE=valkery;40014081]I honestly think Moby is better than daft punk, although I feel all electronic music terrible.[/QUOTE] Moby has made some very good stuff IMO, but the music he produces is barely (if at all) in the same category as Daft Punk. Only complete ignorance could make you say that you feel all electronic music is terrible. Electronic as a genre only means that computers or electronic analog hardware had some sort of easily identifiable role in the music. It can cover whatever genre you like, jazz, blues, hip hop, rock, metal, etc. Some of the most successful blends of genres I have seen personally have been under the mighty power of the computer. You should take a look around the web, you're guaranteed to find some sort of electronic music you enjoy. Seriously, you should go for it. You might find something new that you like a lot.
[url]http://www.randomaccessmemories.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=superstepa;40019227][url]http://www.randomaccessmemories.com/[/url][/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg8FvE08t6g[/media] Barack O Mexican monkey?
[url]http://columbia.sonymusic.edgesuite.net/stream/mps/catalog_51/000/009/167/asset_11406/dp_audio_2.mp3[/url] The music clip itself -edit- What is the audio tag? [editline]23rd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Nif90;40019386] Barack O Mexican monkey?[/QUOTE] I can't unhear it now, thanks
that clip is pretty catchy but i'm a bit disappointed if this is just gonna be discovery 2 [editline]24th March 2013[/editline] though that sounds WAY funkier than anything on discovery tbh
Aren't Daft Punk like in their 40's now? [editline]24th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=superstepa;40019395][URL]http://columbia.sonymusic.edgesuite.net/stream/mps/catalog_51/000/009/167/asset_11406/dp_audio_2.mp3[/URL] The music clip itself -edit- What is the audio tag? [editline]23rd March 2013[/editline] I can't unhear it now, thanks[/QUOTE] [i]We're up all night to get funky, yeah, we're up all night to get lucky.[/i] Better?
I'd be perfectly okay with Discovery 2, it's my favourite of their albums, I love how it sounds.
If it's anywhere near as good as Discovery... well. I'll probably keep it on repeat for weeks. :v:
well each daft punk album had a different style to it. homework was chicago house, discovery was poppy funky french house, human after all was unsettling electronic rock, and alive 2007 was all of the above. (and tron legacy was orchestral but i don't think anyone really counts it as a daft punk album per se(i also didn't count alive 1997 because i have yet to listen to it)) derezzed had a really aggressive, chaotic sound to it and i was kind of hoping that would be indicative of their direction, but it seems like they've just kind of gone back to the discovery aesthetic. it's ground they've already walked. the samples sound really good tho [editline]24th March 2013[/editline] [url]http://soundcloud.com/hollywisemedia/daft-punk-snl-promo-10-minute[/url]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKKGrKaix44[/media]
[QUOTE=thisispain;40016743]homework was actually the best one imo because it focused on making the best and most streamlined house possible, revolution 909 is like a masterclass in house discovery had that whole studio 54 70's chic going on but failed to take it anywhere because it was sterile (good disco and funk is anything but sterile) and most of the tracks were just direct cops from old funk records, LCD Soundsystem and Holy Ghost! did that whole thing way better than Daft Punk -music- [/QUOTE] Thanks for pointing these out! I like :D
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;40014348]I'm sorry but the amount of "hipster" (I know you are joking but [I]still[/I]) that this implies is beyond ridiculous Converting 2013 heavy techno / electro music into Vinyl and playing it on something that could probably be used to knit yourself a woolen sweater is not reverse engineering, that is dark age engineering :v:[/QUOTE] Dude, they made a comeback years ago get with the program.. [editline]24th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=valkery;40014081]I honestly think Moby is better than daft punk, although I feel all electronic music terrible.[/QUOTE] I agreed briefly then died at the end of this sentence. [editline]24th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lamar;40016780]we were looking at it objectively digital is clearly superior.[/QUOTE] Obviously yes. But since loud wars are still very much alive and the availability of good archivable media is pretty much nil I'd say we're very far as a consumer from getting the best. [editline]24th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=mysteryman;40016860]vinyl typically will hold the equivalency of 1030kbps[/QUOTE] urghhhhhhhhh vinyl ain't a digital medium mate.
Ah dang if my balance wasn't $-100 I'd preorder the CD right now, those two 15-second clips are enough for me to get hyped [editline]24th March 2013[/editline] [t]http://www.randomaccessmemories.com/images/logo_s_lg.jpg[/t] this should be the cover
[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;40016905]i'd like to collect vinyl but it's mad expensive[/QUOTE] Really? I pick up my vinyl for usually less than £5 in record stores.
been a while since i've felt this happy. that seriously made me smile for the whole 15 seconds. god damn am i excited for this
I loved Discovery album, let's hope the new one will be even better.
Ooh that song sounds amazing, cant waiiit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.