IPB Style© Fisana

Jump to content



Please donate to gain access to The Bedlam, an ad-free version of the board and more!


Photo

Problems with Tremulant Remaster


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#21 hui43210

hui43210

    Ouroboros

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2653 posts
  • Joined 04-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:winnipeg,manitoba,canada

Posted 18 April 2014 - 03:10 PM

 

please do NOT moan about petty shit such as this on the eve of the unveiling of tha OBELISK

 

DON'T piss em off

Just stop kissing ass already. If someone pointing out little mistakes in a quiet manner like we are doing here is pissing someone off... well, then all hope is lost.

 

X2



#22 scorpio

scorpio

    Goliath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4943 posts
  • Joined 13-June 05
  • Gender:Female

Posted 18 April 2014 - 04:45 PM

Or, how about this? Just stay out of the separate thread that was created specifically so people who do care can talk about this amongst themselves. Big deal.

#23 buddh4sack

buddh4sack

    Goliath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4398 posts
  • Joined 19-April 08
  • Location:New York
  • Interests:The Secret of The Widow

Posted 18 April 2014 - 04:51 PM

preface: I haven't actually had the time to listen to the remaster, but i generally trust way Omar and co. handle TMV's production. The only exception for me is some mixing/mastering issues with NOCT. I'm an audio engineer. I think that FTM, Deloused and Amp all sound great, and i've heard all of their albums in many different formats... in mastering rooms with $20,000ea speakers, on ipod earbuds, nice headphones, shitty laptop speakers, vinyl, FLAC, MP3 etc etc etc.  I generally don't give a shit if a song is pushing the limiter a bit, and the images that people have uploaded that show more dynamic range compression in the new masters don't bother me at all.  I am generally annoyed by people who look at spectrographs etc and draw conclusions about how something sounds, or assume that all limiting is bad, etc etc. I know enough about DSP and cognitive listening to know that people who demand to listen to their music at high sample rates and 24 bit are being pretty seriously misled. I've studied confirmation bias and the placebo effect, and how they relate to listening, as well as done my own comparisons on very high end equipment in some of the nicest rooms in the world. 

 

What i am trying to say is that I think i'm coming at this from a pretty non-bias and reasonably educated perspective. I'm not a "meter queen" or anything. I use my ears more than anything, but i also know the science pretty well.  I'm not picky and don't give a shit if a recording doesn't have ultrasonics, i don't keep my music collection in FLAC, and i dont care if someone listens to my mix on ipod earbuds or beats. 

 

All that being said, the evidence here is pretty damning. At some point in the chain, this audio went through a lossy compression algorithm. There is absolutely no denying that. Analog gear doesn't cut off frequency content in the linear way that the spectrographs show. If the tape machine were the culprit, it would look more like a smooth roll off. Actually, there is NOTHING in a studio that can make a cutoff that strong. here is a great link that someone posted in the other thread that shows the frequency response of a few classic tape machines.  

 

 

 

I'm not questioning the creative decisions that went into the new master (i'm sure it sounds great), but this is NOT one of those decisions.  This is obviously a mistake and needs to be addressed. Its not even a question of "use your ears". People are paying for something (FLAC or source audio) and getting something entirely different. They are expecting files that haven't been changed from the original in any way (whether or not that makes an audible difference doesn't matter). The other major issue is that anyone listening to this on MP3 is hearing a track that has been converted TWICE. I listen to 320kbs mp3 about 90% of the time, and i know that basically no one can tell the difference between a properly encoded mp3 and a FLAC in an ABX test. But this is double the compression... it seems like at that point you would get real, audible changes. 

 

THATS the issue IMO. Whether or not the mastering engineer actually made the thing sound better or worse to you or anyone is completely irrelevant, and complaining about it is missing the point.  I realize i sound really douchy in this post, but it makes me sad that TMV are trying to do cool stuff for us and it isn't going as well as it could be.

 

A+



#24 klyph

klyph

    Televator

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 86 posts
  • Joined 11-July 06

Posted 18 April 2014 - 05:40 PM

SOOO, to sum up the "discussion" the flac files that are being downloaded from Bandcamp are actually up converted MP3's (Yeah, the 320 mp3's may NOT have been compressed twice. Maybe higher res files have just been up converted.) Doesn't mean the songs aren't remastered, just means that even people who KNOW they can't tell the difference between the two without looking at a spectrograph are upset because they didn't get what they paid for. Is that about right?

#25 sionofdarkness

sionofdarkness

    Eunuch Provocateur

  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • Joined 10-January 11

Posted 18 April 2014 - 05:55 PM

SOOO, to sum up the "discussion" the flac files that are being downloaded from Bandcamp are actually up converted MP3's (Yeah, the 320 mp3's may NOT have been compressed twice. Maybe higher res files have just been up converted.) Doesn't mean the songs aren't remastered, just means that even people who KNOW they can't tell the difference between the two without looking at a spectrograph are upset because they didn't get what they paid for. Is that about right?

^



#26 Pongo

Pongo

    Frances

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1095 posts
  • Joined 09-September 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City, CA

Posted 18 April 2014 - 06:35 PM

SOOO, to sum up the "discussion" the flac files that are being downloaded from Bandcamp are actually up converted MP3's (Yeah, the 320 mp3's may NOT have been compressed twice. Maybe higher res files have just been up converted.) Doesn't mean the songs aren't remastered, just means that even people who KNOW they can't tell the difference between the two without looking at a spectrograph are upset because they didn't get what they paid for. Is that about right?

 

More or less, except nobody has claimed Tremulant wasn't remastered, and I'm not sure why you put discussion in quotes.



#27 SnkZato1 Ph.D.

SnkZato1 Ph.D.

    in•ter a•li•a•moms

  • Party Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5507 posts
  • Joined 29-November 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:www.riffnralk.com
  • Interests:Ask me be about prison.
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Posted 18 April 2014 - 07:04 PM

please do NOT moan about petty shit such as this on the eve of the unveiling of tha OBELISK

 

DON'T piss em off

What is this idiotic baby whining shit?

 

"Oh no if we aren't nice Matt's gonna take his Omar albums and go home."

 

dingus



#28 SnkZato1 Ph.D.

SnkZato1 Ph.D.

    in•ter a•li•a•moms

  • Party Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5507 posts
  • Joined 29-November 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:www.riffnralk.com
  • Interests:Ask me be about prison.
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Posted 18 April 2014 - 07:06 PM

SOOO, to sum up the "discussion" the flac files that are being downloaded from Bandcamp are actually up converted MP3's (Yeah, the 320 mp3's may NOT have been compressed twice. Maybe higher res files have just been up converted.) Doesn't mean the songs aren't remastered, just means that even people who KNOW they can't tell the difference between the two without looking at a spectrograph are upset because they didn't get what they paid for. Is that about right?

Do you not like getting what you paid for?



#29 klyph

klyph

    Televator

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 86 posts
  • Joined 11-July 06

Posted 18 April 2014 - 09:56 PM

SOOO, to sum up the "discussion" the flac files that are being downloaded from Bandcamp are actually up converted MP3's (Yeah, the 320 mp3's may NOT have been compressed twice. Maybe higher res files have just been up converted.) Doesn't mean the songs aren't remastered, just means that even people who KNOW they can't tell the difference between the two without looking at a spectrograph are upset because they didn't get what they paid for. Is that about right?

 
More or less, except nobody has claimed Tremulant wasn't remastered, and I'm not sure why you put discussion in quotes.

I put discussion in quotes and the remastered part because of the Antemasque thread. Things were getting a little heated! Haha.

#30 klyph

klyph

    Televator

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 86 posts
  • Joined 11-July 06

Posted 18 April 2014 - 10:01 PM

SOOO, to sum up the "discussion" the flac files that are being downloaded from Bandcamp are actually up converted MP3's (Yeah, the 320 mp3's may NOT have been compressed twice. Maybe higher res files have just been up converted.) Doesn't mean the songs aren't remastered, just means that even people who KNOW they can't tell the difference between the two without looking at a spectrograph are upset because they didn't get what they paid for. Is that about right?

Do you not like getting what you paid for?

I paid for MP3's so it doesn't bother me, but I'm not a resolution junkie. I can play virtually every format in my home stereo system from reel to reel to 24/192 digital files and I have to say medium nor resolution mean much to me. I've heard mp3s with better quality than hi-res flac's, I've heard 8-tracks sound better than vinyl. I understand it DOES mean something to some. I just don't understand why.

#31 SnkZato1 Ph.D.

SnkZato1 Ph.D.

    in•ter a•li•a•moms

  • Party Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5507 posts
  • Joined 29-November 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:www.riffnralk.com
  • Interests:Ask me be about prison.
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Posted 18 April 2014 - 10:43 PM

 

 

SOOO, to sum up the "discussion" the flac files that are being downloaded from Bandcamp are actually up converted MP3's (Yeah, the 320 mp3's may NOT have been compressed twice. Maybe higher res files have just been up converted.) Doesn't mean the songs aren't remastered, just means that even people who KNOW they can't tell the difference between the two without looking at a spectrograph are upset because they didn't get what they paid for. Is that about right?

Do you not like getting what you paid for?

I paid for MP3's so it doesn't bother me, but I'm not a resolution junkie. I can play virtually every format in my home stereo system from reel to reel to 24/192 digital files and I have to say medium nor resolution mean much to me. I've heard mp3s with better quality than hi-res flac's, I've heard 8-tracks sound better than vinyl. I understand it DOES mean something to some. I just don't understand why.

 

It's not about the sound, as has been said quite a few times.  It's about the pretty decent possibility that what was being sold was not entirely accurate.  If you order steak at a restaurant and you they serve you chicken, even it does taste very good you did not get what you thought you were going to get.  



#32 kersh2099

kersh2099

    Televator

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 85 posts
  • Joined 05-December 04
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 19 April 2014 - 12:04 AM

 

 

 

SOOO, to sum up the "discussion" the flac files that are being downloaded from Bandcamp are actually up converted MP3's (Yeah, the 320 mp3's may NOT have been compressed twice. Maybe higher res files have just been up converted.) Doesn't mean the songs aren't remastered, just means that even people who KNOW they can't tell the difference between the two without looking at a spectrograph are upset because they didn't get what they paid for. Is that about right?

Do you not like getting what you paid for?

I paid for MP3's so it doesn't bother me, but I'm not a resolution junkie. I can play virtually every format in my home stereo system from reel to reel to 24/192 digital files and I have to say medium nor resolution mean much to me. I've heard mp3s with better quality than hi-res flac's, I've heard 8-tracks sound better than vinyl. I understand it DOES mean something to some. I just don't understand why.

 

It's not about the sound, as has been said quite a few times.  It's about the pretty decent possibility that what was being sold was not entirely accurate.  If you order steak at a restaurant and you they serve you chicken, even it does taste very good you did not get what you thought you were going to get.  

 

I do agree with everything that has been said in this thread, but that example is way off.

It is more like if you ordered a steak bleu and got rare. Not perfect, but still good.
 

It's not as if anyone paid extra for lossless, And tbh lossless is a loose term. If the guy did the masters from the mp3, then the files you recieved are "lossless" from the original remaster files. They never claim to be anything else.



#33 Pongo

Pongo

    Frances

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1095 posts
  • Joined 09-September 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City, CA

Posted 19 April 2014 - 12:45 AM

 

I put discussion in quotes and the remastered part because of the Antemasque thread. Things were getting a little heated! Haha.

 

 

Yeah, I know several of us have been impassioned by Tremulant's spicy rhythms.



#34 johnb820

johnb820

    Frances

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1132 posts
  • Joined 03-May 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Twitter

Posted 19 April 2014 - 01:20 AM

I honestly don't want to believe camp Omar intentionally remastered from lossy files and then tried to pawn it off as a fresh remaster. More likely a mistake was made which unfortunately only adds to some of the problems they've had with getting everything up and going. A simple answer from the masterer would suffice to be honest. We're all chill here and would not take too much offense to a mistake and if the masterer says no mistake then I'll shut my mouth.

 

In the end, it sounds fine and I am happy to have sent some money to camp Omar to do what they please.



#35 ramparts

ramparts

    Eunuch Provocateur

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined 13-July 08

Posted 19 April 2014 - 01:23 AM

didn't Matt mention that they spent thousands extracting data from an old hard drive to recover this audio? Perhaps that data was corrupted somehow, or the audio was compressed or converted by the company that conducted the recovery?



#36 SnkZato1 Ph.D.

SnkZato1 Ph.D.

    in•ter a•li•a•moms

  • Party Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5507 posts
  • Joined 29-November 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:www.riffnralk.com
  • Interests:Ask me be about prison.
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Posted 19 April 2014 - 05:50 AM

I honestly don't want to believe camp Omar intentionally remastered from lossy files and then tried to pawn it off as a fresh remaster. More likely a mistake was made which unfortunately only adds to some of the problems they've had with getting everything up and going. A simple answer from the masterer would suffice to be honest. We're all chill here and would not take too much offense to a mistake and if the masterer says no mistake then I'll shut my mouth.

 

In the end, it sounds fine and I am happy to have sent some money to camp Omar to do what they please.

I have no doubt it was an accident as if they are rubbing their paws together proud their grand scheme of charging four measly dollars for an album is paying off.



#37 johnb820

johnb820

    Frances

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1132 posts
  • Joined 03-May 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Twitter

Posted 19 April 2014 - 06:36 AM

Well hey, a few hundred dollars may pay for mastering for the new Antemasque album. In all seriousness though, you are of course right.



#38 nembutals

nembutals

    Simulacrum

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Joined 16-July 10
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 19 April 2014 - 07:17 AM

oh stfu and just enjoy these gift that o+c gave us! >:(

 

How come I didn't get the memo that we're calling stuff we buy with money gifts now?



#39 A.N.Other

A.N.Other

    Ouroboros

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2974 posts
  • Joined 18-June 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europa

Posted 19 April 2014 - 09:58 AM

I would understand mastering from mp3s if this was some ultra rare stuff not available in any other form. Obviously this is not the case with Tremulant.



#40 Myshkin

Myshkin

    Televator

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 107 posts
  • Joined 17-February 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 10:04 AM

I've resigned myself with this and i'm perfectly fine with it. Tremulant sounds great and I guess that's enough I doubt we'll see a correcting of this issue (hopefully i'm wrong). I just hope with the future releases they'll see how much people care about the quality of the music we all love and they'll take better care of it like it deserves to.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users