Hopstretch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Rhino | Digital Was news to me. Seems like a good thing generally, though I can't really see why the download should have to be more expensive than the equivalent physical media from their catalog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 You're using logic and reason, again. Prepare to be disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postjack Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 IMA DL IT COS I DONT HAVE TO MESS WITOUT NO GAS MONEY AND MY CAR .WAT 4 IPOD ON MY DILLY NO CD IN SORE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted November 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Well, it's surely got to be at least a small step forward that you can immediately and legitimately snag CD-quality stuff from someone who has stuff you might actually want to buy? Like I just paid too much for all the Andrew Bird's Bowl Of Fire discs (files?) because there they were right there in my chosen format and I suddenly needed to hear them right fucking now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Deferred gratification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphsci Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlqOv-9qgLw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swt61 Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Aren't Rhinos feet similar to Elephant's? How do they find the dexterity to download anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I've got a Rhino box set of 80's material from a few years ago, and have found that virtually every song has been either brick walled or very close to that, compared to the original discs (which were purchased later on). I now try to avoid that label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 What does brick walled mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Rhino | Digital Was news to me. Seems like a good thing generally, though I can't really see why the download should have to be more expensive than the equivalent physical media from their catalog? Regardless of the pricing, this is very cool news to me. I guess I'm exactly the kind of sucker who will buy this stuff at a premium. EDIT: Hmmm....It seems, though, that Rhino is using "Hi Def" to mean lossless and not 24/96 or the like. Mos Def not cool. Edited November 30, 2009 by The Monkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 1980's CD bit depth = new high tech for 2009. By brick walled I mean it distorts and has poor dynamics. They made it louder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 You can visualize it. Old School mastered recording with dynamic range and headroom. Brickwalled compression (and no doubt clipping) 16 bits of dynamic range wasted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Green is pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 That may or may not be, but it's supposed to be music, which it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted November 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Some of their remasters suck, some don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltron Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 From wikipedia: The trend of increasing loudness as shown by waveform images of the same song mastered on CD four times since 1983. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 its like the aids epidemic, only worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 From wikipedia: The trend of increasing loudness as shown by waveform images of the same song mastered on CD four times since 1983.Pardon my contrarianism, but that doesn't look so bad, especially the first three. "Louder" isn't necessarily worse, especially if it's the exact same signal, only less attenuated. The way I would spin this is, "they more fully utilize all 16 bits of bit depth". "2000" is beginning to get visibly compressed, but I have no idea based on the images whether or not the other three are fundamentally different, other than overall amplitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 The 4th one actually looks fairly close to the first, in terms of waveform shape. It's possible that the 2000 remaster might be faithful to the original, only with better dynamics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mypasswordis Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 1993 looks good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 And improved Signal / Noise ratio, as the peaks are further from the noise floor. However, once clipping occurs, you have thrown away information, than cannot be recovered. I now find the warning with track 59 of Sound Check somewhat quaint MAXIMUM TONE LEVEL Warning - This track is at the theoretical maximum recording level, 0dB FS. THIS IS A VERY LOUD TONE - USE WITH CAUTION Track 59: 1kHz sine wave at 0dB FS (Duration 20 seconds) AvaxHome -> ALAN PARSONS & STEPHEN COURT: SOUND CHECK | MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB | ULTRADISC II "Theoretical Maximum", who would ever use that in practice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 The 4th one actually looks fairly close to the first, in terms of waveform shape. It's possible that the 2000 remaster might be faithful to the original, only with better dynamics.No, it definitely looks more compressed than any of the other three, but I see what you mean about the shape of the first one. As to what the intentions are of the original artists, I don't know. The middle two -- especially 1993 -- look more dynamic. Follow, for example, the largish (loudish) lump in the middle of the song. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Anyhoo, I just bought a couple of albums from them and apparently everything is 50% off right now. $7.50 I can live with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Loudness wars aside, 50% off digital downloads through 12/6. Sorry, I missed stretch's post above. Call me Kai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blessingx Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 May be the only place to get lossless versions of Garfield: Music Inspired by the Motion Picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.