Requiem. Hocculta and Flight Charm demos on line

metalmaster · Post by **metalmaster** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:46 pm

At the same place as always:

http://under-fire-radio.blogspot.com/

Any comments on the records is welcomed

steelegacy · Post by **steelegacy** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:18 am

Great chance for those who havent heard the Hocculta demo and the Flight Charm,i had those demos ,when trading with an italian guy,and they are really awesome!!!!i havent heard the Requiem and i am curious to hear how do they like.i have the lp and its ok,i like it but not very excited.anyway,thanks for uploading those demos

doomedplanet · Post by **doomedplanet** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:28 pm

really dissapointing waste of bandwidth to download low bitrate mp3's...can;t you share at least 192K?

ION BRITTON · Post by **ION BRITTON** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:39 pm

There's really no big difference for the human ear from bitrates 128Kbps and above. 128 Kbps is actually fine. I think some people are overdoing it by ripping audio stuff at 256 or 320(!)Kbps. Anyone who's into signal processing knows what i'm talking about.

BTW, thanks for the HOCCULTA demo!

doomedplanet · Post by **doomedplanet** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:40 pm

this is not true. I instantly knew there was something wrong with the music listening to the ROOT 7", I could hear the swishy artefact of low bitrate conversion immediately. I checked and yes, low rate mp3. 128 Kbps might sound normal if you have hearing loss though. 192K is minimum rate to not lose fidelity. 160K is ok but not perfect.

ION BRITTON wrote:There's really no big difference for the human ear from bitrates 128Kbps and above. 128 Kbps is actually fine. I think some people are overdoing it by ripping audio stuff at 256 or 320(!)Kbps. Anyone who's into signal processing knows what i'm talking about.

metalmaster · Post by **metalmaster** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:48 am

The data of the mp3 converter for those who would like to know

mp3 file,Sample rate: 44100, Channels: 2, Bit rate: 192000

Post by **DaN** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:21 am

Yes ofcourse there is a difference between 128- Kbps and 192+ Kpbs. Perhaps not so much in commercial crap w/ slick production, but as soon as you're dealing w/ distortered guitars and especially demos/live stuff w/ more background noise than usual, the difference is clearly audible. More noise = more information to compress = more compression artefacts.

128 Kbps was an old standard from when serverspace and bandwidth was more expensive. Now, with places like Rapidshare etc where you can upload up to 100Mb, and most people downloading this kind of stuff having a broadband connection, there's absolutely no sense in compressing music files that hard.

metalmaster wrote:The data of the mp3 converter for those who would like to know

mp3 file,Sample rate: 44100, Channels: 2, Bit rate: 192000

I've only downloaded the HOCCULTA and REQUIEM demos so far, but they were 128 Kbps. Check the settings again.

Thanx for those btw. Will definitely listen to them when I'm coming home.

ION BRITTON · Post by **ION BRITTON** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:22 pm

The sounding result depends on the quality of the software package that did the compression. The same track compressed for example at 128 Kbps can sound much better if you use a professional package and much worse if you compressed it with freeware program you found somewhere in the web.

I suggest you readed this experiment:

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art17931.asp

Take notice of the minor differences between 160 Kbps and 128 Kbps. The result that one hears might depend on his hearing ability, but that's not the rule. The amount of noise you'll get clearly depends on the compression rate: Higher rates means more noise, smaller rates means less noise (it's proportional: at 192K the compressor takes more samples from the analog signal in order to digitalize it, at 128K less). The amount of the useful information(=song without the noise) you'll get has more importance.

Read also the basics about mp3s and human ear freaquency range topic, all very useful & interesting.

doomedplanet · Post by **doomedplanet** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:22 pm

I worked in the digital high tech industry for 15 years, the one real flaw in your comment is this: "Higher rates means more noise". In Music you have to consider it all noise, because no compression software is able to distinguish music from noise intelligently. "Compression" is exactly that and you are losing data irregardless of the rate and these low lossy rates guarantee you get compression artifacts that degrade signal quality.

ION BRITTON · Post by **ION BRITTON** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:55 pm

I'm sorry, maybe that was a wrong expression on my behalf, i'm not veryfamiliar with the english scientific terminilogy on this issues. I didn't mean that compression at higher rates adds more noise to the signal, that can;t be happening of course. Distinguishing noise from the useful data is very hard, i don't know if a compressor can do that at all. The whole thing gets far more perplexed is you want to do that. It's kinda hard for me to explain what i wanted to say exactly, i understand however what you're saying and that's 100% correct. If you still have objections just disregard this sentence i wrote.

metalmaster · Post by **metalmaster** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:47 pm

Ok, lets stop this blablabla and go to the action... I will convert the files into a higher rate, even when that emans 15% more time for me to do the tranfering and uploading... All in the name of Metal!!! Whatch for the next Italian demons which will upload perhpas tomorrow

doomedplanet · Post by **doomedplanet** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:27 am

no objections, just trying to explain a complicated subject and I stubbornly tried to explain, hehe

no problems

ION BRITTON wrote: i understand however what you're saying and that's 100% correct. If you still have objections just disregard this sentence i wrote.

Yes, all in the name of metal!! and actually what happens to me personally is that sound can give me a headache, urgh....I recently deleted some cool Pentagram gig mp3s that sounded like scraping fingers on a chalkboard.

By the way the Flight Charm demo is class, I got a copy of that about 10 years ago and always thought it was an excellent slice of Italian Steel.

Post by **DaN** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:26 am

doomedplanet wrote:Yes, all in the name of metal!! and actually what happens to me personally is that sound can give me a headache, urgh....I recently deleted some cool Pentagram gig mp3s that sounded like scraping fingers on a chalkboard.

I've heard how some people with tinnitus have a hard time with those high-end artefacts audible in heavily compressed mp3's. Just thought it would be worth mentioning..

doomedplanet · Post by **doomedplanet** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:24 pm

I've had tinnitus since I was about 15, or at least that was when it was diagnosed. Maybe that is why I despise so much black metal, it makes my head hurt, haha. And it could be why I love analogue recorded and reproduced music.

DaN wrote: I've heard how some people with tinnitus have a hard time with those high-end artefacts audible in heavily compressed mp3's. Just thought it would be worth mentioning..

roihlem · Post by **roihlem** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:30 pm

thanks for the Flight Charm demo...Will give it a listen tonight. I was a bit dissappointed of their MLP...