sandbox r&b

the video is like half the length of the actual song, inexplicably (the song is ~out there~)

― degas-dirty monet (lex pretend), Thursday, December 8, 2011 6:03 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

what song?

the kalenna at the top of the thread i think

goddamn this robin thicke album knocks

man i'm so excited to listen to that and the a-ham when i actually have time

a-ham isn't on spotify but i am curious -- is it like anthony hamilton doing what he always does really well or is it actually something new for him in any way?

"a-ham"! i am curious abt the answet to mr. stevenson's question too btw

It feels pretty new to me. It's a much more contemporary record, by his standards. Everything about it, from the songwriting to the production, is just so immediate. Definitely the best soul record I've heard all year.

man i'm so excited to listen to that and the a-ham when i actually have time

― k3vin k., Friday, December 9, 2011 2:18 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink

Gonna give ear to these this weekend for sure.

omfg you know how we've been bitching about the shitty mp3 quality of the dawn richard mixtape all year? she only went and uploaded the 320s at some point this year and didn't tell anyone - literally just discovered by chance now http://dawnrichardblog.com/

niiice

don't think it was the mp3 quality - think it was the mixing/mastering? are these mixed or mastered any differently?

sorry, but from streaming (not downloading) these sound just as shitty ;_;

maybe the downloaded ones will be better idk

Why would lex care about this? Confusing

Love this smooth CJ Hilton tune "Cold Summer":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn4jAkt43LA

Why would lex care about this? Confusing

― joey joe joe junior shabadoo, Saturday, December 10, 2011 2:54 PM (43 minutes ago)

it was literally hard to hear some of the parts of these songs

yeah in the dynamic range compression thread he thought we were all being babies

CJ Hilton has killed it this year w/ singles.

That CJ Hilton song is one J. Cole verse short of being "All I Want Is You."

are my posts just really unclear or is it deej's reading comprehension? dynamic range compression and mp3 quality are not the same thing. i can't deal with mp3s under 192 kpbs

btw, Miguel just played the Shrine in Chicago which is a big venue here for soul & hip-hop artists, and apparently Miguel wants to work with Pete Rock so I saw the shrine's twitter linking them up yesterday. i know pete rock has made some questionable collaborative decisions but imo it would be dope to see him getting involved in the 90s retro R&B thing, esp since it feels so much more vibrant than any retro 90s hip-hop thing has been in a minute

are my posts just really unclear or is it deej's reading comprehension? dynamic range compression and mp3 quality are not the same thing. i can't deal with mp3s under 192 kpbs

― degas-dirty monet (lex pretend), Saturday, December 10, 2011 3:08 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Permalink

dayo just implied that it looks to be a mastering issue, not an mp3 issue, but if you don't see how these could BOTH affect sound quality, you're the one w/ reading comprehension issues

Ah! He was in Chicago and I missed it! I would have made the drive had I known; I've wanted to see him all year... all the live performance clips I've seen from him have looked awesome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf5tBt9hB8s

I mean, that's just the soundcheck

dayo just implied that it looks to be a mastering issue, not an mp3 issue, but if you don't see how these could BOTH affect sound quality, you're the one w/ reading comprehension issues

dayo hadn't actually heard the 320 kpbs when he typed that o_0

I know I have cloth-ears b/c aside from happily listening to low bit rate radio sets, my only conscious response to the apparently-unlistenable poor quality of the Dawn Richard album is to turn up the volume on my earphones.

This is why while I agree with lex that dynamic range comprehension doesn't really bother me I decided long ago not to have a dog in that fight, my opinion is inherently unreliable.

i've listened to low-bitrate & poorly compressed stuff; I do have to overlook it though, consciously; part of my enjoyment of it is almost like, I'm hearing what the song could have been with better mastering

sometimes its so bad that I can't listen at all, but that happens more often in genres (pop punk, red hot chili peppers) that I don't really listen to

i love good quality shit

i'm like "this sounds so clean"

the only example i can think of right now where one is engineered like soup and the other sounds pristine is the LEP Bogus Boys record vs. the freddie gibbs record. I'm predisposed to prefer the former but the Gibbs record just sounds better because of the mastering. that's all there is to it; it can make or break records, imo

anyone who doubts that it affects how experience the music should listen to those back to back & tell me honestly that the LEP wouldnt sound a hundred times better with better mastering

I honestly couldn't get into this cos of the quality. Will give the new version a go

u go girl!

love "cold summer"

just downloaded the 320kbps issue - it's definitely a mastering issue, these sound exactly the same as the ones I have on my iphone

or idk I'll give the new set a listen when I get home on my good headphones - feel like it's the old songs tho

also lol @ the idea of telling the difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps from a macbook sound out - it's in yer head dude

esp if you spend all your time in nightclubs w/ nightclub sound systems

they sound completely different to me. you can actually hear the bass, everything sounds crisper

what song sounds like an improvement to the old version?

also lol @ the idea of telling the difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps from a macbook sound out - it's in yer head dude

― dayo, Saturday, December 10, 2011 4:17 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is totally wrong btw

i mean if you played some random song out of a computer it would be hard to just guess the kbps off your head, but if you play a true 128 vs a true 320 out of a computer (through decent speakers/headphones) the difference is p obvious

i haven't downloaded this exact thing tho

what song sounds like an improvement to the old version?

"vibrate" and "bulletproof" were the ones i played

haha those were the two I played too - I couldn't hear a diff between my laptop out and my iphone out. but I'll go home and check again w/ my DAC/amp and nice big headphones

i prob couldn't tell just off macbook speakers either, my macbook's plugged into proper speakers though

also lol @ the idea of telling the difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps from a macbook sound out - it's in yer head dude

― dayo, Saturday, December 10, 2011 4:17 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is totally wrong btw

― v-shasty, Saturday, December 10, 2011 10:23 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

yeah it is

128 to 320 is noticeable on laptop speaks but 192 to 320, theres no way

I'm listening through earphones!

I mean I guess it's possible that overall there's more lowend/highs in the 320kbps version. but it still sounds like a mixtape that needs mastering - like compare the 320 kbps 'vibrate' or 'bulletproof' to 'ass on the floor' or any of the tracks from LTTP, bet you there's a huge difference

lol well - if there's ever a ILX R&B fap we'll do some double blind A/B testing w/ your computers and headphones and you tell me