sandbox r&b

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

okay I'm listening on my nice headphone setup at home - there is little to no difference, maybe the bass is fuller (probably more amplified on speakers)

but if you could do a double-blind test and accurately pick out the 320 over the 160 original, I'm impressed

what this really needs is a proper mastering

like switching from this (the 320) to like, idk, pretty girl rock or something, the difference is stark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r87cBCHW34&fmt=18

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

the dawn richard still sounds awful, it's a good record though

i listened to it on headphones on the bus last night, dayo and i are both right - it is def crisper and bassier than the version she uploaded originally but yes, it still basically sounds unmastered :(

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

― Evan R., Saturday, December 10, 2011 1:07 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Permalink

was gonna say. he's not even trying to avoid being obvious on that one.

also i need access to the crazy mic/mic stand thread for miguel's glowing mic stand.

Miguel co-wrote "Cold Summer."

Twice, apparently.

ha

Missed Anthony Hamilton on the Live! with Kelly live! morning tv talk show this morning. Not on youtube yet, I don't think

Michelle Pfeiffer; Anthony Hamilton (music guest); Matt Bean (Men's Health magazine); Kevin Jonas (guest cohost).

Her exclamation marks

this anthony hamilton is so gorgeous!

yeah my favourites i think are "pray for me", "never let go" and "sucka for you".

could do w/o "baby girl", i've had enough of dudes singing fallen woman clichés.

not that into the Hamilton, feel like the Saadiq and the Thicke (among others) have much more interesting and effective mixes of old and new. and "Sucka For You" is just awful.

the g-side manager was RT'ing all these ppl clowning anthony hamilton for doing plantation songs the other day

the idea i got was it was that it was a little TOO retro

nb i havent heard the record yet

this album isn't any more retro than his other albums (probably less). but 'plantation songs'? that's p fucked up.

idk i think folks were joking/exaggerating. taking it out of context here might be a bit misleading