frank chipboard wrote:My dad liked some Boards of Canada songs. He was a big fan of Eno and thought some BoC sounded similar. We talked about music a lot, and after a few years passed since TCH came out he was always asking if BoC were doing anything new. We talked about listening to the new album on the day of release, him with a malt whisky, me with a joint. I always planned on having a malt and a joint but that wasn't ever mentioned. Anyway, cancer took him on the 11th December 2012. Six months before TH was released, but we didn't know that then.
I meant to post this last year when the album came out but couldn't, reading through this thread reminded me.
Rodheh wrote:No, strongly voiced opinions don't close the case. Official statements generally do.
mgd wrote:...This is what I can share: it appears that these new FLAC files were definitely the same mp3's already circulating from 2009 at one point in their life. For the new OT.1 and "35 Tape" collections being offered here, it's 100% confirmed that the original 2009 mp3's have been spruced up with various processes to make them sound like they are from original cassettes. (This is obviously inconsistent with the OP's story) And it appears almost certain that the OT.2 collection here is also a result of heavy processing of the same mp3's.
No offense to mgd, but on what basis is this "100% confirmed"? I'm just trying to understand the reason for his certitude that these are processed mp3s. Is he saying this as an audio engineer? If it is that obvious or certain, someone here (if not mdg explaining himself) ought to be able to show the math, so to speak, and put this to rest. I see no reason why we have to resort to believing one thing or the other when the truth is apparently discernible.
cleaning them them up doesnt mean take out the noise. take the noise out and you take some of the freqs out. the old is gold. SO CLEAN....punchy. so what if there is tape hiss....THEY WERE ON TAPE.
what do you expect.
first of all, official statements don't close cases unless you are Hitler, Stalin or some other person who is right just because he is "an official." once opened cases never close and that is very unfortunate for the sum of entropy over human kind (i.e. there will always be conspiracy nuts... and conspiracy nuts among the conspiracy nuts... but then again maybe some fucked up junkie beggar conspiracy nut will save the world? would you risk cutting his tongue out just because he offended the Queen?)
ok back to our topic.
i collated all three versions i possess: the 160kbps from god knows where, the 192kbps from that rareboc site and the FLACKQUE which risks attracting president putin's attention.
the waveforms are attached below and although the frequencies absent/present may be debatable, there is something which is not: runtime (it's also written on the screenshots).
and while it's debatable if the 192kbps version or the FLACKQUE is better quality (puh-lease, i can blast the 192kbps full volume while the FLACKQUE lacks proper mastering and hurts my ears... i am actually suspecting BoC gifted us the 192's ), there is no question they came from different cassette decks.
btw the frequency scale is different on the FLACKQUE because the adobe guys can't be bothered to fix such things.
also, i don't understand why can't people leave 2 seconds (i initially wrote 5 seconds but really, is 2 seconds too much?) run-in and run-out time. you know, silence before and after the music proper ("program" in broadcasting lingo)?!
so, the only way we will EVER be sure if the d_o_p guy/girl releases an unmolested untouched rip. and PLEASE not in 32bits/sample! 24bits/sample is more than enough for even the more pretentious (non-scientific) recording. and with at least 15 seconds run-in/run-out.
tonx wrote: I'm just trying to understand the reason for his certitude that these are processed mp3s.
For what it's worth, M9 has the same scratchy sound artifact in this new version that it has in previous versions. Although more difficult to discern, it is still there. That tells me this is just a remastered remaster.
Can we just end this? Decide for yourself, its no one's business what you do. I think now we're all just arguing. If you like it, good. If not, fine. Believe me, okay. Don't, alright. It's no big deal, they're just cassette tapes, it's just music, no matter how impacting it's been to me, it's still just music...
the thing that bothers me the most is "compiling" the sausage (sausage = the long file of one side, with all tracks in it) from "multiple sources." it's the least plausible detail of the whole story. if you compile it from separate tracks, "the best from each version at hand", why leave them in a sausage... if you don't (you by some magical audio process manage to "make 1 best quality track out of 2 less than best quality tracks"), how does that add up with the different lengths* of different versions? i mean okay, maybe it adds up but in that case why do the sausage-files have different lengths? and why doesn't any of them (even the 160kbps one) have run-in and run-out? so many questions so little relevance *plays Trapped on repeat*
*tape is not like CD, no two tape decks have exactly the same speed.
zeoevil wrote:For what it's worth, M9 has the same scratchy sound artifact in this new version that it has in previous versions. Although more difficult to discern, it is still there. That tells me this is just a remastered remaster.
interesting, i talked to M9 and it told me that the scratchy sound artifact was in the original track (i.e. on the cassette). maybe that is why it appears on all versions. how about that, sherlock?
Doors_Of_Perception wrote:Can we just end this? Decide for yourself, its no one's business what you do. I think now we're all just arguing. If you like it, good. If not, fine. Believe me, okay. Don't, alright. It's no big deal, they're just cassette tapes, it's just music, no matter how impacting it's been to me, it's still just music...
well if you want to end this post the unprocessed versions, those would prove once and for all that you are not lying, even to a person with an IQ below 50. don't you agree? would it be so hard? otherwise, if you don't even care, why did you post them in the first place? i bet that 90% of people would have donated even without the tracks (well, i would bet that after this fiasco MORE would have donated but that's just me)
Not getting caught up in the source debate, audio sounds great, so thanks.
I did notice though that Rodox Video on my old copy of OTV1 has the voice sample ("yeah") and accordion-like sound panned left and the new rip has it panned right. No audio expert, so not sure what this could mean...
Additional regrets that this thread just seems to be a continuation of the one that got locked, which wasn't my intention at all. I wish MDG had let the other one breathe out for a little while before locking it.
They've said that they consider Hooper Bay to be their first "serious" work - if that's the case, why don't we have it? What we (think) we've heard of it definitely seems on par with the quality of Twoism. Did Twoism only get reissued because people were trading scratchy vinyl rips of it?
Speaking of the original vinyl of Twoism, there is something to be said about the effect of a supposedly inferior rip from an analog source. I keep my Twoism vinyl rip around for that very reason. When you say that OT sounds "too good" now, you're also hearing sounds that are there you've never heard before - those sounds were there originally, you just never heard them. If they were put there by the people who created it, wasn't the listener meant to hear them all along? What's the "right" way to listen to this music?
Opothecary wrote:They've said that they consider Hooper Bay to be their first "serious" work - if that's the case, why don't we have it? What we (think) we've heard of it definitely seems on par with the quality of Twoism. Did Twoism only get reissued because people were trading scratchy vinyl rips of it?
Speaking of the original vinyl of Twoism, there is something to be said about the effect of a supposedly inferior rip from an analog source. I keep my Twoism vinyl rip around for that very reason. When you say that OT sounds "too good" now, you're also hearing sounds that are there you've never heard before - those sounds were there originally, you just never heard them. If they were put there by the people who created it, wasn't the listener meant to hear them all along? What's the "right" way to listen to this music?
Twoism was selling second hand for ridiculous amounts of money. I imagine they just wanted to nip that in the bud.
Opothecary wrote:When you say that OT sounds "too good" now, you're also hearing sounds that are there you've never heard before - those sounds were there originally, you just never heard them. If they were put there by the people who created it, wasn't the listener meant to hear them all along? What's the "right" way to listen to this music?
yeah who knows d_o_p put them there!! did you hear about that forger who did "originals"? the right way to listen to this music is in special places where you can't carry a 10.000$ ultra-audiophile sound system, about this i'm sure. old tunes? on a walkman. with a Y splitter for headphones. or a boombox maybe.
XXXXXX
), there is no question they came from different cassette decks.
