Asyndess - Illumination [demo] (1995), Dark/Black Metal Options

[artscald]

(IMG:http://metalarea.org/images/audiocovers/2009_Sep/acov_tid96249.jpg)

*Artist: Asyndess

*Album: Illumination [demo]

*Year: 1995
*Genre: Dark/Black Metal
*Country: France (IMG:http://metalarea.org/forum/style_images/flags/France.png)
*Format: mp3@VBR192kbps
*Size: 64MB

Tracklist:
1.Tragedy (2:40)
2.Sadness (4:13)
3.In flames (4:14)
4.Suffering shared (4:43)
5.Illumination (6:32)
6.Elevation (5:06)
7.Dive into the dark (4:22)
8.Hypnotic statue of death (5:14)
9.Crystalline visions (8:34)
******************************
Total playing time: 45:38

Extended info

ASYNDESS is a side-project of Loic Cellier known from BELENOS

Register

[Moldavite]

tape rip, mp3@vbr~292kbps, big scans, 94mb

Register

[thenecromancer]

[RunningWild_AT]

tape rip, mp3@vbr~292kbps, big scans, 94mb

mp3.cbr128:

A perfect example for all these bitrate junkies out there - the cbr128 outperformes the vbr290 bitrate (both on same volume) by ≥400%.

"Bitrate means nothing, the source decides!"

So to all web-rippers or ignorants:
You can rip your YouTube [1] or lousy source [2] with cbr320 or even lossless [3] but it won´t mean anything, it´s just a waste of disk space! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/21.gif)

notes:
[1] Youtube usually streams in AAC.cbr128 format or lower unless it´s a professional HD video (after July 2012). Lateron it might be AAC.cbr192 (till today) - but never ever more!
[2] Many don´t understand that a self-burnt CDr filled with web-collected tracks is a lousy source. If the bitrate is (was) low it won´t get any better if you upconvert it to WAV (=Lossless cbr1411). - "Hey I ripped it from CD!" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif)
[3] Lossless itself makes no sense unless you´re planning further editing, transcoding or re-production, but increasing lossless settings [4] makes me sick even more.
[4] The new trend to pimp rips with 16→24 bit, even 'better' upgrading frequency from 44→192 KHz for lossless rip is sheer stupidity and a perfect waste of disk space!
2-3 GB for ripping an audio cd does not make any sense. - Just leave the default settings unless you own the original 24-track studio recordings plus know what you´re doing.

That´s no critizism of the tape-rip or tape-ripper above - not at all (thanks D! for uploading it, the HQ scans are much appreciated) - it´s just a pamphlet against ignorant web-rippers & lossless.
I got two vintage cbr96-rips sounding better than any later rip I ever found lateron…

[Moldavite]

Well written, everything you said is true (of course)! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/pleased.gif)

Usually, I like to provide the highest bitrate I'm able to find and I rarely listen to what I reupload for people who requested it (simply because of lack of time or interest), so when there are low bitrate and high bitrate rips of the same requested album/release circulating around - I grab and share a higher bitrate one, preferably if it originates from original (such as proper Scene rips or people's personal rips) and not web stream rip (such as youtube for example), even tho I'm aware the sound doesn't really have that much to do with bitrate itself.

HQ is HQ, but just because something is HQ/high bitrate doesn't mean it's going to have good sound. Sound depends on many factors such as:
- the recording process: is it some bedroom band recorded by someone who doesn't really know much about what they are doing, is it a garage demo rehearsal or an audio recording of a live concert, or is the album properly recorded in a studio and had professionals working on digitization.
- the format of original: Is it a vinyl, tape or a CD (or even a floppy disk)? Professionally released CD should usually have highest quality sound on it, and with tapes - it really depends. Dubbed tape is of much lower quality than pro tape. This depends on the label who released it too, I noticed nowadays there are new BM labels releasing tapes who's owners don't really know they are downgrading the original quality while recording material onto a tape.
- finally, final sound you hear depends also on encoding, software used while digitizing, codec, the actual lossy or lossless format or bitrate.... also on equipment you're listening it through such as do you have some cheap headphones, listening through a laptop or mobile phone speakers or good quality strereo speakers etc. Sound you get in a way also depends on the listener, it's subjective. Haha obviously if you're half-deaf or have hearing problems, sound you hear isn't the same as the sound someone else hears. Obviously. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile1.gif)

Basically, I noticed many people here on metalarea especially have a hard on for lossy CBR320 and don't like VBR/V0 even though I've noticed VBR rips very often outperform 320 in sound.

I like to share lossless @ flac when I'm able to find it, simply because I have a feeling that times are changing and very soon HDDs will be dirt cheap so people will more and more start to prefer flac over 320. But I personally rarely even keep flac rips on my HDD, because it's simply not needed for me. Lossless is good if you're going to edit the rip, or record it onto a tape, or CD for a car, or if you have some fancy expensive equipment for listening music. I don't have some super fancy equipment for listening music so there is barely any difference in sound between an album in lossless or lossy. I still like CBR192 and V0, because those rips often sound more than good enough (but the sound depends on many factors, which I've mentioned above).

Finally, one more thing I'd like to add is about spectrogram. Yeah, spectra does show the bitrate and encoding but it doesn't show the final sound of release. And there are so many rips circulating around that are transcodes, but that's not all - many of releases on metalarea and other music sharing websites that we consider to be 320 are actually proper 192 or 256/cut at 18-20kHz frequency (especially tapes), while also many 192 or 256 are actually stream rips upconverted from lower bitrate such as 128...

So, for getting the best possible quality - it's best to buy the actual original/physical release. Nothing ever compares to that, and no digitization can replace owning original.

Of course, with so many underground bands existing, with so much music, so many albums - it's not possible to have everything as originals. It's expensive, and it takes room/space to store all those tapes and albums. So, if one's going to have digital music - at the end it comes down to personal taste, attitudes, opinions and needs. For me - I appreciate when a rip is made out of original source without unnecessary converting and transcoding, I appreciate when there are scans too, I love scans. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile1.gif) The actual bitrate, such as is it 192 or 256 or 320, is less important.

[RunningWild_AT]

Wow, thanks for the detailed statement, couldn´t say any better - it´s like out of the textbook…

Absolutely agree, usually I also try to find highest possible bitrate on re-ups without previous checking for quality issues .

… best to buy the actual original/physical release. Nothing ever compares to that, and no digitization can replace owning original.

Another sentence out of the textbook!

Support the bands and buy the music you like.