Lmao! Does this also mean a chance of a re-recording of Decon featuring Cookie Monster?

Yup and re-recording 'Ghost' with Maizzi's dog.

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=8904

Damn thats my Hyperdrive cover out the window!
I had "Tickle me Elmo" ready and all.

Of course, I will have the option of downloading the leak if there is a re-recording and making a decision to buy or not. At the end of the day, whether it gets done or not, doesn't really affect my life. The big issue being made is because people keep replying to and criticising my point. Was not the purpose of DTP to release the past and determine direction for future ventures? I'm not making that up. That was made abundantly clear in many interviews. I don't care if there is an SYL reunion. They were the best touring band in the world and they went out on top. Great story. Great legacy. I'm looking forward to new music from Dev, Tenet, Fear Factory and whatever else ex members of SYL are going to end up playing on. My point was simply, if the point of DTP is to move on, why all the Physicist talk? If DTP is going to be a vehicle to re-do music I already love, I'm out. I don't support the Meshuggah argument because I didn't like the album to begin with. Adding fancier guitars doesn't polish modern Meshuggah up to an interesting level for me. You can polish a turd...

My other point was, if he's not happy with it, play with it in another format. Use something familiar to learn something new. The only thing that is going to keep the record industry afloat are special packages and formats. Hell, I even bought the new BTBAM album because it came with a 5.1 mix. I don't really like the band enough to buy the album but my decision to buy was made for me when I saw the 5.1mix. We can all see where the industry is headed. Look in the US at your local Best Buy. How many times have they moved (and shrank) the music section in the last 5 yrs? Independents are gone, major chains focus more on toys than music anymore. The upside is, surround packages are so inexpensive today and the market penetration for home theatre setups is very high. This opens up a new way to present music without going audiophile (SACD/DVD-A). Even with a lossy Dolby codec, BTBAM's new record is stunning in 5.1. Soundscapes are obviously broadened, the mix has better separation and you can easily isolate particular phrases or solos to higlight a moment. I seriously do not know why artists don't create music with this in mind. It sucks that it's lossy but the richness of 360deg sound makes up for it. Another dimension is the LP. Alien was a nice try and it was packaged well but it was not mastered properly for vinyl. I defy any of you to go out and get the Damnation record by Opeth and play the LP side by side with the CD. Modern music can sound incredible on LP if it is mastered correctly. Drums are bigger, guitars are meatier, bass is thick vocals are more human. You may not be able to scientifically prove that you can hear a difference but it is there and it is the reason I will never pay for an mp3 or own an ipod.

Anyways, this whole thing is getting out of hand. I made a suggestion to Dev, that's it. He's going to do what he does.

I think it's quite interesting to hear a different take on a song you already like. I'm a massive fan of Physicist, it was the album that introduced me to Devin's solo work, but I'd still be interested to hear how it was supposed to sound. At the end of the day, if I don't like it, there's always the original. Some people didn't like Physicst, maybe this will help them "get it".

I'm a sucker for remixes and all that though.

I think hearing a different version of a song can give you a whole new appreciation of the original. You hear parts that weren't so clear in the original, and appreciate them more. At least I do. It's like going back to when the album was completely new to you.

You may not be able to scientifically prove that you can hear a difference but it is there and it is the reason I will never pay for an mp3 or own an ipod.

I'd say that if there is a real difference, then it can be scientifically proven. Probably more difficult with vinyl vs CD because vinyl crackles audibly, which is a dead giveaway, but normally you can do a double blind listening test. If you can do better than random guessing, then there's a perceptible difference.

There probably is a pretty big difference between vinyl and CD to be honest though. Vinyl is an analogue format, whereas every sample on a CD is quantised to 16 bits, which has a maximum range of 65535 values (or −32768 to 32767). I wouldn't be surprised if that's in the range of human perception.

I'm thinking of re-recording Addicted. Is that alright?

I think one more version of Hyperdrive is in order.

It's called 'Hyperdrive?' and has guest vocals by Elmo.


This forum is fun...have at 'er guys.


Oh, and I'm not just any old 'person', I'll have you know... I'm my mommy's l'il sweety pookums.

Elmo is evil. Can I suggest Beaker instead? Or, if it must be from Sesame Street, then Grover. But Elmo is evil.

I think one more version of Hyperdrive is in order.

It's called 'Hyperdrive?' and has guest vocals by Elmo.

Yes Elmo vocals! Cookie Monster's been in enough metal already, time to let another sesame street character have a turn!

There probably is a pretty big difference between vinyl and CD to be honest though. Vinyl is an analogue format, whereas every sample on a CD is quantised to 16 bits, which has a maximum range of 65535 values (or −32768 to 32767). I wouldn't be surprised if that's in the range of human perception.

None of this matters if the original audio was mastered digitally anyhow, and besides, a nice DAC will make this completely imperceptible anyhow, if it's even perceptible at all.

Vinyl is cool for it's own reasons, it's got a warm sound that can't be replicated, but the idea that it's "better" somehow is nothing but a complete fallacy.

As long a all the subliminal messages get through. (And Dev's true Masters are happy, whom exist outside of this reality)

I think it's quite interesting to hear a different take on a song you already like. I'm a massive fan of Physicist, it was the album that introduced me to Devin's solo work, but I'd still be interested to hear how it was supposed to sound. At the end of the day, if I don't like it, there's always the original. Some people didn't like Physicst, maybe this will help them "get it".

I'm a sucker for remixes and all that though.

I think hearing a different version of a song can give you a whole new appreciation of the original. You hear parts that weren't so clear in the original, and appreciate them more. At least I do. It's like going back to when the album was completely new to you.

You may not be able to scientifically prove that you can hear a difference but it is there and it is the reason I will never pay for an mp3 or own an ipod.

I'd say that if there is a real difference, then it can be scientifically proven. Probably more difficult with vinyl vs CD because vinyl crackles audibly, which is a dead giveaway, but normally you can do a double blind listening test. If you can do better than random guessing, then there's a perceptible difference.


There probably is a pretty big difference between vinyl and CD to be honest though. Vinyl is an analogue format, whereas every sample on a CD is quantised to 16 bits, which has a maximum range of 65535 values (or −32768 to 32767). I wouldn't be surprised if that's in the range of human perception.

Actually it's the sampling rate that determines the sounds that are in or out of human hearing range. The sampling rate for a CD is 44100, which means that it is capable of transmitting frequencies of up to 22050Hz (or 44100/2) which is outside the range of hearing for 'most' people. Some people believe though that it is the really high frequencies (30kHz+ I believe) that add depth and clarity to some music, and if this is the case then CD is not ideal for sound quality. As far as I know, though, this is not proven and is just a theory. I can't tell you specifically how this relates to digital vs analog but I thought it was worth noting.

I think it's quite interesting to hear a different take on a song you already like. I'm a massive fan of Physicist, it was the album that introduced me to Devin's solo work, but I'd still be interested to hear how it was supposed to sound. At the end of the day, if I don't like it, there's always the original. Some people didn't like Physicst, maybe this will help them "get it".

I'm a sucker for remixes and all that though.

I think hearing a different version of a song can give you a whole new appreciation of the original. You hear parts that weren't so clear in the original, and appreciate them more. At least I do. It's like going back to when the album was completely new to you.

You may not be able to scientifically prove that you can hear a difference but it is there and it is the reason I will never pay for an mp3 or own an ipod.

I'd say that if there is a real difference, then it can be scientifically proven. Probably more difficult with vinyl vs CD because vinyl crackles audibly, which is a dead giveaway, but normally you can do a double blind listening test. If you can do better than random guessing, then there's a perceptible difference.


There probably is a pretty big difference between vinyl and CD to be honest though. Vinyl is an analogue format, whereas every sample on a CD is quantised to 16 bits, which has a maximum range of 65535 values (or −32768 to 32767). I wouldn't be surprised if that's in the range of human perception.

Actually it's the sampling rate that determines the sounds that are in or out of human hearing range. The sampling rate for a CD is 44100, which means that it is capable of transmitting frequencies of up to 22050Hz (or 44100/2) which is outside the range of hearing for 'most' people. Some people believe though that it is the really high frequencies (30kHz+ I believe) that add depth and clarity to some music, and if this is the case then CD is not ideal for sound quality. As far as I know, though, this is not proven and is just a theory. I can't tell you specifically how this relates to digital vs analog but I thought it was worth noting.

ok wow now this is a discussion i can get into. personaly i think the 44.1/16 is the bare minimum that could be concidered "quality" where as 48/24 is what the cd should of been but alas its not posible to do such a thing... and people now a days dont care enough to push for something of better quality in the mass market.. sure we have the ODD sacd or dvd-A but usualy you can never get any of the newer musics on such formats. but anyways i can definately tell the difrence between a 320 v0 mp3 and a flac file. and also above that is a 96/24 wav after that it gets a little harder to tell. but the thing is in order to notice differences between these formats you need to spend quite a bit on your audio gear. expecialy if you are using speakers. and with speakers weeks of tweaking and placement ajustments are needed to maximize your rooms sonic signiture to get the best sound out of it. which is why i personaly perfer a good set of headphones.. and their cheaper too. all you have to worry about is your equipment and cableing and not about standing waves and reflections. but i will say a realy expensive system properly tuned and placed in a properly tuned and shaped room with the optimum listing position will be supirior to almoast all cans but we are talking in the 10's of thousands of dollars in equipment and such which just isnt practical. where as $900 gets you cans an amp and maybe a good source. which is worth many times that in a set of speakers. also cans are the best for people who dont have the space for large floor standers. (my position)

but anyways my optimum setup i have now would be 192/24 wav file through my xonar dx and into my recabled ultrasone pro line 2500's i realy need to get an amp for them but to maximize the prolines would cost me more than the cans and card combined. (about $700) which i cant justify geting just yet.

[swervedriver]

I think I'm glad to have "inferior" hearing. It's much cheaper for listening equipment and saves me a lot of disk space. So there.

my niece would love an Elmo version of Hyperdrive.

Actually it's the sampling rate that determines the sounds that are in or out of human hearing range. The sampling rate for a CD is 44100, which means that it is capable of transmitting frequencies of up to 22050Hz (or 44100/2) which is outside the range of hearing for 'most' people. Some people believe though that it is the really high frequencies (30kHz+ I believe) that add depth and clarity to some music, and if this is the case then CD is not ideal for sound quality. As far as I know, though, this is not proven and is just a theory. I can't tell you specifically how this relates to digital vs analog but I thought it was worth noting.

I'm not an audio expert, but surely both contribute to a human's perception of sound quality? Sample rate is important too, but the range of values that can be stored in a sample must be important too.

To take it to an extreme, you'd definitely notice a big difference between two audio clips of the same sample rate if one had 8 bits per sample, and the other had 16 bits per sample. I don't think it's a big stretch to say that someone can notice the difference between say 16 bit per sample and 24 bit per sample.

I think I'm glad to have "inferior" hearing. It's much cheaper for listening equipment and saves me a lot of disk space. So there.

I'm kind of the same. I can certainly notice a difference between a 128kps mp3, and uncompressed audio, but the difference is not big enough to affect my enjoyment of the track.

Maybe Cookie Monster will be doing vocals for Deconstruction?