Can you reveal how long Deconstruction is going to be?

About 4.7 inches.

[swervedriver]

Less than 74 minutes.

Less than 74 minutes.

I've always wondered, does that mean Blind Melon's Soup album could have only been 72 minutes because of the song before track 1? Or is the standard 74 mins plus 1.5mins of extra space?

Anyone know any more albums that have this pre-track 1 song?

Less than 74 minutes.

I've always wondered, does that mean Blind Melon's Soup album could have only been 72 minutes because of the song before track 1? Or is the standard 74 mins plus 1.5mins of extra space?

Anyone know any more albums that have this pre-track 1 song?

oceansize - everyone into position (fantastic album!!!!)

whoa, i had no idea Soup had that, i need to check that out when i go home.

im pretty sure it would include any "extra" space cuz some albums have songs w/ "negative" time (inbetween songs, i dunno how to describe it) but it still counts in the total length of an album.

but don't albums go up to 79:59 for awhile now? Metallica's Load was like the big thing back then, most dream theater albums...

Less than 74 minutes.

I've always wondered, does that mean Blind Melon's Soup album could have only been 72 minutes because of the song before track 1? Or is the standard 74 mins plus 1.5mins of extra space?

Anyone know any more albums that have this pre-track 1 song?

oceansize - everyone into position (fantastic album!!!!)

whoa, i had no idea Soup had that, i need to check that out when i go home.

I agree, the Oceansize album is great but I only have mp3 as they are not sold in Canada (maybe even North America) so I can't check.

I go years without listening to that song on Soup but I threw it in the car today to listen to again. It's good, i think it is around 2.5mins too. I remember it's frustrating in the car because if you rewind too far it goes back to the first track.

Less than 74 minutes.

I've always wondered, does that mean Blind Melon's Soup album could have only been 72 minutes because of the song before track 1? Or is the standard 74 mins plus 1.5mins of extra space?

Anyone know any more albums that have this pre-track 1 song?

oceansize - everyone into position (fantastic album!!!!)

Yes Emp(irical) Error. It's also on one of their EP's by the way.

Also, Muse - Hullabaloo (CD2 I think), The Gathering - Souvenirs, Queens Of The Stone Age - Songs For The Deaf. There's a wikipedia page that lists a whole bunch, search it for "pregap".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregap#Alb ... the_pregap

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.

Just wanted to clarify, yes bit rate (you put sample rate, but I think you're referring to bit rate, 8-bit 16-bit etc.) is VERY important to sound quality- it determines the accuracy at which the sound is reproduced thus producing a better sound. The point that I was making with sampling rate is that at the current standard sampling rate of an audio CD, all of the sounds perceptable to most people can be reproduced.

And as far as having "inferior" hearing, I used to be the same way. It didn't matter to me one way or another as long as the music was good. All of that changed when I got some studio quality headphones (Beyerdynamic DT 990 PRO just in case you're interested) and now it makes a world of difference. You'd be surprised at how much more you'll enjoy your favorite music when it SOUNDS good.

Less than 74 minutes.

I've always wondered, does that mean Blind Melon's Soup album could have only been 72 minutes because of the song before track 1? Or is the standard 74 mins plus 1.5mins of extra space?

Anyone know any more albums that have this pre-track 1 song?

oceansize - everyone into position (fantastic album!!!!)

Yes Emp(irical) Error. It's also on one of their EP's by the way.

Also, Muse - Hullabaloo (CD2 I think), The Gathering - Souvenirs, Queens Of The Stone Age - Songs For The Deaf. There's a wikipedia page that lists a whole bunch, search it for "pregap".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregap#Alb ... the_pregap

damn, i have all 3 of those albums and never knew it. sweet, thanks.

X Files Songs in the Key of X has a Nick Cave song if you rewind it. I only heard the song once or twice because it's too much trouble to rewind a cd to hear a song. I have one cd, I can't recall which right now, that has a section between songs that disappears if you try to skip right to the song. Pregaps are a bad idea really. But I just realized that if you rewind Addicted there is a pregap that has the entire album in reverse.

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.

Since I'm at work, I'm not going to spend the time looking for the studies. There is a graph that shows what the human ear can pick up sonically. The argument is not about what you can scientifically prove hearing wise, it's what you are lacking by limiting the frequencies. You're not supposed to be able to hear the extra high and low frequencies produced by analogue, thus the cd. However, I can easily tell what is "missing" when I do a cd vs lp comparison. Maybe it is some sort of vibrational perception that reacts to the less limited frequency range in lp's. You can't hear it per se but it is perceptible. Other noticeable differences are the decay on notes or most noticably on cymbals. John Bonham's drums are a night and day difference on a good lp cut vs. any remaster I've ever heard.

Crackle only happens if you are using a cheap needle or are listening to a record in poor condition. I have 60's Japanese Hendrix records that are as clean and noiseless as their CD counterparts... They just sound better.
I have some LP's that were sourced from digital recordings that I still find superior to the CD version. A Perfect Circle's Mer de Noms comes to mind immediately. That LP is light years beyond what the CD version sounded like. NIN's The Fragile is the same scenario. I really can't speak intelligently as to how this is possible but I can assure you, it is a fact. It may have something to do with mastering the 24bit source specifically for LP, I really don't know.

well as the extended range vs cd range the thing is in the higher/lower than hearing range sounds react with each other causing harmonics and little nuances that cant be reproduced without having this extended range of 25Khz+ in the highs. i have no idea if vinyl is capeable of recording sounds above 25khz and it also depends on the range of the mics used in recording... if all the mic's used had a 20-20khz dynamic range then sure cd's would get you a perfect copy..... but thats not the case hence needing a larger dynamic range.

About 4.7 inches.

stop stop you're killing me here....

[The Dev]

Still compiling the job list for Decon. HUGE HUGE project, biggest I've undertaken conceptually and physically. If I can pull it off, it's going to turn some folks on their ears.

...of course, there's going to be people who currently really like Addicted that probably will dislike it.

Everything you've said about Deconstruction tells me it's going to be absolutely beautiful, in an twisted and insane kinda way.