‘Prince From Another Planet’ samples

I don't see why one would say this is off-topic... It's about the release being discussed and it's about its quality. Sooo, on-topic.

Why don't we have a face-palm smiley?

Why don't we have a face-palm smiley?

The question is: how far are we from...



Good ol' TNG.

Isn't this release going to be wide, where you can easilly go down to FYE, or Walmart or whoever and get it off the shelf?

Will every unbiased person involved in this discussion please read this, and note my points. I will not keep repeating myself.

David and Matthew could you please take this to PM? It is soooooo boring and also highly off topic. Thank you!

Alexander I get your point, but why not read the posts, surely you will see Mathew was wrong and I was correct that the audio we hear is 128 and he can’t admit it? Is this not important to how we judge the audio? And the credibility of his assertion about the release? You yourself have suggested to Mathew 'If you[r] serious I suggest a doctor to review your hearing...' regarding his original critical comment about the sound, part of which is [Hmm, can't say I'm enamoured with the mixing and processing ... the band sound right up front, almost too dry, against Elvis' vocal which seems distant, less defined, and away from the band in comparison - almost like the band sounds overdubbed on top of the live vocal.]

The problem is with Matthew is he will keep you going around in circles with his spin and avoidance with twisted allegations if one lets him, so this must be my last post, I believe I have made my point, any neutral observer should come in and agree with what I say below. It is just such a shame some people spoil things by not conversing, but trying to dictate. If they can’t admit their mistakes one can’t converse with them.

But believe it or not, Matthew and I actually agree on something, it is not off point at all.

I believe while my post about the 128 MP3 quality could have been better written it was a very constructive and important contribution to this subject in revealing that the sound samples many were complaining sounded POOR, fatiguing to the ears etc were in fact low quality ‘medium’ setting 128 MP3 files. I also think that it is possible this has embarrassed Matthew causing his attacks on me. This is why what I write IS on topic.

This was an innocent post I felt I was able to CONTRIBUTE important information --- And the FACT IS no one would have known about the sound quality if not for me.

As Jamie has written 'How on earth anyone can be so definitive about a release based on an 128pb MP3 file stream is beyond me'. And this is after all what Matthew has done.

So the important FACTS are I posted ACCURATE INFORMATION on the SOUND QUALITY and was abused constantly by Matthew for it. This is not on.

Gee-whiz David, you certainly have a bee in the bonnet about this. Simple facts: you said Sony where stupid enough to have uploaded 128kbps mp3s "set to medium". They didn't. You said this low bitrate is causing the ear fatigue. It isn't.

Matthew Simple facts? I wish you would keep to them instead of your constant SPIN.

I have no bee in the bonnet as you say I am simply defending myself against your dishonesty and spin. Anyone would.

Typical of the controlling person that you appear to be you try to hang on to part of what I said and refuse to acknowledge you wrongly and constantly have accused me of having provided false information about the quality of the audio we all were listening too based on my software converting the quality down to 128. Despite it now being clear you were wrong not only do you not admit it you continue to attack me with illogical SPIN.

Yes I said Sony uploaded 128 and medium quality, but while this is actually still possible you make the unprovable claim they didn’t when the fact is there is NO WAY you could know what they uploaded only what is being played to us. So yes I ADMIT I could have written my post better, but this is not the issue. The issue is what we are listening to and should we trust Matthew.

What does it matter what Sony uploaded or what I said Sony did? What is important and what was the point of my post was to alert EVERYONE that the sound samples many were complaining sounded ‘POOR’, ‘fatiguing to the ears’ etc were in fact low quality ‘medium’ setting 128 MP3 files. Certainly hardly the stuff to be making a judgment of the CD release on!!! – And I do think this has embarrassed Matthew as this is exactly what he has done, and so it has caused his actions.

This was an innocent post I felt I was able to CONTRIBUTE that no one would have known about if not for me. I think it was and is a VERY CONSTRUCTIVE post to the topic.

The important FACTS are I posted ACCURATE INFORMATION on the SOUND QUALITY and was abused constantly by Matthew for it. One has to wonder why? As I wrote above my only conclusion is that this has embarrassed Matthew first that he did not know when he is supposed to be this expert and second that he has gone out and made is criticism based on to his surprise, low quality audio. Not the way to go is it?

So Matthew you say ‘Simple facts‘

The SIMPLE FACT IS I correctly bought the sound quality to everyone’s attention.

The SIMPLE FACT IS you can’t admit you were and are wrong in accusing me of having provided false information about the quality of the audio we all were listening too based on my software converting the quality down to 128.

The SIMPLE FACT IS you keep twisting things to try to avoid the truth.

The SIMPLE FACT IS you cannot admit you were not aware you were basing your ‘profound expert judgment’ based on listening to a low quality 128 MP3 files.

The SIMPLE FACT IS : You can’t handle the FACTS!!!

The SIMPLE FACT IS as for your assertions about what can and can't fatigue the ears, sorry I simply don't care for your technical jargon nor trust anything you say when you clearly didn't even know or care to find out first what quality the audio samples where in before you passed your supposed expert opinion. Nor care for the facts and accuse others and can’t admit when you make a mistake. I am confident all will be revealed to be good when we have something decent to listen too.

The SIMPLE FACT IS it is possible that the MP3 audio is not the cause of the fatiguing on the ears; although AGAIN it is low grade, it must be considered to be very suspicious. THE FACT IS no one can or should be trying to determine such from such low quality samples as we have the likes of Matthew doing. I see no evidence to say Sony have somehow not mastered this CD correctly - it is just so ridiculous and it should be obvious if you read through Matthews spin.

And from Jamie ..

How on earth anyone can be so definitive about a release based on an 128pb MP3 file stream is beyond me. There are so many things that come into the equation sound quality wise not least how individual Media Players can influence the sound, Some are much better than others. The proof will come out when the release does and not before unless Sony pop up a WAV file for us all to download. Despite the negativity from some I am still really looking forward to this release, although, I've had enough BS from this thread for now :(

How true ...

To Claus

I understand your point, but you must understand my replies are based on responding to Matthews attacks on me and his assertion that the audio samples were not 128 and I was giving false information.

My intention was to let everyone know what they were listening to and my point to you is,m while I accept your point, you simply can’t make a determination of the quality of this release based on medium quality MP3 files.

David;

The mp3 files (Waveform) show a lack of dynamics. A higher bitrate won't change that, so unless there is a different mastering - like thenexte suggested - the sound will be loud (loudness war).

David;
The mp3 files (Waveform) show a lack of dynamics. A higher bitrate won't change that, so unless there is a different mastering - like thenexte suggested - the sound will be loud (loudness war).

What about a quality setting of 'medium'?

Will every unbiased person involved in this discussion please read this, and note my points. I will not keep repeating myself.

David and Matthew could you please take this to PM? It is soooooo boring and also highly off topic. Thank you!

Alexander I get your point, but why not read the posts, surely you will see Mathew was wrong and I was correct that the audio we hear is 128 and he can’t admit it? Is this not important to how we judge the audio? And the credibility of his assertion about the release? You yourself have suggested to Mathew 'If you[r] serious I suggest a doctor to review your hearing...' regarding his original critical comment about the sound, part of which is [Hmm, can't say I'm enamoured with the mixing and processing ... the band sound right up front, almost too dry, against Elvis' vocal which seems distant, less defined, and away from the band in comparison - almost like the band sounds overdubbed on top of the live vocal.]

The problem is with Matthew is he will keep you going around in circles with his spin and avoidance with twisted allegations if one lets him, so this must be my last post, I believe I have made my point, any neutral observer should come in and agree with what I say below. It is just such a shame some people spoil things by not conversing, but trying to dictate. If they can’t admit their mistakes one can’t converse with them.

But believe it or not, Matthew and I actually agree on something, it is not off point at all.

I believe while my post about the 128 MP3 quality could have been better written it was a very constructive and important contribution to this subject in revealing that the sound samples many were complaining sounded POOR, fatiguing to the ears etc were in fact low quality ‘medium’ setting 128 MP3 files. I also think that it is possible this has embarrassed Matthew causing his attacks on me. This is why what I write IS on topic.

This was an innocent post I felt I was able to CONTRIBUTE important information --- And the FACT IS no one would have known about the sound quality if not for me.

As Jamie has written 'How on earth anyone can be so definitive about a release based on an 128pb MP3 file stream is beyond me'. And this is after all what Matthew has done.

So the important FACTS are I posted ACCURATE INFORMATION on the SOUND QUALITY and was abused constantly by Matthew for it. This is not on.

Gee-whiz David, you certainly have a bee in the bonnet about this. Simple facts: you said Sony where stupid enough to have uploaded 128kbps mp3s "set to medium". They didn't. You said this low bitrate is causing the ear fatigue. It isn't.

Matthew Simple facts? I wish you would keep to them instead of your constant SPIN.

I have no bee in the bonnet as you say I am simply defending myself against your dishonesty and spin. Anyone would.

Typical of the controlling person that you appear to be you try to hang on to part of what I said and refuse to acknowledge you wrongly and constantly have accused me of having provided false information about the quality of the audio we all were listening too based on my software converting the quality down to 128. Despite it now being clear you were wrong not only do you not admit it you continue to attack me with illogical SPIN.

Yes I said Sony uploaded 128 and medium quality, but while this is actually still possible you make the unprovable claim they didn’t when the fact is there is NO WAY you could know what they uploaded only what is being played to us. So yes I ADMIT I could have written my post better, but this is not the issue. The issue is what we are listening to and should we trust Matthew.

What does it matter what Sony uploaded or what I said Sony did? What is important and what was the point of my post was to alert EVERYONE that the sound samples many were complaining sounded ‘POOR’, ‘fatiguing to the ears’ etc were in fact low quality ‘medium’ setting 128 MP3 files. Certainly hardly the stuff to be making a judgment of the CD release on!!! – And I do think this has embarrassed Matthew as this is exactly what he has done, and so it has caused his actions.

This was an innocent post I felt I was able to CONTRIBUTE that no one would have known about if not for me. I think it was and is a VERY CONSTRUCTIVE post to the topic.

The important FACTS are I posted ACCURATE INFORMATION on the SOUND QUALITY and was abused constantly by Matthew for it. One has to wonder why? As I wrote above my only conclusion is that this has embarrassed Matthew first that he did not know when he is supposed to be this expert and second that he has gone out and made is criticism based on to his surprise, low quality audio. Not the way to go is it?

So Matthew you say ‘Simple facts‘

The SIMPLE FACT IS I correctly bought the sound quality to everyone’s attention.

The SIMPLE FACT IS you can’t admit you were and are wrong in accusing me of having provided false information about the quality of the audio we all were listening too based on my software converting the quality down to 128.

The SIMPLE FACT IS you keep twisting things to try to avoid the truth.

The SIMPLE FACT IS you cannot admit you were not aware you were basing your ‘profound expert judgment’ based on listening to a low quality 128 MP3 files.

The SIMPLE FACT IS : You can’t handle the FACTS!!!

The SIMPLE FACT IS as for your assertions about what can and can't fatigue the ears, sorry I simply don't care for your technical jargon nor trust anything you say when you clearly didn't even know or care to find out first what quality the audio samples where in before you passed your supposed expert opinion. Nor care for the facts and accuse others and can’t admit when you make a mistake. I am confident all will be revealed to be good when we have something decent to listen too.

The SIMPLE FACT IS it is possible that the MP3 audio is not the cause of the fatiguing on the ears; although AGAIN it is low grade, it must be considered to be very suspicious. THE FACT IS no one can or should be trying to determine such from such low quality samples as we have the likes of Matthew doing. I see no evidence to say Sony have somehow not mastered this CD correctly - it is just so ridiculous and it should be obvious if you read through Matthews spin.

And from Jamie ..

How on earth anyone can be so definitive about a release based on an 128pb MP3 file stream is beyond me. There are so many things that come into the equation sound quality wise not least how individual Media Players can influence the sound, Some are much better than others. The proof will come out when the release does and not before unless Sony pop up a WAV file for us all to download. Despite the negativity from some I am still really looking forward to this release, although, I've had enough BS from this thread for now

How true ...

To Claus

I understand your point, but you must understand my replies are based on responding to Matthews attacks on me and his assertion that the audio samples were not 128 and I was giving false information.

My intention was to let everyone know what they were listening to and my point to you is,m while I accept your point, you simply can’t make a determination of the quality of this release based on medium quality MP3 files.

David it is very simple, really: I do not care who is right or wrong. I think the whole 128 sample discussion is spoiling the fun of discussing the fun of Elvis' music. For me it has derailed this thread completely to a boring discussing about compression techniques. That's a shame I had hoped to read more first opinions on the music rather than the two of you taken over with this foot note discussion. But if this gives the two of you some fun, who am I to spoil the party?

Alexander - the problem is that David is operating on a quality setting of 'medium', and the result is fatiguing on your eyes. I've tried to help him increase his 'quality setting' - but I think it's as high as it will go.

I will stop trying to help now.

Alexander I get your point, but why not read the posts, surely you will see Mathew was wrong and I was correct that the audio we hear is 128 and he can’t admit it? Is this not important to how we judge the audio? And the credibility of his assertion about the release?

...

My intention was to let everyone know what they were listening to and my point to you is,m while I accept your point, you simply can’t make a determination of the quality of this release based on medium quality MP3 files.

I'm sure that Matthew's point (and others, for that matter) is that yes, you are listening to a 128kbps MP3 - but that wouldn't be any better even if it was a 320kbps MP3 because the problem is contained on the music, not the file.

Believe me, I never had any problems with MP3 files (and I don't understand why anyone would, but for some reason people treat it like the devil!) and I can tell you as much that it wouldn't be any better IMO. No, wait, it would be better - but the problem is clearly on the samples themselves, not the file quality. You would have a better THAT'S ALL RIGHT WOOOSH, but that's it. As I said before, the samples are quite clear, to be honest! You can clearly notice what was done with the mixing and the mastering, for that matter. Just listen to the vocals on TAR... you can't seriously tell me that the instruments on this supposedly "low quality MP3" are CLEAR but the vocal is being affected by the quality? Everything would be distorted somehow, then (and they are, to an extent, but I'm sure you understand my point).

I'm sure there's a reason why those samples were released: because they are supposed to be, well, samples from the release. There's no reason why someone would release bad sounding samples and actually make people back off from buying it... I'll not say this is what you'll get, but there's a good chance that it'll be. If you enjoy it, heck, I respect you and everyone else! And I'm glad you're enjoying it. And, hopefully, the final release will be better than the samples.

The simple fact is that you're getting way stressed over the matter, man. Chill! There's room for everyone's opinion. And if you think that Matthew's wrong, well, you can always discuss it. That's what the forum is for.

Is it?

Yes, it is. Even if this new MSG release does not contain great mastering or mixing; it still won't be "the biggest ripoff in American music history of CD sales." It is only an Elvis archival release with limited sales potential. It isn't a sonic abomination like 30 Number One Hits.

OK, let me rephrase that then. It's the biggest ripoff among Elvis cds ever releases by RCA. And there's been some really bad ones. This one though, takes the cake.

Are you forgetting "Hearbreak hotel and other hits" CD??!!

Matt et al

at the end of the day we all want a quality release and lets hope it turns out to be better than indicated so far. I confess to struggle with some of the technical discussions at times. But having converted all my cd collection to lossless FLAC files recently I tend to use Computer Audiophile site as a great source of advice. I just received a really good explanation on there about Dynamic Range Compression and Data Compression and cling to the following
" The real simple answer is that you can hear dynamic range compression even in a hughly compressed and compacted MP3, as you most correctly pointed out.

Being able to separate and identify the DRC effects from the data compression effects is perhaps, a different question!


I cling to the hope that we are hearing the effects of both data compression and DRC and the CD will be much better.

Cheers Jamie

Matt et al

at the end of the day we all want a quality release and lets hope it turns out to be better than indicated so far. I confess to struggle with some of the technical discussions at times. But having converted all my cd collection to lossless FLAC files recently I tend to use Computer Audiophile site as a great source of advice. I just received a really good explanation on there about Dynamic Range Compression and Data Compression and cling to the following
" The real simple answer is that you can hear dynamic range compression even in a hughly compressed and compacted MP3, as you most correctly pointed out.

Being able to separate and identify the DRC effects from the data compression effects is perhaps, a different question!


I cling to the hope that we are hearing the effects of both data compression and DRC and the CD will be much better.

Cheers Jamie

That sums it up nicely..

€ 17,99 at Amazon Germany
for pre-order of this October 26, 2012 release

http://www.amazon.de/Elvis-Prince-Anoth ... 472&sr=8-1

Can this be bought without the cds,dvd only?

Can this be bought without the cds,dvd only?

Answer? No.

Next question???

Any here think this trumps the pittsburgh footage from 76?

Any here think this trumps the pittsburgh footage from 76?

We havn't seen it yet, so can't tell yet.

Alexander I get your point, but why not read the posts, surely you will see Mathew was wrong and I was correct that the audio we hear is 128 and he can’t admit it? Is this not important to how we judge the audio? And the credibility of his assertion about the release?

...

My intention was to let everyone know what they were listening to and my point to you is,m while I accept your point, you simply can’t make a determination of the quality of this release based on medium quality MP3 files.

I'm sure that Matthew's point (and others, for that matter) is that yes, you are listening to a 128kbps MP3 - but that wouldn't be any better even if it was a 320kbps MP3 because the problem is contained on the music, not the file.

Believe me, I never had any problems with MP3 files (and I don't understand why anyone would, but for some reason people treat it like the devil!) and I can tell you as much that it wouldn't be any better IMO. No, wait, it would be better - but the problem is clearly on the samples themselves, not the file quality. You would have a better THAT'S ALL RIGHT WOOOSH, but that's it. As I said before, the samples are quite clear, to be honest! You can clearly notice what was done with the mixing and the mastering, for that matter. Just listen to the vocals on TAR... you can't seriously tell me that the instruments on this supposedly "low quality MP3" are CLEAR but the vocal is being affected by the quality? Everything would be distorted somehow, then (and they are, to an extent, but I'm sure you understand my point).

I'm sure there's a reason why those samples were released: because they are supposed to be, well, samples from the release. There's no reason why someone would release bad sounding samples and actually make people back off from buying it... I'll not say this is what you'll get, but there's a good chance that it'll be. If you enjoy it, heck, I respect you and everyone else! And I'm glad you're enjoying it. And, hopefully, the final release will be better than the samples.

The simple fact is that you're getting way stressed over the matter, man. Chill! There's room for everyone's opinion. And if you think that Matthew's wrong, well, you can always discuss it. That's what the forum is for.

I really like Billy's posts. Not only does he actually read and understand what people have written rather than what other people think they have written, but he also manages to condense an elongated argument into a paragraph or two so that we don't have to read the whole thing! I like this man

Can this be bought without the cds,dvd only?

Yes... once it's copied and re-released by MRS... what a silly question...

Any here think this trumps the pittsburgh footage from 76?

Ummm... absolutely... but to be honest I've never seen the second generation copy of the Pittsburgh footage as I assume we are going to see for the MSG footage. The footage available for the Pittsburgh show has to be 5th or 6th generation at best... I got a copy from Larry Patrick back in the mid 80's on VHS... it's much better than the crap you see on youtube.

I really like Billy's posts. Not only does he actually read and understand what people have written rather than what other people think they have written, but he also manages to condense an elongated argument into a paragraph or two so that we don't have to read the whole thing! I like this man

Thank you, Peter. You also have my respect for for being an unbiased member who always contributes to the forum. Even though you should be on a Sinatra board and not here*.

* - I'm sure you understood that I'm kidding.

If we are talking dynamic range compression, I think the two graphs I post below demonstrate that indeed the posted online MP3's suffer this.

But now we can listen to a second audio source, via the just released online video, and unlike the horrible audio in the MP3 files listening to 'Suspicious Minds' causes me no discomfort.

Does anyone else agree? If so what would be the explanation, surely they would have used the remastered sound in syncing the video.

I would like to add also that when I have been given a CD sourced from 128 files I can't get past half an hour before I have to turn it off. So I know for fact that that low quality MP3 files can and do cause fatigue. But yes I agree I have not before had a problem after so instantly as these files in question do, so I don’t therefore say I know for certain what is wrong.

But the fact is POOR QUALITY causes fatigue, be it poor quality speakers, insufficient power to drive the speakers causing poor sound etc, or the topic at hand, low quality MP3s. And there are plenty of articles online to support what I say -128 MP3's fatigue the ear. But there is not much point me linking to them as there are also other articles and opinions that claim that you can't hear any difference between 128 and a CD ... true to some, but not others. I am not trying to be rude here but things like hearing damage and age, we all get older and our hearing changes, there is no disgrace in that, will cause some not to hear problems or have problems with lower quality files. So for some 128 MP3s will be fine while to others they will not be.

So this is where I am coming from and why I suggested and still suspect a problem with the MP3's. [Now because of the video]

First up is from 'An Afternoon In The Garden'. Edit : These are for Polk Salad Annie.

Last edited by Elvis Australia on Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

David:

You are right when it comes to fatigue. They do make you uncomfortable (poor quality MP3 files)... I can also feel it. But that happens when it comes to listening for a long time. I could feel my ears screaming for mercy after half a minute of That's All Right! I had this kind of experience before and sure enough the problem was with LOUD MASTERING (caps loud! ). So that's why I am of the opinion that we may have a problem with the music and not the files...

That is, of course, my opinion.