=mods remove this thread, it is confirmed fake, bad, and all evil words attached=

thanks

Our releases use MP3 VBR V0 mode, but we developed a new way of having small
file sizes, but quality higher than FLAC files, this is called "Higher than FLAC"
quality, HtF

How's that possible?
(I don't mean to sound disrespectful...)

How's that possible?
(I don't mean to sound disrespectful...)
It is not. It's simply bullshit.

It is not. It's simply bullshit.

hmm, at first I was thinking the same way of course, i mean mp3 better than flac,
but then when i listened to the tracks, assuming you did the same, you can actually
clearly see that difference in sound quality somehow, very interesting indeed.

in any case, we will see their next releases, for example soulcalibur v and resident evil
revelations and so on, if they all sound better than the flac rips or high quality mp3 rips,
then indeed they found a way to have higher quality sound, higher than flac, but of
course it's hard to believe

FLAC is a losslessly compressed .wav, which makes it a direct (and exact) copy of the audio CD stream, so how can one make something to sound better than the original stream, from the original stream? They could have played with equalizers and misc sound effects, amplifying certain frequencies, thing like that, to alter the sound.

Example: this thing can do some heavy difference (and so many other effects):

@cooljacker: Precisely. It's another of those fake remaster attempts.
@Atenzor: There is no difference in sound quality. There is a difference in sound. A waveform doesn't become better just because someone applies their set of VST plugins to it. Sadly a lot people believe that louder sound (or louder bass, highs, etc.) is automatically better.

from their website, they say:

"The sound is more rich and dynamic, while the overall mix is better" and also saying
"We will not share the secrets behind that new technology"

so this means that however they do this, it sounds as if they have developed a
proprietary software or something that rips it in higher sound quality OR,
since it's not explicitly said on the website, since we literally don't know how
they got those releases, and since you never know who you're dealing with
here, maybe, but I doubt it, those releases are somehow coming from the
original sound studios which have the original material, hence the reason maybe
why they would HIDE their new technology and say it is a "secret". It's just
my 2 cents...

LOL! What are these imbeciles smoking?

"We use MP3 V0 but the sound quality is better than FLAC!"

Translation: We are deaf and/or we do not understand anything about audio. We have done some shitty equalisation that makes the sound more appealing to us in particular but in reality probably makes it a thousand times worse, and encoded it as a bog-standard MP3. We propose that we will win over a reasonable number of people who don't know any better, with some quasi-marketing talk. We suck cocks. Thank you for listening."

Fact 1: The only source is the CD.
Fact 1.5: There is no way to rip a CD "better" assuming you have ripped it properly in the first place.
Fact 2: FLAC preserves 100% of the CD; there is nothing better than an exact duplicate of the original.
Fact 3: Pre-equalisation before encoding to MP3 does not make anything sound *better* - just different.
Fact 4: MP3 is very good, but it always incurs a quality loss when compared to the original source material. That is the nature of lossy encoding.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------


@cooljacker: Precisely. It's another of those fake remaster attempts.
@Atenzor: There is no difference in sound quality. There is a difference in sound. A waveform doesn't become better just because someone applies their set of VST plugins to it. Sadly a lot people believe that louder sound (or louder bass, highs, etc.) is automatically better.

I bet that's what they've done; boost the bass, boost the treble, compress the shit out of it, encode as MP3, ????, Profit.

@cooljacker: Precisely. It's another of those fake remaster attempts.
@Atenzor: There is no difference in sound quality. There is a difference in sound. A waveform doesn't become better just because someone applies their set of VST plugins to it. Sadly a lot people believe that louder sound (or louder bass, highs, etc.) is automatically better.

yes, but keep in mind, so far we are assuming they use VST and effects,
but of course, maybe that's what they do, but my point being, we don't
know anything. maybe the releases they get, they get them from who
knows who, who gets it from who knows who and by the end of the day,
it is a release that is the original or officially alternative release by the
company which had that in their music studios, and keep in mind that
flac quality or cd quality by itself is not the best quality out there.

Edit: I just downloaded it for shits and giggles.

Massive bass boost, massive treble boost. And a vertigo-inducing widening of the stereo field. And they have fucked with the recommended settings of LAME to preserve useless frequencies outside of human hearing range, up to 19khz, at the cost of the midrange. Not that you can HEAR much midrange now since highs and lows are boosted to fuck and back.

Oh yeah, and they've boosted the volume so high that dynamic range is severely compromised and there is ear-splitting clipping any time the music gets relatively loud.

These guys have to be mega trolls.

Surely nobody with half a braincell in their heads would do this.

Atenzor: This is NOT an official release, and the source is nothing more than the CD. They have ripped the CD, raped it with shitty plugins, and then raped LAME to force higher-frequency encoding. Plain and simple.

from their website, they say:

"The sound is more rich and dynamic, while the overall mix is better" and also saying
"We will not share the secrets behind that new technology"

so this means that however they do this, it sounds as if they have developed a
proprietary software or something that rips it in higher sound quality OR,
since it's not explicitly said on the website, since we literally don't know how
they got those releases, and since you never know who you're dealing with
here, maybe, but I doubt it, those releases are somehow coming from the
original sound studios which have the original material, hence the reason maybe
why they would HIDE their new technology and say it is a "secret". It's just
my 2 cents...
Ever heard of Occam's razor? ;)

@tangotreats: Thanks for confirming. So it's just some boys playing around with their audio editors.

Ever heard of Occam's razor? ;)

@tangotreats: Thanks for confirming. So it's just some boys playing around with their audio editors.

you have to keep in mind that me, myself, am having a hard time figuring out
what the hell is going on, and yes i know what Occam's razor is :)

so only thing i am saying, is unless they provide us with more details
about how they get those releases, we can clearly assume here without
a doubt that indeed the sound is just altered, but the quality is the same
if not worst! i am not a audio professional when it comes to analyzing
sound data, but it seems some of you guys here are, and i applaud you

in other words, i want the best guys on these forums, to prove this once
and for all, for example, you compare sound frequencies or something and
come to a conclusion, because otherwise we can never know what's really
going on here, that's all i am saying, thanks for reading LOL

I just about got through Historia Crux and now I have a splitting headache.

I've heard some crap in my time, but this really takes the cake.

Atenzor: LISTEN to it for longer than five seconds, mate! That's all that you need to do to prove that this thing is a crock of shit.

I heard this sounds even better than TrueHD and DTS Master Audio.

I just about got through Historia Crux and now I have a splitting headache.

I've heard some crap in my time, but this really takes the cake.

Atenzor: LISTEN to it for longer than five seconds, mate! That's all that you need to do to prove that this thing is a crock of shit.

ok, you are right, i listened to a couple of tracks in their full time, and indeed
this sound worst than anything i heard so far, i mean wow, whoever they are,
it seems they didn't think this through before doing it, LOL

oh well O_O

You win some, you lose some. :)

Let's just hope that the rest of the community expose these morons as quickly and easily as we did... The last thing we want is for this to become the standard...!!!

You win some, you lose some. :)

Let's just hope that the rest of the community expose these morons as quickly and easily as we did... The last thing we want is for this to become the standard...!!!

it seems there is no need for that now, their website is down... wonder why? LOL

anyway, i removed my first post, waiting for a mod to remove this s**t

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sorry, this page was not found

You don't need to be an "audio professional" to come to this conclusion. For bass and treble you can just compare a spectral analysis of the tracks (one from the regular OST release vs. the modified version from this release).

For stereo separation, well, you can compute how much separation is in the signal. But you can also hear this using e.g. headphones. A signal with too much separation sounds unnatural, confusing, is tiring and can eventually lead to headaches (I don't think that tango is joking here):
Our hearing system assumes that we don't hear a source exclusively with one ear, but always get a attenuated signal on the other ear (this makes directional computations possible). Too much stereo separation breaks this assumption. Everyone can test this by creating a stereo file from two monoaural records, e.g. one from a violin playing, the other one from a piano playing (or different combinations). Now listen to this file (preferrably with headphones) which has 100% stereo separation by construction. That's not going to be a pleasant experience.

I like how fast we pwn'd them. IT ENDS HERE! LOLZZZZZZZZZ

yes, don't worry guys, hopefully this will be removed from the existence of
the great ffshrine

Some final words I'd like to add: Always be suspicious if someone random on the internet claims that he "remastered" a certain track/album/whatever and it sounds so much "better" now.
Because what is "better" is this context? Who can decide if some track sounds better now? Doesn't this have to be the composer/sound designer/arranger of the track? At least it has to be someone who was involved in the creative process of creating this work. Or someone who is in close contact with them. Why? Because ultimately only these people know how the track was supposed to sound. If anyone can remaster a work, then it's them and not some random dude with a audio editor and a faible for excessive bass...

Some final words I'd like to add: Always be suspicious if someone random on the internet claims that he "remastered" a certain track/album/whatever and it sounds so much "better" now.
Because what is "better" is this context? Who can decide if some track sounds better now? Doesn't this have to be the composer/sound designer/arranger of the track? At least it has to be someone who was involved in the creative process of creating this work. Or someone who is in close contact with them. Why? Because ultimately only these people know how the track was supposed to sound. If anyone can remaster a work, then it's them and not some random dude with a audio editor and a faible for excessive bass...

http://fail.brm.sk/approval/applause.gif

Some final words I'd like to add: Always be suspicious if someone random on the internet claims that he "remastered" a certain track/album/whatever and it sounds so much "better" now.
Because what is "better" is this context? Who can decide if some track sounds better now? Doesn't this have to be the composer/sound designer/arranger of the track? At least it has to be someone who was involved in the creative process of creating this work. Or someone who is in close contact with them. Why? Because ultimately only these people know how the track was supposed to sound. If anyone can remaster a work, then it's them and not some random dude with a audio editor and a faible for excessive bass...

Not entirely in agreement here. One with an ear for music (not the tossers who we've been talking about in this thread; people with brains) can easily work on audio he didn't create.

We might be talking about different things, here; I would agree that in the case of a recording which is generally recognised to be a good one, nobody really has any business buggering about with it except the person who created it.

However, let's take a recording which has been ravaged by age, made on poorly calibrated, faulty equipment, by an incompetent engineer, etc.

Granted, in these circumstances you're not explicitly "remastering" - you're restoring. That is, attempting to correct problems to bring the recording closer to the original creator's intentions; not further away as most of these projects seem to do.

The key is that the person doing it knows what they're doing, and knows why they're doing it... The first law of restoration is do no harm - and the second is that you cannot create what doesn't exist in the first place. Your goal is to compensate for the things that happened between the recording studio and the CD/record/tape/whatever.

can and are regularly committed in the name of "restoration" - frequently by some idiot with a pair of Apple earbuds, a copy of Audacity, and a bunch of pirated plugins he has absolutely no idea how to use...

I don't need to be John Williams to remaster Star Wars; I know what a symphony orchestra sounds like, I know what the recording studio sounds like, I know Eric Tomlinson's engineering style, I know the music, etc.

@tango: You're absolutely right. And thanks for reminding me of the remaster vs. restoration difference.