"I'm a Big Sister..." thread.

[TheBang]

Originally Posted by mmm skyscraper

Too many technical issues with the slideshow. The audio works, but I can't the pictures yet. Oh well.

The video is encoded in H.264, and thus, requires QuickTime 7 in order to play back.

[big screen satellite]

Originally Posted by TheBang

The video is encoded in H.264, and thus, requires QuickTime 7 in order to play back.

yeah - upgrade ya cheapskates

[King of Snake]

ooh, christmas time
So apparently this release was not in fact gonna be more harder stuff, but even more chilled. Enjoying this so far, not quite as much as the last one but good, and it'll probably grow on me.
The 160 kbps/48 Khz thing is really weird though. I'm not one who can tell the difference but it sure is a strange choice of format, especially since the previous ones were better quality.

[sanakan]

[edit]hey, 2^8 posts [/edit]

[hugh121spike]

with plenty of bangin UW tracks out there and gemz like JAL still flowin, im over the moon with this blissful 30 mins. This side of underworld has made them stand out to me in the 'world of techno'!

Cheers boys, lookin forward to the mysterons....

H

[TheBang]

Originally Posted by big screen satellite

yeah - upgrade ya cheapskates

They'd have to be HUGE cheapskates, considering QuickTime is free.

Not that I want to contribute to the bitrate debate, but the 2 videos are practically identical. The codecs are the same (H.264/AAC), and the only difference is the container (QuickTime vs. MPEG-4). Because iPods, QuickTime, and iTunes can play H.264/AAC in either container, it was really only necessary to include one of the videos (either one). That could have saved 10 MB in the archive size which perhaps could have gone to a 192 Kbps MP3.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

Please don't delete threads with (IMO) VALID complaints/questions just cause you no likey.

Not deleted. Just merged. And rightly so.

Considering out of the last 10 posts you have made on the forum, 8 have been whiney ones. We get the point. Some of us agree, some don't. Whining about it isn't going to change the minds of those that don't agree with you.

Or are you just gonna keep your posting another thread about it until everyone says they agree with you?

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Maybe the whole purpose was to make it difficult to burn to CD, so people couldn't bootleg it and sell it on eBay/Japanese Yahoo/whatever?

Its still very easily possible to burn it to CD but that would result in a loss of quality, because CDs use 44.1khz and this audio uses 48khz.

Originally Posted by TheBang

They'd have to be HUGE cheapskates, considering QuickTime is free.

PC users who don't with to install Quicktime 7 can choose to install QuicktimeAlternative which isnt as CPU/memory intensive as the Apple player and doesnt continously bug you to upgrade to Quicktime Pro. The benefits and download link are listed on the URL above.

Originally Posted by TheBang

Not that I want to contribute to the bitrate debate, but the 2 videos are practically identical. The codecs are the same (H.264/AAC), and the only difference is the container (QuickTime vs. MPEG-4). Because iPods, QuickTime, and iTunes can play H.264/AAC in either container, it was really only necessary to include one of the videos (either one). That could have saved 10 MB in the archive size which perhaps could have gone to a 192 Kbps MP3.

If Underworld's service provider is charging them for bandwidth usage then reducing the archive size by 10mb per download makes a bigger difference than the upgrade to 192kbps/44.1khz.

[denkbat]

I guess I was one of the first to point out the 160kbps bitrate, but I didn't mean to complain... It's more of a source of confusion than anything else. But I now understand that the final size of the package is an important factor, especially since several users still struggle with low bandwidth.

The quality is good. Quite adequate for those of us who just throw it on our iPods and stroll down the street. But yes, there are people who will notice. Some have high-end hardware, and others simply want to make CDs.

But rather than complain, it would be better to ask that the Riverrun releases are made available in a lossless format to those who have paid for them. This way, people get a choice of quality. CD-quality, or the originally released 192/160kbps quality that's appropriate for portable players.

So yes, let's stop complaining, but let us still voice our opinions to the UW-people about how we'd want these releases to be. They might want feedback, but in a polite manner. The "I'd rather download illegally"-comment is way out of line, and totally unacceptable. Particularly since they DID make this package available to us a day in advance.

And the music is good! It's a nice day to be an Underworld-fan

And let's all be friends

[Jan]

To my ears it sounds great. And the music is also superb. Of course a higher bitrate would have been nice, but i probably would not hear the difference anyway.
But it's great that this recording apparently was not compressed and/or limited.

my fist attempt to make a cuesheet (tested with foobar2000):

FILE "05 I'm a Big Sister, and I'm a Girl, and I'm a Princess, and this is my Horse.mp3" MP3

  TRACK 01 AUDIO
    TITLE "11 Hundred Hz"
    PERFORMER "Underworld"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00

  TRACK 02 AUDIO
    TITLE "Peach Tree"
    PERFORMER "Underworld"
    INDEX 01 05:39:52

  TRACK 03 AUDIO
    TITLE "Mowed Path"
    PERFORMER "Underworld"
    INDEX 01 09:47:25

  TRACK 04 AUDIO
    TITLE "Showlder"
    PERFORMER "Underworld"
    INDEX 01 14:41:70

  TRACK 05 AUDIO
    TITLE "Wedge"
    PERFORMER "Underworld"
    INDEX 01 18:35:27

  TRACK 06 AUDIO
    TITLE "'piano piece'"
    PERFORMER "Underworld"
    INDEX 01 28:12:44

Please don't moan about this.

I'm not sure, but maybe 11 Hundred Hz is the piano piece at the end? The opener would be part of Peach Tree then.