sad thread

[Statto]

I'll have to cancel this disk at the pressing plant
and get beau to remaster it first
dunno how long that'll take

[Statto]

Definitely faster.

I knew it was faster
unfortunately it wasn't intentionally faster

actually that's the original
have you got the newer one I sent?

this is really weird...when i play the entire track it is fast and
when i crop a clip it plays at the normal speed. something is
up with that file for sure. i am totally perplexed by this as i
did use the file you sent over.

huh really??
maybe it's in the tag

Definitely faster.

I knew it was faster
unfortunately it wasn't intentionally faster

Yeah sorry - I know you knew

[esb]

this is really weird...when i play the entire track it is fast and
when i crop a clip it plays at the normal speed. something is
up with that file for sure. i am totally perplexed by this as i
did use the file you sent over.

huh really??
maybe it's in the tag

we think pieter figured out why it sped up...

[Statto]

still doesn't explain why the clip plays normally though

[Statto]

I knew it was faster
unfortunately it wasn't intentionally faster

Yeah sorry - I know you knew

should have known it wasn't intentionally faster though

was it the sample rate?

I am suprised you are mastering from mp3 tho - aiff is just a cd audio file man dunno what is weird about that or why you converted it?

[Statto]

was it the sample rate?

possibly
pieter thought maybe originals were at 48khz, converted at 44.1
though I'd be surprised if Blue did that really

I am suprised you are mastering from mp3 tho - aiff is just a cd audio file man dunno what is weird about that or why you converted it?

I couldn't play the AIFF file
I took it down to mastering but Beau preferred the mp3 since all the others were mp3s

What rates were the MP3s (generally, not just on the Pieter K ones)?

[Statto]

dunno
dunno anything about this stuff

[noisemonkey]

I wouldn't worry about the speed so much as long as it's speedy

dunno
dunno anything about this stuff

that new sample is 190 bpm in case anyone's wondering

which means you will need a deck with extra pitch range

my vestax are +/- 60%, but a regular tech won't bring it down to 170... so you'll have to redo it

[noisemonkey]

170 is a wee bit slow IMO

Don't worry Statto - this is drum and bass; we expect and demand delays in getting tunes out

170 is a wee bit slow IMO

playing stuff at aroung 170 allows you to mix in Fanu tunes (at a reasonable pitch adjustment)

170 is a wee bit slow imo

playing stuff at aroung 170 allows you to mix in fanu tunes (at a reasonable pitch adjustment)

and playing stuff at around 165 allows you to mix in macc tunes (at a semi-reasonable pitch adjustment)

[Statto]

Don't worry Statto - this is drum and bass; we expect and demand delays in getting tunes out

I can't afford this though

and they've already gone for processing so that's more money down the pan

[Statto]

wondering about Militant Thoughts as well now
since the end was different
maybe that was just a balls-up too

I'll give the CD you sent a listen tonight...

[Macc]

With all due respect, and not wishing to kick people when they are down, but;

I also have to point out that the following is merely slightly-informed speculation, and if I am wrong in my guesses then I apologise.



This could have been avoided. In actual fact, having read this thread, it seems a very poor error to make. Why didn't you ask the studio forum crew, or the board as a whole, if you weren't sure about aiff's and so on?

Aiff files are not particularly special files (and not cd audio either). They are simply the Mac version of a wav, almost exactly identical, to all intents and purposes. If the person who created the mp3 had renamed the file to *.aif instead of *.aiff, they could have opened it in something like wavelab and seen that the sample rate wasn't 44.1kHz, which it seems it isn't.

From the comments in this thread it seems as if whoever made the mp3 assumed that the aiff was at a sample rate of 44.1kHz. From the info in this thread it seem that Pieter K works at 48kHz. This would explain the tempo differences people are hearing - several windows media jobbies don't support sample rates above 44.1kHz. So those playing it back at 44.1kHz hear it [48/44.1 =] 1.088 times faster. Assuming an original tempo of 170, this means people are hearing it at 1.088x170 = 185 bpm. So if, as someone said, the new tempo is 190, the original is 175 (sorry, geekness took over there, I had to work that out ). This all seem to tally, unless I've made a balls up.

The point here is that whoever made the mp3 (mastering from mp3 btw? WTF??) didn't consider that Pieter K might work at a different sample rate, which all signs suggest he does. Had they opened the file in something like wavelab, either as raw pcm or by changing the file extension, they would have seen that sample rate was 48kHz and done the necessary conversion - no hassle.

Not doing this to nag or pick holes, but this is all very expensive for certain people (ie Statto mainly) and could very easily have been avoided, with a certain amount of thought and testing of resulting files. It only takes a minute to make a standard wav from an aiff.

[Statto]

yeah, but I heard them before they were mastered
and I didn't really notice they were that much faster
they just sounded more funky
it was only later that I thought something might have gone wrong

[Statto]

wondering about Militant Thoughts as well now
since the end was different

well I don't know whether it was a new ending
or just an older one
but I'm inclined to leave it as it is whatever
since I like it anyway
(and I can't afford to redo two disks)