View Full Version : 30 Seconds to Leak
A new "advance" version leaked with slightly different mixes (from what I've been told). I'm getting it now. It's not the unmastered version.
Ooh. I'm going to make sure I don't download this one so some of the songs seem fresh when I buy it.
Is it still only 10 tracks? That's a crappy song total.
I've only heard Was It A Dream?, Beautiful Lie, and a couple of other songs when I saw them 3 days ago.
I'm still not going to download the album, though.
Originally posted by Mark@Jun 7 2005, 08:39 PM
Ooh. I'm going to make sure I don't download this one so some of the songs seem fresh when I buy it.
Is it still only 10 tracks? That's a crappy song total.
Yes, still only 10 tracks.
I just put it on Winamp, though, and "A Modern Myth" is 14 minutes long... hidden track? I'll find out in a few seconds.
EDIT: It's a hidden live track at the end. At least, it sound like one. I haven't heard it before, though, so I don't know where it was live. I don't hear any fans, either, but the quality sounds live. It's not amazing, but hey, it's extra.
"Was It A Dream?" is my favorite song by them. I hope the rest of the album is like that.
Ant, I have a feeling it may be "Occams Razer"
It could be a cover because they love covering songs.
AHHHHHHHHH! They changed one of my favorite parts of the entire album!
When Jared screams "This is who I really am" in "The Kill"... it doesn't sound nearly as cool now :angry:
I heard 'The Kill' too. One of the worst songs I've ever heard. This coming from a person whose favorite band is 30STM.
Rinkin
06-08-2005, 12:48 AM
The first leak was an umastered version.
For example, the last track in the unmastered version was much shorter than in the recent advance leak.
Pretty freaking good album though.
Friskey™
06-08-2005, 02:21 PM
I got the unmastered version (and love it to death) any major changes to any of the songs Ant?
Originally posted by Rinkin@Jun 7 2005, 11:48 PM
The first leak was an umastered version.
For example, the last track in the unmastered version was much shorter than in the recent advance leak.
Pretty freaking good album though.
That's a lot of blank space, man. There was 10 minutes of silence and a hidden live song added to the end of that... not changes to the actual song.
Faded: not really. The one thing that stood out to me was the yelling in "The Kill" was different (and worse, IMO).
Friskey™
06-08-2005, 08:50 PM
Did they cut out the beginning of Savior?
Originally posted by Faded@Jun 8 2005, 07:50 PM
Did they cut out the beginning of Savior?
Ugh... no. (I wish it were.)
Also: a lot of the songs have better background sounds, and a few songs have some improved backing (rythm) guitars. It's hardly noticable, though.
Originally posted by Ant+Jun 8 2005, 02:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ant @ Jun 8 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rinkin@Jun 7 2005, 11:48 PM
The first leak was an umastered version.
For example, the last track in the unmastered version was much shorter than in the recent advance leak.
Pretty freaking good album though.
That's a lot of blank space, man. There was 10 minutes of silence and a hidden live song added to the end of that... not changes to the actual song.
Faded: not really. The one thing that stood out to me was the yelling in "The Kill" was different (and worse, IMO). [/b][/quote]
I've tried comparing the two tracks and I don't really notice any difference.
Where exactly in the song is it different?
Well, I think it's just a little different when he yells at that part. It sounds like they toned down the levels a lot, which I don't agree with... that was a great point of emphesis in the song. It's not changed a ton, but enough for me to not like it. It won't change my opinion of the album, though.
Rinkin
06-09-2005, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Ant+Jun 8 2005, 03:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ant @ Jun 8 2005, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rinkin@Jun 7 2005, 11:48 PM
The first leak was an umastered version.
For example, the last track in the unmastered version was much shorter than in the recent advance leak.
Pretty freaking good album though.
That's a lot of blank space, man. There was 10 minutes of silence and a hidden live song added to the end of that... not changes to the actual song.
Faded: not really. The one thing that stood out to me was the yelling in "The Kill" was different (and worse, IMO). [/b][/quote]
Would you like more differences?
-The quality of the songs are much better.
Compare Attack from the Unmastered to the recent advance. The advance version of Attack has much better quality. Try comparing the two with headphones.
-A Beautiful Lie on the Unmastered is now The Kill on the Advance.
-The Kill on the unmastered is now A Beautiful Lie on the advance with an extended (like 4 seconds) beginning.
Basically, the unmastered advance was labeled "unmastered" because their still could be tracks missing and things like that. I asked my friend and that's what he told me.
Are you sure the switch between "The Kill" and "The Beautiful Lie" wasn't just a labeling error?
Originally posted by soldierElite@Jun 9 2005, 10:20 AM
Are you sure the switch between "The Kill" and "The Beautiful Lie" wasn't just a labeling error?
That's most likely.
Originally posted by soldierElite@Jun 9 2005, 12:50 PM
Are you sure the switch between "The Kill" and "The Beautiful Lie" wasn't just a labeling error?
Yes, it was a labeling error by the ripping team that made it.
Rinkin: the quality of the rips aren't better, actually, and neither are the songs, if you ask me. The only small differences were the slight background noises, if you ask me. The volume levels on some songs were changed a little bit, too.
The "unmastered" advance was labeled the "unmastered advance" because of just that... it wasn't fully mastered. Not because more tracks could be added, but because the mastering of the tracks weren't done.
EDIT: "Mastering" definition... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering
Rinkin
06-10-2005, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Ant+Jun 9 2005, 02:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ant @ Jun 9 2005, 02:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--soldierElite@Jun 9 2005, 12:50 PM
Are you sure the switch between "The Kill" and "The Beautiful Lie" wasn't just a labeling error?
Yes, it was a labeling error by the ripping team that made it.
Rinkin: the quality of the rips aren't better, actually, and neither are the songs, if you ask me. The only small differences were the slight background noises, if you ask me. The volume levels on some songs were changed a little bit, too.
The "unmastered" advance was labeled the "unmastered advance" because of just that... it wasn't fully mastered. Not because more tracks could be added, but because the mastering of the tracks weren't done.
EDIT: "Mastering" definition... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering [/b][/quote]
My friend who is big on the whole leaking and ripping scene told me that's what it meant when it was labeled "unmastered" so I was just saying what I was told from a reliable source.
The quality of the advance is better than the unmastered, even though the bit rate might be the same.
Would you mind telling me what you're referring to when you say "quality"? Because all that is different in the mixes are the normalizations, the slight background noises and other minor changes. There is no change in "quality." You can't change the quality of something you recorded to a better quality...
For example, you cannot change 128KBps quality to 512KBps quality... it doesn't work. I know you're not referring to bitrates when you say quality, but this is the best example I can give you.
hybridchild
06-10-2005, 05:21 AM
who are you guys talking about? i'm so confused :unsure:
Rinkin
06-10-2005, 08:34 PM
There is more to quality than the bit rate.
Originally posted by Rinkin@Jun 10 2005, 07:34 PM
There is more to quality than the bit rate.
...ugh...
I said that I wasn't referring to bit-rate, I was giving an example. Please tell me what you're referring to when you say "quality" or there's really no point in debating it. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Scarlet
06-11-2005, 02:09 AM
So, I just heard about this band yesterday. Decide to stop by the LPA and here's a thread about 'em. *kewl* :D
I've only heard the song "Attack" and I think it rawks! I wont be getting the new album leaked... I'll just buy it when it comes out. ;)
Speaking of which, "Attack" is blowing up... it was only a matter of time before the band got extremely popular.
Rinkin
06-11-2005, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Ant+Jun 10 2005, 06:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ant @ Jun 10 2005, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rinkin@Jun 10 2005, 07:34 PM
There is more to quality than the bit rate.
...ugh...
I said that I wasn't referring to bit-rate, I was giving an example. Please tell me what you're referring to when you say "quality" or there's really no point in debating it. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. [/b][/quote]
I'm sorry about that confusion... it's not really easy for me to explain.
I'll try to give you an example.
On the unmastered version, listen to Attack. That sample that plays in the background somewhat "behind" the keyboard sample plays throughout that whole intro and the volume is lower.
On the advance, that same sample that plays in the background seems to take a short slight pause every second.
And the keyboard sample seems to come out the right speaker more, try headphones.
But that's not changing the quality of the songs... at least, not quality in the music sense. All it is doing is changing the leveling of the songs, maybe editing the balance between the left and right speaker, and normalizing some parts.
Rinkin
06-12-2005, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Ant@Jun 11 2005, 12:08 PM
But that's not changing the quality of the songs... at least, not quality in the music sense. All it is doing is changing the leveling of the songs, maybe editing the balance between the left and right speaker, and normalizing some parts.
Ok let's settle this little conflict.
You're right.
I'm not trying to sound right... I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say "quality."
Rinkin
06-12-2005, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Ant@Jun 11 2005, 08:40 PM
I'm not trying to sound right... I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say "quality."
I've tried an explaining it you but I've failed to do so. Don't worry about it.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.