Axius

toooooo much autotune

I like the Marco/kalavinka vibe,but I think the vocalist could be better, idk
He sounds like he got a cold

The only 2 ways i can think of is a japanese spotify or itunes. Or grab an sd for cheap  card and pop it in your phone. For organization offline i use an app called Blackplayer (You can grab the free ver.) to help organize everything. They Have as bunch of tabs from by track, artist and album. I prefer using the artist tab its polished nicely and they take most album art and some artist pictures from last.fm in the Manually search album or artist. Just make sure you get the names right (Kanji is preferred). If you cant find what your looking for you can always tap and hold down for a second or two on the album, song and artist you want and hit "edit"to edit tags. Another option tap and hold the song, album and artist hit the "Manually search album art" or artist. If your not having any luck hit "get from gallery" and download the image off google or just properly tag in windows. (note: Sometimes Transfering songs from back and forth from windows to android screws the tags i would prefer using the app and the instructions i gave.) I hope this helps 

lol the singer looks like a thot
hahahahaha theres a special place in hell for me

Prays for as good female vkei singer simllar to old Exist trace. This is far is not it 

>.< wow just wow never knew vkei would resort to such toxic mesures

Good god i couldn't  stand this band this bands vocalist. Good riddence 

I saw the flurry of ameblo e-mails in my Inbox and thought it would be something exciting... this isn't the kind of news I wanted with new releases.
 
It had to happen someday, but I didn't think it would happen so soon.

lmao @ that wix homepage, are they still signed to Yo-gi-oh record label?

YAYOI ??

this is how you turn an OK sunday to an amazing sunday!! 8D

Definitely coming back to this 

I noticed there are a lot of old posts about Awoi translations/ unorganized or dead links. I decided to compile a list of English translations from various different awoi releases into a nice organized folder list thingy. Please note I did not translate these and credits goes to this blog for all of the translations: https://awoi.livejournal.com. You can view this yourself and take look it is relatively old so take it with a grain of salt if you want to. I believe this person did a tremendous job on it compared to others ive seen in the past. Let me know any thoughts below. Here is the file
(These are in rtf format any basic windows computer can open these files) 

Of course Hi-Res sounds better than a 256kbps mp3. A 320kbps mp3 will sound better too, and a 44.1/16 file will too as @YuyoDrifthas mentioned. The real question should be does a Hi-res 24/96 file sound better than a cd quality 16/44.1 lossless rip. You're putting Hi-Res against a straw man to make yourself feel better about it, or you just don't actually realize how silly this is.
 
The fact that you made this thread after I pointed out how foolish you were in the Gazette thread (1 2 3) as some sort of attempt to prove yourself right (?) just further shows how little of your obsession with this is confounded in actual understanding.
 
Because you still don't seem to get it in the other thread, here is all the things wrong with your reply to me there @Aeolus:
>"And yes, depending on the vinyl they are the same"
 @Naaaaani tried to help you out – it doesn't matter what quality digital source you burn to vinyl, it doesn't quantize the information into steps like digital has to. You just can't physically write into a vinyl like that. Go read about the difference between digital and analogue. I don't see how can you be any semblance of an audiophile and not understand this basic distinction.
 
>"never said anything about mp3 haha."
Exactly the problem. Throughout your whole initial post you say what I have = 24 / 96, and what everyone else is itunes/cd quality (44/16). You were making no distinction between a 256kbps mp3 (variable bit depth as inherent to mp3 codec) and an actual 16 bit 44.1khz CD rip: two very different things. In that thread you were comparing your files to Himi like they were "CD quality", even calling them "16/44.1". I tried to point that problems in saying that, because while the sample rate is maintained the bit depth is severely reduced in an mp3 from a 16 bit lossless file. And yet again, you run off and make THIS thread where you are again seeming to confuse an iTunes store quality mp3 and a lossless CD rip (??).
 
>"I'm not saying i can here 50khz, all I said was that I can hear a noticeable difference between the itunes store quality and Hi-Res,"
Ahh, I think I'm starting to understand that you either didn't read my initial post it all, or gave it 0 energy to understand, or maybe tried and still don't. But I don't think you tried at all really. The whole point of what I'm saying, what Yuuyo and Shmilly is saying, is that there is an argument to be had over a 44.1 or 48k 16 bit lossless WAV/ALAC/FLAC etc etc file  being superior to even a high quality 320 kbps mp3 encode, HOWEVER !!!! believing that the extra 24 or 32 bit audio or 96k (when you yourself admit your DAC can't play it back) is what makes it sound better is bullshit, petty semantics at best. How do you not understand this is what people are saying? Many things will be better than a itunes store quality mp3 that aren't a 24 bit 96k HI RES PLACEBO. If you seemed to have even the slightest knowledge on these subjects, I would respect and consider your insistence on the additional fidelity compared to a CD quality lossless codec – but you don't have that, so I think I should give up explaining any of this.
 
>"I can say I like this version of 絲, I'm not much of a fan of pre-NIL. (*gasp* I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this huh?)"
Again, your completely missing the point. When I referenced just how shit the first 15 seconds of Ito sound compared to the original, it has nothing to do with "the GazettE" changing and everything to do with how fucking awful the Guitar tone and mixing/mastering sound. It's the same exact riff!!! That's why I pointed it out. It's literally just to do with the engineering and the reason I emphasized it was that its so PAINFULLY obvious how much better the recording and frequency balance is on the original guitar tone. It doesn't matter whether your a fan of pre-NIL or post-NIL. Play the two intros side by side to a panel of industry professionals and they'd tell you the same story.
 
Regarding what was said in the thread, YuyoDrift's overall point is good, but also said some things I want to clarify.
 
>"8bit (Think Video Game Music), 16bit (FLAC Quality), and 24bit (HD, Hi-Res, SACD)"
The whole 8bit = video game music or chiptune quality is largely a myth and just poor understanding of the system. As I sort of went into in my initial reply to Aeolus , mp3's function outside of the domain of bit depth in the traditional sense, and are very often far below 8 bits!! Furthermore, a 16 bit audio file can be reduced in bit depth by processes that will make the file compression 100% transparently. And finally, as @Shmillyintelligently gathered, there is no audible difference between 16 bit and 24 bit of the same sample rate. Which leads me to:
 
>It is intended for Audio Engineers, who use low-pass filtering for master recording and/or editing (kinda like a graphic designer/photo editor using RAW formatted images)."
The RAW analogy doesn't make any sense as the systems can't really be compared. The whole point of 24 bit audio as a superior tool in the studio is you have a wider signal to noise ratio (144 db vs 96 db of a 16 bit file). On playback, what you're hearing in this release is slammed through a limiter at 0db the whole time anyway. The argument for 24 bit playback could only be made if you were listening to incredible dynamic music, something that had passages at like -50db, which is something you don't find in any music period these days. Also, low-pass filtering has 0 to do with why people use 24 bit.
 
 

The answer is a little complicated.
 
Does this Hi-Res copy sound better than say, a 320kbps copy? Yes, by a mile.
Does it sound better than a FLAC copy? That's to be debated.
 
People would be correct to conclude that the human ear is not capable of distinguishing anything higher than 20KHz, and so it would be a waste.
What they don't know is that that is 1/2 the truth.
 
In reality, we actually can hear the difference.
The only problem is, the volume would have to be turned up so high, that it would cause hearing impairment at those frequencies. So not the most pleasant listening experience.
Plus, most listeners aren't even aware as to what to look for in differences between the two.
Finally, you'd have to be in a dead silent room (the average environment is about 30db of noise) in order to even get the chance to do any of this.
 
Another issue is that NO DAC/Amp, or device on the market in 2017 is even remotely capable of, or ever will, be able to reproduce anything higher than 20Bits.
Trust me, I've looked (and even done a research paper on this lol). Modern Tech is just not at that point yet to reproduce frequencies that high.
What this means is that no HD/Hi-Res copy will be capable of being 24bit due to tech being shit still. So we are stuck with 20bit max.
 
Why is it called 24bit then? Well techies will tell you that we count bits by 8.
So:
 
8bit (Think Video Game Music), 16bit (FLAC Quality), and 24bit (HD, Hi-Res, SACD)
 
24bit Hi-Res is not intended to be used by the average consumer, but it is made available to us because well, why not?
It is intended for Audio Engineers, who use low-pass filtering for master recording and/or editing (kinda like a graphic designer/photo editor using RAW formatted images).
So this quality of music is really only able to be used in software, otherwise the raw frequencies of sound can kill your audio devices.
Plus, the recording companies are greedy SOBs that would never share master records with the average consumer. Those golden days are over.
Our entertainment systems have been made possible  to listen to at least 60db of sound affordably (on purpose, some might say), because any more would require more power (current) and amplification, to the point that we'd all be broke as shit if we wanted to hear this to it's real sound.
 
This can go way deeper in explanation, but I will stop here.
 
TL;DR
 
Take advantage of @Aeolus' kind gesture, and add this copy to your Music Collection.
You'll NEVER be able to play this in 24bit, because not even master recording equipment can. So don't BS anyone about your 5K sound equipment lol.
Record companies have purposely made audio sound like shit nowadays for their own profit.
Unless you listen to this in a sound booth at ear exploding volumes, then it'll probably sound the same as FLAC.
 
So enjoy this Hi-Res album, using a simple DAC/Amp and a really nice set of Noise-Cancelling Headphones for now.
Your crappy HP laptop headphone port isn't gonna cut it folks.
 
 

i have a lot of questions about this

my depression is BACK !!!!! i stan

I forgot about this

Oh my god. I'm so sorry for having made fun of MEJIBRAY so many times. Please bring them back...... Anything over this...... Please..... Make this hell end...

It's cute but it lacks some punch, members' names are interesting (?) 

Danm it i was gunna say that XD
lol i was gunna say welp time to by the re-re-release of skyrim 2.0 beta

I hope the yakuza chops off their fingers after that in-store

no x 

One-hit wonders (◡ ‿ ◡ ✿)

u forgot to include the impossible br00tal scream