No Carrier Rush

(SCROLL DOWN FOR PURCHASING OPTIONS!)

Behold, the debut album from _ensnare_...

No Carrier Rush


No Carrier Rush Album Preview by _ensnare_


Tracklisting:

Intro
Singles and Doubles
Sample Accurate
Sensible
Co-pilot of the Rofflecopter
7 Cycles
Gold Expansion
Computer Run
Configurate
Outro

Three tracks are free!  To get them, please sign up to the Mode 7 mailing list by clicking the button below.  We promise not to spam you or sell your mail to nasty people.



If you'd like to buy the full album (320kbps MP3 download), you can do so below for $6...


If you'd like to pay a little more to support _ensnare_ and Mode 7, as well as hastening the arrival of a second _ensnare_ album, then you can buy the album for $8 below...

17 comments:

  1. I bought this file only to find out it is in rar format, while the other is in zip. why mix it up like that? i do no use rare so this file is useless to me. please either email me a zip file or refund my money.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I bought this after hearing your stuff through the Humble Indie Bundle. Have to save I love the 8bit sounds.

    @kracker 7zip is free man it'll take you 2min

    http://www.7-zip.org/

    ReplyDelete
  3. I got your second album with the Humble Bundle. It was so great I had to check if you anything else. So glad you had a first album - just bought it. Keep up the awesome music!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Absolutely loving the second album from the Humble Indie bundle - will be buying your first one too, keep it up :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Loving the previews, so buying both albums when i get paid next week.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would buy this if it was available as FLAC (=

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can I just ask why you want FLAC of an album that was produced mostly without any kind of processing? It's a very low-fi album, FLAC really won't offer any discernible advantage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because I still want to get the most out of it and I do hear (ABX tested) a difference between 320kbps mp3 and lossless. A lot of the finer details are lost in mp3 to me.

      Kind of like the difference between a lossless BMP/PNG and JPEG with 80% quality setting. Even if the image itself is of lower-than-HD resolution, there could still be some finer details one could appreciate in the lossless version - especially when viewed with a high quality monitor (eg. with a PVA or IPS panel) :)

      Also I'm always searching for ways to improve my sound setup, achieve better and more accurate sound quality and thus rediscover my music. The joy of finding new and previously hidden nuances drives me to collect music only in a lossless format - after I've swapped my 320kbps mp3 against 320kbps ogg vorbis and then again, a last time against EAC ripped FLAC. The new things I hear, the details and fine nuances still continue to make me very happy :)

      A part of it is also about keeping it as close to the original, with all its faults.

      I'm also curious as to what kind of processing is missing or why this is a bad thing. When talking about processing, I usually tend to think of over-engineered, remastered and "loud" music that is often produced today. (I actively seek out old releases of music if possible, eg. Queensryche in the original 1988 recording is much better than the loudness war victim of 2000-ish). Also seeing clipping in current releases, loosing all the impact of drums etc. is just sad.

      P.S.: I was actually pleasantly surprised when I listened to Impeccable Micro and took a closer look. I expected to see yet another example of overly compressed music and many instances of clipping - yet that album still manages to stay powerful without seemingly loosing a lot of impact at the same time - and I couldn't see any clipping in Audacity when I quickly glanced over it :)

      Delete
  8. Alright, that's definitely interesting. I'm currently collecting my thoughts on FLAC (although, as you can see I now support it every time) and I will write a blog post about it soon.

    The reason I mentioned the production on this album - it just seems amusing to me that someone is looking to get (effectively) 0.01% "quality improvement" on something that was literally made on a netbook with almost no signal processing or anything else that a sound engineer would to do improve "sound quality". Maybe, conceptually, the intended sound of it would be a bit "lossy" and full of digital artefacts?

    It's funny that you mention Impeccable Micro: actually I released it with probably too much gain reduction at the limiting stage. I really blasted it! Just because something doesn't display digital overs doesn't mean that it's not shredded to oblivion by the limiter. Basically just the way I wanted to do it.

    I know you'll see masters these days that have literal digital clipping (hi Skrillex!) There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with that - it's part of the sound palette that can be used and breaking rules is good etc. etc.

    Obviously remastering stuff that sounds worse when blasted is not a good idea. Limiting classical music etc. is reasonably terrible behaviour in most contexts.

    One issue I have with this FLAC debate is that people are often listening on hi-fi setups or headphones which give significant sound colouration and then talk about trying to achieve closeness to the original! If you want the original sound you'll need the rubbish Sennheiser headphones I recorded on, or conversely, my Mackie HR824's that I mix with!

    You'll see I now support FLAC for everything new btw, just because people want it, but I don't really want to go back and do No Carrier Rush at this point just because it seems a bit ludicrous.

    I do think I have one-off FLAC's I did for someone who was incredibly rude to me consistently on email for a day or so, so if I can dig those out I will provide them to more polite FLAC lovers, even though that's a bit of a logistical pain.

    ReplyDelete
  9. With regard to your ABX test, do you have links to any which were conducted with genuine scientific rigour? I think confirmation bias is a massive problem with this kind of test, and pretty much everything I've found online either shows an inconclusive result or looks very dubious.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, actually no, it wasn't FLAC - it was the zip/RAR guy at the top of this comments thread. Hello sir, I have not forgotten you!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Posted some rambling here!

    http://www.mode7games.com/blog/2012/06/02/thoughts-on-flac/

    Thanks for the debate - I find this interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I bought the NO CARRIER RUSH album from the Chiptune Rush store:

    http://chiptunerush.com/no-carrier-rush/

    It says there: "Immediate download in your choice of MP3 320 or FLAC"

    But I only got an mp3-download link. So that's false advertising...

    I also bought "Space Town Savior - Starfields and Cityscapes" from that same store but I got a broken .zip-file when downloading the FLAC-version. I think I need my money back if these things don't get fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Whoa sorry! No idea how either of those unacceptable things happened. Can you contact support@mode7games.com about this please? Also I'll have this looked into straight away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I just sent an e-mail to that address.

      Delete
  14. I know this is extremely late, But I love getting all my music in FLAC, did you ever happen to find the FLAC version you made for someone a long time ago?

    ReplyDelete