"Better" - discuss it in this thread

[25]

Except for the line switch, NOTHING HAS CHANGED in the new leak. Everything (including Pitman's funky synth stuff) is there in the old leak, this time around it has just been mixed differently.
I can make the old leak sound like the new leak, all you need is an audio software like Adobe Audition for example, put a filter on and tinker with the EQ... There you go.

And besides, the mix was so sloppy that I doubt that it's something other than a fan-edit. Listen closely, and you'll notice that the volume changes several times during the song.

 

Wrong.

You cannot tweak a song to add digital information that is no there.   It?s quite CLEARLY different guitar, different layering and far superior quality of lyrics.   

That?s not a tweak.

This is just like the NIN photo which "clearly showed the track list when enlarged".  Even though no additional data was actaully there.??

He's not wrong. There is nothing in the new leak which wasn't in the old one, except for one guitar part (leading into the chorus). There isn't even a lyric change (as so many have been saying.)

Last night I mixed the two leaks together, anticipating that there'd be a few problems with altered parts having to be removed. After eq-ing the old leak for comparison purposes I found that all of the synth effects (that I noticed) were clearly audible in the old version, even though they're very quiet in the mix.  Simply altering the eq in your media player to emphasis the higher end of the scale should allow you to verify this.

The only part that I couldn't hear in the old version was the deeper harmonic vocal on the "na na na" bit. Granted, I could have missed a few things through complacency due to having heard both versions a lot lately but I'm very, very  confident that 99% of the track is identical in both versions. It just goes to show what a different mix can do to a song.

[BBF Rocks]

jarmo, how come you don't have news of the recent leak on the front page?

it just seems odd that the premier guns site on the net doesnt have a report on a subject that the rest of the web is happy to discuss.

yeah, let's be loyal fans by advertising leaked material...

[TrixAreForKids]

*Wonders why they have toned down Buckethead so much on the new leak*?

Not sure if it's on purpose or not. It's suprising to me that the Chris Pittman work shines more on this version.

Maybe someone from our community can re-mix the song and turn up BH's guitars. To me, the guitars and Axl's voice make this song great.

[CheapJon]

jarmo, how come you don't have news of the recent leak on the front page?

it just seems odd that the premier guns site on the net doesnt have a report on a subject that the rest of the web is happy to discuss.

yeah, let's be loyal fans by advertising leaked material...

I don't think that the site shud have this as news at the front page,

but i'm just asking since I and hundreds (prolly thousands) of other fans downloaded this song, does that mean that i'm not loyal to the band or what.. and yeah if so, what about yourself.. you're not loyal either right

don't go after me on msn now gurl

[Howard2k]

Except for the line switch, NOTHING HAS CHANGED in the new leak. Everything (including Pitman's funky synth stuff) is there in the old leak, this time around it has just been mixed differently.
I can make the old leak sound like the new leak, all you need is an audio software like Adobe Audition for example, put a filter on and tinker with the EQ... There you go.

And besides, the mix was so sloppy that I doubt that it's something other than a fan-edit. Listen closely, and you'll notice that the volume changes several times during the song.

 

Wrong.

You cannot tweak a song to add digital information that is no there.? ?It?s quite CLEARLY different guitar, different layering and far superior quality of lyrics.? ?

That?s not a tweak.

This is just like the NIN photo which "clearly showed the track list when enlarged".? Even though no additional data was actaully there.??

He's not wrong. There is nothing in the new leak which wasn't in the old one, except for one guitar part (leading into the chorus). There isn't even a lyric change (as so many have been saying.)

Last night I mixed the two leaks together, anticipating that there'd be a few problems with altered parts having to be removed. After eq-ing the old leak for comparison purposes I found that all of the synth effects (that I noticed) were clearly audible in the old version, even though they're very quiet in the mix.? Simply altering the eq in your media player to emphasis the higher end of the scale should allow you to verify this.

The only part that I couldn't hear in the old version was the deeper harmonic vocal on the "na na na" bit. Granted, I could have missed a few things through complacency due to having heard both versions a lot lately but I'm very, very? confident that 99% of the track is identical in both versions. It just goes to show what a different mix can do to a song.

There are really two angles.

1 - You cannot take a crappy rip of a song, play with the EQ and restore data that was lost due to the original lossy compression. ? You CAN adjust the eq to try to mask the deficiencies etc. ?But once that data is lost, it?s lost. ? A great example is jus amping th track. ?People often mistake an increase in volume for an increase in quality. ?I?m away from my computer right now so to be honest don?t have the tools to do this experiment myself, but if you take a rip from the previous leak of Better and tweak it, are you saying you can get it to a level that is indistinguishable from this new alleged current leak? ?I think that would be quite an achievement. ?

2 - You say that there is virtually nothing new in the leaks. ? It sounds to me from a quick listen that the funky bridge in the middle IS different. ? You could be right, perhaps it is the same note for note but the mixing is just different. ?However, this still brings us back to point 1 - if it?s gone then it?s gone. ?EQ does not restore data that has been effectively lost due to compression. ? But at the end of the day, there IS new stuff in there. ?I didn?t notice new lyrics, but like you said, it seems there is new guitar work. ? New guitar work is not a mixing effect, unless it was just really buried. ?And without having access to the discrete tracks we?re stll limited by ponit 1. ?


So I stand by my comment. ? Remixing ?the track does not change guitar parts, add vocal harmony or restore quality lost due to compression. ? ?Sure, it can change the feel of the track, but it?s not magic.

If someone thinks it really IS possible that it?s an exclusive remix, then let?s hear one of these gurus (and I use that term in the genuine sense, since the would know significantly more about the subject than I) remix TWAT with similar results. ? I want to her clearer vocals, mix in some new parts perhaps and give us a more finished product.

[BBF Rocks]

jarmo, how come you don't have news of the recent leak on the front page?

it just seems odd that the premier guns site on the net doesnt have a report on a subject that the rest of the web is happy to discuss.

yeah, let's be loyal fans by advertising leaked material...

I don't think that the site shud have this as news at the front page,

but i'm just asking since I and hundreds (prolly thousands) of other fans downloaded this song, does that mean that i'm not loyal to the band or what.. and yeah if so, what about yourself.. you're not loyal either right

don't go after me on msn now gurl

um here is the thing, axl understands we are big fans so we are tempted to download, he even joked about it on tour, remember? it would be a whole another thing if a fan site indirectly started encouraging people to download material that is not yet put out there by the band. do you see? and don't worry, i won't bash your head in for not understanding as much as me

[25]

are you saying you can get it to a level that is indistinguishable from this new alleged current leak?  I think that would be quite an achievement.   

It sounds to me from a quick listen that the funky bridge in the middle IS different.   

No, I doubt that an amateur could take the old leak and, using only the original elements, create the new one. I wouldn't say that it's impossible but you would need some heavy-duty audio manipulation software, a lot of time and a great deal of luck/dedication to isolate the individual parts (such as the vocals or the synths) without picking up any of the other sounds on the same frequency. Since the vocals and synths sound so clean I would guess that this was mixed from the original sources, there is really no evidence to indicate otherwise. But, note for note, this mix uses the same elements as the old one without variation as far as I can tell, the obvious exception being the guitar into the chorus. Listening to both versions  simultainiously doesn't seem to reveal any variations in the guitar parts, the bass  nor the vocal track. I'm not sure about the drums, they seem to be the same but there are times when they don't seem entirely in sync, there's some strange dissonance between the fills in a few places - more than could be explained away as chorusing effects caused by combining tracks. The most likely explanation (in my opinion) would be that the drum fills are slightly different between the two versions (it could simply be that they used different audio takes or used different cymbal sounds).

If someone went over both versions laboriously, second by second, they may find more deviations than I have but I doubt they'd find anything significant. For my money, the new leak is simply a different mix of the same tracks in the previous leak, with only the most minor variations. As I said, given the sound quality of the high-end elements which have been given prominence I'd say that this was mixed from the original sources.  If someone outside of the GNR camp, with no access to the original elements, mixed this version   I'd be amazed.       


Edit; I stand corrected on the lyric change, obviously.

[philspectorshotme]

jarmo, how come you don't have news of the recent leak on the front page?

it just seems odd that the premier guns site on the net doesnt have a report on a subject that the rest of the web is happy to discuss.

yeah, let's be loyal fans by advertising leaked material...

uh...what?
this is news concerning guns. it's not as if jarmo would be hosting the song on the site. news of previous leaks have been posted on the main page. i think you need to get a bit of objectivity to your boarding, and besides: i asked jarmo.

[BBF Rocks]

jarmo, how come you don't have news of the recent leak on the front page?

it just seems odd that the premier guns site on the net doesnt have a report on a subject that the rest of the web is happy to discuss.

yeah, let's be loyal fans by advertising leaked material...

uh...what?
this is news concerning guns. it's not as if jarmo would be hosting the song on the site. news of previous leaks have been posted on the main page. i think you need to get a bit of objectivity to your boarding, and besides: i asked jarmo.

objectivity? why? seriously, why? i'm here to support my favorite band and that's what i'm doing. by posting news about the leak he would indirectly be incouraging curious readers to look for the leaked song, which is not something the band wants. get it? next time think before you post.

[philspectorshotme]

this isn't an official website (and actually, if it were any other top drawer act they would acknowledge the leaks on their official website).
and you can't really believe the band are too upset from one small leak. you don't even know where the leak came from, or why it was leaked.

[JimMorrison4]

The guitars sound weak. It sounds techno/emoish. I like the demo better.

If jarmo doesn't want to allow the leak on here, that's fine. It just drives visitors to other sites.

[BBF Rocks]

this isn't an official website (and actually, if it were any other top drawer act they would acknowledge the leaks on their official website).
and you can't really believe the band are too upset from one small leak. you don't even know where the leak came from, or why it was leaked.

i don't have time right now to elaborate but:
1. the band wanted the leak removed from radio stations.
2. bumblefoot and dizzy both confirmed this is an illegal leak.
get your facts straight before you post again. bye, phil.

[philspectorshotme]

this isn't about letting the leak on here - i completely agree with him on that count. what i can't fathom as to why the biggest unofficial, probably bigger than the official even, website of one of the biggest bands in the world is missing a report on one of the biggest developments in the guns world this year.
i'm not trying to get anyones back up, i just found it curious.
edit: axlgurl: what does that have to do with this not being a news item?!

[jarmo]

this isn't about letting the leak on here - i completely agree with him on that count. what i can't fathom as to why the biggest unofficial, probably bigger than the official even, website of one of the biggest bands in the world is missing a report on one of the biggest developments in the guns world this year.
i'm not trying to get anyones back up, i just found it curious.

It's still a leak that wasn't meant to happen.

I don't feel like "promoting" it and having to deal with all the e-mails asking for the track.

When the band has a new single out, you'll be able to read about that.



/jarmo

[gunns1]

Im suprised how clear the fkn better track sounds, considering it isn't a real mastered track..

[bringbackadler]

I bet the version we are hearing leaked now will be almost identical to the studio cut.

And that's not a bad thing. I just wouldn't expect anything too much different or "better". 

I'm hoping T.W.A.T. leaks real soon since it will probably be months before the album comes out.   


/bringbackadler

[Krispy Kreme]

jarmo, how come you don't have news of the recent leak on the front page?

it just seems odd that the premier guns site on the net doesnt have a report on a subject that the rest of the web is happy to discuss.

yeah, let's be loyal fans by advertising leaked material...

So let's only report "positive" news?
I guess the print and news media  in the western world would go out of  business and be silenced if  that were  the standard. As would tabloids. As would half  the entertainment "news" shows in the USA. As would the talk shows.
No. It  is something else here, and we all know what it is.

[killingvector]

Is there any clue as to the nature of the leaker?

Does GnR have a security problem or was this another bomb from the original leaker?

If this is something we shouldn't discuss,and I have yet to navigate through all 20 pages of the latest news, please delete this post.

[The Dog]

This version Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccckssss.

way to much "non-rock" sounds in it.  synths and keyboards galore - doesn't sound like GNR at all to me.  The intro is worse than before and the outro still sucks.

I pray this isn't the first single. 

[CheapJon]

This version Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccckssss.

way to much "non-rock" sounds in it.? synths and keyboards galore - doesn't sound like GNR at all to me.? The intro is worse than before and the outro still sucks.

I pray this isn't the first single.?

well i think u have 2 pray night and day for that not to happen

and yeah i think this intro pretty much is what it's gonna sound like on the record since it's the same intro as in the HD commercial