Sky Ferreira

[paradiso 1,625]

she books live shows and looks good for the first time in a hot sec and in return songs from masochism leak... very on brand for her!

[hotshot2am 17,965]

I don't want to destroy the fun but just a reminder that we aren't allowed to share links of songs that are on her upcoming album.

 

24 minutes ago, godsmonster said:

Could you check if the NTMT wav instrumentals & DF instru in wav is legit from that one particular site?

 

I only checked the NTMT instrumental and It's cut off at 16kHz, not legit.

[EXODUS 9,912]

Finders Keepers only file we have is the youtube leak or did the original file leak as well? I can't find it lol

[depressinq 0]

Can I also have a link of the entire sessions 

[pin up galore 17,841]

I didnt fuck with listening to the live versions as you can never really tell how a song sounds through a recording but AMLD is stunning  the perfect sound for September/ rainy beginnings of fall im living  Innocent Kind was kinda fugly tbh  kinda tragic these tracks will probably never see release they've shaped up a pretty damn good sophomore album  better than NTMT imo  a shame she looked SO good at that fashion show her face looked so healthy and natural 

[Mash Tragic 3,924]

11 minutes ago, hotshot2am said:

I don't want to destroy the fun but just a reminder that we aren't allowed to share links of songs that are on her upcoming album.

 

 

I only checked the NTMT instrumental and It's cut off at 16kHz, not legit.

 

Ofc but doesn't this rule apply for albums that are actually coming out? Like, not in 2323 or whatever non-existent future release date? 

[Greta Bowie 348]

1 hora atrás, Air disse:

Obviamente há músicas que não conhecemos... Alguém tão perfeccionista como Sky lançaria um álbum com o que nunca temos atualmente desta forma. Não há coesão, não há ritmo cuidadoso, não há estrutura narrativa abrangente. 

Na verdade, uma parte significativa das músicas muitas vezes se aprofunda no tema de alguém preso em um ciclo repetitivo e vicioso e, mesmo sabendo disso, não consegue se libertar porque isso já se tornou parte deles, mesmo que seja algo destrutivo. Sempre achei que nomear o álbum como ‘Masochism’ foi uma excelente escolha. Ao contrário da conotação comum da palavra, parece transmitir a mensagem de alguém enredado em comportamentos repetitivos e autodestrutivos, incapaz de se libertar. Ao mesmo tempo, obtêm certo prazer com essas ações, apesar do sofrimento que trazem...

[AtomicMess 2,922]

6 hours ago, godsmonster said:

Could you check if the NTMT wav instrumentals & DF instru in wav is legit from that one particular site?

I could if you'd like me to, BUT, I wouldn't be able to be the 'seal of certainty' on legitness. Honestly only the folks who leaked them would be able to do that.

Putting a spoiler tag because this will be long, but for the girlies who care (and for those who want to learn), here's a mini-class on reading spectrums as a mark of quality and a shitty way of how we get to "upscales".

 

Spoiler

 

Don't take this as gospel, but rather just a general quick-pass on the topic.
 

This is the spectrum for an OG file; I've got the CD, ripped in lossless. (90s Dance Banger; doesn't exist in the digital era, RIP) This would be our OG/WAV (I'm using Apple Lossless; don't stress to much on it - same thing effectively). Notice how the full spectrum here is populated with data. In terms of hearing frequencies, most humans top out at around 20khz, however some folks (probably not you, you're not special, probably not myself either) can hear a little higher, but not much.

All the sonic data is here. Now, notice at the start of the track, the spectrum isn't really "full" - this particular song starts out quiet, fades in, and gradually adds instrumentation and vocals, which explains why there's not a lot of sonic data at first, and then suddenly, there is. In short - there's some variables here that would affect whether a song or a part of a song takes up the "full" spectrum, but overall, a fully lossless/mastered track should look something like this, or have parts of the song that take up the full spectrum of sound, like this.

 

Another example of a mastered/finished track, also ripped from a CD, looks like this:

 

 

Notice that the spectrum doesn't go quite to the top @ 22khz, but it comes close. It all depends on the track mastering and instrumentation. (Sidenote - when you see things like 44.1khz or 48khz on WAV or really ANY audio files - that's taking into account stereo. 44.1kz/2 = 22khz per left/right channel. 48khz/2 - 24khz per channel)

Now, if I take that first track, and I convert it to 128k, we immediately look like this:

 

 

Bam - all that higher frequency data? Bye. That sharp line of sonic demarcation right above 15khz is the canary that says "You've been compressed!", especially for 128k mp3.

 

The algorithm for encoding, in most standard encoders without any fiddling, starts to roll off frequencies over certain points. Take this with a grain of salt, but in general, these are the "cut off" points, so to speak, for the mp3 encoder.

320kbps - 19.5kHz
192kbps - 18kHz
160kbps - 17kHz
128kbps - 16kHz 

Sonic data above these lines is either discarded entirely, or heavily compressed, at these bitrates. VBR (variable bit rate) encoding changes things a bit, but I'm not getting into that.

Here are all the screenshots of this same song/file, at various different bitrates, just to give a strong visual of what compression does to a song at different levels (raw/og, 128k, 160k, 192k, 224k, 256k, 320k): https://imgur.com/a/xX4emZt

 

If you scroll through, you can see how at each level, more and more data is kept at higher bitrate/encodes, however, even at 320k, there's still a substantial amount of sonics that are missing at the 20khz line and above. But, given that human hearing tops out at this level, this is why files at 320k are considered by many to be lossless/OG, because functionally, they are (technically they're def not). Hearing encoding artifacts and differences at this level is something only very, very good ears will notice, AND, you'd need to hear the uncompressed OG, to really be able to make the comparison to tell that something was amiss to start with.

 

Now, this is where this gets interesting, and this is where people start to point to the word/phrase "upscale", and how we get here.

I took the 128k mp3 file, which shows up as missing/having compressed allll that sonic data above ~16khz, and loaded it into Ableton (Audio/DAW program).

Then, I re-exported it, without any changes, back out to a raw WAV file.

Now the spectrum looks like this:

 

Now, if I listen to this, it's still obvious its still a 128k source file, regardless of the fact that the spectrum shows otherwise. The hi-hats are crunchy, the kick drums sound "sharp", the synths are warbled on some notes. Even though it looks like there's plenty of "good" high frequency data here in the spectrum, it's a lovely lie (song title pun here )

People who are far more talented than I though, would be able to take these low quality, 128k encodes/sources, and "clean them up", so to speak, with various audio tools and plugins. They can trim back some of that sharp/crunchy crunch on the hi-hats and kick drums, they can play with the EQ to make the vocals sound less muddy, etc, and then afterwards, export the track back out. There's a few out-of-the-box plugins (iZotopes 'UnChirp') that claim to be able to do just this, however, from experience, they're far from perfect.

Spectrum wise, these reprocessed/edited files might look like they're lossless/OG, or even just "higher quality", like in the above screenshot, and sonic wise, if cleaned up well enough, they might pass the "ear test" on not having any identifiable compression artifacts, but at the end of the day, they were still from a compressed source, original sonic data is missing, and a lot of the acoustics that were "gained back" are all synthetic, in a nutshell. This is what people in leak communities would generally be calling out as an upscale/remaster. (*Having a true OG/raw file though and tweaking the acoustics would also count as a remaster, but under a different pretense, but we're not getting into that semantic).

So in relation to the original question - while I, or anyone else who understands a little bit about all of this, could check files for "legitness" on if they were OG or lossless, it gets a bit mucky. It's VERY easy and obvious to see if a file was/is compressed audio, because you see very sharp lines on a spectrum analyzer at the 15/16/17khz ranges where shit above is cut-off and discarded. You're not escaping that. But when it comes to 320k files, or WAV/FLAC/AIFF/other lossless formats, the spectrum sometimes can't *wholly* be trusted, because running files through professional audio DAWs and tinkering with them can produce back out a file that *looks* like it's OG/Lossless, but still actually came from a very compressed source (aka resampled/upscaled).

(And, playing them on any kind of high end system will sometimes still flesh out artifacts and chirps in the sound, usually)

Anyone who gets this far can clown me now for having no life 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by AtomicMess
Formatting tweaks

[KimKaDAB 3,831]

Finally listened on my good earphones and I just have to say I GET IT like it's not exactly what I expected but I understand her vision on this

Another case of sky prioritizing aesthetic and vibes over substance and AS SHE SHOULD that's her brand

I hope the final version fix the mistakes on this version like okaayyy girl we get it in the 80s you would outsell Madonna 

[skyptolemaea 295]

gonna tag the new mix as “Downhill Lullaby (Masochism Mix)” and maybe the released one as “Downhill Lullaby (Single Version)”

[skyptolemaea 295]

7 minutes ago, skyptolemaea said:

gonna tag the new mix as “Downhill Lullaby (Masochism Mix)” and maybe the released one as “Downhill Lullaby (Single Version)”

nvm just listened and it’s sounds the same, just better mixing and mastering i guess, so i’ll should just tag it as “Downhill Lullaby (Remastered)”

[Mariahspoolboy 223]

I haven't listened to all the leaks over the years, but now that AMLD is out I'm going to add it to my phone. Any thoughts on tracklisting?

[Kristian Karlsson 971]

EVERYBODY MOVED

[lanasugarysweet444 781]

7 minutes ago, skyptolemaea said:

nvm just listened and it’s sounds the same, just better mixing and mastering i guess, so i’ll should just tag it as “Downhill Lullaby (Remastered)”

I thought it was fake lol, should I download it or not?

[skyptolemaea 295]

1 minute ago, lanasugarysweet444 said:

I thought it was fake lol, should I download it or not?

well, it sounds identical to the released version, the only “difference” is that her vocals are a little bit more louder and there’s a random harp in the intro

[lanasugarysweet444 781]

3 minutes ago, skyptolemaea said:

well, it sounds identical to the released version, the only “difference” is that her vocals are a little bit more louder and there’s a random harp in the intro

Ok gonna download it later just for having 🤷

[Veinsineon 70,519]

wait i forgot about pretty dull her best song

 

guess im back ferraris

[details 15,691]

downhill lullaby alt mix seems fake to me sorry babes (i didn't even download it but the fact that it's a wav only available on dbree where you can't preview wav files is enough to tell me it's fake... or a virus)

[rollwithme 3,974]

Is this real or a demo? The song came out after that date so I’m confused

Sky Ferreira - Dont Forget 7.8MIX 24bit 1.28.22.mp3

[EmptyPromises 1,401]

share the wealth girls or ill sic Tonia on you