Fuck it, it's a 5.

>>72434141
Yes it is

>>72434141
>>72434165
out of 5

File: steve-albini.jpg (1MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1536x2048px

I wish I recorded this album.

>>72434179

out of 500000000000000000000000000000000000

>>72434197
too bad he could only hear out of one side of the headphones

>>72434222
type that number out phonetically

>>72434141
Pitchfork 5, or Scaruffi 5?

>>72434141
i'm glad you've started using numbers instead of letters, christgau

Fuck slint.

>>72435187
okay

You're right, 5 out of 10

>>72434141
Agreed. Don't know why /mu/ wanks over it so hard.

>>72434323
Five hundred decillion

>>72434141
more like a fucking ZERO

>>72434141

OUT OF WHAT? FUCK

File: 1472127213469.png (446KB, 608x588px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 608x588px

>>72435603

yeah 0 out of -10

It's the best and it will never be cool to not accept this is the coolest album. 5/5 - 10/10

>>72435734
That's still a fucking 0 you idiot.

>>72434141
MAMA

>>72435843
a 0 out of -10

>>72435843
>>72436000

Literally the highest ranking an album can get under that scale

>>72436000
>literally doesn't understand how fractions work
>>72436051
Who says I can't give out 10 out of -10?

>>72436111

you can't, it's out of -10

>>72436000
ochekd

>>72436111
it's a 0 out of -10

>>72436126
>>72436149
Alright, then a 0 is still the lowest score you can get. A -10 out of -10 is 1, or 100%. A 0 out of -10 is still 0, or 0%. That's how scales work anons.

File: 1481172406847.jpg (232KB, 600x459px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 600x459px

>>72436149
>>72436126
>>72436111
>>72436051
>>72436000
>>72435843
>>72435734

probably the stupidest argument ive ever seen and I've browsed the chan for well over 10 years

>>72436193
No you want it higher. 0 is higher than -10, so you want a 0 out of -10

>>72436231
It's not based on height. It's a percentage.
>>72436215
I know. People need to get their math straight.

>>72436242

no you're the stupid one im refering to, 0 is the highest number you can get out of -10, it's the "most" score you could get

>>72436242
>it's not based on height
you're right, the number line goes sideways

This is why /mu/sicians shouldn't talk about numbers. For the guy who didn't understand it, if x is the normal rating, the new rating is x-10, what's so hard to get?

>>72436126
It's not out of -10, that's where you getting this wrong. On a scale from -10 to 0 it is 0 that is the highest number, and so, like how on a scale from 0 to 10 you use 10 as the denominator, you would use 0 as the denominator for fractions on this scale. Therefore the scale goes from -10/0 to 0/0.

>>72436737

On a scale the higher the number the better it is, you're giving it more points.

between -10 and 0, 0 is the highest number, the most amount of available points to award the thing that you're rating.

My new favorite meme