I didn't really mean to start such a long thread. The point of my original comment was to suggest that the dankseeds group, which goes to such painstaking lengths to make sure that all of the objective aspects of a seed are top flight should also have some discussion of the actual listenability of the show. I find myself reading this list of criteria and saying, "well, cool ... the tracking is nice, but how does it Sound?"
It has been suggested to me on the list and privately that it basically goes without saying that these recordings sound good to start with. Maybe so, but if you're going to go ahead and cook up a list of criteria that the dankseeders must sign off on, why not include some discussion of alternate sources to which the so-called dankseed has been compared? Describe the differences in the sound maybe. Yes, recording quality is a purely subjective topic, but that should not prevent the dankseeders from addressing it in SOME form or another. Otherwise, silly people like me might continue to think that the dankseed crew is excellent at verifying the source and tracking of a seed, but don't seem to acknowledge that the overall sound quality is of greater importance than whether the track cuts were placed in the right place. Finally, anyone who takes this as a slam on the dankseeds group, or as me mocking them, is simply wrong. These folks spend a lot of time to try to get the best seed out there and we all owe them some thanks for doing so. I just think that there should be some other criteria noted in the .dnk file, or whatever it is called. Pete | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chicago, Illinois www.InHiding.com _______________________________________________ etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree
