Personally, if it sounds good, I did give a fig what it's 'lineage' is....My 43 year old ears can't tell any difference between a 160 mp3 and the orignal version of a studio CD, in fact, a good 128 rip sounds just fine to me. I KNOW people will point to how much different they really are by showing me screengrabs of the .wav file and the .mp3,- my eyes might see it, but my ears don't, and as I listen with my ears, not my eyes, that's what I trust!!
Case in point, I had a fantastic sounding show that had come from a 192 mp3 source-it was either soundboard or a radio broadcast-I also had a really poor sounding audience recording of the same show-flat and lifeless in comparison to the mp3 sourced version-yet when I came to offer the show for trade (I have mp3 sourced shows on my list, but do always indicate them as such) people were taking the audience recording over the mp3 source-their choice of course, but I'll never understand thast kind of reasoning. Cheers Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:59 AM Subject: Re: [etree] people must have dogs ears > i understand that - but what if an shn is only turned to mp3 once and then > burned as a wav. if that cd is good quality wont anything directly burned > burned from it be just as good as long as it is not being converted back and > forth from mp3 to wav or shn? > all im saying is that if you are really looking for a show and noone > has it for b+p or download and you find it as an mp3 - would you not want it, > if you were told it is very good sound quality? so what can it hurt to have > them on your list if people do not want them they wont ask. but i feel like > some peoplec are ashamed to post them on their list because it might offend - > they are polluting the music pool. _______________________________________________ etree.org etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree Need help? Ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
