One thing you're forgetting to mention...what about the sound quality of a SHN version of this soundboard/radio broadcast? This would sound better than both the mp3 and the daud SHN you have. You can't really use a comparison of SHN vs MP3 from two totally different sources and expect it to validate anything really.
Studio/Soundboard stuff isn't as badly affected by the MP3 compression, compared to audiecne tapes. But either way, the SHN of the studio/sbd will still be better. Jeremy ----- Original Message ----- From: "andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. _______________________________________________ etree.org etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree Need help? Ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
