Tread lightly on this subject... the technical stuff matters. (don't get me wrong you're not doing badly.)
I have been engineering audio for several years now and every year I get less tolerant of mediocre sound fidelity. I've long since deleted all my mp3's that are 128kbps (<192 sounds simply terrible to me) and avoid downloading anything lower than c.256 unless there's a specific reason to (something a friend did, something I need for work or whatever, etc.) Any mp3's I encode now are at 320. I now regret recording my record collection at 192 early on, because I did a lot of records at 192 and now I want to go back and redo them at 320. I don't know. Poor fidelity just bothers me--it's almost worse when it's something I should be enjoying but it's ruined by poor engineering, or excessive compression (file or level, as the case may be), etc. Like if the art itself was crappy it would just be like, "oh, whatever..." move on. The creative aspects take a backseat as far as some people (like myself) are concerned when the artist blows it technically. Anyway, your mileage may vary on all these views but this is how I feel about audio (same basic thing is true of video) these days. Poor fidelity really detracts something from the intended experience, and if it could have been special that's frustrating as hell for me. On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Frank Glazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The mix isn't half bad either. :) > > which, imho, is the more important part. they're just promotional > mixes, after all. if i ever get to the point where i am releasing an > album, or something, sure, i'd love to have the luxury of much better > sound. for now, for dj promos that are dubiously legal to begin with, > i think i can live with the imperfections.
