For me, the quality of the encoder is far more important than bitrate.
And, i don't think i'm able able to judge what fidelity really is,
because it can be subjective, sometimes.
That's why a distorded or clipped kick drum doesn't bother me at all
if i like the tune – as far as i know, the artist decided it would be
that way.
But i agree with you. When someone gets too obsessive about the
minimal details of sound fidelity, the main thing, the expression and
the creativity, does not show up. I got this uncle, who claims to be
a music lover. He buys shitloads of audiophyle equipments and listen
to things like Toto and Kenny G.
High fidelity does not make history. Remarkable music does.
Kw
On 11/04/2008, at 13:46, Thor Teague wrote:
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.
