While this sounds like a good rule at first, several questions arise. How do we know the source was 'good' to begin with? Was the room in which it was recorded 'correct'? Is the design of the instrument 'correct'? Was the musician playing the instrument 'properly'?
Since all the words in quotes are non-absolutes, how can we say we're 'degrading' anything and not actually 'improving' it? I'm not speaking of the obvious difference between a 16k mp3 and a 128k mp3. Rather, I'm coming from the optical world where, especially with RAW formats, there's an awful lot open to interpretation. e.g. When was the last time you saw a movie/commercial that didn't employ a colorist (or several). > recording for quite a while. The First Commandment is: Thou shalt > not degrade the source. ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
