3 ms·
Minus the pirating bit, this; a thousand times this! This is one of the reasons that I'm actually sad to see the CD go. When producers mastered for CD, you got
by unimpressive 15y ago
Minus the pirating bit, this; a thousand times this!
This is one of the reasons that I'm actually sad to see the CD go. When producers mastered for CD, you got the best quality that they could produce or that the CD could hold. (Whichever came first.) Now that the CD is fading into irrelevance, theres the worry that digital distribution will make the average quality of a track worse instead of what it should be, better than CD. (Though at this point I'd take parity with CD quality.) Yeah, I get it, lossless tracks take up a lot of memory. They should still be an option to purchase though. Lossless is the default state for recordings anyway.
I don't even have the equipment required to hear the difference. It just doesn't sit right with me to support a business that blatantly panders to the LCD at the expense of everyone else.
"Mastered for Itunes" Just reaffirms this for me.
- ugh 15y agoI can’t tell the difference. I really can’t. Why do you think you would be able to?
- georgieporgie 15y agoHow much have you tried? At lower bitrates (160 and under, mp3) I wouldn't notice a sound quality issue so much as I noticed that I consistently became fatigued faster than when I listened to CDs. I honestly don't know if the same holds true of higher bitrates, since by the time I started encoding those, I was listening less and the convenience outweighed potential irritation.