 Board Message |
you won't hear me disagreeing here... |
|
Board Message |
you won't hear me disagreeing here... |
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Recording Website Message Board ] [ FAQ ] Posted by JC on June 07, 2000 at 06:26:58:
In Reply to: mp3's ...lighten up posted by jjrockjaw on June 06, 2000 at 23:57:24:
Oh yeah, I agree 100% that MP3 is the way of the future.
The major labels (generally run by old farts that don't have computers) are only crying about it because they were caught with their pants down- "aw, it'll never catch on...". If they had realized early on what MP3 could do for (and to) them they would've worked out a watermark system like the developers originally almost BEGGED them to do. As it was they wouldn't give them the time of day, dragged their feet.. and of course technology won't wait.
As far as bullcrap goes, we have a difference of opinion here. I stick by my original assertion (and I quote):
"I can tell a difference real quick when they're A/B'ed."
Now i'd agree with you that if I NEVER heard the original mix, and you put it on at 256kbps, then I wouldn't be able to tell. Again, it would just sound overcompressed- no dynamics. I probably wouldn't be able to tell a poor mix that was overcompressed from a good mix that was MP3-encoded.
I'm not saying (again) that YOU have to be able to tell; quite honestly if you can't you should be happy. I've spent a lot of time looking for MP3 encoder artifact and I also spend a lot of time looking for subtle problems with music in general. It's cost me the enjoyment of some of my favorite music in fact! But if you know where to look, yeah, you can usually tell.
Like I keep saying, you don't have to agree, and you won't convince me otherwise.
FWIW, what are you listening through? If you don't have decent monitors, you can't really hear a lot of the "problems" with MP3.