|
do you think it's stupid that they don't put tracklistings
|
View this Thread in Original format
| patric |
| it's hard that when they hear a hard hitting song. they can't guess it because they have no words. or it's a remix. plus no tracklisting. do you think it's stupid that they don't add tracklistings to there mixes |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Adam420
uh, yea, I guess |
But how do you guess? THERE ARE NO WORDS OR IT COULD BE A REMIX. |
|
|
| Goebbel Goebbel |
 |
|
|
| couch-potato |
| Tracklistings and bit rates should be mandatory in posting sets imo :o |
|
|
| Goebbel Goebbel |
 |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by couch-potato
Tracklistings and bit rates should be mandatory in posting sets imo :o |
That's a bit tricky, though, due to the differences that develop over time. For instance, for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. A lot of that would become increasingly inaccurate over time if posted. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
Ah, the elusive "they". They control everything, but don't want you knowing about it.
AND NOW THEY'RE DOING THIS TOO?!?! :mad: |
|
|
| Goebbel Goebbel |
|
|
|
| couch-potato |
| Experts agree that you are correct. Clearly, it stands to reason that the vast majority of people agree with the evidence. |
|
|
| Adam420 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
That's a bit tricky, though, due to the differences that develop over time. For instance, for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. A lot of that would become increasingly inaccurate over time if posted. |
uh, what? |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
That's a bit tricky, though, due to the differences that develop over time. For instance, for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. A lot of that would become increasingly inaccurate over time if posted. |
that's so depressing :( |
|
|
|
|
