> There is a world of difference in the quality between 192k
> and 160k and if you cannot hear it, i suggest a hearing
> test.
> I suspect if anybody had the wave files , they would have
> been posted by now, the best we can hope for is mp3 at the
> moment.
> Being active with p2p since napster, my experience is that
> most people (i know) do not bother with anything less than
> 192k as the sound is shit (usually).
>
Exactly.
My friend runs the tracker in a Pink Floyd community. Over there, you're not even ALLOWED to share mp3s. It's considered a huge offense for some reason. Although you can rip mp3s to sound exactly like the quality on a CD my friend still argues that a difference is there because some form of "loss" has taken place in the process.
He has also given me a lot of advice about this sort of stuff for the Steinman site I'm doing.
Unfortunately, the WAV. files for any of these songs have never been available to the public. The only way you'd get them is if you had the actual CD they came from, which would have been completely in lossless. Jim Steinman and Steve Rinkoff would have this CD, not to mention the producers of the Broadway show. We can safely assume that it'd be easier to climb Everest than to expect a copy from them, so...
Besides, if you want to decode the mp3 into a WAV. file and then burn it into FLAC. or SHN, which are the only forms that Pink Floyd tracker uses, the loss would still be there. It wouldn't be authentic. It would be like a forgery of the Mona Lisa or something
You with me?
That was directed a LOT at Tremorlor as well
|
