On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:47:53 -0500, Bismarck <bnwink@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 13, 2018, The Mad Doctor wrote
>(in article<5ghfadtjfho5apc4ps0l74rti3rtiifv2e@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 04:29:33 -0500, Bismarck<bnwink@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 12, 2018, The Mad Doctor wrote
>> > (in article<s3tdad5hnd8lccnfnh7ct6fos5mkeo7en8@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> > > two questions:
>> > >
>> > > You put AATW as your #2 fav... who's #1 ??
>> > >
>> > > and, just curious... are/were you a Ray Charles fan?
>> > >
>> > > As you may have figured out.... all though I do one hell of a lot of
>> > > "quality" posting... it's mostly in MP3 (or dozens
>> > > of reasons) and usually only post lossless if (a) in my opinion the
>> > > difference is remarkable and/or (b) someone has
>> > > asked for sumpin'.
>> > >
>> > > Gawd! after the mess I saw this morning (in either the 60's or 50's mp3
>> > > group) from two of the self-appointed God's
>> > > (for that group) were one is posting (f you can believe it) 64kbps crap and
>> > > the other (who has sworn for years that
>> > > he/she only posts legit CDs and NEVER, EVER up converts) made a big boo-boo
>> > > and accidentally posted hi/her "work folder"
>> > > with all the sub-par bits and pieces he/she was obviously using to "create"
>> > > the contents of a requested CD.
>> > >
>> > > anyway.. after seeing that mess I hate to remain associated with that
>> > > group.
>> > > I'd love to call out both of them but am
>> > > not in a trollish mood and don't need to get flamed for the next month or
>> > > so.
>> > >
>> > > Okay... sorry... end of my daily rant :(
>> >
>> > #1 would be Willie Nelson. Ya, I know, lately quality is an issue. I fell in
>> > love with Red Headed Stranger and I was hooked.
>> >
>> > I have an extensive Ray Charles collection. Fine performer.
>> >
>> > Flac is Flac, you almost always get the quality you expect, and it is
>> > 128
>> > I rip something to MP3 to put on the player in the car, I use 256. When I
>> > download MP3 I prefer to get 320.
>>
>> The "rage" had to do with bandwidth (a term that didn't even exist back in
>> the day) and, of course, storage.
>>
>> Funny as it may seem (or sound) I usually rip to Flac then down convert to
>> 48000hz Mp3. To my old ears, there's a slight
>> difference between that and the "default" 41000. I also stay exclusively with
>> CBR.
>>
>> Like I've stated... posting, to me, is not (as I'm sure it is to some) and
>> ego trip or a "my collection is bigger than
>> yours" type of thing... I post for one reason only... to "share" the music I
>> enjoy with as many "out there" as
>> possible... that means the target audience is (like it or not) the mp3 crowd.
>>
>> Unfortunately, while I refuse to lower my own standards, a good portion of
>> that crowd, the leechers and trolls, can't
>> tell the difference between 320 and 64... as demonstrated by some posts in
>> the 60s group over that past 2-3 days.
>>
>> So.. for example, for this guy I know named Bismark.. I post things (mainly
>> to lossless country and 50-60s) that I think
>> he'd appreciate before I push the delete button on the Flac portion of the
>> rip.
>>
>> Anyway... Enjoy today's little AATW post. Got a couple more I don't see on
>> your list (most of which I have).. When
>> time allows I'll be double checking your list to see what I might be missing.
>> keeping in mind that new albums don't
>> always mean new tunes. Yes, I do take into consideration re-recordings,
>> different "versions" and live vs studio.
>>
>> take care
>>
>> TMD
>
>you.
One question... is "Back To Back" one of their "live" albums ?
The Mad Doctor
Always remember..
Those who computers would destroy,
they must first drive insane.
|
|