I have the unreleased BBC recordings (White Queen, fast WWRY, etc.) but as crappy 128kbps mp3's. Could someone post these as high quality mp3's are in a better format?
Thanks,
Kevin
Oh, nice to see yet another polite forum member.
No-loss formats seem to be becoming the standard in trading circles, so I was hoping for those or perhaps 256 or 320 kbps mp3's. I thought perhaps they were out there. I think the lower-quality mp3's were more standard a few years ago when not as many people had high-speed connections. To me, any mp3 below 192kbps has a very noticeable dip in sound quality.
KJG wrote: Oh, nice to see yet another polite forum member.
Ooooh, get you...sarcasm is not popular around here, take it from me.
No-loss formats seem to be becoming the standard in trading circles, so I was hoping for those or perhaps 256 or 320 kbps mp3's.
That's interesting. You are aware of what's in trading circles, yet are asking for that material without offering anything in return, possibly misunderstanding the term "trade".
To me, any mp3 below 192kbps has a very noticeable dip in sound quality.
I bet I could get you a 96k mp3 of those tracks that would sound better than you have now. The reason that I say that is that in my view it's the generation of the recording that is more key to the sound quality than the level of encoding (within certain parameters).
Is that reasoned enough, or is it still too opposed to what you want to be viewed as coherent?
The mood on here is so hostile. Everything is a god-damned challenge. I'm only sarcastic when someone else gives me a snarky comment.
"That's interesting. You are aware of what's in trading circles, yet are asking for that material without offering anything in return, possibly misunderstanding the term "trade"."
Maybe you're not familiar with how Bit Torrent works. You download files while other people download from you. And this site uses Torrents. Fits sharing pretty well. And in other music sites I've used, trading as a term loosely incorporates putting up files to be downloaded. Imagine that, people who are generous and actually nice instead of beings grumps right off the bat.
"I bet I could get you a 96k mp3 of those tracks that would sound better than you have now. The reason that I say that is that in my view it's the generation of the recording that is more key to the sound quality than the level of encoding (within certain parameters)."
That's interesting and perhaps you are right. I have heard 96k mp3's from CD sources that didn't sound so hot, though. Maybe the encoding software comes into play?
"Is that reasoned enough, or is it still too opposed to what you want to be viewed as coherent?"
Dude, give it a rest.
KJG wrote:
"That's interesting. You are aware of what's in trading circles, yet are asking for that material without offering anything in return, possibly misunderstanding the term "trade"."
Maybe you're not familiar with how Bit Torrent works. You download files while other people download from you. And this site uses Torrents. Fits sharing pretty well. And in other music sites I've used, trading as a term loosely incorporates putting up files to be downloaded. Imagine that, people who are generous and actually nice instead of beings grumps right off the bat.
OK, add patronising to sarcasm. You're doing a shit job of claiming the moral high ground...
I apologise for not knowing that you were mis-defining "trade" based on other websites using it in lieu of "share". I was using it based on THIS website's use of the terms.