Hey
Please dont laugh..
Just listening to the Dec 1968 concert w/ the Doors which has a link
posted to it a a thread a little underneath (when writing) this one.

It sounds utter utter crap, audio-sonic-wise.

Wouldnt a lower bit speed be better
when the original source is weak.... This aint the first
time I experience this.

Reason argument please .

Baboon Bro
I would like to hear one of that songs before say something wrong, would you mind to upload a small one of them?

I think you're on the wrong track there, Baboon.

changeing the bitrate will not make a crappy recording sound better, nor will it fix any speed problems.
lets say you have 128kb/s mp3 and convert it to 320kb/s - what happens is, the size in MB increases, but the actual audio information loses during the converting process.

If a song is to fast or slow - that can be fixed with an audio editor, with good results.

cheers

This issue might be even more embarassing than I first thought of it.
It seems like someone in my family has been fingerin' on the audio settings!

Anyway; I think about all them expensive cassette tapes back in Stone Age;
did they ever make a crappy sound source sound better... ?
As I recall, it only got worse with better overall sound quality?

As long as we speak audience recordings...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-05 21:33 by Baboon Bro.

open-g Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> If a song is to fast or slow - that can be fixed
> with an audio editor, with good results.
>
> cheers


Totally right open-g. Note that in order do do a proper speedcorrection job you definitely need a lossless file. High bitrate mp3 files might still sound 'good' but they're totally useless when it comes to audio editing.

Editing/remastering mp3, wma or other lossy formats is a good shortcut to achieving crappy sound. So in other words if you wanna dabble with speedcorrection it's best to work with lossless formats and forget mp3/wma etc.

I agree, Britney