In Reply to: RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... posted by kgiessler on May 28, 2007 at 17:53:29:
But the result is the same as corrupt data: less sonic goodness. What's the hoary old line..."the operation was a success but the patient died".
Like most everyone I love the convenience of computer audio, and am very pleased with how good it can sound. But it seems that getting to the right software combinations and settings for a given hardware platform is every bit as demanding as setting up a good sounding analog system. Fortunately it's also as rewarding.
Rick
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Precisely.. - rick_m 05/28/0720:22:10 05/28/07 (8)
- RE: Precisely.. - kgiessler 20:34:56 05/28/07 (7)
- RE: Precisely.. - JimOfOakCreek 08:38:02 05/29/07 (6)
- RE: Precisely.. - Dawnrazor 08:16:55 05/31/07 (5)
- Take the LAME recommendations with a grain of salt. - rick_m 22:38:29 05/31/07 (4)
- RE: LAME 320.... - alan m. kafton 02:42:43 06/1/07 (3)
- RE: LAME 320 sounds awfully good. - rick_m 08:56:40 06/1/07 (2)
- FYI - to eliminate sw issues, the tracks were copied onto CDR... - danny kaey 10:02:11 06/1/07 (1)
- Even then software issues lurk. - rick_m 10:45:22 06/1/07 (0)