On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:57:26 -0800, Sawbuck <2fins4@a.sawbuck> wrote:
>telanom wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:27:17 -0800, Sawbuck <2fins4@a.sawbuck> wrote:
>>>from the .nfo
>
>snip details
>
>>>telanom, I do realize this isn't your rip, but are you able
>>>to shed some light on the discrepancy between Codec/Quality
>>>& the apparent reference to mp3 indicated in Information.
>>>
>>>Much appreciated.
>>
>>
>>Of course - I'm afraid that I had forgotten that I had made that
>>confusing reference in the nfo as I've had that album for a while..
>
>It did confound me alright.
>
>>Sadly, many albums from that time had less than steller production
>>values. So, although this album was clearly ripped the spectrograph
>>shows the quality as being around 320kbps. It is however as good as
>>you're going to find for this album.
>
>Oh yes, listening again right this minute, and it's a
>pleasure.
>
>>It has happened several times that I have ripped an album myself only
>>to find the quality very disappointing. I bought a bunch of
>>"remastered" Woody Guthrie CDs and every one of them was like that. It
>>happens...
>>
>>Frankly, I might not have uploaded this had I noticed. I only viewed
>>the audiochecker...
>
>I'm glad you didn't notice, I'm pleased to keep and listen
>and thank you kindly for your posts and patient explanation
>to my query.
>
My pleasure and more to come :)
|
|