Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
It's so true. As an ex audio engineer, or should I say I started down that path and veered off, I saw Laurie Anderson spend a *full* day choosing a wireless mic for the Home of the Brave (fake) concert movie. It had to have the right "sound" and visual look she wanted. Anyway, my point being is that in the end this movie got played at small art houses where the sound was less than optimal. I'm glad that someone cares enough about the purity of sonic reproduction, but perhaps my formative years listening to The Ramones and Sex Pistols gave me the idea that often the passion and feel is far more important than fidelity. So at home I do care about fidelity, but I've kind of made the decision that I can't care too much. It can lead to madness and high credit card debt. Then your audience downloads your mp3 and listens to it on $100 computer speakers. If worrying about data loss is keeping you from making your music, you should probably look for the real reason. Tape is fragile too. M --- Richard Sales <richard@glasswing.com> wrote: > risk losing anything... and when you're spending big > money on a record > every little bit matters a lot. > > Or so it is said! > > I don't think any of this is really relevant to > mp3s. Sonically, > they're already pretty much kaboshed (compared to > 16/24/44.1 or > above)... even though that's what most folks listen > to nowadays. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com