Pedro's BTMusic Ban Amnesty

[ca_aok]

I seem to miss the point of things I guess because I don't really care if it's relevant to the thread or not as it's relevant to me.I had a legitimate question and a viable forum to ask it in .So sue me.
As for "being concerned about quality" I hope that was a joke or can you list his entire film/music library so I can see if by "quality" you merely meant accuracy of reproduction.

Btw of course all things being equal ( which they invariably aren't) of course I'd prefer my movies to be crystal clear and my music to be spot on accurate.All that ever bothers in is when ,and it happens all the time in btland ,someone says that it's FLAC/HD or nothing.

You'd probably like his collection actually. It's thousands of jazz/classical CDs and LPs (even some of your beloved 78s), and his movie tastes are what I'd describe as "esoteric". He certainly enjoys classic cinema, foreign cinema, etc.

All I have to say to that is grow the fuck up and do you only go outside when it's 25C and sunny because anything other than that is a waste of your time?

I actually like the winter more than 25 degree heat. Hockey and skiing ftw.

[FACE_TO_FACE]

They have a new url?

[anon]

They have a new url?

http://xbtmusic.org/

[psxcite]

Unfortunately, I missed the database deadline by a few months.
Great opportunity for those who haven't been purged yet. Fantastic site for audio afficinados.

As a sound engineer, I can testify there is a considerable difference when listening to lossless format. Imagine watching a low bitrate xvid on your 55" Samsung versus a nice 1080 bluray rip. Sure, you can still watch the video, but you see the difference in quality.

[IdolEyes787]

. Imagine watching a low bitrate xvid on your 55" Samsung versus a nice 1080 bluray rip.

I dunno maybe it's just me being old and all but I'm surprised that you managed to say that with a straight face.

You know when I used to cycle I was one of these people who was always looking for a competitive edge by gram shaving and though yes there was technically an infinitesimal difference in performance in the end the only true ,measurable benefit was all in my head.
If you step away from your measuring devices and unless you are a dog I would suggest the same being true here.

[ca_aok]

If you can't tell the difference between a scene XviD and 1080p you need your eyes checked. You might not care, but you should easily be able to tell. It's not like FLAC where the difference is pretty much imperceptible.

[IdolEyes787]

I might as well write gibberish.Where did I put/imply/make that statement?

[psxcite]

Maybe you missed my point. Yea, you aren't going to notice it if you are using an iPod. But that's probably why you can't play flac on one. But it doesn't take "dog ears" to notice the difference on a decent system.

People who use a 20" LCD probably don't understand why anyone would waste all the bandwidth on full 1080p rips when 720 looks just as good to them.

Trust me, there is a considerable difference. If a band sends me an mp3 of their work to master in Pro Tools, that's my first indication they are clueless.

[P2PDog]

I agree that there is definitely a difference in quality between a 1080p and an Xvid encode, just as there's a quality difference between FLAC and MP3. The differences aren't huge and they can usually only be noticed if you're using high-end gear, but they do exist. The true idiots in the equation are those who claim that their particular group's exclusive 1080p encode has any perceptible quality difference between the other dozen or so 1080p encodes, which their encoders and fans also claim are better than the others. Just as there is no perceptible difference between the FLAC you get from What.cd and the one you download from Pedros. Anyone claiming they need to join Pedros or Exigo for the quality of their FLACs is, to put it politely, blowing smoke.

[IdolEyes787]

Maybe you missed my point. Yea, you aren't going to notice it if you are using an iPod. But that's probably why you can't play flac on one. But it doesn't take "dog ears" to notice the difference on a decent system.

People who use a 20" LCD probably don't understand why anyone would waste all the bandwidth on full 1080p rips when 720 looks just as good to them.

Trust me, there is a considerable difference. If a band sends me an mp3 of their work to master in Pro Tools, that's my first indication they are clueless.

I didn't "miss your point" ,I just don't happen to agree with it.Same way I don't think using extremes to justify something is much of a defense.
"Geez my Chrysler doesn't go fast enough so I had to buy a Ferrari".

Maybe as a sound engineer you need to differentiate but for the vast majority of people ,even those with " decent systems" they are just blowing smoke up their asses.If you can prove to me that it makes an iota of difference to anyone's enjoyment of a song whether some background timbre is clear or not please go right ahead.Otherwise I suggest looking up the word status in the dictionary.

Btw I'm not saying that someone isn't entitled ,within reason, to desire the best.I just think that they should also be willing to own up as to why it's so important.
Anyway the music industry operates as much on pretension as it does talent so I guess I shouldn't be shocked.

If a band sends me an mp3 of their work to master in Pro Tools, that's my first indication they are clueless.

I would have thought that the first consideration would be if they were any good or not?