But think about the other side of the argument - Underworld are dangling a lovely new release in front of us, but are effectively saying 'Here's our new release, but it will sound a bit rubbish'.
If no one cared about bitrate, why all the panic about getting CD copies of the Tokyo gig, when the 96kbps broadcast should have been fine for everyone?
I realise that you'll just think I'm a complete ass, but to some of us, quality does actually matter when buying stuff. I just don't see the reason for publishing something in a shitty bitrate - and yes, 160kbps is shitty. Especially when most other online shops sell a variety of formats, including lossless. What's the reason behind it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout
As for the complaints about the bitrate, maybe I am just not enough of a purist, but in my humble opinion, I don't think my delicate little ear would be able to discern any real difference between 160kbps and 192kbps. Plus we have additional artistic material with the download this time, for the same money.
Once again the Lemonworld Team have done something nice for Dirts, which is to make this available a day earlier than advertised. Once again they are getting kicked in the teeth for it. If I were them I wouldn't bother giving us anything and would just treat us like the rest of the hoards, ungrateful buggers that we appear to be every time they make an effort for us!
|