Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Future Proof
You do understand that to get things at the level that you think it should be able to be enjoyed at, that on top of having a super-fast bitrate that the work would've had to have been mastered, right? I mean, it's obvious that this hasn't been mastered, and even I do final mixdowns that sound better (from time to time  ) That would've been rather expensive, you know. |
Mastering used to be expensive. These days you can do almost all of it on a decent desktop computer using (relatively) inexpensive software. That isn't to say that
anybody can do it well, because some talent and knowledge is still needed no matter how sophisticated the software, but I doubt there's any shortage of the required skills or tools in this case.
In any event, how much work is put into mastering the recording should have no impact on whether it's released as a 160 kbps MP3 or a 320 kbps MP3 (or a lossless FLAC, for that matter).