I do understand. And agree that there is definitely a fair amount of give that has to be allowed for considering the circumstances underwhich the material is being released.
But, I'd like to hear their work in all it's "unmastered" goodness! Rather than a congested, artifact-ridden, bottlenecked version.
Or as absolutely darn close as allowable. And Underworl can surely afford to release 192-320Kbps mp3s!
That's the (trivial?) issue.
But then again, I suppose that most people aren't listening with $400 reference headphones and a $300 DAC. (I mean this in the most uncondescending manner possible, really. There are those with $3000-$4000 reference headphones/$5000 DACs... and so on. It get ludicrous in "audiophile" land!)
My point is that's it's all relative. Those who are content with run-of-the-mill consumer grade set-ups don't understand the issue.
Someone in this thread wanted proof (not gonna go searching through this abortion of a thread to pin-point who exactly) that there's a difference between the 160kbps mp3 and the 192kbps mps. Well, go blow a few grand on some decent equipment and prove it to yourself. I'm not gonna ABx this stuff and fill up screens with subjective mumbo-jumbo in an attempt to convince anyone what I'm hearing. But I do hear noticeable differences.
