will everyone just stop...

[big screen satellite]

complaining ...and moaning



its probably not my place to say, but god, will everyone just chill the fuck out...

every other thread here is someone complaining about stuff... (and now its this one...)

just chill everyone

thanks

Matt

[BeautifulBurnout]

WORD!!!

I'm delighted with the release. I feel sorry for the people that haven't been able to get it right away due to credit card problems but today is Monday, the Lemon Crew are bound to be onto this like a flash, so yeah... you will get it.

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!

[big screen satellite]

...and its not just the download release either, we had the same with Tokyo... people not getting connected to servers with broadcasts, or not getting their copy of the broadcast split for them - whatever

it goes on...

the guys at UW are all pretty busy and do a great deal to please us mortal fans with their work...

i know some things can be better, but some people seem to want to be hand fed stuff on a plate straight away and its not right.

i just thought i'd let people know that i think its embarassing how some people go on and complain straight away, without thought or without trying to resolve stuff themselves, and i'm embarassed for all us Dirts.

as i said its probably not my place, but as a regular viewer here i thought i'd just say something... otherwise, like J said, we'll end up with nothing.

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by big screen satellite

[...] its embarassing how some people go on and complain straight away, [...]

Exactly. What's more, complaining for hardly any reason is a privilege of embittered pensioners. So, will everyone else please stop wetting their pants?

Originally Posted by GoatSucker

[...] and yes, 160kbps is shitty.

Why? Do you have the hi-fi and ears to hear a difference that matters? (I'm not trying to mock anyone, this question is meant seriously.) If yes, what would be an "acceptable" bitrate for your personal equipment?

[*_*]

Originally Posted by froopy seal

Why? Do you have the hi-fi and ears to hear a difference that matters? (I'm not trying to mock anyone, this question is meant seriously.) If yes, what would be an "acceptable" bitrate for your personal equipment?

Ok, I listen to the music on the computer via the following setup.

Powerbook/G4 Desktop -->iTunes --> M-Audio Transit 24/96 --> Headroom MicroDAC --> Mini^3PINT DIY Amp --> 26ga Silver/Switchcraft IC --> AKG K701

And the riverrun files are muddy, flat, and congested. Borderline intolerable (to me).

Interepret this however one may. But yes, there are people out there that most definitely can hear the difference. It's frustrating when you love a band like UW as much as I do and they release stuff that can't even be enjoyed at the level that (I think) it should be able to be enjoyed at.

[Future Proof]

Originally Posted by *_*

Ok, I listen to the music on the computer via the following setup.

Powerbook/G4 Desktop -->iTunes --> M-Audio Transit 24/96 --> Headroom MicroDAC --> Mini^3PINT DIY Amp --> 26ga Silver/Switchcraft IC --> AKG K701

And the riverrun files are muddy, flat, and congested. Borderline intolerable (to me).

Interepret this however one may. But yes, there are people out there that most definitely can hear the difference. It's frustrating when you love a band like UW as much as I do and they release stuff that can't even be enjoyed at the level that (I think) it should be able to be enjoyed at.

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.

This has been a project that they've done independently; something they foot the bill for. Who's to say that they didn't just go with 160 because 192 is bigger and more bandwidth used on their server = more money?

Not that you don't have your right to an opinion (personally I think it's the unwaivering UW apologists that get under my skin more) but I think what you're asking for are things that Rick & Karl would've had to pay for themselves and as such, when you consider that 99% of bands don't do this much for their fans, this can't be that bad... right?

[GoatSucker]

Originally Posted by froopy seal

Why? Do you have the hi-fi and ears to hear a difference that matters? (I'm not trying to mock anyone, this question is meant seriously.) If yes, what would be an "acceptable" bitrate for your personal equipment?

Yes, absolutely, I can hear a difference. It's not something that I can immediately pick out, but I do get a sense that something is missing. Listening to low bitrate mp3s for an extended time tends to give me a headache that I just don't get when listening to CD's or high-bitrate encoded music.

I'd consider 256 kbps CBR or Lame -APX / -V0 VBR to be a starting point for mp3 encoding. All of the digital downloads I've bought before (with the exception of the other RR's) have been either 320 kbps CBR or FLAC encoded, even if that has meant paying extra.

Maybe R&K, having produced the music, know that there is absolutely no difference made to the sound quality by having it encoded as 160 kbps, but experience tells me that the difference between this and a 320 kbps or lossless encode will be noticable by most people with a decent hi-fi.

[jose m]

this quality discussion is as old as recorded music,get over it ! its like expecting nike to design their trainers bearing in mind people with bunyons.

[big screen satellite]

this is still the no moaning thread...

don't bring yer bitrate grips in here... if ya wanna moan about the recordings go to the moaning forums...

[GoatSucker]

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?

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!