Saved from the cutting room floor mix* - Underworld vs The Misterons

[holden]

Originally Posted by negative1

am i missing something.

it's the same music.
yeah, in better quality, which i appreciate.

but, i guess if you've never heard it before.

later
-1

Haha, yeah, I suspect the crapping of pants is mostly from first time listeners. This was released almost 6 years ago. I relistened to my 128 kbs version burnt into CD (!! Old skool roll), then the new rip. Pants weren't crapped. Sure, a better fidelity is always appreciated. I guess I spent too many years listening to 64 kbs bootlegs full of crowd noise to be too bothered. As long as the listening experience is enjoyable, without artifacts or distraction or distortion, I'm not too concerned about the bitrate, format or tracking down the best, biggest lossless version. The human ear can only discern so much, and as we all know, remastered doesn't always mean better (brick walls and all). Still, thanks for the new rip. Great mix, as it was and is! I possibly crapped for joy in 2014 from this essential mix!

[khouri]

I've listened to this thing many times over the years and I found the fidelity upgrade really profound. Might just be my ears, of course. But I was really delighted.

[iamneorev]

Originally Posted by khouri

I've listened to this thing many times over the years and I found the fidelity upgrade really profound. Might just be my ears, of course. But I was really delighted.

Yup, definitely sounds better. You'd be surprised of the big difference between 128kbps to 256kbps. The lower the kbps the more crushed and claustrophobic it sounds. The rip we had cut off around 16khz, this one goes to 21khz. It makes a difference.

[holden]

Originally Posted by iamneorev

Yup, definitely sounds better. You'd be surprised of the big difference between 128kbps to 256kbps. The lower the kbps the more crushed and claustrophobic it sounds. The rip we had cut off around 16khz, this one goes to 21khz. It makes a difference.

Ok, audiophiles. I know it's better, it sounds nice. It did 4 years back, too. That's all. It's an upgrade, appreciated, but let's not go insane.
And this is old news, but 128 to 256 mbs is not that discernible an improvement:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-256-kbps.html

[iamneorev]

Originally Posted by holden

Ok, audiophiles. I know it's better, it sounds nice. It did 4 years back, too. That's all. It's an upgrade, appreciated, but let's not go insane.
And this is old news, but 128 to 256 mbs is not that discernible an improvement:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-256-kbps.html

My bad, meant to say 256AAC. Technically, this is an M4A file and Soundcloud Go is 256AAC, which is the equivalent to a 320kbps. Before, ripping from Soundcloud online, you'd get a 128kbps file. This is why we're getting 21-22khz now if you have a Go account.

"256 AAC is equivalent, if not slightly better than 320 MP3. The high-frequency encoding is more efficient (more faithful to the original audio)."

Hence the audible difference. So, yes, those who want this in the best possible quality, there is reason to be excited. Is it ok for us to be happy?

[khouri]

Originally Posted by holden

Ok, audiophiles. I know it's better, it sounds nice. It did 4 years back, too. That's all. It's an upgrade, appreciated, but let's not go insane]

Stop policing my amazing hearing!

[iamneorev]

Originally Posted by khouri

Stop policing my amazing hearing!

[holden]

I wish you total happiness in all your UW listening experiences and am sorry I ever doubted your discerning ears! 😜

And yes, it is a fantastic mix, regardless of the bitrate. I grew up appreciating whatever I got, especially for free.