Guest Slidingtrancer Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 I dont think the jury should hear 96 kbps tracks, it sounds so lousy. Looking at my own track I can say that I sound appalling on 96 kbps... Children? BTW Children I forgot my reviewpassword can you send it to the addy above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest etherealphaez Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 i think 128 should be the bitrate.. its a nice bitrate because u dont loose too much lo and high frequencies, but its too low bitrate to actually someone wanting to burn to cd and play commercially.. think about it.. for example mp3.com goes with 128kbps .. i got feedback from people hearing my stuffs in 96 kbps and they complained about low hihats .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slidingtrancer Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 well my stuff sounds muffled and a bit 'hollow' and it sounds great in 320 kpbs.... Those 20 people in the jury should listen to quality.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strumpling Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 96 kbps is pure SHIT quality. lol rip your shpongle cd at 96 kbps and it sounds like a 60's album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dj Mike Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AgalactiA Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 I think you all a bit wrong... maybe the sound quality is bad - after all 96kb/s is not intended for sound quality listening. a good production track will sound just fine at 96kb/s, and the main purpose is the musical idea of the tracks. 96kb/s was chosen after a long thought and 128kb/s sounds better but takes much more space and is unnecessary - if it was 128 im sure u would all be crying why it's not 160 or 192... just send ur track and be happy with ur creation. bom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slidingtrancer Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 I think 96 bit discerns hardware users from software users in production quality.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strumpling Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I think 96 bit sucks But hey; its the rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rafghanish Dreamweaver Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 As long as it applies to all the artists submitting their trax, then it shouldn't be to difficult to judge the tracks - as long as you use that as a standard for quality. Like Agalactica said, the main point is to get the gist of the track. Imagine you've just been in the attic of your great grandfathers house and found an old chest full of records. You put one on and oh my God there is psychedelic trance playing!!! Vintage and how is it possible. Maybe the aliens left it behind when they abducted the old geezer. - hehe lol Strump, 60'z album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts