[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
Question: What is more important for good listening pleasure.
Say you have two mixes, both with quality music you enjoy.
Which would you prefer; to have a high quality sound (bitrate 192 or highter) without the best track to track mix-flow, or a lower quality sound (low bitrate) with an excellent track to track flow?
Remember you love the music in both sets.
Sound or Flow?
begin 200-post annoying topic
Sound. I delete anything with fucked up sound levels or sound quality... I can't stand the shit if it doesn't sound good in my car's system. I can always hear the same tracks elsewhere, so I delete the shittily-recorded mixes (along with the shitty mixes)
i have deleted some sets with horrible quality, but also kept some that i knew i couldn't find anywhere else, like those rare live mixes, usually bootleg but with quality tracks and mixes.
Re: Which is better? Quality sound or Track to Track Mix-Fl
Naturaly, flow. But I can't enjoy a shit quality sound set.
flowebulance is key! :wink: sometimes i can stand a shit quality if the set is important. :NotMe:
flowebulance, sounds good to me. Yeah, I can vary between the two. But sound is more important to me. There is so much music available these days. I cant waste my time on something that sounds like it is played thru a toilet paper roll. :P
both :wink:
I don't keep shitty sets just because they sound good but I also don't keep sets which are great but they sound like recorded from the toilet of a club. :wink:
[quote=TomTom]I don't keep shitty sets just because they sound good but I also don't keep sets which are great but they sound like recorded from the toilet of a club. :wink:[/quote]
speaking of toilets ................ my damn opium suppository just fell out........gonna go for a swim :P