whats with the dubstep scene's obsession with "320"

constrobuz · Post by **constrobuz** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:03 pm

dont you guys know that v0 is better? v0 tends to peak at ~240 or something anyway, so i'd rather have 256s than 320s. dubstep tracks are unnecessarily long anyway (i made a thread about that but it mysteriously disappeared), a 2 track dubstep digital release shouldnt be fucking 25mb. i'm not made out of hard drives here.

capo ultra · Post by **capo ultra** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:06 pm

get em telt

abZ · Post by **abZ** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:22 pm

320mg

Hard drives are cheap these days save me the sob story. Christ fucking sakes people will bitch about anything and everything on here.

feral witchchild · Post by **feral witchchild** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:23 pm

lawl u is poor

danny bwoy · Post by **danny bwoy** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:24 pm

Constrobuz wrote:dubstep tracks are unnecessarily long anyway.

LOL

tobo · Post by **tobo** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:26 pm

v0 is not better, its more lossy than 320.
There will not be a huge difference unless its played on a large soundsystem.
If you prefer v0 use v0, why make this thread?

airtight · Post by **airtight** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:30 pm

hmmm.

constrobuz · Post by **constrobuz** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:31 pm

Tobo wrote:v0 is not better, its more lossy than 320.
There will not be a huge difference unless its played on a large soundsystem.
If you prefer v0 use v0, why make this thread?

even audiophiles who have most of there music archived in lossless format and have ridiculously expensive audio equipment agree 320 is overkill.

also its not as simple as "just use v0 then" because conversion from lossy to lossy results in loss of quality. also my issue is with file size, not quality (that doesnt mean i don't have a problem converting though, i do... god damnit that was a poor sequence of sentences).

constrobuz · Post by **constrobuz** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:31 pm

airtight wrote:hmmm.

you got something in your eye boy?

symbl · Post by **symbl** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:34 pm

Flac or GTFO

g-man · Post by **g-man** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:35 pm

i prefer WAVs, tbh

sinko · Post by **sinko** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:38 pm

64kb radio rips ftw tbf

abZ · Post by **abZ** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:39 pm

Constrobuz wrote:
Tobo wrote:v0 is not better, its more lossy than 320.
There will not be a huge difference unless its played on a large soundsystem.
If you prefer v0 use v0, why make this thread?
even audiophiles who have most of there music archived in lossless format and have ridiculously expensive audio equipment agree 320 is overkill.

also its not as simple as "just use v0 then" because conversion from lossy to lossy results in loss of quality. also my issue is with file size, not quality (that doesnt mean i don't have a problem converting though, i do... god damnit that was a poor sequence of sentences).

That is totally false I frequent a few audiophile sites and 99% of them won't listen to anything but Flac or Wav. You are typing nonsense.

constrobuz · Post by **constrobuz** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:44 pm

abZ wrote:
Constrobuz wrote:
Tobo wrote:v0 is not better, its more lossy than 320.
There will not be a huge difference unless its played on a large soundsystem.
If you prefer v0 use v0, why make this thread?
even audiophiles who have most of there music archived in lossless format and have ridiculously expensive audio equipment agree 320 is overkill.

also its not as simple as "just use v0 then" because conversion from lossy to lossy results in loss of quality. also my issue is with file size, not quality (that doesnt mean i don't have a problem converting though, i do... god damnit that was a poor sequence of sentences).
That is totally false I frequent a few audiophile sites and 99% of them won't listen to anything but Flac or Wav. You are typing nonsense.

obviously i was speaking in terms of .mp3, not every audio file type. reread my post, i even say the audiophiles have their personal music in lossless.

albinodub · Post by **albinodub** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:51 pm

Seriously, who cares?
just enjoy the music!

snf · Post by **snf** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:54 pm

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822154294

Lacie 1TB external for USD $150

and you're complaining about 25mb? please

JazzyJazzy · Post by **JazzyJazzy** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:55 pm

abZ · Post by **abZ** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:01 pm

Constrobuz wrote:
abZ wrote:
Constrobuz wrote:
Tobo wrote:v0 is not better, its more lossy than 320.
There will not be a huge difference unless its played on a large soundsystem.
If you prefer v0 use v0, why make this thread?
even audiophiles who have most of there music archived in lossless format and have ridiculously expensive audio equipment agree 320 is overkill.

also its not as simple as "just use v0 then" because conversion from lossy to lossy results in loss of quality. also my issue is with file size, not quality (that doesnt mean i don't have a problem converting though, i do... god damnit that was a poor sequence of sentences).
That is totally false I frequent a few audiophile sites and 99% of them won't listen to anything but Flac or Wav. You are typing nonsense.
obviously i was speaking in terms of .mp3, not every audio file type. reread my post, i even say the audiophiles have their personal music in lossless.

That doesn't make any sense at all man.

spooKs · Post by **spooKs** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:18 pm

this is ridiculous...i want to call wind up but i know its not

the word 'music' mean anything to you?

seckle · Post by **seckle** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:24 pm

abZ wrote:people will bitch about anything and everything on here.

this

whats with the dubstep scene's obsession with "320"

whats with the dubstep scene's obsession with "320"

Re: whats with the dubstep scene's obsession with "320&

Who is online