Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- From: Richard Evans <R.P.Evans.NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:58 GMT
seani wrote:
On 23 May, 15:20, Richard Evans <R.P.Evans.NoS...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Well I find that hard to believe.Sean Inglis wrote:The code is displayed on the download page next to the box where you typeThanks.
it.
Got it now :)
Or bearing in mind the way it actually sounds, should that be
Got it now :(
If that is what he calls good quality, I wouldn't like to hear something
he considers bad.
It's all subjective though, and dependent on context. I'd happily
listen to that in the garden or doing a bit of wallpapering, or
whatever.
I suppose you could say that different people hear different things, but I still find it hard to believe that people could enjoy something that sounds that bad.
If I was doing wallpapering etc. with something like that in the back ground, I would probably find it very detracting and it would just bug me to the point where I can not concentrate on what I'm doing unless I shut it off.
I'd probably steer clear if I wanted to sit and appreciate a
favourite piece of music. Horses for courses, and it isn't a simple
case to decide which use of the resource is more worthy.
What I *did* find eye-watering is the price of the current DRM
receivers. I quite fancy that Morphy Richards job, but I'm not paying
anywhere near £150 for it.
For me, I couldn't consider DRM to be anything more than a toy to experiment with, and I wouldn't pay £150 for a toy.
Sorry but I find that recording sounded absolutely dire.
Richard E.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- From: Kristoff Bonne
- Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- From: Sean Inglis
- Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- References:
- Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- From: seani
- Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- Prev by Date: Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- Next by Date: Re: DAB with long battery life?
- Previous by thread: Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- Next by thread: Re: DRM at 23 kbps
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading