@drewnogal saidYou're silly.
Say something nice to me and I’ll repay you with a green thumb.
@drewnogal saidThe difference in sound quality over five years [of "progress"] tends to be negligible. Any versions that are from 30 or so years ago are worth replacing/upgrading. The main expensive technology available that seems to continually outdo itself is compression but its not necessarily beneficial to the music - it wreaks havoc with dynamics for the goal of additional loudness. The great leaps in noise reduction were probably done and dusted 20 years ago. You may not have the equipment needed to appreciate hi-definition remasterings. Superfluous remasterings often come with aphrodisiacs such as bonus tracks and live material. On the other hand, remixes [as opposed to remasterings] are - more often than not - very interesting to people who are potty about the music.
Do they progressively sound better or are you just needing to adapt to new technology?
@drewnogal saidYou are potty.
Say something nice to me and I’ll repay you with a green thumb.
@Drewnogal
Signs of being Potty: returning to these forums, day in, day out, and finding that nothing has changed. Potty is trying the same thing over and over and expecting something different.
And now for something completely different…
349d
@moonbus saidPotty is trying the same thing over and over and expecting something different.
@Drewnogal
Signs of being Potty: returning to these forums, day in, day out, and finding that nothing has changed. Potty is trying the same thing over and over and expecting something different.
And now for something completely different…
Moonbus,, have you ever tried to start my lawnmower?
348d
@earl-of-trumps saidNo. Shall I ask whether you can borrow Herman's goat?
Potty is trying the same thing over and over and expecting something different.
Moonbus,, have you ever tried to start my lawnmower?