Considering that the MP3s on my player are direct rips from your CDs, I wonder how much digital encoding (to CD, or otherwise) has improved in twenty years? *pokes at the strange, old, thick CDs* Maybe the poor, old things transferred poorly to MP3? Maybe they didn't like my wee little Sansa, and are plotting against it with all of their non-sentient, file-encoded might? ( o_o)
You never know!
As for mixing, I think we have exactly the same mix on both the record and the CDs. I'm almost certain they were printed only two or three years apart, if that. Yours is... what? '89? Mine is '87, I think. And the companies were far too cheap to remix it for those teeny, tiny laserdisks. X3
Still, I'd be curious to get ahold of a newer printing of the same recording and compare quality between your set and that one. Y'know. For science. And totally not because I'd like to sit and listen through the whole thing multiple times. *shifty eyes*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Knowledge +5!
Date: 2010-07-16 05:45 am (UTC)Considering that the MP3s on my player are direct rips from your CDs, I wonder how much digital encoding (to CD, or otherwise) has improved in twenty years? *pokes at the strange, old, thick CDs* Maybe the poor, old things transferred poorly to MP3? Maybe they didn't like my wee little Sansa, and are plotting against it with all of their non-sentient, file-encoded might? ( o_o)
You never know!
As for mixing, I think we have exactly the same mix on both the record and the CDs. I'm almost certain they were printed only two or three years apart, if that. Yours is... what? '89? Mine is '87, I think. And the companies were far too cheap to remix it for those teeny, tiny laserdisks. X3
Still, I'd be curious to get ahold of a newer printing of the same recording and compare quality between your set and that one. Y'know. For science. And totally not because I'd like to sit and listen through the whole thing multiple times. *shifty eyes*