Also want to ask Paul why he thinks he has no means of watermarked DVD-
A conversion when others do have it.
On Jul 2, 10:07 pm, realafrica <paul.gam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see there are good points on both sides here. Newbies generally find
> it difficult to come to the hub with anything new and they need to
> start somewhere.
> When I came to the hub, my first offering share was something like
> 150GB of retail DVD-A nothing DTS.
> I agree that hardware encoded DTS is fine sounding usually and I find
> it perfectly acceptable as an almost Hi Res format. But what I see
> arriving with so many new people over the last 6 months is the same
> old catalogue of DTS-CDs and sacd conversions to SACD that they picked
> up from the green dragon and such outlets. The majority of what they
> bring as their 1st share is what our hub members made and even older
> Mojave stuff from years ago.
> I don't see why others can't do what I did and bring something of real
> value and true Hi Res as a 1st share.
> I've no argument with people that have fancy cars that play only DTS -
> CDs. They do what they need to do to get their music in their cars, in
> as best format as possible and if they prefer mp3 sound in surround
> overbetter quality stereo in a noisy car then I can't criticise them
> for that.
> Like I started with.....I'm tired of looking at the same tired old dts
> catalogue from all out newbies when they could be bringing something
> fresh. Again If as a newbie I can do it then anyone can do it.
> Maybe not outlaw DTS-CDs but request people, please at least try to do
> better than they do at present.
>
> On Jul 2, 9:15 pm, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul
>
> > The Hardware encoded DTS discs sound great but some of the software encoded
> > ones; well sound like MP3 - but that is no issue for the car
>
> > We are all aware of your contribution to the hub and community - what MWC
> > made clear is that we want newbie's to start adding some newer content.
>
> > Actually it does raise an issue here that we are now so organised as a group
> > that new content is created by ourselves so it is hard to add anything new.
> > We are living our ideal as archivers, which is what we set out to do, so
> > being circumspect the starting path to quad is DTS, hence why newb's only
> > have DTS.
>
> > In a library like ours it is hard to add new books, but folks start reading
> > which is what we should encourage. DTS is the starter book.
>
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Paul Garfunkel <paulgarfun...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > I know I am not the only one who is tired of people putting down DTS CD's,
> > > some material is only avalible that way (some of the best stuff mind you)
> > > and as someone who does not have a method to copy DVD-A watermarked disc I
> > > have no other way to listen to these titles in my Acura RL but to transfer
> > > to DTS CD.
>
> > > I am a life long audiophile and record dealer and we could have the same
> > > argument that digital media is still far and away inferior to vinyl no
> > > matter what the format.
>
> > > I bet most of the people that are making this argument (not the top 5%)
> > > would not be able to tell the difference between DTS-CD and DVD-A
> > > blindfolded.
>
> > > Stop the hate, DTS is still a good format and I you are making DVD-A off 8
> > > track tape quads you have not right to put down DTS.
>
> > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> ok sounds good - done :-))
>
> > >> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:46 PM, realafrica <paul.gam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Any chance of not counting DTS-CDs and maybe lossy dts stuff in
> > >>> general for the newbies entrance fee?
> > >>> I tire of all these new people coming with only crap to share.
> > >>> OK, after some time, they have grabbed better stuff off the hub and
> > >>> are able to help 'seed' it, but until then and unless they actually
> > >>> stay online for a reasonable length of time to help with 'seeding'
> > >>> they don't have anything to offer.
>
> > >>> On Jun 29, 11:49 pm, lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > sorry lossy not lossless
>
> > >>> > On Jun 29, 11:48 pm, "Lokkerman" <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> > > 10 GB was set as a minimum to stop timewasters - most places in the
> > >>> world
> > >>> > > support some form of broadband - poor old Grill at one time was the
> > >>> worst
> > >>> > > for getting a narrowband experience, now it's a different game - 10
> > >>> GB is
> > >>> > > not even 4 albums of Hires multi-channel content, in some respects it
> > >>> should
> > >>> > > be more.
> > >>> > > Also the 3 month rule was never fully policed as some folks wanted to
> > >>> have a
> > >>> > > try-buy experience; the Chicago re-releases spring to mind. Great
> > >>> concept,
> > >>> > > great mix; lossless and expensive low-fi. Most of us enjoy serious
> > >>> quality -
> > >>> > > I find AC3 and ordinary DTS just so difficult to listen to. This
> > >>> meant that
> > >>> > > 3 months rules do apply but if it is raised that the item is not
> > >>> worth
> > >>> > > purchasing, as an example, then there are reasons to circulate.
> > >>> Otherwise it
> > >>> > > is fair to support the artists and buy the product. Any questions PM
> > >>> me
> > >>> > > please on what goes.. ;-P
>
> > >>> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >>> > > From: surroundsound@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> > >>> surroundsound@googlegroups.com]
>
> > >>> > > On Behalf Of grill
> > >>> > > Sent: 29 June 2011 10:35
> > >>> > > To: SurroundSound
> > >>> > > Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Hub Rules...
>
> > >>> > > "Any chance of removing the 3-month rule on new releases? "
>
> > >>> > > I'd say no for hi-res titles. Afaik it was and it's been a quite
> > >>> steady
> > >>> > > consensus among the Hub members.
>
> > >>> > > On jún. 28, 19:36, Tab Cursor <tabcur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > > > Any chance of removing the 3-month rule on new releases?
>
> > >>> > > > Also, removing the 10 MB share limits?
>
> > >>> > > --
> > >>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > >>> Groups
> > >>> > > "SurroundSound" group.
> > >>> > > To post to this group, send email to SurroundSo...@googlegroups.comTo
> > >>> > > unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >>> > > SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > >>> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > >>> groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
> > >>> --
> > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > >>> "SurroundSound" group.
> > >>> To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
> > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >>> SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > >>> For more options, visit this group at
> > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
> > >> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > >> "SurroundSound" group.
> > >> To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
> > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >> SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > >> For more options, visit this group at
> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "SurroundSound" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
No comments:
Post a Comment