TISL Acetate

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by mikebise

No, I bought mine on a 2~CD set off eBay in 2001. Not sure if this person was the source, but it's where I first saw and GOT all of these.

Don't forget "Fall From Grace"!

And unedited CROW mix of "Sorcerer"!!!

I thought that was the promo only single mix.

So in a nutshell, it's not entirely clear how/where these tracks leaked?

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I thought that was the promo only single mix.

So in a nutshell, it's not entirely clear how/where these tracks leaked?

The promo CD had the Sheryl Crow edit - the 2CD TISL demo comp. has the uncut Shery Crow remix.

All I know is that the collection came from eBay, and that many people seem to have purchased it. I got it from an online download, and it's another one that I wish I had in lossless quality, instead of MP3

[mikebise]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

The promo CD had the Sheryl Crow edit - the 2CD TISL demo comp. has the uncut Shery Crow remix.

All I know is that the collection came from eBay, and that many people seem to have purchased it. I got it from an online download, and it's another one that I wish I had in lossless quality, instead of MP3

Mine are the CDs. Would they be lossless?

Me? I'm clueless...

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by mikebise

Mine are the CDs. Would they be lossless?

Me? I'm clueless...

The quick answer is not necessarily. It depends on the source of the recordings burned onto the CD.

As far as I'm concerned, if the mp3s were created at a decent sampling rate, i.e., 192 kbps or above, then it is pretty much "lossless." Only a dog or a spectrum analyzer could detect the difference between that and the lossless original.

[jeffd8382]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

The quick answer is not necessarily. It depends on the source of the recordings burned onto the CD.

As far as I'm concerned, if the mp3s were created at a decent sampling rate, i.e., 192 kbps or above, then it is pretty much "lossless." Only a dog or a spectrum analyzer could detect the difference between that and the lossless original.

Yeah... this is absolutely true. If something is burned from a lossy source onto an audio CD, it remains "lossy". If it is re-ripped into a WAV file, the file size is huge, but the quality remains the same (it's the same audio information that it had available when it was burned). MP3s are great for saving file space and having reasonable to excellent sound quality (depending on the bitrate), but you can never get back the audio information that was lost when it was encoded.

Hejira is right too that it's hard to tell the difference between high quality mp3s and lossless sources. Some audiophiles claim they can hear a difference, but there have actually been tests done where people have failed to actually tell the difference (despite their claims to the contrary). I tend to think it's psychological, but I believe I can hear a difference between a 192kbps file and a 256 or above... but above 256kbps (320kbps in particular), I can't hear a difference. It's probably a bit obsessive on my part, but there is something oddly comforting to me about knowing I have a lossless file, so that I haven't lost any of the audio information from the source.