GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by RDB92:It would indeed be great if they released the on line album in a lossless format, but I think that it's just not commercially appealing enough. A lot of people don't know what a lossless format is and why the quality is better than mp3's. Or they don't care. They just want to play the songs on their iPod or mp3 player, and they don't want such large files for that.


    kind of like me, i'm still not that clear on lossless. I am one for just let me put it on my ipod, I of course don't like bad sounding stuff, but mp3 seems to be ok for me, or whatever itunes converts files to
  2. If you listen to music on average headphones while travelling, jogging, whatever, an average lossy file is good enough, I agree. But I hardly do that. I use my Hi-Fi System and speakers that allow you to hear the difference between lossy and lossless recordings, especially when it's studio recordings.
    So a lossy only release would release piss me off.
    But for now, that's just another rumour...
  3. But an MP3 or AAC of 4MB compared to 38MB, wouldn't you think something's up there?
  4. God id be pissed with no lossless release.


  5. That's what pissed me off about Unreleased and Rare (and the whole Complete U2). First up, there were nine or so songs never-before released in any fornat, released in 128Kbps AAC, some of which were absolutely brilliant. They might have been demos and outtakes, but that's absolutely no excuse to put them out there in crap formats because they'd never been released. You can't tell me they were recorded in lossy format.

    No way I'm paying for a poor lossy release. This is why the digital age of online distribution should never take off, unless the record labels, the artists and associated parties agree on doing it right and getting it right. How much does actually releasing an album, on CD cost nowadays? It doesn't even have to have a booklet, just a simple silver CD face and that's it.

    Why not do what Radiohead did? Release the album a few months before the physical release. If the songs are good, people will buy them. Surely U2 know this.
  7. Problem is that a lossy AAC or MP3 is downloaded in a few seconds. People don't want to wait long for their music if they download it. That's the general rule I think. People like us that who want lossless music are in the minority.
  8. I just want to be able to run to the store, go to the right shelf, and be able to pick up a physical regular ordinary music album. That's all I want.


  9. Amen to that

    (Altough I prefer to order it and get it send to me, so I don't have to go outside through the cold )
  10. Originally posted by markp91:[..]

    Amen to that

    (Altough I prefer to order it and get it send to me, so I don't have to go outside through the cold )


    Oh I disagree here. I prefer going to the shop myself, I wanna see what I buy, get a free poster with it


  11. Oh yeah...you get a poster with it...The horrible thing is that we don't have a decent music shop in Boxtel...The only one we have has 3000 Rihanna cd's and ABSOLUTELY NO U2...

    And Bol.com (dutch amazon) has a good service
  12. Originally posted by markp91:[..]

    Oh yeah...you get a poster with it...The horrible thing is that we don't have a decent music shop in Boxtel...The only one we have has 3000 Rihanna cd's and ABSOLUTELY NO U2...

    And Bol.com (dutch amazon) has a good service


    I'd like to receive some decent music with it.

    Has Rhianna released 3000 CDs? God damn she's good.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.