Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Reply to this topicStart new topic
Who would like to see some of the MoFi-type remasters on Spotify?
post Sep 26 2012, 02:34
Post #1

Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 22-September 12
From: Lorain, OH
Member No.: 103339

Does anyone think this could ever happen? I mean, a lot of them are already out of print, and perhaps this would be a good way for them to be "revived". The only issue is overcoming that whole "lossy" stigma, but I think we all know 320kbps ogg vorbis is transparent, right? It'd be a nice way to get to hear good quality music without blowing upwards of $40 a disc or, even worse, pirating.

Sony SCD-CE595--->H/K AVR 146--->Etymotic ER-4S

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Sep 26 2012, 09:21
Post #2

Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 21-February 05
Member No.: 20022

Watch out for TOS #8 complaints for claiming things without abx results. Talking from own experience. Regards.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Sep 26 2012, 12:25
Post #3

Group: Members
Posts: 3542
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233

Let's not overreact here. OP's statement wasn't exactly controversial.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Sep 26 2012, 13:06
Post #4

ReplayGain developer

Group: Developer
Posts: 5614
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409

MoFi didn't own the original recordings they remastered. To put their remasters on Spotify you would need the permission of the original record company, and who ever now owns the rights to the MoFi remastering.

There are some audiophile remasters (from other companies) on HDtracks.

One problem with Spotify is that it's hard to find the specific remaster you want of a given track/album - sometimes you just have to play them all, and sometimes the visual "CD case" and the actual audio content don't match (e.g. same track but from different album / release). I guess if you were touting a really special remaster you could just put it into the album's title.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Sep 26 2012, 18:38
Post #5

Group: Members
Posts: 2199
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207

QUOTE (punkrockdude @ Sep 26 2012, 10:21) *
Watch out for TOS #8 complaints for claiming things without abx results. Talking from own experience. Regards.

It is maybe a bit unfortunate that TOS #8 is not phrased clearly about the null hypothesis and the burden of proof and what separates a positive claim to difference from one that doesn't.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Sep 26 2012, 18:45
Post #6

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10808
Joined: 1-April 04
From: Northern California
Member No.: 13167

I don't think the real problem actually has anything to do with the wording of TOS #8. Regardless...

Before considering further off-topic discussion of the phrasing of TOS #8, I think reviewing TOS #5 is in order.

If that isn't a big enough hint, let me be more clear: further discussion about punkrockdude's troll post will be binned and warnings will be issued.

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 26 2012, 19:00

Unless your eyes can hear, you cannot account for false negatives in sighted evaluations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 3rd June 2015 - 05:55