Print

Print


> On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stewart:
> 
> One of the prime examples of this was Metallica's album "Death Magnetic." People who bought the downloads complained that it was so distorted, some sections sounded like crackle in earbuds. The CD itself is almost all at digital zero almost all of the time, so it just looks like bricks separated by fade-outs and occasional fade-ins. It's not even toothpaste, it's square rock-candy on a string.

Shouldn’t the music critic’s responsibility be to make people aware of this?
> 
> As a reviewer of music, I can tell you that labels much prefer to send a download link or, even better for them, a link to a Soundcloud or Spotify page. They encourage reviewers to listen to what I consider inferior-sounding versions so as to save money and not send physical product.

Then the labels shouldn’t complain when the critique says that the sound quality sucks, should they?
> 
> My point in my original post is, I won't pay for a lossy format unless I have no other choice. The very fact that it's lossy makes it a ripoff, to my thinking.

I agree with you and do exactly the same.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
>