I been wonderin about that for a while. How is CDQ cd quality anyway? all those tracks that claim to be cdq that are like 192 kbps arent CDQ anyway. CDs have more than 1000 kbps so wtf?? all those uploaders use cdq / no dj when they mean the same: a tagless version of a song that is not necessarily good quality.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
CDQ NoDJ: Difference
Collapse
X
-
It also has to do with if the song is properly mixed/mastered as well. If a song isn't mixed/mastered properly and saved as 256KBPS for example, it could still sound bad. The bass wouldn't sound right and the vocals could sound static-y. But if the song is mixed/mastered properly, and saved at 192 KBPS it should sound great. Obviously when you start saving it at higher KBPS it will sound better to those with an ear for music and good speakers/headphones, but most can't tell the difference.
protect dunston at all costs
Comment
-
Originally posted by PrettyFlacko. View PostEven though ABjerg was trying to take my info and sound smart, he was actually right.
192 is considered CDQ.
FUCK WiT DUNSTON, iMMA PUT MY FOOT iN YO ASS
Comment
-
Originally posted by breezy214 View PostGood post. So then in terms of quality, which is better: iTunes 256 or 320 kbps CD rip? Cause I've replaced alot of my songs with iTunes quality, and the sound quality can't be beat, well atleast to me. Maybe I need better in ear headphones to enjoy sound even more.
I ain't got Dunston on my shoulder, got Dunston in the backseat
Comment
-
Originally posted by breezy214 View PostGood post. So then in terms of quality, which is better: iTunes 256 or 320 kbps CD rip? Cause I've replaced alot of my songs with iTunes quality, and the sound quality can't be beat, well atleast to me. Maybe I need better in ear headphones to enjoy sound even more.
Comment
Comment