In Reply to: RE: please explain posted by dave789 on May 13, 2012 at 19:39:12:
"DG replied that they did not offer high res files."
"they" -- That could mean that they do not offer High Resolution files from their site. There are many reasons for this: budget, servers not up to the task, etc. Thus the files that other sites may offer, because they are more equipped to manage High Resolution file downloads, could be files from actual High Resolution DG recordings. And that's a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked.
"Then you tried to prove that the asserted higher res DG album file must be indeed from DG based on the fact that DG took the recording at higher res since many years ago, which is a logical flaw."
Only a flaw if that's what I tried to do, which I did not. Instead, I gave examples of what "could" be the reason High Resolution files were being offered by a site other than one owned by DG.
For the record, I couldn't care less about HD Tracks. Nor could I care less about your post that started this thread (poor in so many ways) and your subsequent responses (though "non-responses" may be the better way to describe them).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- nope - Joe Murphy Jr 20:17:27 05/13/12 (0)