Youtube is not even 128kbps, nor this mp3. Soundcloud doesn't degrade the quality that much as youtube and converting it from youtube to 192kbps doesn't make sense as you only take mp3 below 128kbps (because youtube won't give you more) and convert it to 192kbps - That is decreasing the quality and increasing filesize with no data at all.Yuii- wrote:
The mp3 was sourced from MitiS own youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62UPamfk_cc and that this and soundcloud are the only sources of the mp3 on the net, nowhere to buy this song, so if it's 128 kbps, it's 128 kbps, but it's in fact 192 kbps, encoded from 256kbps from youtube using a ripper.
Plus, 128 kbps .mp3s aren't unrankable.
There is absolutely nothing unrankable with the set.
tl;dr mp3 is not 128kbps and its quality is not reasonable. You're trying to defend with things that I've proven are incorrect, so there's no point in telling me this.
"Plus, 128 kbps .mp3s aren't unrankable." - Yeah, it isn't, but it must really be at least 128kbps + the mp3's bitrate must be in accordance with its data, which it clearly isn't as I said in previous post.