Which is better? Quality sound or Track to Track Mix-Flow?

[lilsensa]

I don't keep shitty sets just because they sound good but I also don't keep sets which are great but they sound like recorded from the toilet of a club. :wink:

speaking of toilets ................ my damn opium suppository just fell out........gonna go for a swim :P

[TomTom]

I don't keep shitty sets just because they sound good but I also don't keep sets which are great but they sound like recorded from the toilet of a club. :wink:

[demonAfro]

both :wink:

[robprunzit]

flowebulance, sounds good to me. Yeah, I can vary between the two. But sound is more important to me. There is so much music available these days. I cant waste my time on something that sounds like it is played thru a toilet paper roll. :P

[Jibgolly]

flowebulance is key! :wink:
sometimes i can stand a shit quality if the set is important.

[Bal?zs Magyar]

Re: Which is better? Quality sound or Track to Track Mix-Fl

Naturaly, flow. But I can't enjoy a shit quality sound set.

[arielus]

i have deleted some sets with horrible quality, but also kept some that i knew i couldn't find anywhere else, like those rare live mixes, usually bootleg but with quality tracks and mixes.

[picklemonkey]

*begin 200-post annoying topic*

Sound. I delete anything with fucked up sound levels or sound quality... I can't stand the shit if it doesn't sound good in my car's system. I can always hear the same tracks elsewhere, so I delete the shittily-recorded mixes (along with the shitty mixes)

[robprunzit]

Question: What is more important for good listening pleasure.

Say you have two mixes, both with quality music you enjoy.

Which would you prefer; to have a high quality sound (bitrate 192 or highter) without the best track to track mix-flow, or a lower quality sound (low bitrate) with an excellent track to track flow?

Remember you love the music in both sets.

Sound or Flow?