| L-R-TIGER1994 17.07.2007 20:11 |
Seeing that no concerts have surfaced or being posted here in weeks,for mp3 supporters I have more than 200 shows most of them in mp3,may be we can make another thread within this same forum to avoid criticism for FLAC retard supporters,if you are searching for a special concert just ask and I will see when I can post it here and may be also download a concert from you that I miss... PS:for FLAC supporters or just critics for the simple fact that they only want to critised mp3,GO FUCK YOURSELF... |
| josedequeso 17.07.2007 20:35 |
if you have hartford, conneticut august 20th 1980 i would like to have, a friend of mine was at that show |
| L-R-TIGER1994 17.07.2007 20:42 |
Yep. |
| josedequeso 17.07.2007 20:42 |
then please post |
| stark 18.07.2007 04:21 |
What an incredibly intelligent post. Your parents must be so proud.. |
| freddie lives 28817 18.07.2007 04:34 |
Oh well, I'll go Fuck myself then. I stopped collecting Queen concerts 7 years ago because everyone suddenly wanted to stop sending out CDs and trade over 56kb/s internet connections and so MP3 trading was born! (convenience over quality) Unfortunately most people encode at 128kb/s and I CAN hear the squelching sounds - especially the crowd noises inbetween tracks. One other downside to MP3 is those annoying gaps at either end of each track which need to be removed before you can burn it CD. At one point you could only do it by physically removing the gaps which is very time-consuming. I know that Nero has a merge option which can "remove" those gaps. Whether there is another way i don't know. Thanks to other people on QZ who feel the same way as I do, I have started collecting again. The problem most of us have with MP3 trading is that unless people start thinking to the future, eventually EVERYTHING you download will have been MP3 at some point in it's life cycle - so by encoding as FLAC, we're trying to stop that from happening, but more importantly people need to know WHY a lot of us prefer FLAC to MP3. Let me give you an example. At present, the BBC session of Tenement Funster that is commonly available has an awful background hiss on it and the quality is a low generation low fidelity copy. Later this week I will be making a high generation High Fidelity (ever heard of Hi-Fi??)hiss-less version available - BUT it will be a FLAC file. If I shared it as an MP3 it will ultimately be written to CD by everyone, some of whom will then rip it back to MP3 at a later date to share it with others where it will likely go through that same cycle again. Eventually, it will be that low generation low fidelity copy with squelching noises (instead of hiss) that becomes the commonly available version, and it won't be much of an improvement over the one that's available now. Now, I have no objection to you trading MP3's and providing a list of links on a thread for those others who would prefer MP3's, but I DO object to being told to "Fuck" myself. |
| onevsion 18.07.2007 04:44 |
L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: Seeing that no concerts have surfaced or being posted here in weeks,for mp3 supporters I have more than 200 shows most of them in mp3,may be we can make another thread within this same forum to avoid criticism for FLAC retard supporters,if you are searching for a special concert just ask and I will see when I can post it here and may be also download a concert from you that I miss... PS:for FLAC supporters or just critics for the simple fact that they only want to critised mp3,GO FUCK YOURSELF...Why are you so rude. I just don't like mp3. Do you have a problem with that? You don't sound like a very intelligent person to me. |
| Nummer2 18.07.2007 05:23 |
I'm a bit caught between two objectives. First is, that I really like to listen to Queen shows I don't know yet. I'm sort of addicted, you know. Second is, that I absolutely understand the need for sharing lossless files. I have been fooled many times by people who shared FLAC files that were actually re-encoded MP3s. I even was banned from a file sharing site for offering a show, which I wasn't aware of being mp3 sourced FLACs (now I know, that I have to check first and then share). Ask random people at the most popular file sharing sites about Queenzone, and you'll often hear things like: "QZ, isn't that the place where they share MP3s cloaked as FLAC?". But: I'm only human, and if I can't get a show in lossless format but there's an MP3 version to download somewhere – I'll be the first to fetch it. But I swear by the survival of my Queen collection, I'll never convert or mislabel it! |
| Raf 18.07.2007 07:07 |
freddie lives wrote: I know that Nero has a merge option which can "remove" those gaps. Whether there is another way i don't know.No... The "mp3 gap" lasts less than 1 second. If you *don't* use that option on Nero, any kind of audio file you use, even FLAC, will have over 2 seconds between each track. Using that option avoids this bigger gap, but won't remove the small gap from mp3 files, because this gap is in the mp3 files and counts as part of the song. To remove the gaps, you'd have to manually open each track in some audio editing program and delete the gap. But then, if you saved them to mp3 again, you'd lose too much quality (I can't see what kind of idiot would recompress a 128kbps mp3 file...), if you make it lossless, you'll have massive files with lossy quality... I personally don't have anything against mp3 sharing. I have concerts in mp3 and concerts in FLAC. When it's a very good and "special" concert, I prefer FLAC. When it's just normal ones that I'll hear only once now and then, I download it in mp3 format, so that it doesn't take much disk space, and when I make backup copies, I can put plenties of them in only 1 DVD disk - I never burn mp3 as audio disc... If the source is lossy, I keep it lossy. IMHO, people who prefer FLAC should respect mp3 collectors, as long as mp3 collectors don't complain about not being able to trade with real collectors, about "serious" bootleg sites (such as Dime and U2Torrents) not allowing mp3, about some nice occasions here on Queenzone when a bunch of people decide to share many FLAC gigs at once... Same should work for people who like DVD and people who like VCD, DivX... I used to download only VCD and DivX because of some limitations I had here, but nowadays I'm putting some effort into downloading in DVD format some stuff. But only the nice things... Hammersmith'75, for example, is definitely worth having in DVD... But that famous crappy Vienna'84 video... I hardly watch it, so I won't spend time and bandwidth trying to download in DVD format a shitty quality video that I'll hardly even watch. |
| freddie lives 28817 18.07.2007 07:43 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:I think you're talking about removing the standard 2 second gap automatically created between tracks in writing software if you don't change it.freddie lives wrote: I know that Nero has a merge option which can "remove" those gaps. Whether there is another way i don't know.No... The "mp3 gap" lasts less than 1 second. If you *don't* use that option on Nero, any kind of audio file you use, even FLAC, will have over 2 seconds between each track. If you look at the bottom of the "properties" page for a track in Nero, it also has an option for merging (or cross-fading) tracks which allows you to choose between seconds or frames. Depending on what software has been used to create an MP3 in the first place, you can get a variety of "blank space" time encoded into the MP3. I've been downloading Aerosmith & Alice Cooper boots this week (all MP3 unfortunately, but then not many download sites cater for lossless yet - QZ seems to be a pioneer!) and they have ranged from 0.5 of a frame to 3 frames at either end. I've had to be canny with the merge option in Nero to eliminate these gaps so that I can't "hear" them. By checking the frame length in soundforge (which I use), I just adjust the frame merge option in Nero and burn the disc. It's not as long winded as manually deleting but I wondered if there was an easier way - for example a piece of writing software that detects the encoded sound gaps and automatically removes whilst burning. Other than that, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who has to manually delete the gaps! |
| Bobby_brown 18.07.2007 11:06 |
Logically, Flacs can be converted to mp3, but mp3 can´t be converted to a lossless file because it´s lossy in the first place. When converting mp3 to a lossless format you´re keeping the quallity of mp3, but you´re not improving it. But the problem is the cicle: mp3-- Flac---mp3--and so on! Every time you do this, you´re loosing quallity, and as we know there are "fans" that don´t care about lineage and then start the cycle. It´s OK by me to share mp3 as long as you keep it that way, and if you don´t have it in Flac then do it- because if i don´t have the concert i will download it too!, until i found a better source. But in case you have it in Flac, why not share it lossless? there are programs that convert Flac to mp3 and are free. This way you can please more people. Take care |
| Mr. Scully 18.07.2007 11:37 |
There is no problem with MP3 files (except for the annoying gaps that are pretty difficult to get rid of). I have plenty of stuff (not concerts) in MP3 files. 95% of people don't hear a single difference between audioCD and a 256/44 MP3 of a live track. There is only one problem - people converting MP3 files to FLACs or audioCDs (and then back) which results in loss of quality. Why they do that, I don't know. |
| The Real Wizard 18.07.2007 11:39 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: IMHO, people who prefer FLAC should respect mp3 collectors, as long as mp3 collectors don't complain about not being able to trade with real collectors, about "serious" bootleg sites (such as Dime and U2Torrents) not allowing mp3Respectfully, I still disagree, and this is exactly why: Ask random people at the most popular file sharing sites about Queenzone, and you'll often hear things like: "QZ, isn't that the place where they share MP3s cloaked as FLAC?".I know for a fact that there are uncirculated Queen recordings being kept under wraps simply because the owners of the recordings are afraid their recordings will be shared on QZ in mp3, or FLAC that was converted from mp3. The wider collecting world generally doesn't trust Queen collectors, and this site (and the mentality stemmed from it due to the lack of quality standards here) is mainly to blame. That's actually part of the reason why I put up my website. I'd be happy if non-Queen collectors had a look at my website, and could gain some faith in the Queen collecting community. But as long as mp3s are being shared on the most popular Queen downloading site, nothing is going to change. So, it really is as simple as this... here are our two options: 1) Allow lossy sharing, which accommodates people who want smaller files for their portable music players, even though these people can download FLAC files and convert them to lossy formats themselves. Sharing lossy files can also accommodate those few people who have dial-up connections or small hard drives (trading through the post is an alternative for these people - that's how I did it for 7-8 years). 2) Encourage people to critically look at what they're downloading and uploading, ban lossy sharing, and spread the shows in the best quality possible. This may go noticed by the wider trading world, which may in turn lead certain collectors to potentially feel confident enough to share their uncirculated recordings at some point in the future. Which option sounds better? A lossy Hartford 80, or perhaps a new show from 1976? I can't think of one possible downfall to this choice. Can anyone else? <font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: But that famous crappy Vienna'84 video... I hardly watch it, so I won't spend time and bandwidth trying to download in DVD format a shitty quality video that I'll hardly even watch.Still, such a video will still be worse in VCD quality than in DVD quality. The quality of the actual material is irrelevant. Lossless always beats lossy, if quality is what you're after. josedequeso wrote: if you have hartford, conneticut august 20th 1980 i would like to have, a friend of mine was at that showSoon I'll be getting the master copy of this show directly from the taper. Of course you're welcome to download the mp3 version which could be many tape generations from the master (not to mention being compressed to mp3), but I'm sure you'll be happy to upgrade it to the version that sounds better than all the others. |
| pittrek 18.07.2007 13:35 |
or FLAC supporters or just critics for the simple fact that they only want to critised mp3,GO FUCK YOURSELFThe first part of your post is completely right, but the second part ? I have tried to fuck my self, but only thing I got was pain on my back, so maybe I could try something else. Mr. Scully wrote : There is no problem with MP3 files (except for the annoying gaps that are pretty difficult to get rid of). I have plenty of stuff (not concerts) in MP3 files. 95% of people don't hear a single difference between audioCD and a 256/44 MP3 of a live track.I 100% agree. There is only one problem - people converting MP3 files to FLACs or audioCDs (and then back) which results in loss of quality. Why they do that, I don't know.I can tell you why. I've used to do it. Simply when I needed to modify somehow the mp3 file (for example hiss reduction), the only logical thing to do after it is encode it to save it as a lossless format, because re-encoding it back to mp3 would only make it worse. But I've alway added some txt file where it was written that it's a lossy-sourced file. 1) Allow lossy sharing, which accommodates people who want smaller files for their portable music players, even though these people can download FLAC files and convert them to lossy formats themselves. Sharing lossy filescan also accommodate those few people who have dial-up connections or small hard drives (trading through the post is an alternative for these people - that's how I did it for 7-8 years). 2)... Ban lossy sharing...To be honest, I pesonally have nothing against mp3 sharers and would definitely NOT ban lossy sharing. I like the freedom of choosing. I of course prefer lossless files, but in the case someone wants mp3s, why shouldn't he get it or why should he be screamed here for wanted it ? If somebody wants to know why I stopped collecting mp3s, I simply listened to a flac file and after that I've listened to the same song, just in 128kbps mp3. Since then I collect only CDDAs and FLACs. Of course converting flac to mp3 and then sharing those mp3s is something completely different, and should NEVER be done. |
| The Real Wizard 18.07.2007 13:40 |
What does mp3 have to offer that lossless files do not offer? Someone, please politely explain to me why mp3 must be an alternative. |
| pittrek 18.07.2007 13:47 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: What does mp3 have to offer that lossless files do not offer? Someone, please politely explain to me why mp3 must be an alternative.There's absolutely nothing good about mp3s. I'm just trying to tell that banning is not the right way how to tell people that they should forget the existance of the mp3 format. Do you remember for example the american prohibition when all alcohol was forbidden ? Yeah, I know it's a stupid example |
| on my way up 18.07.2007 14:46 |
The last year on this site was just fantastic. I downloaded some really incredible recordings in FLAC: Leeds'82, buenos aires '81 , puebla'81, tokyo'85,Frankfurt '80, tokyo 4/4/'76 , chicago '80 ,and the list goes on and on. Why change the mentality again and restart the sharing of mp3s which are certainly not the best available versions of all these wonderful shows? I do not understand. And as sir GH writes: we miss other rare recordings because of this behaviour.How sad. There is no problem at all with flac. You can easily convert it to mp3 for your own use and because these shows are in the best possible quality , it will sound much better than the mp3's you already have. I used to have about 100 shows in MP3 and my ears hurt when I listen to them now:-) Others must notice the difference a chance. Give lossless formats a chance and it will pay off, in every possible way. |
| The Real Wizard 18.07.2007 18:10 |
freddie lives wrote: a lot of good stuffCould you please drop me an email? bob at queenlive.ca Thanks! |
| Raf 18.07.2007 19:51 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: What does mp3 have to offer that lossless files do not offer? Someone, please politely explain to me why mp3 must be an alternative.I respect mp3 collectors simply because when I began my collection, in 2004 I still had dial up. Really fucked up. Couldn't even think of downloading 500mb at once. It would take forever, and the phone bill would be expensive. So mp3 was the easy choice for me. A few sites offered full concerts track-by-track in mp3 format. So I could download a few tracks every weekend, and voila, a new concert every month. Then, when I first got broadband, I had a 3gb monthly traffic limit. So, I had to pick between downloading like 3 or 4 FLAC concerts a month (hey, I need to save some bandwidth for other stuff! :), or a large deal of mp3 concerts. As around the same era there were a bunch of people uploading more than 1 concert in mp3 every week, I couldn't resist. Later on I got an update. 10gb per month. But still, I'd be careful. I began to download VCDs from friends on MSN. Then, last year for about 10 months, my ISP removed the limit. So I downloaded a bunch of DVDs, and a few FLAC concerts. I was thinking of updating my whole collection, but then I noticed there are some concerts I hardly hear at all... So I decided to download only my favorite ones, in order to save time and hard disk space. I *do* see your point when you complain about mp3 sharing, because of the idiots who trade lossy files, who upload "fake" FLAC files, etc. What I'm saying is, it would be ideal if FLAC people respected mp3 people AND mp3 people respected FLAC people. Two different worlds... The ones who like mp3 will keep mp3 will keep their files in the right format, never try to share them as "fake FLACs", while FLAC traders would respect their decision to listen to lossy files. |
| pittrek 19.07.2007 01:41 |
Maybe Richard could split this "Announce" forum into 2 subforums, one for mp3 and DivX:-) and one for flac and DVDs ? |
| Cygnus X-1 19.07.2007 02:03 |
pittrek wrote: Maybe Richard could split this "Announce" forum into 2 subforums, one for mp3 and DivX:-) and one for flac and DVDs ?Yes, Pleeaaasssee!!!! Give these MP3 Kids a place to play, this is startin' to freaking me off! Finally, there is a way to prevent quality and some people here are too stupid and ignorant to understand this! Nowadays, where happy when someone shares a master recording! In ten years, we're happy when someone gets hold of a "clean" flac show. !!!!!STOP POLLUTING THE TRADING SCENE!!!!! |
| freddie lives 28817 19.07.2007 03:43 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Then, last year for about 10 months, my ISP removed the limit.So you effectively have unlimited broadband now and you live in BRAZIL???? Bloody Hell. I tell ya, England's a flippin third world country these days. |
| Raf 19.07.2007 06:51 |
freddie lives wrote:No, it lasted only about 10 months... Now I have limited broadband again.<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Then, last year for about 10 months, my ISP removed the limit.So you effectively have unlimited broadband now and you live in BRAZIL???? Bloody Hell. I tell ya, England's a flippin third world country these days. I'll be honest, I downloaded 23gb this month already... This is the second time I ignore my download limit. Although most Brazilian ISPs have download limits, none of them has been charging the users who disrespect it. But it's highly advisable not to violate the limit, because they're allowed to charge us anytime for all the extra downloads. |
| The Real Wizard 19.07.2007 17:22 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: I respect mp3 collectors simply because when I began my collection, in 2004 I still had dial up.So did I, back in the late 90s. Since the FLAC format wasn't around, I didn't realize at the time that mp3 was that much worse. But over time, I realized there was a difference, and I researched into lossless audio. I then stopped downloading mp3s and stuck to trading through the post (but of course, many of the cds I received back then were mp3s burned to cd, but thankfully most of that has come to an end). I didn't return to downloading until a year and a half ago, when I finally got a high speed connection. At that point, about 99% of my collection was from trading, not downloading. If I was 16 years old when I started trading through the post, then anyone can do it. But in this day and age of pointing and clicking for instant results (and being too cheap to spend a few bucks on cds and postage), it seems that very few people are willing go through the effort, and are satisfied with lossy files rather than the real thing. I really don't know what it's going to take to convince these people that we are now in the day and age of quality preservation. The convenience of lossy audio was a major step in digital music ten years ago, but now that our computers are faster and powerful enough to transfer bigger files over less time, it's time to move on, with the result being better-sounding music. If your computer still can't handle it, then go to link and contact any of the hundreds of people on the list of collectors, instead of continuing to share mp3s of recordings that can be otherwise found in better quality. In theory, that's what it should have to be, until this forum finally jumps on the quality preservation bandwagon along with every other major trading community... but of course none of those things are going to happen, are they? |
| freddie lives 28817 20.07.2007 10:57 |
Sir GH wrote: I really don't know what it's going to take to convince these people that we are now in the day and age of quality preservation.Yah Boo Sucks! I'm gonna keep hold of my crappy VHS 250 line resolution Dr Who stories. I'm not bothered about quality so why should I get the DVD releases that have had more clean up and restoration work done to them than ANY other DVDs I've ever seen (Don't even go there Paramount - your Star Trek discs suck). Oh, sorry. Lost it there for a moment. Temporary insanity. :-) |
| The Real Wizard 20.07.2007 12:43 |
freddie lives wrote:Haha... it's all good!Sir GH wrote: I really don't know what it's going to take to convince these people that we are now in the day and age of quality preservation.Yah Boo Sucks! I'm gonna keep hold of my crappy VHS 250 line resolution Dr Who stories. I'm not bothered about quality so why should I get the DVD releases that have had more clean up and restoration work done to them than ANY other DVDs I've ever seen (Don't even go there Paramount - your Star Trek discs suck). Oh, sorry. Lost it there for a moment. Temporary insanity. :-) Could you please email me? |
| Saint Jiub 01.08.2007 01:46 |
I think used automobile sales should be banned because because some people insist on driving used cars with unsightly blemishes that visually pollute our fine highways. Oh the horror ... |