| Saint Jiub 16.11.2007 23:17 |
From 2nd generation wav cdr |
| The Real Wizard 17.11.2007 09:40 |
Someone (I'm not accusing you, Gym Bitch, but someone) is trying to prove that more people are interested in mp3 by clicking on the torrent file dozens of times themselves. The little game is not working! |
| 928 17.11.2007 09:47 |
Linage is wrong It should say 2nd Gen CD-r > Wav > fooked it to mp3 so you can hear what crap sounds like > you |
| Sithmarauder 17.11.2007 09:56 |
This is truely childish posting this, and what makes it sad is that the people who are making an effort to improve quality here are being treated like the bad guys. People bitch and complain about FLAC files being too big or taking too long to DL or they don't know how to convert. Instead of polluting QZ with nonsense complaints and fighting,use the time to to DL FLAC and convert for private use. It's as simple as that. If you don't know how to do it, then learn. I just don't get it. Bob I don't blame you for not wanting to post new shows here. Or anyone else. |
| The Real Wizard 17.11.2007 10:12 |
Yeah... I know for a fact it's a game, because there are only 3 peers on this torrent, and 21 peers on the FLAC torrent. It says "A++" on the mp3 version, but not on the FLAC one, as some kind of a last gasp to get people's attention. How pathetic. This needs to end. It's stupid, and it's childish. |
| Saint Jiub 17.11.2007 10:15 |
I only have 5 peers at the moment, so you are vitually, certainly right. I have no idea who did it. I would not worry about it. I doubt that anyone was fooled by the high number of downloads (even before your post). I went to bed at midnight with no one having downloaded the mp3 torrent, and I was worried that no one would download the mp3 torrent. I woke up early this morning (my son has a 20 mile Boy Scouts hike) to see over 60 downloads of the mp3 torrent, but only 50 downloads of the flac torrent. Obviously, someone stuffed the mp3 ballot box. I suspect that there are several people that can not download this mp3 concert, because the mediafire and megaupload links have been discontinued. Pity. Bob, perhaps you can use your influence and help discourage this disturbing practice, and I can re-upload the mp3 concert to mediafire or megaupload for those who want it mp3, but can not use torrents. Finally, the small risk of receiving a mp3 recording that was converted to wav or flac (whether intentional or accidental) can be completely eliminated, if all traders, flac uploaders, and flac downloaders would religiously use a SPECTRAL ANAYZER (it only takes a few minutes). |
| Saint Jiub 17.11.2007 10:34 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Yeah... I know for a fact it's a game, because there are only 3 peers on this torrent, and 21 peers on the FLAC torrent. It says "A++" on the mp3 version, but not on the FLAC one, as some kind of a last gasp to get people's attention. How pathetic. This needs to end. It's stupid, and it's childish.I have use the A++ rating for years for my own personal use to distiguish between VG+ or better concerts versus those concerts that have VG or worse sound. I have used this rating system in the hub, and the vast majority of the my hub uploads had my A++ rating, while the other lower rated concerts were usually not uploaded by hub users. It is ironic how so many flac users download VG or worse concerts, but profess that they really care about quality. |
| The Real Wizard 17.11.2007 10:39 |
Gym Bitch wrote: Finally, the small risk of receiving a mp3 recording that was converted to wav or flac (whether intentional or accidental) can be completely eliminated, if all traders, flac uploaders, and flac downloaders would religiously use a SPECTRAL ANAYZER (it only takes a few minutes).You're right, but why should people have to trade in fear? Wouldn't it be great if this became a trusting community, where it was inherently assumed that a recording you're going to receive is lossless? Any Pink Floyd collector knows their CDs are lossless. Thanks for your post and your efforts to come to a peaceful resolution. But in the end, the only way to completely solve this problem is for every user to understand that lossless audio is better. The best way to enforce that is for the sharing of lossy audio to stop (either by a ban, or the community coming together to stop it themselves). When that happens, people who want mp3 will be forced to wonder why they're no longer being shared, and they'll either have to research into it, or seek their music elsewhere. I'm flattered that you think I have an influence over people, but everyone here is able to think for themselves. It's all a matter of *when* people believe the time is right to do so. Gym Bitch wrote: It is ironic how so many flac users download VG or worse concerts, but profess that they really care about quality.Not at all. Take an excellent-sounding recording and convert it to mp3 a few times (like that sample of Munich 78 I made a few days back). Soon it'll sound bad enough that it'll qualify as VG or so in its own way. Lossy and lossless audio are not equivalent to good and poor recordings. It's about maintaining what is there, regardless if it's great or not. |
| Saint Jiub 17.11.2007 11:21 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Fear? You're joking right? Did you lose a limb when I shared your Cologne 79 in mp3?Gym Bitch wrote: Finally, the small risk of receiving a mp3 recording that was converted to wav or flac (whether intentional or accidental) can be completely eliminated, if all traders, flac uploaders, and flac downloaders would religiously use a SPECTRAL ANAYZER (it only takes a few minutes).You're right, but why should people have to trade in fear? Wouldn't it be great if this became a trusting community, where it was inherently assumed that a recording you're going to receive is lossless? ... but in the end, the only way to completely solve this problem is for every user to understand that lossless audio is better. The best way to enforce that is for lossy audio to be disallowed.Gym Bitch wrote: It is ironic how so many flac users download VG or worse concerts, but profess that they really care about quality.Not at all. Take an excellent-sounding recording and convert it to mp3 a few times (like that sample of Munich 78 I made a few days back). Soon it'll sound bad enough that it'll qualify as VG or so in its own way. If you are so afraid of receiving mp3 sourced recordings in a trade, why don't you insist on receiving an e-mailed wav sample before you agree to a trade? Better yet, if the trader that you are dealing with is unknown to you, an established, respected trader, can tell the newbee trader up front that he will not mail his portion of the deal until the newbee's package has been delivered and evaluated to be what was promised. There will always be bad traders. You can not eliminate bad traders by banning mp3. You CAN, however, be virtually certain that what you trade, and what you receive in trade by taking a few minutes and religiously use a spectral analyzer. Similarly, you can not ban or lock up every HIV positive person to prevent him or her from unprotected having sex with other people. However, the proper use of condoms will be virtually certain to prevent the transmission of HIV to you. Ultimately one can only control one's own actions. You can not control the actions of others with bans, jail time, or executions. If one could truly contol the actions of others there would be zero crime (no illicit selling of drugs, no murders, no robberies, etc. etc). |
| Saint Jiub 17.11.2007 11:30 |
As for receiving mp3 recordings with worse than usual sound ... I have been able to obtain almost all decent concerts available for download in reasonable quality, with the exception of 82-04-16 Zurich. |
| The Real Wizard 17.11.2007 11:43 |
Generally, you're right, but banning mp3 certainly wouldn't hurt. Like I said, people who think mp3 is equally good would wonder why mp3s are banned, and ultimately, there would be fewer people passing off mp3 as lossless. I admire your efforts, but you're still wrong. In fact, your attitude is incredibly arrogant, because you are continuing to challenge the way EVERY other decent trading community does their business, and continue to insist that your ways are better than theirs. Honestly, do you think the Zeppelin, Rush, Genesis, and Floyd communities would have so many new recordings each year if the new sources and upgrades were shared lossy? The answer is obviously no. They all know the answer is no, and that's why the tapers are happy to share their recordings - because they know the quality will be preserved. As for the Cologne 79 compilation, which you shared as mp3, you not only insulted my efforts (taking years to find all the sources, and weeks to compile them and clean up every bit of the recording), but you also insulted the tapers. They took the risks by bringing recording gear and blank tapes into the venues, and they are the only reason why we have so much knowledge about Queen as a live band. As a thank you for their efforts, their recordings should remain in the best quality possible. The "needs" of people who want small and convenient mp3 files should not be greater than the need to show respect for the tapers, whoever and wherever these great people are. Never do I seek attention or recognition, but this is something I just have to do this once. Have a look at this list of recordings: London 3-31-74 (pre-LP) London 9-18-76 (uncut audience recording) New York 2-5-77 (I complained about an mp3 share of Boston 82, and the taper showed up in the topic, where he said he taped 5 shows. Had someone not opened their mouth, we wouldn't have found five master copies of shows. I only highlight this NY show because it's a bit longer than the previous copies) Uniondale 2-6-77 (master DVD) London 10-6-77 (compilation) Philadelphia 11-23-77 (second generation) New York 12-1-77 (alternate source and compilation) Stockholm 4-12-78 (alternate source, second generation) Chicago 12-7-78 (master copy) Berlin 1-24-79 (8mm video of It's Late synched to different audio source) Cologne 2-1-79 (two sources, compilation) Frankfurt 2-2-79 (lowest generation) Tokyo 4-23-79 (first generation) Newcastle 12-4-79 (lowest generation) Oakland 7-14-80 (third generation) Montreal 8-29-80 (master copy) Milwaukee 9-10-80 (second generation) Essen 11-29-80 (first generation) Frankfurt 12-14-80 (lowest generation) Tokyo 2-13-81 (first generation) Buenos Aires 2-28-81 (first generation from soundboard) Buenos Aires 3-8-81 (first generation audience) Puebla 10-17-81 (first generation, compilation) Puebla 10-18-81 (second generation, compilation) Stockholm 4-10-82 (first generation) Vienna 5-12-82 (alternate source) Milton Keynes 6-5-82 (audience recording) Chicago 8-13-82 (as in this topic) Oakland 9-7-82 (lowest generation) Berlin 9-24-84 (second generation) All you pro-mp3ers, how many of the above recordings do you have? In all probability, you wouldn't have any of them if it weren't for me. I'm the one who either found the tapers themselves (or in some cases, they found me) or low generation copies, and circulated them in one way or another. Many other people (here and elsewhere) have done as much and more. I could easily speak highly of many other people who have spent virtually immeasurable time making the contacts, finding the recordings, in some cases transferring the recordings, creating compilations when need be, and finally spreading them. If it weren't for people like us, your collections would consist of official releases, and a few silvers and bootleg LPs, if you were ambitious enough. All you have to do is point and click, and you have the nerve to want to r |
| Fat Lizzy 17.11.2007 19:26 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Generally, you're right, but banning mp3 certainly wouldn't hurt. Like I said, people who think mp3 is equally good would wonder why mp3s are banned, and ultimately, there would be fewer people passing off mp3 as lossless. |
| josedequeso 18.11.2007 00:44 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I admire your efforts, but you're still wrong. In fact, your attitude is incredibly arrogant, because you are continuing to challenge the way EVERY other decent trading community does their business, and continue to insist that your ways are better than theirs.I read somewhere that I called him arrogant once...but I can't remember where I read that... Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Honestly, do you think the Zeppelin, Rush, Genesis, and Floyd communities would have so many new recordings each year if the new sources and upgrades were shared lossy?Nope, new Queen recordings ARE NOT going to surface for the simple fact that the quality in the Queen trading community is so low. I have two brand spankin' new uncirculated Lamb (Genesis) soundboards coming in, I will be sharing them at link and I can rest easy knowing they won't be converted to lossy crap, while if it was a queen recording, I wouldn't be so certain. Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: As for the Cologne 79 compilation, which you shared as mp3, you not only insulted my efforts (taking years to find all the sources, and weeks to compile them and clean up every bit of the recording), but you also insulted the tapers. They took the risks by bringing recording gear and blank tapes into the venues, and they are the only reason why we have so much knowledge about Queen as a live band. As a thank you for their efforts, their recordings should remain in the best quality possible. The "needs" of people who want small and convenient mp3 files should not be greater than the need to show respect for the tapers, whoever and wherever these great people are. Never do I seek attention or recognition, but this is something I just have to do this once. Have a look at this list of recordings: London 3-31-74 (pre-LP) London 9-18-76 (uncut audience recording) New York 2-5-77 (I complained about an mp3 share of Boston 82, and the taper showed up in the topic, where he said he taped 5 shows. Had someone not opened their mouth, we wouldn't have found five master copies of shows. I only highlight this NY show because it's a bit longer than the previous copies) Uniondale 2-6-77 (master DVD) London 10-6-77 (compilation) Philadelphia 11-23-77 (second generation) New York 12-1-77 (alternate source and compilation) Stockholm 4-12-78 (alternate source, second generation) Chicago 12-7-78 (master copy) Berlin 1-24-79 (8mm video of It's Late synched to different audio source) Cologne 2-1-79 (two sources, compilation) Frankfurt 2-2-79 (lowest generation) Tokyo 4-23-79 (first generation) Newcastle 12-4-79 (lowest generation) Oakland 7-14-80 (third generation) Montreal 8-29-80 (master copy) Milwaukee 9-10-80 (second generation) Essen 11-29-80 (first generation) Frankfurt 12-14-80 (lowest generation) Tokyo 2-13-81 (first generation) Buenos Aires 2-28-81 (first generation from soundboard) Buenos Aires 3-8-81 (first generation audience) Puebla 10-17-81 (first generation, compilation) Puebla 10-18-81 (second generation, compilation) Stockholm 4-10-82 (first generation) Vienna 5-12-82 (alternate source) Milton Keynes 6-5-82 (audience recording) Chicago 8-13-82 (as in this topic) Oakland 9-7-82 (lowest generation) Berlin 9-24-84 (second generation)Don't forget Hartford 80, or the Montreal 77 8MM film. Perhaps a new "Sir GH Appreciation" thread should be started... |
| The Real Wizard 18.11.2007 01:15 |
josedequeso wrote: I have two brand spankin' new uncirculated Lamb (Genesis) soundboards coming in, I will be sharing them at linkThat sounds delicious. Don't forget Hartford 80, or the Montreal 77 8MM film. Perhaps a new "Sir GH Appreciation" thread should be started...Not before you start Harry, Riku, Martin, Rob, and MikeT threads! And I won't take credit for Hartford... that's Rob's master. Montreal? Ok... I forgot about the synch! I was more interested in the general vibe of the post, so I might've forgotten a couple others too. |
| Jan78 18.11.2007 02:03 |
josedequeso said: "I will be sharing them at link and I can rest easy knowing they won't be converted to lossy crap, while if it was a queen recording, I wouldn't be so certain." If you get all upset and lose your sleep at night about something like this, what do you say about Darfur, what do you say about children dying every 3 seconds. What do you say about mentally disabled children in Serbian hospitals living like animals? What do you say about TV shows like "Is my bum looking big"? You seriously should chill out and put things into perspective. Hence all the postings of links I've done in the request forum. It's just not important enough when you look at all the crap going on in the world. And I remember when I started getting into Queen, it was awesome to hear a song I thought I would never hear because it was out of print. However, a little compassion and kindness would be a lot more appropriate in life than getting a heart attack about a lossy file. And there you have it... |
| Queenrockyou 18.11.2007 02:37 |
He "wouldn't be so certain" doesn't mean he will "have a heart attack" ! I think he puts things in perspective. Sorry for Darfur and so on, but that had nothing to do here. So don't talk about this if it has nothing to do here. He just means that as he cares about quality and preservation of the music, he is not sure his recording will be able to reach every queen fan safely, without having been transformed in mp3 somewhere along the road. But for the Genesis files he is a lot more cool, because he knows 99% of the fans will respect the tape and the recording. He is a lot more confident too that the Genesis fans will spread this recording very easily, not using mp3. and he will be certain noboy will have the bad taste of converting it in mp3 to try making him have a heart attack ! Olivier, France. |
| The Real Wizard 18.11.2007 10:18 |
Jan78 wrote: what do you say about Darfur, what do you say about children dying every 3 seconds.That's noble of you to care, but the fact that many of us care about the quality of music at this forum doesn't necessarily mean we don't care about world issues such as those you mentioned above. Not that you're entitled to know what I do with my life outside this forum, but every time I go on the computer, I check my news website before I do anything else. Does the fact that I go to Queenzone at some point afterward negate the fact that I just became aware of what's going on in the world? |
| User 19.11.2007 02:56 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Generally, you're right, but banning mp3 certainly wouldn't hurt. Like I said, people who think mp3 is equally good would wonder why mp3s are banned, and ultimately, there would be fewer people passing off mp3 as lossless. |
| Nummer2 19.11.2007 04:28 |
I don't know if this is just a back stab, or if you are telling the truth. But even if so, sometimes it needs going through hard times to achieve knowledge. I've been banned from a serious file sharing community, too, just because of carelessness and ignorance. But since then I know, how it works and I respect the rules. The SirGH that I know from QZ never cheated anybody about his shared shows and he put a huge amount of work into his shares. His contributions are always welcome, but of course sometimes controversial. I don't care what kind of person he is in private (at least not yet), but in terms of Queen he's one of the good chaps. |
| The Real Wizard 19.11.2007 10:20 |
I don't think this person is referring to me personally, as I have never done any of those above things, nor have I been banned from Dime. But I do have a very good idea of who/what this person is referring to. Sure, there are a few pretty nasty people in the Queen collecting world who have done those above things, but why should the actions of a few destroy it for the rest? That said, why do new Zeppelin tapes consistently get out, bearing in mind some of the Zeppelin collectors who make playing dirty a full-time job? I really don't need to name names, do I? Broken promises, lying, and all those other things certainly aren't unique to Queen collectors. I definitely welcome a good discussion on this matter, if our anonymous "user" would like to join in. |
| User 19.11.2007 11:37 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: but why should the actions of a few destroy it for the rest?Because trust is mandatory and once you have broken a rule you are out. Theres more trading going on than you ever heard about but we know who can be trusted. I tell you that a couple of mp3s on this site has *NOTHING* to do with it. These recordings are out anyway. Call us hoarders - your choice. I may be anonymous for you but not for others. |
| The Real Wizard 19.11.2007 11:52 |
User wrote: Because trust is mandatory and once you have broken a rule you are out. Theres more trading going on than you ever heard about but we know who can be trusted. I tell you that a couple of mp3s on this site has *NOTHING* to do with it. These recordings are out anyway. Call us hoarders - your choice. I may be anonymous for you but not for others.Suit yourself. Just please don't try to belittle me by saying there's more going on than I know of. Who says I have to say everything I know about on this forum, or even in emails? For the record, mp3 may not be the reason why those tapes you're referring to are being kept under wraps, but there are other people out there who refuse to share their goods for that reason. But, back to topic. Perhaps I do know which tapes you're talking about and who betrayed who's trust, but I'd have to have some kind of confirmation to be sure we're on the same page. Of course you can email me if you'd like. |
| User 19.11.2007 13:05 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Suit yourself. I'm sorry that's the way it had to be. But for the record, please don't try to belittle me by saying there's more going on than I know of. Who says I have to say everything I know on this forum?Its the simple truth - you dont know much of whats going on. If you feel belittled its your bad luck. Take comfort in the adulation from the kids on Queenzone, rofl. Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: But, back to topic. Perhaps I do know which tapes you're talking about and who betrayed who's trust, but I'd have to have some kind of confirmation to be sure we're on the same page.You dont get it. You dont play in this league. If you think hard, you know why. Nice signature |
| Nummer2 19.11.2007 13:19 |
Give me a break – there really are people out there, who "play in a different league", who "know what's going on" and laugh about the "kids" at QZ? Wow, and I thought, Special Agent or atom scientist was a cool profession. Man, how I'd like to be one of those supertraders, who – I almost don't believe it – own a handful of Queen concert bootlegs, that only very few people in the world have heard of?? Man, that's almost as cool as being a member of the band! Thank god, I'm not in your business ... |
| User 19.11.2007 13:39 |
Good for you, Nummer2. We all have our priorities. Queenzone is a nice place, no bad word about it. My words were for Robert and he understood me right. |
| The Real Wizard 19.11.2007 14:09 |
User wrote: You dont get it. You dont play in this league. If you think hard, you know why.If being in "your league" requires me to have your arrogance, I'm glad I'm not in it. I'm satisfied not having a couple more recordings. |
| User 19.11.2007 15:38 |
Roberts bedtime prayer: "God, I thank Thee that I am not like these tapers whose rules I dont respect and who dont let me come and play. God, I thank Thee that I am so unselfish and educate the masses to follow my rules which are the only rules. God, I thank Thee that they are so arrogant and I am so modest, never do I seek attention or recognition, always do I do what is the best for me, myself and my monkey, amen." Just a joke, darling. Sour grapes. |
| on my way up 20.11.2007 05:55 |
|
| on my way up 20.11.2007 05:55 |
User wrote:What a ridiculous post!Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Suit yourself. I'm sorry that's the way it had to be. But for the record, please don't try to belittle me by saying there's more going on than I know of. Who says I have to say everything I know on this forum?Its the simple truth - you dont know much of whats going on. If you feel belittled its your bad luck. Take comfort in the adulation from the kids on Queenzone, rofl.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: But, back to topic. Perhaps I do know which tapes you're talking about and who betrayed who's trust, but I'd have to have some kind of confirmation to be sure we're on the same page.You dont get it. You dont play in this league. If you think hard, you know why. Nice signature |
| on my way up 20.11.2007 05:55 |
Sir Gh reaches out his hand and you spit on it. You should be ashamed! Who's the kid then? |
| Mr. Scully 20.11.2007 11:20 |
Because trust is mandatory and once you have broken a rule you are out. Theres more trading going on than you ever heard about but we know who can be trusted. I tell you that a couple of mp3s on this site has *NOTHING* to do with it. These recordings are out anyway. Call us hoarders - your choice. I may be anonymous for you but not for others.I have no idea who you are but I fully agree with you. MP3s have nothing to do with people wanting or not wanting to share. And if people say they don't want to share because of the MP3s, then they simply lie or are paranoid (just like Jan indirectly pointed out earlier in this thread). I certainly don't wake up in the night, worrying that my recording might leak in inferior quality :-))) (Btw. Bob, some of the concerts you mentioned... I also got them from the tapers themselves. Just a minor correction.) |
| The Real Wizard 20.11.2007 12:06 |
Mr. Scully wrote: (Btw. Bob, some of the concerts you mentioned... I also got them from the tapers themselves. Just a minor correction.)No worries. I'm always happy to be corrected. |
| dogwithabone 20.11.2007 13:19 |
|
| dogwithabone 20.11.2007 16:46 |
|
| bloggo3 20.11.2007 20:17 |
AS A QUEEN FAN WITH NO AXE TO GRIND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY POSITION TO THE DEBATE. I INITIALLY TRIED TO DOWNLOAD THE MP3, NOT REALISING THAT THERE WAS A FLAC FILE AVAILABLE, BUT STOPPED AND DELETED THE DOWNLOAD AS SOON AS I READ THE COMMENTS FOLLOWING THE POST . I WOULD LIKE ANYBODY WHO THINKS THEY CAN DEFEND GYM BITCH 'S POSITION TO DO SO. I'M A NEWBIE WHO JUST WANTS TO GET AS MANY QUEEN CONCERTS AS POSSIBLE ( PREFERABLY IN THE BEST QUALITY AVAILABLE). I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO WORK VERY HARD ON OUR BEHALF. A SIMPLE THANK YOU SEEMS TOTALLY INADEQUATE. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR BEING UPSET AT THE TOTAL ARROGANCE OF GYM BITYCH WHAT GYM BITCH BRINGS TO THE PARTY SEEMS LIKE A TOTAL INSULT TO ALL THOSE WHO WORK TO INCREASE THE POOL AND QUALITY OF QUEEN RECORDINGS . I HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITH GYM BITCH BUT I FEEL THAT IF HE WANTS TO OFFER INFERIOR QUALITY COPIES OF QUEEN CONCERTS, THEN THIS IS NOT THE PROPER FORUM FOR THEM. I'M SURE THERE IS A BETTER LOCATION FOR THEM AND WOULD WILLINGLY OFFER LINKS TO THEM IF AVAILABLE. BUT I MUST SAY THAT WHAT HE IS DOING AT PRESENT SEEMS LIKE A CALCULATED INSULT TO THOSE WHO STRIVE, AND WORK VERY HARD, TO SUPPLY A BETTER QUALITY PRODUCT. |
| bloggo3 20.11.2007 20:48 |
PS.TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE CONCERTS THAT US THE PLEBS DON'T HAVE: I HOPE THAT YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THEM IS NOT ENHANCED BY YOUR PERCEIVED IMPRESSION THAT YOUR PLEASURE IS ENHANCED BECAUSE WE ARE SUFFERING FROM THE LACK OF THEM. THE ONLY ENJOYMENT THAT ANYONE SHOULD GAIN FROM A QUEEN CONCERT, IS FROM THE MUSIC ITSELF. ANYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS A PERVERT AND I CAN ONLY FEEL PITY FOR THEM |
| Nummer2 21.11.2007 03:19 |
Cheers! The first post I ever read where the use of capital letters is adequate. |
| Mr. Scully 21.11.2007 03:57 |
I still don't understand what's bad about MP3's made from the best available version. If somebody is not a trader, then there's *no point* in downloading FLAC for him. We all have MP3 players in our cars, personal MP3 players and heaps of MP3's on our computers. Most of us don't hear any difference at all between MP3's and FLAC, supposing they come from the same source. So why force people to download FLAC and then encode to MP3 when there's a simplier way? Offering recordings in both FLAC and MP3 is the best way to preserve shows in lossless quality and in the same time offer an option for those with slow internet connection or/and zero trading ambitions. [P.S. I don't download MP3's, I'm just trying to defend those who do.] |
| pittrek 21.11.2007 05:00 |
Mr. Scully wrote: I still don't understand what's bad about MP3's made from the best available version.Absolutely nothing. The problem is that there is a big chance, that the person will burn it as an audio CD, than trade it, the receiver will make mp3s of it, the mp3s burn to audio and trade it, the new receiver will rip it to mp3s ... If somebody is not a trader, then there's *no point* in downloading FLAC for him.Sure it is. A lot of "downloaders" are also "audiophiles" :) We all have MP3 players in our cars, personal MP3 players and heaps of MP3's on our computers. Most of us don't hear any difference at all between MP3's and FLAC, supposing they come from the same source.Well I DO. I thought I can't here a difference, but I DO. I did a test with my friend, where I should say which songs are mp3 and which are flac. I was 100% successful. Offering recordings in both FLAC and MP3 is the best way to preserve shows in lossless quality and in the same time offer an option for those with slow internet connection or/and zero trading ambitions.Exactly. [P.S. I don't download MP3's, I'm just trying to defend those who do.]Come on, are you trying to tell us that there is also an other way how to get music than downloading ? :-) |
| Nummer2 21.11.2007 06:12 |
That sounds like a realistic solution: If a file is offered in FLAC, I don't see any substantive argument to not offer the same file in MP3 format in the same thread. It's a bigger effort only for the uploader and saves some downloaders' (the ones that only want it for their ipod or have slow connections) time. |
| Mr. Scully 21.11.2007 09:14 |
pittrek wrote: The problem is that there is a big chance, that the person will burn it as an audio CD, than trade it, the receiver will make mp3s of it, the mp3s burn to audio and trade it, the new receiver will rip it to mp3s ...So... you say the receiver of the audioCD will rip the audioCD to MP3's and then later burn an audioCD from the MP3's? Sounds pretty complicated to me :-))) Why would anybody do it? Or better - do you know traders who do it? :-) |
| Nummer2 21.11.2007 09:37 |
Tht's exactly why I'm in favour of banning MP3 sharing. Nobody, who has the FLAC files, will convert them to MP3 prior to burning them to cd. But if he downloads MP3 files, the possibility, that he burns them to cd directly, is much higher. And at some point that cd will be ripped and converted to FLAC. And there you have it ... |
| Mr. Scully 21.11.2007 16:08 |
A person with an average IQ would never burn MP3's to audioCD's. The resulting gaps between tracks are (as far as I know) something that has never been solved and there's no way how to get rid of it without any traces left, unless you edit the tracks in a sound editor first. |
| Nummer2 21.11.2007 16:32 |
What gaps? When I was young and my hard disc space was limited I often burned mp3 files to audio cds (for my own use only!), and I never had gaps. Maybe that's a problem for some burning software, but it doesn't happen with iTunes and Toast on a Mac. And it doesn't take a high IQ to find out that downloading a concert in mp3 format is much easier and faster than in FLAC – especially if you download it from a fileserver. Why bother with waiting, unzipping, joining files if you can get it with one click? Most people are lazy, so if they have the choice between FLAC and MP3, I bet a remarkable percentage would choose MP3. That's an issue we can't solve in any other way than banning MP3. |
| The Real Wizard 21.11.2007 18:02 |
Nummer2 wrote: What gaps?About 1/20 of a second at the beginning of each mp3 file. Some encoders give a small gap at the end, too. |
| pittrek 22.11.2007 01:47 |
Mr. Scully wrote:Yes it is complicated. You wouldn't believe how many idiots are on the world :-) I know what I'm talking about, I've done such things a few times many years ago :-) (for personal use, of course) . Of course, everybody who knows a difference between lossy and lossless wouldn't do it now, but you never know :-)pittrek wrote: The problem is that there is a big chance, that the person will burn it as an audio CD, than trade it, the receiver will make mp3s of it, the mp3s burn to audio and trade it, the new receiver will rip it to mp3s ...So... you say the receiver of the audioCD will rip the audioCD to MP3's and then later burn an audioCD from the MP3's? Sounds pretty complicated to me :-))) Why would anybody do it? Or better - do you know traders who do it? :-) |
| pittrek 22.11.2007 01:49 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Yes, the "padding" can be removed at the end, but not at the beginning. That's actually the reason why I stopped using mp3s years agoNummer2 wrote: What gaps?About 1/20 of a second at the beginning of each mp3 file. Some encoders give a small gap at the end, too. |
| pittrek 22.11.2007 01:51 |
Mr. Scully wrote: A person with an average IQ would never burn MP3's to audioCD's. The resulting gaps between tracks are (as far as I know) something that has never been solved and there's no way how to get rid of it without any traces left, unless you edit the tracks in a sound editor first.It's not about IQ, it's about knowledge. Unfortunately not everybody understands that every time the mp3 gets re-encoded, more and more audio information is lost. |