Saint Jiub 27.11.2007 14:43 |
From "All About Fame" pressed CD (AAF 014) |
Cygnus X-1 27.11.2007 15:37 |
Thanks! I shared this a while ago with the whish NOT TO CONVERT IT TO MP3! But hey, I had such a great day, not even a stupid sucker like you can ruin this! Get lost..... |
josedequeso 27.11.2007 15:54 |
Mike Van - Wow, you are one arrogant stupid fuck But seriously...if Cygnus X-1 asked to have his share not converted to mp3, why can't you just follow that simple request? |
Queenrockyou 27.11.2007 16:28 |
not a nice move to share something lossy when the original sharer said "only lossless". You really don't think about the real true collectors here. Or those who will probably soon get out of Queenzone because of your attitude. That's a shame, but that's your choice. Selfish and not paying any respect to other collectors and to your so-called favorite band. No bad words come to my keyboard, but you don't deserve very much it seems. Olivier, France. |
Saint Jiub 27.11.2007 18:55 |
josedequeso wrote: Mike Van - Wow, you are one arrogant stupid fuck But seriously...if Cygnus X-1 asked to have his share not converted to mp3, why can't you just follow that simple request?I did not use Cygnus X-1's share, as I used my own my own pressed CD from "All about Fame" (AAF 014) that I purchased from a record show about 10 years ago. I did not recall Cygnus X-1's thread (I doubt I even read the thread several months ago, as I already had the CD). Seba had asked for it twice without response, so I converted my CD to mp3 and flac and uploaded both versions. |
stark 28.11.2007 12:20 |
Please please please stop doing this... |
Cygnus X-1 28.11.2007 13:22 |
well, fuck it! I don't care anymore...there was so much talking about this issue, there's nothing we can do about it. It's up to the moderators to change something, if they don't want to, it's their descission. When I joined one year ago, I found this an exciting place to share, download and meet fans & collectors. But this IS a damn war right now and I'm sick of it. I don't want to waste my spare time with this shit....please please please STOP this!!!!! |
The Real Wizard 28.11.2007 18:44 |
Maybe this is a good time to note that lossless shares have pretty much come to a grinding halt since the Cologne 79 incident... |
Saint Jiub 28.11.2007 23:20 |
Cygnus X-1 wrote: well, fuck it! I don't care anymore...there was so much talking about this issue, there's nothing we can do about it. It's up to the moderators to change something, if they don't want to, it's their descission. When I joined one year ago, I found this an exciting place to share, download and meet fans & collectors. But this IS a damn war right now and I'm sick of it. I don't want to waste my spare time with this shit....please please please STOP this!!!!!As indicated in the below two links, I previously shared (OVER TWO YEARS AGO), in QZ torrents in both flac and mp3, OVER HALF of "Year at the Opera" (7 songs from Tokyo 76-4-1). As I mentioned previously, I did not convert YOUR FLAC SHARE to mp3, and I did not remember that you (or anyone else) had shared it on QZ. I simply responded to a post in the Request section, and shared direct flac and mp3 copies from MY ORIGINAL CD SILVER of "Year at the Opera" that I had purchased approximately 10 YEARS AGO. I'll admit that the Cologne incident was rude, but I felt drastic action was necessary then to react to the "weeding out", harrassment, and censorship of mp3 users. My primary intent for the Cologne incident was to protest the rampant nasty and unacceptable treatment of mp3 sharers during the past year on QZ. Since the Cologne incident, I believe have acted reasonably and responsibly (not that it matters). After all, mp3 sharing is permitted on QZ, and my latest two flac and mp3 shares were from lossless concerts that I had OBTAINED OVER 2-1/2 YEARS AGO (well before mp3 sharing became politically incorrect on QZ). link link |
Nummer2 29.11.2007 03:36 |
Please don't be too rude with GymBitch, I think he is going a way that at least is worth discussing. As long as the same show is shared in lossless, it might be okay to share it in MP3 as well – provided the mp3 announcement contains a link to the lossless version and a clear advice not to reencode the mp3 version. This is not my pure personal opinion (I'm one of the top-ranking-officially-approved quality defenders – mp3 is a sin!), but I must admit, that a compromise like this wouldn't let my hair turn white. |
Rockindon2 29.11.2007 07:33 |
I get a kick out of people who get so bent out of shape on this mp3/flac/shn/etc issue. The funniest thing is how people like Cygnus go crazy like they are the final say on what goes down. The next funniest thing is how people post at the end of their upload... "Don't convert to what ever or else" People are bosses of themselves. They can do what they want. If you see a bootleg in a format you don't like, then don't download it. Bootlegs are illeagl to begin with. Don't tell me or anyone else what to do with them. |
Nummer2 29.11.2007 07:44 |
So about 98% of all bootleg trading sites are wrong? And: Try to track down some concert bootlegs or demos on Limewire, Demonoid, Piratebay and the likes. How many can you find? Then try at Dimeadozen or Traders Den. |
Mr. Scully 29.11.2007 07:55 |
So Cygnus, do you think you OWN this recording? How can you tell others what to do (or not to do) with THEIR OWN CD's? Gym Bitch shares this in *both* lossless and MP3 version so WHAT THE FUCK!!! is everybody complaining about? Gym Bitch - I don't download your torrents but you have my full support in this disgusting and useless fight. Rockindon2 - good post :-) |
Cygnus X-1 29.11.2007 09:00 |
Mr. Scully wrote: So Cygnus, do you think you OWN this recording? How can you tell others what to do (or not to do) with THEIR OWN CD's?I do not own this recording, yes. And people can do with these shows whatever they like in their private. The only whish I had when I shared this show was not to upload it at QZ in an lossy format. Why? Because of quality preservation. 98% of all trading sites live by that rule. What's the problem? You can download it in Flac and convert it in mp3 for personal use- even I do that for my Ipod... But I'm (and a lot of others) strongly against spreading these recordings in an inferior quality. Sorry, but that's the way I learned at places like Traders Den, Dime etc. QZ may be different, o.k., but I have these quality standards. YV made it clear that this site won't change the rules and I have to live with this. I dont want to command people what to do, but as I posted earlier in other threads: These shows are historical documents and should be handled like that. And to Gymbitch: Why do you share recordings in mp3 who where first shared as flac's? Cologne was shared here this year, as Year of the Opera. Sorry, but I find this a little provocant against the original uploaders. When I share a recording and the downloadlinks are gone, just ask me and I will re-upload it, or I send copys out to people who can't use torrents. It was just a simple wish of mine, why you not respect this?? Maybe I was a little too rude at first, because I thought it was my org. upload you share, but there is no need to upload Year of the opera again, I shared it twice this year and as far as I remember, Ginger made a torrent too. That's my point, think of it what you like. |
The Real Wizard 29.11.2007 12:53 |
Gym Bitch wrote: I'll admit that the Cologne incident was rude, but I felt drastic action was necessary then to react to the "weeding out", harrassment, and censorship of mp3 users. My primary intent for the Cologne incident was to protest the rampant nasty and unacceptable treatment of mp3 sharers during the past year on QZ. And look at the result... there is virtually no lossless sharing anymore. If you are convinced that every notable and thriving trading community has done wrong by "weeding out, harassing, and censoring mp3 users", then that's truly unfortunate. They all prefer to see it as preserving quality of recordings, not only for their listening enjoyment, but also to respect the people who created these recordings for them in the first place. Sharing both lossy and lossless is your attempt at a compromise, which is admirable, but methinks it's a bit too late. |
on my way up 29.11.2007 14:20 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:It is too late. I don't think this forum will ever change. I hoped this site could become something like the traders' den but then for Queenfans but it will never happen.Gym Bitch wrote: I'll admit that the Cologne incident was rude, but I felt drastic action was necessary then to react to the "weeding out", harrassment, and censorship of mp3 users. My primary intent for the Cologne incident was to protest the rampant nasty and unacceptable treatment of mp3 sharers during the past year on QZ.And look at the result... there is virtually no lossless sharing anymore. If you are convinced that every notable and thriving trading community has done wrong by "weeding out, harassing, and censoring mp3 users", then that's truly unfortunate. They all prefer to see it as preserving quality of recordings, not only for their listening enjoyment, but also to respect the people who created these recordings for them in the first place. Sharing both lossy and lossless is your attempt at a compromise, which is admirable, but methinks it's a bit too late. I regret that. |
Saint Jiub 29.11.2007 21:48 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:For you, it must be truly unfortunate that you do not own this site, and mp3 sharing is allowed here.Gym Bitch wrote: I'll admit that the Cologne incident was rude, but I felt drastic action was necessary then to react to the "weeding out", harrassment, and censorship of mp3 users. My primary intent for the Cologne incident was to protest the rampant nasty and unacceptable treatment of mp3 sharers during the past year on QZ.If you are convinced that every notable and thriving trading community has done wrong by "weeding out, harassing, and censoring mp3 users", then that's truly unfortunate. You are right, I can not win. However, you are powerless to win as well, as you have no authority at QZ. By the way mp3 still has a slight pulse on QZ, as my share ratio on the Chicago 82 mp3 is at 13.904 and still rising. |
The Real Wizard 29.11.2007 23:53 |
Gym Bitch wrote: For you, it must be truly unfortunate that you do not own this site, and mp3 sharing is allowed here.The fact that I don't own this site doesn't make people who support quality preservation any less right. By the way mp3 still has a slight pulse on QZ, as my share ratio on the Chicago 82 mp3 is at 13.904 and still rising.And the fact that there are still ignorant people downloading mp3 also doesn't make people who support quality preservation any less right. |
Saint Jiub 30.11.2007 00:44 |
quality preservation = spectral analyzer. However, keep pursuing your evil hunt of mp3-ers when other more reasonable options exist. Those mp3-ers are subhuman and deserve to die. You and Jerry Falwell must be twins, as you both lead sects of the moral majority. |
The Real Wizard 30.11.2007 08:12 |
lol! You're comparing the quality of recordings to Jerry Falwell now? If there's ever a sign that you've run out of arguments... |
Manic 30.11.2007 08:42 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: And the fact that there are still ignorant people downloading mp3 also doesn't make people who support quality preservation any less right.I actually think Gym Bitch has done the best thing for all parties here. The FLAC fans get the quality and the "ignorant people" (or perhaps those with download caps or low download speeds) get to hear the music and play it in their MP3 players without having to use up all their bandwidth or convert it themselves. As long as the message to not convert MP3 back to FLAC gets through, and it will only really be rogue traders who would do that, nobody gets harmed. |
Saint Jiub 30.11.2007 10:03 |
dbl post |
Saint Jiub 30.11.2007 10:05 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: lol! You're comparing the quality of recordings to Jerry Falwell now? If there's ever a sign that you've run out of arguments...Let's compare the moral majority dogma to your dogma ... Some issues for which the Moral Majority campaigned included (see below link):[4] outlawing abortion opposition to state recognition and acceptance of homosexuality opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and Strategic Arms Limitation Talks enforcement of a traditionalist vision of family life censorship of media outlets that promote what it labeled as an 'anti-family' agenda Your dogma: Outlawing mp3 on QZ Opposition to recognition and acceptance of mp3 Enforcement of your militant trader's vision of flac sharing Censorship of Queenzone (which allows mp3 sharing) that promotes what you label as an 'anti-lossless agenda link |
Champipple 30.11.2007 15:08 |
My two cents... Back in the day I would wear a smile for a week at getting some crappy 9th generation VHS tape of a queen show that I didn't have before and I treasured it. I kinda miss those days, it's too easy now. I think everyone needs to chill a bit and appreciate what we've got going on here. |
The Real Wizard 01.12.2007 00:46 |
Gym Bitch... you have simply lost your mind if you're labeling anything in this discussion as dogma, and comparing audio recordings to Jerry Falwell and the moral majority. You can argue all you want. Nobody is listening anymore. |
User 01.12.2007 04:38 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: They all prefer to see it as preserving quality of recordings, not only for their listening enjoyment, but also to respect the people who created these recordings for them in the first place.Thats rich from someone who circulated mp3 origin shows in trades and wrongly claims to be the source of shows comming from tapers and traders we all know. Come off your high horse, Robert, you dont fool us. Learn some respect yourself. |
The Real Wizard 01.12.2007 10:22 |
I will admit that I did circulate a few mp3-sourced recordings at least five years back, before I learned the difference between lossy and lossless. We all had to learn at some point. I didn't record any of the shows myself, but as far as I know, I circulated the recordings I mentioned in that list a couple weeks back throughout this community and/or elsewhere. I'm happy to be corrected on any of them in the event that other collectors did the same, so feel free to do so. |
Nummer2 02.12.2007 03:07 |
Why must you all exaggerate? User, can't you see, that SirGH has admitted his mistakes and has learned from it? He has learned so much from it, that his attitude in terms of sharing (don't know abot trading) Queen recordings is widely accepted. Everyone can see that, why not you? And GymBitch, I hope that you just like to make fun of us, because, if your posts are meant seriously, you are definitely sick. |
Saint Jiub 02.12.2007 22:39 |
The censorship practices of Sir GH's Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and the Nazi's are hauntingly similar. link "There is, for instance, the cheerily incendiary attitude expressed by the Rev. George A. Zarris, chairman of the Moral Majority in Illinois. Says Zarris: "I would think moral-minded people might object to books that are philosophically alien to what they believe. If they have the books and feel like burning them, fine." The notion of book burning is unthinkable to many and appalling to others, if only because it brings to mind the rise of Adolf Hitler's Germany — an event marked by widespread bon fires fed by the works of scores of writers including Marcel Proust, Thomas Mann, H.G. Wells and Jack London." |
Saint Jiub 02.12.2007 23:16 |
User has no intention of sharing anything. He is having a great time building up his ego by saying: "I have something that you can not have because you are not worthy." He is having a great time being called a "hoarder" by Sir GH, and belittling Sir GH's ancient sins of accidentally sharing mp3 sourced recordings 5 years ago. Still, User is not all bad, at least he is not trying to ban mp3's on QZ |
josedequeso 02.12.2007 23:40 |
Gym Bitch wrote: The censorship practices of Sir GH's Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and the Nazi's are hauntingly similarThe resemblances are so eerie! Uncanny the similarities! Way to go Mike Van, yet another post that proves you are in fact an arrogant jackass. Why don't you provide some valid arguments explaining why you believe mp3s are a superior format? I would argue that your posts resemble the moral majority as you state conjecture and your backwards opinions as facts. Quit acting like a victim and come down from your fucking cross. |
Saint Jiub 03.12.2007 21:21 |
josedequeso wrote: Why don't you provide some valid arguments explaining why you believe mp3s are a superior format?I believe that flac has slightly better sound quality, but for typical people worldwide, the smaller file size is a bigger benefit than the slight increase in sound quality. Since I listen to my music in my car, I feel the improved flac sound quality is not necessary for me. I think that it is safe to say that, in this world of ipods, that mp3 is a more popular format than flac because of the smaller mp3 file sizes. Yesterday, I saw a commercial for the Ford Focus that advertized its mp3 stereo system (but no mention of flac). The Consumer Reports 2008 Buyers Guide rated the sound quality of most mp3 players as excellent, but did not mention flac as a feature. Given the popularity of mp3 worldwide (despite its slightly lower sound quality), I find it amazing that Bob's moral majority wants to ban mp3's on QZ, just because he does not want to have to regularly use a spectral analyzer. Incidently, both my Chicago 82 and YotO mp3 shares each have had over 25 downloads despite also being shared in flac. The demand for mp3 still exists somewhat on QZ, but I believe most mp3 users stay quiet and do not post, because of the extremely abusive attitude of some flac proponents over the past year. |
The Real Wizard 04.12.2007 00:52 |
Why are you singling me out? Tonnes of people here have quality standards besides me. Never did I say that I "don't want" to use a spectral analyzer, so please stop putting words in my mouth as a means to further your agenda of antiquated views on digital audio quality. What I and others here are envisioning is a community where people won't need to feel required to use a spectral analyzer because we'll *trust* one another with the assumption that every recording is lossless by default. Many trading communities have achieved that. We, on the other hand, are a long, long way away from that, because people like you continue to share mp3s. If you want to group yourself in with the majority of people "worldwide" who don't care about quality, then that's fine. But the fact that FLAC isn't a household word doesn't make it somehow inferior to mp3, as you're attempting to present it. As always, you're making false arguments based on pretenses that aren't true to begin with. The average person doesn't care about quality, but the average person interested in unofficial recordings (where there is often little quality to begin with) is interested in preserving that quality. That's the difference. Just take your mind out of 1999 for a moment, and honestly, try to understand where this growing number of people are coming from. I really don't understand why you're still trying to convince people with quality standards that they're wrong. Honestly, I have never in my life seen anyone debate a lost cause like you have, and to such extents (re: your political and religious similes). If only you realized how idiotic your every post on this subject is, and that you're digging yourself further and further into the ground. You Are Getting Nowhere. Stop Trying. |
Queenrockyou 04.12.2007 02:55 |
Political comparisons.... So now I think you go to far man, I think you are lost in your thoughts. The debate is Flac / mp3, it's not anything political or what, nor it's a fight against Bob. You don't like him, fine. Go your own way and let him alone, or insult him via mail, or what you want, but this has nothing to do on Queenzone it seems. How do you want people be interested in this mp3/flac discussion with that in the middle of the discussion ? It has nothing to do here. And please stop comparing anyone to Adolf Something. The debate should gain quality. And the debate IS about quality, nothing else, remember before your next post. So for those who lost the meaning of this discussion, sorry, sometimes Queenzone is like that. Please feel free to express your own opinions, you are welcome on (this) board. Is there anyone here willing to share its own opinion, be it for mp3 or for Flac format ? Regards, Olivier, France. |
Nummer2 04.12.2007 07:48 |
GymBitch, you have posted dozens of times about the subject, but you still just don't get it. It's not about a quality comparison between FLAC and MP3. You can't hear the slightest difference between a FLAC file and a high bitrate MP3 (though some people claim so, but I don't believe them). It's only about reducing the probability of sharing repeatedly encoded MP3 files or files, that were reencoded to FLAC from MP3. If valuable shares (like Queen concerts, compared to "invaluable", since officially available, music files) are shared in a lossless format only, the probability of degrading the quality is reduced significantly. It's okay to encode your own MP3s for use in your iPod or car, because the file format is of much better use there, but MP3 is no format to grant quality preservation at all. And I second Olivier's opinion: Keep your private war out of Queenzone, it's annoying at least. |