Saint Jiub 06.03.2008 22:54 |
#5 Most flac sharers do not rate the sound quality of a shared recording. #4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless. #3 I primarily listen to music in my car. #2 I am running out of space on two hard drives. and ... #1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship. |
L-R-TIGER1994 06.03.2008 23:37 |
Gym for president. |
coops 07.03.2008 00:04 |
Gym Bitch wrote: #5 Most flac sharers do not rate the sound quality of a shared recording. #4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless. #3 I primarily listen to music in my car. #2 I am running out of space on two hard drives. and ... #1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.You said top ten reasons. What are the other five? |
L-R-TIGER1994 07.03.2008 00:09 |
He put ten just to impress don´t be a kill joy ;) |
stark 07.03.2008 02:20 |
Gym Bitch wrote: #4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless. #3 I primarily listen to music in my car.You drive a car?? Christ, I thought you were 12. And it will never cease to amaze me how some people seem almost proud of their inability to - careful, three syllable word coming up - distinguish between music and a computer simulation of music. Good work, dim bitch. |
Queenrockyou 07.03.2008 03:05 |
... |
Queenrockyou 07.03.2008 03:13 |
Gym Bitch wrote: #5 Most flac sharers do not rate the sound quality of a shared recording. #4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless. #3 I primarily listen to music in my car. #2 I am running out of space on two hard drives. and ... #1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.#5 : it has nothing to do with the fact that the file is mp3 or FLAC. It depends on the sharer, not the file. But one thing is 100% sure, no doubt about it possible, mp3 will always be of lesser quality than Flac, just because mp3 is lossy and Flac is lossless. #4 : I don't know if I can tell the difference by hear. But after many encodings, we can do so. Digital errors appear and so on. And even if we can't tell the difference, we just have to preserve the quality. If this forum was mp3 only, then by now we would only have recordings with errors or a much lesser quality to share, and the music would be far less enjoyable. And if we want Queen music to live on, and gain new fans, and so on, then we have to care about quality. I would like to help good recordings spread, and not bad quality ones. Just like we preserve nature, we should preserve music too, and Flac format is an excellent support for that, don't tell me mp3 is. #3 : If you listen music in your car then you make a personal use of it. No problem about that, I'm sure everyone who has a car do that. But here you SHARE mp3, it is not the same. That you USE mp3 is not a problem, that you SHARE mp3 can be a problem. This forum became more interesting to me when I heard that quality standards increased. From this day I started to learn about Flac and to collect live recordings. So when I want to listen in my car, then I grab my FLAC files on a CD (very easy, no need to convert before burning a CD, just ask for help and explanation), or I convert to mp3 (I don't have a car personnally) once again very easily (just ask for help and explanation), and I know I listen to a show with a lesser quality. BUT I don't force anyone to lesser quality by sharing this lesser quality. Once again, I keep the lossless files and conert them myself if needed. #2 : I prefer that my files are bigger and I have a much better quality, as clear as the original taper had, just as if I was at the gig. Of course that can be a problem but if you store the files on DVD for example, as every normal files, it should be better. #1 : Banning the mp3 lovers is not of my ideology, the fact is that this forum became more lossless than lossy these days, and you really break this attempt of quality. So the sharing in mp3 of a concert already shared as Flac should not be allowed, as everybody can do it themselves (just ask for help). Hope you understand that I don't have anything against you personnally, even your arrogance sometimes is not a problem for me. You share your ideas and I share mine, and we share ours, and everybodt can share his own ideas. Queenzone has never banned that many things and it is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. Just hope you can one day get convinced by quality instead of non-quality, as you could enjoy Queen "parallel recordings" (meaning unofficial) as much as we do. In fact, there are many other forums where you would get tons ofthanks for your mp3s, instead of being attacked here. Regards, Olivier, France. |
NickName 07.03.2008 03:18 |
stark wrote:Who said that he´s driving a car???Gym Bitch wrote: #3 I primarily listen to music in my car.You drive a car?? Christ, I thought you were 12. And it will never cease to amaze me how some people seem almost proud of their inability to - careful, three syllable word coming up - distinguish between music and a computer simulation of music. Good work, dim bitch. Can you distinguish between "driving a car" and "listening to music in a car"? :-) Now on a more serious side... ...all I do is distinguish between excellent concerts (sound-wise) just like e.g. Chicago78, Chicago80 or Copenhagen77 to name just a few and of course those recorded from the soundboard. These are truly excellent recordings sound-wise and therefore are always welcome to me in flac! But the vast majority of taped concerts sound more like they were recorded in the "basement of my neighbours house"... and I personally see no use in having those "low-quality recordings" where all you can hear is clapping, cheering and whisteling, lots of them even distorted and echoed, in flac... What a waste of download time and hard-drive space. "Bullshit served on the finest bone china remains bullshit"... so those concerts, many of them have hardly anything to do with "music", are more than ok in mp3 (192kbps)... ...I download them, I listen to them and I even dare to delete them! ;-) But keep in mind, this is just my opinion... |
Queenrockyou 07.03.2008 03:20 |
Oh, and of course, sharing mp3 is preventing us to maybe get new shows there were hoarded until now. So if we share lossless then we can hope that one day soon these recordings will arrive here. We have and had some examples already. And we got new shows last year, just hope this could continue, and we can make it by preserving quality of existing ones. That way, the tapers / hoarders can be reassured about the quality of their recordings. If I had a brand new sports car, I would not let you have some fun with it if I was feeling you would ruin the car. But if I know you have taken care of the cars people lended you before, then it should not be a problem. I think this is the theory of the hoarders. At least a part of them. Regards, Olivier, France. |
Nummer2 07.03.2008 03:22 |
GymBitch, why do you consistently undermine the seriosity of Queenzone as a sharing site? I can't believe you are so ignorant or plain dumb, so I guess there's some deliberateness in your actions. But here again for all the ignorant dumbasses: It's not about audible difference between MP3 and FLAC, it's about QUALITY PRESERVATION. Every serious sharing site has MP3 banned for good and obvious reasons. It's only positive that Queenzone doesn't ban anything, but that doesn't mean that QZ's users don't have to think for themselves. Some do, and those try to avoid MP3 sharing. Some lazy, ignorant or in the best case uninformed people will always share Queen recordings in inferior formats or versions, but that's getting less and less. And I still have hopes, that people like L-R-TIGER1994 or you will change their minds some day, too. |
Queenrockyou 07.03.2008 03:34 |
Great answer Nummer2, you traduced much better than me that very idea of Quality preservation, even if it seems that the difference is not evident by hear. Regards, Olivier, France. |
Roger's Beard 07.03.2008 04:03 |
HELLO!!!!! "Announce MUSIC" forum..... |
pittrek 07.03.2008 05:57 |
Gym Bitch wrote: #5 Most flac sharers do not rate the sound quality of a shared recording.What has this to do with the file format ??? #4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.Do I have superears ?I can tell if a file is lossy after 5 seconds, or in the case of rock after hearing 1 second of drums. The truth is that I have problems with 256 of 320 kbps mp3s, those sound pretty good and even I would need a spectral analyzer. #3 I primarily listen to music in my car.OK, hardware, I accept. I was expecting that somebody will write about an hardware mp3 player. But again it has nothing to do with SHARING mp3 concerts, but otherwise this can be counted as a good argument for OWNING mp3 recordings. #2 I am running out of space on two hard drives.Huh ? Did you ever hear about DVDs ? Sorry, but this is really a very poor excuse. and ... #1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.I can't unfortunately tell anything to it. I partially agree with you, that banning shares in format which is ALLOWED by the owner of this site is wrong, but also keep in mind that some people who have some quality standards will try to get the show in a lossless format. And as in every community, some will do it politely, others will not. |
Penetration_Guru 07.03.2008 15:31 |
er, wasn't Haole banned from either QOL or QFC? Pretty sure it wasn't here, but then the rest of your whining is equally weak... |
PieterMC 07.03.2008 16:00 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: er, wasn't Haole banned from either QOL or QFC? Pretty sure it wasn't here, but then the rest of your whining is equally weak...It was here, and it was me that did the banning. For some reason people love to still talk about it. |
Holly2003 07.03.2008 17:13 |
PieterMC wrote:...and dont think I've forgotten about it either you scottish git. One morning you will wake up to discover your kilt has been replaced by a tutu, and you'll find on the pillow beside you -- just like in the Godfather -- your pet haggis's severed head...Penetration_Guru wrote: er, wasn't Haole banned from either QOL or QFC? Pretty sure it wasn't here, but then the rest of your whining is equally weak...It was here, and it was me that did the banning. For some reason people love to still talk about it. |
Hitman 07.03.2008 19:34 |
oh please stop the flames people... the topic was including some humour in my opinion...no need to heavily criticize him ok? freedom of speech and respect ;) of course i'm for FLAC and losslees...you can reduce it to mp3 later for your personal use! :) |
theCro 07.03.2008 21:03 |
192kb mp3 is enough, who needs flac ? why do you need flac if your ears could not recognize 192kb+ mp3 of flac? flac takes lots of memory and its ..uh what to say, not user friendly when you can use mp3's with 192+ |
Erin 07.03.2008 23:13 |
Holly2003 wrote:Oh shit! :-oPieterMC wrote: It was here, and it was me that did the banning. For some reason people love to still talk about it....and dont think I've forgotten about it either you scottish git. One morning you will wake up to discover your kilt has been replaced by a tutu, and you'll find on the pillow beside you -- just like in the Godfather -- your pet haggis's severed head... He had to leave the pet haggis in Scotland...something about foot and mouth disease. I would like to see Pieter in a tutu, though. ;-) |
Saint Jiub 08.03.2008 00:46 |
LOL to Erin ... Also, if anyone is interested, I will try to answer many of the above questions ... but it is late in Chicago, and I am too tired to respond now. |
Bo Alex 08.03.2008 01:02 |
First, I want to do a question mainly to polite people like ruth.olivier, pittrek or YV (among others). If I want to burn a FLAC file into a CD, I have firstly to convert it to wav or I can burn directly? Secondly, I would like to say something. As NickName said, I would be interested in FLAC files of EX quality concerts: the broadcasting/ soundbording ones, and few others audience recordings that are incredibily good like Chicago 78 (I'm not sure if it's a audience recording) or Vienna 84, among others. It's only my opinion, but there recordings really aweful, like Mar del Plata 81. Though it was about an audience record done in my country, I deleted it. Concerts like them aren't music, they are noise, in FLAC or mp3... I repeat: It's only my opinion, I would like to know yours. Sorry for my poor english Cheers! |
thunderbolt 31742 08.03.2008 01:37 |
theCro wrote: 192kb mp3 is enough, who needs flac ? why do you need flac if your ears could not recognize 192kb+ mp3 of flac? flac takes lots of memory and its ..uh what to say, not user friendly when you can use mp3's with 192+Your speaking privileges have been revoked. To reply more specifically to Gym, I too must have super-hearing (which, I know for a fact, I do not), as I can easily tell the difference between a lossless file and a 192kbps MP3. 320kbps, I couldn't tell you one from the other, and lots of the concerts I picked up early on were switched to that 320kbps level to save space. Think of it this way--we have a pool of recordings out there. Converting a lossless recording to MP3 for your own personal use and *never sharing those MP3s* is like getting out of the pool to take a piss. You're perfectly happy, and everyone else is as well. Now, when you download a lossless file, convert it to MP3, and then re-upload that MP3, you're not just pissing in your own toilet; you're taking a dump in the community pool. The lifeguards are going to kick you in the balls. 'Nuff said. Is it so much to ask that you take a piss in your own toilet rather than taking a dump in the community pool? The more crap we have floating around in that pool, the less likely others are to jump in. That's why the recordings Sir GH alludes to have yet to see the light of day. There's a recording of Q+PR's Phoenix show that's out there and being hoarded because of lossy trading/sharing. Why are you, and a couple of others, so opposed to doing what every other serious fan community out there has done and declaring the pool a "no-piss zone"? |
Queenrockyou 08.03.2008 02:55 |
Hi Alex, I'll try to answer with my own experience, as I discovered the lossless FLAC format last year only (so I'm not that far from you !). Yes, we can burn FLAC files directly on a CD-R. That's what I do. Maybe we should have a "technical" forum to talk about all that, because we are here in the "Sharing" section. Anyway, I'll try to inform you the best and the simpler I could. Hpoe I'm right, but I won't be too technical. In fact, your Nero or other software can burn CD because it recognizes the files via something called a codec. The usual coded you get in Nero recognizes the Wav and the mp3 files among others. But, at least the version I have, it does not recognizes the Flac codec. Maybe recent versions do, I would not be astonished if they did. But if they don't, well, you just have to download this codec from the net. As simple as that. You download a file, click on it and all is installed quite magicly, you don't have anything else to do. My example goes for Nero, I tried it as it is the software I use. For my part I would give the advice of using Nero instead of others, as among the three or four I tried, it was the only one who could delete the gap between files (you know, the two seconds of silence before the song begins). After that, when you ask Nero "browse" (in order to search the files you want to burn), then the Flac files appears in the window, which they didn't before installing the codec. So all you need now is to know where to download this codec. I don't know if we can link directly to that sort of things from this forum (maybe you should help us with this Barb ?), so I would say that you just have to google the words "Flac codec Nero" and see what you can find. If that applies to Nero, I don't know how to proceed for other software. But try google and search the terms "Flac codec XXX", XXX being the name of your software (and not the sign of an adult-oriented search of course). So you don't need anymore to convert the files before burning. You can store them as Flac, and you don't have to have one version in Flac, one in mp3 for listening and one in Wav for burning. No, you can keep the Flac format only. As far as listning to the files, I think Windows Media Player and other players don't recognize Flac files instantly (not sure about that, I think some of them do), so you also have to update your software with a codec. I can't remember exactly now. But listening to a Flac file is possible, you have to do the same researches, just google "Flac codec Windows Media Player" for example. Hope that helps, we should have more often that sort of technical discussion as it seems that some people still need information. We are here to help you if needed. Regards |
Roger's Beard 08.03.2008 05:12 |
There is another reason I hate MP3. It's those bloody gaps at each end of the files that have to be manually removed before I can burn to CD... |
Holly2003 08.03.2008 05:16 |
Erin wrote:Oh shit! :-o He had to leave the pet haggis in Scotland...something about foot and mouth disease. I would like to see Pieter in a tutu, though. ;-) :) |
Bo Alex 08.03.2008 09:48 |
ruth.olivier wrote: Hi Alex, I'll try to answer with my own experience, as I discovered the lossless FLAC format last year only (so I'm not that far from you !). Yes, we can burn FLAC files directly on a CD-R. That's what I do. Maybe we should have a "technical" forum to talk about all that, because we are here in the "Sharing" section. Anyway, I'll try to inform you the best and the simpler I could. Hpoe I'm right, but I won't be too technical. In fact, your Nero or other software can burn CD because it recognizes the files via something called a codec. The usual coded you get in Nero recognizes the Wav and the mp3 files among others. But, at least the version I have, it does not recognizes the Flac codec. Maybe recent versions do, I would not be astonished if they did. But if they don't, well, you just have to download this codec from the net. As simple as that. You download a file, click on it and all is installed quite magicly, you don't have anything else to do. My example goes for Nero, I tried it as it is the software I use. For my part I would give the advice of using Nero instead of others, as among the three or four I tried, it was the only one who could delete the gap between files (you know, the two seconds of silence before the song begins). After that, when you ask Nero "browse" (in order to search the files you want to burn), then the Flac files appears in the window, which they didn't before installing the codec. So all you need now is to know where to download this codec. I don't know if we can link directly to that sort of things from this forum (maybe you should help us with this Barb ?), so I would say that you just have to google the words "Flac codec Nero" and see what you can find. If that applies to Nero, I don't know how to proceed for other software. But try google and search the terms "Flac codec XXX", XXX being the name of your software (and not the sign of an adult-oriented search of course). So you don't need anymore to convert the files before burning. You can store them as Flac, and you don't have to have one version in Flac, one in mp3 for listening and one in Wav for burning. No, you can keep the Flac format only. As far as listning to the files, I think Windows Media Player and other players don't recognize Flac files instantly (not sure about that, I think some of them do), so you also have to update your software with a codec. I can't remember exactly now. But listening to a Flac file is possible, you have to do the same researches, just google "Flac codec Windows Media Player" for example. Hope that helps, we should have more often that sort of technical discussion as it seems that some people still need information. We are here to help you if needed. RegardsThanks very much, Olivier. I will try to do the things you say. |
Penetration_Guru 08.03.2008 10:05 |
theCro wrote: 192kb mp3 is enough, who needs flac ? why do you need flac if your ears could not recognize 192kb+ mp3 of flac? flac takes lots of memory and its ..uh what to say, not user friendly when you can use mp3's with 192+And you can fit more on a hard drive, meaning a smaller one suffices, although you do then run the risk of losing it... |
Saint Jiub 08.03.2008 10:05 |
Thunderbolt<br><h6>Courtesy of God wrote:I have never downloaded a flac file, converted it to mp3 and reuploaded it as flac. So, by your definition, I am not crapping or pissing in the community pool.theCro wrote: 192kb mp3 is enough, who needs flac ? why do you need flac if your ears could not recognize 192kb+ mp3 of flac? flac takes lots of memory and its ..uh what to say, not user friendly when you can use mp3's with 192+Your speaking privileges have been revoked. To reply more specifically to Gym, I too must have super-hearing (which, I know for a fact, I do not), as I can easily tell the difference between a lossless file and a 192kbps MP3. 320kbps, I couldn't tell you one from the other, and lots of the concerts I picked up early on were switched to that 320kbps level to save space. Think of it this way--we have a pool of recordings out there. Converting a lossless recording to MP3 for your own personal use and *never sharing those MP3s* is like getting out of the pool to take a piss. You're perfectly happy, and everyone else is as well. Now, when you download a lossless file, convert it to MP3, and then re-upload that MP3, you're not just pissing in your own toilet; you're taking a dump in the community pool. The lifeguards are going to kick you in the balls. 'Nuff said. Is it so much to ask that you take a piss in your own toilet rather than taking a dump in the community pool? The more crap we have floating around in that pool, the less likely others are to jump in. That's why the recordings Sir GH alludes to have yet to see the light of day. There's a recording of Q+PR's Phoenix show that's out there and being hoarded because of lossy trading/sharing. Why are you, and a couple of others, so opposed to doing what every other serious fan community out there has done and declaring the pool a "no-piss zone"? |
Penetration_Guru 08.03.2008 10:08 |
No, in your case it's someone else's shit you're throwing into the pool. Which in the lifeguarding metaphor would probably get you a jacket with lots of buckles... |
Queenrockyou 08.03.2008 13:29 |
Good point PG. You always say the things more clearer than some of us could do, but the idea in your words is right. I like your metaphors. You're probably one of the greatest poets of the 21st century. Don't have a clue what would be the title of your next book anyway. Regards, Olivier, France. |
pogor1 08.03.2008 16:09 |
I've found good soft for burning flac files without downloading converters try this link |
Queenrockyou 08.03.2008 18:20 |
Many thanks Pogor to add your contribution. Many thanks. Anyway, please be more explicit about this website. Regards, Olivier, France. |
Saint Jiub 08.03.2008 23:10 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: No, in your case it's someone else's shit you're throwing into the pool. Which in the lifeguarding metaphor would probably get you a jacket with lots of buckles... |
Saint Jiub 08.03.2008 23:13 |
Penetration_Guru wrote:I share mp3, and you blame me that someone else converts the mp3 to flac? Great logictheCro wrote: 192kb mp3 is enough, who needs flac ? why do you need flac if your ears could not recognize 192kb+ mp3 of flac? flac takes lots of memory and its ..uh what to say, not user friendly when you can use mp3's with 192+And you can fit more on a hard drive, meaning a smaller one suffices, although you do then run the risk of losing it... |
928 09.03.2008 06:47 |
Not only are you brainless enough to think that mp3 is a master but 2>>> #2 I am running out of space on two hard drives. Ever thought about burning a DATA DVD Disc of the flacs?? Dumbfuk |
josedequeso 09.03.2008 16:46 |
Gym Bitch wrote: I share mp3, and you blame me that someone else converts the mp3 to flac? Great logicIf there were no mp3s to begin with, then there would be no possibility that an mp3 would be upconverted to flac. This is indeed great logic. |