Rien 02.08.2004 18:39 |
Lately we're really stuffed with torrents of Queenconcerts etc. But I now have Zoom 79 (Live in Osaka 20-04-79) ready for download. If you're interested I can send the torrent to Whitemanadmin. I know some out there are still waiting for other torrents to get re-seeded again so perhaps it's better to wait a few days. |
agneepath! 11994 02.08.2004 18:48 |
Rien - send it to Whitemanadmin but its probably best to ask him to delay uploading it for a day or two... there's been so much shared out over the past week - i dont think everyone has had the time to enjoy it all. some people may have a slower internet speed... and will probably still be downloading. Its best if we "space" these out. Perhaps other Queenzoner's may have a different view. But the decision of course, is yours. |
Maz 02.08.2004 19:21 |
I have a feeling that too many torrents will mean that people jump off one torrent to grab another, leaving few seeders for others to finish. I think about 1 or so a week is a good rate to make sure everyone gets a chance to download the full file. |
Craig_Aussie 02.08.2004 22:20 |
Yes I agree. We are being flooded with torrents at the moment which isn't a bad thing but people with slower connections are probably doing torrents from a week or 2 ago and not being able to keep up. I for one have gone over my broadband limit this month so my internet connection has been slowed down to dial up speed :( |
Lucifero 03.08.2004 07:33 |
yes, a pause is needed =). there still 4 torrents that even did not start to download yet |
FaN_MU 03.08.2004 08:36 |
Go on with the show :))) |
whitemanadmin 03.08.2004 10:12 |
Rien wrote: Lately we're really stuffed with torrents of Queenconcerts etc. But I now have Zoom 79 (Live in Osaka 20-04-79) ready for download. If you're interested I can send the torrent to Whitemanadmin. I know some out there are still waiting for other torrents to get re-seeded again so perhaps it's better to wait a few days.Rien Send away, and I will upload ti for you. I am readying a new batch as well, but will hold back on mine for a while, I am downloading the ones I dont have as well, and Zoom 79 would be worth downloading. My ICQ number is 12283117. Best to make initial contact with me there, I am away on holiday from sunday, so best to get it done asap |
Rien 03.08.2004 12:08 |
Whitemanadmin, I haven't got ICQ installed anymore, so mail me (see profile) about what I have to fill in as URL of the tracker. The files are from cd (I think originally mp3) and I have used EAC to copy them, then turned them into WAVE and then into FLA, rate 8. |
Maz 03.08.2004 13:30 |
"The files are from cd (I think originally mp3) and I have used EAC to copy them, then turned them into WAVE and then into FLA, rate 8." This brings up an intersting point. Most bootleg collectors do not like Mp3-sourced bootlegs due to the loss of quality. Basically, you've taken a file that permanently lost info during the compression to Mp3, expanded it to Wav, then compressed it to Flac. This is looked done upon by many collectors and taints the overall pool of recordings. I know there are probably many Queen fans on here that really don't care either way. Personally, I think that it should be mentioned if you are torrenting something that is mp3-sourced so that downloaders can decide if they want it. |
whitemanadmin 03.08.2004 13:32 |
Rien wrote: Whitemanadmin, I haven't got ICQ installed anymore, so mail me (see profile) about what I have to fill in as URL of the tracker. The files are from cd (I think originally mp3) and I have used EAC to copy them, then turned them into WAVE and then into FLA, rate 8.Rien Thanks for the offer, but what we are doing by using FLAC is preserving the quality. Taking an MP3 source, and then converting to WAV will pollute the trade pool. It needs to be an original audio source (Low gen tape, CDR etc) Sorry about that |
Rien 03.08.2004 14:43 |
first of all Zeni, THAT's why I did mention it. So no need to suggest to mention it. Wouldn't it be great if we thought the same about the videos that go around? And to Whitemanadmin, well, okay, no Zoom from me then. But I dare to say that the quality of this recording is better than some bootlegs I've heard. But no problem. |
Maz 03.08.2004 14:54 |
Rien wrote: first of all Zeni, THAT's why I did mention it. So no need to suggest to mention it.Perhaps not to you, but how many other potential uploaders had no clue? As far as I can tell, this issue has not come up on QZ since the torrents began. Whitemanadmin torrents several through sharingthegroove which is explicit about these rules of no mp3-sourced boots, but I have yet to see any comments on it from several other potential uploaders. Thus, the need to suggest it, Rien. No need to get snippy. |
Rien 03.08.2004 15:26 |
ok. You've made it clear. I fell over the sentence "I think that it should be mentioned if you are torrenting something that is mp3-sourced". |
Maz 03.08.2004 15:29 |
My apologies. I meant you-all, not specifically you, Rien. |
Rien 03.08.2004 15:34 |
What I wonder is this: How can we check the quality of the tracks, other than perhaps by listening to them? Can one reveal the true quality? For torrenting one should make flac-files coming from let's say CDR (as is stated). How do we know that those files on cdr are not encoded from mp3? btw this is a serious question. |
Maz 03.08.2004 16:22 |
There are ways of doing a "sound analysis" of the file and showing that it was not mp3 sourced. I know that others on STG (pma for example) have included a screen shot of the analysis as proof that the file is allright. For the most part, however, I think that we simply have to go by what is said before we get the chance to hear the material for ourselves. Some users, like whitemanadmin, have established themselves as being against mp3 boots, so they can be trusted, I think. Others either don't care one way or the other, or do not know if it is mp3-sourced or not. |
whitemanadmin 03.08.2004 17:11 |
Rien wrote: And to Whitemanadmin, well, okay, no Zoom from me then. But I dare to say that the quality of this recording is better than some bootlegs I've heard. But no problem.I have no doubt of that my friend, but keeping the standards up, is a good exercise. If you have a better than average set of MP3's, then that must mean someone has a low gen tape or CD out there somewhere which proper audio sourced and is good for a seed. So the search goes on! :-) |
Roy ® 03.08.2004 17:46 |
And how about the bootleg tree, that are all mp3 files. People will burn them on a cdr and trade them with other queen collectors. I think some mp3 sourced concert will sound better then some mastertapes file. I think it's impossible to collect only kopies of mastertapes or something. Rien is trying to do his best for sharing concerts with other Queenzoners and then he isn't allowed the place the torrent. He say's that it is a mp3 source. We could decide ourselfes if we would download the torrent or not. Rien many thanks for trying to share (by the way, Zoom 79 is in the bootleg tree as mp3, it is shared by Bullwinkle) |
Rien 03.08.2004 17:57 |
I did not know that it's in the bootleg tree. That's one of the threads I have never opened actually. Sharing through a torrent is also a bootleg tree, but one that speaks more to my imagination. :-) btw this is no case of not being allowed to torrent something. I now understand that one wants to provide non-questionable material and that's only to praise. If I still want to torrent this concert then I'll find another way. I already did that with the Dutch Queen's Day concert and the Freddie/Kenny documentary. Mostly because I did not realise Queenzone had a tracker itself. Someone recently mentioned ZOOM, therefore I decided to decode the songs. |
agneepath! 11994 03.08.2004 18:11 |
I can sympathise with both sides of the discussion (i won't call it an argument)i think the stance on mp3s was alluded to but never made clear. At least now we know the rules. Perhaps Rien you could torrent a Queen documentary. I'm sure you have plenty or even a VCD compatible Queen's Day concert through link But thanks for the offer! |
kalmark 03.08.2004 18:35 |
I know one tool for audio authenticity detection, which can be downloaded from link It is called auCDtect, and according to some small tests on link forums it mostly performs pretty well. |
Maz 03.08.2004 18:39 |
omniroy: It's not an issue that mp3s are bad or that we are trying to keep Rien from sharing at all. It's an issue of keeping the mp3-sourced bootlegs and uncompressed bootlegs separate so that people can make up their own minds. As Rien mentioned, the torrents are an effort to share the best possible quality stuff to the most people. |
whitemanadmin 03.08.2004 18:55 |
Rien wrote: I did not know that it's in the bootleg tree. That's one of the threads I have never opened actually. Sharing through a torrent is also a bootleg tree, but one that speaks more to my imagination. :-) btw this is no case of not being allowed to torrent something. I now understand that one wants to provide non-questionable material and that's only to praise.Using only proper audio was done for 2 main reasons(and other smaller ones) 1. As a trader I am aginst MP3 sourced material. for personal use it is fine, but not for trading. And what I was frightened of, was someone downloading an MP3 concert and trying to pass it off as a legit recording to a trader, who in turn finds out it came from here, and that would be bad. 2. As I was going to be the main seeder in the first few months then, I thought if we keep the audio 100% legit, we will get traders coming to download as well(They wont want MP3 boots). They in turn will offer back some other shows, which they will have in their collection, and therefore take some of the pressure off me. This has worked, as we have seen contributions from our Mystery Man, Your Valentine, Richard Orchard and others, Now it means I am getting new shows as well, which is fantastic for me. If other people want to contribute and only have MP3 shows, they can reseed some of the older shows which I or others previously seeded (Which would be good for me as I stupidly deleted them instead of archiving them) |
whitemanadmin 03.08.2004 18:57 |
Agneepath! wrote: I Perhaps Rien you could torrent a Queen documentary. I'm sure you have plenty or even a VCD compatible Queen's Day concert throughThats a great idea! I have quite a few VCD's, but never really got into it that much. So If someone wants to take the mantle of seeding Video, that would be great, just contact me either on icq at 12283117 or email at trade@queencd.free-online.co.uk and I will help them get the .torrent onto the tracker |
joeyjojo 03.08.2004 22:19 |
"The files are from cd (I think originally mp3) and I have used EAC to copy them, then turned them into WAVE and then into FLA, rate 8." As stated, this is pointless. Once an MP3, it might as well stay as one. This does raise a question I've had for a while. I'm relatively new to the bootleg trading thing, and it does seem that everyone is adamant about FLAC trading. However, I have yet to hear a live boot that NEEDS FLAC...most of these live boots could be ripped at 128k with no discernable difference. I guess that's not a question...just an observation ;o) |
The Real Wizard 04.08.2004 01:25 |
Spectral View in Cool Edit can immediately show whether or not a sound has been compressed in some way. But often enough, one can hear the digital noise in a poorly-encoded mp3. I often hear it on the radio. Obviously they think nobody can hear the difference. :P |
Roy ® 04.08.2004 02:10 |
Zeni: in know it is not an issue that mp3 are bad or good. The issue is will we share or trade in mp3 files. If i trade with someone i absolutely should mention that a concert comes from a mp3 source. Everyone has to do that!!!!. I also prefer normal files above mp3 files. I only make a point to it because i thought it was unfair agianst Rien. |
whitemanadmin 04.08.2004 03:57 |
joeyjojo wrote: This does raise a question I've had for a while. I'm relatively new to the bootleg trading thing, and it does seem that everyone is adamant about FLAC trading. However, I have yet to hear a live boot that NEEDS FLAC...most of these live boots could be ripped at 128k with no discernable difference. I guess that's not a question...just an observation ;o)Person A has a good concert on CD and makes it into MP3. (loosing some of the original quality). Person A then converts it to WAV and burns it to a CD and trades it to Person B (Loosing more quality). If Person B never converts to MP3 then we have had 2 loses in quality. But if Person B did the same we now have 4, and an awful recording. BUT, if Person A only ever traded his original CD's, which he dutifully ripped using EAC or CDParanoia, then Person B would get as cose to the original as humanly possible, And Person B ripped using the same way then there would be no degradation in Quality at all. That is what we are trying to protect. We are being Anal retentive for a reason. So that 10 years down the line, if someone is getting a copy of New York 1977 for example, they are getting the same copy as we are downloading here in as pristine a condition as possible. And to get that, all we need to do is download another couple hundred Meg more than we would if it was MP3, and make sure we look after the files when trading on. Not that much to ask is it? |
kalmark 04.08.2004 05:24 |
One thing that needs some clarification I think: converting to mp3 indeed creates irreversible quality loss, but decoding to wav and then burning to CD creates no quality loss at all! (At least not with proper equipment and media) (Though there may be changes in the pauses between the tracks and such or gaplessness) I have no proof handy, but I read a test about a year ago, when a guy copied the original CD over 100 generations (copy the original, then copy the copy, and so on), and there was no quality loss at the end, the original and the 100th generation were same in every bit. So simply burning to a CD does not alter quality. But, as whitemanadmin said, it's not a good thing to share audio from a lossy source (like mp3) even with a notice about lossiness. :) |
The Real Wizard 04.08.2004 21:47 |
I'll second the claim that cd audio converted to wave has no quality loss. If done properly, they are indeed equivilant. |
joeyjojo 04.08.2004 22:39 |
copying CDs or WAV files will never result in degradation...they are exact digital copies. Copying an MP3 over and over won't result in any degradation either. Converting an MP3 to another format and then re-converting back, would, of course...so I can understand that concern. However, MP3 is pretty much ubiquitous these days. Most CD players can play MP3 Cds, so I guess I wouldn't see too many folks recompressing MP3s once they already have them. It's just that most concert bootlegs are of such poor fidelity to begin with, that you're not going to loose anything by making them MP3 to begin with. That said, I can see the argument for the '10 years down the road' line of thinking. So I'll go along with that. ;o) |
kalmark 05.08.2004 06:57 |
If you have poor quality to begin with, you _will_ still lose some quality when you encode to mp3, or any other _lossy_ format. Lossless formats like FLAC do not introduce any quality loss. |
musicalprostitute 05.08.2004 15:25 |
I agree, I think that the concerts should be only in the original quality, but on the other hand, after i download alot of the not so good quality concerts, i clean them up and re-mix them and they turn out 20 times better. Of course i only do this for my listening, i dont try and trade them off. I think that both should be allowed, just in separate trees. KYA |
Rien 05.08.2004 17:22 |
musicalprostitute wrote: after i download alot of the not so good quality concerts, i clean them up and re-mix them and they turn out 20 times better.A lot of people are talking about quality of the recordings here. Quality as "in which format are the tracks offered". Most of them say they'll only want or trade the lossless quality. Well, no problem with that, but the quality I find most important is "how does the recording sound" and "will I listen to it more than one time". To be honest, a lot of bootlegs are not worth listening to sometimes even once, if you just consider how they sound. |
jericho05 05.08.2004 17:45 |
Rien I agree. While I very much appreciate the time that is put into allowing us to torrent the shows , some do not live up to the rating that is listed. For example The Royal American Tour and Paris 86 are both advertised as near excellent quality while I would call them both good at best... again I am not ungrateful at all and still intend to burn them to CD but how much I will listen to them over the great sounding Earls Court 77 or Milton Keynes remains to be seen. I'm happy for any Queen show I can get and if something is great quality but MP3... I think it might still be better than the two shows I mentioned. If we adhere to the rules of not trying to convert MP3 to flac I don't see the problem. I for one would be happy to have the Zoom show if it's as good as it sounds. Sorry for rambling. It's all just my opinion. Rob |
jericho05 05.08.2004 17:48 |
An ammendment: Normally I try to download only lossless files and will continue to do so most of the time... however I have heard MP3s that sound better than some of the shows featured here or on furthur and elsewhere. It's all subjective and if we advertise what it is it becomes up to the downloader... again just an opinion. |
Rien 05.08.2004 17:55 |
Well, I currently have one track of ZOOM on my site (Somebody To Love). It certainly isn't better than Earls Court or Milton Keynes but as I said I offered them because that show was mentioned. And as Whitemanadmin said: the search goes on! |
joeyjojo 05.08.2004 21:26 |
"If you have poor quality to begin with, you _will_ still lose some quality when you encode to mp3, or any other _lossy_ format." Technically, yes. Audibly, from a live concert recorded in the audience, I doubt few, if any could tell a good MP3 from the original. "but the quality I find most important is "how does the recording sound" and "will I listen to it more than one time". To be honest, a lot of bootlegs are not worth listening to sometimes even once, if you just consider how they sound." I agree...and is why I asked the question. I do understand that there are a lot of folks that enjoy the boot regardless of the fidelity. But I'm with you, if it sounds bad, why bother? (To each their own, of course!) Speaking of hi-fi boots, I found a single track (it's late) supposedly from an '81 concert. It sounded pristine...almost a Soundboard feed. Anyone know which show that might have been? |
jericho05 06.08.2004 03:03 |
Rien Somebody to Love sounds good. On a first listen it is definately better than some of the other shows I've heard. Is there any way of sharing this or any other shows that would meet approval? I would rate this at least good quality... thanks for the song brother. |
Rien 06.08.2004 06:21 |
Don't know how long the torrent will be alive but here you go: link |
Rien 08.08.2004 12:40 |
88 times downloaded now. 15 are waiting. No comments about this bootleg? |
jericho05 08.08.2004 12:44 |
lol haven't tried downloading yet ... suppose I should soon... I got distracted by all the other great stuff on eztree ... thanks for directing me there Rien! Now my bandwidth is really over loaded! :P |
FaN_MU 08.08.2004 14:50 |
It's good. I'm not so expirienced in bootlegs, but Zoom 79 is better then many others. |
The Real Wizard 08.08.2004 22:54 |
Many comments! Doesn't that guy coughing in the right channel get on your nerves? :) Great show, and probably the last one before Freddie really lost his voice. First performance of Teo Torriate here, an awesome NIH jam, and a killer Brighton Rock improv. |
Roy ® 09.08.2004 04:45 |
Thanks Rien, (reuze bedankt). Sounds Great. |
wstevena 12.08.2004 21:20 |
I finished downloading this show just before EZTree banned it. The sound quality is fantastic. It definitely was sourced from MP3, as there are tell-tale microgaps between the tracks. It must have been an sampled at 192 bps or even higher, because much of the high frequency sound is still there. Someone needs to find the original source discs and share it with every Queen fan here, because it is such a great show. In the mean time, I am content to listen to this HQ MP3 version while awaiting the real deal. |
thankstogravity 13.08.2004 01:33 |
So Rien, you decided to post a show that you knew to be mp3 sourced on a site that clearly prohibits such posts - and no text file identifying the show as mp3. Congratulations, you just pissed in the trading pool. |
whitemanadmin 13.08.2004 05:40 |
wstevena wrote: I finished downloading this show just before EZTree banned it. The sound quality is fantastic. It definitely was sourced from MP3, as there are tell-tale microgaps between the tracks. It must have been an sampled at 192 bps or even higher, because much of the high frequency sound is still there. Someone needs to find the original source discs and share it with every Queen fan here, because it is such a great show. In the mean time, I am content to listen to this HQ MP3 version while awaiting the real deal.I just posted it on behalf of our mystery man. The version I posted is NOT MP3 sourced. And is there waiting for you :) |
thankstogravity 13.08.2004 07:49 |
Sweet! And Rien, it's not that I don't appreciate the fact that you want to share shows, but it does need to be done right if quality is going to be preserved over time. |
Rien 13.08.2004 11:53 |
thankstogravity wrote: So Rien, congratulations, you just pissed in the trading pool.So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye? Zoom 79 was asked for and nobody had offered it yet. Now 130 people downloaded my version. My guess is, most of them liked it. If there's a better version - I welcome it! Because that's what should be offered and that's what we want. Thanks to the one who is sharing, thanks to the people who share for free. Of course I'm downloading the new version and presume it's really better. And Thankstogravity, let's see what you have to offer us. Or are you just drinking out of that pool I've pissed in? |
agneepath! 11994 13.08.2004 13:05 |
"And Thankstogravity, let's see what you have to offer us. Or are you just drinking out of that pool I've pissed in?" Well said Rien - couldn't have said it better myself! |
whitemanadmin 13.08.2004 15:19 |
Agneepath! wrote: "And Thankstogravity, let's see what you have to offer us. Or are you just drinking out of that pool I've pissed in?" Well said Rien - couldn't have said it better myself!I have to agree. So far, on the tracker on Queenzone. The only torrents I have uploaded have been my own and our mystery man. Richard has seeded some shows I sent him, also some stuff from barbara, and one or two others, but most traders are keeping their stash, which is entirely up to them, but does give them limited right to input into what others are doing. I have always said constructive criticism is good, and can only improve posts. Flaming is not helpful at all. And if better is available, why not share it? Even people reseeding some of the older shows I seeded, and they have dissapeared from the tracker would be good, as I never kept them. And would like to redownload them. |
Rien 13.08.2004 16:50 |
whitemanadmin wrote: I have always said constructive criticism is good, and can only improve posts.I agree. A long time ago there was a link, I think posted on Queenzone, of a site that was loaded with mp3-bootlegs. I spent hours downloading the tracks and ended up with 7 cd's full of mp3-bootlegs. A lot of them were not worth listening to, due to bad quality of the SOUND, I'm not speaking of LOSSY quality. We all have human hearing and we all decide for ourselves what we are happy with or satisfied. Before the Torrent-thing I had never heard of FLAC compressing. With no bad intention at all I just wanted to share this ZOOM concert. Then whiteman and others made me aware of the value of lossy compression against the value of lossless compression. I realised there was a great difference indeed. So, with constructive criticism I fully agree. Without talking about "the next possible step: TRADING mp3-files" I still think a recording that just sounds so great, so you will listen to again and again, is more important to me than a FLAC recording where you can hardly hear all the instruments and hear Freddie singing somewhere in the background and you can hardly hear what he's singing. Notice: I treasure recordings from way way back, due to it's historical value, such as the Wreckage recordings or perhaps the Mott The Hoople Support Act (haven't heard this torrent yet but I know it from mp3) When those recordings SOUND "awfull" it still adds something to my collection due to it's historical value, it are pieces that makes the Queen story more complete. |
Rien 13.08.2004 16:54 |
btw, the bold typeface in the post above was unintended ! :-) Tried to remove it, ah well... it sure stands out this way ;-) Have listened to Mott in the meantime. Sounds ok to me. |
whitemanadmin 14.08.2004 06:17 |
Rien wrote:whitemanadmin wrote: I treasure recordings from way way back, due to it's historical value, such as the Wreckage recordings or perhaps the Mott The Hoople Support Act (haven't heard this torrent yet but I know it from mp3)The torrent which I have seeded is NOT from MP3, it is from original silvers which were bought long before MP3 was invented! |
Rien 14.08.2004 08:10 |
Don't worry, Whiteman, I just meant that I have heard the tracks before, but then from mp3. I know you're not torrenting mp3 files. |
thankstogravity 14.08.2004 09:19 |
Rien, First off, I'd like to apologize for the flippant remark about pissing in the trading pool. It was a knee-jerk reaction and was uncalled for. I have nothing against DOCUMENTED mp3 recordings, and I was upset that you posted this show on a site for lossless audio without an accurate text file documenting its mp3 lineage. Then, when the show was banned, queenzone was mentioned in the ban notice, which doesn't do anybody here any good. I know that you were eager to share a show that others were asking for, and you're to be commended for that. I'm not out to attack you as a person. I just think that you may have been a bit overeager in this case. As for what I have to offer for recordings, my list is at link . Unfortunately, I don't have much Queen (I haven't found much to trade for over the years). I do have silvers of the following: Opera Omnia (4 CD live collection), The Unobtainable Royal Chronicle Vol. 1, The Ultimate Collection Vol. 3, Tribute (Unreleased BBC & Live Aid), and London 1975 (Christmas BBC show). I also have a cassette of Brian May in Hartford CT March 9, 1993, but the recording is extremely poor quality. As a show of my good faith, Rien, pick any show by any artist from my site and I'll mail you a copy. |
Rien 14.08.2004 09:36 |
Apology accepted of course. We all do or say things we later on feel we shouldn't have (me included). Thanks for the offer Jeff. |
agneepath! 11994 14.08.2004 15:33 |
Wow! an argument between 2 Queenzoner's has ended peacefully with everything resolved. Well done guys! .... must be a first here at QZ! |