| Biggest Band On The Planet 21.09.2004 11:48 |
Just what is the point in using Flac for bootlegs ? the sound Quality is already crap anyway I think we would be better using MP3 for bootlegs. |
| Roy ® 21.09.2004 11:54 |
Sorry, but this subject is discussed a million times here. With flac you don't lose quality and with mp3 you do lose quality. You could expect some rude answers with this question. |
| brENsKi 21.09.2004 12:07 |
not wanting to stir up a hornets nest but...........if you encode mp3 @320 you have near cd quality...i've listened to 320 mp3s and flacs and can't tell the difference - but have to admit that out of advice - have kept the boots in flac format |
| Biggest Band On The Planet 21.09.2004 12:59 |
But my point is the Quality of these bootlegs is crap anyway so why use flac ? |
| BrianHMay 21.09.2004 13:22 |
you can convert your flac files to shitty mp3 |
| Penis - Vagina 21.09.2004 13:30 |
I understand your point, but even if you don't always hear a difference, it's there. And I think it's actually more important with stuff that's lower quality to begin with... you want to preserve what's there as much as possible. Let's say someone took a show from mp3 and put it on CD. 5 years from now they're the only one who has this show on CD. So they extract it and share it as mp3 once again. The quality would suffer greatly from being so heavily compressed.. twice. Most of these shows will never see an official release, so it seems obvious to me to try and keep them at the best possible quality for others to enjoy. Of course not everyone can download such big files, but that's just one of those things in life.. should everyone get lesser quality stuff just because a percentage can't download high quality? I don't think so. |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 21.09.2004 13:49 |
Somebody said in another recent thread that zipping ".wav" files would make them the same size as ".flac" files. Is that true? If that is the case, why use ".flac" anyway? Cheers, Ogre- |
| Penis - Vagina 21.09.2004 14:43 |
Okay, there's no need to call anyone a fool for simply asking a question about something he heard. I tried this with 'You Don't Fool Me' from 'The Eye' since it's the biggest wav file: Original wav - 59.8 MB Zipped (maximum) - 55.8 Flac level 8 - 42.5 Zipped flac - 42.5 (no change!) |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 22.09.2004 17:07 |
Evangp, I won't treat with direspect as you did to me. You are officially declared not-existant from now on. You won't hear from me again. So long, invisible man. |
| The Real Wizard 22.09.2004 23:51 |
Agreed. Show some respect, Evangp. |
| Roy ® 23.09.2004 02:55 |
I think most people lost there respect. As i watch to al the answers that people give to each other. This is a QUEEN site and we are here because we like the same thing.... Why being so cruel to each other when someone asks a question. |
| j0ck3 23.09.2004 08:29 |
Sharing MP3 and then convert it to flac by yourself would be a good idea. But thats just my opinion and I actually downloaded Osaka 82 from here and I found a different version in MP3 with a lot better sound quality. I prefer MP3 cause it goes about 4 mp3 concerts (with a bout 128k quality and 22+ songs) on 1 flac concert. And flac makes your shares look a lot bigger than they actaully are at the hub |
| Libor2 23.09.2004 14:33 |
EVANGP, I don’t think it’s really necessary to be so rude immediately. It isn’t crime to ask. I understand that such question would have been here many times before. But not everybody is computer and sound expert. Sorry to say so, but you sounds very harsh sometimes, without any apparent reason. |
| brENsKi 23.09.2004 16:22 |
you fail to take a few things into account here 1. he wasn't trying to trick people - he said the mp3 version he downloaded was better quality than the flac he got from here - it doesn't matter what YOUR ranking is Mr deity, show some respect... it is possible that an m3 version could sound better - if the original source files were of differing quality 2. a shit original recording - will always become a shit flac 3. mp3 @320 is according to various forums - the level to record music at to prevent loss 4. he asked a question - that was all.... 5. do you talk to your everyone like that? |
| Ogre 23.09.2004 16:24 |
To take an mp3, then convert it to flac, and upload it for people to download as flac would be a crime in my opinion. This is what some people obviously do. Yes, mp3's have there place in the audio world, but to get the best possible sound it should be wav or flac and stay that way.. |
| Libor2 23.09.2004 19:06 |
<font color ="orange">The Ogre wrote: To take an mp3, then convert it to flac, and upload it for people to download as flac would be a crime in my opinion. This is what some people obviously do. Yes, mp3's have there place in the audio world, but to get the best possible sound it should be wav or flac and stay that way..Yes, Ogre, you’re right. I didn’t say, that it’s better to use mp3 than FLAC. No way! We’re on the same boat on this. But it’s not necessary to be so upset with it (like Evan). It’s always better in such situations to clear things. The best thing to stop such threads is using some FAQ, as YourValentine started here: link After some amount of time this could be the best point where to start or where to link questions. It’d be better to help Barbara with this. |
| T84K 23.09.2004 22:57 |
I'm a newbie and so understand me for my lack of knowledge.. I recently downloaded some Queen albums and they were in FLAC format. I had never seen the FLAC format before and so didn't konw what to do with them and ended up deleting them... can anyone tell me what a FLAC is and how i can play it? Thanks! |
| Penis - Vagina 23.09.2004 23:10 |
Welcome to the forum, T84K :) Winamp will play flac files link and some CD burning programs such as Nero will burn them to regular CDs you can listen to.. or you can get this free program called Flac Frontend link which can convert them back to .wav files which you can burn or listen to. It also creates flac files, should you ever wish to get into doing that. |
| Maz 24.09.2004 00:59 |
EVANGP wrote: J0CK3 said it would be a good idea to convert mp3 to flac then trade as flac?No, J0CK3 never lied. What he actually said was: "Sharing MP3 and then convert it to flac by yourself would be a good idea." It seems to me that he thinks people ought to trade mp3 for the size convenience, then convert to FLAC if they want. I think he just doesn't fully understand the differences between mp3 and FLAC. Calling him names accomplishes nothing. |
| marko87 24.09.2004 01:19 |
If you concert a mp3 file to flac only change you made was that your file is bigger.It's still lossy file.But if you convert wav to flac you have a little smaller file but it's lossless.Someone there mentioned that 'the sound Quality is already crap' Okay I agree that.Some bootlegs sound bad.But when you convert it to mp3 it will sound even worse.So flac is way too keep the file original. |
| brENsKi 24.09.2004 07:34 |
i defy anyone on here to put an mp3(@320) of oxford newtheatre 73 and a flac of the same gig - from the original sound source - and confirm that their ear can tell the difference...you can't i can't believe this debate is going on....there are some queen tracks that have been circulated...like dog with a bone, and these sound poor in flac and mp3 - there is no difference...they are awful to the ear |
| Libor2 24.09.2004 08:16 |
<font color ="green">brenski wrote: i defy anyone on here to put an mp3(@320) of oxford newtheatre 73 and a flac of the same gig - from the original sound source - and confirm that their ear can tell the difference...you can't i can't believe this debate is going on....there are some queen tracks that have been circulated...like dog with a bone, and these sound poor in flac and mp3 - there is no difference...they are awful to the earWell, I beg to differ from you here. You could be true saying mp3(@320) comparing to poor quality bootleg FLAC (or WAV) is the same if you listen to both of them. Problem here can be, that people usually use bitrate 128 kb/s (or 160 kb/s) and here is sound degradation worse. And another thing must be said - everyone has different ears (younger people hear higher frequencies for example) and different CD players (amplifiers etc.). So, the fact, you don’t hear any difference, doesn’t mean that nobody wouldn’t hear it. BTW, from your point of view, there wouldn’t be necessary to use original tapes in studio for making, say, remastered CD. Why do Brian with Roger try to find some lost original tapes then? There are definitely copies and most of people won’t find any differencies anyway. - I think it’s because they try to stay to original sound as close as possible. And we should try the same, even if original sound (of bootlegs) isn’t in perfect shape. |
| j0ck3 24.09.2004 08:43 |
But I actually dont have any problem with FLAC and downloading them. I dont think the quality is that good and the file size is too big. I listen to all my bootlegs with my MP3 player and think it dont work with FLAC on a 128mb MP3 player. I DONT FIND ANY PROBLEM IN DOWNLOADING FLAC. I just convert them to MP3 right away and delete the input file. And EvanGP, if there is a way to block you at the Queen hub I would defintely do it. |
| marko87 24.09.2004 08:54 |
What kind kind of equipment you use to listen these concert? From good stereo system you can hear huge difference between 320 mp3 and flac.If you just use your computer speakers you can't hear the difference.I can't hear difference between 320 mp3 and flac on my computer speakers.When I trie those to on my stereos I can hear huge difference. |
| brENsKi 24.09.2004 12:24 |
i have an excellent sony 150w stereo the cd of oxford new theatre 73 made in flac is no better than the cd i have made in mp3 @320 which was MY original point poor source = poor encoding WHATEVER format you make i haven't said anywhere that mp3 @320 is as good as flac - i wish some people would read what i typed! and secondly i have NEVER mentioned 128bit or 160bit mp3 - you are just changing the argument for your purposes now ...and as for Brian and Roger using mp3 - well sorry to disappoint you but your argument disintergrates again there...YES they will use any original masters they can find - but often the masters need lots of filtering and cleaning up...no one on here cleans up old concert tapes (which are probably 4th generation anyhow) before encoding to flac....so in the case i referred to Oxford and all other poor OLD boots - the old maxim SISO applies shit in, shit out |
| Libor2 24.09.2004 13:00 |
Well, maybe I didn’t read you comment right. Nor did you mine. So I’ll try another time: you said you didn’t hear any difference between mp3(@320) and FLAC. YOU can’t. There are people who could. That’s all. To second part of I wrote. Where did I wrote Brian use or would use some mp3? I only wanted to say that even if you or I wouldn’t hear any differencies between original and copy studio tapes, they use original tapes anyway. Because it matters. And it matters to have original WAV or FLAC over mp3, even if you don’t hear any difference between them. |
| brENsKi 24.09.2004 17:23 |
and you didn't read MY COMMENT correctly: in EVERY post i've made on this thread (so one last time)- i have referred to there being no audible difference between mp3 (320) and flac for OLDER CONCERTS WHERE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE WAS POOR - ie oxford new theatre 73 please read my threads again...at NO POINT EVER have i sadi mp3 is the same as flac...i have mereltyunderlined that if you put shit sound in - you get shit sound out - surely to fuck you are not going to start debating the "quality" of the levels of tapes hiss and muffles on these "very basic" 1973 tapes? |
| brENsKi 24.09.2004 17:26 |
LIBOR2 also added: To second part of I wrote. Where did I wrote Brian use or would use some mp3? I only wanted to say that even if you or I wouldn’t hear any differencies between original and copy studio tapes, they use original tapes anyway. Because it matters. And it matters to have original WAV or FLAC over mp3, even if you don’t hear any difference between them. but i didn't say any such bollox - where the f*** did i say brian and roger would use mp3s? - please read my thread again....i said: YES they will use any original masters they can find - but often the masters need lots of filtering and cleaning up...no one on here cleans up old concert tapes (which are probably 4th generation anyhow) before encoding to flac....so in the case i referred to Oxford and all other poor OLD boots - the old maxim SISO applies shit in, shit out |
| Stonie 25.09.2004 02:10 |
I thought we were sharing the music not sharing the bad language with each other... For the people who want to get the mp3's go to the QueenHub you will find them a lot over there... Whitemanadmin and Richard Orchard keep up the good work... For the flac'ers keep on seeding! |
| Libor2 25.09.2004 04:41 |
All I wanted to say I did. |
| *white_queen* 26.09.2004 08:52 |
i reacon we could use mp3s because you dont really lose any quality when you convert flac to mp3 |
| Maz 26.09.2004 11:48 |
*white_queen* wrote: i reacon we could use mp3s because you dont really lose any quality when you convert flac to mp3But you can't make WAV files out of mp3 properly. If you want real CDs, then you use compression like FLAC that doesn't lose information. WAV --> FLAC --> WAV === Lossless and Great WAV --> FLAC --> MP3 --> WAV === Complete and utter shite And now, we have come back to square one... |
| Saint Jiub 26.09.2004 12:12 |
Zeni the Wet Sprocket wrote:"WAV --> FLAC --> MP3 --> WAV" Why would anyone do the extra MP3 step if they want a WAV file?*white_queen* wrote: i reacon we could use mp3s because you dont really lose any quality when you convert flac to mp3But you can't make WAV files out of mp3 properly. If you want real CDs, then you use compression like FLAC that doesn't lose information. WAV --> FLAC --> WAV === Lossless and Great WAV --> FLAC --> MP3 --> WAV === Complete and utter shite And now, we have come back to square one... If MP3 is so bad, why is iPOD so popular? As most CD players nowadays play both WAV and MP3, there is no reason to convert WAV to MP3. So MP3 contamination should not be an issue. Right? |
| The Real Wizard 26.09.2004 13:45 |
marko87 wrote: From good stereo system you can hear huge difference between 320 mp3 and flac.If you just use your computer speakers you can't hear the difference.I can't hear difference between 320 mp3 and flac on my computer speakers.When I trie those to on my stereos I can hear huge difference.Perfectly said. That's all that needs to be said on this subject. |
| Maz 26.09.2004 17:12 |
Bullwinkle wrote:Bear with me here. The quotes will be a mess.Zeni the Wet Sprocket wrote:"WAV --> FLAC --> MP3 --> WAV" Why would anyone do the extra MP3 step if they want a WAV file? If MP3 is so bad, why is iPOD so popular? As most CD players nowadays play both WAV and MP3, there is no reason to convert WAV to MP3. So MP3 contamination should not be an issue. Right?*white_queen* wrote: i reacon we could use mp3s because you dont really lose any quality when you convert flac to mp3But you can't make WAV files out of mp3 properly. If you want real CDs, then you use compression like FLAC that doesn't lose information. WAV --> FLAC --> WAV === Lossless and Great WAV --> FLAC --> MP3 --> WAV === Complete and utter shite And now, we have come back to square one... My original reply was aimed at WQ, who said that we should trade MP3s. What I should have typed was WAV --> MP3 --> WAV === utter shite. My point is that for those of us who want perfect CD copies, FLAC is what should be traded. Mp3 serves its purpose, but it also dilutes the actual files and the subsequent trading pool. And, as was mentioned, MP3 does not sound nearly as good on a big stereo as WAV. That's how I listen to most of my music, and I'll bet there are many other out there that do too. |