ok,
we all know flac files (Free Lossless Audio Codec), which their quality is "lossless" just like the original uncompressed wav files, but about half their size.
so far, it's a very good reason to use this format.
however, along this advantage (quality over mp3, and size over wav) they are still pretty heavy (about 5 mega for 1 minute of audio),
my question is, since those files we share here, either by the hub or bittorent or any other method, are mostly bootlegs, with somewhat low quality, i think flac is useless.
after all, the "originals" are not Studio or Soundboard quality files so "lossless" is quite pointless.
my point is, with bootlegs like those we have around here, mp3 with 160-192Kbps bitrate is far more then enough, even for those with super ears, and their size is about 1-1.5 mega for 1 minute)
~~ while full live shows in flac format are about 650 mega, in mp3(160Kbps) it's about 150 mega.
<for those who really hate the mp3 format, ogg files are reasonable>
what do you think ?
I think that that is bad idea.Let's say that you download a 128-192 mp3 file and you burn it on cd.That's lossy.When someone on the hub asks that show you say you have it and you rip it from cd like in 128 to keep small file size.That's even more more lossy.And when that continues it comes to a point when the bootleg sounds horrible.That's why some of the bootlegs sound bad because they have been copyed from cassette to cassette to cassette to cassette and cassette.Sorry for my bad english.
1.
Comparing Digital compression/encoding to cassettes duplication is wrong,
in digital compression, once the "information" is lost, it will be the last loss in any generation (asuming the Kbps stays the same al along, and no "recompression" is done),
while in cassettes duplication, on each generation we have loss in quality.
2.
have you heard any of the bootlegs circulation around here, in either mp3 or ogg or flac format ?
the sound quality is poor in either formats.
let's think of this that way:
studio quality is 100%, and flac compression is somewhat closest to 100%, and mp3 with 192Kbps is about (and i have'nt done any research, so it's not acurate) 70-80% (having some quality loss, that mostly be notable by musicians, or others with very good ears)
so in studio material, it's better to use flac format.
but !!!
bootleg quality, varies between 10% to 70% of "best" quality, and let's agree that 70% and above is rarely seen (heared), so we'll take the common bootleg quality, which might be 40%.
now..
since the sound is already bad, and we don't have the high tunes, and the bass is blurred, both mp3 and flac format will keep the same "40%" quality of the sound (if you insist flac is better, we'll settle on 40% for flac and 38% for mp3), but not, in anyway, the flac format will improve the sound more than 40%.
so, after all that percentage stuff, which i know is not accurate, i belive that in bootlegs situations, flac and mp3 produce the about the same quality, only mp3 files are 1/5 the weight of flac files.
I would like to see any comments here...
Actually I can hear a big difference between Mp3 192 and FLAC.Expecially with headphones.In mp3 the sound is kind of distant.Why just you people don't want to keep it in the orginial quality so the next generation Queen fans could also enjoy for the High Quality.Also there's no need to use mp3s anymore since lots of people have big hard drives and fast internet connections so no there's not much trouble downloading and storing them.And you can always burn them to cd like you can do with mp3s but you don't lose any quality.
You can share mp3s in the hub if you want, it's not forbidden. Many people prefer FLAC because mp3 encoding creates these little millisecond gaps between the tracks which are annoying when you listen to a live concert. FLAC is convenient, easy to decompress and therefore the format mostly used for BitTorrents.
