QueenZone discussion #523228

richie moshpit wrote: I don't see. Most bootleg stuff isn't recorded at great quality anyway so there shouldn't be any difference between the mp3 and flac file. I challenge anybody to tell me any audible difference between a flac and mp3 file from a bootleg

richie moshpit wrote: I don't see. Most bootleg stuff isn't recorded at great quality anyway so there shouldn't be any difference between the mp3 and flac file. I challenge anybody to tell me any audible difference between a flac and mp3 file from a bootleg

MR.RICO wrote: the only idiots that like mp3 recordings are the ones that will sit and beg all day on this messageboard for free recordings. mp3s are for retards.

richie moshpit wrote: I don't see. Most bootleg stuff isn't recorded at great quality anyway so there shouldn't be any difference between the mp3 and flac file. I challenge anybody to tell me any audible difference between a flac and mp3 file from a bootleg

MR.RICO wrote: Penetration_Guru you are an idiot. you are a newbie collector. dont act like you know what you're talking about.

Serry Funster wrote: Don't touch our dear P_G! Why I don't like torrent? Because download rate is so low, but upload rate is so high... :) I can download whole concert from RapidShare just in a couple of hours, if I'd do the same as torrents it might take a whole day sometimes.

Banshee wrote:

Serry Funster wrote: Don't touch our dear P_G! Why I don't like torrent? Because download rate is so low, but upload rate is so high... :) I can download whole concert from RapidShare just in a couple of hours, if I'd do the same as torrents it might take a whole day sometimes.

Hmmm, then you are doing something wrong. Which client do you have? And what ISP? Torrent is designed to go FAST, and I've only had good experiences with it. :S

Serry Funster wrote: You must have God's ears to hear big difference between FLAC and mp3 if you listen to third copy of audience recorded bootleg!

Serry Funster wrote: Nothing wrong. "Sometimes, limiting your upload rate will increase your download rate. This is especially true for asymmetric connections such as cable and ADSL, where the outbound bandwidth is much smaller than the inbound bandwidth. If you are seeing very high upload rates and low download rates, this is probably the case. The reason this happens is due to the nature of TCP/IP -- every packet received must be acknowledged with a small outbound packet. If the outbound link is saturated with BitTorrent data, the latency of these TCP/IP ACKs will rise, causing poor efficiency." I have ADSL.

Zeni wrote:

richie moshpit wrote: I don't see. Most bootleg stuff isn't recorded at great quality anyway so there shouldn't be any difference between the mp3 and flac file. I challenge anybody to tell me any audible difference between a flac and mp3 file from a bootleg

Do you listen to your bootlegs on computer speakers or on a decent stereo system? I can tell the difference immediately between music I have on mp3 and music I have gotten through flac/shn/ape. Mp3s sound tinny when played on my stereo, and since that is how I listen to most of my music, I prefer quality. Mp3 has a purpose; flac has a purpose. They don't need to be mutually exclusive, nor does one side need to tell me the other is wrong.

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:

Charlie Gimbert wrote:

Zeni wrote:

richie moshpit wrote: I don't see. Most bootleg stuff isn't recorded at great quality anyway so there shouldn't be any difference between the mp3 and flac file. I challenge anybody to tell me any audible difference between a flac and mp3 file from a bootleg

Do you listen to your bootlegs on computer speakers or on a decent stereo system? I can tell the difference immediately between music I have on mp3 and music I have gotten through flac/shn/ape. Mp3s sound tinny when played on my stereo, and since that is how I listen to most of my music, I prefer quality. Mp3 has a purpose; flac has a purpose. They don't need to be mutually exclusive, nor does one side need to tell me the other is wrong.

quality? what quality? most of bootles are still pure shit. i understand flac if theres sounboard recording or some rare demo.

So if you have VG- quality FLAC, you don't care if you get a G quality MP3 file? Gimbert, you are the most stupid, annoying and fucked up individual the internet has ever had the displeasure of containing.

Jimmy Dean wrote: This would make it easier for people to share in the torrents... If they were this small... I would help out with uploading concerts and such... with flacs i just don't have the bandwith to do it

Jimmy Dean wrote: But, there lies one small inconveniance in the MP3 file... there are tiny gaps when burning them to CD which are very annoying during track changes...

There is no one in their right mind who could honestly tell the difference between MP3, at 192 (VBR... CBR in some cases with graver sounds)... and a FLAC file... nobody

Now I apreciate that some of you in the UK have ridicuolously fast Internet connections, but you may want to consider that some of us are less fortunate than you are.

Tero wrote: during the past 18 months I have downloaded some 200 bootlegs by various artists. There has been some material with very poor quality on the flac (shn, ape) files, and some incredibly good quality on 128kbit/s MP3s... Based on my own experience I have no problems whatsoever accepting either format.

but - those incredibly good quality 128kbps mp3s would still sound a bit better in their original format before they became mp3 - and flac is a way to preserve that.

Tero wrote: I can still remember a time when there was a "concert of the month" available to download as mp3s, and nobody was complaining about it. :P

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Yes, I completely agree with you, Tero... but - those incredibly good quality 128kbps mp3s would still sound a bit better in their original format before they became mp3 - and flac is a way to preserve that.

tilomagnet wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Yes, I completely agree with you, Tero... but - those incredibly good quality 128kbps mp3s would still sound a bit better in their original format before they became mp3 - and flac is a way to preserve that.

Yes, I have always said this and it´s true. These recordings have to be preserved in the best quality possible and therefore when it comes to trading live recordings, lossless formats must be used. Nobody will call anyone stupid if he enjoys listening to mp3, but only for his personal use. Many people here don´t understand that serious traders are worried that these mp3 concerts shared here will end up polluting the trading pool.

Many people here don´t understand that serious traders are worried that these mp3 concerts shared here will end up polluting the trading pool.

Tero wrote: Many people here don't understand that these so called serious traders already have all these common concerts that are currently circulating around the world as mp3s...

Tero wrote: Besides the real issue of quality, I bet there is an underlying elitistic view that some people shouldn't be getting the concerts so easily. :/

tilomagnet wrote:

I do think "some" people shouldn´t be getting any concerts, especially these people who keep on complaining here that these concerts all sounded "crappy" anyway, so there was no need to preserve the quality. Bootlegs should be made available only to all those who know they have to be treasured.

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

tilomagnet wrote: I do think some people shouldn´t be getting any concerts, especially these people who keep on complaining here that these concerts all sounded "crappy" anyway, so there was no need to preserve the quality. Bootlegs should be made available only to all those who know they have to be treasured.

The Oracle has spoken. Where shall we burn our mp3's oh master? And I foolishly believed the world was big enough for mp3 AND flac. Looks like Tero was dead nuts accurate in labeling Tilomagnet as arrogant.