| Jamaleni 01.10.2005 08:42 |
Did anyone else noticed that quality of mp3 concrts that are shared lately dropped down. I personally don't have anything against mp3 format but for god's sake, don't encode songs in anything below 120 kbps. |
| brENsKi 01.10.2005 09:47 |
did it not occur to you that the people sharing the gigs may have actually 'acquired' them in low format? |
| Serry... 01.10.2005 10:30 |
It's their (uploaders) right to encode it in the bitrate they want it to, so... :( IMHO |
| Tero 01.10.2005 11:22 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: Yup. Whether it's 320 or 128 or 64 kbps, the quality still sucks. It's lossy.Yes... We all know those flac concerts taped thirty years ago in the toilet of a pub with $50 worth of equipment are really spectacular... ;) |
| Jamaleni 01.10.2005 11:41 |
Tero wrote:LOL<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: Yup. Whether it's 320 or 128 or 64 kbps, the quality still sucks. It's lossy.Yes... We all know those flac concerts taped thirty years ago in the toilet of a pub with $50 worth of equipment are really spectacular... ;) |
| Saint Jiub 01.10.2005 14:25 |
The sharp snapping sound of Freddie's leg injury in Hanover during the Works tour sounds exquisitely clear and exhilating in FLAC, but sounds like crap in mp3. LOL Oh wait that's right, both the FLAC and mp3 versions Of Hanover are worthless, because they both sound like crap. |
| brENsKi 01.10.2005 14:49 |
Tero wrote:yes my arguement exactly - but no-one listens...the only thing more certain is that Casper was going to make that comment!!! ;-)<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: Yup. Whether it's 320 or 128 or 64 kbps, the quality still sucks. It's lossy.Yes... We all know those flac concerts taped thirty years ago in the toilet of a pub with $50 worth of equipment are really spectacular... ;) |
| mazz 01.10.2005 19:49 |
somthing is better than nothing |
| flash00. 01.10.2005 20:57 |
<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote: Oh relax everyone. At least the people are sharing. *rolls eyes*i agree!!! *rolls eys 2nd time* *shit cant stop rolling eyes* |
| Serry... 02.10.2005 01:42 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: yes my arguement exactly - but no-one listens...No-one, except old Serry who doesn't have free terabytes on his PC |
| tilomagnet 02.10.2005 03:34 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: Oh wait that's right, both the FLAC and mp3 versions Of Hanover are worthless, because they both sound like crap.Strange, I remember lots of people had been requesting it for months although everyone knew it was poor quality. They were crazy about this show because it was considered one of the 'rarest' Works shows and of course because of Freddie's accident. Now it's called worthless.... |
| Saint Jiub 02.10.2005 11:00 |
tilomagnet wrote:Many people wanted it only because it is rare. It still sounds like crap. Many people who downloaded it were unhappy with the poor sound. Anyone want my latest used condom? It's rare - one of a kind. I'll fish it out of the trash and sell it to the highest bidder.Rip Van Winkle wrote: Oh wait that's right, both the FLAC and mp3 versions Of Hanover are worthless, because they both sound like crap.Strange, I remember lots of people had been requesting it for months although everyone knew it was poor quality. They were crazy about this show because it was considered one of the 'rarest' Works shows and of course because of Freddie's accident. Now it's called worthless.... I seem to remember lots of people wanting Slane Castle 86 because of a fight. Having a sick fascination with fights or leg injuries does not make a concert worthwhile in FLAC or mp3 if the sound is horrible. The silent Buffalo video is worthless too. Gasp blasphemy. If it is not listenable or watchable it is worthless IMHO. |
| rachael mae. 02.10.2005 13:38 |
*picks up Linda's eyes* I have no problem with mp3. But haven't we had enough of these topics? :P |
| Saint Jiub 02.10.2005 13:53 |
<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote:I avoided downloading Buffalo and Hanover because of their poor quality.flash00. wrote:it's fun isn't it? you don't like the quality. don't download it. simple as that. if you complain otherwise about quality your a selfish ungrateful git!! :P :P *rolls eyes* *rolls eyes so much that they fall out* ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, my eyes!!!!!! :P<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote: Oh relax everyone. At least the people are sharing. *rolls eyes*i agree!!! *rolls eys 2nd time* *shit cant stop rolling eyes* My point is that a few people say that mp3 in any quality is shit, but claim that FLAC Hanover in piss-poor quality is the greatest thing since sliced bread. |
| brENsKi 02.10.2005 15:18 |
Caspar - you have made YOUR POINT!!! a thousand fucking times!!! it's all irrelevant...because 1. if someone records it to mp3 - then that's all there is 2. regardless of whatever format it's uploaded in it's there and we should all be grateful 3. if it was recorded 30 yrs ago on a cheap woolworth's cassette recorder then the only 'loss' you're likely to get by encoding in mp3 is a bit of high-end tape hiss - i'll fucking cope 'somehow' without that, if it's all the same 4. we know your opinion, if you don't want it at mp3 then ignore it....moaning about it being lossy mp3 won't magically transform it to FLAC 5. the vast majority of this board will be happy to accept whatever is uploaded - even if it came direct from a fucking crystal set radio using a dansette recorder with mic attached |
| John S Stuart 02.10.2005 18:37 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: If it is not listenable or watchable it is worthless IMHO.Amen, amen!!! |
| flash00. 02.10.2005 20:44 |
<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote: lol bresnki.here linda i caught somebody to love on a street corner trying to flog your eyes!! the cheak of it, but dont worry.. lucky i had 37pence in my pocket, so i bought them back, i tell ya somebody to love can haggle!! she wanted 38pence for the two but 2 hours later i got them for 37p, here you go, *pushes linda's eyes back in* keep still....... ouch.... ooo plonk..plonk there we go:)<font color=#CC0066>SomebodyToLoveMe wrote: *picks up Linda's eyes*can I have my eyes back? :P *rolls eyes* lol |
| Saint Jiub 02.10.2005 21:22 |
John S Stuart wrote:Oops double post.Rip Van Winkle wrote: If it is not listenable or watchable it is worthless IMHO.Amen, amen!!! |
| Saint Jiub 02.10.2005 21:24 |
John S Stuart wrote:If your Hectics tape has poor audio quality, Can you give that worthless piece of trash to me then? Pretty Please. LOLRip Van Winkle wrote: If it is not listenable or watchable it is worthless IMHO.Amen, amen!!! |
| tilomagnet 03.10.2005 03:45 |
No need to start this discussion again, but...
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: 3. if it was recorded 30 yrs ago on a cheap woolworth's cassette recorder then the only 'loss' you're likely to get by encoding in mp3 is a bit of high-end tape hiss...this is absolutely not true. Saying that mp3 encoding works like 'hiss-reduction' is ridiculous. |
| brENsKi 03.10.2005 12:59 |
tilomagnet wrote: No need to start this discussion again, but...wtf? i didn't fucking say that - i said the EXACT opposite - i said LOSS - read again. mp3 is supposed to be 'lossy' i was trying to explain what that loss might be in this instance....<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: 3. if it was recorded 30 yrs ago on a cheap woolworth's cassette recorder then the only 'loss' you're likely to get by encoding in mp3 is a bit of high-end tape hiss...this is absolutely not true. Saying that mp3 encoding works like 'hiss-reduction' is ridiculous. try and read what i typed, please. the point i'm making - for anyone who doesn't understand. is....the FLAC version of the same file may 'lose' the tape hiss that the mp3 still retains....and what i am saying is that i think that on something 30yrs old that sounds like it was recorded inside a biscuit-tin - the tape-hiss that is lost because it was recorded in the ever-so-superior FLAC is not worth having - because it won't make a crap tape any better. it's probably much better to save the hard-drive space and use mp3 where soemthing is poorly-recorded to begin with. but, alas - i can't help it if you can't read and understand english - then that's your problem ;-) |