| habalushy 24.09.2006 14:07 |
here are 5 concerts info: queenbootlegs.tripod.com/id3.html links: 1976-09-02 Edinburgh.zip: (AUD > Master > Cassette (2) > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)>WAV>MP3) link 1977-10-06 New London Theatre Centre.zip: link link 1984-09-27 Stuttgart.rar: link link 6.26.86 Waldbühne, Berlin.zip: link link brussels86.rar: link I post MP3 sourced concerts for 3 reasons: 1) I have an ipod and am not filling it up with WAV files 2) Since I do not use the WAV/FLAC files, i just delete them instead of wasting space on my harddrive or CDs 3) It takes less time and less links to post |
| michaelkars 24.09.2006 14:21 |
why always mp3-sourced recordings !!!! I'm getting sick of it. You always can convert it to mp3 yourself. my trading site : link |
| pcgenius9 24.09.2006 14:58 |
Prick. If you don't like this generous sharing, you could just fuck off? |
| chefman5150 24.09.2006 15:11 |
Or the other thing is you simply don't have to download it...have some class and say thank you to those who do a lions share of work to help others out...it goes like this...thank you Habalushy for these links!! You kick ass dude!!! (Now was that so hard???) |
| david (galashiels) 24.09.2006 15:26 |
thanks very much |
| Ginger01 24.09.2006 15:47 |
Thank you very much for sharing these! |
| shiningstarprod 24.09.2006 16:01 |
Thank you soooo very much! By the way michaelkars.... I usually do not comment about other's posts because i want to avoid stupid fights... but for all of those who are not happy, why don't you just not download them.... learn first appreciate other's people efforts.... this guy has surely taken lots of time to acquire them from cd and especially uploading them... if you do not like the file type, site where they upload or anything... do not comment and do not download.... it's missregarding in respect of other's work... you don't like it: start chaning things and be the first to upload different file types..... SORRY FOR THE COMMENT.... |
| misabeat 24.09.2006 17:18 |
Thank you for you sharing these concerts. Your share is much appreciated. |
| hajduk 24.09.2006 18:04 |
thanks for this...who do not like mp3,you can convert them to anything you like after dload...simple as that! |
| Wiley 24.09.2006 19:29 |
Once it's been converted to mp3 the audio is degraded, since mp3 is a lossy compression type. The higher frequencies are lost and can never be recovered when you convert WAV or FLAC files to MP3. There is no point in converting MP3 files to WAV or FLAC since the info is already lost. Sharing in this forum is always appreciated regardless of the format. I don't download mp3 concerts at all since I prefer lossless media for my collection and lossy media is undesirable for trading. |
| Josh Henson 24.09.2006 19:50 |
Thanks! |
| coops 24.09.2006 20:40 |
Thanks for the effort you put into the downloads. This whole debate about mp3 vs flac is very overated and usually people who think they know a lot about audio complin the most. It's ironic because yes mp3 is lossy, but you need to convert/copy so many times before you can actually hear the difference, and then it,s hard. On a reference system, an mp3 copied at 192 kbs from a cd will be impossible to differentiate from the original unless you are very familiar with the recording. These are crappy sounding bootlegs for gods sake. We all love em but they sound shit no matter what. Jeeze |
| seba_79 24.09.2006 22:33 |
Thanks for Edinburgh! |
| ejvt 24.09.2006 23:10 |
Thankyou very much for this!!!!! These site is the greatest on the internet |
| popy 24.09.2006 23:26 |
|
| The Real Wizard 25.09.2006 14:13 |
pcgenius9 wrote: Prick. If you don't like this generous sharing, you could just fuck off? shiningstarprod wrote: this guy has surely taken lots of time to acquire them from cd and especially uploading them... if you do not like the file type, site where they upload or anything... do not comment and do not download.... hajduk wrote: thanks for this...who do not like mp3,you can convert them to anything you like after dload...simple as that! coops wrote: These are crappy sounding bootlegs for gods sake. We all love em but they sound shit no matter what. JeezeI might as well reply to you all at once. Yes, they are bootlegs and often they don't sound great. So, we should be converting these only to FLAC format, to preserve what quality is actually there. Mp3 compression makes any recording worse, no matter how high the bitrate is. It is lossy, thus it is irreversible. If you listen to an mp3-sourced cd on a lousy stereo, then sure, it doesn't sound any different. But for people who truly care about sound quality, the quality loss when something is converted to mp3 is a pretty big one if you're using the right equipment. Nobody can deny that this website has NO quality standards at all. People have every right to complain about it, because it's a fact. Nobody said we don't appreciate people sharing things. The problem is that sharing mp3s pollutes the trade pool with recordings that will surely be burned to cd, as if they are lossless WAV... which of course, isn't the case. Actually, we have seen FLAC files here that in reality were MP3 > WAV > FLAC, which is absolutely disgraceful. If you acquire the show in cd, WAV, or FLAC format, then you should preserve the quality, not ruin it for the sake of having smaller files. If you absolutely must share mp3s, then the least you can do is provide a disclaimer for people not to burn them to audio cd, and keep them for their own use. That would help somewhat. But the only way we can clean things up is to stop sharing mp3s - unless of course, there is no other source than the mp3 available. This was the case with the recent share of Puebla 10-17-81, which has yet to be topped. The Queen community is the laughing stock of the wider trading world, because the majority of us have no standards for quality. "Vienna 78" is not sufficient information. This is how it should look, for example: 1978-05-02 Vienna, Stadhalle AUD > Master > Cassette (2) > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8) This way, we know exactly where the recording has traveled, and that it is in the best quality possible. Some people, like myself, are going through great effort to track down the best version of each concert. All that these mp3s are doing is slowing down the process. If we had quality standards here, then more people would come forward with new and higher quality recordings, without being afraid that their recording will be converted to mp3 the next day. The private collectors have retracted to their shells. Until then, very few new recordings will emerge from people like them. Thank goodness for the Wardour label. They've provided us with a few nice things lately, and hopefully they won't be upset if/when they find out that their gems like the 1977 WATC Shoot upgrade are already circulating in mp3. Someone worked very hard to find this upgrade, and converting it to mp3 (less than two months after its release) is a horrible insult to their efforts. I'd hate to see them call it quits because of this. Don't think it can't happen. It has happened before. I hope this post makes a few people rethink their position on mp3 sharing vs lossless sharing. |
| habalushy 25.09.2006 16:46 |
michaelkars wrote: why always mp3-sourced recordings !!!! I'm getting sick of it. You always can convert it to mp3 yourself. my trading site : linkI post MP3 sourced concerts for 3 reasons: 1) I have an ipod and am not filling it up with WAV files 2) Since I do not use the WAV/FLAC files, i just delete them instead of wasting space on my harddrive or CDs 3) It takes less time and less links to post |
| SPE24 25.09.2006 18:44 |
Thanks mate - much appreciated |
| The Real Wizard 25.09.2006 23:21 |
habalushy wrote: I post MP3 sourced concerts for 3 reasons: 1) I have an ipod and am not filling it up with WAV files 2) Since I do not use the WAV/FLAC files, i just delete them instead of wasting space on my harddrive or CDs 3) It takes less time and less links to postWow... my post flew right over your head, didn't it? I hope that after reading this above post, anyone who is the slightest bit sensible can understand why Queen collectors are usually not taken seriously by anyone outside of the Queen world. I nominate the above post for worst post of the year. |
| Saint Jiub 25.09.2006 23:48 |
Well golly gee, shouldn't GH vent at those who convert from mp3 to wav, not at those who share mp3 sourced recordings? Most CD players nowadays play mp3's, so there is no reason to convert mp3 to WAV. Perhaps a few people convert concerts to WAV for illicit trading purposes. Just because a few people convert mp3 to wav, this is not a valid reason to restrict those that legitmately share mp3's. Just do a frequency analysis to detect the lossy source and be done with it. GH's recent complaints of arrogance against Martias May are very ironic. Worst post of the year? Arrogance indeed. |
| Mr Drowse 26.09.2006 05:24 |
Thanks a lot :D |
| habalushy 26.09.2006 07:25 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:No, I noticed it, I justed wanted to say it myself.habalushy wrote: I post MP3 sourced concerts for 3 reasons: 1) I have an ipod and am not filling it up with WAV files 2) Since I do not use the WAV/FLAC files, i just delete them instead of wasting space on my harddrive or CDs 3) It takes less time and less links to postWow... my post flew right over your head, didn't it? I hope that after reading this above post, anyone who is the slightest bit sensible can understand why Queen collectors are usually not taken seriously by anyone outside of the Queen world. I nominate the above post for worst post of the year. I actually liked your post a lot. |
| The Real Wizard 26.09.2006 12:37 |
habalushy wrote: No, I noticed it, I justed wanted to say it myself. I actually liked your post a lot.I'm glad you did. I hope you come to see the deeper issues involved, and that it will influence your thinking at least a bit. |
| habalushy 26.09.2006 15:23 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:The only thing that sways me is the fact that to burn all my concerts to cd would cost a lot of money and I'm not going to do that.habalushy wrote: No, I noticed it, I justed wanted to say it myself. I actually liked your post a lot.I'm glad you did. I hope you come to see the deeper issues involved, and that it will influence your thinking at least a bit. |
| The Real Wizard 26.09.2006 22:53 |
habalushy wrote: The only thing that sways me is the fact that to burn all my concerts to cd would cost a lot of money and I'm not going to do that.Then buy DVD-Rs and burn the FLAC files onto them. You can fit many concerts onto each one. No offence, but I think the needs of the wider community are more important than one person's need to clean up his hard drive. There is always a solution. |
| The Real Wizard 28.09.2006 23:42 |
Mike Van wrote: Well golly gee, shouldn't GH vent at those who convert from mp3 to wav, not at those who share mp3 sourced recordings?If the mp3s weren't shared in the first place, there wouldn't be mp3s to convert to wav. In our current situation, most people here think tape>wav>cd>wav>mp3>wav>mp3>cd is the same as tape>wav>cd. This is not good. Having mp3s here can only allow the majority of people to burn audio cds from them, and they all think it's okay. Most CD players nowadays play mp3's, so there is no reason to convert mp3 to WAV. Perhaps a few people convert concerts to WAV for illicit trading purposes. Just because a few people convert mp3 to wav, this is not a valid reason to restrict those that legitmately share mp3's.There are more reasons than this to ban mp3s. Read my first of the topic again. There are much deeper issues that non-collectors just don't understand. Just do a frequency analysis to detect the lossy source and be done with it.And after 700 Mb of downloading, how do you think one would feel after they realized their FLACs were actually from mp3? Come on, be realistic. This is the only solution: Ban mp3s - for a while. Educate people about why mp3s are worse than lossless encoding. When the majority of people come to understand that mp3 must remain mp3, and that lossless shares must remain lossless, then we can bring mp3s back. By then, lossy and lossless will be separate entities that will never cross one another. There could even be two sharing forums: lossy and lossless. What does everyone think? |
| TheGame 29.09.2006 02:15 |
Great post Bob! I see there have been some heavy discussion in some threads, and i really hope people see the issue here. I dont think i need to explain it all since it's already explained in a great way by Bob and Jeroen. I really like the suggestion about ban mp3 for a limited time, and later seperat the forum in lossy and lossless section. I think we all could benefit from that in the end. |
| Saint Jiub 29.09.2006 02:20 |
If alcohol was illegal and unavailable, drunk driving deaths would not occur. However, responsible drinkers should still be able to drink legally, and not be punished for the crimes of drunk drivers. Similarly, responsible mp3 sharers should not be punished because a few people convert mp3 to wav to flac. |
| The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 02:25 |
Mike Van wrote: If alcohol was illegal and unavailable, drunk driving deaths would not occur. However, responsible drinkers should still be able to drink legally, and not be punished for the crimes of drunk drivers. Similarly, responsible mp3 sharers should not be punished because a few people convert mp3 to wav to flac.That's a very good analogy. But why should we have to follow suit? The road isn't going to have a separate section for only the drunk drivers, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to separate lossy and lossless shares into their own sections. With enough support, this kind of thing can happen. Everyone would win. |
| Saint Jiub 29.09.2006 02:34 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: In our current situation, most people here think tape>wav>cd>wav>mp3>wav>mp3>cd is the same as tape>wav>cd. This is not good. Having mp3s here can only allow the majority of people to burn audio cds from them, and they all think it's okay. Most people/majority? Evidence? ... do most people convert this to flac and share?Just do a frequency analysis to detect the lossy source and be done with it.And after 700 Mb of downloading, how do you think one would feel after they realized their FLACs were actually from mp3? Come on, be realistic. Why not do a frequency analysis on the 1st downloaded song? That would occasionally save a lot of downloading if the files were mp3 sourced This is the only solution: There is always more than one solution to a problem. Do not be so quick discredit alternate ideas. |
| Saint Jiub 29.09.2006 02:38 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Separating lossy and lossless shares sounds reasonable. Are you suggesting separate sharing forums in Queenzone?Mike Van wrote: If alcohol was illegal and unavailable, drunk driving deaths would not occur. However, responsible drinkers should still be able to drink legally, and not be punished for the crimes of drunk drivers. Similarly, responsible mp3 sharers should not be punished because a few people convert mp3 to wav to flac.That's a very good analogy. But why should we have to follow suit? The road isn't going to have a separate section for only the drunk drivers, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to separate lossy and lossless shares into their own sections. With enough support, this kind of thing can happen. Everyone would win. |
| The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 02:44 |
Mike Van wrote: Most people/majority? Evidence? ... do most people convert this to flac and share?It doesn't matter how many mp3 shows are converted to flac. Every show posted here in mp3 is evidence that something is wrong. People choose to make something worse quality without caring. That in itself is wrong enough. What is it going to take for people to realize that Queen collectors are the laughing stock of the ENTIRE trading community around the world? We are not taken seriously anywhere. People distrust the integrity of Queen collectors by default, and this attitude here at Queenzone it the prime reason. Word spreads. Why not do a frequency analysis on the 1st downloaded song? That would occasionally save a lot of downloading if the files were mp3 sourcedIf it's a torrent, that's not possible, because the files aren't useable until it has finished downloading. Mike Van wrote: Separating lossy and lossless shares sounds reasonable. Are you suggesting separate sharing forums in Queenzone?Absolutely. But I think a temporary ban of mp3 would be necessary to put this into action. We'll need to create sticky threads to ensure that people understand exactly what they should and shouldn't do. Then we can bring mp3s back. It's a partial solution, but not a full one. |
| YourValentine 29.09.2006 04:41 |
A while ago I suggested to Richard to put up an extra forum for the flac community. He has not yet responded to this and maybe he won't. I cannot imagine that he would ban mp3 sharing from the forum although initially the BitTorrent forum was meant for flac sharing (see the Queenzone FAQ). Banning mp3s would be against anything Queenzone ever was: chaotic, rough, unruly, tolerant and generous. I totally refuse to believe that the QZ sharing forum would make any collector in the world mistrust another collector. It's everybody's choice to share here or not or to download or not. I have never had a problem with any other collector or trader because of QZ. Even when I hosted the mp3 server I never had a problem with traders because I am always only responsible for my own actions and not for the actions of other QZ members. Once a concert or video is released it is subject to changes, mislabelling and re-encoding to other formats, that cannot be avoided. The same happens on Kazaa or emule. The idea that traders or so called top collectors would be kept from sharing because of re-encoding of shared material to mp3 is neglectible because in general traders do not share anything, anyway (there are exceptions). I have seen so called top collectors join the hub, download what they did not own and never come back or come back and not even share what they downloaded (luckily, this is not the rule). Top collectors download from QZ and never complain because sometimes they find very nice material here. It's like gold digging - you find the nuggets when you sift through the mud:) |
| Rick 29.09.2006 04:50 |
Mp3 is nice for the general public. FLAC is for the trading world, to keep the quality in shape. But, converting mp3 to FLAC or WAV is absolutely madness. Everytime a concert is shared, give a lineage. People who simply download don't care, but for traders this is the most important information. Imagine. If a concert is shared as FLAC (in other words: which is possible for a trade), traders will think they can trade with it. But the one who shared this, didn't tell that he converted mp3's to FLAC. The outcome? Well, the tradersworld will be polluted by mp3-sourced SHIT. Because it is SHIT. What will happen? Many traders keep their stuff for themselves (even stuff that has been circulated for years), because nowadays it's hard to tell if a concert is mp3-sourced or not. All this, because the lineage given is wrong. All the faith and trust will be lost. I know this is not really a contribution by me, this has been told many times. But it seems many people have shit for brains, or shit in their eyes/ears. Sharing a concert is fine, just make sure WHAT you share. |
| The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 12:52 |
YourValentine wrote: I totally refuse to believe that the QZ sharing forum would make any collector in the world mistrust another collector.Barbara, perhaps you've only been dealing with people who are purely (or almost purely) Queen collectors. The majority of Queen collectors only trade for Queen, so it's like we've created our own little group, which is fine of course - but one side effect of that is that most of us really don't know what's going on in the outside collecting world. We need to realize that the wider collecting world does not think like Queen collectors do, and also that the "top collectors" in the wider trading world don't think like "top Queen collectors" do. Queen fans have a distinct mentality when it comes to file formats and sharing. I don't know of any reputable trading community who even considers the possibility of sharing mp3s. Unless it's a very small and minor website that gets little attention, mp3s are simply out of the question everywhere you go. It goes without saying that Queenzone is the most popular website for Queen file sharing. There is no need to compare the quality standards of this website to a place like Royal Orleans (Led Zeppelin site). Have you ever wondered why there are 20+ new lossless recordings shared there every year (many of them being new shows), and why one or two new Queen recordings come out each year - but at somewhere like TTD, and not here? I have been denied many trades from people (a dozen, at least) who had a few interesting Queen recordings but primarily collect Zeppelin, Stones, Black Sabbath, etc. They all said they refused to share their recordings in any format with anyone, because they were aware of the Queen fan reputation of converting things from lossless to mp3. A couple of these people had new US shows (from 76 and 78). One of the emails I received read only this: "not a chance". After I asked why, I got a short email back, where I was called a "Queen mp3-monger". There's no way I could prove it wouldn't be converted to mp3 some time down the road. This is the reality we're dealing with. It's up to people here to either accept it, or brush it aside as if this isn't a problem. Until we change our attitude, we are going to miss more and more opportunities to get new recordings. |
| Josh Henson 30.09.2006 10:21 |
Once again, thanks VERY much!!! |
| darky1975 01.10.2006 03:43 |
if lossless or not....anyway---Thank you my friend! |
| habalushy 01.10.2006 17:57 |
all you have to do is put MP3 in the announce line so that you assholes who refuse to take my generosity can just miss out on the majority of concerts posted here |
| Sithmarauder 01.10.2006 18:47 |
habalushy wrote: all you have to do is put MP3 in the announce line so that you assholes who refuse to take my generosity can just miss out on the majority of concerts posted hereThat's part of the problem , a lot of posters don't put enough info on their share such as file type, songlist lineage. If everyone would AT LEAST post file type it would be great. BTW, your shares are always appreciated. |
| The Real Wizard 01.10.2006 18:52 |
habalushy wrote: all you have to do is put MP3 in the announce line so that you assholes who refuse to take my generosity can just miss out on the majority of concerts posted hereWhy not share your original copies in FLAC, rather than purposely making the quality worse? If you wouldn't be busy posting mp3s, people like myself would be sharing better copies in FLAC. |
| habalushy 01.10.2006 18:52 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Buy me a dvd burner then.habalushy wrote: The only thing that sways me is the fact that to burn all my concerts to cd would cost a lot of money and I'm not going to do that.Then buy DVD-Rs and burn the FLAC files onto them. You can fit many concerts onto each one. and do you all expect me to magically obtain only flac concerts and post only flac. That means that all my concerts up until now cant be posted |
| habalushy 01.10.2006 18:53 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:So i'll post my mp3's and you can post your flacs. so what if there are two copies of the same concert. if people really want flac then no one will get my copy and the topic will float off the main pagehabalushy wrote: all you have to do is put MP3 in the announce line so that you assholes who refuse to take my generosity can just miss out on the majority of concerts posted hereWhy not share your original copies in FLAC, rather than purposely make the quality worse? If you wouldn't be busy posting mp3s, people like myself would be sharing better copies in FLAC. |
| The Real Wizard 01.10.2006 18:59 |
habalushy wrote: Buy me a dvd burner then. So i'll post my mp3's and you can post your flacs. so what if there are two copies of the same concert. if people really want flac then no one will get my copy and the topic will float off the main pageA DVD burner costs just as much as a CD burner. If you can't afford one, then I understand... but why should everyone have to ultimately suffer because of that? If you read my post in the topic below, maybe you'll come to see why the existence of mp3s is doing much more harm than good, and why it's actually harming everyone in the end: link and do you all expect me to magically obtain only flac concerts and post only flac. That means that all my concerts up until now cant be postedIf you haven't got the original copies of these shows, then come to think of it, you're actually not being generous at all. You're just passing along mp3s that you downloaded from somewhere else! Unless, of course, you're trading through the post for cd-roms burned with mp3s... but I can't imagine there are many people who still do that, when there are lossless copies that can be traded this way. |
| habalushy 01.10.2006 19:22 |
i got a cd burner in this computer, so it isnt costing me any money to get it. I also dont keep the flac files once i have converted them. So if you want to either buy me a dvd burner, or another harddrive. Then i'd be happy to keep the flac files and post them. my email address is in my profile, and you can email me for my house address to send me the burner or drive |
| The Real Wizard 01.10.2006 20:21 |
If you can burn your mp3s to CDRs, which cost money, then I can't see why you can't afford a DVD burner. DVD-Rs cost the same as CDRs do, and they hold over 6x as much data. If you do the math, you will start saving money on discs after you've used up 10 DVD-Rs. |
| habalushy 02.10.2006 13:49 |
i dont burn all my queen concerts to CDs. In fact, i dont burn any of my queen concerts to CDs. I have them all sitting on my harddrive. |
| The Real Wizard 02.10.2006 21:58 |
habalushy wrote: i dont burn all my queen concerts to CDs. In fact, i dont burn any of my queen concerts to CDs. I have them all sitting on my harddrive.Then why not burn them to CD-ROM to save hard drive space? That would solve your original problem - space required to encode/save FLAC files. |
| habalushy 02.10.2006 23:58 |
because each concert takes up between 60-150mb in mp3 and 600-1000mb in flac. that is the difference |
| The Real Wizard 03.10.2006 00:53 |
habalushy wrote: because each concert takes up between 60-150mb in mp3 and 600-1000mb in flac. that is the differenceSo... with all this in mind, this is the conclusion: You refuse to share in FLAC because you'll have to buy another spindle of blank cds. You are a prime example of why Queen collectors have no respect from anyone outside of this website. |
| habalushy 03.10.2006 15:18 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:what does "You are a prime example of why Queen collectors have no respect from anyone outside of this website" mean?habalushy wrote: because each concert takes up between 60-150mb in mp3 and 600-1000mb in flac. that is the differenceSo... with all this in mind, this is the conclusion: You refuse to share in FLAC because you'll have to buy another spindle of blank cds. You are a prime example of why Queen collectors have no respect from anyone outside of this website. also. with the amount of concerts that i get the cd spindals start costing me $20 a peice (for 100) and that adds up fast. and i dont have $20 a month to spend on cd just for queen. i also have other bands that i like. you dont see me burning every grateful dead concert that i get. |
| Maxxbono 04.10.2006 00:43 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:why don't you follow his MP3 postings and post the FLAC version? that way, anyone could get whatever they want. Is that good enough to stop arguing about this?habalushy wrote: all you have to do is put MP3 in the announce line so that you assholes who refuse to take my generosity can just miss out on the majority of concerts posted hereWhy not share your original copies in FLAC, rather than purposely making the quality worse? If you wouldn't be busy posting mp3s, people like myself would be sharing better copies in FLAC. I want to listed to Queen concerts, I prefer FLACs, but I'll take whatever is available. |
| The Real Wizard 04.10.2006 10:35 |
habalushy wrote: what does "You are a prime example of why Queen collectors have no respect from anyone outside of this website" mean?If you have actually read any of the many posts I've made over the last few days about this, then you wouldn't be asking this kind of question. I've explained everything very clearly. Maxxbono wrote: why don't you follow his MP3 postings and post the FLAC version? that way, anyone could get whatever they want. Is that good enough to stop arguing about this?For the LAST time: Since most people here are pro-mp3 and do not understand the difference between lossless and lossy, I am NOT sharing something here just so someone can convert it to mp3 for the first person who wants it. I will only share something where I am confident its quality will be maintained. |
| Maxxbono 04.10.2006 10:50 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Why would they get your FLAC and convert it to MP3, if they can download the MP3 version of it that the other guy posted? Im not sure if you get what I meant to tell you on my question. If both versions are available on the same ANNOUNCE thread and some ppl want to get they crappy one, it's their choice. And if some of us appreciate your FLACs, we will thank your generosity and enjoy quality concerts.habalushy wrote: what does "You are a prime example of why Queen collectors have no respect from anyone outside of this website" mean?If you have actually read any of the many posts I've made over the last few days about this, then you wouldn't be asking this kind of question. I've explained everything very clearly.Maxxbono wrote: why don't you follow his MP3 postings and post the FLAC version? that way, anyone could get whatever they want. Is that good enough to stop arguing about this?For the LAST time: Since most people here are pro-mp3 and do not understand the difference between lossless and lossy, I am NOT sharing something here just so someone can convert it to mp3 for the first person who wants it. I will only share something where I am confident its quality will be maintained. |
| The Real Wizard 04.10.2006 14:50 |
Maxxbono wrote: Why would they get your FLAC and convert it to MP3, if they can download the MP3 version of it that the other guy posted? Im not sure if you get what I meant to tell you on my question. If both versions are available on the same ANNOUNCE thread and some ppl want to get they crappy one, it's their choice. And if some of us appreciate your FLACs, we will thank your generosity and enjoy quality concerts.So, with your logic, I should only share FLAC concerts that already exist in mp3. |
| habalushy 04.10.2006 15:28 |
I know the difference between lossy and nonlossy. I just know that somewhere out there, there are people like you who will collect all of the FLAC files for queen possible and they will always be avalible. there are some people who dont need FLAC files. And no matter the quality of the file, the quality of some of these concerts are SHIT! so, to end this rebulte, FLAC files of these concerts will always be avalible, but rarely from me. |
| Maxxbono 04.10.2006 17:49 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:You can share whatever you'd like...Maxxbono wrote: Why would they get your FLAC and convert it to MP3, if they can download the MP3 version of it that the other guy posted? Im not sure if you get what I meant to tell you on my question. If both versions are available on the same ANNOUNCE thread and some ppl want to get they crappy one, it's their choice. And if some of us appreciate your FLACs, we will thank your generosity and enjoy quality concerts.So, with your logic, I should only share FLAC concerts that already exist in mp3. All that I am saying is that both FLAC & MP3 versions of the same show could be available in the same post, if someone starts the post sharing a MP3 someone else could post a FLAC link there, that way the choice is open. And no one will convert a FLAC into MP3 if the MP3 it's already there... |
| habalushy 04.10.2006 19:36 |
Maxxbono wrote:that's exactly what should happen!Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:You can share whatever you'd like... All that I am saying is that both FLAC & MP3 versions of the same show could be available in the same post, if someone starts the post sharing a MP3 someone else could post a FLAC link there, that way the choice is open. And no one will convert a FLAC into MP3 if the MP3 it's already there...Maxxbono wrote: Why would they get your FLAC and convert it to MP3, if they can download the MP3 version of it that the other guy posted? Im not sure if you get what I meant to tell you on my question. If both versions are available on the same ANNOUNCE thread and some ppl want to get they crappy one, it's their choice. And if some of us appreciate your FLACs, we will thank your generosity and enjoy quality concerts.So, with your logic, I should only share FLAC concerts that already exist in mp3. that way the people like Sir GH dont get their panties in a twist and people like me can get my mp3 files that i like:) great thinking Maxxbono |
| The Real Wizard 05.10.2006 12:11 |
Maxxbono wrote: You can share whatever you'd like... All that I am saying is that both FLAC & MP3 versions of the same show could be available in the same post, if someone starts the post sharing a MP3 someone else could post a FLAC link there, that way the choice is open. And no one will convert a FLAC into MP3 if the MP3 it's already there...Okay, that's fair enough. I'll share something here in FLAC that already has been shared in mp3 - but I won't share anything in FLAC that hasn't been shared in mp3 before, because the possibility remains that someone will want to convert that new recording to mp3 to keep the mp3 people happy. You have a deal. |
| Sithmarauder 05.10.2006 13:19 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:How about Leeds 5.29.82? That was shared in MP3 here.Maxxbono wrote: You can share whatever you'd like... All that I am saying is that both FLAC & MP3 versions of the same show could be available in the same post, if someone starts the post sharing a MP3 someone else could post a FLAC link there, that way the choice is open. And no one will convert a FLAC into MP3 if the MP3 it's already there...Okay, that's fair enough. I'll share something here in FLAC that already has been shared in mp3 - but I won't share anything in FLAC that hasn't been shared in mp3 before, because the possibility remains that someone will want to convert that new recording to mp3 to keep the mp3 people happy. You have a deal. |
| The Real Wizard 05.10.2006 14:47 |
Sithmarauder wrote: How about Leeds 5.29.82? That was shared in MP3 here.First generation recording. Sure thing boss. |
| Maxxbono 05.10.2006 20:01 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:just keep in mind, that for FLACs sake, you should post your FLACs where MP3 shows have been posted, that way the MP3 lovers will see that it's been posted in that format and they wont convert and degenerate the FLAC you are sharing and try to posted somewhere else. What do you think? would that be necessary or not?Maxxbono wrote: You can share whatever you'd like... All that I am saying is that both FLAC & MP3 versions of the same show could be available in the same post, if someone starts the post sharing a MP3 someone else could post a FLAC link there, that way the choice is open. And no one will convert a FLAC into MP3 if the MP3 it's already there...Okay, that's fair enough. I'll share something here in FLAC that already has been shared in mp3 - but I won't share anything in FLAC that hasn't been shared in mp3 before, because the possibility remains that someone will want to convert that new recording to mp3 to keep the mp3 people happy. You have a deal. I want thank you again for sharing your FLACs collection, I know you're not posting it all but the previously MP3 shared ones, but that's wonderfull to me. |
| The Real Wizard 06.10.2006 00:02 |
Maxxbono wrote: just keep in mind, that for FLACs sake, you should post your FLACs where MP3 shows have been posted, that way the MP3 lovers will see that it's been posted in that format and they wont convert and degenerate the FLAC you are sharing and try to posted somewhere else. What do you think? would that be necessary or not?That's an excellent thought. I shall search the announce section for previous shares of Vienna 78, and any further shows I share. I suggest other FLAC sharers should do the same! Thanks for the tip, Maxxbono. (For FLAC's sake... haha... funny!) |