#5 Most flac sharers do not rate the sound quality of a shared recording.
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
#2 I am running out of space on two hard drives.
and ...
#1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Gym for president.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Gym Bitch wrote: [/QUOTENAME]#5 Most flac sharers do not rate the sound quality of a shared recording.
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
#2 I am running out of space on two hard drives.
and ...
#1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.
[/QUOTE]
You said top ten reasons. What are the other five?
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
#2 I am running out of space on two hard drives.
and ...
#1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.
[/QUOTE]
You said top ten reasons. What are the other five?
He put ten just to impress don´t be a kill joy ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Gym Bitch wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
[/QUOTE]
You drive a car?? Christ, I thought you were 12. And it will never cease to amaze me how some people seem almost proud of their inability to - careful, three syllable word coming up - distinguish between music and a computer simulation of music. Good work, dim bitch.
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
[/QUOTE]
You drive a car?? Christ, I thought you were 12. And it will never cease to amaze me how some people seem almost proud of their inability to - careful, three syllable word coming up - distinguish between music and a computer simulation of music. Good work, dim bitch.
...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Gym Bitch wrote: [/QUOTENAME]#5 Most flac sharers do not rate the sound quality of a shared recording.
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
#2 I am running out of space on two hard drives.
and ...
#1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.
[/QUOTE]
#5 : it has nothing to do with the fact that the file is mp3 or FLAC. It depends on the sharer, not the file. But one thing is 100% sure, no doubt about it possible, mp3 will always be of lesser quality than Flac, just because mp3 is lossy and Flac is lossless.
#4 : I don't know if I can tell the difference by hear. But after many encodings, we can do so. Digital errors appear and so on. And even if we can't tell the difference, we just have to preserve the quality. If this forum was mp3 only, then by now we would only have recordings with errors or a much lesser quality to share, and the music would be far less enjoyable. And if we want Queen music to live on, and gain new fans, and so on, then we have to care about quality. I would like to help good recordings spread, and not bad quality ones. Just like we preserve nature, we should preserve music too, and Flac format is an excellent support for that, don't tell me mp3 is.
#3 : If you listen music in your car then you make a personal use of it. No problem about that, I'm sure everyone who has a car do that. But here you SHARE mp3, it is not the same. That you USE mp3 is not a problem, that you SHARE mp3 can be a problem. This forum became more interesting to me when I heard that quality standards increased. From this day I started to learn about Flac and to collect live recordings. So when I want to listen in my car, then I grab my FLAC files on a CD (very easy, no need to convert before burning a CD, just ask for help and explanation), or I convert to mp3 (I don't have a car personnally) once again very easily (just ask for help and explanation), and I know I listen to a show with a lesser quality. BUT I don't force anyone to lesser quality by sharing this lesser quality. Once again, I keep the lossless files and conert them myself if needed.
#2 : I prefer that my files are bigger and I have a much better quality, as clear as the original taper had, just as if I was at the gig. Of course that can be a problem but if you store the files on DVD for example, as every normal files, it should be better.
#1 : Banning the mp3 lovers is not of my ideology, the fact is that this forum became more lossless than lossy these days, and you really break this attempt of quality. So the sharing in mp3 of a concert already shared as Flac should not be allowed, as everybody can do it themselves (just ask for help).
Hope you understand that I don't have anything against you personnally, even your arrogance sometimes is not a problem for me. You share your ideas and I share mine, and we share ours, and everybodt can share his own ideas. Queenzone has never banned that many things and it is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing.
Just hope you can one day get convinced by quality instead of non-quality, as you could enjoy Queen "parallel recordings" (meaning unofficial) as much as we do.
In fact, there are many other forums where you would get tons ofthanks for your mp3s, instead of being attacked here.
Regards,
Olivier,
France.
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
#2 I am running out of space on two hard drives.
and ...
#1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.
[/QUOTE]
#5 : it has nothing to do with the fact that the file is mp3 or FLAC. It depends on the sharer, not the file. But one thing is 100% sure, no doubt about it possible, mp3 will always be of lesser quality than Flac, just because mp3 is lossy and Flac is lossless.
#4 : I don't know if I can tell the difference by hear. But after many encodings, we can do so. Digital errors appear and so on. And even if we can't tell the difference, we just have to preserve the quality. If this forum was mp3 only, then by now we would only have recordings with errors or a much lesser quality to share, and the music would be far less enjoyable. And if we want Queen music to live on, and gain new fans, and so on, then we have to care about quality. I would like to help good recordings spread, and not bad quality ones. Just like we preserve nature, we should preserve music too, and Flac format is an excellent support for that, don't tell me mp3 is.
#3 : If you listen music in your car then you make a personal use of it. No problem about that, I'm sure everyone who has a car do that. But here you SHARE mp3, it is not the same. That you USE mp3 is not a problem, that you SHARE mp3 can be a problem. This forum became more interesting to me when I heard that quality standards increased. From this day I started to learn about Flac and to collect live recordings. So when I want to listen in my car, then I grab my FLAC files on a CD (very easy, no need to convert before burning a CD, just ask for help and explanation), or I convert to mp3 (I don't have a car personnally) once again very easily (just ask for help and explanation), and I know I listen to a show with a lesser quality. BUT I don't force anyone to lesser quality by sharing this lesser quality. Once again, I keep the lossless files and conert them myself if needed.
#2 : I prefer that my files are bigger and I have a much better quality, as clear as the original taper had, just as if I was at the gig. Of course that can be a problem but if you store the files on DVD for example, as every normal files, it should be better.
#1 : Banning the mp3 lovers is not of my ideology, the fact is that this forum became more lossless than lossy these days, and you really break this attempt of quality. So the sharing in mp3 of a concert already shared as Flac should not be allowed, as everybody can do it themselves (just ask for help).
Hope you understand that I don't have anything against you personnally, even your arrogance sometimes is not a problem for me. You share your ideas and I share mine, and we share ours, and everybodt can share his own ideas. Queenzone has never banned that many things and it is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing.
Just hope you can one day get convinced by quality instead of non-quality, as you could enjoy Queen "parallel recordings" (meaning unofficial) as much as we do.
In fact, there are many other forums where you would get tons ofthanks for your mp3s, instead of being attacked here.
Regards,
Olivier,
France.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stark wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Gym Bitch wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
[/QUOTE]
You drive a car?? Christ, I thought you were 12. And it will never cease to amaze me how some people seem almost proud of their inability to - careful, three syllable word coming up - distinguish between music and a computer simulation of music. Good work, dim bitch.[/QUOTE]
Who said that he´s driving a car???
Can you distinguish between "driving a car" and "listening to music in a car"? :-)
Now on a more serious side...
...all I do is distinguish between excellent concerts (sound-wise) just like e.g. Chicago78, Chicago80 or Copenhagen77 to name just a few and of course those recorded from the soundboard.
These are truly excellent recordings sound-wise and therefore are always welcome to me in flac!
But the vast majority of taped concerts sound more like they were recorded in the "basement of my neighbours house"... and I personally see no use in having those "low-quality recordings" where all you can hear is clapping, cheering and whisteling, lots of them even distorted and echoed, in flac... What a waste of download time and hard-drive space.
"Bullshit served on the finest bone china remains bullshit"... so those concerts, many of them have hardly anything to do with "music", are more than ok in mp3 (192kbps)...
...I download them, I listen to them and I even dare to delete them! ;-)
But keep in mind, this is just my opinion...
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
[/QUOTE]
You drive a car?? Christ, I thought you were 12. And it will never cease to amaze me how some people seem almost proud of their inability to - careful, three syllable word coming up - distinguish between music and a computer simulation of music. Good work, dim bitch.[/QUOTE]
Who said that he´s driving a car???
Can you distinguish between "driving a car" and "listening to music in a car"? :-)
Now on a more serious side...
...all I do is distinguish between excellent concerts (sound-wise) just like e.g. Chicago78, Chicago80 or Copenhagen77 to name just a few and of course those recorded from the soundboard.
These are truly excellent recordings sound-wise and therefore are always welcome to me in flac!
But the vast majority of taped concerts sound more like they were recorded in the "basement of my neighbours house"... and I personally see no use in having those "low-quality recordings" where all you can hear is clapping, cheering and whisteling, lots of them even distorted and echoed, in flac... What a waste of download time and hard-drive space.
"Bullshit served on the finest bone china remains bullshit"... so those concerts, many of them have hardly anything to do with "music", are more than ok in mp3 (192kbps)...
...I download them, I listen to them and I even dare to delete them! ;-)
But keep in mind, this is just my opinion...
Oh, and of course, sharing mp3 is preventing us to maybe get new shows there were hoarded until now. So if we share lossless then we can hope that one day soon these recordings will arrive here. We have and had some examples already. And we got new shows last year, just hope this could continue, and we can make it by preserving quality of existing ones. That way, the tapers / hoarders can be reassured about the quality of their recordings. If I had a brand new sports car, I would not let you have some fun with it if I was feeling you would ruin the car. But if I know you have taken care of the cars people lended you before, then it should not be a problem. I think this is the theory of the hoarders. At least a part of them.
Regards,
Olivier,
France.
Regards,
Olivier,
France.
GymBitch, why do you consistently undermine the seriosity of Queenzone as a sharing site? I can't believe you are so ignorant or plain dumb, so I guess there's some deliberateness in your actions.
But here again for all the ignorant dumbasses: It's not about audible difference between MP3 and FLAC, it's about QUALITY PRESERVATION. Every serious sharing site has MP3 banned for good and obvious reasons. It's only positive that Queenzone doesn't ban anything, but that doesn't mean that QZ's users don't have to think for themselves. Some do, and those try to avoid MP3 sharing. Some lazy, ignorant or in the best case uninformed people will always share Queen recordings in inferior formats or versions, but that's getting less and less. And I still have hopes, that people like L-R-TIGER1994 or you will change their minds some day, too.
But here again for all the ignorant dumbasses: It's not about audible difference between MP3 and FLAC, it's about QUALITY PRESERVATION. Every serious sharing site has MP3 banned for good and obvious reasons. It's only positive that Queenzone doesn't ban anything, but that doesn't mean that QZ's users don't have to think for themselves. Some do, and those try to avoid MP3 sharing. Some lazy, ignorant or in the best case uninformed people will always share Queen recordings in inferior formats or versions, but that's getting less and less. And I still have hopes, that people like L-R-TIGER1994 or you will change their minds some day, too.
Great answer Nummer2, you traduced much better than me that very idea of Quality preservation, even if it seems that the difference is not evident by hear.
Regards,
Olivier,
France.
Regards,
Olivier,
France.
HELLO!!!!!
"Announce MUSIC" forum.....
"Announce MUSIC" forum.....
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Gym Bitch wrote: [/QUOTENAME]#5 Most flac sharers do not rate the sound quality of a shared recording. [/QUOTE]
What has this to do with the file format ???
[QUOTE]
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
[/QUOTE]
Do I have superears ?I can tell if a file is lossy after 5 seconds, or in the case of rock after hearing 1 second of drums. The truth is that I have problems with 256 of 320 kbps mp3s, those sound pretty good and even I would need a spectral analyzer.
[QUOTE]
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
[/QUOTE]
OK, hardware, I accept. I was expecting that somebody will write about an hardware mp3 player. But again it has nothing to do with SHARING mp3 concerts, but otherwise this can be counted as a good argument for OWNING mp3 recordings.
[QUOTE]
#2 I am running out of space on two hard drives.
[/QUOTE]
Huh ? Did you ever hear about DVDs ? Sorry, but this is really a very poor excuse.
[QUOTE]
and ...
#1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.
[/QUOTE]
I can't unfortunately tell anything to it. I partially agree with you, that banning shares in format which is ALLOWED by the owner of this site is wrong, but also keep in mind that some people who have some quality standards will try to get the show in a lossless format. And as in every community, some will do it politely, others will not.
What has this to do with the file format ???
[QUOTE]
#4 Most normal people (including me) can not distinguish between a 192 kbps mp3 and lossless.
[/QUOTE]
Do I have superears ?I can tell if a file is lossy after 5 seconds, or in the case of rock after hearing 1 second of drums. The truth is that I have problems with 256 of 320 kbps mp3s, those sound pretty good and even I would need a spectral analyzer.
[QUOTE]
#3 I primarily listen to music in my car.
[/QUOTE]
OK, hardware, I accept. I was expecting that somebody will write about an hardware mp3 player. But again it has nothing to do with SHARING mp3 concerts, but otherwise this can be counted as a good argument for OWNING mp3 recordings.
[QUOTE]
#2 I am running out of space on two hard drives.
[/QUOTE]
Huh ? Did you ever hear about DVDs ? Sorry, but this is really a very poor excuse.
[QUOTE]
and ...
#1 I have been vocally and consistently anti-censorship while on QZ (Anyone remember the ridicuous banning of Haole?), and I believe that the attempted "weeding out" of mp3 sharers on QZ qualifies as censorship.
[/QUOTE]
I can't unfortunately tell anything to it. I partially agree with you, that banning shares in format which is ALLOWED by the owner of this site is wrong, but also keep in mind that some people who have some quality standards will try to get the show in a lossless format. And as in every community, some will do it politely, others will not.
er, wasn't Haole banned from either QOL or QFC?
Pretty sure it wasn't here, but then the rest of your whining is equally weak...
Pretty sure it wasn't here, but then the rest of your whining is equally weak...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Penetration_Guru wrote: [/QUOTENAME]er, wasn't Haole banned from either QOL or QFC?
Pretty sure it wasn't here, but then the rest of your whining is equally weak...[/QUOTE]
It was here, and it was me that did the banning. For some reason people love to still talk about it.
Pretty sure it wasn't here, but then the rest of your whining is equally weak...[/QUOTE]
It was here, and it was me that did the banning. For some reason people love to still talk about it.