I hear about the need for "Preserving Quality" so often, that it almost sounds like mp3 sharing has diabolical magic that can erase flac recordings at will.
Obviously, I am a complete idiot, so I will need a lot of reassuring that flac files are not being magicly erased, so that I might get the beauty sleep that I so desperately need.
Actually, in my opinion, no lossless recordings are in danger of extinction ... even if an occasional mp3 conversion is re-converted back to wav format. In fact, most flac shares on QZ are probably in the possesion of thousands of Queen fans who love and will not convert and share mp3 files. Therefore, there is negligible risk that any lossless recordings will become extinct.
True, mp3 will be occasionally reconverted to flac or wav, but I believe that the vast majority of these lossy "flac" shares will be shared outside the serious lossless community, because most of the splintered mp3 sharing and download "community" have slow, and/or download limited connections, plus most mp3 sharers are not reasonably capable of sharing relatively large flac files. Also, most mp3 sharers have no desire to be part of the trading community.
Finally, as I stated many times before, many (hopefully most) serious flac lovers will take a few minutes and use a spectral analyzer to verify that the recording is lossless, and inform many others if that recording turns out to be lossy. Thus, the risk of an mp3 recording being shared as flac or wav is even further reduced.
I will end with two questions ...
What is the estimated percentage of all trades done within the last year that have turned out to be lossy due to a mistake by a new or inexperienced trader?
Hypothetically, if mp3 sharing was no longer allowed on QZ, would you be comfortable enough to stop using a spectral analyzer to verify that a recording is lossless?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Aren't you tired making useless threads?
I can't believe that people are even discussing with these idiots....
[QUOTE]True, mp3 will be occasionally reconverted to flac or wav, but I believe that the vast majority of these lossy "flac" shares will be shared outside the serious lossless community, because most of the splintered mp3 sharing and download "community" have slow, and/or download limited connections, plus most mp3 sharers are not reasonably capable of sharing relatively large flac files. Also, most mp3 sharers have no desire to be part of the trading community.
Finally, as I stated many times before, many (hopefully most) serious flac lovers will take a few minutes and use a spectral analyzer to verify that the recording is lossless, and inform many others if that recording turns out to be lossy. Thus, the risk of an mp3 recording being shared as flac or wav is even further reduced.[/QUOTE]
Ok, have you ever done a trade with someone, burned 20+ discs for that guy containing high quality lossless shows and then receiving the same amount of shows in return, only to find out they're all mp3 sourced and not worth anything. Awesome.
[QUOTE]True, mp3 will be occasionally reconverted to flac or wav, but I believe that the vast majority of these lossy "flac" shares will be shared outside the serious lossless community, because most of the splintered mp3 sharing and download "community" have slow, and/or download limited connections, plus most mp3 sharers are not reasonably capable of sharing relatively large flac files. Also, most mp3 sharers have no desire to be part of the trading community.
Finally, as I stated many times before, many (hopefully most) serious flac lovers will take a few minutes and use a spectral analyzer to verify that the recording is lossless, and inform many others if that recording turns out to be lossy. Thus, the risk of an mp3 recording being shared as flac or wav is even further reduced.[/QUOTE]
Ok, have you ever done a trade with someone, burned 20+ discs for that guy containing high quality lossless shows and then receiving the same amount of shows in return, only to find out they're all mp3 sourced and not worth anything. Awesome.
MP3 sharing DOES "erase FLAC" as you put it.
I have as many Aerosmith, Alice Cooper & Twisted Sister bootlegs (combined) as I have Queen & related, and at least 98% of them are MP3 sourced.
How I'd get the uncompressed WAV (or FLAC) files, God only knows. People are only sharing these as MP3 because they are such small file sizes and quick to upload/download. Thank God for the Queen fans (and this website) who insist on FLAC to keep the quality of the recordings.
Assuming that it's not as simple as a setting on my PC or the way my internet provider governs my access, I think THE major problem here are the internet sites themselves which host the files we download (rapidshare, megaupload etc). If they would allow people to upload at the same high speeds that we download at, then more folks would post uncompressed files. Taking 30 minutes to upload 100mb (when it takes about 5 to download) stops me from posting much on QZ. (I haven't got my head round creating torrents yet).
I have as many Aerosmith, Alice Cooper & Twisted Sister bootlegs (combined) as I have Queen & related, and at least 98% of them are MP3 sourced.
How I'd get the uncompressed WAV (or FLAC) files, God only knows. People are only sharing these as MP3 because they are such small file sizes and quick to upload/download. Thank God for the Queen fans (and this website) who insist on FLAC to keep the quality of the recordings.
Assuming that it's not as simple as a setting on my PC or the way my internet provider governs my access, I think THE major problem here are the internet sites themselves which host the files we download (rapidshare, megaupload etc). If they would allow people to upload at the same high speeds that we download at, then more folks would post uncompressed files. Taking 30 minutes to upload 100mb (when it takes about 5 to download) stops me from posting much on QZ. (I haven't got my head round creating torrents yet).
In two days you've started 3 topics about this same subject (mp3 x FLAC). It's not even necessary to create new topics about it, as we've already got hundreds, but if it really makes you feel important to tease FLAC users, can't you at least start ONE thread and keep all the crap in there, rather than start one new thread a day talking about the same shit?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I can't believe that people are even discussing with these idiots....
[/QUOTE]
Good point. It's like trying to explain quadratic equations to an apple.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. It's like trying to explain quadratic equations to an apple.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I can't believe that people are even discussing with these idiots....
Ok, have you ever done a trade with someone, burned 20+ discs for that guy containing high quality lossless shows and then receiving the same amount of shows in return, only to find out they're all mp3 sourced and not worth anything. Awesome. [/QUOTE]
these are live gigs. (in the main) they have NOT been recorded direct from the soundboard or desk, so in essence they will have loads of distortion and crap artefacts in them anyhow, FLAC does little to help. if the source was shit then you just end up with "lossless shit" as opposed to "lossy shit"...
i sense something much more going on here than "just wanting to hear the gigs and enjoy them"...and therein lies the real nub of the issue. this is really about "collecting" "hoarding" and "trading". while i can sympathise with your viewpoint, I AM NOT A TRADER, and consequently i want to listen to these gigs in the most convenient way possible:
unfortunately, my "mp3 player" (note they are not called "flac players") does not do flac. so i am happy to play these tunes as mp3s.
when somebody invents a "flac player" that is truly portable and does not have a harddisk the size of a warehouse i will galdly convert...in the meantime as i said before AS I DO NOT TRADE, I WILL CONTINUE TO USE MP3S
Ok, have you ever done a trade with someone, burned 20+ discs for that guy containing high quality lossless shows and then receiving the same amount of shows in return, only to find out they're all mp3 sourced and not worth anything. Awesome. [/QUOTE]
these are live gigs. (in the main) they have NOT been recorded direct from the soundboard or desk, so in essence they will have loads of distortion and crap artefacts in them anyhow, FLAC does little to help. if the source was shit then you just end up with "lossless shit" as opposed to "lossy shit"...
i sense something much more going on here than "just wanting to hear the gigs and enjoy them"...and therein lies the real nub of the issue. this is really about "collecting" "hoarding" and "trading". while i can sympathise with your viewpoint, I AM NOT A TRADER, and consequently i want to listen to these gigs in the most convenient way possible:
unfortunately, my "mp3 player" (note they are not called "flac players") does not do flac. so i am happy to play these tunes as mp3s.
when somebody invents a "flac player" that is truly portable and does not have a harddisk the size of a warehouse i will galdly convert...in the meantime as i said before AS I DO NOT TRADE, I WILL CONTINUE TO USE MP3S
use mp3, no problem about it !
Regards,
Olivier,
France.
Regards,
Olivier,
France.
Brilliant Tilo -
You traded 20 CD's (not one or two) to an unknown trader??
Which of these mistakes did you make?
You forgot to ask for and download samples of what you were trading for.
You forgot to ask the other trader if he had verified his files were lossless.
You did not ask which spectral analyzer he used to verify the files were lossless.
You did not check with fellow traders to attempt to verify his reputation.
The deal was too good to pass up and you got scammed.
You traded 20 CD's (not one or two) to an unknown trader??
Which of these mistakes did you make?
You forgot to ask for and download samples of what you were trading for.
You forgot to ask the other trader if he had verified his files were lossless.
You did not ask which spectral analyzer he used to verify the files were lossless.
You did not check with fellow traders to attempt to verify his reputation.
The deal was too good to pass up and you got scammed.
You have completely missed the point, as always.
The point is - if everyone in this community believed in quality preservation, then we wouldn't even need to check to see if recordings received in trades were lossless or not... we would know! We still need to check these days because people like you continue to encourage newbies that mp3 is okay.
What will it take for you to realize that you have contributed nothing of value to this community, ever, and that all you do is take away from it!?
The point is - if everyone in this community believed in quality preservation, then we wouldn't even need to check to see if recordings received in trades were lossless or not... we would know! We still need to check these days because people like you continue to encourage newbies that mp3 is okay.
What will it take for you to realize that you have contributed nothing of value to this community, ever, and that all you do is take away from it!?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What will it take for you to realize that you have contributed nothing of value to this community, ever, and that all you do is take away from it!?
[/QUOTE]
I think Mike was the first to share a quality audio copy of houston. Before that -- years before that -- Mike contributed to this forum before it had a music-sharing section. Many people here contribute nothing to the forum and the only time they make an appearance is to ask for more recordings. I don't think it's an over-statement to say that Mike, however, helped make Queenzone what it is. However hard it is for some to accept, the bottom line is that those who believe in Flac-only do not own or run this site and the owner is happy for mp3 to be shared.
You cannot impose your rules on someone else's website.
[/QUOTE]
I think Mike was the first to share a quality audio copy of houston. Before that -- years before that -- Mike contributed to this forum before it had a music-sharing section. Many people here contribute nothing to the forum and the only time they make an appearance is to ask for more recordings. I don't think it's an over-statement to say that Mike, however, helped make Queenzone what it is. However hard it is for some to accept, the bottom line is that those who believe in Flac-only do not own or run this site and the owner is happy for mp3 to be shared.
You cannot impose your rules on someone else's website.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think Mike was the first to share a quality audio copy of houston.[/QUOTE]
A hundred people had it before him, though. He was just the end of the line. Houston was a hot potato for decades, and collectors had restrictions not to share it. By the time it got to him, the restrictions had eased so he was able to share it. Let's see if he claims that he simply chose to share it all on his own, regardless of how many hands (and whose hands) it had passed through before it reached his. Still, credit where credit's due. I'll give a bit. Fair enough.
[QUOTE]Before that -- years before that -- Mike contributed to this forum before it had a music-sharing section.[/QUOTE]
Then I'll revise my statement to: "He has contributed nothing to this forum since people came to understand the potential of technology, since he has chosen to pander to his antiquated views on quality preservation."
[QUOTE]Many people here contribute nothing to the forum and the only time they make an appearance is to ask for more recordings.[/QUOTE]
This is true... but let's not change the subject.
[QUOTE]You cannot impose your rules on someone else's website.[/QUOTE]
But you see, they're not my rules. Technology and its potential are making the rules. Some of us here are merely the messengers, inviting people to enjoy unofficial music in the highest quality possible. I'm trying very hard, and continuing to fail, to understand why some people can be happy with inferior versions of recordings, at the detriment of those who want only the best versions to be put out there.
A hundred people had it before him, though. He was just the end of the line. Houston was a hot potato for decades, and collectors had restrictions not to share it. By the time it got to him, the restrictions had eased so he was able to share it. Let's see if he claims that he simply chose to share it all on his own, regardless of how many hands (and whose hands) it had passed through before it reached his. Still, credit where credit's due. I'll give a bit. Fair enough.
[QUOTE]Before that -- years before that -- Mike contributed to this forum before it had a music-sharing section.[/QUOTE]
Then I'll revise my statement to: "He has contributed nothing to this forum since people came to understand the potential of technology, since he has chosen to pander to his antiquated views on quality preservation."
[QUOTE]Many people here contribute nothing to the forum and the only time they make an appearance is to ask for more recordings.[/QUOTE]
This is true... but let's not change the subject.
[QUOTE]You cannot impose your rules on someone else's website.[/QUOTE]
But you see, they're not my rules. Technology and its potential are making the rules. Some of us here are merely the messengers, inviting people to enjoy unofficial music in the highest quality possible. I'm trying very hard, and continuing to fail, to understand why some people can be happy with inferior versions of recordings, at the detriment of those who want only the best versions to be put out there.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think Mike was the first to share a quality audio copy of houston.[/QUOTE]
A hundred people had it before him, though. He was just the end of the line. Houston was a hot potato for decades, and collectors had restrictions not to share it. By the time it got to him, the restrictions had eased so he was able to share it. Let's see if he claims that he simply chose to share it all on his own, regardless of how many hands (and whose hands) it had passed through before it reached his.
[QUOTE]Before that -- years before that -- Mike contributed to this forum before it had a music-sharing section.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Then I'll revise my statement to: "He has contributed nothing to this forum since people came to understand the potential of technology, since he has chosen to pander to his antiquated views on quality preservation."
[QUOTE]Many people here contribute nothing to the forum and the only time they make an appearance is to ask for more recordings.[/QUOTE]
This is true... but let's not change the subject.
[QUOTE]You cannot impose your rules on someone else's website.[/QUOTE]
But you see, they're not my rules. Technology and its potential are making the rules. Some of us here are merely its messengers, inviting people to enjoy unofficial music in the highest quality possible. I'm trying very hard, and continuing to fail, to understand why some people can be happy with inferior versions of recordings.
[/QUOTE]
Whether Mike was the first to "have it" or not, I believe he was the first to share it here. That demonstrates that your remark "he has contributed nothing" is wrong. As I said also, there is more to this forum than sharing music, and Mike was here a long time before most of those hurling insults even knew Queenzone existed.
As for the rules, like myself, and Mike, and everyone else, Flac sharers are guests here and guests should obey site rules. The owner of the site -- the one who designed it, and the person who pays the bills -- allows mp3 sharing and Mike should not be insulted or told to leave by other forum members because he shares mp3s.
A hundred people had it before him, though. He was just the end of the line. Houston was a hot potato for decades, and collectors had restrictions not to share it. By the time it got to him, the restrictions had eased so he was able to share it. Let's see if he claims that he simply chose to share it all on his own, regardless of how many hands (and whose hands) it had passed through before it reached his.
[QUOTE]Before that -- years before that -- Mike contributed to this forum before it had a music-sharing section.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Then I'll revise my statement to: "He has contributed nothing to this forum since people came to understand the potential of technology, since he has chosen to pander to his antiquated views on quality preservation."
[QUOTE]Many people here contribute nothing to the forum and the only time they make an appearance is to ask for more recordings.[/QUOTE]
This is true... but let's not change the subject.
[QUOTE]You cannot impose your rules on someone else's website.[/QUOTE]
But you see, they're not my rules. Technology and its potential are making the rules. Some of us here are merely its messengers, inviting people to enjoy unofficial music in the highest quality possible. I'm trying very hard, and continuing to fail, to understand why some people can be happy with inferior versions of recordings.
[/QUOTE]
Whether Mike was the first to "have it" or not, I believe he was the first to share it here. That demonstrates that your remark "he has contributed nothing" is wrong. As I said also, there is more to this forum than sharing music, and Mike was here a long time before most of those hurling insults even knew Queenzone existed.
As for the rules, like myself, and Mike, and everyone else, Flac sharers are guests here and guests should obey site rules. The owner of the site -- the one who designed it, and the person who pays the bills -- allows mp3 sharing and Mike should not be insulted or told to leave by other forum members because he shares mp3s.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Whether Mike was the first to "have it" or not, I believe he was the first to share it here. That demonstrates that your remark "he has contributed nothing" is wrong.[/QUOTE]
I edited my post while you were writing yours. I'll give some credit, but not much. Even if he was the first person to track down Houston to share to the public, it doesn't eliminate what he has done since. Still, if I may say so, you clearly don't understand the history of the Houston recording. It's not simply a matter of "who shared it first." It's far more complicated than that.
[QUOTE]As I said also, there is more to this forum than sharing music, and Mike was here a long time before most of those hurling insults even knew Queenzone existed.[/QUOTE]
Longevity has nothing to do with someone's current actions, and shouldn't be used as an excuse to overlook them. If someone joined the forum today with the same views, people would be making the same efforts to explain to them how not to destroy recordings.
[QUOTE]As for the rules, like myself, and Mike, and everyone else, Flac sharers are guests here and guests should obey site rules. The owner of the site -- the one who designed it, and the person who pays the bills -- allows mp3 sharing and Mike should not be insulted or told to leave by other forum members because he shares mp3s. [/QUOTE]
Just because a rule has been imposed doesn't mean it's inherently right on all levels. Most websites once had the same rules (or lack of rules) that this website has. But they got with the times, while this one didn't.
The bottom line, as I've stated many times before, is this: If it weren't for tapers, transferrers, and collectors, these recordings wouldn't be available to people in the first place, and thus this announce forum wouldn't have existed in the first place, either. It has nothing to do with "rules". Rules can become outdated over time. Common sense should suggest that those who make the recordings available have the right to say what can be done with them. If one of those requests is to maintain the recording's quality, people should respect their wishes as a thank you for the recording, which otherwise would not have been heard. If these requests aren't met, then in many cases, no more recordings will emerge from that source. It's that simple.
You will not meet many tapers who will encourage people to share their recordings in mp3. That said, it is a fact that some shows won't ever be heard because of this forum. Sure, there are various reasons why recordings will remain underground, but the champions for lossy sharing here are to blame for some of them.
So what's more important? New recordings, or mp3 versions of existing ones?
I edited my post while you were writing yours. I'll give some credit, but not much. Even if he was the first person to track down Houston to share to the public, it doesn't eliminate what he has done since. Still, if I may say so, you clearly don't understand the history of the Houston recording. It's not simply a matter of "who shared it first." It's far more complicated than that.
[QUOTE]As I said also, there is more to this forum than sharing music, and Mike was here a long time before most of those hurling insults even knew Queenzone existed.[/QUOTE]
Longevity has nothing to do with someone's current actions, and shouldn't be used as an excuse to overlook them. If someone joined the forum today with the same views, people would be making the same efforts to explain to them how not to destroy recordings.
[QUOTE]As for the rules, like myself, and Mike, and everyone else, Flac sharers are guests here and guests should obey site rules. The owner of the site -- the one who designed it, and the person who pays the bills -- allows mp3 sharing and Mike should not be insulted or told to leave by other forum members because he shares mp3s. [/QUOTE]
Just because a rule has been imposed doesn't mean it's inherently right on all levels. Most websites once had the same rules (or lack of rules) that this website has. But they got with the times, while this one didn't.
The bottom line, as I've stated many times before, is this: If it weren't for tapers, transferrers, and collectors, these recordings wouldn't be available to people in the first place, and thus this announce forum wouldn't have existed in the first place, either. It has nothing to do with "rules". Rules can become outdated over time. Common sense should suggest that those who make the recordings available have the right to say what can be done with them. If one of those requests is to maintain the recording's quality, people should respect their wishes as a thank you for the recording, which otherwise would not have been heard. If these requests aren't met, then in many cases, no more recordings will emerge from that source. It's that simple.
You will not meet many tapers who will encourage people to share their recordings in mp3. That said, it is a fact that some shows won't ever be heard because of this forum. Sure, there are various reasons why recordings will remain underground, but the champions for lossy sharing here are to blame for some of them.
So what's more important? New recordings, or mp3 versions of existing ones?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Whether Mike was the first to "have it" or not, I believe he was the first to share it here. That demonstrates that your remark "he has contributed nothing" is wrong.[/QUOTE]
I edited my post while you were writing yours. I'll give some credit, but not much. Even if he was the first person to track down Houston to share to the public, it doesn't eliminate what he has done since. Still, if I may say so, you clearly don't understand the history of the Houston recording. It's not simply a matter of "who shared it first." It's far more complicated than that.
[QUOTE]As I said also, there is more to this forum than sharing music, and Mike was here a long time before most of those hurling insults even knew Queenzone existed.[/QUOTE]
Longevity has nothing to do with someone's current actions, and shouldn't be used as an excuse to overlook them. If someone joined the forum today with the same views, people would be making the same efforts to explain to them how not to destroy recordings.
[QUOTE]As for the rules, like myself, and Mike, and everyone else, Flac sharers are guests here and guests should obey site rules. The owner of the site -- the one who designed it, and the person who pays the bills -- allows mp3 sharing and Mike should not be insulted or told to leave by other forum members because he shares mp3s. [/QUOTE]
Just because a rule has been imposed doesn't mean it's inherently right on all levels. Most websites once had the same rules (or lack of rules) that this website has. But they got with the times, while this one didn't.
The bottom line, as I've stated many times before, is this: If it weren't for tapers, transferrers, and collectors, these recordings wouldn't be available to people in the first place, and thus this announce forum wouldn't have existed in the first place, either. It has nothing to do with "rules". Rules can become outdated over time. Common sense should suggest that those who make the recordings available have the right to say what can be done with them. If one of those requests is to maintain the recording's quality, people should respect their wishes as a thank you for the recording, which otherwise would not have been heard. If these requests aren't met, then in many cases, no more recordings will emerge from that source. It's that simple.
You will not meet many tapers who will encourage people to share their recordings in mp3. That said, it is a fact that some shows won't ever be heard because of this forum. Sure, there are various reasons why recordings will remain underground, but the champions for lossy sharing here are to blame for some of them.
So what's more important? New recordings, or mp3 versions of existing ones?
[/QUOTE]
In your opinion what Mike is doing is wrong: in the opinion of the guy who runs the forum (and who pays for it) what Mike is doing is fine. That is the bottom line.
I edited my post while you were writing yours. I'll give some credit, but not much. Even if he was the first person to track down Houston to share to the public, it doesn't eliminate what he has done since. Still, if I may say so, you clearly don't understand the history of the Houston recording. It's not simply a matter of "who shared it first." It's far more complicated than that.
[QUOTE]As I said also, there is more to this forum than sharing music, and Mike was here a long time before most of those hurling insults even knew Queenzone existed.[/QUOTE]
Longevity has nothing to do with someone's current actions, and shouldn't be used as an excuse to overlook them. If someone joined the forum today with the same views, people would be making the same efforts to explain to them how not to destroy recordings.
[QUOTE]As for the rules, like myself, and Mike, and everyone else, Flac sharers are guests here and guests should obey site rules. The owner of the site -- the one who designed it, and the person who pays the bills -- allows mp3 sharing and Mike should not be insulted or told to leave by other forum members because he shares mp3s. [/QUOTE]
Just because a rule has been imposed doesn't mean it's inherently right on all levels. Most websites once had the same rules (or lack of rules) that this website has. But they got with the times, while this one didn't.
The bottom line, as I've stated many times before, is this: If it weren't for tapers, transferrers, and collectors, these recordings wouldn't be available to people in the first place, and thus this announce forum wouldn't have existed in the first place, either. It has nothing to do with "rules". Rules can become outdated over time. Common sense should suggest that those who make the recordings available have the right to say what can be done with them. If one of those requests is to maintain the recording's quality, people should respect their wishes as a thank you for the recording, which otherwise would not have been heard. If these requests aren't met, then in many cases, no more recordings will emerge from that source. It's that simple.
You will not meet many tapers who will encourage people to share their recordings in mp3. That said, it is a fact that some shows won't ever be heard because of this forum. Sure, there are various reasons why recordings will remain underground, but the champions for lossy sharing here are to blame for some of them.
So what's more important? New recordings, or mp3 versions of existing ones?
[/QUOTE]
In your opinion what Mike is doing is wrong: in the opinion of the guy who runs the forum (and who pays for it) what Mike is doing is fine. That is the bottom line.