[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]eYe wrote: [/b]
I am all for freedom, nobody should be banned for having another opinion, but I also understand Sir GH's point and the need for strict rules to preserve the quality of all the precious recordings among the fan community. I am no taper or trader, just a common downloader who would like to have all recordings in best possible quality and without his website I would be lost in the chaos of the queenzone sharing forum (the hub is a lot worse though).
Queenzone already has seperate sections for general and serious discussions. I think two sharing sections like that, general and quality/lossless, would already help a lot.
But it's not only the free spirit of queenzone, what prevents people from sharing their recordings here at queenzone. Pretty sure it's also the limited features and the annoying bugs. Posting working links is a real pain and we all know what happens when you make a mistake and need to edit the first post of a thread. Many announcements end up with no subject and not working links, no fun for the sharer. Just look what happend to the best of the best threads, such a great project, almost destroyed by the forum bugs.
[/QUOTE]
If the "benevolent dictator" (Richard ), actually allowed a democratic vote on this site, the militant FLAC crowd would vote overwhelmingly against the inclusion of a separate lossy section adjacent to a lossless section.
[/QUOTE]
That's one hell of a sweeping generalisation which I really don't think you can make. I consider myself a part of the "militant FLAC crowd" but I am also a pragmatist. We know there are many recordings which simply aren't widely available in lossless... yet. Do I still want to hear those performances? Of course! Will I ditch the mp3 as soon as a lossless upgrade becomes available? Of course! But that doesn't mean I won't be happy with the mp3 for now if nothing else is available.
In an ideal world we would not have people sharing lossy forms of recordings which are already widely available here in a lossless form and that's the real issue. When something is already available here in a better quality with full information why would anybody be happy with an inferior copy suddenly popping up?
However of more importance to me, and I expect to others like Bob, is that we still have a ridiculous number of recordings floating around with no lineage/source/taper information and I really do think that this is something the community could fix and quite quickly if the will was there.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The same old story over and over again......since years.
New are the complaints about sharing dime uploads on QZ as well.
Where is the problem?
I got a lot of Zep, Genesis, Zappa, Springsteen stuff from dime, which originally came from the several fan websites like Zappateers etc. There were no complaints at all about sharing them on Dime as well.
So why on QZ?
And:
Dime is limited to roundabout 10.000 members, all the rest has no chance to dl the Dime gems.
So why should Dime torrents not be spread outside of Dime? As long as the upload is left unaltered, I see no problem at all.
New are the complaints about sharing dime uploads on QZ as well.
Where is the problem?
I got a lot of Zep, Genesis, Zappa, Springsteen stuff from dime, which originally came from the several fan websites like Zappateers etc. There were no complaints at all about sharing them on Dime as well.
So why on QZ?
And:
Dime is limited to roundabout 10.000 members, all the rest has no chance to dl the Dime gems.
So why should Dime torrents not be spread outside of Dime? As long as the upload is left unaltered, I see no problem at all.
[QUOTE]
[b]Rick wrote: [/b]
This is getting ridiculous.
I say we should revive [url=http://www.queentraders.com]www.queentraders.com[/url]. Right now! I always loved those discussions.
Just my opinion of course.
Who's good at building websites? :P
[/QUOTE]
Good idea.
I suck at building websites. :-(
[b]Rick wrote: [/b]
This is getting ridiculous.
I say we should revive [url=http://www.queentraders.com]www.queentraders.com[/url]. Right now! I always loved those discussions.
Just my opinion of course.
Who's good at building websites? :P
[/QUOTE]
Good idea.
I suck at building websites. :-(
[QUOTE]
[b]frank39 wrote: [/b]
The same old story over and over again......since years.
New are the complaints about sharing dime uploads on QZ as well.
Where is the problem?
I got a lot of Zep, Genesis, Zappa, Springsteen stuff from dime, which originally came from the several fan websites like Zappateers etc. There were no complaints at all about sharing them on Dime as well.
So why on QZ?
And:
Dime is limited to roundabout 10.000 members, all the rest has no chance to dl the Dime gems.
So why should Dime torrents not be spread outside of Dime? As long as the upload is left unaltered, I see no problem at all.
[/QUOTE]
100.000
[b]frank39 wrote: [/b]
The same old story over and over again......since years.
New are the complaints about sharing dime uploads on QZ as well.
Where is the problem?
I got a lot of Zep, Genesis, Zappa, Springsteen stuff from dime, which originally came from the several fan websites like Zappateers etc. There were no complaints at all about sharing them on Dime as well.
So why on QZ?
And:
Dime is limited to roundabout 10.000 members, all the rest has no chance to dl the Dime gems.
So why should Dime torrents not be spread outside of Dime? As long as the upload is left unaltered, I see no problem at all.
[/QUOTE]
100.000
[QUOTE]
[b]Rick wrote: [/b]
Who's good at building websites? :P
[/QUOTE]
What exactly would you need ? :-)
[b]Rick wrote: [/b]
Who's good at building websites? :P
[/QUOTE]
What exactly would you need ? :-)
Please wait untill I have finished my time-machine. Then I'll travel back to 1970 to the city of Truro at first and will record this show and any following concert for myself or even film it with a Digicam. The security won´t find anything because they not even know what kind of magic those little electrical pieces are.
Damn - I should stop eating these pills! ....or maybe not....
W.
Damn - I should stop eating these pills! ....or maybe not....
W.
[QUOTE]
[b]TimBHM wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]eYe wrote: [/b]
I am all for freedom, nobody should be banned for having another opinion, but I also understand Sir GH's point and the need for strict rules to preserve the quality of all the precious recordings among the fan community. I am no taper or trader, just a common downloader who would like to have all recordings in best possible quality and without his website I would be lost in the chaos of the queenzone sharing forum (the hub is a lot worse though).
Queenzone already has seperate sections for general and serious discussions. I think two sharing sections like that, general and quality/lossless, would already help a lot.
But it's not only the free spirit of queenzone, what prevents people from sharing their recordings here at queenzone. Pretty sure it's also the limited features and the annoying bugs. Posting working links is a real pain and we all know what happens when you make a mistake and need to edit the first post of a thread. Many announcements end up with no subject and not working links, no fun for the sharer. Just look what happend to the best of the best threads, such a great project, almost destroyed by the forum bugs.
[/QUOTE]
If the "benevolent dictator" (Richard ), actually allowed a democratic vote on this site, the militant FLAC crowd would vote overwhelmingly against the inclusion of a separate lossy section adjacent to a lossless section.
[/QUOTE]
That's one hell of a sweeping generalisation which I really don't think you can make. I consider myself a part of the "militant FLAC crowd" but I am also a pragmatist. We know there are many recordings which simply aren't widely available in lossless... yet. Do I still want to hear those performances? Of course! Will I ditch the mp3 as soon as a lossless upgrade becomes available? Of course! But that doesn't mean I won't be happy with the mp3 for now if nothing else is available.
In an ideal world we would not have people sharing lossy forms of recordings which are already widely available here in a lossless form and that's the real issue. When something is already available here in a better quality with full information why would anybody be happy with an inferior copy suddenly popping up?
However of more importance to me, and I expect to others like Bob, is that we still have a ridiculous number of recordings floating around with no lineage/source/taper information and I really do think that this is something the community could fix and quite quickly if the will was there.
[/QUOTE]
I consider the pro-flac crowd and the militant flac crowd to be different. I would consider someone to be part of the militant flac crowd, if they were insistant that Richard ban lossy material on HIS site.
By that definition, I would assume that you are part of the pro-flac crowd rather than part of the militant flac crowd.
[b]TimBHM wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]eYe wrote: [/b]
I am all for freedom, nobody should be banned for having another opinion, but I also understand Sir GH's point and the need for strict rules to preserve the quality of all the precious recordings among the fan community. I am no taper or trader, just a common downloader who would like to have all recordings in best possible quality and without his website I would be lost in the chaos of the queenzone sharing forum (the hub is a lot worse though).
Queenzone already has seperate sections for general and serious discussions. I think two sharing sections like that, general and quality/lossless, would already help a lot.
But it's not only the free spirit of queenzone, what prevents people from sharing their recordings here at queenzone. Pretty sure it's also the limited features and the annoying bugs. Posting working links is a real pain and we all know what happens when you make a mistake and need to edit the first post of a thread. Many announcements end up with no subject and not working links, no fun for the sharer. Just look what happend to the best of the best threads, such a great project, almost destroyed by the forum bugs.
[/QUOTE]
If the "benevolent dictator" (Richard ), actually allowed a democratic vote on this site, the militant FLAC crowd would vote overwhelmingly against the inclusion of a separate lossy section adjacent to a lossless section.
[/QUOTE]
That's one hell of a sweeping generalisation which I really don't think you can make. I consider myself a part of the "militant FLAC crowd" but I am also a pragmatist. We know there are many recordings which simply aren't widely available in lossless... yet. Do I still want to hear those performances? Of course! Will I ditch the mp3 as soon as a lossless upgrade becomes available? Of course! But that doesn't mean I won't be happy with the mp3 for now if nothing else is available.
In an ideal world we would not have people sharing lossy forms of recordings which are already widely available here in a lossless form and that's the real issue. When something is already available here in a better quality with full information why would anybody be happy with an inferior copy suddenly popping up?
However of more importance to me, and I expect to others like Bob, is that we still have a ridiculous number of recordings floating around with no lineage/source/taper information and I really do think that this is something the community could fix and quite quickly if the will was there.
[/QUOTE]
I consider the pro-flac crowd and the militant flac crowd to be different. I would consider someone to be part of the militant flac crowd, if they were insistant that Richard ban lossy material on HIS site.
By that definition, I would assume that you are part of the pro-flac crowd rather than part of the militant flac crowd.