Zoom 79

There are ways of doing a "sound analysis" of the file and showing that it was not mp3 sourced. I know that others on STG (pma for example) have included a screen shot of the analysis as proof that the file is allright.

For the most part, however, I think that we simply have to go by what is said before we get the chance to hear the material for ourselves. Some users, like whitemanadmin, have established themselves as being against mp3 boots, so they can be trusted, I think. Others either don't care one way or the other, or do not know if it is mp3-sourced or not.

Rien wrote:

And to Whitemanadmin, well, okay, no Zoom from me then.
But I dare to say that the quality of this recording is better than some bootlegs I've heard.

But no problem.

I have no doubt of that my friend, but keeping the standards up, is a good exercise.

If you have a better than average set of MP3's, then that must mean someone has a low gen tape or CD out there somewhere which proper audio sourced and is good for a seed.

So the search goes on! :-)

And how about the bootleg tree, that are all mp3 files. People will burn them on a cdr and trade them with other queen collectors. I think some mp3 sourced concert will sound better then some mastertapes file. I think it's impossible to collect only kopies of mastertapes or something.

Rien is trying to do his best for sharing concerts with other Queenzoners and then he isn't allowed the place the torrent. He say's that it is a mp3 source. We could decide ourselfes if we would download the torrent or not. Rien many thanks for trying to share (by the way, Zoom 79 is in the bootleg tree as mp3, it is shared by Bullwinkle)

I did not know that it's in the bootleg tree. That's one of the threads I have never opened actually. Sharing through a torrent is also a bootleg tree, but one that speaks more to my imagination. :-)

btw this is no case of not being allowed to torrent something. I now understand that one wants to provide non-questionable material and that's only to praise.

If I still want to torrent this concert then I'll find another way. I already did that with the Dutch Queen's Day concert and the Freddie/Kenny documentary. Mostly because I did not realise Queenzone had a tracker itself.

Someone recently mentioned ZOOM, therefore I decided to decode the songs.

I can sympathise with both sides of the discussion (i won't call it an argument)i think the stance on mp3s was alluded to but never made clear. At least now we know the rules.

Perhaps Rien you could torrent a Queen documentary. I'm sure you have plenty or even a VCD compatible Queen's Day concert through

http://bt.easytree.org/

But thanks for the offer!

I know one tool for audio authenticity detection, which can be downloaded from http://www.true-audio.com/
It is called auCDtect, and according to some small tests on www.hydrogenaudio.org forums it mostly performs pretty well.

omniroy:

It's not an issue that mp3s are bad or that we are trying to keep Rien from sharing at all. It's an issue of keeping the mp3-sourced bootlegs and uncompressed bootlegs separate so that people can make up their own minds.

As Rien mentioned, the torrents are an effort to share the best possible quality stuff to the most people.

Rien wrote:

I did not know that it's in the bootleg tree. That's one of the threads I have never opened actually. Sharing through a torrent is also a bootleg tree, but one that speaks more to my imagination. :-)

btw this is no case of not being allowed to torrent something. I now understand that one wants to provide non-questionable material and that's only to praise.

Using only proper audio was done for 2 main reasons(and other smaller ones)

1. As a trader I am aginst MP3 sourced material. for personal use it is fine, but not for trading. And what I was frightened of, was someone downloading an MP3 concert and trying to pass it off as a legit recording to a trader, who in turn finds out it came from here, and that would be bad.

2. As I was going to be the main seeder in the first few months then, I thought if we keep the audio 100% legit, we will get traders coming to download as well(They wont want MP3 boots). They in turn will offer back some other shows, which they will have in their collection, and therefore take some of the pressure off me.

This has worked, as we have seen contributions from our Mystery Man, Your Valentine, Richard Orchard and others, Now it means I am getting new shows as well, which is fantastic for me.

If other people want to contribute and only have MP3 shows, they can reseed some of the older shows which I or others previously seeded (Which would be good for me as I stupidly deleted them instead of archiving them)

Agneepath! wrote:

I

Perhaps Rien you could torrent a Queen documentary. I'm sure you have plenty or even a VCD compatible Queen's Day concert through

Thats a great idea!

I have quite a few VCD's, but never really got into it that much. So If someone wants to take the mantle of seeding Video, that would be great, just contact me either on icq at 12283117 or email at [email protected] and I will help them get the .torrent onto the tracker

"The files are from cd (I think originally mp3) and I have used EAC to copy them, then turned them into WAVE and then into FLA, rate 8."

As stated, this is pointless. Once an MP3, it might as well stay as one.

This does raise a question I've had for a while. I'm relatively new to the bootleg trading thing, and it does seem that everyone is adamant about FLAC trading. However, I have yet to hear a live boot that NEEDS FLAC...most of these live boots could be ripped at 128k with no discernable difference. I guess that's not a question...just an observation ;o)

Spectral View in Cool Edit can immediately show whether or not a sound has been compressed in some way.

But often enough, one can hear the digital noise in a poorly-encoded mp3. I often hear it on the radio. Obviously they think nobody can hear the difference. :P

Zeni: in know it is not an issue that mp3 are bad or good. The issue is will we share or trade in mp3 files.
If i trade with someone i absolutely should mention that a concert comes from a mp3 source. Everyone has to do that!!!!. I also prefer normal files above mp3 files.

I only make a point to it because i thought it was unfair agianst Rien.

joeyjojo wrote:

This does raise a question I've had for a while. I'm relatively new to the bootleg trading thing, and it does seem that everyone is adamant about FLAC trading. However, I have yet to hear a live boot that NEEDS FLAC...most of these live boots could be ripped at 128k with no discernable difference. I guess that's not a question...just an observation ;o)

Person A has a good concert on CD and makes it into MP3. (loosing some of the original quality). Person A then converts it to WAV and burns it to a CD and trades it to Person B (Loosing more quality). If Person B never converts to MP3 then we have had 2 loses in quality. But if Person B did the same we now have 4, and an awful recording.

BUT, if Person A only ever traded his original CD's, which he dutifully ripped using EAC or CDParanoia, then Person B would get as cose to the original as humanly possible, And Person B ripped using the same way then there would be no degradation in Quality at all.

That is what we are trying to protect. We are being Anal retentive for a reason. So that 10 years down the line, if someone is getting a copy of New York 1977 for example, they are getting the same copy as we are downloading here in as pristine a condition as possible.

And to get that, all we need to do is download another couple hundred Meg more than we would if it was MP3, and make sure we look after the files when trading on.

Not that much to ask is it?

One thing that needs some clarification I think: converting to mp3 indeed creates irreversible quality loss, but decoding to wav and then burning to CD creates no quality loss at all! (At least not with proper equipment and media) (Though there may be changes in the pauses between the tracks and such or gaplessness)
I have no proof handy, but I read a test about a year ago, when a guy copied the original CD over 100 generations (copy the original, then copy the copy, and so on), and there was no quality loss at the end, the original and the 100th generation were same in every bit. So simply burning to a CD does not alter quality.

But, as whitemanadmin said, it's not a good thing to share audio from a lossy source (like mp3) even with a notice about lossiness. :)

I'll second the claim that cd audio converted to wave has no quality loss. If done properly, they are indeed equivilant.