Why not use MP3 instead of Flac ?

Just what is the point in using Flac for bootlegs ? the sound Quality is already crap anyway I think we would be better using MP3 for bootlegs.

Sorry, but this subject is discussed a million times here.
With flac you don't lose quality and with mp3 you do lose quality.

You could expect some rude answers with this question.

not wanting to stir up a hornets nest
but...........if you encode mp3 @320 you have near cd quality...i've listened to 320 mp3s and flacs and can't tell the difference - but have to admit that out of advice - have kept the boots in flac format

But my point is the Quality of these bootlegs is crap anyway so why use flac ?

you can convert your flac files to shitty mp3

I understand your point, but even if you don't always hear a difference, it's there. And I think it's actually more important with stuff that's lower quality to begin with... you want to preserve what's there as much as possible.

Let's say someone took a show from mp3 and put it on CD. 5 years from now they're the only one who has this show on CD. So they extract it and share it as mp3 once again. The quality would suffer greatly from being so heavily compressed.. twice.

Most of these shows will never see an official release, so it seems obvious to me to try and keep them at the best possible quality for others to enjoy.

Of course not everyone can download such big files, but that's just one of those things in life.. should everyone get lesser quality stuff just because a percentage can't download high quality? I don't think so.

Somebody said in another recent thread that zipping ".wav" files would make them the same size as ".flac" files. Is that true? If that is the case, why use ".flac" anyway?

Cheers,

Ogre-

Okay, there's no need to call anyone a fool for simply asking a question about something he heard.

I tried this with 'You Don't Fool Me' from 'The Eye' since it's the biggest wav file:

Original wav - 59.8 MB
Zipped (maximum) - 55.8
Flac level 8 - 42.5
Zipped flac - 42.5 (no change!)

Evangp, I won't treat with direspect as you did to me. You are officially declared not-existant from now on. You won't hear from me again. So long, invisible man.

Agreed. Show some respect, Evangp.

I think most people lost there respect. As i watch to al the answers that people give to each other.
This is a QUEEN site and we are here because we like the same thing....
Why being so cruel to each other when someone asks a question.

Sharing MP3 and then convert it to flac by yourself would be a good idea. But thats just my opinion and I actually downloaded Osaka 82 from here and I found a different version in MP3 with a lot better sound quality.

I prefer MP3 cause it goes about 4 mp3 concerts (with a bout 128k quality and 22+ songs) on 1 flac concert. And flac makes your shares look a lot bigger than they actaully are at the hub

EVANGP, I don’t think it’s really necessary to be so rude immediately. It isn’t crime to ask. I understand that such question would have been here many times before. But not everybody is computer and sound expert.

Sorry to say so, but you sounds very harsh sometimes, without any apparent reason.

you fail to take a few things into account here

1. he wasn't trying to trick people - he said the mp3 version he downloaded was better quality than the flac he got from here - it doesn't matter what YOUR ranking is Mr deity, show some respect... it is possible that an m3 version could sound better - if the original source files were of differing quality
2. a shit original recording - will always become a shit flac
3. mp3 @320 is according to various forums - the level to record music at to prevent loss
4. he asked a question - that was all....
5. do you talk to your everyone like that?

To take an mp3, then convert it to flac, and upload it for people to download as flac would be a crime in my opinion.
This is what some people obviously do.
Yes, mp3's have there place in the audio world, but to get the best possible sound it should be wav or flac and stay that way..