My 2penniesworth -
I think it has a lot to do with the quality of the original and the care used by whoever transfers to MP3. If its done well there can be very little real noticeable difference - although there will be a difference due to MP3's loss. By its very nature MP3 will be inferior to Wav due to the amount lost, and I have found that MP3 can tend to highlight deficiencies in poorer recordings more than wav does.
One of the benefits of MP3 is that I've been able to get hold of a load of shows on here all in MP3 (and many many thanks to the kind souls who upload it all) - were I to wait for Flac I'd still be waiting.
At the end of the day though we all have a choice, if you dont want to have MP3 dont have it, but if you want a copy of Freddie singing a few lines of I'm in love with my car & can only get it on MP3 then you have a decision to make.
Oh and dont forget, just coz its flac dont mean it was recorded as wav - could have been transfered from MP3 to wav to flac - lots of stuff on Easytree used to get pulled for that very reason.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well, I've said this before and I guess I'll say it again. The key to understanding why many people dislike mp3 is understanding how mp3 works. Without getting overly-technical, here it is:
mp3 files are small because data is lost when encoding them. That's why mp3 is called a "lossy" format. The lower the bitrate, the more data is lost. That's why 128 mp3 often doesn't sound as "rich" or "full" as a 320 mp3.
The real problem comes when people burn a disc with mp3-sourced files and then at a later time extract the music from the disc and re-encode into mp3 again. Now, even more data is lost. Each time this happens, there is generational degradation in the music. Collectors don't like this. As has been pointed out, many audience recordings aren't of great quality in the first place. So who wants to get nth generation mp3 files that sound even worse than the original tape?
Encoding music to wav files does not result in a loss of data, and therefore when done correctly (checking fingerprint files, etc.) it produces a copy of identical quality to the original. The number of generations should not matter. (FLAC is a way to "zip" wav files to make them easier to transfer.) Yes, it takes longer, but you know that you're getting the best possible quality.
I hope this helps.
P.S. What I don't understand is why people who want to share shows in mp3 don't torrent them. I see everyone debating Rapidshare and whatnot, but do any of you realize that you can torrent mp3s?
mp3 files are small because data is lost when encoding them. That's why mp3 is called a "lossy" format. The lower the bitrate, the more data is lost. That's why 128 mp3 often doesn't sound as "rich" or "full" as a 320 mp3.
The real problem comes when people burn a disc with mp3-sourced files and then at a later time extract the music from the disc and re-encode into mp3 again. Now, even more data is lost. Each time this happens, there is generational degradation in the music. Collectors don't like this. As has been pointed out, many audience recordings aren't of great quality in the first place. So who wants to get nth generation mp3 files that sound even worse than the original tape?
Encoding music to wav files does not result in a loss of data, and therefore when done correctly (checking fingerprint files, etc.) it produces a copy of identical quality to the original. The number of generations should not matter. (FLAC is a way to "zip" wav files to make them easier to transfer.) Yes, it takes longer, but you know that you're getting the best possible quality.
I hope this helps.
P.S. What I don't understand is why people who want to share shows in mp3 don't torrent them. I see everyone debating Rapidshare and whatnot, but do any of you realize that you can torrent mp3s?
Ha, I see Teejay and I had similar thoughts and I somehow didn't see his post until just now! Sorry.
Penetration_Guru
you are an idiot. you are a newbie collector. dont act like you know what you're talking about.
Mmmm... PenGuru is an old time poster here at Queenzone... way before Queen toured with Paul Rodgers and people like you discovered this forum. I don't know how old he is or if he's been collecting for 10, 20 or 35 years, but he's well respected here and the things he says are mostly accurate, give or take a few sarcasm... :)
I might not have that many posts but I've read this and previous incarnations of this forum since 1997 or so (queen.net, queenrocker, queenzone before the 2001 crash, etc). People come and go, but few members stay for good and actually have a reputation in here.
We should all understand each other. The new ones want to get everything either way possible. You should not expect this to happen just that easy. This is an already established community of some sort and there are rules. Old time posters have learned to ignore stupid posts but one in every 100th one... well, everything has a limit, hehe :).
Just keep it clean.. Let's try to say what we mean and mind our own business without falling into Name Calling...
Sincerely,
Wiley
Don't touch our dear P_G!
Why I don't like torrent? Because download rate is so low, but upload rate is so high... :) I can download whole concert from RapidShare just in a couple of hours, if I'd do the same as torrents it might take a whole day sometimes. As I wrote above I don't have anything against flac or torrents, but I like mp3s and zip/rar files on RapidShare! Maybe because I ain't gonna make an ultimate collection of all existing Queen lives and don't care much about quality. All studio tracks I have on CD and don't need to download them in mp3 or flac.
Why I don't like torrent? Because download rate is so low, but upload rate is so high... :) I can download whole concert from RapidShare just in a couple of hours, if I'd do the same as torrents it might take a whole day sometimes. As I wrote above I don't have anything against flac or torrents, but I like mp3s and zip/rar files on RapidShare! Maybe because I ain't gonna make an ultimate collection of all existing Queen lives and don't care much about quality. All studio tracks I have on CD and don't need to download them in mp3 or flac.
Don't touch our dear P_G!
Why I don't like torrent? Because download rate is so low, but upload rate is so high... :) I can download whole concert from RapidShare just in a couple of hours, if I'd do the same as torrents it might take a whole day sometimes.
Hmmm, then you are doing something wrong. Which client do you have? And what ISP? Torrent is designed to go FAST, and I've only had good experiences with it. :S
Why I don't like MP3 concerts.... the clicks between the songs... it's takes ages to sit down and remove them all... so for me FLAC is by far the best means to trade concerts vis the net.
Other than that I've nothing against MP3... have a MP3 player that I use everyday on the way to work.
Other than that I've nothing against MP3... have a MP3 player that I use everyday on the way to work.
As far as the quality of FLAC versus mp3 goes, there are mp3-files encoded in variable bit-rate (VBR) that can be just as good as any CD recording. You'd probably need a state-of-the-art equipment to notice the difference. And I don't think that that tiny scrape of sound (someone coughing in the back of the hall while Brian is playing his solo) justifies almost a Gigabyte of Internet transfer. It's overkill!
V.
V.
Don't touch our dear P_G!
Why I don't like torrent? Because download rate is so low, but upload rate is so high... :) I can download whole concert from RapidShare just in a couple of hours, if I'd do the same as torrents it might take a whole day sometimes.
Hmmm, then you are doing something wrong. Which client do you have? And what ISP? Torrent is designed to go FAST, and I've only had good experiences with it. :S
Nothing wrong. "Sometimes, limiting your upload rate will increase your download rate. This is especially true for asymmetric connections such as cable and ADSL, where the outbound bandwidth is much smaller than the inbound bandwidth. If you are seeing very high upload rates and low download rates, this is probably the case. The reason this happens is due to the nature of TCP/IP -- every packet received must be acknowledged with a small outbound packet. If the outbound link is saturated with BitTorrent data, the latency of these TCP/IP ACKs will rise, causing poor efficiency." I have ADSL.
You must have God's ears to hear big difference between FLAC and mp3 if you listen to third copy of audience recorded bootleg!
Then I guess I'm God, because I've been able to immediately tell the difference for years.
Agreed with Zeni... if you have a decent stereo, the difference can be heard.
And yes, it seems like MR.RICO is Evan, yet again. Here's all you need to know about him:
http://rattus_the_rat.tripod.com/references.html
http://evbad.freewebspace.com/ev.html
The bit about the pizza stores was hilarious!
If Mr Rico is Evan, why is he begging me to trade shows with him?
Nothing wrong. "Sometimes, limiting your upload rate will increase your download rate. This is especially true for asymmetric connections such as cable and ADSL, where the outbound bandwidth is much smaller than the inbound bandwidth. If you are seeing very high upload rates and low download rates, this is probably the case. The reason this happens is due to the nature of TCP/IP -- every packet received must be acknowledged with a small outbound packet. If the outbound link is saturated with BitTorrent data, the latency of these TCP/IP ACKs will rise, causing poor efficiency." I have ADSL.
Well, you can limit your upload rate. Atleast in the client I use (ABC). Perhaps you could give that a go?
I don't see. Most bootleg stuff isn't recorded at great quality anyway so there shouldn't be any difference between the mp3 and flac file. I challenge anybody to tell me any audible difference between a flac and mp3 file from a bootleg
Do you listen to your bootlegs on computer speakers or on a decent stereo system?
I can tell the difference immediately between music I have on mp3 and music I have gotten through flac/shn/ape. Mp3s sound tinny when played on my stereo, and since that is how I listen to most of my music, I prefer quality.
Mp3 has a purpose; flac has a purpose. They don't need to be mutually exclusive, nor does one side need to tell me the other is wrong.
quality? what quality? most of bootles are still pure shit. i understand flac if theres sounboard recording or some rare demo.
I don't see. Most bootleg stuff isn't recorded at great quality anyway so there shouldn't be any difference between the mp3 and flac file. I challenge anybody to tell me any audible difference between a flac and mp3 file from a bootleg
Do you listen to your bootlegs on computer speakers or on a decent stereo system?
I can tell the difference immediately between music I have on mp3 and music I have gotten through flac/shn/ape. Mp3s sound tinny when played on my stereo, and since that is how I listen to most of my music, I prefer quality.
Mp3 has a purpose; flac has a purpose. They don't need to be mutually exclusive, nor does one side need to tell me the other is wrong.
quality? what quality? most of bootles are still pure shit. i understand flac if theres sounboard recording or some rare demo.
So if you have VG- quality FLAC, you don't care if you get a G quality MP3 file? Gimbert, you are the most stupid, annoying and fucked up individual the internet has ever had the displeasure of containing.
fine, have your VG- FLAC, I don't care. But you calling me the most stupid, annoying and fucked up individual the internet? look on mirror asshole and have real pleasure with your audience recordings.
***REMOVED***
***WRONG TOPIC***
***WRONG TOPIC***