Thanks for sharing. Indeed, the Game tour was probably Freddie´s best.
Take care
Bobby_brown
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<h6><b><font color="Black">SebasMercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]av1dkson wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thanks for this, i'll convert to MP3 and upload it to other sites straight away :)[/QUOTE]
Are you joking? NEVER DO THAT! [/QUOTE]
This probably just a wind up in reaction to Bob's harsh comments.
Of course, sites like The Trader's Den do not demand that flac files not be shared as mp3 on other web sites, and admit mp3's have their place:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=mp3&match=all&titlesonly=0
...
"The truth about lossy file types is that, under proper scientific double blind studies, a very small percentage of humans are able to hear the difference between uncompressed .wav audio and high quality (192 KBps or higher) encoded lossy formats. These formats have their place. Many people compress their audio recordings to a lossy format for playing on portable players, their computers, or standalone home units. This is an effective method as the audio difference in one generation of lossless to lossy compression is likely to not cause an audible difference. Feel free to compress lossless recordings to whatever format you choose, but never, ever pass on files compressed to lossy formats or lossless files sourced from lossy formats to other traders."
"Simply put, there are NO lossy file types (OGG-Vorbis, MP3, AAC, etc, etc) permitted for trade at this site. This is NOT a negotiable issue, there will be NO subforum for mp3 traders. If you ignore this rule and post lossy sourced material, there are ways to test for this and it will be discovered, resulting in your seed being deleted. Please respect the high quality standards we have put in place, and bring your mp3s elsewhere."
...
Are you joking? NEVER DO THAT! [/QUOTE]
This probably just a wind up in reaction to Bob's harsh comments.
Of course, sites like The Trader's Den do not demand that flac files not be shared as mp3 on other web sites, and admit mp3's have their place:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=mp3&match=all&titlesonly=0
...
"The truth about lossy file types is that, under proper scientific double blind studies, a very small percentage of humans are able to hear the difference between uncompressed .wav audio and high quality (192 KBps or higher) encoded lossy formats. These formats have their place. Many people compress their audio recordings to a lossy format for playing on portable players, their computers, or standalone home units. This is an effective method as the audio difference in one generation of lossless to lossy compression is likely to not cause an audible difference. Feel free to compress lossless recordings to whatever format you choose, but never, ever pass on files compressed to lossy formats or lossless files sourced from lossy formats to other traders."
"Simply put, there are NO lossy file types (OGG-Vorbis, MP3, AAC, etc, etc) permitted for trade at this site. This is NOT a negotiable issue, there will be NO subforum for mp3 traders. If you ignore this rule and post lossy sourced material, there are ways to test for this and it will be discovered, resulting in your seed being deleted. Please respect the high quality standards we have put in place, and bring your mp3s elsewhere."
...
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Van wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
This probably just a wind up in reaction to Bob's overblown preaching.[/QUOTE]
But look where the preaching has gotten us. Excluding one troll who is clearly another QZ member in disguise trying to stir the pot, we're currently in a topic where the only person who doesn't fully support lossless audio is you.
[QUOTE]"The truth about lossy file types is that, under proper scientific double blind studies, a very small percentage of humans are able to hear the difference between uncompressed .wav audio and high quality (192 KBps or higher) encoded lossy formats.[/QUOTE]
The bitrate is the key factor here. Most people encode mp3s at 128 kbps. This was considered "standard quality" a few years ago, and some people refuse to accept that we have moved forward since then. There is definitely an audible difference between that and a lossless file.
[QUOTE]Of course, sites like The Trader's Den do not demand that f;ac files not be shared as mp3 on other web sites. and admit mp3's have their place:[/QUOTE]
I urge people not to spread lossy copies of something that was originally shared lossless. That doesn't imply that someone can't convert it to mp3 for their own use.
You're fighting a losing battle. You're in the minority, and you know it. Let the community enjoy high quality music, without people like you potentially confusing new users into believing that mp3s are as good as FLACs.
This probably just a wind up in reaction to Bob's overblown preaching.[/QUOTE]
But look where the preaching has gotten us. Excluding one troll who is clearly another QZ member in disguise trying to stir the pot, we're currently in a topic where the only person who doesn't fully support lossless audio is you.
[QUOTE]"The truth about lossy file types is that, under proper scientific double blind studies, a very small percentage of humans are able to hear the difference between uncompressed .wav audio and high quality (192 KBps or higher) encoded lossy formats.[/QUOTE]
The bitrate is the key factor here. Most people encode mp3s at 128 kbps. This was considered "standard quality" a few years ago, and some people refuse to accept that we have moved forward since then. There is definitely an audible difference between that and a lossless file.
[QUOTE]Of course, sites like The Trader's Den do not demand that f;ac files not be shared as mp3 on other web sites. and admit mp3's have their place:[/QUOTE]
I urge people not to spread lossy copies of something that was originally shared lossless. That doesn't imply that someone can't convert it to mp3 for their own use.
You're fighting a losing battle. You're in the minority, and you know it. Let the community enjoy high quality music, without people like you potentially confusing new users into believing that mp3s are as good as FLACs.
Saint Jiub
I never said that mp3 is as good as flac, but is clearly inaccurate to label mp3 as a huge step below flac.
The Trader's Den does not make harsh comments towards those who share the flac files as mp3's outside their website.
Last I heard, from YV on the QZ website, is that mp3's can be shared on QZ.
However, I have treated Bob's harsh comments as "polite requests", and have kept my mp3 conversions of QZ related flac downloads separate from from my QueenHub downloads, and have not shared these mp3's with anyone.
There needs to be more tolerance of those who prefer mp3. Few seriously consider mp3's to be trading material, and as such are a limited threat to the "trading pool."
Besides, if anyone uploaded lossy files as flac files (intentional or unintentional) on QZ, I doubt a day would pass before someone ran the files through a sound spectrum analyzer to determine that the files were mislabeled as lossless when these files were infact lossy. I recall that the inadvertant conversion to lossy of Portland 74 by a new, then inexperienced poster, was quickly discovered on QZ and handled in a mostly diplomatic manner.
Bob - if one of your shares is converted to mp3 and reshared, how will you be able to conclude that the mp3 came from your share and not some other simiar mp3 source?
The Trader's Den does not make harsh comments towards those who share the flac files as mp3's outside their website.
Last I heard, from YV on the QZ website, is that mp3's can be shared on QZ.
However, I have treated Bob's harsh comments as "polite requests", and have kept my mp3 conversions of QZ related flac downloads separate from from my QueenHub downloads, and have not shared these mp3's with anyone.
There needs to be more tolerance of those who prefer mp3. Few seriously consider mp3's to be trading material, and as such are a limited threat to the "trading pool."
Besides, if anyone uploaded lossy files as flac files (intentional or unintentional) on QZ, I doubt a day would pass before someone ran the files through a sound spectrum analyzer to determine that the files were mislabeled as lossless when these files were infact lossy. I recall that the inadvertant conversion to lossy of Portland 74 by a new, then inexperienced poster, was quickly discovered on QZ and handled in a mostly diplomatic manner.
Bob - if one of your shares is converted to mp3 and reshared, how will you be able to conclude that the mp3 came from your share and not some other simiar mp3 source?
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Van wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]"The truth about lossy file types is that, under proper scientific double blind studies, a very small percentage of humans are able to hear the difference between uncompressed .wav audio and high quality (192 KBps or higher) encoded lossy formats.[/QUOTE]
The bitrate is the key factor here. Most people encode mp3s at 128 kbps. This was considered "standard quality" a few years ago[/QUOTE]
Most of my mp3 files are 192 kbps or higher. In fact 192 kbps is the default rate on my Roxio software. It can be argued that the "standard quality" of mp3's is now higher than the 128 kbps "standard" of a few years ago.
All I am asking is that mp3 be tolerated (as it is allowed on QZ), as spectrum analyzers will readily detect lossy files being being presented as lossless, and because mp3's are not cseriously considered trading material (and as such have a limited threat to the trading pool).
Many other flac sharers on QZ do not resort to threats to stop sharing, and most QZ posters do not insult the intelligence of mp3 users.
I ask you to take their example.
The main reason for the success of flac on QZ is not because of the threats ... it is a postive reaction to the lower generation recordings being shared.
I am not the only one complains about the treatment mp3 users (928 recently got an earful from several posters. I may be the only one who is consistently vocal, but that is because so many posters have been beaten into submission.
Flac is likely the more popular format on QZ, but that does not mean that mp3's can not be shared on QZ.
[QUOTE]"The truth about lossy file types is that, under proper scientific double blind studies, a very small percentage of humans are able to hear the difference between uncompressed .wav audio and high quality (192 KBps or higher) encoded lossy formats.[/QUOTE]
The bitrate is the key factor here. Most people encode mp3s at 128 kbps. This was considered "standard quality" a few years ago[/QUOTE]
Most of my mp3 files are 192 kbps or higher. In fact 192 kbps is the default rate on my Roxio software. It can be argued that the "standard quality" of mp3's is now higher than the 128 kbps "standard" of a few years ago.
All I am asking is that mp3 be tolerated (as it is allowed on QZ), as spectrum analyzers will readily detect lossy files being being presented as lossless, and because mp3's are not cseriously considered trading material (and as such have a limited threat to the trading pool).
Many other flac sharers on QZ do not resort to threats to stop sharing, and most QZ posters do not insult the intelligence of mp3 users.
I ask you to take their example.
The main reason for the success of flac on QZ is not because of the threats ... it is a postive reaction to the lower generation recordings being shared.
I am not the only one complains about the treatment mp3 users (928 recently got an earful from several posters. I may be the only one who is consistently vocal, but that is because so many posters have been beaten into submission.
Flac is likely the more popular format on QZ, but that does not mean that mp3's can not be shared on QZ.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Van wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I never said that mp3 is as good as flac, but is clearly inaccurate to label mp3 as a huge step below flac.[/QUOTE]
I could not disagree more. Compare:
wav - http://www.mediafire.com/?ehgckqqjfa5
mp3 - http://www.mediafire.com/?9dyendzmn2k
All I did was convert that same wav file to a 128 kbps mp3, and made no other changes. The difference is undeniably huge. If you don't agree, then that simply means that you don't really care about this kind of quality difference... which of course is fine. Just don't criticize those who do. These people are growing in number by the day. Technology, as well as overall interest in preserving audio quality, is moving forward... not backward.
Honestly, I can't possibly understand why anyone would prefer to have this show in the above mp3 quality when the FLAC version sounds that much better. Collecting should be about having the best possible recording... not saving hard drive space. If someone wants mp3s, then they can download the FLACs, and convert them to mp3 for their own use.
[QUOTE]There needs to be more tolerance of those who prefer mp3. Few seriously consider mp3's to be trading material, and as such are a limited threat to the "trading pool."[/QUOTE]
Then why do you so adamantly speak in defense of them if you know they are few in number? Sure, you could come back and say "why are you so concerned if they are so few in number?" Because, all it takes is for ONE person to ruin a recording and circulate it - even if they don't consciously intend to do so. Not everyone knows how to test a recording to see if it's lossless or not. Not everyone is an expert. Therefore, it's best to urge people to keep lossless files lossless from the start, and they can dive into the details later if they so wish. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw this as some kind of indoctrination, but I prefer to see it as showing people the correct way off the bat. We need to ensure that the best version of each show is circulating, and that all obsolete versions fall into obscurity. Anything else just adds to the problem. Why is this so difficult to understand?
[QUOTE]Bob - if one of your shares is converted to mp3 and reshared, how will you be able to conclude that the mp3 came from your share and not some other simiar mp3 source?[/QUOTE]
In the case of this Oakland 80 show, I would be completely sure, because I am the first QZ user who got their hands on the third gen copy. I haven't seen this recording on anyone's list, so it's very safe to assume that I'm the only one who had it until now. Therefore, any lossy version would have to be made from this specific share. Of course, there is the incredibly slight chance that another QZ user got this recording from the same person I got it from, but it would be some coincidence if an mp3 version magically popped up a month from now from someone claiming that they've "had it in mp3 on their hard drive for quite some time now, and thought they'd share it."
I could not disagree more. Compare:
wav - http://www.mediafire.com/?ehgckqqjfa5
mp3 - http://www.mediafire.com/?9dyendzmn2k
All I did was convert that same wav file to a 128 kbps mp3, and made no other changes. The difference is undeniably huge. If you don't agree, then that simply means that you don't really care about this kind of quality difference... which of course is fine. Just don't criticize those who do. These people are growing in number by the day. Technology, as well as overall interest in preserving audio quality, is moving forward... not backward.
Honestly, I can't possibly understand why anyone would prefer to have this show in the above mp3 quality when the FLAC version sounds that much better. Collecting should be about having the best possible recording... not saving hard drive space. If someone wants mp3s, then they can download the FLACs, and convert them to mp3 for their own use.
[QUOTE]There needs to be more tolerance of those who prefer mp3. Few seriously consider mp3's to be trading material, and as such are a limited threat to the "trading pool."[/QUOTE]
Then why do you so adamantly speak in defense of them if you know they are few in number? Sure, you could come back and say "why are you so concerned if they are so few in number?" Because, all it takes is for ONE person to ruin a recording and circulate it - even if they don't consciously intend to do so. Not everyone knows how to test a recording to see if it's lossless or not. Not everyone is an expert. Therefore, it's best to urge people to keep lossless files lossless from the start, and they can dive into the details later if they so wish. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw this as some kind of indoctrination, but I prefer to see it as showing people the correct way off the bat. We need to ensure that the best version of each show is circulating, and that all obsolete versions fall into obscurity. Anything else just adds to the problem. Why is this so difficult to understand?
[QUOTE]Bob - if one of your shares is converted to mp3 and reshared, how will you be able to conclude that the mp3 came from your share and not some other simiar mp3 source?[/QUOTE]
In the case of this Oakland 80 show, I would be completely sure, because I am the first QZ user who got their hands on the third gen copy. I haven't seen this recording on anyone's list, so it's very safe to assume that I'm the only one who had it until now. Therefore, any lossy version would have to be made from this specific share. Of course, there is the incredibly slight chance that another QZ user got this recording from the same person I got it from, but it would be some coincidence if an mp3 version magically popped up a month from now from someone claiming that they've "had it in mp3 on their hard drive for quite some time now, and thought they'd share it."
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]av1dkson wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I wish to convert mine to MP3 and trade it.[/QUOTE]
Good luck on your little mission. I'm sorry to hear you are going out of your way to make this into some kind of competition. If it makes you happy to spend your time converting files to lossy formats and spread them out of spite, then go for it. C'est la vie.
Good luck on your little mission. I'm sorry to hear you are going out of your way to make this into some kind of competition. If it makes you happy to spend your time converting files to lossy formats and spread them out of spite, then go for it. C'est la vie.
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Van wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I never said that mp3 is as good as flac, but is clearly inaccurate to label mp3 as a huge step below flac.[/QUOTE]
I could not disagree more. Compare:
wav - http://www.mediafire.com/?ehgckqqjfa5
mp3 - http://www.mediafire.com/?9dyendzmn2k
The difference is undeniably huge. (WHAT GENERATION WAS YOUR MP3 FILE? WHAT KBPS RATE? HOW MANY TIMES HAS THIS BEEN CONVERTED TO MP3? AS YOU INDICATE BELOW, THIS TYPE OF RECORDING WILL FADE INTO OBSCURITY.) If you don't agree, then that simply means that you don't really care about this kind of quality difference... which of course is fine. Just don't criticize those who do (I CRITICIZE THOSE WHO INSULT MP3 USERS.). These people are growing in number by the day. Technology, as well as overall interest in preserving audio quality, is moving forward... not backward.
Honestly, I can't possibly understand why anyone would prefer to have this show in the above mp3 quality when the FLAC version sounds that much better. Collecting should be about having the best possible recording... not saving hard drive space. If someone wants mp3s, then they can download the FLACs, and convert it to mp3 for their own use. (WHO APPOINTED YOU AS GOD OF QZ?)
[QUOTE]There needs to be more tolerance of those who prefer mp3. Few seriously consider mp3's to be trading material, and as such are a limited threat to the "trading pool."[/QUOTE]
Then why do you so adamantly speak in defense of them if you know they are few in number? (I SPEAK IN DEFENSE BECAUSE I BELIEVE MP3 SHARING IS OVERBLOWN AS A THREAT TO THE TRADING POOL.) Sure, you could come back and say "why are you so concerned if they are so few in number?" Because, all it takes is for ONE person to ruin a recording and circulate it - even if they don't consciously intend to do so. (YET OTHER HIGHER GENERATION FLAC AND MP3 FILES STILL EXIST. WHAT MAKES THE NEW CONVERSIONS TO MP3 DIFFERENT?) Not everyone knows how to test a recording to see if it's lossless or not. Not everyone is an expert. (YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE AN EXPERT TO USE A SPECTRAL ANALYZER. I CAN NOT IMAGINE THAT EVEN SEMI-SERIOUS TRADERS WOULD BE SO FOOLISH AS TO NOT CHECK THEIR RECENTLY DOWNLOADED FLAC FILES WITH A SPECTRAL ANALYZER). Therefore, it's best to urge (YOU THREATEN, YOU DO NOT "URGE") people to keep lossless files lossless from the start, and they can dive into the details later if they so wish. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw this as some kind of indoctrination (I SEE ONLY YOUR THREATS), but I prefer to see it as showing people the correct way off the bat. We need to ensure that the best version of each show is circulating, and that all obsolete versions fall into obscurity (RECENT MP3 CONVERSIONS BACK TO FLAC FILES WILL QUICKLY FALL INTO OBSCURITY, JUST LIKE OLD OBSOLETE VERSIONS). Anything else just adds to the problem. Why is this so difficult to understand? (WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO USE A SPECTRAL ANALYZER, AND LEAVE MP3 USERS ALONE?)
[QUOTE]Bob - if one of your shares is converted to mp3 and reshared, how will you be able to conclude that the mp3 came from your share and not some other simiar mp3 source?[/QUOTE]
In the case of this Oakland 80 show, I would be completely sure, because I am the first QZ user who got their hands on the third gen copy. I haven't seen this recording on anyone's list, so it's very safe to assume that I'm the only one who had it until now. Therefore, any lossy version would have to be made from this specific share (ARE YOU GOING TO SCROUNGE THE HUB AND ALL OTHER MP3 DOWNLOADS YOU ENCOUNTER AND LISTEN TO EACH MP3 RECORDING TO DETECT ANY INFERIOR MP3 VERSION. ARE YOU SURE THAT THERE ARE NOT ANY 4TH OR 5TH GENERATION MP3 CONVERSIONS OUT THERE THAT ARE ALMOST AS GOOD AS "YOUR RECORDING"?) Of course, there is the incredibly slight chance th
I could not disagree more. Compare:
wav - http://www.mediafire.com/?ehgckqqjfa5
mp3 - http://www.mediafire.com/?9dyendzmn2k
The difference is undeniably huge. (WHAT GENERATION WAS YOUR MP3 FILE? WHAT KBPS RATE? HOW MANY TIMES HAS THIS BEEN CONVERTED TO MP3? AS YOU INDICATE BELOW, THIS TYPE OF RECORDING WILL FADE INTO OBSCURITY.) If you don't agree, then that simply means that you don't really care about this kind of quality difference... which of course is fine. Just don't criticize those who do (I CRITICIZE THOSE WHO INSULT MP3 USERS.). These people are growing in number by the day. Technology, as well as overall interest in preserving audio quality, is moving forward... not backward.
Honestly, I can't possibly understand why anyone would prefer to have this show in the above mp3 quality when the FLAC version sounds that much better. Collecting should be about having the best possible recording... not saving hard drive space. If someone wants mp3s, then they can download the FLACs, and convert it to mp3 for their own use. (WHO APPOINTED YOU AS GOD OF QZ?)
[QUOTE]There needs to be more tolerance of those who prefer mp3. Few seriously consider mp3's to be trading material, and as such are a limited threat to the "trading pool."[/QUOTE]
Then why do you so adamantly speak in defense of them if you know they are few in number? (I SPEAK IN DEFENSE BECAUSE I BELIEVE MP3 SHARING IS OVERBLOWN AS A THREAT TO THE TRADING POOL.) Sure, you could come back and say "why are you so concerned if they are so few in number?" Because, all it takes is for ONE person to ruin a recording and circulate it - even if they don't consciously intend to do so. (YET OTHER HIGHER GENERATION FLAC AND MP3 FILES STILL EXIST. WHAT MAKES THE NEW CONVERSIONS TO MP3 DIFFERENT?) Not everyone knows how to test a recording to see if it's lossless or not. Not everyone is an expert. (YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE AN EXPERT TO USE A SPECTRAL ANALYZER. I CAN NOT IMAGINE THAT EVEN SEMI-SERIOUS TRADERS WOULD BE SO FOOLISH AS TO NOT CHECK THEIR RECENTLY DOWNLOADED FLAC FILES WITH A SPECTRAL ANALYZER). Therefore, it's best to urge (YOU THREATEN, YOU DO NOT "URGE") people to keep lossless files lossless from the start, and they can dive into the details later if they so wish. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw this as some kind of indoctrination (I SEE ONLY YOUR THREATS), but I prefer to see it as showing people the correct way off the bat. We need to ensure that the best version of each show is circulating, and that all obsolete versions fall into obscurity (RECENT MP3 CONVERSIONS BACK TO FLAC FILES WILL QUICKLY FALL INTO OBSCURITY, JUST LIKE OLD OBSOLETE VERSIONS). Anything else just adds to the problem. Why is this so difficult to understand? (WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO USE A SPECTRAL ANALYZER, AND LEAVE MP3 USERS ALONE?)
[QUOTE]Bob - if one of your shares is converted to mp3 and reshared, how will you be able to conclude that the mp3 came from your share and not some other simiar mp3 source?[/QUOTE]
In the case of this Oakland 80 show, I would be completely sure, because I am the first QZ user who got their hands on the third gen copy. I haven't seen this recording on anyone's list, so it's very safe to assume that I'm the only one who had it until now. Therefore, any lossy version would have to be made from this specific share (ARE YOU GOING TO SCROUNGE THE HUB AND ALL OTHER MP3 DOWNLOADS YOU ENCOUNTER AND LISTEN TO EACH MP3 RECORDING TO DETECT ANY INFERIOR MP3 VERSION. ARE YOU SURE THAT THERE ARE NOT ANY 4TH OR 5TH GENERATION MP3 CONVERSIONS OUT THERE THAT ARE ALMOST AS GOOD AS "YOUR RECORDING"?) Of course, there is the incredibly slight chance th
The Real Wizard
I converted that wave to mp3 once. You know you are wrong, to the point that you had to stoop to implying that I converted it more than once... as if a single conversion doesn't make the quality bad enough.
You are so in the minority. I am not even going to entertain that last post. All I'll say is, I cannot believe the amount of effort you are going through to preserve a dying format of digital music.
When it comes down to it, I cannot single-handedly force people to do anything, or stop them from doing anything. All I can do is provide the information, and encourage others to pass it along. Have a look at these websites for a moment:
http://uuweb.led-zeppelin.us
http://pf-db.com/index.php?list=tours&choice=21
http://www.nirvanaguide.com
http://www.digitalrushexperience.com
At the moment, Queenzone is the top place to get and discuss bootleg recordings online. Does the QZ announce section, or any other Queen bootleg website in existence compare to the hard work and the passion of the people who have created and maintained the above websites?
The Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Nirvana, and Rush communities have put their heads together and came up with these websites, among others. Do you honestly think those websites and communities would be so strong if they had an equally strong competition of people who insisted on spreading mp3s? Obviously not. Collectors of these bands are very fortunate, because the overwhelming majority have committed themselves to creating a collection of the best possible recordings, which speaks volumes about their passion and love for collecting their favourite bands, and preserving the recordings as best as possible.
Wouldn't it be great if the Queen community could have similar resources and care for their recordings?
Or should we keep sharing mp3s, and continue to insist nothing is wrong?
You are so in the minority. I am not even going to entertain that last post. All I'll say is, I cannot believe the amount of effort you are going through to preserve a dying format of digital music.
When it comes down to it, I cannot single-handedly force people to do anything, or stop them from doing anything. All I can do is provide the information, and encourage others to pass it along. Have a look at these websites for a moment:
http://uuweb.led-zeppelin.us
http://pf-db.com/index.php?list=tours&choice=21
http://www.nirvanaguide.com
http://www.digitalrushexperience.com
At the moment, Queenzone is the top place to get and discuss bootleg recordings online. Does the QZ announce section, or any other Queen bootleg website in existence compare to the hard work and the passion of the people who have created and maintained the above websites?
The Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Nirvana, and Rush communities have put their heads together and came up with these websites, among others. Do you honestly think those websites and communities would be so strong if they had an equally strong competition of people who insisted on spreading mp3s? Obviously not. Collectors of these bands are very fortunate, because the overwhelming majority have committed themselves to creating a collection of the best possible recordings, which speaks volumes about their passion and love for collecting their favourite bands, and preserving the recordings as best as possible.
Wouldn't it be great if the Queen community could have similar resources and care for their recordings?
Or should we keep sharing mp3s, and continue to insist nothing is wrong?
Saint Jiub
Yep beating the minority into submission is always the best way. Keep taking your lessons from 928.
Again - you should leave mp3 users alone, and stop playing god on a site you do not own.
What was the kbps rate of your mp3 conversion? I thought you took a bad copy that you previously downloaded, rather than make your own mp3.
Incidently, I did not bother listening to the recordings, as I doubt my cheap computer monitor speakers would sound good in any format.
Again - you should leave mp3 users alone, and stop playing god on a site you do not own.
What was the kbps rate of your mp3 conversion? I thought you took a bad copy that you previously downloaded, rather than make your own mp3.
Incidently, I did not bother listening to the recordings, as I doubt my cheap computer monitor speakers would sound good in any format.
The Real Wizard
You have put all this effort into discussing the pros and cons of quality preservation, and you're listening to your music through cheap mini-speakers?
After you have established an interest in even hearing your music in decent quality (regardless of its digital source), then we can continue this discussion.
After you have established an interest in even hearing your music in decent quality (regardless of its digital source), then we can continue this discussion.
Wiley
It's not really about minorities or whatever but about sound quality and keeping the best versions available. No, it is not forbidden to share recordings in MP3 format over here but there should be information made available so that casual collectors that might become traders in the future know about this from start.
There should be some thinking before sharing. Good will and good intentions are always appreciated (I know I do) but it is not optimal to have the same shows shared in different (and some times blatantly inferior) versions with no control whatsoever.
Maybe Queenzone is not the place to do this, although I really wished it were, since it is not moderated and there is no restriction. It is thought more as a community of Queen fans freely interacting with each other.
Still, it would be VERY cool to have a site like the ones of other bands' collectors. Someone should find time to do this, I wish I could, really.
The next best thing would be to have a STICKY post on top of the ANNOUNCE and REQUEST forums with something flashy like "Every show's BEST version available" and links to the threads where each version is shared. Obviously, this would have to be updated every time a better version is shared. I might find time to do this in the future... It could be a start :S.
Regards,
Wiley
There should be some thinking before sharing. Good will and good intentions are always appreciated (I know I do) but it is not optimal to have the same shows shared in different (and some times blatantly inferior) versions with no control whatsoever.
Maybe Queenzone is not the place to do this, although I really wished it were, since it is not moderated and there is no restriction. It is thought more as a community of Queen fans freely interacting with each other.
Still, it would be VERY cool to have a site like the ones of other bands' collectors. Someone should find time to do this, I wish I could, really.
The next best thing would be to have a STICKY post on top of the ANNOUNCE and REQUEST forums with something flashy like "Every show's BEST version available" and links to the threads where each version is shared. Obviously, this would have to be updated every time a better version is shared. I might find time to do this in the future... It could be a start :S.
Regards,
Wiley
TheGame
I should have used a quote here, but.......
Many traders do not know how to check their recordings. I`m not an expert or have traded for loads of years, but i have traded with ALOT of people who have given me mp3 sourched recordings. They simply assumed their cd-r was genuine lossless, and they didnt know how to analyze when i asked them to do so. I still think many people dont know about the difference between lossless and lossy ( for sure this is a big problem when it comes to DVD), and many dont bother to check their cd-r also. You can ofcourse ask for a flac sample, but everybody doesnt bother doing so. Also, everybody doesnt know how to make snippets of a song.
I think this whole mp3 vs lossless talk is a win-win situation for the Queen community, and its hard to imagine people disagree with that.
You can ofcourse convert the lossless file to mp3 for your personal use ( i even do that myself ), but should never be traded or converted to wav/flac again.
Also, for finding the best sources available and talk about bootlegs, we have sites as www.queentraders.com. However, it seems the interest for this is not there at the moment.....too bad though as it could be a nice start for finding and sharing the best possible versions in lossless.
Many traders do not know how to check their recordings. I`m not an expert or have traded for loads of years, but i have traded with ALOT of people who have given me mp3 sourched recordings. They simply assumed their cd-r was genuine lossless, and they didnt know how to analyze when i asked them to do so. I still think many people dont know about the difference between lossless and lossy ( for sure this is a big problem when it comes to DVD), and many dont bother to check their cd-r also. You can ofcourse ask for a flac sample, but everybody doesnt bother doing so. Also, everybody doesnt know how to make snippets of a song.
I think this whole mp3 vs lossless talk is a win-win situation for the Queen community, and its hard to imagine people disagree with that.
You can ofcourse convert the lossless file to mp3 for your personal use ( i even do that myself ), but should never be traded or converted to wav/flac again.
Also, for finding the best sources available and talk about bootlegs, we have sites as www.queentraders.com. However, it seems the interest for this is not there at the moment.....too bad though as it could be a nice start for finding and sharing the best possible versions in lossless.
Dr3amSl33p
gnaaa... I think it would be best to resume this discussion in an own topic than letting it trail through several announces which makes it hard to follow and losing continuation.
(Although there is no need for a "discussion" imho as things are clear anyway.. but apparently some feel different.)
btw... I totally agree with Sir GH - thanx again for this announce - and good luck for the opening... we will think of you tonight :)
(Although there is no need for a "discussion" imho as things are clear anyway.. but apparently some feel different.)
btw... I totally agree with Sir GH - thanx again for this announce - and good luck for the opening... we will think of you tonight :)
Nummer2
Thank you for this great show! I have about 150 live shows from Queen by now, but still missing so many. The Game tour is one of my favourite tours (next to Crazy), so an extra thank you!