1980.07.14 Oakland - third gen

Thanks for this show. And about the mp3 vs. flac thing - mp3s are excellent quality copies of the original audio, flac are THE SAME quality copies of the original audio :) So guess which is better :)

Just look at me, I WILL convert this into 256kbps mp3s simply because my mp3 player plays only mp3s (what a shock), but I WILL NOT DISTRIBUTE these mp3s. Simple, isn't it ?

The mentality on queenzone has changed for the better.People like bob give us low generation recordings in FLAC.It simply can't get any better!!face that fact!I want the best available recording from each show and not some shitty mp3!You can hear the difference very easily.I do not understand that there are people still defending MP3 when there are so many great FLAC recordings available at Queenzone.
I have about 100 mp3 shows and about 30 or 40(from Queen that is) in FLAC format and there is just no comparison. The MP3 recordings sound much worse and certainly when you're very familiar with listening to bootlegs it bothers you.

Well........... since this was an annouce about the Oakland '80 show, thank you for this Bob, cant wait to get the rest. As for the other rubbish, why piss your time away listening to it. Bob, what your doing is amazing and Im sure 99% feel the same, but there has to be a troll in every forum, just let it go, they just want attention.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.
[/QUOTE]

I listen to my my music in my car on a CD player. If you wish me to listen to your precious samples, please post me a CD-R as I will not waste a CD-R on a few snippets.

I see Wiley and The Game have managed to post a response without insults.

Of course Bob has to resort to insults and heavy handed methods to get his point across. For some reason, he cannot adapt to mp3 sharing, and chooses to try to beat mp3 sharers into submission.

Thank you Sir GH for sharing another quality FLAC concert. Your time is appreciated.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Van wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I see Wiley and The Game have managed to post a response without insults.

Of course Bob has to resort to insults and heavy handed methods to get his point across. For some reason, he cannot adapt to mp3 sharing, and chooses to try to beat mp3 sharers into submission.[/QUOTE]Can't you just be happy with his efforts?bob is so kind to make time for us and share his stuff and all you can do is complain about the fact that the stuff he gives you is.....too good!!We are collectors of Queenrecordings and it is in our own interest that we keep lossless recordings lossless.Is that so difficult to understand?MP3 sharing is a contradictio in terminis!You give someone something worse than the original!

Sir Bob: These mp3's fans doesn't understand that what you want is not to see your concerts converted into mp3 here in QZ and in other places too.

I agree with you Bob, if people wants mp3, go to The Hub (where you can easily get mp3), but don't ruin the Sir Bob's and others effort to share real lossless concerts.

If people wants to not see new lossless concerts, then you're ruining this community and the kindness of some collectors, which kindly are sharing their recordings.

Sir GH, ignore all the idiots. Thank you very much for this share

sorry,I pushed the quote button instead of the edit button:-)

Mr Fahrenheit, you're perfectly right!

Of course I am content with MP3 files as long as I can't get the FLAC versions. Of course the sound is sufficient for the common listener, especially if the original sound quality is less than EX – like with most bootlegs.

BUT: Most of the serious traders, or let's call them sharers, are not willing to share their sometimes rare material if there's the threat of downgrading the quality of the shared material. We had the case often enough: MP3 files reencoded to FLAC and then compressed to MP3 again etc. It's like a 10th generation tape, if you like the comparison.

What's the problem with sharing FLAC files? Bandwidth is not expensive anymore today, and even GBs of data can be downloaded in reasonable time without errors. And the conversion to MP3 – unless it's for your own use, e.g. MP3 player or car audio – is done pretty quick.

Most serious sharing sites only allow lossless material – together with full lineage, date and venue info and md5 code. I'm glad that Queenzone isn't that restrictive, but obviousy there must be a reason for those restrictions.

If we want to keep generous collectors (like Bob, among others) active on QZ, we have to obey their rules. It's as easy as that.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Nummer2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If we want to keep generous collectors (like Bob, among others) active on QZ, we have to obey their rules. It's as easy as that.[/QUOTE]

It's not that much as obeying their rules, nobody forces anyone to do anything. In the end, if people like Bob and other generous traders stop sharing their top quality material (for whatever reasons they choose to do so) it's EVERYBODY's loss.

It is not about worshipping the holly fathers of sharing by honoring the material they share. It is about keeping the quality of the material for sharing and trading purposes, regardless of who shares it.

I started downloading MP3 like most people about 6 or 7 years ago because it was not that easy to download 650 MB for a Queen show and I didn't know the difference back then. I used to download concerts in MP3 one file at a time and it took me almost as much time as I can can download a FLAC show now.

Let's say we start over from the ground and (hypothetically) MP3 are forever 'banned' from QZ, only lossless audio and video is shared. Newcomers will accept this and appreciate the top quality of the material, they would know that if they spend 2 days downloading a the Houston 77 DVD (which had not been online until about 2 years ago) they are getting IT, the REAL DEAL, not a taste of the gig or a sample.

MP3 is pretty much a sample of the actual sound, a degraded copy, whether you notice it or not.

See it this way: if you are a Queen collector and could get all 700-something Queen concerts in MP3, would you feel that your collection is complete? Wouldn't you feel like you are missing about 20% of the gigs?

That's what MP3 does to audio. It is great to hear samples and casually listen to music on your portable players but not for collecting.

If you are just getting into Queen, listen to the albums, download a few shows, enjoy them, convert them to MP3 for YOUR PRIVATE USE, become a fan. It is great. But once you log into a Queen forum and spend a lot of time in this great site I would expect more from you.

It is not about Queenzone restricting what users can share in here. The change must be upwards. Users must share the best and not settle for lesser recordings. If not, we might wake up one day years from now and find that the best copy of a given show is from a YouTube video which is synched to some other audio.

I think that Queen deserves much better than this, really.

Wiley

PS: Sorry for the long post and the post apocalyptic ending.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Nummer2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If we want to keep generous collectors (like Bob, among others) active on QZ, we have to obey their rules. It's as easy as that.[/QUOTE]

I obbey Sir Bob's rules, because i want to keep the lossless files as lossless, and obviously he's the best in that.

Maybe (just an idea) QZ can adopt a new rule about what people share in "real" FLAC (I say real, because some people like Fairy Fellers have been sharing fake FLAC'S aka mp3 converted to FLAC).

Also if we want to collectors release "rare recordings" here someday, we just have to keep this way: LOSSLESS KEEP LOSSLESS.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Nummer2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If we want to keep generous collectors (like Bob, among others) active on QZ, we have to obey their rules. It's as easy as that.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="blue">Mr. Farenheit wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I obbey Sir Bob's rules, because i want to keep the lossless files as lossless, and obviously he's the best in that.[/QUOTE]

But the thing is... I'm not making any rules. Technology is making the rules. Richard, who runs this forum, is the one who makes the rules. I'm just a single person doing what he can to circulate decent recordings. Because it's possible to preserve quality, I choose to do it, and I encourage others to do the same. It's really as simple as that. I feel we have made a lot of progress here in the past 6 months.

Anyone who disagrees can try to explain why, but as of now, I still haven't yet heard an argument to suggest how spreading several versions of one recording is going to help anything. I always encourage people to give me constructive criticism of anything I do, and I'm always happy to update any stance I have on any issue, as long as there is a decent reason to. But all we've got here is a couple people attacking the person, and not the problem.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Van wrote: [/QUOTENAME]For some reason, he cannot adapt to mp3 sharing, and chooses to try to beat mp3 sharers into submission.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. I have no problem with people converting FLAC to mp3 for their own use. I have said that countless times (in fact, I currently have 8 recordings that are still in mp3, but only because there are no upgrades yet... like Portland 74 and Dortmund 79). Of course, mp3 is better than nothing, as long as there is no alternative. But you use the words "adapt to mp3 sharing" as if it is a requirement in all cases. That would be like criticizing a scientist because he isn't open to adapting to those who still practice alchemy.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]av1dkson wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't think bashing a member for their computer speakers is a very good way to do things either, Bob.[/QUOTE]

I didn't bash him. I stated a fact. At that time, he was arguing that mp3 files sound as good as FLAC files, yet he said he listens to them on small computer speakers. How can one possibly notice the difference in sound quality on 3" speakers? He could easily insert headphones into his sound card to listen to the files, but instead, he's making excuse after excuse to avoid admitting he's wrong.

Btw, why are you hiding behind an alias? What are you afraid of?

Where exactly did I throw out a personal insult? All I have done is state facts. Just because one disagrees with facts doesn't make the facts "insults". In the past, Mike has indicated that he doesn't even understand the difference a generation of tape can make, never mind lossless vs lossy. This isn't a personal attack. It's a fact.

All I want is a reason... somebody, please tell me, why should mp3s be acceptable? "Because some people want them to exist" is not an answer. That's about as good as a parent telling a child "because I said so" (not to imply for a second that pro-mp3 people are somehow the "parent" in this situation). If I'm going to spend any more time having this discussion, there needs to be constructive arguments on both sides. I've got mine, so what's yours?

Lossless CD quality...1411kbps
Mp3s best quality....320kbps

& some say Mp3 is no different?

Now this is not completely correct ,but one way of looking at it is that all you mp3 lovers are missing 1091kbps of the recording.
If you are a fan,wouldn't you want to hear what that stuff was?

Lesson Over Mike...lol