Quality vs format, lossless vs lossy

[rocdoc]

a-ha, that's what eac does, puts those strings of codes together accompanying some flacs.

interesting that the flacheads (no offense) love that sort of verification of quality in black & white.
maybe because their ears have deteriorated (like mine definitely have!) over the years of listening to rock and roll?

you might not 'hear' perfectly, but 'by dingety, here's my eac files!'

the wma questions interests me because, for instance i've heard 40 kbps mp3s (like telesugarmegs does) which really sounded like shit, but several 40kbps wma shows that (to me) were like i'd recorded the cassette from FM myself.
there's a maria mckee show from hamburg (thanks kayaker!) at 96kbps wma that was incredibly sharp, but again i know i've got limitations given my tinnitus.

i'm guessing wma's got different qualities/algorithms than mp3.

since this so far has been sort of a flac-question clearing house, one more:

do so many flac-centered site use rapidshare (doing all those 6 to 12 part splits that drive me nuts) because they've shelled out for the 'premium' membership or is there a sort of 'scratch my back i'll scratch yours' they recieve for generating a greater usage for their services/circulation #s?

i've read people from different countires saying megaupload works badly for them...but, boy, in chicago, pulling down a 500 M show in one shot just takes maybe 20-25 minutes.

no 15 minute waits for steps 2 through 12 or anything.
if that's SO convenient, why aren't more sites going that route?

is it there's no 'reciprocation'? or not enough?
it does sound like politics dealing with 'circulation' by my best guess...and yeah, i understand it takes 'help' of all sorts to make something like this work.
s'all cool by me!

thanks for your help univoxxer!

[rocdoc]

i do have near-constant tinnitus from decades of over-voluming myself, so no, i cannot hear what i used to hear with serious clarity, but my firm belief is that a good to superior source material used for casual listening purposes (and mine are ALL 'casual') can surmount nearly the most dismal sampling bitrates.

and i'll generally pay no attention to even wanting to know the original bitrate, unless it totally sounds like shit, aside from it's age or an out of balance mix.

the 161 kbps wma's i burned to disc using nero, of several al dimeola shows i dl'd yesterday from the jazzfusion.tv site, sounded f*cking great in my office and then in my car.
yeah, my guess is that a lot at that site are from sugarmegs cos many are at 40 kbps.
those i nearly always pass on.
well, except for dimeola's calderone show which is 40 everywhere i've seen it.
but yesterday's shows honestly are not in any way thin or tinny at all.

nearly all of them were honkin' sbd shows, so that's a good start for hearing this sort of hyperkinetic fusionoid at the quality i received.

dimeola's percussive and alternately shrieking guitars and the crackling cymbal work, shit, i am a happy camper especially cos i ain't going to find minimum 50% of that guy's stuff anywhere else.

for most rock and roll, a music put together out of relatively harsh sounds anyway, i'm not so sure for my casual listenership, if it's truly gotta be 100% exact transfer.

and in many cases some crappy source, some crappy mix is being uploaded 100% exactly as crappy as it was.

there's got to be a sliding scale for what your ear accepts based on how it went on at the source OR, with a bad mix/source, if someone re-mixed the show after the fact like the great rv2 re-mix of the 1977 pink floyd oakland show.

i'm not looking to antagonize anyone, but i'm not looking to rule out any source as unlistenable until i actually hear it.
with what's left of my hearing, yeah.

i've gotten some wonderful mp3s and wma's but there've also been some horrible flac creations...along with the sweet ones.

[BegLooter]

Just stumbled on this thread and forum, and please excuse my rather long first post.

The original source recording: in this case it refers to the particular show being bootlegged, and this is where 'quality' really matters. The source has so many variables which can affect the sound recording - it's hard to cover everything within a few lines, but the quality will vary greatly due to some of the following examples: recording equipment used, recording media, soundboard setup, audience (venue/position/crowd).
The original recording (master) usually stays with person that made it, a direct copy/conversion to a more user friendly format then becomes the work source, and finally the 'distributable source'.
Take note that any audio conversion and/or compression format becomes irrelevant if the source material is poor, it doesn't matter if the best software, a 'lossless' format, or the best compression methods are used - if the source is poor, the bootleg will be poor. Of course if a poor recording is all that's available for a particular show, then it's take it or leave it, personally, if it's an artist that I like - I'll check out the show anyway (and be grateful for at least getting the chance to hear it).

WAV: The common distributable source format, this is mainly where the distributed bootleg originates. Due to the large sizes of WAV files some sort of compression is normally used to aid distribution on the net.

CD-DA: Basically a hard copy of the WAV source (generally on CDR), useful for your CD player and can be easily ripped as RAW or WAV if needed. Not an archive as such, but a backup nonetheless, and when cased with artwork can make a nice addition to any music library. If you are going to make CD-DA versions of a show, I'd recommend tracking down the best quality sources possible, especially if you go to the effort of labels and artwork.

FLAC: A revolutionary form of audio compression, perhaps not quite as revolutionary as MP3, but a fantastic way of archiving audio. If you really want a bootlegged show then FLAC is recommended because it'll be the download that is as close to the source as possible, it's compression also means it's going to be quicker to download than RAW data or WAV, but when decompressed the audio quality will be identical (or at least should be).

There are many formats out there, perhaps the other most common is SHN - which is an earlier form of lossless audio compression, and one I still use. Lossless audio in any format will always be defended by any serious bootleg collector, it's truer to the source material, it's normally the best quality that's generally available, but remember the original source defines the original 'quality'. Due to limitations with some players, lack of storage space, convenience, or whatever, a more generic form of compressed audio is required by some (perhaps even the majority of) end users, these compressed formats are commonly known as 'Lossy'.
The choice of lossy format really is down to personal preference, each have their own merits, each have their own flaws, but the end result of any lossy compressed audio is normally down to two things: 1 - Quality of source material, 2 - Encoding software and settings used. Here's some of the more common lossy formats:

MP3: What can I say?. Being the mainstream format - the choice and versatility of MP3 software is virtually limitless, but the glut of poorly encoded MP3 available on the net is turning more people towards other (including lossless) formats.

OGG: An Open source audio compression format, produces superior sound when compared to MP3 of similar small file size and low bitrates, quite often overlooked by the mainstream.

AAC: Mainly Apple's preferred choice for selling compressed audio online, being heavily commercially based the format can be quite restrictive when it comes to software versatility, but produces great sound quality for a lossy format.

WMA: Quite simply MicroSoft's attempt at bandwagon jumping, another lossy audio compression format that can yield results comparable to MP3, but nowhere near as versatile in terms of software availability and manipulation. What you get out of the box with your OS doesn't really cut it, with some freeware audio encoding software out there blowing the WMA format away quite easily.


So after all the rambling above what is best, Lossless or Lossy?. Again, it's all down to personal preference, what's better for one person doesn't make it better overall. if someone wants the recording to be as close to the source as possible they'll grab the FLAC (or similar lossless) version, if someone wants the recording and has limited resources they'll grab the MP3 (or similar lossy) version.
Personally I use quite a few formats, the bootlegs with superior quality are burnt to CD-DA (regardless of original format), all original files are archived (regardless of format), lossy format files also go to my portable player, decompressed lossless files are re-encoded to MP3 for my portable player.

I'm sure there'll be a few that will scrutinize what I've written above, agree with me, disagree with me, but please note this isn't meant to be the definitive rundown or anything like that, it's just my general overview and opinion about the topic.

[soulsurvivor5555]

Yes once you compress the FLAC or Wve to MP3 you have changes the physical structure of the file...It can not be then converted back. You can physically make your computer increase the size of the file by turning it back to a wave..but it won t matter..In short once you change wave to MP3 format you have permanently changed the file forever

CHARLIE

[irish]

That was a very interesting discussion,
I'm happy with the mp3 format though.
112 kbs joint stereo.

[David Kresge]

I wish someone could write an app that would allow flac files on an ipod.
I recently downloaded 90% of the original Woodstock show:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3425...tleg_Woodstock

It took 26 hours to download with fast DSL. I don't have time to convert the whole show.
It's great on the computer and has really high bit rates.

[Ziggz]

Originally Posted by David Kresge

I wish someone could write an app that would allow flac files on an ipod.

Depending on what model you have:

http://www.rockbox.org/

Apple: 1st through 5.5th generation iPod, iPod Mini and 1st generation iPod Nano
(not the Shuffle, 2nd/3rd/4th gen Nano, Classic or Touch)

[SENZA]

Wow I Wonder Who Gets All The Cash?????????????????

The Ads On The Blog Are Pathetic And Only Surpassed By The Rediculous Time Outs And Sams To Get A Subscription Fee Out You By Rapidshare And Megaupload.

I'll Never Share My Rare Bootlegs On This Pathetic Site..

What A Waste............

[Mlotek]

Originally Posted by SENZA

Wow I Wonder Who Gets All The Cash?????????????????

The Ads On The Blog Are Pathetic And Only Surpassed By The Rediculous Time Outs And Sams To Get A Subscription Fee Out You By Rapidshare And Megaupload.

I'll Never Share My Rare Bootlegs On This Pathetic Site..

What A Waste............

Does that mean you do not download from here also, since you will not share?

[marc.lemieux]

Originally Posted by Bartender

I'm still fairly new here, but it's been fun watching so many people argue over lossy vs lossless formats. Some people need to get over their hard-ons for tech and realize that QUALITY should reign supreme. I'd easily take a soundboard mp3 (although anything under 128 does really begin to suffer) over ANY audience flac recording 10/10. No disrespect to the tapers at all. Thanks for all your work, they are great souvenirs, but don't forget boys and girls, that's all they are; souvenirs, memories, memorabilia. Collecting bootlegs is a hobby, one all of us enjoy or we wouldn't be here, but bottom line - for me at least - is give me a soundboard regardless of format (which at least does the band justice - can't say the same for the audience recordings which sound like they're taped at the concession booth). Let the quality of sound in the recording, not the file format reign. And for the love of God, get over yourselves and just enjoy the music without getting hostile and angry.

Long Live Rock!

Bartender,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Aug.11, 2009

I am new to this downloading, I downloaded some pink floyd concerts and my system does not recognize the format and will not play them

Marc Lemieux
Oakville Ontario

[MrFreddy]

Can someone explain to me how we know the true source of a FLAC upload anyway?

Example....

If someone was to take a show in wma and convert it to mp3 then burn it as an audio disc and then rip it as a FLAC....

How does anyone know?....500mb from something that started as 25mb

The footprints and readings are just off the disc being ripped..it could be any original quality....right?

[MrFreddy]

never mind..I've moved on now

[djmedi4]

I'm not sure where to post this, but I have to say something. First, this is the BEST site for boots, period. I love me some Guitars 101.

That being said, I'm seeing lots & lots of posts with NO indication of whether the recording is an AUD or SB, and, well, it's rather ridiculous.

Why go through the time & trouble to attain, rip, upload & post (do all that work), and then NOT FINISH your post? I, for one, don't care for AUD's (unless they're Millard-level quality), and I've posted 4 times today alone for the original poster to tell me what the source is.

Is it possible for the mods to consider making it mandatory to post the source in the title of the post?

I hate complaining, and again, I'm not sure where to post this, but every other boot site I visit (with very few exceptions) have it right in the title of the post, if not in the comments.

There's nothing worse than trolling the board for 2 hours, wasting bandwith (and time, which is valuable for everyone), just to find out the boot that you were so excited about getting sounds like it was recorded with a soup can & fishing line.

Thanks for your time, and major respect to all the posters who not only post the best boots in the world, but take the time to do them right.

Happy holidays to you & yours from LA, CA.

[NewOrder4U2]

Personally, I see no reason to convert to FLAC. Just upload the file as a WAV file. If your download speed if fast enough to allow you to download a 600MB FLAC file, I would think that it wouldn't take much longer to download a 800 or 900MB Wav file and you wouldn't have to waste time converting the flac to wav anyway. If you have a slow download speed where it takes days to download a 600MB file, then you're probably not here downloading anyway.

[David Kresge]

I think the slowness on that Woodstock file was a limit to bandwidth available at the time.

I'm just happy to get some good music and won't argue too much about format.