I got the Flac files.
let me know if you want it and i will send a link asap.
No charges at all

Re: Google Music to offer six unreleased Stones concerts
Posted by: swaymusik ()
Date: November 23, 2011 18:18


Hi everyone!
Just want to confirm that the Brussels show is available from the Rolling Stones musictoday USA site. I live in Canada and was able to download the FLAC version: Absolute essential live recording; the band is on fire and nice to hear Mick Taylor.!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-23 21:25 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
Jair
I got the Flac files.
let me know if you want it and i will send a link asap.
No charges at all

Flac you!

errr...I mean, Thank you!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Jair
I got the Flac files.
let me know if you want it and i will send a link asap.
No charges at all

Flac you!

errr...I mean, Thank you!

wow! nice one!

Quote
treaclefingers
FLAC is like Filet Mignon
MP3 is like a Big Mac

completely irrevalent to a starving man....peace.

this whole thing 'I can tell the difference between flac and MP3 at 320' stuff is kinda like 'this wine is a $25 bottle and its better than that $15 bottle.' whatever, it still gets you pissed. just enjoy the music. Personally, I don't want to waste my effort straining to listen for barely audible differences, it wrecks the enjoyment of the moment.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
this whole thing 'I can tell the difference between flac and MP3 at 320' stuff is kinda like 'this wine is a $25 bottle and its better than that $15 bottle.'

It's definitely not the same thing.

FLAC (or any other lossless compression format) means you get at least the CD quality. MP3 (even those from Google Music) means you get something inferior in sound to CD quality.
If you try to compare high quality MP3 vs FLAC while listening on iPod or any other MP3 player, you may not hear the difference that well. Now try to burn FLAC files on a CD and MP3 files on a CD, you will hear the difference. Music with the CD burned from MP3 will be less defined, will sound more "light", voices range will be shorter, trebles will not go as high as with a FLAC sourced CD and so on...

CD's were already a downgrade from vinyl. Why should we now have no choice but to buy a downgrade from CD? That's what major online music shops (iTunes, Amazon... and now Google) are doing for 10 years now.

The problem is this MP3 hegemony is also affecting the sound quality of CD's. Because producers and artists know their music will be sold as MP3 anyway (thanks iTunes) they're making their albums "MP3 proof" by using a maximum level of dynamic compression on them, so that they will still "sound good" even when sold as average rate MP3 files. By the way that's what happened to the recently remastered Rolling Stones albums...

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
treaclefingers
FLAC is like Filet Mignon
MP3 is like a Big Mac

completely irrevalent to a starving man....peace.

cool, as long as it isn't irrelevant!

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
this whole thing 'I can tell the difference between flac and MP3 at 320' stuff is kinda like 'this wine is a $25 bottle and its better than that $15 bottle.' whatever, it still gets you pissed. just enjoy the music. Personally, I don't want to waste my effort straining to listen for barely audible differences, it wrecks the enjoyment of the moment.

The first part of your post makes some sense but,the second part does not make any sense at all to me. Listening to lossless FLAC files doesn't REQUIRE any more effort than listening to compressed MP3's. Sure,depending on the variable factors which I listed earlier in this thread,some people may have to listen more closely to notice a difference however,critical listening is not a requirement. You can just as easily sit back and enjoy the lossless music as you would with any other audio format.

* The software to play lossless FLAC files on your computer is FREE.

* The price premium for lossless FLAC files is low in many cases. 2 dollars for Brussels '73 as 16 bit files ; roughly 3 dollars for Some Girls deluxe as 24 bit files versus the 16 bit two CD set . .... In other instances such as some of Tom Petty's recent releases and re-releases,there is no price difference.

* In the case that your home audio equipment doesn't support FLAC and / or your portable audio / MP3 player doesn't support FLAC,the software to convert the FLAC files to lossless WAV files is FREE. If you can't play 24 bit WAV files,you can convert them to CD grade 16 bit WAV files with FREE software. None of this takes much time or effort.

The only semi-valid argument is that lossless files take up more space on your storage devices than degraded files. That argument,however,is becoming more and more irrelevant each year as larger storage capacities grow and become cheaper.

* You can get an enormous 1.5 TB internal or external hard drive for between $ 90 and $ 135 which can hold over 1,000 or over 2,000 lossless ALBUMS depending on how it's configured or how you configure it. (Most 1.5 TB hard drives are actually two 750 GB hard drives in one enclosure. In many cases,you can choose either to have the full 1.5 TB of storage or you can have 750 GB of storage "mirrored" in a RAID configuration in case one of the two hard drives fails !! ) 2 TB hard drives are available as well and I doubt that it will be long before their cost drops even further + it won't be long until larger capacity hard drives become available.

Let's flip the tables here. What exactly is the big advantage of MP3's ???? I know that people generally resist change. I know that Apple doesn't support FLAC but they do support WAV files and they have their own " lossless " format although I am not convinced that it's quite as " lossless " as FLAC. Am I missing something???? Nobody claims MP3 is better sounding than lossless audio except for one study that found some young college students had become conditioned to prefer MP3's higher pitch,more thin sound. There's no legitamate reason to go with degraded audio that I am aware of unless you can't afford to spend an extra 2 or 3 dollars.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
this whole thing 'I can tell the difference between flac and MP3 at 320' stuff is kinda like 'this wine is a $25 bottle and its better than that $15 bottle.' whatever, it still gets you pissed. just enjoy the music. Personally, I don't want to waste my effort straining to listen for barely audible differences, it wrecks the enjoyment of the moment.

The first part of your post makes some sense but,the second part does not make any sense at all to me. Listening to lossless FLAC files doesn't REQUIRE any more effort than listening to compressed MP3's. Sure,depending on the variable factors which I listed earlier in this thread,some people may have to listen more closely to notice a difference however,critical listening is not a requirement. You can just as easily sit back and enjoy the lossless music as you would with any other audio format.

* The software to play lossless FLAC files on your computer is FREE.

* The price premium for lossless FLAC files is low in many cases. 2 dollars for Brussels '73 as 16 bit files ; roughly 3 dollars for Some Girls deluxe as 24 bit files versus the 16 bit two CD set . .... In other instances such as some of Tom Petty's recent releases and re-releases,there is no price difference.

* In the case that your home audio equipment doesn't support FLAC and / or your portable audio / MP3 player doesn't support FLAC,the software to convert the FLAC files to lossless WAV files is FREE. If you can't play 24 bit WAV files,you can convert them to CD grade 16 bit WAV files with FREE software. None of this takes much time or effort.

The only semi-valid argument is that lossless files take up more space on your storage devices than degraded files. That argument,however,is becoming more and more irrelevant each year as larger storage capacities grow and become cheaper.

* You can get an enormous 1.5 TB internal or external hard drive for between $ 90 and $ 135 which can hold over 1,000 or over 2,000 lossless ALBUMS depending on how it's configured or how you configure it. (Most 1.5 TB hard drives are actually two 750 GB hard drives in one enclosure. In many cases,you can choose either to have the full 1.5 TB of storage or you can have 750 GB of storage "mirrored" in a RAID configuration in case one of the two hard drives fails !! ) 2 TB hard drives are available as well and I doubt that it will be long before their cost drops even further + it won't be long until larger capacity hard drives become available.

Let's flip the tables here. What exactly is the big advantage of MP3's ???? I know that people generally resist change. I know that Apple doesn't support FLAC but they do support WAV files and they have their own " lossless " format although I am not convinced that it's quite as " lossless " as FLAC. Am I missing something???? Nobody claims MP3 is better sounding than lossless audio except for one study that found some young college students had become conditioned to prefer MP3's higher pitch,more thin sound. There's no legitamate reason to go with degraded audio that I am aware of unless you can't afford to spend an extra 2 or 3 dollars.

true for most music, but the mp3 advantage is simply that it is a SMALL file. All songs are files now, (except tape and vinyl) and we are still in a soceity where a quick download is more valuable (to some) than big lossless, "too big/long to download on AOL" file.

The fact is that some music sounds just as good as an .mp3, mainly simple vocal guita stuff and amazingly sometimes even other more complicated tracks. The difference is for a typical 3 minute song, an .mp3 is 3 MB and a wav file is 30 to 90 MB. That's an exploitable size difference if you live in Zimbabwe and are using a 56K modem.

Mp3's were created as the small audio file to be included with .mpeg VIDEO. Do some blind listening tests of your own, you just might be very surprised at the comparison. Thin is NOT always the case with the .mp3 files. I could go on but it's gets technical from here. peace.

See the sticky Google Music-thread. Seemingly, the FLAC-files are available for US residents now.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Personally, I don't want to waste my effort straining to listen for barely audible differences, it wrecks the enjoyment of the moment.

we can't have that. please don't strain yourself. drink a bottle of whiskey or something and you may not even realize what you're listening to, let alone what format it's on. there's a way to battle these things if you just pickle yourself into oblivion...

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
schillid

Quote
treaclefingers
FLAC is like Filet Mignon
MP3 is like a Big Mac

And when you're hungry, you eat either one.

schillid , that's a weird comparision imo.
Since I don't eat pork ,I won't tell about Filet Mignon but beleive me ,when I eat a Big Mac , first I feel full but ,I am getting hungry again very quickly .
That's the way it works.

That's McDonalds with their chemists. Its been said that they use chemicals that trick the brain into wanting more. Who can not finish a McDonalds burger? Sodium also intensifys cravings.

Wow ! Really ?
I am not that surprised to read this .
I've noticed as well that after I eating a cheese burger, I am always very thirsty....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
schillid

Quote
treaclefingers
FLAC is like Filet Mignon
MP3 is like a Big Mac

And when you're hungry, you eat either one.

schillid , that's a weird comparision imo.
Since I don't eat pork ,I won't tell about Filet Mignon but beleive me ,when I eat a Big Mac , first I feel full but ,I am getting hungry again very quickly .
That's the way it works .

I think that both can work, though,depending on what you want to do with it

BTW...just wanted to confirm Filet Mignon isn't pork...may something have gotten lost in the translation?

file mignon is horsemeat....

I apologize to talk about food on this thread

but you two must be American,am I mistaken ?

filet mignon, when found on a menu in France, generally refers to pork rather than beef.
However, some butchers in the United States label all types of tenderloin steaks "filet mignon"

If you ask in French restaurants for a "filet mignon" ,you'll get pork

[en.wikipedia.org]
L'habitude a été prise aux États-Unis d'employer l'expression « filet mignon » (en français) pour désigner le filet de bœuf, voire tout steak tendre. Le consommateur américain est dès lors pris au dépourvu dans les pays francophones, où il croit reconnaître sur une carte un filet mignon de bœuf et où on lui sert en général du porc, donc de la viande blanche. Inversement, le consommateur francophone qui commande un filet mignon dans une zone de culture nord-américaine peut être surpris de se voir servir du bœuf.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
schillid

Quote
treaclefingers
FLAC is like Filet Mignon
MP3 is like a Big Mac

And when you're hungry, you eat either one.

schillid , that's a weird comparision imo.
Since I don't eat pork ,I won't tell about Filet Mignon but beleive me ,when I eat a Big Mac , first I feel full but ,I am getting hungry again very quickly .
That's the way it works .

I think that both can work, though,depending on what you want to do with it

BTW...just wanted to confirm Filet Mignon isn't pork...may something have gotten lost in the translation?

file mignon is horsemeat....

I apologize to talk about food on this thread

but you two must be American,am I mistaken ?

i don't have to be, but i am at the present time. but, file mignon is horsemeat no matter what country i'm from...

*The first part of your post makes some sense but,the second part does not make any sense at all to me. Listening to lossless FLAC files doesn't REQUIRE any more effort than listening to compressed MP3's. Sure,depending on the variable factors which I listed earlier in this thread,some people may have to listen more closely to notice a difference however,critical listening is not a requirement. You can just as easily sit back and enjoy the lossless music as you would with any other audio format.*

- well I know that; I have music in all sorts of different formats, MP3, flac, cd, vinyl, you name it. Nothing beats vinyl, IMO. I know it doesn't take any 'effort' to listen to flac over MP3; my comment was based on how some listeners seem to fixated with the 'this is so much better than that' when I personally can't notice any difference, at least not enough to jump up and down all exited about, and I am certainly not about to hook up the apparatus with the sound modules and notation charts just to say 'see this frequency graph is bigger that that one,' so its better, because really, what difference does it make? I am one of those guys still pissed off we even have to have digital music!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-24 18:41 by pinkfloydthebarber.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
schillid

Quote
treaclefingers
FLAC is like Filet Mignon
MP3 is like a Big Mac

And when you're hungry, you eat either one.

schillid , that's a weird comparision imo.
Since I don't eat pork ,I won't tell about Filet Mignon but beleive me ,when I eat a Big Mac , first I feel full but ,I am getting hungry again very quickly .
That's the way it works .

I think that both can work, though,depending on what you want to do with it

BTW...just wanted to confirm Filet Mignon isn't pork...may something have gotten lost in the translation?

file mignon is horsemeat....

I apologize to talk about food on this thread

but you two must be American,am I mistaken ?

i don't have to be, but i am at the present time. but, file mignon is horsemeat no matter what country i'm from...

In the world of red meat, however, some people can't tell the difference between horse and beef.
I ate horse only once ,but the taste has nothing yo do with beef.
So strong that I almost threw up.
Plus eating horse meat is somehow disturbing for me ,since I saw how the horses that waited to be killed behaved .
Anyway, in the part of the world I live ,that is to say France, filet mignon is pork .Not horse meat .

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

* In the case that your home audio equipment doesn't support FLAC and / or your portable audio / MP3 player doesn't support FLAC,the software to convert the FLAC files to lossless WAV files is FREE. If you can't play 24 bit WAV files,you can convert them to CD grade 16 bit WAV files with FREE software. None of this takes much time or effort.

Could it be that my latest cell phone -a Samsung Galaxy -doesn't support FLAC ?
I downloaded some Stones boots in FLAC ftom my computer to mu cell but it won't play .

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
schillid

Quote
treaclefingers
FLAC is like Filet Mignon
MP3 is like a Big Mac

And when you're hungry, you eat either one.

schillid , that's a weird comparision imo.
Since I don't eat pork ,I won't tell about Filet Mignon but beleive me ,when I eat a Big Mac , first I feel full but ,I am getting hungry again very quickly .
That's the way it works .

I think that both can work, though,depending on what you want to do with it

BTW...just wanted to confirm Filet Mignon isn't pork...may something have gotten lost in the translation?

file mignon is horsemeat....

I apologize to talk about food on this thread

but you two must be American,am I mistaken ?

i don't have to be, but i am at the present time. but, file mignon is horsemeat no matter what country i'm from...

In the world of red meat, however, some people can't tell the difference between horse and beef.
I ate horse only once ,but the taste has nothing yo do with beef.
So strong that I almost threw up.
Plus eating horse meat is somehow disturbing for me ,since I saw how the horses that waited to be killed behaved .
Anyway, in the part of the world I live ,that is to say France, filet mignon is pork .Not horse meat .

is it different than how cows behave before they are butchered?

and who said anything about filet mignon? i'm talking files, sally...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

Not sure why you would say something like that. I mean, maybe YOU can't hear the difference but how do you know that other people can't as well?

i just simply know things others don't, i guess.

Oh come on StonesTod.....quit being such a "fibber".

Quote
Erik_Snow
Re: Google Music to offer six unreleased Stones concerts
Posted by: swaymusik ()
Date: November 23, 2011 18:18


Hi everyone!
Just want to confirm that the Brussels show is available from the Rolling Stones musictoday USA site. I live in Canada and was able to download the FLAC version: Absolute essential live recording; the band is on fire and nice to hear Mick Taylor.!

Not sure about this. I searched for that Rolling Stones musictoday USA site and couldn't find it. But Canada is not in the U.S. anyway so I'm still not sure if U.S. citizen's can download the FLAC files. I hope so.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*The first part of your post makes some sense but,the second part does not make any sense at all to me. Listening to lossless FLAC files doesn't REQUIRE any more effort than listening to compressed MP3's. Sure,depending on the variable factors which I listed earlier in this thread,some people may have to listen more closely to notice a difference however,critical listening is not a requirement. You can just as easily sit back and enjoy the lossless music as you would with any other audio format.*

- well I know that; I have music in all sorts of different formats, MP3, flac, cd, vinyl, you name it. Nothing beats vinyl, IMO. I know it doesn't take any 'effort' to listen to flac over MP3. ........' so its better, because really, what difference does it make?

You say that there is no difference to you but, then you say one is "better" than the other which is contradictory.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

* In the case that your home audio equipment doesn't support FLAC and / or your portable audio / MP3 player doesn't support FLAC,the software to convert the FLAC files to lossless WAV files is FREE. If you can't play 24 bit WAV files,you can convert them to CD grade 16 bit WAV files with FREE software. None of this takes much time or effort.

Could it be that my latest cell phone -a Samsung Galaxy -doesn't support FLAC ?
I downloaded some Stones boots in FLAC ftom my computer to mu cell but it won't play .

Could what be?? Like you quoted above,the software to convert FLAC to WAV or to MP3 or to OGG is free. Without looking it up,I would say that there is roughly a 90 % chance that the Galaxy phone supports lossless WAV files.

The free software to convert FLAC to WAV is available to download at the official web-site of FLAC. [flac.sourceforge.net] + [flac.sourceforge.net] . It takes me only 1 minute and a half on average to convert a 1 CD sized album.

There is an extra step if you want to degrade the resulting WAV files to either other lower res WAV files,compressed MP3,or OGG files etc.. The software to accomplish this is,however, once again free.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

* In the case that your home audio equipment doesn't support FLAC and / or your portable audio / MP3 player doesn't support FLAC,the software to convert the FLAC files to lossless WAV files is FREE. If you can't play 24 bit WAV files,you can convert them to CD grade 16 bit WAV files with FREE software. None of this takes much time or effort.

Could it be that my latest cell phone -a Samsung Galaxy -doesn't support FLAC ?
I downloaded some Stones boots in FLAC ftom my computer to mu cell but it won't play .

There is an extra step if you want to degrade the resulting WAV files to either other lower res WAV files,compressed MP3,or OGG files etc.. The software to accomplish this is,however, once again free.

Winning Ugly, I understand what you're saying .
Thanks for the link .
<<There is an extra step if you want to degrade the resulting WAV files <<


I think there are some misunderstandings.

I don't listen music on my cell unless I have some spared times-in my car or at my dentist's "waiting room"

I listen music on my turntable, on my CDs player ,on the surround home player.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber

- well I know that; I have music in all sorts of different formats, MP3, flac, cd, vinyl, you name it. Nothing beats vinyl, IMO. I know it doesn't take any 'effort' to listen to flac over MP3; my comment was based on how some listeners seem to fixated with the 'this is so much better than that' when I personally can't notice any difference, at least not enough to jump up and down all exited about, and I am certainly not about to hook up the apparatus with the sound modules and notation charts just to say 'see this frequency graph is bigger that that one,' so its better, because really, what difference does it make? I am one of those guys still pissed off we even have to have digital music!!

and then the same quote as recited by Winning Ugly VXII;

- well I know that; I have music in all sorts of different formats, MP3, flac, cd, vinyl, you name it. Nothing beats vinyl, IMO. I know it doesn't take any 'effort' to listen to flac over MP3. ........' so its better, because really, what difference does it make?

*You say that there is no difference to you but, then you say one is "better" than the other which is contradictory.*

- that's not what I said, read harder. It seems you edited (or mangled, depending how you look at it) my post to serve your own purposes. You edited out the whole bolded red part, which changes the meaning and context completely. Feel free to comment, but hey i see no need to quote mangle. What I actually said was I detect little difference; not enough to matter to me. I didn't say one is 'better' over the other. I made a facetious statement about hypothetically doing a sonic comparison, which I would never be bothered to do (although I am sure some would), because I detect little difference anyway. Comprenez-vous?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-24 22:09 by pinkfloydthebarber.

I don't need to read "harder". I understand the language. In black and white,you posted :


" so its better, because really, what difference does it make? "


So,based on that alone,my post was completely legitimate. What makes "it" better??

Aside from that,I didn't quote the middle part of your post because,I was not responding to that part of the post which is quite a common practice here.

Now,in response to that part of the post,why is the burden on lossless formats (such as FLAC) to make people "jump up and down"???? I think that burden,if anywhere,should be placed on the compressed files.

Personally,the whole "it is only a little tiny bit worse" stance is not going to inspire me to switch to compressed music.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Personally,the whole "it is only a little tiny bit worse" stance is not going to inspire me to switch to compressed music.

what's your impersonal likelihood?

I don't know yet for certain. I will have to consult a team of dogs,ostriches,livestock,aliens from outer space,and deer first and then have one of them hook up a sound meter to my equipment as well as a computer from NASA and produce a chart which I can analyze with a scientific grade magnifying glass because,otherwise,I can't discern differences between any different things in general.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Personally,the whole "it is only a little tiny bit worse" stance is not going to inspire me to switch to compressed music.

what's your impersonal likelihood?

Whoa!! Wait a minute here!! You quoted only part of my post. "It seems you edited (or mangled, depending how you look at it) my post to serve your own purposes." Read "harder".

Don't worry. I'll re-post everything again in RED text.