I've heard that most serious bootleg collectors do not like to have their shows in mp3 format. Why is this??? I never send out mp3 boots when I trade just because that's what I was always told.
So what's wrong with mp3 files?? Do they not sound as good?
I'm digging IORR much more than Gasland! Many over in Gasland just don't take us Stones chicks seriously.
Thanks in advance to anyone that has any answers to this question.

first, mp3 is a lossy format
second, it is really not the same pleasure/feeling to find a "real" boot with "professionaly" printed CDs and cover/booklet, which you never have with a mp3 trade...
You can compare this attitude with CDs with the books. Some fans will never understand why to put that much money in Genesis Publications releases and will prefer have poor scans of pictures contained on those books...
Question of choice.

whatabeautifulbuzz:
I recommend using the search facility on this board which is excellent and quick; this topic arises every so often and there have been many words written on the subject already!!

A search combination of trading and/or mp3 and/or flac should get you lots to read :-)

Cheers.

MP3's are compressed and when an audio track is compressed to an MP3,sound frequencies are permanently lost.It degrades the quality of the music.This may or may not be apparent on poor to mid range playback equipment but,it can definitely be noticed on high quality playback equipment.(MP3's @ 320 kbps are not as bad as MP3's @ 192 kbps or lower.)
CDs,as they are,already have worse quality than records do.MP3's are even worse than CDs.The line should be drawn somewhere.Higher quality DVD Audio discs and Super Audio CD discs have not caught on because of the general public's disregard for high sound quality.They are more concerned with fitting as much compressed (illegally free in most cases) music onto their low fidelity equipment.
One decent alternative are FLAC (Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec I believe) files which can be converted to CD quality WAV files and then you can burn them to a cd,convert them to MP3's if,for some reason,that is your personal choice,or store them on a computer or hard drive.

Thanks for the info! Guess I'll check out the search feature on here and learn some more.
I need to learn my way around this place a little better. So many great features and fans here at IORR!!!

...And what a beautiful user name....

There are portable audio players out there that support WAV files.I'm pretty sure that the iPod doesn't but,the @#$%& and some others do.

It's just the same .
FLACS are for the ears of God

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

There's lots of debate about this and while I used to feel that people who wanted to listen to mp3's were fine as long as they didn't spread them around the trading pool, my opinion on that has changed. I once thought it was ok to trade an mp3 sourced disc as long as the person you were trading with knew that it was mp3 sourced but I no longer feel that way either. I'm not going to get into why I've changed my opinion but I will offer this up....

In bootleg recordings, sound quality is often an issue. We love excellent sounding bootlegs because it's a better listening expirience. I'd much rather listen to a pristine soundboard than a mediocre audience recording. Mp3's are lossy(meaning loss of sound quality) so when you hear a mediocre audience recording sourced from mp3's, it's even worse than the original. Since sound quality is a big (if not the biggest) issue with bootleg recordings, most people want the best possible listening expirience so they don't want anything lossy.

There are other reasons that people don't like mp3's that I won't get into. What I just mentioned is only one reason.

The mp3 files are really good (or excellents?) but some people are hard fans of WAV and/or FLAC files, but you CAN'T hear any difference, only you will note the difference if you see a spectral analyze... other "big" difference you can note is the size... when a mp3 file has 4 or 5 MB size (at 192 Kbps) a FLAC or WAV file is 38/45 MB, is so crazy, what are you think??

REMEMBER: you CAN'T hear any difference!!


Argentino

Argentino Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> REMEMBER: you CAN'T hear any difference!!


I wouldn't say that.

Some people CAN hear the difference if the mp3 is a low bitrate. The average listener probably can't tell the difference.

Personally, I think that people who say they can hear the difference between an mp3 version (at 320kbps) & a 'lossless' version, because they have 'superior' audio equipment, is just ludicrous. If these people have such 'state of the art' hi-fi equipment- why do they want to listen to a recording made on a md recorder, that originates from a microphone hidden in someone's pocket?. The whole argument is bizarre IMHO.

Cool. Thanks for all the interesting information everyone. Like I said, I NEVER send out any mp3 versions of boots, however, it doesn't bother me in the least to receive mp3's. I'd rather have a show in mp3s than not have the show at all. At least mp3s can hold me over til I get my grubby little hands on a better quality, tradable version.
Nothing in life compares to the feeling of listening to The Stones live!

Doolittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I think that people who say they can
> hear the difference between an mp3 version (at
> 320kbps) & a 'lossless' version, because they have
> 'superior' audio equipment, is just ludicrous. If
> these people have such 'state of the art' hi-fi
> equipment- why do they want to listen to a
> recording made on a md recorder, that originates
> from a microphone hidden in someone's pocket?. The
> whole argument is bizarre IMHO.


I can't tell the difference in lossless and an mp3 at 320 kbps........course I don't have any hi-fi audio equipment either.

Low bitrate mp3's are another matter.


On another note, at least you have the common courtesy to express that this is just the way that you personally feel about the matter instead of making a declaration that the audiophiles among us are idiots, a style of language used by too many posters on this board.

People have made great effort in preserving concerts, whether it's an old fashioned distant mono recording, great stereo audience rec, or sourced from radio - it's a shame that their efforts gets degraded just because of the storage convenience of MP3.

If one have a bad internet connection, and can't download FLACs, or if one just don't care about having anything else than MP3 - after one reach a certain age, one might not hear the difference - ....MP3 can be a good option of course.

Doolittle wrote:
>>If these people have such 'state of the art' hi-fi equipment- why do they want to listen to a recording made on a md recorder, that originates from a microphone hidden in someone's pocket?. The whole argument is bizarre IMHO<<

A recording made from "a microphone is someone's pocket"....hmmm, why bring in the worst recordings into this discussion? WHo listen to Vienna 1970 on daily basis anyway? There's 100s of terrific Stones audience recordings.

I had a silver pressed CD, which had really clear and excellent sound. But I got a headache by listening to it, more than a song or two. It turned out to be a MP3 sourced bootleg - the brain has to work on the clumsy & stiff soundwaves

Doolittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I think that people who say they can
> hear the difference between an mp3 version (at
> 320kbps) & a 'lossless' version, because they have
> 'superior' audio equipment, is just ludicrous. If
> these people have such 'state of the art' hi-fi
> equipment- why do they want to listen to a
> recording made on a md recorder, that originates
> from a microphone hidden in someone's pocket?. The
> whole argument is bizarre IMHO.


Doolittle - bizzare isn't a word for what you're writing here. Do you really think that only poor people are interested in bootleg recordings? I have enough money for a state-of-the-art equipment but sometimes I enjoy listening to even poorest recordings. What's wrong with it? On the other hand - I could afford a Mercedes or a BMW but I drive a Citroen, so maybe I'm just insane.


Argentino: you wrote "REMEMBER: you CAN'T hear any difference". You're probably right - I tend to forget that we're all the same. But sometimes I wonder why I need glasses/contact lenses and others don't...is it maybe you see better than me BUT I hear better than you? No, can't be - you're clearly pointed out that I CAN'T hear any difference. Man, sometimes it's hard...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-22 10:51 by silkcut1978.

silkcut1978 Wrote:
> Doolittle - bizzare isn't a word for what you're
> writing here. Do you really think that only poor
> people are interested in bootleg recordings? I
> have enough money for a state-of-the-art equipment
> but sometimes I enjoy listening to even poorest
> recordings. What's wrong with it? On the other
> hand - I could afford a Mercedes or a BMW but I
> drive a Citroen, so maybe I'm just insane.

I think you've misinterpretted my comments a little. There was no mention of 'poor' people & to be honest, even someone on a low income (like myself) has every right to own a great hi-fi- as I do. I also (like you) listen occasionally to boots that sound pretty awful- which is partly why I made the point! :-)
I can also see why Stones 'historians' don't like any recording to become 'watered-down' in any way & used the analogy of the 'microphone in someone's pocket' as an extreme example. But- let's be honest, the vast majority of boots aren't great recordings, even if they are of 'historical interest'.
So- I try & see things from all angles. Everyone here is making valid points. Personally, I only collect factory-pressed boots, but, again- that's just my preference (as I've had BAD experiences with cdrs becoming 'unreadable' after only a few years). But- it's a case of 'each to their own'. 'IOR&R' caters largely for people who want to download mp3's, for whatever reason. So- I, personally have no problem with that.

You're right Doolittle, I got you wrong - hope you excuse :-)

Same with me in a way - I don't care how others build their collection but what I honestly can't stand is somebody telling me "you CAN'T hear the difference" - but that wasn't you ;-)

Erik - you don't listen to Vienna 70 on a regular basis? ;-) Maybe I told you too often by now, but finally Vienna 76 WILL be up tonight. Going Mad And Wild will be the next in line as requested by Britney and you!

Trading and sharing in lossless format will keep the Stones legacy preserved in the best possible quality. Conversion to mp3 will reduce the quality, especially after multiple conversions. Factory pressed cd's might last but in many cases don't offer the best soundquality because of speed issues, bad mastering, 20th generation master tapes etc.

A badly recorded bootleg will not sound great on a state of the art hi-fi system but it will sound even worse in lossy mp3.

Thanx for upping them boots, Silk.

Britney Wrote:
> Factory pressed cd's might last but in many cases
> don't offer the best soundquality because of speed
> issues, bad mastering, 20th generation master
> tapes etc.

Yes- you're exactly right. So- I'm endlessly looking for 'upgrades'. Luckily, the Japanese 'Idol Mind' label (& other labels) is currently doing a great job of this (titles such as 'Static In The Attic', or 'Birmingham '73').
Also many of the earlier 'Vinyl Gang' titles were remastered in 2004, just before they 'went under'. I haven't found ANYONE yet, who knows exactly which titles were upgraded, but- I know that eg: 'San Diego '69' & 'El Mocambo '77' were. It's VERY confusing, but for 'old school' old farts like me- the chase has always been part of the fun! :-)

Hey Doolittle......
So El Mocambo '77 was remastered in 2004??? The copy I've got I treasure, but yet the quality sucks. Guess I'll be chasing this remasteredone one down!
Thanks for the info!

AH great to hear about Vienna, Silkcut !

Whatabeautifulbuzz wrote:
Hey Doolittle......
So El Mocambo '77 was remastered in 2004??? The copy I've got I treasure, but yet the quality sucks. Guess I'll be chasing this remasteredone one down!
Thanks for the info!

I've uploaded that CD on a torrent, if you're into torrents

Other remastered VGP releases...Stoned-MSG 1969 and Europe 73 is better than the originals - I've found those ones. Haven't heard the newest editions of Berlin 1970 or Some Like It Hot - but I hear they are improved, would like to check them out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-22 19:14 by Erik_Snow.

Doolittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I think that people who say they can
> hear the difference between an mp3 version (at
> 320kbps) & a 'lossless' version, because they have
> 'superior' audio equipment, is just ludicrous. If
> these people have such 'state of the art' hi-fi
> equipment- why do they want to listen to a
> recording made on a md recorder, that originates
> from a microphone hidden in someone's pocket?. The
> whole argument is bizarre IMHO.


Do you have any idea what you're talking about?It doesn't sound like it.Like people have said,having good equipment is no reason not to listen to audience recorded concerts.I personally listen to a wide variety of cds.A bad system and lossy files are not going to improve the experience.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-22 19:38 by Theif in the Night.

Argentino Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> REMEMBER: you CAN'T hear any difference!!
>
Says who?Have you compared identical recordings in WAV versus MP3?If you have,what did you listen to them on?The better the system,the more obvious the thin MP3 sound is.

Well, I wouldn't depend my life on double blind listening test...

[www.hydrogenaudio.org]

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you have any idea what you're talking
> about?It doesn't sound like it.

Yes- actually I do. I also try & be very diplomatic with my replies. But- as so often happens on this site, replies are insulting. So- maybe I should just join the throng & say: "Listen Mother******- you're full of ****". Would I fit in better then?

Doolittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Yes- actually I do. I also try & be very
> diplomatic with my replies. But- as so often
> happens on this site, replies are insulting. So-
> maybe I should just join the throng & say: "Listen
> Mother******- you're full of ****". Would I fit in
> better then?

Apparently.


Says alot about the board.

Where can I find Pressed silver CD Boots, I want to start collecting them but dont know where to start

Thanks

My Blog
[stonesrockforever.blogspot.com]

Doolittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theif in the Night Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Do you have any idea what you're talking
> > about?It doesn't sound like it.
>
> Yes- actually I do. I also try & be very
> diplomatic with my replies. But- as so often
> happens on this site, replies are insulting. So-
> maybe I should just join the throng & say: "Listen
> Mother******- you're full of ****". Would I fit in
> better then?


At the risk of sounding like a 5 year old,I didn't start this.The thread was about mp3 sound quality,I brought in high quality systems and then you posted that it is bizarre to listen to bootlegs on good equipment which is ridiculous.

Doolittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've had BAD experiences
> with cdrs becoming 'unreadable' after only a few
> years).

Check out this thread on CDR's and DVDR's : [www.iorr.org]