Andy L Wrote:

> But that's not the point - they are being degraded
> (i.e. frequencies are being discarded) no matter
> how high the bitrate.

I know what you're saying, I'm just stating that the difference in quality is much smaller.


The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Is the bit rate 64,128,192,256,320 etc... what
> the boot was recorded at originally? Each time
> someone gets a copy can that bit rate change up or
> down as one is posting it?
>
> In other words can you convert a 128kbps recording
> to 256kbps recording?

You can convert it, but it'll only make the sound worse, because you're compressing an already compressed file.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 19:17 by Brano.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Is the bit rate 64,128,192,256,320 etc... what
> the boot was recorded at originally? Each time
> someone gets a copy can that bit rate change up or
> down as one is posting it?

The bitrate of an original (WAV) recording is 1411 kbps.

>
> In other words can you convert a 128kbps recording
> to 256kbps recording?

No. Once the recording has been converted to 128kbps, the frequencies are lost forever. If you then convert that to 256kbps, it will discard the upper parts of that 128kbps recording, if that makes sense.

Crash,

Is your animal running at 128k or 256k!!

CRASH:


You are absolutely right !!

If don't like them, look elsewhere, either via CDR trade or torrent download.



SICILIAN:


A commercial CD is done at about 1440 KB/s so you can easily see how much compression is done at the various bit rates and the resulting file size. Once you compress a song using a given bit rate, you cannot recover the lost information. Converting it to a higher bit rate does not recover the lost information even though the file size increases.

Brano Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Andy L Wrote:
>
> > But that's not the point - they are being
> degraded
> > (i.e. frequencies are being discarded) no
> matter
> > how high the bitrate.
>
> I know what you're saying, I'm just stating that
> the difference in quality is much smaller.
>

But my point is that there shouldn't be a difference in quality in the first place. Imagine if MP3 had been around in the 1970s and a recording had passed through, say, 100 people over the last 30 years, each of whom decided to encode to MP3 because they thought it was convenient. The copy of that recording we would have now would be unlistenable.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Crash,
>
> Is your animal running at 128k or 256k!!


...good one, Sicilian...

...here ya go - in STEREO...

You're welcome

Crash,

can he moonwalk?

I'm just happy with what I can get. Remember most of these posts are boots. The quality isn't going to be on par with an official release. I don't have anybody to play these songs to who would complain about the quality.

So each recorded song is done at 1440kbps? When boots are recorded songs are compressed to 128kbps or more each.

What are Flac files rates. What are DAO files?

For the record,

I'm not challenging anyone here, I'm just trying to understand the way things work in the downloading world.

You always hear people arguing about this file or that, and I just want to be better informed early on from different points of view.

I'm just saying if you tout one file as being superior, explain why or as they say in Statistics Class "support your argument"

A few years ago people were trading 10th generation tapes that were recorded on some crappy casette recorders, I think mp3s are an improvement over that. In a few years, when internet connections get faster and memory storages get bigger mp3 will become obsolete and we'll all be able to share wav or DVD-audio files in the best quality around here and peace will be restored. Amen.

Brano Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
.............In a few years, when internet
> connections get faster and memory storages get
> bigger mp3 will become obsolete and we'll all be
> able to share wav or DVD-audio files in the best
> quality around here and peace will be restored.
> Amen.

Well this might be possible by then but unfortunatly all of the good music has been destroyed by then by converting that stuff to MP3. So no more "good" wav files to share here! :-(

As some guys mentioned it is not against sharing!! Torrenting is also sharing (but in good quality!). I can understand that some have trouble with their Internet providers (slow connection) but what did you guys do a few years ago?? Trade for the stuff by snail mail. Why not do so any longer? Did your postal service quit its service??? I don`t think so!

It is really sad that some call themselfs "fans" and help destroy what they should admire and try to preserve! This is what they do with sharing and posting MP3 stuff.

But I think AndyL,paintitblack and last but not least me will not be able to convince people not to share in MP3 and other lossy format :-(

vox12string Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> There are those of us who have little choice in
> net connection. Here, in Australia, I pay
> $80/month for unlimited


>
> $80 bucks a month for internet connection that sucks Why so much? I pay $30

Brano Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few years ago people were trading 10th
> generation tapes that were recorded on some crappy
> casette recorders,

Only because there wasn't anything better available...

> I think mp3s are an improvement over that.

So what happens when people are sharing MP3s of those 10th gen tapes? In terms of loss of frequencies, they are as bad as each other.

Here is what I see,

I am surprised really, seeing that this site is almost the heartbeat of communication for the Rolling Stones, that mp3 are even dealt with on this site. My presumption would have been that everyone dealt with flac or TRADING. Granted, I have been able to download a few tracks including the tune I requested info about. I d/l'ed the tune and am using the track for my own use. However, I am stunned by the amount of requests for outtakes or unreleased tracks that have been availbale on boots for decades. Literally, many of the tracks posted recently can be found on the Time Trip Series, The First Decade Series, or the Abcko Masters Boot. All of which came out in the '90's before most European countries banned production of silver discs. I mean, these are authentic silver discs, not the fancyied up art cover CD-R which many stores sell today. I agree with the person who wrote about rollingstonesboots. Get on that site, Get a bonifide copy of a bootleg. Between, vines, weeds, trades, whatever, it wont take long to get something. When I first enrolled at this site, I thought people traded here. Instead, I see so much selling of boots or people buying boots. My word, I have seen the Copacobana audio disc on sale. here it is two weeks after the show and I just obtained it one a vine- for free!!!

If you want mp3's, fine d/l them. But if you want the real boot which has more treasures than you will likely see, then trade!!!!

Justin

what are silver cd's and what do you mean by "vine"? Sorry if I'm not up to speed on this.

my understanding of a "silver CD" is the factory made or bootleg manufacturer of a disc. for Example, you can find Mid Valley Records releaseing Eric Clapton bootlegs. These are Silver discs, as far as I know.

A vine is where someone offers a boot. That particular disc goes from one person until the next (each person makes their own copy of that one disc) until everyone who is interested has that show. I just jumped in on a vine for the 2002 Pac Bell PArk show.

Hope that helps, Justin

It kills me when people get on here and try and tell otehr people what should and shouldn't be done. A lot of people were very happy posting and downloading MP3s. Why can't you let them be?

lamemodem2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It kills me when people get on here and try and
> tell otehr people what should and shouldn't be
> done. A lot of people were very happy posting and
> downloading MP3s. Why can't you let them be?


Well it doesn`t kill me but it makes me think with what kind of people I have to deal with here. People who are just one dimensional and can`t bare other opinions.

Sorry but we are discussing an issue here and if people insist to do something "wrong" even if they are given alternatives so there can`t be done anything else!

To each is own -

I keep everything in flac or wav - but MP3s are fine for newcomers, casual fan, computer play use, slow dial uppers, sampling for potential boot download, or folks like me that lost the high end frequency hearing years ago blasting Can't You Hear Me Knocking too many times. I can only notice a very tiny, slight difference between wav and a high bit rate MP3. Personally, maybe life is too short - I'm too busy - or both - to get too hot under the collar too worry about such things & just enjoy the music.

In general, live 60-70s boots kind of suck quality wise - does not really matter if Honolulu '66 or Berlin '65 is in WAV format? For myself, I don't cry too much if the very high end frequency hiss of the earlier live boots is present in all its digital glory. Studio cuts/outakes is where I notice the main difference and only slight again WAV versus 320 kbps MP3.

In the spirit of discussion, I do not understand how MP3s will destroy the unreleased music pool - sounds a bit chicken little to me. What about all expensive the factory pressed silver CDs (I purchased my fair share). I'm not tossing them in the garbage can - they still have the same wav files as when I purchased them a bunch of years ago. Bittorrents will forever preserve these recordings.

The best thing is to turn people onto the Stones music and be accessible. These type of posts just turn people off & away. What is the point.

I see it like this - through this forum, I have been able to access for the first time in my life music I never knew existed. I don't need to have it in it's most pure state - I am not a perfectionist, I accept it for what it is.
In the main, we're talking about live audience recordings, which usually the quality is poor. For me, this stuff is only of interest if the show itself is outstanding, like Hyde Park or Altamont - both of which were posted here. The quality was poor, but it doesn't matter.

To that end - mp3's should not be banned, it's a pity to have that attitude. At the end of the day, it's the music that matters not high end frequency decibels.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-07 10:41 by turd.

I understand the people who are afraid of quality loss concerning mp3. But, consider it this way: in a few years DVD-audio (SACD or whichever) will replace CDs and higher quality DVD bootlegs will be available. Does that mean people should stop downloading FLACs because it will be easy for someone just to convert the wav files into the new standard and trade it as a DVD? No, because we know there'll always be kind people on boards like these who will give us the best quality, original material.
In the meantime, a few tips for those encoding mp3:
1. Don't ever recompress mp3s (in a higher or lower bitrate);
2. The same goes for converting wma-mp3 or vice versa (btw, wma has slightly better quality than mp3);
3. Use bitrate of at least 192kbps, preferably VBR (variable bitrate);
4. Important: If the source recording is mono (like Leeds), then encode it to mono. This way, a 128kbps mono mp3 will have the quality of a 256kbps stereo mp3;
5. Normalize wav files before encoding (if the sound level is too low or high).
As for software, Lame mp3 codec is probably the best, I use it with Exact Audio Copy.

JoeHill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To each is own -
>
> I keep everything in flac or wav - but MP3s are
> fine for newcomers, casual fan, computer play use,
> slow dial uppers, sampling for potential boot
> download, or folks like me that lost the high end
> frequency hearing years ago blasting Can't You
> Hear Me Knocking too many times. I can only
> notice a very tiny, slight difference between wav
> and a high bit rate MP3. Personally, maybe life
> is too short - I'm too busy - or both - to get too
> hot under the collar too worry about such things
> & just enjoy the music.
>
> In general, live 60-70s boots kind of suck quality
> wise - does not really matter if Honolulu '66 or
> Berlin '65 is in WAV format? For myself, I don't
> cry too much if the very high end frequency hiss
> of the earlier live boots is present in all its
> digital glory. Studio cuts/outakes is where I
> notice the main difference and only slight again
> WAV versus 320 kbps MP3.

It's not about whether you happens to be able to hear the difference, it's the very fact that the music is being degraded anyway.

> The best thing is to turn people onto the Stones
> music and be accessible. These type of posts just
> turn people off & away. What is the point.
>

Nobody is turning anybody away from Stones music - I and several other people have made constructive suggestions in this thread about alternative ways of obtaining the music.

This smacks of traders getting pissed off with MP3 recordings because they are losing trade.We are fans on this site,and we like to share,not make profits.

turd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see it like this - through this forum, I have
> been able to access for the first time in my life
> music I never knew existed. I don't need to have
> it in it's most pure state - I am not a
> perfectionist, I accept it for what it is.
> In the main, we're talking about live audience
> recordings, which usually the quality is poor. For
> me, this stuff is only of interest if the show
> itself is outstanding, like Hyde Park or Altamont
> - both of which were posted here. The quality was
> poor, but it doesn't matter.

The people arguing that MP3s should be banned (please consider it bv) are not perfectionists, we just want to preserve the music as it was meant to be heard. Is that really so hard to understand?

>
> At the end of the day,it's the music that matters not high end frequency
> decibels.
>

If the tapers and traders from the 60s and 70s had taken that attitude, no doubt you 'casual fans' would be moaning about the shitty sound quality of those recordings today.

lamemodem2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It kills me when people get on here and try and
> tell otehr people what should and shouldn't be
> done. A lot of people were very happy posting and
> downloading MP3s. Why can't you let them be?

Because it's for the greater good that the music is not degraded. If everyone encodes all their bootlegs to MP3, burns them to audio CD, passes those audio CDs on, then the next person encodes to MP3 etc... what happens when someone 30 or 40 years down the line wants to listen to these recordings and all that is left are recordings that have been compressed dozens of times?

stargroover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This smacks of traders getting pissed off with MP3
> recordings because they are losing trade.We are
> fans on this site,and we like to share,not make
> profits.

Have you even read this thread?

If I buy a boot from you or anyone else, how could I know if what you are selling has not been derived from an mp3 source? I could not knbow this and neither could you know, unless you had both formats to compare. So what you are saying does not apply to people who are not in the know.

If anything, that's one further reason why you shouldn't use MP3 - just because people are not in the know doesn't give someone the right to fob them off with lossy crap. Everyone should have the chance to enjoy the recordings in their original form.

Also, it depends what you're buying and who you're buying it from... I've never seen or heard of a silver CD bootleg that was sourced from MP3. If you're buying CD-Rs, well, you're taking your chances.