
Well I wanted to wait a week to post a response to the Flac vs. MP3 post. I did this for a couple of reasons, 1. to see the poll results and 2. to take in all the comments. Thanks all for commenting BTW.
Now I thought about responding with snarky name calling and insults, for instance I was called a cheat and a traitor for converting to lossy MP3s, and I could retort with calling you a cheat and traitor to the artist for not wanting their music proliferated. I could point out that the artists themselves who allow taping do not stipulate a format, and I could also point out that if mp3's are so inferior soundwise to FLAC files there should be no worries of spotting them with your superior hearing ears when they have been converted back to FLAC. But I won't do that ;-), because nothing will be gained from it except another argument on the internet.
I would like to say that I now understand the FLAC purists stance a little better. They are concerned that their pure files are not preserved for future generations. Again, a valid source of concern. I would like to point out though....to use corporate speak....that their business model is fucked. You are passing on something you care about (preservation of pure music files) onto your customer base (that would be those of us who just want to hear the music). There is bound to be a better way to go about this than posting your files on the internet, then hoping everyone follows your unwritten rules of how they should listen to those files. Seems to me, the archiving of the pure files should be a seperate act from the distribution of the music. Are you tapers not backing up your own files? Are you depending on the internet to do your job for you? I will reiterate, that's a fucked business model, and if your main concern is keeping a pure lineage of a taped show, you should not be posting it to the internet in the first place. I'm not telling you folks what to do, but I would propose 2 areas, an archival area for the purest of pure files that only the elite can access (that's you guys), and a distribution area where the files can be downloaded by those who are more interested in the music than the lineage (that's us).
One of the commentors compared preserving these live shows to preserving Kafka transcipts, but I prefer a different comparison. In the middle ages, pre-printing press the bible was only read by the elite monks, and it was only read in latin. After the invention of the printing press, the bible was translated to many languages and it was suddenly available to anyone who wished to read it. The elite monks were not happy about this, and thought that the bible should only be read in latin. However because of the translations more people than ever were reading the bible and they were reading it in the most prevelant language of their area....their preferred language if you will. I guess my point here is that elitism has it's place, we would not want the translated mass produced bibles to replace the original handwritten latin ones, but was it not also beneficial to the non-elites to have a readable translation so they didn't need to learn latin and ride their mule up to the top of Mt. Cristo just to read the bible?
Music in a similar way, should be enjoyed by any who wishes to enjoy it, not just the elites up on Mt. FLAC.


But when Jesus came back, was he lossy?
ReplyDeleteGet it straight, Jesus is lossless....satan is lossy
ReplyDeleteYou have valid points, but this: "your unwritten rules" is just to avoid taking responsibility for what YOU choose to do with the files you download from Dime.
ReplyDeleteYou - aswell as I - know that 90% of the torrents there specify you do NOT spread the files on in lossy format.
Still, to get a result as that is not surprising, as your audience is used to downloading VERY low-grade mp3s from your site. As I said before, even pumping it up to 320 would do wonders for the quality you are responsible for spreading on the internet.
And how someone can have any enjoyment from listening to 128k mp3s on a stereo is beyond me. Expecially when listening to sub par audience tapes... take a listen to any cymbal-sound on any low-grade mp3 and compare with the same file in flac - or even 320mp3...
All serious tapers archive their files.
But imagine - in 10 years, when a torrent of THAT wonderful, rare show - where all your favourite artists showed up to sit around singing all your favorite songs for hours on end - and some yobo downloaded the torrent, converted to 128k MP3 and then spread the files... 10 years down the road - that is the only spread copy - as the original taper got pissed because someone didn't respect his time and effort to share, and decided to pull the plug on his sharing...
I have a bunch of uncirculated shows from several of the artists you share here. And sadly, I'm the only one who will enjoy them - as I won't let people like you break down the effort I have to put into sharing stuff like that...
Although I have been given insight into your motivation for sharing in MP3 and I am convinced you do it as a music lover who likes to give artists more attention, you still miss the point: the debate was not whether people here prefer MP3 over FLAC. As the above poster mentioned, it doesn't come as a surprise that your audience prefers MP3, that's what they are used to, they just don't care or they don't know there's a difference.
ReplyDeleteThe point was is it so difficult to honor a wish like "do not SHARE in MP3". True, the reason behind that wish is to preserve the integrity of the files. You give a whole bunch of reasons why you think that's a silly demand, but you get it all for free. All the tapers ask in return is not to share in MP3.
Of course we know once a recording is out on the internet it's free and it also happens on other sites, but at least here we speak to the owner of such a site.
I could chose to withhold my recordings, but that's not why I'm recording, I want to share it with other people. I still like to believe that the majority of the downloaders rspect my wish.
The other day I received a PM from somebody who had written an article about a show I recorded, in which he referred to my recording. Knowing how I feel about sharing in MP3 he added "I haven't put MP3's on my site, but have given my readers the download link for the original files".
S.C. de Graaf
I had to comment on this. What you failed to realize in your bible analogy is that if the bible was translated and printed but all the vowels were missing that would be akin to MP3 vs Flac. Sure you could still read it and understand it but there would be something missing. The subtleties would be lost. You won't have the full bible you would have about 75% of it. In the case of 128k mp3 vs FLAC you really are only listening to about 15% of the original material.
ReplyDeleteTo the previous posters point the request of the tapers to not distribute mp3s is an easy request that should be honored. Let’s make the distinction between converting for personal use and distributing. If you want to convert them to MP3 for you own use that’s another matter, I do for my iPod in the car to save disc space and because iPod won't play FLAC and i can't hear as much of a difference at 320k in the car. Anyone who is that interested in music to be surfing around reading all these music blogs and downloading live recording already has a passion for it and we are all familiar with FLAC, how to play it and how to convert it. This whole argument would go away if Apple would make FLAC playable in iTunes and the iPod because like it or not it is the dominate media player.
With the price of storage continuing to drop I’ve evolved into having two libraries, FLAC and Apple lossless to the home system and 320mp3 for the iPod, and yes you can hear the difference.
If the Bible was missing all the vowels, wouldn't that be Hebrew?
ReplyDeleteI was on a panel for a conference once and I was asked by aspiring musicians how they could maintain control of their music in the internet age & I told them to record/mix/master at home. Take the master tape and lock it in a safe.
ReplyDeleteand yes you can hear the difference.
ReplyDeleteyou can...
i can't...
I really don't know of a way to play FLAC files if one is away from the computer! FLAC is great for "archiving", not so great for listening, I'm afraid. And it would be pretty expensive to upgrade my computer so I can detect the backward dog-whistle solos....
ReplyDeletehere's a great way to play your FLAC files at home. Thats how i do it.
ReplyDeletewww.sonos.com
No company is ever going to make a portable device to play FLAC files because they will never make any money off of it. I'm going to guess that 1 in 1000 iPod users can tell the difference between a FLAC file and a 256k MP3 file. A vast majority of people are not audiophiles and just want to hear the music for the music's sake. Building a FLAC-pod would be a terrible business decision.
ReplyDeleteIpod plays numerous file types now, it's just a matter of writing code.
ReplyDeleteFLAC-pod
ReplyDeletesounds like the latest in dildo technology.
Again, regarding the bible analogy, any translation from one language to another loses something. There are always many ways to translate a given phrase from one language to another - particularly between languages that do not share a root language (Chinese and English, for instance). MP3 and FLAC (which is just a compressed version of a base file) could be compared this way. In fact, MP3 is limited to 44.1kHz, 16b stereo in its best incarnation (you can reduce the bit depth and sampling rate, but not increase it above that). WAV or FLAC (and other formats) are not limited and can be 192kHz/24b, for instance.
ReplyDeleteAs a Dimer I don't really like to see bloggers post my recordings and uploads but ultimately who cares? The people who really "get it" don't get them from the likes of you.
Anonymus anonymus anonymus... big mouth, no name... sad, pathetic. However, the last anonymus, whoever you are has an extremely important point: ".... but ultimately who cares? The people who really "get it" don't get them from the likes of you." Although I disagree with the second part of the statement, those who care so much for the best quality of an audience tape will ultimately go to their own little corner of the universe.
ReplyDeleteThose who say that in 10 years time only the 128bit version is around... so what? If you have taped the show, you still have it.
Honestly, I don't see the problem, you want flacs, great, excellent, brilliant. you want mp3, also great. I play on my computer, mp3 is enough. Maybe one day I join the club of Flaccers when I buy again a decent audio system, but I am too much on the road to care.
The only real argument here is what S de Graaf (nice... not an anonymus) has said.. respect the wish of the taper. That is the ONLY valid argument. But that said.... once its in the great wide open, you loose control. You can maybe convert the readers in this blog (although I doubt), you can't change the world. I'm sorry guys/girls. You have no alternative then sit on your precious recording until you die.
As for the bible... it's a nice statement, but it's even worse then you people here mention. It's beyond the scope of this blog to extend my answer here but let me tell you this... get that book and try to find out 1. where was Jesus born, 2. when was he born and 3. why is the whole Christian world based on the ideas of Paul instead of the so called beloved apostle Peter. Enough.
I think we have reached a point where the two positions are irreconcilable, so I'll try to explain differently or perhaps further. And to be in tune with you most I’ll probably use some analogie to explain myself
ReplyDeleteThis is no longer MP3 vs. Flac. If you can not distinguish the difference between MP3 and FLAC why not use flac? Because space in your HD, because your bandwidth or portable devices? Because you can not hear in the car? The answers you give it looks to me just excuses.
I think you can’t distinguish the difference not because you have not an ear privileged or because you are not snob or elitist. But simply because you can not do it.
Here comes the analogy. I like drinking wine. As a teenager I drank a lot of wine regardless of brand or source. What difference could exist between a wine or another if I was already lying on the floor and I could not get up myself? But one day I saw a friend of mine could distinguish between a wine and another. He could say whether the wine was aged in a barrel of wood or metal. He could even tell me what kind of wood was the barrel!!!! I did not call him snobbish or elitist, just asked him to teach me to drink wine and to distinguish their qualities. Now I drink much less wine than before but my experience in doing it is so far superior. I recognize that there are millions of different wines: French, Italian, Argentinean, Californian and each fits very well with different foods. My palate is still the same as a teenager, but now it is more educated.
It's the same on music. Not distinguish the difference between MP3 and FLAC simply because you have not bothered to learn to listen. Fortunately, you have a lot of friends on the internet (some of them are called TAPERS) that could teach you that. No fight them, learn from them, listen, investigate and ask again.
Someone said that cymbals do not listen well to mp3 and it's true. Surely you think " I do not care if I can hear anyway." But there is one major difference than that. When you hear music in flac or a Cd bought at your favorite record store, the music hears in 3D (I'm not talking about sourround sound) and that allows you to distinguish which instruments are "forward" those "backward", which one sounds stronger and lower, which are brass and which are woodwinds, and so on. At Mp3 all the sounds are all equal and reach the ear all at once and at the same volumen, like a ball of sound making it difficult to distinguish what is going on there. When you can distinguish clearly all the instruments you probably wonder: why the composer used this instrument and not another one? I assure you that the composer made a choice and you do not even realize. Is this a good way to spread music? Quantity is better than quality? Want you to stay drunk on the floor? If your intention is actually to spread music, then your choice should be, no doubt, spread the highest quality as possible so that everyone can fully enjoy the composition not only a melody that can be whistled. Mp3 looses a lot of information because music is more complex than a melody.
If you want to spread the melody of Beethoven's 5th symphony that is very simple: I can whistle!!!!! then use mp3. If you want to spread the "full" version of Beethoven's 5th symphony including all decisions made by Beethoven to compose it, with all the "nuances", "colors" and "tastes" then you know what to do.
Ps: ignorance is bless?
That was a great post Perfecto. Thanks for that. I will think more on this because my mind is not set just to be set. I just want to make things easiest for the readers of this blog.
ReplyDeleteSimple. FLAC or WAV to Archive, why? When you buy a CD, do you buy it in MP3? NO. You buy the CD with its full quality. FLAC should be used to archive and distribute. MP3 is fine for listening, but what if I wanted to take my CD or WAV or FLAC to a place with high end sound? You listened to your CD on a low end CD Player, right? MP3 is fine to listen to. But what if I want to use a different format? Would I convert the MP3 to a different format? Or use WAV to create a different lossy format?
ReplyDeleteBottom line, only idiots can not see the advantages of Lossless WAV and FLAC audio. It's not just for listening, sure one cannot tell the difference, but then again, if you want to live in ignorance, its your choice.