Red Mosquito

evenslow wrote:

Lament wrote:

Think about it: if Pearl Jam fans strictly abided by the Tapers’ rules not covert to mp3, there would literally be no accessible, live Pearl Jam available prior to 2000. Would you rather that Mr. Taper? Now no one can listen to early Pearl Jam. Are you really that selfish? Was it worth blowing the sound guy so you and your 4 friends could listen to the soundboard for MSG II 1998? It was? Fine, but you got something on your lip.

It's almost amazing how many things are wrong with the logic used in this paragraph.

I know. The sound guy never accepts BJ's.

Seriously, though, what a jerkoff. I spent many days in my youth doing B&P trades pre-Internet. I still to this day have a box of cassettes with random handwriting of track lists from random people all over the country. I found a way, and I only ever taped one show myself. And boy did that recording suck donkey balls.

Oh yeah, and navigating either of his sites is like fumbling for a condom in the dark, and then losing your hard-on. And then you finally get it, you turn on the lights, and realize she is uglier than your drunk ass could imagine

Think about it: if Pearl Jam fans strictly abided by the Tapers’ rules not covert to mp3, there would literally be no accessible, live Pearl Jam available prior to 2000.

THINK ABOUT IT

Aggressively stupid.

Are there any pitchforks left?

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Are there any pitchforks left?

I'll take a flaming torch!

But seriously - putting inferior mp3s out there when the tapers have been so gracious as to provide their wares with such simple requirement! Make your own mp3s, only trade the flacs. Don't shit in the gene pool.

I appreciate the effort and organisation, can't understand the application.

cutuphalfdead wrote:How about this, I'll gladly do a HD&P for the dot net. Send me an external drive and I'll copy my collection to it and mail it back to you. Make sure it's at least a terabyte. Then you'll have everything in lossless, with all the proper source information, and you can stop hosting very poor bitrate versions of audience recordings with no credit to the taper.

Bump.

Did this happen?

'Cause this was my favorite RM feud of 2013. Chud vs. The Dot Net.

theplatypus wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:How about this, I'll gladly do a HD&P for the dot net. Send me an external drive and I'll copy my collection to it and mail it back to you. Make sure it's at least a terabyte. Then you'll have everything in lossless, with all the proper source information, and you can stop hosting very poor bitrate versions of audience recordings with no credit to the taper.

Bump.

Did this happen?

'Cause this was my favorite RM feud of 2013. Chud vs. The Dot Net.

He never responded to that, publicly or privately.

Well, I guess his high five blog post was technically a response.

Now I feel like I lied in bed with the enemy by downloading some stuff from there.

Kevin Davis wrote:

Tass Man wrote:i think number 3 was written with CHUD in mind

http://www.gremmie.net/humor/the-high-5 ... s-you-know

I feel ashamed that a thread I created brought this nincompoop to our forum. What an embarrassing piece of writing to have to claim as one's own.

But it's slightly ironic that while we all jump on the bandwagon to bash this, many of these complaints are frequently echoed here.




And on a side note, I don't get this thing against making files available in mp3 format. If you want the FLACs, go download them, I do. If you want to settle for the mp3s, get those. Forcing people with metered or slow internet to do B&P trades (technically illegal I think) or spend forever downloading them is elitist and silly when the point is to spread the music to any fan that wants to hear it.

I guess it depends on the source. I have some pretty crappy sounding Zeppelin shows in flac and it's kinda like what's the point of having a poor recording in a high quality format but it's their stuff so I don't bitch. It is a little disappointing if you spend half a day getting something in flac and it sounds like shit but it's the chance you take. When you get something great it's worth it. It's not like you have to run on a treadmill to make the internet work so why complain you only end up sounding ungrateful.

broken iris wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Tass Man wrote:i think number 3 was written with CHUD in mind

http://www.gremmie.net/humor/the-high-5 ... s-you-know

I feel ashamed that a thread I created brought this nincompoop to our forum. What an embarrassing piece of writing to have to claim as one's own.

But it's slightly ironic that while we all jump on the bandwagon to bash this, many of these complaints are frequently echoed here.




And on a side note, I don't get this thing against making files available in mp3 format. If you want the FLACs, go download them, I do. If you want to settle for the mp3s, get those. Forcing people with metered or slow internet to do B&P trades (technically illegal I think) or spend forever downloading them is elitist and silly when the point is to spread the music to any fan that wants to hear it.

The fear with spreading MP3s is that transcodes will become prevalent. Say I download the FLAC and convert to high quality mp3 either in 320kb/s or V0. But then you download them and to fit them on your ipod you decide to convert 192kb/s. Well that would be fine if you did it from the FLAC source but if you did it from the mp3 source then you have a transcode that's going to sound like crap, just like a cassette that's been copied too many times. But you don't really hear much of a difference and don't care, so then you share your transcode with your friend, who passes it on to the dot net and that's the version that gets hosted there. So some dude took the time, effort, and risk to tape the show with a decent recording setup and now everyone is listening to a 192kb/s transcode because that's what the dot net or some other site got its hands on.

Now, none of this would matter if the people running sites like the dot net cared about quality and mainting source information, but as we've seen from this thread, that's not the case. But the dot net is more interested in quantity over quality so I wouldn't be surprised if they took your shitty 192 transcode and hosted it simply because it leaves room for more shows to be shared.

bada wrote:I guess it depends on the source. I have some pretty crappy sounding Zeppelin shows in flac and it's kinda like what's the point of having a poor recording in a high quality format but it's their stuff so I don't bitch. It is a little disappointing if you spend half a day getting something in flac and it sounds like shit but it's the chance you take. When you get something great it's worth it. It's not like you have to run on a treadmill to make the internet work so why complain you only end up sounding ungrateful.

Disagree. Shitty recordings sound shitty enough as it is. Why would you want to degrade the quality further?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

bada wrote:I guess it depends on the source. I have some pretty crappy sounding Zeppelin shows in flac and it's kinda like what's the point of having a poor recording in a high quality format but it's their stuff so I don't bitch. It is a little disappointing if you spend half a day getting something in flac and it sounds like shit but it's the chance you take. When you get something great it's worth it. It's not like you have to run on a treadmill to make the internet work so why complain you only end up sounding ungrateful.

Disagree. Shitty recordings sound shitty enough as it is. Why would you want to degrade the quality further?

It depends on the source. I really don't think a flac rip of a 70s rock concert off a cassette would sound any better than a 320kbps rip. Maybe theoretically but in practice to a human ear doubtful. If the uploader wants it in flac fine but it's of no real benefit than to make audiophiles feel better.

bada wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

bada wrote:I guess it depends on the source. I have some pretty crappy sounding Zeppelin shows in flac and it's kinda like what's the point of having a poor recording in a high quality format but it's their stuff so I don't bitch. It is a little disappointing if you spend half a day getting something in flac and it sounds like shit but it's the chance you take. When you get something great it's worth it. It's not like you have to run on a treadmill to make the internet work so why complain you only end up sounding ungrateful.

Disagree. Shitty recordings sound shitty enough as it is. Why would you want to degrade the quality further?

It depends on the source. I really don't think a flac rip of a 70s rock concert off a cassette would sound any better than a 320kbps rip. Maybe theoretically but in practice to a human ear doubtful. If the uploader wants it in flac fine but it's of no real benefit than to make audiophiles feel better.

There is a practical reason in having the best quality of those 70s or older recordings in my experience. You can make them surprisingly good by tweaking them with an equaliser. This is usually more difficult to achieve with compressed files.

bada wrote: no real benefit than to make audiophiles feel better.

Have you heard about Pono?

theplatypus wrote:

bada wrote: no real benefit than to make audiophiles feel better.

Have you heard about Pono?

The Hawaiian word for living a righteous life?

cutuphalfdead wrote: The fear with spreading MP3s is that transcodes will become prevalent. Say I download the FLAC and convert to high quality mp3 either in 320kb/s or V0. But then you download them and to fit them on your ipod you decide to convert 192kb/s. Well that would be fine if you did it from the FLAC source but if you did it from the mp3 source then you have a transcode that's going to sound like crap, just like a cassette that's been copied too many times. But you don't really hear much of a difference and don't care, so then you share your transcode with your friend, who passes it on to the dot net and that's the version that gets hosted there. So some dude took the time, effort, and risk to tape the show with a decent recording setup and now everyone is listening to a 192kb/s transcode because that's what the dot net or some other site got its hands on.

I understand and respect your opinion here, I just don't share it. We can still live in harmony.

cutuphalfdead wrote: Now, none of this would matter if the people running sites like the dot net cared about quality and maintaining source information, but as we've seen from this thread, that's not the case. But the dot net is more interested in quantity over quality so I wouldn't be surprised if they took your shitty 192 transcode and hosted it simply because it leaves room for more shows to be shared.

That would be the pono thing to do

theplatypus wrote:

bada wrote: no real benefit than to make audiophiles feel better.

Have you heard about Pono?

I've heard of it but I have never heard it. I imagine it would be similar to other higher quality formats in that some people will say it's no better and others will say it's super noticeable. Kind of like when you read reviews of HDTVs and they are written by a guy in a completely dark room with three brands of TV's lined up next too each other and he can pick out the differences. That's cool but how noticeable are those difference if you aren't constantly comparing and is what that guy sees and hears the same as what you see and hear? I don't personally hear a meaningfully difference in sound between FLAC and 320KBPS to justify the file size on my devices. If someone said they don't see a difference between Blu Ray and DVD I would say they are nuts so I get it and I would never take a FLAC source and rip to lesser quality and host it but I think the FLAC thing is a little overblown. I guess if I had a nice sound system and listened with headphones I'd be on the other side of the fence but I don't.

Just re-read this thread. Man, this was fun.

Theres a song from the birdman sessions called 'perfect girl', does anyone know if its a cover or is it just an improv/jam/demo? Its got a kinda 80s pop vibe.