Not ANOTHER live album in the works??!!

Albie said:
Lossless is the opposite of lossy. :p

No, lossless files are compressed but can be uncompressed to it's original state (hence their size) - lossy compressed files (mp3's, etc.) can't. So even compressing the file to something like a 320kbs MP3 file (a high quality MP3), it cannot be rebuilt to its original state.
Click to expand...

Exactly !

Some general words about FLAC:
FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, an audio format similar to MP3, but lossless, meaning that audio is compressed in FLAC without any loss in quality. This is similar to how Zip works, except with FLAC you will get much better compression because it is designed specifically for audio, and you can play back compressed FLAC files in your favorite player (or your car or home stereo, see supported devices) just like you would an MP3 file.
more: http://flac.sourceforge.net/

I am not going into a discussion why FLAC sounds better. I hear it clearly and I am happy that I do.

I'll try to explain how I deal with FLAC's and diskspace and such.

I have been downloading mp3 bootlegs for years and apart from perhaps 15 gigs I think I have the best Iron Maiden recordings on my harddisk, speaking of the period 1979 til 2005. Thanks to the ratings on Mav's Commentary I can know beforehand which bootlegs I would like to download and which not.

So now I indeed have a lot of mp3 bootlegs.

Some months ago, a Swedish friend convinced me that FLAC sounds way better. I realized that it would be a hell of job and a lot of disk space if I would try to download all the OLD concerts (seventies to 2005) in FLAC format. So I made the following decision. From now on I'll try to get all NEW concerts (2006 and later) in FLAC format if possible. If not possible, or if not yet possible I'll download the mp3's. E.g., at the moment I have a Tokyo gig in mp3. Reason: I couldn't find it in FLAC yet. As soon as I find that one, I'll delete the mp3's immediately.
In the meantime I keep downloading older mp3 bootlegs if I find them.

Coming back to collecting concerts in FLAC via http://www.dimeadozen.org -->

Disadvantage: be careful of your diskspace. However, there are a number of practical and principle steps to deal with this:
Set priorities to all your music on your computer. All the unshared mp3's could best be burned to cd or dvd-rom or just deleted. Also handy is to store and share concerts only. Official stuff is imo cool to try and see if you like a band or an album, but soon after that I don't need to have it on my computer anymore, nor do I wish to share it. Result, more diskspace.

Major advantage: become the owner of lots of cool Iron Maiden bootlegs and especially the owner of new bootlegs. I had the Paris recording within 48 hours after the concert was over. The sound was very good.
Interesting other aspect: become the owner of concerts on DVD as well! I downloaded Maiden's NY gig and burned it easily to DVD. The same evening I enjoyed a great show on my own television !
 
Another point of this is that if you turn up the volume on a lossless audio file and a lossy file, you will really start to notice the difference. However, if the file is converted from lossy to lossless (a very futile exercise), the loss of sound quality will still be present - you can't return it to its original state once converted to lossy.

And with broadband, size is becoming less of an issue.
 
Albie said:
However, if the file is converted from lossy to lossless (a very futile exercise), the loss of sound quality will still be present - you can't return it to its original state once converted to lossy.
Click to expand...


And that, answering Onhells quesion, is (for me at least) a good reason to not decode/degrade FLAC concerts.
 
Forostar said:
I downloaded Maiden's NY gig and burned it easily to DVD. The same evening I enjoyed a great show on my own television !
Click to expand...
Did you make it into a dvd format?  Which program do you use?
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
I see no reason why people say 192 is the minimum acceptable bit rate for mp3. I rip/convert everything to 128, and I have yet to hear any significant difference.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who believes that there is no real difference between 64K wma and 128K mp3. :D 

Anyway, I rip everything to 128, as I believe it's the best compromise between space and quality.  For example, I have a downloaded copy of Dissection's Storm of the Light's Bane (which I hope to buy soon).  It's ripped at 320K.  One of the songs is about 8 minutes long, and is nearly 20MB in size.  That is ridiculous, to my mind.  Aside from the fact that the raw production doesn't benefit at all from boosted quality...but the differences between 128 and 192, although noticeable in places, aren't significant enough in my mind to warrant using 192.
 
Raven said:
I have a friend who believes that there is no real difference between 64K wma and 128K mp3. :D 
Click to expand...
That's Microsoft speak for you. ;)

They have some WMA v MP3 comparisons here.
 
Forostar said:
Nero Express 6. Adding the downloaded files - burning - watching :)
Click to expand...
Then your dvd player supports avi-mpeg format.  That's the problem with mine.  It doesn't,  so when I use Nero 6 I have to convert it to dvd format,  and that takes 3 hours.  Not only that,  my computer becomes so slow,  I can't use it :mad:
 
Unfortunately, it appears that dimeadozen has reached its maximum capacity of users...anyone up for putfile/yousendit/megaupload-ing the bootleg for us poor plebs? :p
 
Albie said:
Another point of this is that if you turn up the volume on a lossless audio file and a lossy file, you will really start to notice the difference. However, if the file is converted from lossy to lossless (a very futile exercise), the loss of sound quality will still be present - you can't return it to its original state once converted to lossy.

And with broadband, size is becoming less of an issue.
Click to expand...

Broadband, larger hard drives, faster processors, etc, don't exactly make size less of an issue.

Sure hard drives are up to 250GB now, but consider this:

Operating systems now require up to 2GB (if not more) of space, Microsoft office went from being Megabytes in size to a Gigabyte. Want to edit a home movie? you'll need at least 20 Gigabytes of space and you'll probably keep the finished product "on file". Music? I only have all the bands to which I have 3 cds or more of in my computer and that is still close to 20GB. Play any games? Got any pictures?

Forostar said the way to remedy this is by burning hard copies, that should be done anyway, because you never know when  virus might hit, files might get corrupted, etc. But ah well, I'm ranting now.
 
As usual Onhell, you have made a good point - but to burn a CD from a series of lossless files will make a better quality CD. Once its downloaded and burnt (on a CD that cost pennies), it off your hard drive. The point I tried to make of broadband not been an issue, is in the initial download - not the subsequent storage of.
 
Oh, and as usual I stand corrected :D. This is all very interesting as I am not an audio or video (what is the big deal with HD or plasma?) quality kinda guy so it's nice to learn from all y'all.
 
OK as was previously mentioned, it should come as no surprise that there is a live album in the works. It has been said that there will be a live album supporting every album tour from now on. If you don't like it, don't buy it. This whole obsession people have with buying everything Maiden release baffles me. Why people see themselves as less of a fan if they don't have every last single and album on every format available I just don't know. Anyway I digress.

The article you were referring to, in my opinion, is actually to do with live tracks for the bands third single not for a live album.
 
Real World said:
This whole obsession people have with buying everything Maiden release baffles me. Why people see themselves as less of a fan if they don't have every last single and album on every format available I just don't know.
Click to expand...
OK, maybe I am one that does this - but I do so for collection purposes more than anything. For example, I do have a few vinyls that I have absolutely no intention of playing as I have no record player. Reason for purchase, is that it has tracks not available on any CD/DVD (as yet).

I read somewhere that 'Arry is very much like this with Golden Earring, apparently.
 
Real World said:
The article you were referring to, in my opinion, is actually to do with live tracks for the bands third single not for a live album.
Click to expand...

Aww, kill the fun, RW! :lol:
 
SneakySneaky said:
Then your dvd player supports avi-mpeg format.  That's the problem with mine.  It doesn't,  so when I use Nero 6 I have to convert it to dvd format,  and that takes 3 hours.  Not only that,  my computer becomes so slow,  I can't use it :mad:
Click to expand...

Nope. The files I talk about are no avi or mpeg formats.
The files are .BUP, .IFO and .VOB files.

So no converting. Nero makes a normal (real) dvd from these files, which can be played with any dvd player.
 
Superfly said:
Dont mean to bitch again, but when i heard Kevin Shirley was producing live tracks recently, i had to let off steam. I realise most who post here are Maiden nutswingers, so no matter how logical my comment is, it will be seen as derogatory. But just to say, i do not think ANY band warrants as many live albums as Maiden have released (6!!! official). The studio album, live album, studio album, live album formula is taking the piss. None have ever come near Live After Death in performance anyway.
Click to expand...

If they didnt release stuff you'd moan but if you dont want it dont buy it idiot
 
TommyBellingham said:
If they didnt release stuff you'd moan but if you dont want it dont buy it idiot
Click to expand...

Shh, let's not get down to this level again, please...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top