Jump to content
Zeus

MH Feedback: Transcodes

Recommended Posts

This isn't an announcement of any sort, which is why I have it placed here. I want an aggregated opinion on what we should do with transcodes. Since there are many options a poll wasn't a very good idea so all I would require is a paragraph explaining your stance and why.

Don't let my opinions on things sway your opinions. Write what you truly feel :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of them. We shouldn't tolerate transcodes if we want people to actually view us a legit source of music (which we are).

edit: it's an insult to those uploaders that actually try to provide music in the best quality possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Magatsu

Depends how bad those transcodes are.

It's okay if they have actually a bitrade of 128kbps.

But lower.. mmm

But actually people have to check them first before they gonna post something.

And the people who are good in music editing they can make them easy as a real 128kbps. so that the 320kbps will be disappear at pc/mac back-up

I'm more annoyed about those SHIT people who post everything on their blogs.

So for them would be transcodes just perfect (laugh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer a transcode over not having the file at all any day.

Plus, it has already been shown that most people can't even identify a transcode by ear. If you can't actually hear it's a transcode it can only mean that it doesn't actually sound bad, and if it doesn't sound bad, why do you bother?

People have become obsessed with little spectograph-pictures and they have become more important to some people than the actual music. "OH NOEZ, the yellow lines are not all maxed out on this funny pic! Surely the file must sound like crap!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it depends on the transcode. Transcoding an iTunes file from m4p to mp3? Fine. Transcoding other file formats such as mp3 from a higher quality bitrate to another high birate, fine. Downloading a Youtube, Dailymotion, etc video and uploading it, not fine. That's the only case where I don't consider it a 'real' rip.

Depends how bad those transcodes are.

It's okay if they have actually a bitrade of 128kbps.

But lower.. mmm

This, pretty much.

I look down upon transcodes for the most part, and people should check if the files are transcoded or not with spek if they're not the original uploader. However, I won't freak out if someone uploads a transcoded file and go on some kind of childish tirade over it.

Also agreed with what Champ said:

I prefer a transcode over not having the file at all any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am extremely annoyed by transcodes (the "let's make a 320 kbps mp3 from a 128 kbps one!" kind), but I think threads with transcoded files are okay as long as someone doesn't share a proper rip. IMO after someone shares a legit rip, the given thread with transcoded files should be deleted, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer a transcode over not having the file at all any day.

Except the bulk of the transcodes we see here are of releases that are popular/widely available and have an extremely high chance of being ripped legitimately and uploaded.

So let's not pretend that the releases being transcoded are so "uber-rare" that we should lower the forum's standards to accommodate them. Every respectable music source I know of condemns transcodes, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same.

Allowing any and all transcodes is not only an insult to the uploaders that go through the trouble to purchase and rip music in good quality, but it's also an insult to the community at large! Give this forum and it's members some credit! I can say without fail that VK fans are some of the most dedicated music fans there are. If we raise our standards, they will do what it takes to provide music in better quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

@CAT5 post

mmm......

Then maybe, we should get a new rule.

Only share what you have purchased and ripped yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@CAT5 post

mmm......

Then maybe, we should get a new rule.

Only share what you have purchased and ripped yourself.

I suppose now that a change of vocabulary is in order, because there has never been a case of someone uploading a transcode outside of a format switch, which is usually indicated. The transcodes that we primarily deal with are those mirrored here from blogspots or street teams. All of the transcodes I've dealt with this week fall into that category and have come from such places.

Of course, such a thing could be easily dealt with by saying that you can't share anything you didn't rip yourself but I doubt most members upload things they rip themselves. Most members get the stuff they share from someone else or it's something they found and would like to share here. Enacting that would most certainly kill off the section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer a transcode over not having the file at all any day.

Except the bulk of the transcodes we see here are of releases that are popular/widely available and have an extremely high chance of being ripped legitimately and uploaded.

Well, then why don't they? If high quality rips of these files are so widely availible, then why don't people upload them? Nothing is stopping them from doing do.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that people should pay more attention to how a file actually sounds, rather than how it looks like on a spectograph. Because music is about the listening experience, not about looking an pretty graphs. At least it is for me. If I download a file and I don't notice any obvious quality deficencies, then I don't go around making spectographs that are supposed to "prove" to me that I should be hearing something that I'm actually not hearing at all. It just doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

To me, the easiest solution is still this: if a transcode is found, label it it as such. People know what to get, they don't have to download it. Once a proper rip appears, make a new thread for it, delete the transcode thread. Or maybe lock the transcode thread as soon as it's found. The link will still be availible for those that don't give a shit about transcodes, but it's not hogging the front page.

Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

@Zess @CAT5

Yeah.. actually it is.

But how often did we already told people to CHECK their files if they found them somewhere in the interwebs before they put it online over here?

A lot of times, and still "new" users forget. just don't read the rules. Or just they don't think about it.

if a transcode is found, label it it as such. People know what to get, they don't have to download it. Once a proper rip appears, make a new thread for it, delete the transcode thread. Or maybe lock the transcode thread as soon as it's found. The link will still be availible for those that don't give a shit about transcodes, but it's not hogging the front page.

Problem solved.

^ I think that's a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with Champ although Cat does make a valid point that a transcoded file could get in the way of a legit rip. Also, it really annoys me when people with cheap 10 dollar earbuds complain about bitrate, because it's usually all in their heads. :roll:

Also,

if a transcode is found, label it it as such. People know what to get, they don't have to download it. Once a proper rip appears, make a new thread for it, delete the transcode thread. Or maybe lock the transcode thread as soon as it's found. The link will still be availible for those that don't give a shit about transcodes, but it's not hogging the front page.

Problem solved.

I support this as well I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I definitely understand where Champ is coming from. There are a lot of people that are uneducated about transcodes or simply don't care. People just want to hear music. Hell, when I first got into "j-rock", I didn't have the slightest clue about bitrates, transcodes - anything. I simply was excited to get my hands on music. I imagine it's the same for many of the members here, who are also just getting acquainted with VK or Japanese music.

However, as someone that's been around the block a few times and is educated in filesharing matters, I'd like to do what I can to help provide people with quality music - regardless of if they appreciate it or not.

This is one of the reasons why I do not support transcodes. I'm a firm believer in that, if you're gonna share something, share it properly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo

Transcode are okay IF it's a rare song you can't find anywhere, and will never obvs

But it's ok if the transcode is not a bad shit under 128kbps

If the transcode is a single/album you can easily find/buy, I think it's better to delete the post, cause it has nothing to do on the forum

PS: for me Transcode don't belong to the dl section, maybe there should be a section or thread for that, or just put it on random topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I definitely understand where Champ is coming from. There are a lot of people that are uneducated about transcodes or simply don't care. People just want to hear music. Hell, when I first got into "j-rock", I didn't have the slightest clue about bitrates, transcodes - anything. I simply was excited to get my hands on music. I imagine it's the same for many of the members here, who are also just getting acquainted with VK or Japanese music.

However, as someone that's been around the block a few times and is educated in filesharing matters, I'd like to do what I can to help provide people with quality music - regardless of if they appreciate it or not.

This is one of the reasons why I do not support transcodes. I'm a firm believer in that, if you're gonna share something, share it properly!

This.

Personally im against transcodes, but i guess it also depends on the userbase a site has.

In my opinion all transcodes should just get moved to random song section, if you dont want to delete them. (except itunes purchases of course. for obvious reasons.)

I am active at some music filesharing trackers and so you learn to appreciate good rips.

But like i said it also depends on the userbase.

As of now, probably 99% of the leechers just dont care about stuff like that, but that doesnt mean that we should just accept it.

Zess did a really good tutorial for ripping and i know that most people dont/wont read it, but as long as some people will try to follow ripping tutorials, others will follow.

Well like i said, for me it would be best if all transcode threads get deleted, but it would still be a step forward if we would move them as soon as a legit rip turns up (or just close the threads like champ suggested.

Anyways.

long story short. Transcodes? Hell no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well like i said, for me it would be best if all transcode threads get deleted, but it would still be a step forward if we would move them as soon as a legit rip turns up (or just close the threads like champ suggested.

here's the problem, some people don't post their real rip cause a thread has already been made with a transcode

They just think "the single has already been shared, I keep it for myself"

that's why there shouldn't be any transcode at all on dl section

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well like i said, for me it would be best if all transcode threads get deleted, but it would still be a step forward if we would move them as soon as a legit rip turns up (or just close the threads like champ suggested.

here's the problem, some people don't post their real rip cause a thread has already been made with a transcode

They just think "the single has already been shared, I keep it for myself"

that's why there shouldn't be any transcode at all on dl section

Thats my opinion too. Just wanted to say with this sentence, that it would be better than nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it's all about choice. People have a choice to download. Nobody forces you to download something that is labeled "Transcode". If you don't want it - don't download.

Give people the choice. They can either take the transcode, or wait for a better rip. If you don't want to wait, take the transcode. If no "real" rip of the file apears - shit happens. But I'm not entitled to get all the music I want for free in best quality. At least I don't think that I am.

Also, why are people so focussed on transcodes? A file that has been transcoded from 190k to 320 may actually still sound "better" than a real 128k rip. Should be ban them too?

Transcodes are basically just a problem of mislabeling/misleading. Something that claims to sound like 320k file but just sounds like 190k file for example. This mislabeling should not be supported, thus I suggest that the threads are locked. This might also entice poeple to upload another rip, since the first thread will vanish from the front page quickly.

I don't think they should be banned for the same reason that I don't think that any rip that's not 320k should be banned. Choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if something is a transcode if it sounds fine. These threads may be deleted when a better rip appears, but I'd rather have a transcode faster, than wait for 320kbps more. I'm totally for banning youtube rips though, this is something that actually sounds like shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main focus is on YouTube rips, since that's what the last three topics I have intervened in are.

Also, why are people so focussed on transcodes? A file that has been transcoded from 190k to 320 may actually still sound "better" than a real 128k rip. Should be ban them too?

Actually, that's hardly ever the case.

When a file is converted from a lossless format to a lossy format, the encoder's algorithm determines what frequencies within the file are the ones least likely to be noticed by the user and then does away with them. The algorithm can only work with the frequencies currently present in the file, which is why upon repeated implementations of lossy to lossy conversion additional quality loss occurs.

The problem with YouTube rips is that all of them record the stream of the file and package it into MP3 form. Since YouTube usually streams things at 96-192kbps (after they convert it), the quality of the MP3 formed from this stream is at best no better than a file transcoded between lossy formats once. In addition, most of these places will allow you to convert to any desired "quality" you like. All this does is bloat the size of the file and possibly introduces artifacts.

In addition, the algorithm that they use to convert between file formats may or may not be the most optimal way of doing it. There's no way to tell. There are plenty of different methods of going about such a thing, which is why you have different encoders such as the LAME encoder and the Fraunhofer encoder. "Free CD Ripper" programs and other similar utilities (like many of these YouTube ripping websites) don't implement the best encoders. They may implement the bare minimum, which may be an algorithm that does not approximate the wavelengths well and chops away a little too generously at the bits in the file.

The streaming plus the twin conversions plus a crappy encoding algorithm is where the "16khz knife" comes from.

Or, in a nutshell, a YouTube rip of a song will always be more degraded than a properly ripped version of that same song. Always. It's just the way the math checks out.

Has anyone else ever wondered why Demon Android's uploads were always so shitty? It's because he used some 3rd party knockoff program to rip his CDs and they always came out sounding like shit. This is pretty much the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if a file is revealed to be a transcode here, I wouldn't count on the people who reupload the files to share this information with their downloaders.

There's transcodes as old as time itself because of this, and they keep getting spread around even if they would be exposed as such on this forum. So if I could vote, I'd definitely say a 100% ban on transcodes, especially concerning new releases where we have a better chance of stopping transcodes from even starting going around, or, if not for the whole forum then at least for the lossless section, since downloading a large album and then finding that its a upsampling of a 192kbps file is just ridiculous.

But really, since people insist on using lossy formats for music, at least we should be able to guarantee the quality of those lossy rips so people get what they think they're getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if a file is revealed to be a transcode here, I wouldn't count on the people who reupload the files to share this information with their downloaders.

There's transcodes as old as time itself because of this, and they keep getting spread around even if they would be exposed as such on this forum. So if I could vote, I'd definitely say a 100% ban on transcodes, especially concerning new releases where we have a better chance of stopping transcodes from even starting going around, or, if not for the whole forum then at least for the lossless section, since downloading a large album and then finding that its a upsampling of a 192kbps file is just ridiculous.

But really, since people insist on using lossy formats for music, at least we should be able to guarantee the quality of those lossy rips so people get what they think they're getting.

I'm agreeing on this. Once things hit the internet, they spread like wildfire. If I'm trying to find an older release in good quality, I'm not going to want to download like 10 different copies just because someone decided it'd be a good idea to share a shitty sounding transcode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×