Zeus

MH Feedback: Transcodes

50 posts in this topic

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.

I'm 'Thirding' this sentiment. TW/MH has long been a staple of the online j-rock community and as such, we have a responsibility to do what's best for the community and try to uphold the integrity of it. The decisions we make on this forum have a much more profound effect than you would initially think. The policies we enact here effect more than just MH, the but the entire online J-rock community at large as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if people don't care about a transcode.

Why the hell would we share 320rips for everyone?

Then we can even share 128rips and only give a 320 rip to our best buddies over here.

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.

I'm 'Thirding' this sentiment. TW/MH has long been a staple of the online j-rock community and as such, we have a responsibility to do what's best for the community and try to uphold the integrity of it. The decisions we make on this forum have a much more profound effect than you would initially think. The policies we enact here effect more than just MH, the but the entire online J-rock community at large as well.

This, however I can understand people who would want trascodes to exist too, since they want to listen stuff regardless (some releases might never even see daylight otherwise but as transcode, and at least most obscure of them often wouldn't even if MH were to change transcode policy.) Still I think this is only way to go, eventually people might learn and at least we would get more legit rips. For music quality junkie current situation must be like horror show or something xD...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or maybe we should just make a sub forum for "TRANSCODES" where we dump all our transcodes?

I'm not a fan of this for the sole purpose that it won't make people any more likely to check before they upload. That, and I just went through and cut out all of the extra fat from the board. Having a transcode section would either

a) be infrequently updated, except for the rare instance when a topic is moved in there

B) show that we "promote" YouTube rips, even if it is just a dumping ground.

This just results in more work for the moderators to do to make sure the proper topics are in the proper location. Locking a topic is a lot quicker than moving it between forums. Never having to deal with it is the quickest - and we can do that if they check before they share and realize that if it is a YouTube rip, it should go in the Random Songs Thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even agree that YouTube rips should be in "RANDOM songs" Thread <- because other normal ripped songs can be posted in that one too.

And since people post a whole album/single I really don't think it belongs into the "RANDOM" Thread.

For me it would be more logical to but them in a "songs who are ripped of a website" Thread.

Since it's not always a youtube rip. it can be an audioleaf rip too.

And it's also pretty easy to rip first in 128 and then you convert the files to 320. (laugh)

(not that it would make sense, but it can be fun to irritate people with that :P )

And why not getting a new mod? or a few mods? who check out those transcodes.

And who put them where they belong.

closing topics is actually pretty lame too.

So,, in my eyes.

There should be a special transcode post thread or a new sub forum.

Where people can dump them or where mods can move those things.

---

Banning transcodes out is impossible.

Even if people know its a transcode they still post it.

But if you don't wanna see those transcodes and don't wanna have extra work.

Then just ban them out of this forum. if someone post a transcode, warn that person. and delete the topic.

But yeah... do whatever you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read all the posts, observe this topic, I dunno why i didn't write something here by now. I think that banning transcodes is a fight with windmills - so give up with this idea. It can be tagged as [TRANSCODE], as Champ and others said, but let me be honest: transcodes are quiet unfair. If we have a file in 128 or even 192 kbps, upload it in this quality and add information about bitrate! Who wants to download these files will do it anyway and there will be no more complains! Transcoding to higher bitrate is making a fool ova person. The person believes in good quality and has a... yeah, what he/she has? Something more-less in the size, nothing more (or even worse) in the sound.

My piece ov advice: Just be fair. Of course someone couldn't know, that the file is a transcode (by copying and pasting links to DL section). Instead of doing this - check it once, then upload by yourself and tag it properly, give credits! Problem is solved!

What about forum for transcodes: it's definitely bad idea. It will be empty! Noone will use it! If so, what for this kind of forum/subforum? A topic with kind of "Help, is that a transode or not?" wouldn't be enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

If I read Rosà post then I'm thinking:

Can't we make a poll?

About this topic?

But it's just not a good idea to put them into the random song thread. <- because I also think that one should stay clean.

So I highly think that there should be a thread or sub forum where people can post transcodes, if people want to keep it.

If people don't wanna keep it, then there should be a staff member who people can ask, if they are not sure if it is a transcode yes or no.

But I think we should keep it.

That there should be a thread or sub forum where people can post those releases who are not yet ripped from a CD. Not everyone want to wait weeks or months till someone is so nice to rip the CD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should be happy if there is a transcode around. if the real thing is not yet ripped of a CD.

Because I would be glad to be able to listen to something, what is not yest released.

So yes, let's keep the transcodes.

But the uploader should 100% know if it's a transcode.

So everyone have to check with SPEK and it it's a transcode that person should just add a screenshot.

(Can be done, if that person is not sure too.)

That could be in a new thread or something.

But let's keep them!

However, if this forum don't decide to keep it.

Then I also want that this forum only accept,

Itunes, CDbaby, Amazon, Bandcamp purchases.

v0, 320kbps & lossless rips.

no, 128 or 192 rips. <- because that is also quality loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^

Can't we make a poll?

About this topic?

But it's just not a good idea to put them into the random song thread. <- because I also think that one should stay clean.

So I highly think that there should be a thread or sub forum where people can post transcodes, if people want to keep it.

If people don't wanna keep it, then there should be a staff member who people can ask, if they are not sure if it is a transcode yes or no.

But I think we should keep it.

That there should be a thread or sub forum where people can post those releases who are not yet ripped from a CD. Not everyone want to wait weeks or months till someone is so nice to rip the CD.

Agree in some parts. About staff member, about cleaning the random song thread and a poll. I understand the idea of random songs of found in the web, not on youtube :P

Ryu, why so? Quality loss is not that bad if someone doesn't care so much about it. But making quality higher than it really is is pathetic and stupid. The rest I find OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random song = random song.

Not youtube rips for a new release. that's not random.

So I agree with that part with Magatsu for 100%

Well, Quality loss is also bad. Then if there is a nice youtube rip around I could rip that myself to have almost the same quality.

Because lot of youtube transcodes are actually 128kbps. so you could easy making the quality back to 128 :3

192kbps is just a cruel bitrate. Kinda as "I won't give ya the 320 rip"

Plus..

128kbps is something from 10 years ago.

we are now almost in 2013.

We know that people won't buy a CD if they don't wanna buy a CD.

That's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ait. Maybe quality 128 is not so good, if you can rip it yourself just do it!

Argument about "cruel" bitrate 192 is not so convincing for me. I understand ppl want to do a promotion or something. But it's up to them if they would mind sharing better rips or not. It doesn't matter if it will be 2013 or 2345. It's not bad. Better have kind of this rip and try to find better (or buy CDs) than having nothing, but it's a little OT...

to the transcodes problem. I see this interesting:

And why not getting a new mod? or a few mods? who check out those transcodes.

And who put them where they belong.

How should it work in practice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ryu.

If a transcode is good, then I really prefer a transcode of 128 over a rip of 192kbps whos quality is not really that more high.

So of someone share a CD rip who already has been upped as a transcode it should be at least be around 250kpbs.

If there is a moderator. who can check up transcodes would be great.

So if someone is not sure, about files, they can ask that moderator.

Also that moderator can move those post into a topic where they belong, if they are posted in a wrong place.

Or maybe there is just one topic with one post, with a list of releases with the transcodes.

But that people should send that mod the transcodes so that the mod can update that post.

Not that new post with transcodes will be easy made.

At least that's what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get rid of all bad rips.

transcodes and low rips.

because if this forum want quality, then we should rip and share in quality.

and not give something lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I'm all for getting rid of bad rips and transcodes, but not everyone sees eye to eye when it comes to what bit-rate they rip their CDs in... at the end of the day it's at the ripper's own digression as to what format they choose to rip at. And personally I don't give two shits if someone decides to rip a CD and not choose 320kbps as their preference, I'm just happy they ripped it at all and so should you.

Also this is a transcode discussion not a bit-rate discussion. This forum already states clearly that the minimum bit-rate is 128kbps in the forum rules and is already a well established rule... so there's no use bring it up in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. How does someone find out if a file is a transcode? I am searching for this answer for two years now, and I still don't know how you get this nice spec graf. I can't define a transcode through listening (well maybe a youtube rip) but if the cd is ripped over realplayer, winamp or something like that, I can't hear it. It would be nice if someone of you could give me answer for this, because it seems like that you expect anyone to be able to define what a Transcode is (oh and maybe post it in the tutorial, too)

 

For the rest set up rules like you want to, but please make it possible for users without any Idea about bitrates and cd-ripping possible to still share music on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people use a free prgramm called Spek to get a spectograph image for a file.

 

The real problem however is interpreting the images you get. Some cases are fairly obvious, but many cases are not. We did get false transcode reports in the past because people mis-interpreted images. Also, there is a variety of reasons why such images might look odd or suspiscious that are not related to transcodes or bad rips at all.

 

 

The staff has been discussing the issue just recently and I will be making a new Transcode FAQ that will deal with these problems soon. The short answer however is this: there is no way to identify transcodes with 100% accuracy. The level on certainty really all depends on the case. But as I said, I will write about this in more detail soon.

 

Until then, this is what I can recommend to everyone:

1. If you suspect a file to be transcode, either from the spectrograph, or the way it sounds, use the report button to notify us. Please do not post it in the thread, because we would like to make our own determination - it at all possible - before open accusations are made.

2. Remember to use your ears again. Many people have become too focused on spec images, which are a much more complicated issue than it may appear. But we are talking about music here, so it's all about the sound, not looking at funny images.

And: if you are listening to your music through 10$-cellphone-earbuds, transcodes should probably be the least of your concerns.

 

 

But yeah, there will be some extensive post about it in the near future, so stay tuned.

Until then, Zess has written a good tutorial about CD ripping, if you just follow the guide step by step you can make good rips without a lot of technical knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I up this?

 

Still transcodes are appearing.

but why can't we drop them off into a transcode subforum? you know the "rare" releases. kinda if there is no "legit" rip after 4 weeks.

But those "transcodes" from non "rare" stuff just should be closed as happanes now and to get rid off them after a "legit rip" is posted.

 

Of course there are people who HATE transcodes as the freaking hell. and don't want that they appear.

But there are also "many" who love to listen to it before they getting a "RIP"

 

so...

Allowing trancodes: No, but only those from works who are "really" rare. and they just should appear in a special "subforum". also more easy to get rid of them if a "legit" rip is posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I up this?

 

Still transcodes are appearing.

but why can't we drop them off into a transcode subforum? you know the "rare" releases. kinda if there is no "legit" rip after 4 weeks.

But those "transcodes" from non "rare" stuff just should be closed as happanes now and to get rid off them after a "legit rip" is posted.

 

Uhh, as long as there's music being shared you can be sure that transcodes will appear.

 

Clearly if you ask around you will find more people who hate transcodes than people who love them. I am admittedly rather OCD about transcodes myself, but still, I'm hesitant about the sub-forum idea.

 

Assuming we set up a forum to house transcodes, I can quite literally imagine having:

A) people who report x as transcode and ask for them to be moved to your 'sub-forum'

B ) people [probably mods] who manually do the moving

C) a group of people who start protesting that x isn't actually a transcode and asked for it to be moved back

D) another group of people who mediate between A and C

E) etc.

You get the idea...

 

The problem (as Champ213 rightly pointed out) is that there's no universal way to prove beyond all doubt that something is simply a bad rip or a transcode. From experience, micromanaging transcodes does nothing meaningful but invite drama (I'm reminded of petty squabbles that go on for 100+ posts on a particular tracker over whether a Super Junior single is a transcode...).

 

Ultimately, I feel that if you really care so much about whether something is a transcode, it's up to you to decide if x is a transcode and what to do if it is. Just don't fall into the trap of spending more time looking at spectra than actually listening to the music.

Ito, Original Saku, sai and 1 other like this

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.