Various uploads (XCEL, TANTRUM, PALLAS etc) [Merged/Mod]

[daniel]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I didn't really notice this. And as someone used to just playing vinyl and tapes mostly I don't care how many kb/s something is ripped at...I thought it'd be fun letting people hear some of this stuff, god why does everything have to be so serious. I had a few more I'd done today but it looks like there's no point posting them then.

[daniel]

PALLAS - 'Eyes In The Night' 7" / Edited by Mod

I haven't been watching telly, but yeah they are a prog band and it probably was them. They have some real crap but this 7" is good.

[daniel]

I'm sure a lot of people will hate the vocals, they do take some getting used to. I love them, unique record.

[ION BRITTON]

People who have tried to make rips from their vinyls/cds know how much time it takes, no one argued about that. And your effort to share some albums is appreciated. On the other hand, there are some rules set that members are asked to follow. They are clearly written and i believe they are easy to understand regardless of how good or bad your english are. Everyone might have a good reason not to follow a rule each time, but there is also a moment when we should start ''taking action'', otherwise the rules go down the toilet.

As far as the ''how bad a 128 Kbps rip could sound'' thing, many people have expressed their complaints for below 192 Kbps rips in the past. Personally, some 128 Kbps rips sound OK to my ears, but there are times when the worsening of the sound quality is very audible. So, to avoid such problems the ''192 Kbps and above'' rule was set.

For extremely hard to find stuff, some below 192 Kbps rips might be acceptable, but obviously this is not the case here. Heathen's rage, Tantrum, Commander etc can easily be found on the internet, i have downloaded at least 3 different rips of Heathen's rage so far for example.

Anyway, for this time and this time ONLY the upload info will not be deleted. However, to ''shrink'' the problem a bit, i will merge all your uploads in ONE thread. There's also no use opening 10 different threads for albums that can be downloaded using the same account and password.

Before uploading anything else, i suggest you read the rules once again. And anyone else who is not familiar with them or thinks he hasn't understood something is kindly asked to do so as well.

[daniel]

I opened different threads because that way people could see if there was anything they wanted WAY more easily. Besides there are loads of threads on here with dead links. As for things being found on the net, well I didn't know Commander, Tantrum, and Heathens Rage or whatever else was available out there, and obviously some people here benefitted from it. And it's one thing downloading an album and saying it isn't hard to find compared to actually finding and spending the money on originals. I'm sorry but someone 'complaining' about the quality of rips is the height of gayness to me, I'm happy to hear things no matter what they're like, if that means a crappy tape dub then so be it, I love music no matter what it sounds like and to be honest I don't understand the big deal here, but ok I won't post the other stuff, I don't see what this has to do with fun anymore, which is what it should be about in the end.

[ION BRITTON]

Besides there are loads of threads on here with dead links.

Each of those threads has its own link. And there were not all opened by the same user.

And it's one thing downloading an album and saying it isn't hard to find compared to actually finding and spending the money on originals.

Sure it is, but that's a quite different discussion. Unfortunately (or not), this is the age of internet and anyone can easily have access to albums that cost 400$ through some mp3s.

I'm sorry but someone 'complaining' about the quality of rips is the height of gayness to me, I'm happy to hear things no matter what they're like, if that means a crappy tape dub then so be it, I love music no matter what it sounds like and to be honest I don't understand the big deal here, but ok I won't post the other stuff, I don't see what this has to do with fun anymore, which is what it should be about in the end.

Well, that's your opinion and it is well respected. Some people may agree with you, some others may not. Regardless of what i personally believe, in this particular forum the rule is set at 192 Kbps and from now on it applies to anyone who decides to make an upload.

[nightsblood]

First off, thanks to daniel for sharing some cool titles! I've heard very few of them, and so far I'm really enjoying the titles he posted. I'll post feedback on them once I play 'em for awhile.

Regarding the bit-rate rule, not all 192 kbs files are created equal. Some live and demo rips offered at 192 kbs still sound like crap b/c the original source has low sound quality. Daniel's rips may be a at lower bit rate, but the albums are obviously in good condition and sound fine. Anyone who is a serious enough audiophile to complain about bit rates should avoid mp3s in the first place and stick to lossless file formats, or original analog recordings. Equipment is also an issue; high bit rate files will still sound relatively poor on ear buds instead of $1,000 speakers.

I understand the need for a rule to assure really crappy rips aren't proliferated, but rules have exceptions, and the files could easily have been checked for sound quality, or lack thereof, before links and posts were messed with. When someone takes the time to rip songs and then share them in an open forum, I think it's rather rude to start complaining about the bit rate. It's like saying, "gee, thanks for the present, but this wrapping paper is really ugly- take it back and re-wrap it".

At worst, the threads could have ben edited to say "(128 kbs files within)". Again, I understand the need for forum rules, but blind adherence to rules without allowing for exceptions is foolhardy.

As for the multiple threads started for these rips, I thought some people had recently complained about multiple links being posted in the same thread? The fact that daniel's threads all led to the same account, rather than separate d/l links, is irrelevant; each thread contained specific instructions on how to d/l the album mentioned in the title. Now that everything is rolled into one thread, it's hard to tell who has commented on which title. THis does not promote good feedback and discussion of the albums, which is something that is constantly requested in this forum.

There's my 2 cents. In summary, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the forum moderators to check files before deleting links and to consider just re-labelling threads that contain files with good sound quality but lower-than-normal bit rate.

[ION BRITTON]

First off, thanks to daniel for sharing some cool titles! I've heard very few of them, and so far I'm really enjoying the titles he posted. I'll post feedback on them once I play 'em for awhile.

Regarding the bit-rate rule, not all 192 kbs files are created equal. Some live and demo rips offered at 192 kbs still sound like crap b/c the original source has low sound quality. Daniel's rips may be a at lower bit rate, but the albums are obviously in good condition and sound fine. Anyone who is a serious enough audiophile to complain about bit rates should avoid mp3s in the first place and stick to lossless file formats, or original analog recordings. Equipment is also an issue; high bit rate files will still sound relatively poor on ear buds instead of $1,000 speakers.

I understand the need for a rule to assure really crappy rips aren't proliferated, but rules have exceptions, and the files could easily have been checked for sound quality, or lack thereof, before links and posts were messed with. When someone takes the time to rip songs and then share them in an open forum, I think it's rather rude to start complaining about the bit rate. It's like saying, "gee, thanks for the present, but this wrapping paper is really ugly- take it back and re-wrap it".

At worst, the threads could have ben edited to say "(128 kbs files within)". Again, I understand the need for forum rules, but blind adherence to rules without allowing for exceptions is foolhardy.

As for the multiple threads started for these rips, I thought some people had recently complained about multiple links being posted in the same thread? The fact that daniel's threads all led to the same account, rather than separate d/l links, is irrelevant; each thread contained specific instructions on how to d/l the album mentioned in the title. Now that everything is rolled into one thread, it's hard to tell who has commented on which title. THis does not promote good feedback and discussion of the albums, which is something that is constantly requested in this forum.

There's my 2 cents. In summary, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the forum moderators to check files before deleting links and to consider just re-labelling threads that contain files with good sound quality but lower-than-normal bit rate.

nightsblood, i understand what you're saying, but let me remind of you of the fact that us mods have our daily jobs and we are by no means some kind of ''professional mods'' that are actually paid for what they are doing. Imo it's insane asking us to check every album that has been uploaded. We don't have THAT much free time. Besides, who are we to judge that this or that album actually sounds really fine? I've heard people saying they have no problem with the shittiest of rips, for some maybe a 68 Kbps rip would even suffice, who knows. in the past people have complained about 128 Kbps rips that sounded fine to my ears, how the hell am i supposed to know that the sound of a particular rip suits to everyone's preferences?

As we've already said, daniel's effort is appreciated and its still cool that some have enjoyed some of his uploads. But why ask the mods to do something they are not supposed to do instead of asking each uploader why didn't he do what he was supposed to, that is reading the very simple rules we have before doing anything? We didn't announce the rules yesterday night, they were here since the opening of this sub-forum and everyone should have already read them and be familiar with them. If its something one doesn't understand in them, he may well ask for some clarification. For example, are you not sure whether an album is still commercially available? ask before doing anything so that you won't feel you wasted your precious time when a mod removes the link.

As for the merging of the thread. When you use the merge function ALL the posts of a thread are merged to the ones of another. I couldn't keep only some of them and delete the others, that's how this merge function works. I can make it look somehow prettier, but in that case some posts will have to be deleted and deleting posts is not something i'm particularly fond of. Besides, all of them contained the SAME account with the SAME password and they all looked pretty similar, i don't think it's totally unreasonable to ask the uploader to keep all his stuff in ONE thread on such case. In addition, it's the first time that this way of uploading was used (account and password) and we don't have a specific rule regarding the way it should be handled. But we will discuss it and will let you know if that way can be used at all / how it will be used in the future.

EDIT:

I thought some people had recently complained about multiple links being posted in the same thread?

Don't remember anything like that. The problems were that 1) some members uploaded albums that had already been uploaded while opening a NEW thread instead of replacing the link in the old one, they possibly didn't use the search function or maybe they didn't use it correctly 2) in the jap invasion thread we asked members to start uploading albums in different, seperate threads, because the one in question had become very difficult to browse and too chaotic with nearly 20 pages full of links (dead and active ones)

[bigfootkit]

PALLAS - 'Eyes In The Night' 7" /Mod

-My own vinyl rip-

Not really metal, or is it in a way haha, anyway a real favourite! The A-side is the same as the version on the 'Sentinel' LP, different recordings were featured on the first live release from '81 and on 'Heavy Metal Heroes II'. The B-side is very epic in my opinion, fits the cover art perfectly, and I love it.

The tracks on this Pallas single are included on the (still available) cd release of "The Sentinel". tsk-tsk.
My thanks for the others though Daniel.

[anthares]

Thanx for uploading! Just managed to download. Will spin them asap!

[nightsblood]

nightsblood, i understand what you're saying, but let me remind of you of the fact that us mods have our daily jobs and we are by no means some kind of ''professional mods'' that are actually paid for what they are doing. Imo it's insane asking us to check every album that has been uploaded.

I'm not asking that you check every file. I'm a volunteer mod for another site, so I understand the time and trouble and the fact that we don't get paid for the work. However, at some point you and/or Avenger realized daniel's files were 128 kbs and acted to remove/restrict them.

Besides, who are we to judge that this or that album actually sounds really fine? I've heard people saying they have no problem with the shittiest of rips, for some maybe a 68 Kbps rip would even suffice, who knows. in the past people have complained about 128 Kbps rips that sounded fine to my ears, how the hell am i supposed to know that the sound of a particular rip suits to everyone's preferences?

Well, by setting a hard rule that files of 192 kbs and higher bit rates are allowable and anything less is not allowable, you ARE judging. You're right that Person A might think a file sounds fine and person B might think it sounds like crap. This is why Common Sense is more useful than a Rule in cases such as this. Daniel's files had a relatively low bit rate, ok, so play a few snippets and see what they sound like. Would 90% of Corroseum regulars complain about the sound quality? If so, delete them. If not, then leave it be, or just edit in a note stating "these files have a 128 kbs bit rate and thus may not suit some listeners".
Common Sense > Rule

why ask the mods to do something they are not supposed to do instead of asking each uploader why didn't he do what he was supposed to, that is reading the very simple rules we have before doing anything? We didn't announce the rules yesterday night, they were here since the opening of this sub-forum and everyone should have already read them and be familiar with them.

People sometimes forget the rules. Those of us who don't use bit rate as a measure of sound quality forget these things- I've read the rules in the past but i had forgotten that there is a bit rate rule. Some of us aren't very tech savvy and don't really know how to set/select a bit rate, but we have common sense and can determine whether a file sounds good enough that most people can listen to it without sound quality being a detractor.

As I stated above, the issue here is that someone tried to do something nice and provide the forum with some new links but were then told their links weren't good enough for this forum based on an arbitrary bit rate requirement.

As for the merging of the thread.... all of them contained the SAME account with the SAME password and they all looked pretty similar, i don't think it's totally unreasonable to ask the uploader to keep all his stuff in ONE thread on such case.

Again, that muddles the discussion of the DIFFERENT albums once people listen to them and leave feedback. People left comments like, "cool, been wanting to hear this one!". It's now not clear which title they were talking about.

In addition, it's the first time that this way of uploading was used (account and password) and we don't have a specific rule regarding the way it should be handled. But we will discuss it and will let you know if that way can be used at all / how it will be used in the future.

Do we need different sets of rules for different linking strategies? Two files in the same rapidshare collector's account are different enough to warrant separate threads, but two zip files in the same gmail account aren't? I realize there is a difference, but IMO it's not as great a difference as you are making it out to be.

In your discussion w/ the other mods regarding this link strategy, please keep in mind that, if you start making new sets of rules for different means of uploading and you intend to enforce those rules vigorously, some people may just say "forget it" and not bother uploading anything at all. Just as mods don't get paid to moderate, users don't get paid to share material here either- make it too complicated and folks may not bother. A good example of this is what goes on at Metal Archives; some people quit trying to contribute material to that site b/c the mods have so many rules and such specific definitions of what is and is not acceptable.

I apologize if it seems like I'm busting your chops over this; my comments are not meant as direct attacks against you or any other mod(s). Rules ARE important, but so is using common sense to know when the rules should NOT be enforced.

[DaN]

1. Of course rips of well produced studio recordings can sound great even at 128kbs, but because of how mp3-compression works, 'rawer' recordings will not. At somewhere around 192kbs and upwards just about anything sounds like the real deal. Therefor I made the "192kbs+-or-bust"-rule, for SIMPLICITY - keep that quality of your stuff = no worries = no need for even more special rules = less work for me & the mods.

2. The old 128kbs-standard is a leftover from the days when most people had dial-up connections and -10MB harddrives, and there was a need for keeping file sizes small. This is not the case anymore = no need to cut corners. Frankly I could just as well have demanded a 320kps-standard, but there's a limit to how anal you can be about these things, I'm sure you'll all agree.

3. There's threads and discussions about ripping vinyl & tapes in the Killing Tech-forum, so anyone new to this can find tips and/or ask there.

4. The mods solved this biz gallantly by instead of deleting/locking his threads, combined them + added a comment about it. If the bitrates hadn't interferred with The Corroseum Stone Tablets, I'm sure they would have leaved them alone, even if I'd agree a filehosting-solution would have been easier.

5. The X-CEL album fucking slays and "Last Ride Of Ichabod Crane" a 10/10 Metal Masterpiece.

[DaN]

The tracks on this Pallas single are included on the (still available) cd release of "The Sentinel". tsk-tsk.

Rule #3 does not extend to Syphili.. I mean "Symphonic Rock".

[Cochino]

I'm not a mod on this forum but I want to say what I think about this. This site has rules, whether you like it or not and you should read and respect them. If you think your case is an exception to a rule ASK before doing anything. You can start a thread or send a pm to a mod or DaN. We all kinda know each other and no one is gonna get all bitchy and diva here. If you make a good case there wouldn't be any problem in bending the rules a bit, and in case the case is not that good you don't have to go through the experience to do something and get it deleted by a mod. Everybody is happy that way. Personally I also rather listen to something even if it's at an inferior quality, but I don't make the rules here nor pay the hosting, fix every bug or problem the site might have and lately I'm not even doing my moderating job
Following the rules is a basic thing in every internet forum, and this one doesn't even have that many tough rules so I don't see a problem in following one or two when you're asked to,

[Avenger]

I'm not asking that you check every file. I'm a volunteer mod for another site, so I understand the time and trouble and the fact that we don't get paid for the work. However, at some point you and/or Avenger realized daniel's files were 128 kbs and acted to remove/restrict them.

Because this specifically referenced my name, I'll have to add to this...

For starters, daniel had posted a separate thread for each one of his uploads. I only had limited time to browse the forum during the day of the uploads and so the only upload of his that I downloaded was the Creepy Family - Midnight Warrior track. Upon having downloaded the track and played it, I realized that it was a 128 kbps rip. Now as was already mentioned several times, the rules are here for a reason. They are simple and easily accessible. It is suggested that before uploading any rips to Poisonoise that the rules are read and understood to their fullest extent so that you don't run into any of the problems that are seen here. Anyways, upon having noticed this I took action and had the link removed TO ONLY THAT SPECIFIC UPLOAD because I did not get the opportunity to review the rest and see if they were the same way.

Now, I don't understand the bitterness here. I never acted on assumptions. I only removed the link to what I KNEW was against the rules and either way, the upload is still on his gmail account for anyone to download. Not to mention, the "link" was actually an account/password to the gmail account and it's exactly the same for each and every one of his recent uploads.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we appreciate his efforts, but that of enforcing the rules.

The bottom line is, we have rules and they are in place for a reason. Following them is not optional and we don't pick and choose favorites. The 192+ kbps rip rule was created based on a census of members wants in the past. If you don't follow the rules, whether it's intentional or not, action will be taken to enforce them.