Should I avoid uploading lossy music?

[beautiful_night]

I certainly advocate lossless audio, but while trying to reap the benefits of "Deezer downloaders" I uploaded several albums in MP3. These releases may hamper the potential upcoming FLAC rips (at the time of uploading there were no other releases for the same album with the exception of streaming-exclusive "Coloring Book").
I even have 128 kbps torrents, but Bejeweled soundtracks aren't available for purchase.

Releasing rare albums in low bitrates can be commended, but I see no benefit in pushing out major records in sub-standard quality. Storage space is ever-increasing and FLAC should be supported by the majority of music players (if it isn't, audio can be converted). I haven't yet decided what to do with these torrents.

[connor17]

The main benefit of lossy files is a smaller size (1/3 - 1/4 with respect to lossless, which is a lot). With MP3 you get total compatibility too.
In this context of ours, i.e. filesharing, a small file size improves efficiency. So it's a good thing.

The problems of lossy files is that the audio quality can get compromised, and the posible causes for this are out of downloader's control, so some people just avoid them.
Another reason to avoid lossy for some downloaders is the archiving approach that they may have towards their file collection.

But many people just want to listen to the music. They don't want to built an archive. As for quality, you have to get the files to listen to and decide for yourself if it's good enough for you.

So, for non archival purposes, transparent lossy encodings (first generation V2 for example), are better than lossless, imo.

I download FLAC only for classical music. In most cases files are only available in lossless anyway, and I do have an archiving approach towards classic.

For the rest, jazz mostly or some pop rock, mp3 is more than good for me.

[Sid]

"should" is really not a word that has any place in uploading. It is a volunteer gig: if someone tells you you "should" do something (or not do something), fuck them. The only thing you should do is what you want to do.

If FLAC rocks your boat, upload FLAC. You will get more satisfaction and enjoyment out of the exercise. Equally, if you are someone who isn't up for converting and you want to share MP3's there is nothing at all wrong with that.

As to your specific dilemma: if something is not available then making it available (in any quality) will help more people sooner than not making it available will.

And the sort of people who download FLAC will likely download a FLAC version later anyway (if one ever appears) so you're not really undermining potential downloads to any great degree. And it may be that uploading the MP3 will in itself "remind" someone that they have a better quality copy--actually spurring the sharing of a FLAC version.

[connor17]

If OP thinks lossy is sub-standard, well I guess no one wants to be sub-anything.
I think he just wants someone to say "yeah, don't do it!", not a real discussion.
So "whatever rocks your boat" is a little too vague, not reassuring enough.

[Philidor]

I certainly advocate lossless audio, but while trying to reap the benefits of "Deezer downloaders" I uploaded several albums in MP3. These releases may hamper the  potential upcoming FLAC rips (at the time of uploading there were no other releases for the same album with the exception of streaming-exclusive "Coloring Book").
I even have 128 kbps torrents, but Bejeweled soundtracks aren't available for purchase.

Releasing rare albums in low bitrates can be commended, but I see no benefit in pushing out major records in sub-standard quality. Storage space is ever-increasing and FLAC should be supported by the majority of music players (if it isn't, audio can be converted). I haven't yet decided what to do with these torrents.

I can't speak to your experiences or opinions--but just for myself, exactly because an album is rare, I feel it should enjoy a high bitrate. The chances of it being uploaded again are by definition very slight, so it should receive the best possible send-off online. Which is why my relatively rare classical uploads are all FLAC rips.

At some point, I'll upload a group of extremely rare early 30's jazz LP rips--and those will be FLACs, again. Even if the sound hardly requires it, the stuff was only in print a year or so, and I want to make sure it has the best presentation for anyone who wants to enjoy it.

Each to their own.

[RobertX]

Ignorance is bliss.

It's better to have a deaf ear than a trained one.

[connor17]

The only way to do things right is to not enforce rules at all.
Every time a read a set of rules I lose any respect for the site.
So no rules, nor advises neither, same shit.

[Hiroven]

Ignorance is bliss.

It's better to have a deaf ear than a trained one.

Completely agree Same with food for me (except it is not deaf ear from which I profit xD)

The only way to do things right is to not enforce rules at all.
Every time a read a set of rules I lose any respect for the site.
So no rules, nor advises neither, same shit.

I could relate in this case (whether to upload lossy music or not) as to the rule (disagree with advice part).
But for me rules are like interpersonal boundaries you respect when dealing with given person (or site). To summon an extreme example, CP is disallowed on TPB, which is a rule. To generalize, I think set of rules or is needed to keep the spirit or purpose of any given site. Still, rules are to be discussed and in times broken.

[contrail]

In my head upload what is better or has the best quality, don't make someone else upload the higher quality stuff. Also, if you can try to upload the mediocre quality for people that need something small.

[lidlnelly]

Go onto IRC and ask Politux. I'd say upload everything, once your ok with it. Music uploads are full of snobbery and personal choice. Hit up the IRC channel and give your question a whirl:

http://chat.efnet.org:9090/?channels=the...I9dHJ1ZQ8a