Poor audio quality on barefiles.com

bob grommit · Post by **bob grommit** » Wed May 10, 2006 11:13 pm

seckle wrote:ready to send money as soon as you get it sorted deapoh. large! overseas crew shouldn't take anything for granted. if it wasn't for deapoh, boomnoise and few other peeps, none of this would get archived, so give thanks. i'll take any quality audio as long as i can hear the tunes.

.

and as my good friend Jimmy Pineapple would say,
Case Fucking Closed!

doomstep · Post by **doomstep** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:21 am

I hope we can close the fucking book on this, gets on my tits something chronic . . . . the files are what they are, pirate radio is what it is, accept it or fu..... you know.

aircooled · Post by **aircooled** » Thu May 11, 2006 4:24 pm

/\ /\ /\ /\

I apologise for getting on your tits something chronic. My original question was posed because I did not understand why there was such a big difference between the best (audio) quality and the worst quality mixes on Barefiles. I thought it may have something to do with the download process. Thanks to the helpful replies immediately after my question, I now realise this is not the case, and the variations in quality occur 'at source', so to speak. I don't mind at all listening to mixes with low audio quality, I just wondered why there was such a variation. Excuse me for having the audacity to pose such a question to that hallowed institution that is Barefiles. I have already given respect to that site in this thread, it is an absolute treasure chest. Don't be so down on me, it was a perfectly reasonable question.

Peace and best wishes.

setnom · Post by **setnom** » Thu May 11, 2006 4:50 pm

sapphic_beats wrote:big up deapoh!

Ultimate Respect. From someone on the pacific coast side of things it is great to hear the archives and the mixes that I couldn't possibly hear otherwise.

deapoh · Post by **deapoh** » Thu May 11, 2006 5:05 pm

Nah aircooled your cool still lol. (sorry had to be said!)

It's good that you raised the point. I might start a new "ranking" system for the files, audio quality and mix / tunage quality.

Thanks,

Deaps

alex bk-bk · Post by **alex bk-bk** » Thu May 11, 2006 5:23 pm

might qwork but surely amlount of downloads is a ranking system in itself. blatantly the most-downloaded sets will also be the ones with the higher ratings

deapoh · Post by **deapoh** » Thu May 11, 2006 5:55 pm

Alex bk-bk wrote:might qwork but surely amlount of downloads is a ranking system in itself. blatantly the most-downloaded sets will also be the ones with the higher ratings

true but what about quality ranking. Like from shit static and hiss to high quality. I used to have something simular showing the bitrates mono / stereo but some people were saving it 192kbps when it's still a stream recording which is 64kbps.

pompende · Post by **pompende** » Thu May 11, 2006 11:10 pm

that writing comments already makes a lot of that possible. honestly i'd like to be writing nfos for as many mixes as possible but have serious computer issues holding man back at the moment.
feel like downloads alone are adequate (sp?), but don't tell the whole story. for instance a radio show could be downloaded many times because of the excellent selection in it, but may have been recorded from the internet stream and have buffering or skips in it (think that skream/mala/chef is example of this).
thanks to deapoh. big up mp3s.

doomstep · Post by **doomstep** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:17 am

aircooled; I werent being down on you mate (wotever that is) sorry if it came across as harshness directed solely at you, this issue has been raised time n time again, and it is looonnnng. Really tho, if you seriouslly thought the errors were caused in the downloadin, fair play, ur obv. much smarter than average minded men like me, so yeah have "the audacity to pose such a question to that hallowed institution that is Barefiles." all you like mate, but at the end of the day ur gettin somthing for nothing, and in the case of pirate recordings, somthing which would otherwise be fairly impossible t get, at any quality.

Deapoh; you shouldnt be expected t grade n rank the files as well, start that and its most likely youll be on here debateing the various merits for & aganist whatever way you're gradin & ranking the files quality.

Big up pompende for graspin the possibilities of the user driven comments space on barefiles, we could be discussing these quality issues in the associated threads and then posting quality info with the tracklists . . .

Deapoh might could implement a form based thing where you tick boxes and ting so there is an "accepted" standard by which the files r graded

if he wants like, dunno how hard that shit is t code.

aircooled · Post by **aircooled** » Fri May 12, 2006 10:51 am

/\ /\ /\ /\ cool mate.

tomb6000 · Post by **tomb6000** » Fri May 12, 2006 12:48 pm

doomstep wrote:Deapoh might could implement a form based thing where you tick boxes and ting so there is an "accepted" standard by which the files r graded if he wants like, dunno how hard that shit is t code.

Could do it along the lines of buying old vinyl - from A for acceptable upto M for mint?

deapoh · Post by **deapoh** » Fri May 12, 2006 6:08 pm

Yeah people give me feedback on how you want this cos I'll definately setup something for audio quality.

I'm changing the way the files download so that the tracklist and other info such as quality appear in the same window just before pressing download.

relaks · Post by **relaks** » Mon May 15, 2006 9:27 am

Yeah, I started a thread a while back about this, and given, I am an audiophile.... but there's nothing wrong with asking the question. We are all super grateful to deapoh boomnoise et al.

It would be nice to have the quality on barefiles

BIG UP DEAPOH!! thanks time and time again!

I think donations will be no problem... and i think most people do prefer <160 kbps....but the mixes I listen to most are about half that. respect

Steve AC23 · Post by **Steve AC23** » Mon May 15, 2006 9:36 am

audiophile and mp3 in the same sentence doesnt work.

marsyas · Post by **marsyas** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:32 pm

relaks wrote: <160 kbps....but the mixes I listen to most are about half that. respect

cause the stream is 64 k...and the fm is only 128...this has been covered before a while back, saving space is just as important.

boomnoise · Post by **boomnoise** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:40 pm

as i've said before. all sets i record are optimised for sound quality given quality of the fm broadcast. i use vbr as well to minimise the file size.

relaks · Post by **relaks** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:42 pm

Boomnoise, perhaps I neglected to mention how much I love listening to all those mixes >160 kbps. Like, really really love listening to 'em. A lot.

Poor audio quality on barefiles.com

Who is online