Uploader's Café

[JukaForever 758]

For me, I mainly tend to share things that I'm very enthusiastic about myself.  I really enjoy doing little writeups to accompany my uploads.  If that actually helps to persuade someone to try something new, then that's awesome!

My favorite thing about uploading (it doesn't happen THAT often unfortunately, haha) is when people post a bit more than "thanks" and actually share their thoughts on a release.  It's always nice to hear what others think about a particular release; a few downloaders have left some really thoughtful comments/opinions in the past and I always enjoy reading them.

Your write-ups are awesome, for the introduction of the artist especially while listening to a sampler at the same time. 

[Original Saku 1593]

I share things usually either because I'm bored or because I want to spread the exposure of a band... It's also nice to get some thanks or gratitude along the way, but in no way does that mean i upload solely for that. Most oft the time though I just want to share awesome music with awesome people and then hear their feedback / opinion on it. It's as simple as that.

[hiroki 5521]

 

What is the most satisfying aspect of uploading for you?

 

I usually only share stuff that I really like myself. I guess the most satisfying aspect is to find more potential fans for the bands that I like by sharing, even though I know perfectly well it can be counterproductive.

 

Honestly I've never really given much thought when uploading, nor am I too calculative about the whole thing, since I believe reciprocity is key when it comes to a community like this. Although I must admit that it still pisses me off when people silently sneak into the forums and take everything without bothering to even take a few seconds to show their appreciation.

[sai 868]

Although I must admit that it still pisses me off when people silently sneak into the forums and take everything without bothering to even take a few seconds to show their appreciation.

 

I agree with this! I know all music forums have both leechers and active community members, but in my personal opinion quite a bit of visual kei fans have started to feel so incredibly entitled lately to have the releases they want on the release date and if they don't they start throwing hissyfits about it. The really old VK veterans had to trade to get the stuff they wanted, they had to climb mountains, cross rivers, fight dragons for that one Gazette release

 

I remember when someone bought the limited edition of an album and uploaded it and also promised to make a DVD rip and people legitly started spamming their thread with impatient and rude messages as to why the DVD (which was a full live DVD in ISO so you can imagine the size of that file + the time it would need to rip/upload) wasn't uploaded yet only two days after the initial album was posted.

 

People need to realize that behind every file there is a person who bought that release, probably paid a shitload for shipping (if they're physical copies) and then was so kind to rip it to their computer in a good quality and share it with the rest of the world. You don't even have to press thanks or even say it, I just wish more people realized this before they start calling someone a liar or an ass.

 

Though concerning bitrate, I've always been on CAT's side with this: share it to the fullest or don't share at all. People who upload releases in 128-192kbps and say "go buy the album if you want a better quality" are obviously not sharing the release to share awesome music and give one of their favourite artists more exposure, but purely because they want a big e-penis. "Oh look at my 320/Lossless rip of that album that you can't have lol", is something I'm very much against. On one side I'm like "yeah okay I'm happy people share it at all" (especially since I've gotten into a lot of Japanese regular indie music, where it's a lot harder to come by releases than it is in VK) but sharing bad quality isn't going to solve the problem. If you really share a lower bitrate to have more people buy the album, then I've got some news for you: it doesn't work. A lot of VK fans don't care about bitrate that much (as long as it's listenable), especially if they're young and don't have the cash to import VK CDs from Japan. I actually would feel more opposed to purchasing an album I only have an 128 rip of because it misses a lot of details that I can hear in a 320 rip. Good quality can just really enhance the musical experience, at least, that's how I see it. People who want to buy the album will buy it anyway, this "here's a low quality"-method doesn't work and it makes you look like a douche, sorry.

 

tl;dr - share to the fullest or don't share at all

 

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST.

[Nyasagi 259]

sai, it happened I shared something in lower quality more than once, do you know why? When I shared in 320, but ripped in VBR (because I wasn't familiar with all the ripping), people were really rude to me because of that. I didn't have any bad intentions, but they complained so much that I didn't feel like sharing anything in HQ anymore. 128 doesn't really bother me if the rip isn't totally crappy, to be honest. "Buy the CD" is an universal thing used for everything, by the way. If someone wants to be rude, they will tell it even when the situation is totally riddiculous and they're making an idiot out of themselves. I've been told that even when I had the CD myself XD (but I won't explain it here).

[CAT5 9075]

sai, it happened I shared something in lower quality more than once, do you know why? When I shared in 320, but ripped in VBR (because I wasn't familiar with all the ripping), people were really rude to me because of that. I didn't have any bad intentions, but they complained so much that I didn't feel like sharing anything in HQ anymore.

 

I personally don't agree with sharing low quality out of spite. If people complain that much about what you share, you're probably sharing with the wrong group of people.

 

-

 

Also, to answer my own question. What do I find most satisfying about uploading? Well, I have no shame in admitting that back in the day, most of it had to do with egoism (aka the e-peen). I was EXTREMELY passionate about finding new and obscure music, and I simply wanted to be revered for my efforts. But ego aside, I also genuinely enjoyed sharing and exposing people to new music. I wanted people to experience the depths of Japanese music as I'd experienced it (there's always so much to discover). These days (as i've gotten older/matured), I'm much less concerned about appeasing my ego, and more interested in getting good music to people that will enjoy it. Simple as that.

[Champ213 1858]

People feel too entitled these days. I remember a time when I was downloading jrock from WinMX - one song at a time, because queing up entire albums was considered rude and practically unheard of before people started sharing zipped versions of albums. No one cared about bitrates. Later I would assemble those single songs into albums again - sometimes with songs of varying bitrates. Was it very messy? Yes. And you know what? It didn't matter. It didn't decrease my enjoyment of the music in the slightest. It still made me fall in love with those jrock bands that I still love today.

 

 

Nowadays, with more people having access to high-speed internet, sharing high bitrates or losless rips is much easier. But I still respect the uploaders privilege to choose their own bitrate. Their CD. Their rip. Their decision.

 

If we go by the "share to the fullest or don't share at all"-logic everybody would have to start uploading lossless rips and nothing else anyway. But complaining that a file you get for free is 192k instead of 320k is just spoiled whining, whatever way you look at it.

[sai 868]

sai, it happened I shared something in lower quality more than once, do you know why? When I shared in 320, but ripped in VBR (because I wasn't familiar with all the ripping), people were really rude to me because of that. I didn't have any bad intentions, but they complained so much that I didn't feel like sharing anything in HQ anymore. 128 doesn't really bother me if the rip isn't totally crappy, to be honest. "Buy the CD" is an universal thing used for everything, by the way. If someone wants to be rude, they will tell it even when the situation is totally riddiculous and they're making an idiot out of themselves. I've been told that even when I had the CD myself XD (but I won't explain it here).

 

Yes, but the difference here is that you didn't intend to lower the bitrate. In your case it just happened because you weren't familiar with the ripping proces and everyone can make such mistakes in the beginning ! The ones I mean are the ones that know what they're doing and choose to go for bitrates like 128 kbps.

 

You know, it doesn't really feel like they're sharing to spread awesome music and share their love of the artist with others. When I find a cool album and purchase it and then share it with my friends, I do it because I enjoyed that release and want to expose it to more people, so that maybe other people will find new music that they'll enjoy and that will make them happy. If I share (though I haven't shared in ages) I do it out of love for music. There's nothing wrong with actually stating "please buy the CD if you enjoyed this release!", in my personal opinion it just doesn't feel right if you put it as an excuse NOT to share to the fullest. But hey, everyone should share how they want, I'm not entitled to anything and if they want to do this be my guest.

 

I agree with CAT on the matter that sharing low quality out of spite isn't the best thing to do. It's probably better to explain the situation to them and if they don't want to listen then they're really not worth your time. As stated before, people can be so awfully entitled to certain things!

 

People feel too entitled these days. I remember a time when I was downloading jrock from WinMX - one song at a time, because queing up entire albums was considered rude and practically unheard of before people started sharing zipped versions of albums. No one cared about bitrates. Later I would assemble those single songs into albums again - sometimes with songs of varying bitrates. Was it very messy? Yes. And you know what? It didn't matter. It didn't decrease my enjoyment of the music in the slightest. It still made me fall in love with those jrock bands that I still love today.

 

 

Nowadays, with more people having access to high-speed internet, sharing high bitrates or losless rips is much easier. But I still respect the uploaders privilege to choose their own bitrate. Their CD. Their rip. Their decision.

 

If we go by the "share to the fullest or don't share at all"-logic everybody would have to start uploading lossless rips and nothing else anyway. But complaining that a file you get for free is 192k instead of 320k is just spoiled whining, whatever way you look at it.

 

I do agree that everyone should be free in how they rip their CDs, but there's nothing wrong with personally disliking certain mentalities. Take CAT for example, CAT shares his stuff out of love and passion for music, and because it's his mentality that he'd like to enjoy music to the fullest, he'll always share the highest possible bitrate he can get his hands on, whether that is a 320 or a 192 rip. Other people don't have this mentality and mostly do it because they want to receive a lot of status on this forum and in the online VK community. Like I said, if they want to share it that way I won't be the one to complain in their thread, I'll take the file and be grateful for it, because they still purchased it and took the effort to upload it (they could've chosen just not to), but I guess my mentality is just different.

[Champ213 1858]

Well, I don't really care about people's "e-peen", that they may or not get from sharing. Also, I'm sure that many people sharing high bitrates also do it for status, but nobody really cares about that. As a matter of fact, seeing the hatred that lower bitrates sometimes tend to get I am not sure if sharing them is the best way to enlarge your e-peen at all. I think that's what originally started the trend to upload transcodes - people think that they can earn more internet points by uploading 320k files. And if they can't provide that, they just fake them.

That being said, I rarely encounter it these days that people uplaod their own rips in low bitrates with the reasoning that people should buy the CD themselves. It may happen, but it doesn't seem to be so frequent that I consider it a problem.

 

Overall I just feel that people have become too obsessed with bitrates in general. I say: relax, folks. Your heads won't explode from listening to a 128k file. Good music is still good music if it's 192k instead of 320k. And in the end the price of having an obcenely large music collection of tens of thousands of songs is the fact that not all of them will be a perfect 320. But it's still music.

[Tetora 625]

I'm currently not an uploader, but i was an uploader few years ago, so this thread seem interesting to answer for me.

I guess it would be considered more generous from me to share the cds/dvds/singles i have, and i would like to be nice with people here about this, but i have some reasons why i deceide to stop uploading stuff.

In the thread of my introduction, i said that i uploaded many cds on internet (not on M-H) few times ago, but i didn't gave any details about that. So here it is::: Sometime i even uploaded some rare PV or rare stuff. All in good quality .Flac and also .mp3 (320kbps) for those who prefer mp3. Video as .VOB and a smaller version .mp4 and even some scan of booklets, cd-inserts, cd, and everything in perfect quality. It was taking a lot of time to upload everything, but i was glad to do this for people who wasn't able to buy the cds. However, i was known on the name of Hizaki-Fan for my upload. Then, i stopped to upload things for some reasons. Here is one of my main reason::

The last time i uploaded a cd, after having seen some requests of people wanting this cd, i was shocked to see that someone uploaded to his website and credited my upload to the name of someone else. I wasn't uploading music to get credits or renown, but i didn't want my upload credited to the name of someone else; this is kinda rude and disrespectful to the uploader to thanks and give credits to sometome else. Also, many people was taking this upload from the website, and then many other websites reuploaded my upload and credited under the name of this fake other guy. Then, as a result, my upload was known to have been uploaded by someone else, and many people said "thanks" to this other guy. I was so shocked to see so many people retake my upload and to give credits to someone else, that i deceide to no longer upload stuff. I had a way to verify if that was from my upload, and each time, it was indeed from my upload. Since, i never uploaded anything. I think most people can understand how disrespectful some people has been toward a good uploader, it just removed me the desire to upload cds/dvds at a point that i don't plan to reupload anything in the future.

So i understand when Sai is saying that some people are rude toward the uploader if you upload with bad quality, because based on my own experience, i would say that even if you upload with perfect quality, some people will still find a way to be rude with you. This is why i don't regret my choice to stop uploading.

I would have called him out on every site and buried him in front of everyone.

I never really feel any content from sharing normal stuff unless people say something like oh I love this band I will buy, or where can I buy? Or sometimes vain things I admit like when they ask for my twitter to follow me, I enjoy that (even though I dont have twitter ehehh).

If someone reupload for their own gain in popopularity then just lol at how sad they are. I would reccomend getting a real hobby in life that you can feel accomplishment in and gain notoriety, but then again, knowing them, they would probably plagiarize or trace other peoples work and take credit, LOL.

[Guest Magatsu]

I also think its stupid to ask credit for the stuff you upload.

Sharing music/scans is illigal.its a crime.

So why the hell you wanna credits for.

Its not your work.

And its for companies more easy to track you down...If they would like to do that.

Only people should be so kind to write a thank you down. Or to let you know if they gonna repost the upload.

[JukaForever 758]

I also think its stupid to ask credit for the stuff you upload.

Sharing music/scans is illigal.its a crime.

So why the hell you wanna credits for.

Its not your work.

And its for companies more easy to track you down...If they would like to do that.

Only people should be so kind to write a thank you down. Or to let you know if they gonna repost the upload.

 Well said, I don't really care much for credits for the same reasons.

 

On the bitrates, its actually pretty hard to distinguish 128 to 320 MP3, especially with a genre of rock where there is a lot of distortion in the music. The differences can be much more obvious with none electrical instruments and you have the ear to hear for the notes played. The main reasons for obvious bad 128 is the encoding by ones like Windows Media Player or other suspect software that does weird stuff such as lowering volumes and reducing dynamic range to reduce file size.

 

I have done my fair share of ABX with 128, 192, VBR V0, 320 and FLAC as well as MP3 vs AAC. From my findings, VBR V0 and up is pretty much transparent to CD quality but it is pretty hard to ABX 320 MP3 and lower bitrates especially VBR ones. I suggest people test it themselves and see their limits of audible difference between the various bitrates. I use LAME encoder and have settled with VBR V0 if I were to compress to MP3 but still understand that the lower bitrates are still hard to distinguish from each other.

[Tetora 625]

As for credits, it can be a form of thank you, or recognition in a community.

 

Say you brought cookies to work for everyone, and while you aren`t looking, someone else grabs your plate of your desk and puts it on his... Then everyone starts eating the cookies and telling him how amazing he is, and thanking him... It would make you pretty angry, and stop you from even thinking about the people enjoying the cookies etc... It would just make you mad...

 

I don`t care about credits, but can see why other people do. If you do something and someone else gets the credit, it may ruin it for you.

 

As for file types... I am of the camp that any format is fine for people to try the band... A good band in low quality is still recognizable as being worth it, and you can buy the cd to get the full quality...

 

I also don`t like iTunes because the quality is pretty much never good enough for me if I am paying for it. I would only use it for exclusives....

 

With anything I like, 320 is not enough, I need FLAC to satisfy me, so if I wasn`t someone that bought already, I would be driven to purchase for full quality on my headphones.

 

Just my opinions, I understand why people feel differently! Good discussion here.

[CAT5 9075]

If we go by the "share to the fullest or don't share at all"-logic everybody would have to start uploading lossless rips and nothing else anyway. But complaining that a file you get for free is 192k instead of 320k is just spoiled whining, whatever way you look at it.

Context is key here, so I need to clarify my "share to the fullest" mantra. If you're going to upload something, don't intentionally downgrade the quality because you feel that people should go buy the album or something silly like that. People are gonna be people - and if someone really wants to buy an album, they'll buy it regardless of the bitrate that it was shared in.

I agree that people shouldn't complain about bitrates (sometimes it's impossible to find an HQ rip), but if you actually own a CD and you INTENTIONALLY rip it at a bitrate that is generally unacceptable, then you're an asshole. That's what I mean by sharing to the fullest. Now "fullest" is highly subjective, but in general most people have no problems with V0, 320, or lossless.

 

It's like you said, Champ - I also look at uploading as a community service - so why half-ass it? Ripping something at a bitrate that most people prefer (aka the ppl you're servicing), is hardly a daunting task (click of a mouse, really). But with that said, if you're uploading files that you didn't rip yourself and you have no control over the bitrate, then that's fine - people shouldn't bitch over stuff like that. I've got tons of old and obscure stuff in inferior bitrates, but I'm damn grateful to have them.

[JukaForever 758]

As for credits, it can be a form of thank you, or recognition in a community.

 

Say you brought cookies to work for everyone, and while you aren`t looking, someone else grabs your plate of your desk and puts it on his... Then everyone starts eating the cookies and telling him how amazing he is, and thanking him... It would make you pretty angry, and stop you from even thinking about the people enjoying the cookies etc... It would just make you mad...

 

I don`t care about credits, but can see why other people do. If you do something and someone else gets the credit, it may ruin it for you.

 

As for file types... I am of the camp that any format is fine for people to try the band... A good band in low quality is still recognizable as being worth it, and you can buy the cd to get the full quality...

 

I also don`t like iTunes because the quality is pretty much never good enough for me if I am paying for it. I would only use it for exclusives....

 

With anything I like, 320 is not enough, I need FLAC to satisfy me, so if I wasn`t someone that bought already, I would be driven to purchase for full quality on my headphones.

 

Just my opinions, I understand why people feel differently! Good discussion here.

 

I don't like iTunes as well. Their encoder can be shoddy at times but not always. Even though I say max VBR is inherently CD quality, I just don't think it's cool to sell a compressed version of your music. 

 

 

I agree that people shouldn't complain about bitrates (sometimes it's impossible to find an HQ rip), but if you actually own a CD and you INTENTIONALLY rip it at a bitrate that is generally unacceptable, then you're an asshole. 

 

 

That's a little harsh and might come across as off-putting as an uploader. I think it depends on the intention, if the uploader themselves don't think there is a difference between V0/320 and less than V0/320 then that is the uploader's opinion and should be respected. Also, some people don't know any better or maybe doing so unknowingly such as the way iTunes presets compression to their 128 and will transcode your mp3 file into their AAC in order to save space for portability. I was shocked when it did it to me the first time. I do agree with the first point you made, it is silly to be compressing in low bitrates as an effort to get people to buy albums.

[CAT5 9075]

That's a little harsh and might come across as off-putting as an uploader. I think it depends on the intention, if the uploader themselves don't think there is a difference between V0/320 and less than V0/320 then that is the uploader's opinion and should be respected. Also, some people don't know any better or maybe doing so unknowingly such as the way iTunes presets compression to their 128 and will transcode your mp3 file into their AAC in order to save space for portability.

 

You might note that I bolded and capitalized the word "INTENTIONALLY", you know, to put emphasis on the fact that I was referring to uploaders who know exactly what they're doing.  ; )

[Tetora 625]

You might note that I bolded and capitalized the word "INTENTIONALLY", you know, to put emphasis on the fact that I was referring to uploaders who know exactly what they're doing.  ; )

Brb, uploading in 90kbps to give y'all that grungey 'demo-tape' feel.

[sai 868]

Reminds me of the guy who uploaded a single in 98kbps and stated "perfection" as the bitrate lmao.

[Guest Magatsu]

128,192, v0, v1, its all acceptable.

But me won't share rare stuff in 320 for people who act like a silly ass to me.

[Champ213 1858]

I agree that people shouldn't complain about bitrates (sometimes it's impossible to find an HQ rip), but if you actually own a CD and you INTENTIONALLY rip it at a bitrate that is generally unacceptable, then you're an asshole. That's what I mean by sharing to the fullest. Now "fullest" is highly subjective, but in general most people have no problems with V0, 320, or lossless.

 

 

 

 

Exactly. It's subjective. I find 128k and 192k rips completely acceptable for something I get FOR FREE. And people uploading stuff below 128k happens once in a blue moon, so that's hardly a rampant problem.

The bottom line is: I pirate it. I'm ripping off the artist. It's illegal. I just don't feel I have any right to demand higher bitrates for something I technically shouldn't own in the first place. And I would never dare to call the people that willingly perform an illegal act just so I can get free music "assholes" just because the file isn't at least 320k. Sorry, we have to agree to disagree here.

[CAT5 9075]

Exactly. It's subjective. I find 128k and 192k rips completely acceptable for something I get FOR FREE. And people uploading stuff below 128k happens once in a blue moon, so that's hardly a rampant problem.

The bottom line is: I pirate it. I'm ripping off the artist. It's illegal. I just don't feel I have any right to demand higher bitrates for something I technically shouldn't own in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with 128k and 192k - I have TONS of music at these bitrates. And no shit, sherlock - pirating is illegal! That's not going to stop people from sharing music and it never has. If you're going to do something illegal, you might as well do it well. You may personally be satisfied with 128k and 192k, but in this day and age, many people prefer higher rips - so WHY NOT just rip music at the widely preferred bitrates? That way, people like yourself as well as people who are sticklers for audio quality will be pleased.

 

And I would never dare to call the people that willingly perform an illegal act just so I can get free music "assholes" just because the file isn't at least 320k. Sorry, we have to agree to disagree here.

Firstly, I never said that files should be at least 320k. There are a variety of different formats that people find more satisfactory than 128k and 192k (personally I prefer v0 and 320k). If you're even vaguely educated about bitrates and you deliberately choose to rip your CD at a bitrate that YOU KNOW people generally dislike, then YES - YES I WOULD CONSIDER YOU AN ASSHOLE! Ripping music at high lossy bitrates DOES NOT require any extra effort. Sure, people are free to rip their music at whatever bitrate they choose, but I'm also free to think you're an asshole if you rip your music in low quality when you could easily rip at more preferable bitrates with the click of a mouse.

[Guest Magatsu]

No

Because of this forum. People want higher rips.

Back then at Livejournal. Nobody cared about bitrate.

XD

[CAT5 9075]

No

Because of this forum. People want higher rips.

Back then at Livejournal. Nobody cared about bitrate.

XD

 

"Back then" many people weren't concerned with bitrates, but times have changed and people are more educated about audio quality in general.

 

Our forum is just a microcosm of the internet's filesharing culture. HQ rips are preferred all around.

[Guest Magatsu]

Yeah but thx to this forum many more people learned about bitrates.

Very long everyone shared in 128kbps. Ripping with windows media player etc.

Thanks to this forum people rip in good quality vkei music.

[Glamour 4]

Wanted to somewhat make a random comment about transcodes without making a new thread or updating one from years ago.

 

Personally, I found myself to believe that transcodes were something that should be avoided at all costs. However, lately, I've come to the conclusion that they're just fine. While I'd prefer something ripped in higher quality, the quality can sometimes be quite discernible. This is comparing transcodes to 256/320Kbps rips through Bose heaphones as well as a decent car sound system. I've even found certain 320Kbps rips that double rainbow across Spek sound much worse than even 192Kbps rips. Considering ripping can be made so customizable, I'm sure many people are just not configuring the rip settings correctly, adding balance to the volume when it's not needed and such.

 

Originally, I thought this term meant something that was ripped through Youtube. Now, that's something I don't want. Though, even HQ rips through Youtube are proving to sound better than all of that old VK mess many of us have ranging from the late 80s to late 90s; you know, the tape rips and other rips done when quality wasn't as prominent (many are 128Kbps).

 

Anyway, it's not an important subject; just wanted to comment on it. We're lucky to be able to listen to the songs at all provided they are no where else to be heard.

 

I missed touching on several other subjects regarding the matter (filetypes: wma, flac, etc.), but I'm not looking for a response or anything. I'll just leave it as that for now.

 

(And if you do feel the need to respond, I'll gladly hit any points or arguments you have to make.)