God Lives Underwater Forum

Just to answer your question yes Heavy is basically GLU.....

I was talking to fiveliter about mailing them to him so everyone can have access. How could I email them to you when I already said I'm on dial-up?

Sorry I misunderstood.

I just created & added 9 songs to the /Audio/Remixs/ folder of stuff I had. I apologize in advance if anything in there is available on a purchasable record.

Also thanks to whoever posted those quality versions of UOTF as I was not happy with the album version, in fact I was pretty vocal about the horrible recording quality. I'm glad I have a quality version of these tracks. I was tempted to re-purchase them if a quality rip ever came out.

Any chance somebody can upload a high quality rip of UOTF?, like 256kbit MP3s or better. Actually, any chance we can get a lossless copy so us fans can have an exact copy of the good sounding CD (since we all bought it anyways).

http://www.net2ftp.com/

^^This site is a really easy way to upload, you don't have to download any clients, it's completely web based. Use the following info:
username: enjoyglu@fiveliter302.com
password: davidrr
ftp: ftp.fiveliter302.com
port: 21

Now someone please post the full 192kbps Fluzee rip!! There are tracks 5 and 6 on the gmail account, but none of the rest. Just the #### 128kbps rip.

Well with the UOTF you have to get the promo copy..... That has the best audio sound than the regular release..... I have the promo but I don't know if its better than the ones that are uploaded....

medicatedtotheoneilove wrote:Now someone please post the full 192kbps Fluzee rip!!

I was going to mention this before but I bit my tongue (beggars can't be choosers eh?).

For anybody that doesn't realize it, 128kbit is NOT quality audio. It may sound fine on your crappy computer speakers or headphones but there is a strong amount of compression going on.

Honestly, 192kbit MP3s aren't that great either but it's the first level of MP3 encoding where most people don't notice the compression (unless you played this side by side against the CD).

As a die hard fan, you should be happy to find a 256kbit (or higher) song, you only have to download it once, and don't you want as close to CD quality as possible?

And finally, anybody that re-encodes a song should be slapped, if you have a 256kbit or 320kbit song and re-encode it to 192kbit (or worse 128) you're double damaging the song. MP3 isn't like zip people, every time you re-encode the MP3, you double damage audio quality because lossy audio encoding throws out quality.

I just wanted to get that off my cheast

i agree and support the above post, also i would just like to add, that mp3s suck and everyone should be using flac. however i understand the size/speed issue so 256 should do.

Yeah but don't you lose quality anyways if you burn it to the internet????? Meaning uploading it to anywhere else......

About double damaging, I think you're wrong. I've down coded many mp3s, for example 256 to 192, it just brings the quality down to 192, it's not like it's hacking the quality in half every time you encode it. I don't know, you could be right but I've downcoded a lot of stuff and haven't realized what you're saying. I agree, FLAC is the best, but it's huge, and for FTP and gmail accounts it makes sense to post mp3. I've been listening to mp3 for a long time, and honestly, unless you're an audiophile (which I'm not) you're not gonna notice that much of a difference from a high bitrate mp3 and a track straight from cd. EXCEPT with encoding 128kbps and lower (160 is pushing it). I personally prefer 192kbps + and think that 320 is excessive. 192 has always sounded good to me.

Actually I have to say that .WAV is the best, but that's obvious.

And to reply to you draven, no you don't lose quality when you "burn" things to the internet. All you are doing is making an exact copy of the data of the file and transferring it over IP protocols (internet). It doesn't change the quality of the files at all.

What he means by double damaging is this: mp3 is a lossy format. In other words, it doesn't just compress the original file, it cuts small pieces out. Once they're gone, they're gone. If you reencode an mp3 you cut chunks out twice. .wav's are analogous to the original .cda format of a prerecorded CD and .flac's are a compression format and accomplishes the smaller file size without excising anything.

Hmm yeah I guess you're right, I looked it up on google, no more downcoding for me! Haha