Why do not "Reshn" ?

2004-07-08 23:00:09

Hii,
i read at : ****

Note "reshn" from audio discs is strongly discouraged and will draw criticism for various reasons; save the original shn set only.

Which are these  reasons? Could be errors or  files corruption converting FLAC/SHN --> WAv --> FLAC/SHN and go on?

Why is it preferred keep and use always original Lossless files?

Thanks in advance for your help.


MOD: removed what seems to be a very questionable link.

Why do not "Reshn" ?

Reply #1 – 2004-07-08 23:06:47

Probably because they are afraid people don't use a proper ripper and will get rips with errors in therefore sharing files of worse quality than originally released.

Also if your ripper is not offset corrected you can't get the same data back.

Read up on secure ripping and offset correction.

Why do not "Reshn" ?

Reply #2 – 2004-07-08 23:12:37

so you should compare new firgerprints with "original one" to be sure to get error free files right?

Why do not "Reshn" ?

Reply #3 – 2004-07-08 23:26:24

Yes. if the new rip matches old md5 you will be OK.

Why do not "Reshn" ?

Reply #4 – 2004-07-09 00:33:24

converting is looked down upon (or renaming, whatever...) so that the seed continues unmodified...

so 500 have same set vs:

300 having original shn, then
1 guy converts to flac (or renames, or edits, or modifies in any way, etc.), then
mixed seed of flac/shn is confusing (different sources, perhaps?)

nothing detrimental to the quality of the audio, just annoying to share/seed this way

(i don't give a &$%# and convert to flac or mpc or burn, and share what i like)


later

Why do not "Reshn" ?

Reply #5 – 2004-07-09 08:00:13

thanks a lot !!