SHN fILES...Worth The Time?

[Paul]

Hi,
I have a question to those who download shows as SHN files.
Are they worth the time. I'm on a high speed cable connection and to download a single show as SHN it takes about 7 hours.
A double cd show like many of the 2000 tour are takes about 10 to 12
hours.
Now I know that they are a Lossless way of transfering files but were
talking about bootlegged shows here.
Were the source of taping is varied and the orginal sound quality could be
suspect to begin with - save soundboard taped shows.
Many of the shows I have been lucky enough to download, regardless
if it's mp3 or SHN in the end does not make that much of a significant
diffrence.
Just wondering if anyone else has a different view on this or might share mine.

Best to all,
Paul

[mrlayance]

Check out http://www.etree.org
Also, here are a few links
http://research.umbc.edu/~hamilton/shnfaq.html
http://research.umbc.edu/~hamilton/shnlinks.html
http://www.u2shn.com/shnfaq.php

I hope that helps answer some questions.

[coolcatmissy]

I agree. I just don't have the patience to download one song at a time when it's going to take a couple hours. I much prefer mp3, I can't really tell any difference in sound quality.

[highlander]

I can really notice a difference and given the choice I will take SHN over mp3 any day. I too was skeptical about it but there is a huge difference. Most mp3's are 128hz and to have true cd quality it has to be 256hz. There is obvious loss in the compression and you miss all the subtle sounds that are there in .shn files.

I have one of the chicago shows in shn and mp3. Listening to the shn version and then the mp3 of the same song is like night and day. So much more sound both foreground and background in the shn.

Anyways if you have the bandwidth and the harddrive space, get the shn files. They convert to audio cd very well and just sound a whole lot better!

High

[Beat]

Can someone tell me if there's a way to convert SHN files to MP3, and if so, which program do i have to download to do that?

[Beat]

And, while we're on the subject, is it possible to make a SHN file suitable for all audio systems, 'cause now i can listen to them only on my computer?

[eags]

You need to convert SHN's to wav before you can convert to mp3. I good program is MKW can be found on etree. And the same holds true for listening, shn's must be wavs before transferring to other medium. Such as cdr etc. Hope this helps

Sean

[Beat]

Thanks a lot Sean, i'll try.

[tonedeaf]

SHNs are definately worth the extra time. My poor ears have 20 years of loud bar and arena shows behind them, so my hearing isn't 100% and I can tell the difference in most DAT based shows.

For me, the biggest difference is in the high frequency stuff. Listen to a song encoded as a 128k/b mp3 and the same song as an SHN and the cymbal crashes are so much crisper and they ring out a lot longer.

FLAC is a new lossless compression technology which is being developed by the folks at etree.org (as open source) that compresses 15 to 20% better than SHN, once that get widely circulated, that will cut down on download times.

[grooveless touque]

on the topic of software, if your comp came with windows 2000 or XP, as mine did, it probably came with Musicmatch, which is an annoying and slow program for just playing music, but it has a super, super fast WAV-to-MP3 conversion bit, under "file" and then "convert".

[heresolong]

Don't forget the main reason for SHN or FLAC over MP3. Every time you copy an MP3 file, it loses some data. They may sound the same now, but what if I download a copy, then someone downloads my copy, then gives it to a friend, do this for the next ten years, and you are likely to end up with unlistenable garbage. SHN allows exact copying indefinitely. By verifying the checksum files, you know that you have an exact copy. You can then archive your exact copy and listen to whatever format you want, knowing that the music is saved for folks down the years.

[highlander]

Ummm..if you download an .mp3 file from someone and share with many people over and over, how is there any loss or file degradation if the filesize remains original and intact? Unless the mp3 is uncompressed and recompressed is the only way I know of that it would lose anything.

Compare the equiv. to downloading a winzip'ed file and sending it around. As long as the file remains intact the data will also. MP3's aren't like cd's or cassette tapes that wear out over time from playing them over and over.

[eags]

Right High the only loss would be from converting then reconverting then converting again etc!! Mainly from mp3 to wav to cd back to mp3