how about wav or mp3?

How about you Google "flac" and learn how to you use them. It takes a long time to upload stuff.
.Wav files are huge and MP3's are lossy. If you want MP3's because it takes you too long to download a FLAC then you should understand why somebody wouldn't want to upload in every file format.
I believe the words you are looking for are "thank you very much for posting these."

What's amazing is that by simply typing "flac" on Google, the FIRST two hits will lead you to download an easy to use Flac decoder for Windows.

The problem with flac files is that they are so much bigger than mp3s and some people have to deal with download limits. While it can be argued that flac files sound better, I personally can't tell the difference (at least from a well encoded mp3). Also there is the issue of portable music players. Not all of them support flac so to download a flac file purely so you can convert it does seem like a bit of a waste to me. I personally avoided flac files until earlier this year when I got a decent download limit and now I still can't see what all the fuss is about.

That said, I am grateful to everyone who has posted things here regardless of format but I think it's a bit unfair to treat someone like an idiot because they asked if someone could upload in another format. They could have said please, but that's another issue.

It would take literally seconds for you to convert a FLAC file whereas it could take hours to upload all those files (again) in another format.
Honestly if you can't tell the difference between a FLAC and an MP3 the remasters and different RB mixes shouldn't matter to you anyway because you won't hear the differences.
If download limits were a problem they wouldn't have asked for them to be re-posted in .wav

and as an off topic side-note, FLACj doesn't have the same "ring" to it as MP3J!

I can tell the difference from the remasters and Rock Band mixes. I can also tell the difference between CD and vinyl (vinyl sounds better), but I can't really hear any difference between a flac file and a higher bitrate mp3 (anything below 128 is another matter but people generally don't use anything lower than that).

I wasn't suggesting that this person in particular had download limit issues. What I meant was that it could be an issue with some people. I know it was an issue for me until I got a bigger download limit earlier this year and it always annoyed me when someone would post a bootleg in flac with a note saying don't convert this to mp3 and reupload it. If people want something in mp3 format and someone has already converted it for their own use then they should be allowed to share it.

The problem with perverting a lossless file to eMPty3 and re-distributing it is that eventually someone burns the eMPty3 files to CD, trades them on CDR, and then that audio CDR of lossy files gets re-extracted and shared as lossy bloated eMPty3-FLAC files. That "don't share lossy" warning is an attempt to keep the trading pool pure. Lossy files chuck all data above 16000 hz - once that's gone it can never be put back. There's nothing worse than downloading FLAC's and finding out they're eMPty3 sourced! If you can't tell the difference between lossless and lossy, I recommend you get your hearing tested. I can still hear frequencies up to about 19500 hz, and all eMPty3's sound nasty to me...

BTW, I'm blown away by some of these new layers that these Rockband remixes are revealing - even though ultimately I guess that the encrypted .ogg files they come from are technically lossy to begin with...

Thanks for the hard work so far in doing your best to get them out to us all!

Wouldn't it be a dream if CrApple would release data-DVD's of the actual Rockband extractions? Would you buy them if they did? I think I would!

We're getting off topic here so this will be the last I comment on this.
I understand why people want the MP3's and I understand why you'd want to share it. The problem arises when somebody posts a CD in lossless, you rip it to MP3 (for yourself or others), somebody else downloads your MP3's and then burns their own CD. Somebody requests the CD again so they rip it again to MP3, and so on. Generally I don't think this is a big problem anymore but a lot of stuff was done this way, especially when Napster was in full swing. Sometimes you'd have to buy/download a CD several times before you found a "good" copy.
Generally I feel if you like a song enough to waste your time downloading it, you should want it in the highest possible quality. That's what the remasters are all about.
I realize now more and more with the iTunes generation, quality seems to have fallen by the wayside and that's just too bad. Just the thought of playing a 128 bit MP3 on an iPod with $20 headphones drives me crazy.
How many of us here have re-bought a Beatles LP because they found a better quality pressing of it? I myself could have a nice size rummage sale of just Abbey Road albums. I think I have about 10 copies of Who's Next, but when I put on my Canadian pressing CD and turn up the volume, it's priceless.

Split from MikeNL Rockband topic, as this is now a new topic.

You clearly are not a fan of mp3s, but for me (and many others) they sound just as good as CDs. Maybe it has more to do with the whole analog sound vs digital sound that I can tell the difference between vinyl and CD but I don't think I need to get my hearing tested. Maybe if I listned to it at full blast with headphones and really concentrated then I might hear a difference between mp3 and flac but the difference would have to be pretty small if that is what it takes to hear it.

As far as bootlegs and trading goes, it is somewhat on the illegal side anyway so I think we should just be grateful we get to hear these things at all without whining about the quality. If you want an official release that doesn't sound 'lossy' then there is a simple solution, buy the CD/vinyl.

I think it's a Generation Thing; I remember that my grandma thought that 78 rpm's sounded great (I actually heard them played on her player), then there was the 45/33 rpm Vinyl Generation; then came the CD/lossless generation, and now we see the MP3/iPod folks out there. Each generation likes the technology of its own era (sidenote: I think we alwasys prefer to hear music the way we first heard it, a sort of 'cuckoo' effect).

I belong mostly to the CD/lossless generation: Vinyl is just too much hassle, you get scratched records, the needle wears out etc.

BTW: I don't think there any 'Real Lossless' technologies around; even the CD format is compressed, and so are DVD's. These are usually the ultimate source for lossless copies, in Flac, wav etc..

Of course there's a "Real lossless" technology around - it's called "live music"!!! haha

If you listen with good enough speakers and train your ears, you will hear a difference between mp3 and lossless on some songs, especially with a lot of treble, lots of cymbal washes, etc.

The real problem with mp3 is that once you ditch the frequencies you can't hear, you can never get them back.

If a master tape were damaged and the only source for backup were mp3, there could never, ever be a sound upgrade of any kind. People who like lossless like having as dense a sample of the raw data as they can get. Converting to mp3 later for portability is almost always no real loss in sound quality, but all mp3s are very lossy regardless of if you can tell the difference between sources or not.

And as Neil Young so memorably put it : "Live Music is Better; Bumper Stickers should be Issued"

is there any point in debating this???