REC
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by WojBhoyCroke Park 24-06-2005, I'm thinking 2 stars is a bit harsh, 2.5 maybe? That said, I'm not certain how the ratings go exactly - is this a 192kps boot or not?


    god knows where it came from or who encoded it or how many times. 2.5 is fair kop until i can source it.
  2. Just wondering whether any thought's been given to reviewing the ratings of all the shows that U2want has uploaded recently.

    That Austin 22/11/1987 boot, in particular is superb. With the exception of a few distortions around the start and One Tree Hill it's near perfect IMO. It could push for a higher rating than the 4/5 that's been given here.

    Just a thought anyway.
  3. Originally posted by aussiemofo:Just wondering whether any thought's been given to reviewing the ratings of all the shows that U2want has uploaded recently.

    That Austin 22/11/1987 boot, in particular is superb. With the exception of a few distortions around the start and One Tree Hill it's near perfect IMO. It could push for a higher rating than the 4/5 that's been given here.

    Just a thought anyway.


    definitely no better than a 4. Simple. 4 is the very upper limit for this one.
  4. 1992-05-22 - Milan
    This one has very solid sound, I can't see why it shouldn't be 4 stars. Not any higher than that, it's not very special, but it deserves 4 stars.

    1997-05-16 - Clemson
    Every member of the band is clearly audible as well as the crowd, there is just some very slight distortion. But it deserves more than 2 stars, I think 3.5 stars would do it justice.
  5. Originally posted by RDB92:1992-05-22 - Milan
    This one has very solid sound, I can't see why it shouldn't be 4 stars. Not any higher than that, it's not very special, but it deserves 4 stars.

    1997-05-16 - Clemson
    Every member of the band is clearly audible as well as the crowd, there is just some very slight distortion. But it deserves more than 2 stars, I think 3.5 stars would do it justice.


    Made it 4 and 3, thanks!


  7. Check the bootleg reviews on that page, every member gives 4 stars to the sound quality.. Except you
  8. Originally posted by Remy:[..]

    Check the bootleg reviews on that page, every member gives 4 stars to the sound quality.. Except you


    they are all clearly wrong then. Listen yourself. Way to muffled. Paris a week or 2 earlier is a 4. Hear the difference
  9. Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

    they are all clearly wrong then. Listen yourself. Way to muffled. Paris a week or 2 earlier is a 4. Hear the difference


    Agree, I'll make it 3.5.
  10. 1993-11-16 - Adelaide, Australia - Football Park (video)

    It's not as bad as a 3-star recording should be in my opinion. Sound is pretty clear and the image is not that bad...
  11. Originally posted by dieder:1993-11-16 - Adelaide, Australia - Football Park (video)

    It's not as bad as a 3-star recording should be in my opinion. Sound is pretty clear and the image is not that bad...


    Agreed, audio is worth 4, video now 3.5, not more, it's not really good for a pro-shot.
  12. Agree. The quality of the show itself compensated a lot
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.