REC
Active topics
  1. ...sorry...I almost forgot

    Download flacs here [865.37 MB] (scroll to bottom and check 1 or 2 boxes if you're redirected)

    *Lossless: TLH seems to have its doubts whether or not this would qualify as "lossless" (but doesn't reject the possibility either...). I think it has to do with the (eq) reduction I did on the higher frequencies...this is what the spectrum looks like:



    Anyway, as always, enjoy!
  2. I was going to do some multicam mixes dvd/blu-ray from this tour but after the stupid arguments with certain individuals and seeing how stupid everybody acts about their recordings I guess I won't do any recording this tour. I go to my two hometown shows and see if I like what I see. If yes, I go to Paris, if not, I sell my tickets. Also a multicam shoot with the stage setup on this tour, the video screens and Bono and band moving all around on the "catwalk" and the b-stage it would need some organisation (who tapes what and from where etc.) but this does not seem possible in this community.
    also I am already bored with the tour. the video screens (they should stick to the music! videos running in the back means you need a choreography and lose spontaneity), the setlists (didn't they say they were gonna mix up the setlists because of the multiple dates per city? well, for my taste the setlists are still pretty static)
    but well, lots of off-topic stuff I guess, sorry for this...

    Originally posted by ferrari:Lets open a bootleg bashing topic! Every one can all say he/she wants about the bootlegs here and the members who recorded them.

    This is cynical............

    Lets be glad with all the activities here! We are all U2 fans.

    If you like it or not, give your opinion and case closed.

    Hoserama/Olli66, I have some recordings from both of you and most are very good, so maybe you would like to open your own topic here like BigGirl has done.

    I would be very interested.
  3. Originally posted by olli66:I was going to do some multicam mixes dvd/blu-ray from this tour but after the stupid arguments with certain individuals and seeing how stupid everybody acts about their recordings I guess I won't do any recording this tour. I go to my two hometown shows and see if I like what I see. If yes, I go to Paris, if not, I sell my tickets. Also a multicam shoot with the stage setup on this tour, the video screens and Bono and band moving all around on the "catwalk" and the b-stage it would need some organisation (who tapes what and from where etc.) but this does not seem possible in this community.
    also I am already bored with the tour. the video screens (they should stick to the music! videos running in the back means you need a choreography and lose spontaneity), the setlists (didn't they say they were gonna mix up the setlists because of the multiple dates per city? well, for my taste the setlists are still pretty static)
    but well, lots of off-topic stuff I guess, sorry for this...

    [..]
    I'll feel sorry about this, you did some good stuff with Springsteen in the past.

    My statement in generally was that fans who are doing their best to "create/improve" free recordings are not getting the appreciation which they deserve. (by some other fans).

    And if you don't like it just do not download and listen to their work.
  4. @BigGirl:
    You asked if I listened to the sample on the page. The answer is yes, I actually downloaded the whole show. A friend of mine told me the best recording of the show was actually the OKM recording by WILATW, which was conveniently on the U2S show page. So I downloaded that too.

    Naturally, I compared them. The star system is, as we talked about in similar context, is strictly subjective. The WILATW recording was a "four star" recording, although I probably would have given it a three in my book, under the context of a audience recording in a boomy arena. There appeared to be some additional remastering on the OKM source, as the dynamics seemed a bit compressed on the louder parts. In comparison, I would give the matrix a two-star. I hear phasing, some really unnatural sounds right around 160-200hz, and (most significantly) too much compression. I see very little in the line of dynamics, particularly on the louder songs. The quieter songs aren't quite as bad.

    Again, that is strictly to *my* ears. I wasn't really trying to engage you in that discussion. If people enjoy that sound, great. Enjoy away. My concern is more around the form of creating that sound--as even a certain type of sound can be poorly or expertly created.

    Regarding the time alignment--delay is natural for a recording. Unfortunately, by taking multiple recordings with a high degree of echo, the recording now has multiple waves of echo all at different decay rates. Then if the music itself it out of sync, even slightly, it doesn't sum up correctly to overcome echo.

    This says nothing about the actual time alignment, which is a function of the time clocks on the individual recorder. When doing time alignment, the goal is to sync the recorders so it's as if they were time clock synced during the show. Irregardless of the hall echo, the actual music should be time aligned. The reason I urged you to reconsider your workflow is the splice & align method in inherently flawed, as it can not compensate for the variable speeds in the recorder time clock. It piece meals the components and tries to mitigate the damage, but the damage is there regardless.

    I am not the matrix police. I have complete many mixes, a small percentage of them have been released here on this board. As you noted before, there's several Springsteen releases and other bands that I have completed. But you're right, that does not make me a matrix police, and I am not making a police-like order to take it down. My point is, as somebody that has a lot of experience with creating these types of projects, to reconsider your work flow. If you did the time alignment via a time stretch method, then it would be (1) far more accurate (2) significantly easier!

    Semantics time: urge (verb): "try earnestly or persistently to persuade (someone) to do something." I'd say that's what I did, and it was the proper verb.

    --

    Remy:
    That's my last post on this one. I only posted because several questions were directed to me. I find it unfortunate that it appears we can't have a discussion about the quality of a posted recording without people becoming defensive. I feel that as long as people are being polite, talking about the recording (and not about the person), then it should be perfectly relevant.
  5. Originally posted by hoserama:Remy:
    That's my last post on this one. I only posted because several questions were directed to me. I find it unfortunate that it appears we can't have a discussion about the quality of a posted recording without people becoming defensive. I feel that as long as people are being polite, talking about the recording (and not about the person), then it should be perfectly relevant.

    That I agree with! But unfortunately it not always goes like that. Thanks for your input and let's continue this discussion if we want in a separate topic or via PM or something. Cheers!
  6. Originally posted by hoserama:[...]Semantics time: urge (verb): "try earnestly or persistently to persuade (someone) to do something." I'd say that's what I did, and it was the proper verb.
    Like I said, you are in no position to urge me to do something. That is plain old patronizing and I don't accept that from anybody. The idea that “urging” is the
    same as “requesting” is completely misguided.

    The proper form would have been "kindly request, consider, refect upon suggest."

    For the rest you just keep on repeating yourself, totally unresponsive of what I have said.
  7. Some of my favorite people in this thread!

    My two cents? RARELY does 1+1=2 or 1+1+1=3 in regards to audience live recordings. 99 times out of 100 the person does a worse job than if they had just tried to tweak one source, or just left it alone.

    Also, it's one thing if I record 2 or 3 different sources myself (different mics, mics and IEM, multiple IEM feeds) and I decide to mix it all up and it's an entirely different thing to take a bunch of odd ball sources and try and make it sound better.

    Back to hoarding and putting logos on stuff.
  8. He's here! My favourite from all the people I ever came across and I met plenty! ;-)
    If you know how to mix the more sources the better, each can provide something.
    I paid a professional to do some audio mixes for my blu-rays and once he used two AUD sources, the other time three AUD sources and the result was amazing
  9. Originally posted by Chrisedge:[...]
    My two cents? RARELY does 1+1=2 or 1+1+1=3 in regards to audience live recordings. 99 times out of 100 the person does a worse job than if they had just tried to tweak one source, or just left it alone.
    [...]
    So basically you are saying that either I did something quite extraordinary,
    or something that is totally not worth the fuzz….

    Anyway, I did a triple audience matrix once before: the 1st "360" Barcelona gig:



    This “bootleg” is still available for download here at u2 start (click on the image!)* and
    currently has 5,560 downloads. That’s right, way over five thousand downloads…

    Now I have always insisted (and shall maintain to do so) that quantity is no guarantee
    for quality, but one could fairly argue that I did something quite right there with those
    3 audience sources…

    *sample still availlable on the download page btw




  10. (Sorry Remy, I couldn't resist)
  11. ^^ exactly. Far too many people think they can remaster, multicam edit, etc and FAR too few actual bother to tape. "I will just take everything, everyone else bothered to create and then throw it together (with no real talent to do it) cause I'm a hero to the taping scene" Oh and everyone must release everything so I can be a hero and make DVDs and BluRays for all cause I am the best editor or mixer in the world.
  12. Thanks for your input all. Good to see some familiar (famous) names popping up as well. It's sometimes difficult for a site like us to draw lines (if any) or come up with good guidelines as to how we deal with things like remasters & matrixes, but let's see if we can do some work on that after the first leg. I think it would be good for us as a community to have something like that whilst still showing appreciation to work being done to existing or new sources.

    Because this topic is not really on the original subject anymore, and since a new source doesn't necessarily needs its own topic anyway, I'll close this one. Let's have a constructive discussion on this soon in a dedicated topic to see how we can all contribute to great sources/recordings of any kind and to make sure that things like remasters or matrixes are actually improvements and what this actually means.

    Most important thing is to be constructive, and to also perceive constructive feedback as such. Thanks to those who are!
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.