U2start.com | General Audio Recording Topic (updates, Q&A etc.)

I have updated the 1997-08-23 London UK - Wembley 2 show page / audio tab with flacs and fresh mp3's of the soundboard recording "An Emotional Goodbye" (Moschino Label – ML 06/07).

It was shared on u2start before as 192kb/s mp3's, but actually filed as "sbd/iem" (the presumably source recording). Perhaps it is all the same, but the Moschino bootleg might have had a mastering job. I don't have the original sbd/iem at hand, so I really can not tell.

NB: On its artwork the "An Emotional Goodbye" bootleg claims to be of the first London show (August 22), but actually most of it comes from the 23rd (well established by the various bootleg info sites, including U2T

)

O, and yes, I do think the "An Emotional Goodbye" is a true soundboard and not an IEM. I think I can tell by the sound of it and the lack of "counts" and "funky sounds," but mostly because it's full stereo (I'm told stereo iem receivers were extremely rare in 1997 - but, please, correct me if I'm wrong!)

Cheers

KleWdSide

7 years

Originally posted by BigGiRL:[image]
This morning I found this 2017-07-09 London - Twickenham 2 "boot" on the Trader's Den (TTD). It's from the Estonian UMSound label. Basically it is a (lossy) remaster from the Empress Valley aud-iem matrix, but I tend to favour this sound a little over the EV "original."

Too bad it has lossy flac files (~~apparently no problem on TTD~~ ), so I've uploaded mp3's only (320kb/s) to avoid confusion.

Anyway, samples are up for comparisment on the show page / audio tab, so the choice is totally yours

"2, 3, 4.."

I don't know about anyone but do you find that annoying? Blue balls to the ears. I don't know anything about mixing but there's gotta be a way to edit that out.

hoserama

7 years

To an extent yes. Depends on how you record and mix. My mixes from 2015/2017 pretty much have the counts zapped.

BigGiRL

7 years

Originally posted by KleWdSide:[..]

"2, 3, 4.."

I don't know about anyone but do you find that annoying? Blue balls to the ears. I don't know anything about mixing but there's gotta be a way to edit that out.

I do find that annoying, yes. But to "zap" that out as Hoserama does is REALLY another level.

(WARNING: TECHNOBABBLE)

But such an operation should (preferably) be done in the unmixed iem source. The thing is that sound of our type of recordings (audience & iem) for us is basically a two dimensal thing. Everything you hear is on one "flat" or "plain" level, I don't know how to say it otherwise. Think of it as a photograph of a landscape: if you take out the mountain, you'll see not what was in reality beyond that mointain, but in stead just a grey - or white, or black - void.

Professional studio recordings are made on different tracks (e.g. 24 in the old days). Each instrument has a different channel (or "picture" if you like). You can do what ever you want with it without disturbing any of the other instruments. But not with our type of recordings. You can not make, for instance, the guitar louder without also making vocals and drums louder (bass maybe another thing, because that typically has a unique low base frequency) - are you still here?

The good news is that today we can look at our recordings as if they were indeed that picture. I have made a screenshot from the count-in to Pride from this London matrix. It's only the "1, 2" and you also see what is a scream coming from the audience source, just to give you an idea what you see when you look at sound literally:

Now, to "zap" this out (I love that phrase!) means that you have to take out all those individual lines that go in vertical direction in the blue circled area's (that is actually the spectral pattern of the crew voice counting 1,2). And a bit similar like PhotoShop you can actually "zap" those lines out that make up the count, but you end up with the grey stuff like when you take out the mountain in the picture of the landscape.

Like I said, ideally you would do this before mixing the iem with the audience source, so that the audience source can sort of cover the gaps that you made by taking out the voice.

And this is just the basic theoretical idea. In practise you have to make it sound right and that's not just another chapter; that's at least a full book!

But bottomline: it takes a tremendous amount of time to do it right.

PS: I've also showed where this recording is lossy: above the 16kHz there is void - the grey area that you have when you take out the mountain from the landscape. Only here it is black and not really distinguishable* because you won't notice that there is no sound.

*but fine ears may hear it in another way - but mostly because there are also parts in the low and mid missing. You may hear it in comparison to a lossless source if you would happen to have one. From this particular mix there probably isn't.

hoserama

7 years

Nailed it on the head. You'd always want to work with the original sources. When you've mixed together multiple sources, you can't really separate them back out. I like cooking metaphors...once your prank-loving little brother pours a bunch of death hot sauce into your chicken noodle soup, you can't exactly pull it out.

Of course, IEM mixes are really just submixes of their own. Ideally we'd have the multitracks, and just mute the counts/clicks. But work with what we've got.

Other fun tricks is spatial extractions. Since counts are panned about 70% to the side for Edge, you can extract that spatial range, isolate the counts away from most of the audio, and zap it more cleanly.

But I don't think most of the bootlegger mixers are there yet. Most seem to struggle with basic alignment. They need to learn to make a sandwich first before attempting a fancy souffle.

hoserama

7 years

I love our metaphor preferences.

I usually draw parallels between mixing and cooking. BigGirl was comparing mixing to photoshop.

Maybe that's why I need to exercise and drop weight. Too much mixing which makes me think of too much food.

bazzzz

7 years

BigGiRL

7 years

Originally posted by bazzzz:[image]

Yes, you can find this recording here: https://u2start.com/shows/503/#!audio

Not exactly an update, but a very nice St Patrick's Day show that (sort of) commemorated the 5th anniversary of U2

BigGiRL

7 years

OK...now it's an update: I've added the lossless flacs of this great recording

<- green

BigGiRL

7 years

I have added my own "redux" version of the A. Verhoeven 1981-10-30 Paradiso, Amsterdam master recording.

Verhoeven and I retrieved the original lineage and I have pitch corrected and remastered the recording to a pretty fine result,
if I do say myself

(see info file for all the details)

For now I only have the mp3 files up (16/48kHz), but the lossless flacs are to be found on u2torrents. ~~I will add them here soon as well.~~

In the meantime the show page / audio tab is updated with flacs (and fresh mp3's) of the "Lost Broadcasts Vol.2" cd (partial show).

EDIT: flac files up too (16/44.1kHz)

ew6655

7 years

Many Thankyou's Biggirl Lov'in the old shows !!!!!!!

SvenR

7 years

Originally posted by BigGiRL:[..]
Yes, the bootleg came up in General Chat by a link that our friend bazzz shared and that triggered me to have a look at our own database and the original info file to see how it was shared in the first place. And, well, let's say it was indeed due for an update!

Originally posted by BigGiRL:
[..]
Although it is a bit of an odd place to link to a bootleg, I will update our 2005-11-14 Miami FL show page / audio tab with this incredible 2-source stereo IEM feed

(Recorded by NS, remastered by Sharebear and brought to us by ThePhog - unfortunately we only had mp3's of this recording while it was in fact requested not to share mp3's of this. I hope to make it right by putting up the flacs asap)

any other bootlegs around? This one is already fantastic

, but i'm not a fan of the ticking sounds

Incredible versions of Bad and Beautiful Day, especially the snippets in those songs

General Audio Recording Topic (updates, Q&A etc.)

what they said

did you know

you

forums

U2start