STU
Active topics
  1. The real killer of lossless for me was the ability to have mp3 gigs on my ipod.

    i have been a member of u2torrents almost since it began and have countless cd's burnt from flac and shn that quite honestly i never listen to. So, i've just downloaded from here everything that i wanted in 192 and i listen to them 10x more than i ever would if they were on cd, stored in a cupboard somewhere.
    I had a real obsession with downloading and printing artwork etc, but then just decided that i was collecting and not listening and thought "what's the point?".

    Don't get me wrong, i do really really appreciate the lossless community's work in tracing linage's and sourcing the best material because this place would be a mess without that, but when it comes to downloading a gig, banging it on my ipod and enjoying it, this place has changed the way i listen to live shows.
  2. Originally posted by germcevoy[..]

    theres barely any difference in file size from 160>192 but there is a little peak in sound quality so i'll continue to download lossless and convert to 192 with lineaga infromation and artwork included. Just wished u2torrents had more seeds on audio. Ah well


    I think 128 is not really distinguishable to a lot of people here - they don't care. But we, as loving our audio and enjoying high-quality, do mind.
  3. Originally posted by drewhiggins[..]

    I think 128 is not really distinguishable to a lot of people here - they don't care. But we, as loving our audio and enjoying high-quality, do mind.


    it's only non distinguishable for people because they have only ever heard 128. Do a side by side comparison and you'd have to be one deaf Mofo not to hear the difference
  4. Originally posted by germcevoy[..]

    nope. I'm just of the 'why have cotton when you can have silk' mind frame nowdays


    Nothing wrong with that...seriously man, you're doing one hell of a job taking care of the bootlegs like this, great crew member!

    edit: 2000 posts
  5. Originally posted by Ali709[..]

    Nothing wrong with that...seriously man, you're doing one hell of a job taking care of the bootlegs like this, great crew member!

    edit: 2000 posts


    cheers Ali

    Good going with the posts
  6. Originally posted by Ali709[..]

    Nothing wrong with that...seriously man, you're doing one hell of a job taking care of the bootlegs like this, great crew member!



    Here here
  7. Waiting for the new boots to pop up during the tour is like Christmas to me. You wait and then all of a sudden there it is, either the show you were at or if there was a special song played. Either way 48 hours is the best idea.
  8. Originally posted by germcevoyit's only non distinguishable for people because they have only ever heard 128. Do a side by side comparison and you'd have to be one deaf Mofo not to hear the difference


    I've done the side-by-side comparison (a blind listening test with no EQ and I picked out the 192 from the 160 and 128). A song that has bass and life to it at 192Kbps (Comfortably Numb, God Part II, Poison) is 24MB - whereas that same song has no life to it and sounds dull and flat comes out at about 10MB. Big difference? You bet - and yet, my entire CD collection (488 songs) comes out at something around 3.8GB.

    Slowly, I'm re-encoding all my CDs to 192Kbps or lossless (FLAC / AAC). 160 is just not doing it for me anymore as did 128 quite a while ago, and I daresay in maybe two years time not even 192 will do anything for me and I'll boost up to 320 - however for others it most likely does. But for bootlegs, you've just gotta take what comes - if you get a 160, then you get a 160 until something better walks in.



    Originally posted by chrissybabyMy main hope is that U2 make much more available through their website this time around, even if they don't give us a soundboard for every show, some real (quickly uploaded) good clips or video would be great. Although I would obviously love it if every show was made available in soundboard quality for download!


    I like (in fact, love) that idea, and hopefully Bono's quote about Live Nation and the band and LN wanting to get closer to the fans and be more interactive, leads somewhere and doesn't mean stuff all. Do something like Pearl Jam does and offer the bootlegs through the PJ Ten Club. Not what U2.com wants to offer us (DVD rips of existing shows which almost anyone can do) but either lossless or MP3 - while still allowing tapers to record shows and distribute them and keeping it real and free - but if the site wants to start offering soundboards, then by all means I'm in and I'll happily stay here, downloading and pay the money to the site - as long as they don't charge you on the nose for it. Come on, it's 2008...surely U2, being the business-savvy types they are and companies like Principle, will start embracing the online digital format, like Apple did with the Live from Boston '81, Brooklyn Bridge 2004 and Point Depot shows - iTunes had the right idea.




    Originally posted by chrissybabyI would imagine that the traffic will increase massively and we will become inundated with people begging for boots 2 hours after a show has finished. Are we going to set a 48 rule in place to stop this to some extent. I know that during the last tour we tried to implement that on Interference.


    Well, people have got to remember not everything is available immediately (or ever, for that matter). But the U2 taping community is pretty good, and a lot of stuff (great recordings and remasters by Godfather, chrisedge, achtungpop, to name a few) do a very good job and for those people, I'm grateful. Fancy that by this time next year, we have twice as many members which would be somewhere in the realm of 22,000 members - that's a big number of people. Can the server handle that many users online at once - however unlikely???

    I have another idea, not bootlegs but still something great. How about, if possible that some of you (including myself) are able to send live text show reports back to U2start? I can do so - you know, just parts of the show and have a running update - maybe in between encores? I'd like to see a 48 hour rule in place, if not for the fact to get the recordings mastered and not rushed.

    Melbourne 18 2006 (the Saturday night, I believe?) was a great example of that.
  9. Originally posted by germcevoy[..]

    it's only non distinguishable for people because they have only ever heard 128. Do a side by side comparison and you'd have to be one deaf Mofo not to hear the difference


    Sooo...if you were to compare the St. Goarhausen gig to the Stockholm '92 show with WGRYWH...do they have different kps? If so, which is which?
  10. Originally posted by WojBhoy[..]

    Sooo...if you were to compare the St. Goarhausen gig to the Stockholm '92 show with WGRYWH...do they have different kps? If so, which is which?


    it wouldn't matter in that case. They are completely different recordings. I'm talking about the same song from the same source. Compare it at 128 and compare it at 192 and you'l hear the difference.

  11. Drew I have God Part ll ripped lossless to my iPod and it barely breaks the 30MB mark
  12. Examples of what can break the 24MB mark and close to. It's about 20 - Comfortably Numb is a bit more.
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.