Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I read somewhere that they'd have some full live sets from this past Bonnaroo. I keep checking for them and I can't find them. Does anyone know anything about this???
*i like coconuts, you can break them open they smell like ladies lyin in the sun** *Hell I don't even know where I am** *for now I must sit here and ponder the yonder: The herbivores did well cause their food didn't never run** *We listen, if it feels good We shake** *You made a big impression for a girl of your size, Now I can't get by without you and your big brown eyes.**
yea don't waste your time with iTunes downloads, they are low quality and over priced
check out the Troo Music Lounge section on this site and go to the Bonnaroo Downloads subforum and you can get them for free
Haha-- right-- and the crowd-noise filled taper versions are better? What kbps do you think the average taper is TRULY achieving (not just what he or she has encoded their hand-recorder with, but the true quality)? If iTunes or Bonnaroolive or the band sites can offer a lossless or comparative soundboard quality, properly post-mixed, it ought to (and often does)beat the average taper hands-down.
As for overpriced, it's more like it is actually priced-- as in, it costs anything versus free. So yeah, it can't compete there. I'd suggest Gov't Mule's actual recording store for their set and others have similar-- put some money in the actual artists hands.
Haha-- right-- and the crowd-noise filled taper versions are better?
Sometimes, yes, but that's certainly a subjective thing.
What kbps do you think the average taper is TRULY achieving (not just what he or she has encoded their hand-recorder with, but the true quality)?
This illustrates a pretty clear misunderstanding of the technology and/or the terminology.
If iTunes or Bonnaroolive or the band sites can offer a lossless or comparative soundboard quality, properly post-mixed, it ought to (and often does)beat the average taper hands-down.
This, I'll certainly agree with. A properly-engineered release from raw multi-track recordings SHOULD beat an audience tape pretty easily. Just look at NIN's live release (... And All That Could Have Been) for an example of a painstakingly post-mixed product.
As for overpriced, it's more like it is actually priced-- as in, it costs anything versus free. So yeah, it can't compete there. I'd suggest Gov't Mule's actual recording store for their set and others have similar-- put some money in the actual artists hands.
These artists will make plenty of money, despite the tapers in the crowd. I'd argue, in fact, that tapers increase revenue to those artist-run download sites. Imagine hearing a decent-quality AUD tape of a killer show (such as Mule @ 'Roo this year), then realizing that $20 will get you a .flac set to download and disc art to boot.
Some people prefer the AUD sources, though. We're all different.
This illustrates a pretty clear misunderstanding of the technology and/or the terminology.
Not really, I was shooting for high-level here. It's like an image that's begun at essentially 1 mega-pixel and 72dpi that you can reformat so that it's 300dpi-- but the image loses quality but you get to say that it's 300dpi, even if there's no additional clarity there at all; you've simply made ugly pixels bigger. The same happens with tapers, I feel. I read all the time about how a bitorrent download is of a "high" quality and all sorts of lossless, 256kbps numbers thrown around, but if the original recording is full of noise, isn't mixed well, etc., than comparing it to iTunes from a sound quality standpoint is a straw man.
I'm not downing tapers, but rather trying to combat how easy it is to just throw misinformation out there about legit recordings; too often legit recordings are made out to be "the man" in these cases.
As for the artist's revenue, yes we can go round about this until the cows come home. And no, Gov't Mule isn't going to feel the sting of not getting paid. But it's the trickle-down of Tortoise not getting paid because it's so easy to just pick up their live set too-- or Fiest, or The Whigs...
Post by I Can't Wait! on Jun 23, 2007 10:06:25 GMT -5
i have to dissagree... You can have a completely crappy recording full of talking and crowd noise that is not compressed into a lossy format and it will sound better than the same crappy recording on a low bit rate mp3.
The band sites seem to understand this and offer their music in flac for a reason. Itunes supports a lossless format.. yet doesn't sell music in that format. so yeah, go buy it from the band sites, but itunes can #$%# right off.
Best example I can give is that I bought the WP New years vacation shows off of itunes (my only itunes purchase) and the sound quality completely blows. There are audience recordings that actuallly do sound better because they were not compressed into the mp3 that itunes sells. the audience flacs have more high and low end than the itunes crap i bought. itunes store sux
You really can't compare audio files to image files it just doesn't translate. when compressing audio files you take away quality. by offering an audience recording in flac, you get exactly what was recorded. By offering a sbd in mp3, sure you started with something better, but you degraded the sound of the file itself through compression.
i have to dissagree... You can have a completely crappy recording full of talking and crowd noise that is not compressed into a lossy format and it will sound better than the same crappy recording on a low bit rate mp3.
The band sites seem to understand this and offer their music in flac for a reason. Itunes supports a lossless format.. yet doesn't sell music in that format. so yeah, go buy it from the band sites, but itunes can #$%# right off.
Best example I can give is that I bought the WP New years vacation shows off of itunes (my only itunes purchase) and the sound quality completely blows. There are audience recordings that actuallly do sound better because they were not compressed into the mp3 that itunes sells. the audience flacs have more high and low end than the itunes crap i bought. itunes store sux
You really can't compare audio files to image files it just doesn't translate. when compressing audio files you take away quality. by offering an audience recording in flac, you get exactly what was recorded. By offering a sbd in mp3, sure you started with something better, but you degraded the sound of the file itself through compression.
Maybe I'm not representing myself right-- I'm not saying that audience recordings can't be better-- I'm just saying that often the terminology is misleading, and at worst, outright reviews of all iTunes as "low quality" and automatically worse than any audience recording is unfounded. It's the same reason I always wait before downloading shows after Bonnaroo from our message board links to bittorrents-- usually over a week or two better quality recordings show up by those who take the time to mix them. I'm just saying that people should be discerning and watch for the FUD.
As for not comparing image to audio-- again, I'm just talking high level here. If something isn't mixed properly, it being dressed up as being from the soundboard or of a particular bitrate means the pig is still a pig. I was just pointing out that there's a similar issue sometimes in the image world where 300dpi just means giant ugly pixels.
Post by I Can't Wait! on Jun 23, 2007 12:03:06 GMT -5
yeah, I think we're on the same page here. I was more condemning itunes for there refusal to sell us music in a lossless format. Take a cd you buy at the store and compare it to the same "cd" downloaded on itunes and I think anyone could hear that the non compressed higher bit rate CD will sound way better than the download from itunes. I do agree, that better sources usually come up a few days after the initial posts and you never can tell which one is going to sound better to any individual. I thank the tapers and the bands that offer sbd downloads from their sites. Itunes however i do not like. Just my personal opinion.
This illustrates a pretty clear misunderstanding of the technology and/or the terminology.
Not really, I was shooting for high-level here.
Then you completely missed your mark. Tapers tape at a specific bitrate and sample rate (usually 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/44.1, 24/48, or 24/96) and, like it or not, that's the actual bitrate of the actual recording.
That set of numbers, however, has NOTHING to do with the quality of the recording. If you were to split the output from a mic/pre/AD combo into two different recorders, it would matter (the 24/96 src will always sound better than the 16/44.1 src, IMO), but again ... that's not the point.
It's like an image that's begun at essentially 1 mega-pixel and 72dpi that you can reformat so that it's 300dpi-- but the image loses quality but you get to say that it's 300dpi, even if there's no additional clarity there at all; you've simply made ugly pixels bigger.
If you convert a 72dpi image to 300dpi, you're phyiscally changing the resolution of the file. It becomes smaller in print, so ugly pixels aren't actually getting "bigger." If anything, increasing the DPI will almost always increase print quality while decreasing print size.
Scratch that. I managed to read your example backwards. Sorry.
The same happens with tapers, I feel. I read all the time about how a bitorrent download is of a "high" quality and all sorts of lossless, 256kbps numbers thrown around, but if the original recording is full of noise, isn't mixed well, etc., than comparing it to iTunes from a sound quality standpoint is a straw man.
I think you're missing the point here. Tapers circulate lossless recordings to preserve what fidelty is there. A lot of tapers (myself included) prefer a really great AUD tape to a SBD tape from the same show, but a great AUD tape is much more difficult to manage than a post-mixed SBD source helmed by a half-competent engineer.
Trading a 24/96 source losslessly and touting it as "higher quality" than an iTunes download is absolutely factual, but your definition of quality (a subjective one) and the taper's definition of quality (a technical, and thereby objective one) are quite different.
You're looking at the quality of the sound. He's looking at the quality of the signal.
I'm not downing tapers, but rather trying to combat how easy it is to just throw misinformation out there about legit recordings; too often legit recordings are made out to be "the man" in these cases.
I still contest that you're misunderstanding the entire situation, but that's again beside the point.
As for the artist's revenue, yes we can go round about this until the cows come home. And no, Gov't Mule isn't going to feel the sting of not getting paid. But it's the trickle-down of Tortoise not getting paid because it's so easy to just pick up their live set too-- or Fiest, or The Whigs...
Those artists will all sell plenty of copies of their live shows ... esp. on iTunes, which is now the third largest music retailer in the US (behind Wal-Mart and Best Buy).
I still contest that you're misunderstanding the entire situation, but that's again beside the point.
Those artists will all sell plenty of copies of their live shows ... esp. on iTunes, which is now the third largest music retailer in the US (behind Wal-Mart and Best Buy).
Wow, well thanks.
I think you're also missing the point-- high level here: a recording of a drunk shouting "whooo" in the middle of a solo affects the quality, be it lossless or not. Yes a taper tapes at a specific kbps to protect fidelity-- but I don't what the jag-off's shout to be protected. That's my point. A pig is still a pig. An audience recording can be an amazing thing, but my entire point here is that writing off iTunes or Bonnaroolive.com, or any board recordings as somehow automatically inferior is silly. I thought you agreed, but you're going an awfully long way out of your way to reverse-engineer a pretty simple point of mine. My very first comment was about crowd noise and that people SHOULDN'T use the numbers to determine quality- but rather use their ears.
And I think your optimism of how many live shows Fiest or Whigs will sell--- Wait- do either of those bands even sell live shows? Do you honestly think that a cafe-stage band is somehow rolling in this pretend money? And do you also seriously think that the majority of people downloading a free Whigs show probably paid for the album or songs of the Whigs that they had? Given the latter situation- at what point then are the Whigs paid a dime unless they sold a t-shirt? (Which they didn't at Roo.)
An audience recording can be an amazing thing, but my entire point here is that writing off iTunes or Bonnaroolive.com, or any board recordings as somehow automatically inferior is silly.
Nor did I ever imply that you should. You're arguing a straw man here.
And do you also seriously think that the majority of people downloading a free Whigs show probably paid for the album or songs of the Whigs that they had? Given the latter situation- at what point then are the Whigs paid a dime unless they sold a t-shirt?
ALL of the folks that I know who download shows either own plenty of stuff from that band or are trying to determine if it's a band worth buying or seeing.
The Whigs got paid simply for showing up at 'Roo. That's how most bands work. They make virtually zero money off the CDs and make up all their money on concert tickets and $35 t-shirts.
The Whigs got paid simply for showing up at 'Roo. That's how most bands work. They make virtually zero money off the CDs and make up all their money on concert tickets and $35 t-shirts.
Thanks for the lesson on the music industry. As mentioned, the Whigs didn't sell any shirts. In fact, I didn't see a single small band that sold any shirts near $35 (if they sold any at all). And I would have thought you knew that Cafe bands aren't exactly well paid comparatively. Apparently you and all of your friends all make fabulous choices and ensure the artists are paid-- unfortunately for the smaller bands, those people are in the minority. The RIAA may be a dinosaur, but right now the smaller bands suffer from both ends. Not sure how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the current music industry would bother arguing that point, but hey- I wouldn't have guessed I'd be sniped at.
As for my straw man- I was responding to the poster's comment, "don't waste your time with iTunes downloads, they are low quality and over priced" - responding does not a straw man make. You kept saying I was missing "the point" and yet I'm left guessing what that point of yours was after all of these exchanges. I'll take my ball and go home now, I'm getting tired of re-phrasing.
Thanks for the lesson on the music industry. [...]
There's not much sense in replying to this, since I'm not sure what the debate even is anymore.
As for my straw man- I was responding to the poster's comment, "don't waste your time with iTunes downloads, they are low quality and over priced" - responding does not a straw man make.
I replied to that comment, pretty directly, calling it FUD.
