Source # | 19185 |
Entered by | Steve Swartz |
Checksums | shn-md5 , st5 |
Disc Counts | 2 / 3 |
Media Size | |
Date Circulated
Date Added |
08/26/2003 09/04/2003 |
Other Sources (comments) Source: AKG 480's/CK61's >... (0) Source: AKG 393 (DIN 90deg,... (1) |
|||
Date | User | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|
09/04/2003 | wouldn't Jim O'Malley be the person who *mastered* this show? I would have to categorize T. Wiley's efforts as a *re-mastering* job. | ||
09/07/2003 | mcole | Jim recorded and engineered; Tim mastered. | |
09/07/2003 | not if it was already encoded to shn. it was extracted FROM shn and then RE-mastered. | ||
09/07/2003 | mcole | Mr. Toad says, "One of the main aspects of Mastering is the sweetening of the audio. It is not voodoo, but the resulting master can indeed be a revelation from the previously supplied mixes." Rather than engage in a lenthy discussion on semantics, lets review the information Tim put in the text file: Show was taped by Jim; original shns were made by Brian; and Tim mastered those shns to yield this file set. | |
09/07/2003 | still a remaster as far as im concerned | ||
09/08/2003 | twatts |
master vs. remaster aside, how was the transfer accomplished, and why was the mastering done at that time? Why the DAE, then (re)master??? Why not do it all at once and do it right??? Terry |
|
09/08/2003 | I believe that Jim O'Malley is a regular on the otherones.net discussion forums. He did the actual *mastering* of the show and spread it there on CDR. Someone took a CD Audio copy, EAC'd it, then *re-mastered* it and put it to SHN. The extra DAE step occurred because the taper did not encode to SHN the original wave files that were converted from DAT. | ||
09/08/2003 | twatts |
Why didn't the taper encode to SHN? And if the taper is not SHN capable, how was the DAT>CDR done? Magic? Voodoo? Act of God? T |
|
09/08/2003 | Diana | I don't know anything about this particular example, but I do know that a number of Dead tapers convert by going DAT> professional standalone. | |
09/08/2003 | Diana Hamilton |
...and a quick google shows that standalone is probably the case with Jim also, see http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=19186 Please don't lambaste tapers for doing it this way. It's acceptable! http://wiki.etree.org/index.php?page=SeedingGuidelines |
|
09/08/2003 | Brian B. | I guess this is where I come in.I received this show in a trade a few weeks back.Jim transferred his dat to a standalone unit.At the time,there were no copies of this show circulating.I did not want to handle the seeding,and turned it over to Tim Wiley who is more experienced at it than me.I ran the wavs through MKW and uploaded it to him.I instructed him to run the shntool and maybe sweeten it up if necessary.There is now another copy circulating,maybe check that out.I want to thank Jim for taping this! | |
09/09/2003 | twatts |
I'm not trying to lambaste anyone for anything. I'm just trying to fully understand the lineage of this show. "DAT>CDR" is not complete, unlike "DAT>Standalone". I understand and accept that some folks use standalones. This is fine, but generating incomplete text files is not. All this could have been explained in the text file, eliminating this whole discussion. Terry |
|
09/09/2003 | brbadg |
It fully explains in the text file what's going on- "Source: AKG 391B>Denecke AD-20>Sony PCM- M1Dat>CDR>EAC>SHN Mastering: SHN>WAV>ADWS>CD WAV>SHN(seekable)" I think you're splitting hairs over "mastering" versus"re-mastering" |
|
09/09/2003 | twatts |
Why are there questions if it is "fully explain[ed] in the text file what's going on-Source: AKG 391B>Denecke AD-20>Sony PCM- M1Dat>CDR>EAC>SHN. Mastering: SHN>WAV>ADWS>CD WAV>SHN(seekable)" Splitting hairs? No, I think the text is insufficient. If there were no problems, ie. "a full explantion", there would be no discussion. DAT>CDR is not clear. Which is why I asked the question above. Thanks for the answer Diana, you were the only one to help. Everybody else is just yelling and fighting - very un-Dead-like... or perhaps not... As I said earlier today on another GD comments section, I'm sorry I got involved in this discussion. It seems that all GD discussion end in battle... Its a shame... Terry |
|
09/09/2003 | mcole | Hey twatts: Looks like you were the one instigating mayhem. Have you even listened to this file set yet? What shows have you mastered and seeded? Throughout this database there are file sets with DAT>CDR in the lineage. Many times detailed information is provided regarding the equipment. When its not listed, its usually because the information is not available. Finally, just because we are arguing or debating, it shouldn't mean that we are in a "battle". We just need to keep it polite. | |
09/09/2003 | sport | Once upon a time it was very simple."ITS ONLY ROCK & ROLL! | |
09/10/2003 | twatts |
Oh boy, was I in a foul mood yesterday! Apologize all around... I was just seeking some answers, sorry I got all bent! Terry |
|
09/12/2003 | mcole | No problem. You ultimately did bring up a good point: specificity in lineage. |