Source # | 21619 |
Entered by | dr.unclear |
Checksums | orig-shn-md5 , shn-md5 , st5 |
Disc Counts | 2 / 3 |
Media Size | |
Date Circulated
Date Added |
01/05/2004 01/13/2004 |
Other Sources (comments) SBD MR> DAT> CDR> EAC> SHN;... (6) SBD Master Betty reel > PCM... (3) SBD-> two-track MR-> DAT->... (1) SBD> 16 Track Master Reels>... (16) SBD > 4-TRACK RTR @ 7.5... (14) SBD> 16 Track Master Reels>... (4) |
|||
Date | User | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|
01/13/2004 | Now I gotta know- what could possibly have been "remastered" (Besides SBEs)? Is this just a compilation with the added banter? Seriously, the 16-track MR source was as pure as they get from this era- what could have been done to "better" it? | ||
01/14/2004 | Lewis/Klitschko |
There are so many versions of this show, it's ridiculous. Don't forget Leigh Orf's version either: http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=3328 I read a monstrous debate in which it was asserted that 16 track does not necessarily mean better sounding than two track. Everybody plays with the speed, everybody "pencils out glitches," it's absolutely maddening. I stay up late talking to the walls about Betty Boards and analog pops. In any case, I'm gonna stick to the Orf until I'm told differently by another nut. The Bertha Remasters I've heard sound tinny and a bit trebly, and I don't feel they are much improved over the sources that they purport to. |
|
01/14/2004 | oren | birdsong is the test. I have compared the two track to the 16 track versions. the difference is in the way phil keith, phil and bill are heard.phil and keith are clearer on the 16 track version, so the music is richer. however, I find bill to be too loud in the mix, especially during dark star.I find it disturbing and consider it the main fault of the 16 track version. any comments on that? | |
12/18/2004 | Leigh Orf |
The huge piece of missing information regarding going from 16 track to 2 track (which is the ultimate fate of any stereo recording) is what processing was done to the individual tracks before they were mixed down, and the mixing process itself. Having 16 original tracks to play with gives you an almost infinite number of possibilities since you get to decide who goes where within the soundstage and what, if any, processing is done to the individual tracks. It is clear to my ears after listening to Birdsong from this version and comparing it to the other 16 track version is that whoever remastered this "Bertha remastered" show applied equalization, compression/limiting, and reverb to many of the 16 tracks before mixing it down. This gives the show a very studio-processed sound. In my opinion, it detracts from the 'live-show feel' as the vast majority of Dead boards (and most other bands) have a rather dry sound to them because they lack this post-processing, but this dry sound is more true, in my opinion, to the original event. Those of you who prefer audience recordings will no doubt disagree with me on this! I will say, though, whoever did this remastering job found some nice rumbly Phil subtones that I didn't know existed. What I really dislike about this remastering is the overuse of reverb on Jerry's voice and guitar. It just doesn't work in my opinion. I have the same complaints with regards to the Golden Road boxed set remastered versions of the Dead's Columbia recordings (from Anthem to American Beauty basically). The reverb especially drives me nuts. Jerry's voice is just fine the way it is, don't mess with it! In fact, I have a sneaky suspicion that the same person/persons/group of persons who did this "Bertha Remaster" had a hand in the Golden Road boxed set. They both have similar fingerprints - lots of very low rumbly bass, too much reverb, and a bit too much compression, giving it a "juicy FM" kind of sound. I can appreciate these efforts from a technical standpoint but from a musical one I will usually find myself pulling out the less processed versions of this show and other recordings if given the choice. One exception is Workingman's Dead, which, in its original form, sounds like it was recorded using a boom-box. I much prefer the Golden Road remastering of this album. Leigh Orf |
|
12/18/2004 | Lewis/Klitschko | Steppin' Out and, more recently, the GD Movie Soundtrack both have what I call a "modernized" sound to them. And, you know, it's a different listen, especially with regard to '74, which we had been led to believe sounds warmer and rounder, in the Dick's Picks 12 sense. Someone takes the "extra crispy" notion of boards to the extreme. I wouldn't want all of '74 to sound like that, but the Winterland run in that different, and obviously much worked upon, setting is a treat. | |
12/18/2004 | Lewis/Klitschko |
Oh, Leigh and Jay, I ended up going with this source, no offense: http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=16582 It has the promised beauty of a sixteen Dank without the tinniness potential of a Bertha. Of course, I haven't listened to it yet. But I'll be starting the Aug '72 run shortly, as I'm still on early '78. |
|
12/19/2004 | Leigh Orf |
Lewis/Klitschko - good choice. The unadulterated 16 track sounds completely different than this release and is my favorite version along with the Sunshine Daydream source that I did some work on (declicking mostly). The Betty Board should also be given a whirl but my ears find it to be somewhat muddy and veiled compared to the other two. What I find frustrating is the info file for this show I am typing under right now says nothing of the processing that went on. What is a Dual DAW anyway? Dual Digital Audio Worsener? (ok now I'm just being a jerk ;) People really need to state what they do when it is so dramatic. I mean, people would be howling if any Here's my take at what should have been in the info file: +6 db of gain was applied to frequencies below 120 Hz on Phil's bass A giant scoop of reverb was added to the percussion, Jerry's guitar, and Jerry's vocals. Even the dude talking about babies wandering around and introducing the band has a buttload of reverb on him. Compression was applied to just about all tracks, giving it a bigger sound (that's what compression does of course). The end result is a very polished big-sounding echoey subwoofer-rumbling... somethingorother. |
|
12/19/2004 | Seth Kaplan |
"Having 16 original tracks to play with gives you an almost infinite number of possibilities since you get to decide who goes where within the soundstage and what, if any, processing is done to the individual tracks." If the editor's source was just a CDR of the mixed down 16-track source, would they have to have access to the 16 separate original tracks in order to perform edits where let's say just Jerry's voice or guitar is effected or would the separate tracks just be there from the CDR source being run through a 16 track mixer on their workstation? |
|
12/19/2004 | Charlie Miller | This was remastered by Jay Ashley from the circulating 2 track mixdown of the 16 reel source. Although, the banter did come from the 2 track reels via Gans. So, if any effects were added by Jay, it was done after the mixdown since he doesn't have access to the 16 track reels in the vault..cm | |
12/19/2004 | Seth Kaplan | Thanks cm | |
12/19/2004 | Charlie Miller | Now if they would let me play with the 16 tracks reels..... | |
12/20/2004 | Leigh Orf | I stand corrected concerning the remastering starting with the 16 tracks. However, I stick by my comments regarding the processing. I say dowload 'em all and make up your own mind! |