FLAC Frontend. http://members.home.nl/w.speek/flac.htmcrazykid wrote: I have the hiptracker recoding and its decent, now I jsut gotta fgur out how to make it a MP3, from FLAC
easy pleasy.
HIP LIVE SERIES VOL. 2 & 3 TO BE RELEASED SHORTLY
Moderator: Moderators
-
sherpahigh
- Completist
- Posts: 1312
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 2:53 pm
easy pleasy.
-
HugeHipFan
- Advanced New Maybe
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:18 pm
Long post warning! I feel compelled to weigh in at this time. I usually don't even read this forum anymore, let alone post here. Too much bickering and pettiness, but I digress.
Yes, management promised something they couldn't deliver on, namely getting the shows online in a weeks' time. Yes, as a customer you (the generic "you") have the right to complain. However, what are you complaining about? It wasn't necessary for you to preorder the show, as it wouldn't sell out. If you can check this forum twice a day, you can check livedownloads.com once a day to see if the show is ready. I myself have checked this thread hoping to find comments about sound quality, only to find the show isn't out yet. Oh well. I'll simply check back another time. Also, there is a reason the show isn't out yet: it's not ready. I personally couldn't believe they were trying to get it out in a week. It's darn near impossible. If anyone with the band/crew was to have a hand in it, how could they while they're still on tour? It's not like they had a week off to book a studio and do some mixing.
Let me elaborate, as the following is not something a layperson would know. As anyone with a background in live audio production (as opposed to soundboard work only) can attest to, what you hear over the P.A. system is NOT necessarily what comes through the soundboard to the recording device(s), and almost never sounds the same. Even if you had a recording straight from the main outs, identical to the P.A. feed, it would not sound the same to your ears when you listened to the show again at home. The sound engineer (ie. sound man) is mixing the show "for the room", so it sounds good in that particular venue. It is not being mixed "for later listening", through the sound board. This is why sound men don't wear headphones much during a show; they need to hear the room sound, and make adjustments based on what they are hearing. This is also why many (if not most) tapers prefer audience tapes, and why they spend so much money on microphones and equipment. The audience recording captures "what you hear" at the time, coming through the P.A. If mixed well, through a good sound system, it can be the best form of recording. We all know how good the current shows are sounding, and this is evident even when listening to lesser quality recordings (such as minidisc + $50 mics, or video camera audio). When recording a show for possible release, even without fancy mobile recording studios, every input or "track" will be recorded separately - ie. Gord's vocals are recorded to one separate track, Bobby's guitar to another, etc. They are then mixed together in a studio environment at a later date. To properly mix and master a 105-120 minute show takes time, especially if the band wants to have a hand in the process, and/or approve the final product.
"Also, sound quality is pretty easy to fix. Hell, even I can fix the sound quality of a poorly mixed soundboard bootleg." This is a great line, because it shows the subjectivity of individuals. One man's garbage is another man's treasure, after all; hence the popularity of garage sales, and now ebay. What I mean is that what sounds good on your Walkman (or Ipod, I know we're in the 21st century now) will not sound good on $5000 speakers, through $10,000 preamps. Professionals mix and master to very high standards, which you and I cannot achieve on our home computers. Yes, we can do well. If fixing sound quality means removing pops and clicks, or tweaking the bass "boomy-ness" of a recording, sure we can. However, one cannot improve the mix. If the vocals are too low, they will always be too low. If a girl is screaming into your microphone, you cannot adjust the vocal frequencies downward without losing the vocals from the stage as well. If Paul's guitar is too low and Bobby's is too high, that's the way it is. While you or I may be able to "fix the sound quality", I don't know if I'd want to pay for it! People are complaining about wait times, I shudder to think about their complaints about my "sound fixing" abilities!
Another interesting point to ponder: I asked the Hip's sound engineer about the July 1st "Livedownloads" release, specifically about the mixing, as I was less than satisfied with the results. I was happy to have the product, don't get me wrong, but I had some questions I wanted to ask. I spoke to him in mid-October before a show, and as I recall the Livedownload was released on or around October 8th, more than THREE MONTHS after the show took place. Not one week people, but three months. (Also noteworthy is Live Between Us, which was recorded November 23, 1996, and released in July 1997.) Back to the point in question: I asked him about the mixing of the July 1st show, and he said it was done "on the fly" in the truck (live location-recording truck), by people who weren't experts in all things Hip. Meaning, they couldn't predict in advance what would be happening, the way experienced concert-goers (such as yourselves) can. This information jived with what I was hearing on the recording, which is the mix gets more "dialed in" after the first few songs. I was also told the band would have liked more time to tweak (or perhaps re-mix) the recording, but management wanted to get it out to the public a.s.a.p., so that was that. Fans got the recording faster, but not necessarily the best possible final product. I for one can wait more than a few weeks if it means a better result. To summarize: three months after the July 1st show, we got a less than perfect product. What can we possibly expect after only a few weeks? I hope the band was waiting until the tour was finished, and will now put the appropriate personnel in charge of mixing and releasing the shows. I hope. I'll still buy whatever they release, as will most people here. However, the better the product, the better off we all are.
See y'all in Hamilton!
Yes, management promised something they couldn't deliver on, namely getting the shows online in a weeks' time. Yes, as a customer you (the generic "you") have the right to complain. However, what are you complaining about? It wasn't necessary for you to preorder the show, as it wouldn't sell out. If you can check this forum twice a day, you can check livedownloads.com once a day to see if the show is ready. I myself have checked this thread hoping to find comments about sound quality, only to find the show isn't out yet. Oh well. I'll simply check back another time. Also, there is a reason the show isn't out yet: it's not ready. I personally couldn't believe they were trying to get it out in a week. It's darn near impossible. If anyone with the band/crew was to have a hand in it, how could they while they're still on tour? It's not like they had a week off to book a studio and do some mixing.
Let me elaborate, as the following is not something a layperson would know. As anyone with a background in live audio production (as opposed to soundboard work only) can attest to, what you hear over the P.A. system is NOT necessarily what comes through the soundboard to the recording device(s), and almost never sounds the same. Even if you had a recording straight from the main outs, identical to the P.A. feed, it would not sound the same to your ears when you listened to the show again at home. The sound engineer (ie. sound man) is mixing the show "for the room", so it sounds good in that particular venue. It is not being mixed "for later listening", through the sound board. This is why sound men don't wear headphones much during a show; they need to hear the room sound, and make adjustments based on what they are hearing. This is also why many (if not most) tapers prefer audience tapes, and why they spend so much money on microphones and equipment. The audience recording captures "what you hear" at the time, coming through the P.A. If mixed well, through a good sound system, it can be the best form of recording. We all know how good the current shows are sounding, and this is evident even when listening to lesser quality recordings (such as minidisc + $50 mics, or video camera audio). When recording a show for possible release, even without fancy mobile recording studios, every input or "track" will be recorded separately - ie. Gord's vocals are recorded to one separate track, Bobby's guitar to another, etc. They are then mixed together in a studio environment at a later date. To properly mix and master a 105-120 minute show takes time, especially if the band wants to have a hand in the process, and/or approve the final product.
"Also, sound quality is pretty easy to fix. Hell, even I can fix the sound quality of a poorly mixed soundboard bootleg." This is a great line, because it shows the subjectivity of individuals. One man's garbage is another man's treasure, after all; hence the popularity of garage sales, and now ebay. What I mean is that what sounds good on your Walkman (or Ipod, I know we're in the 21st century now) will not sound good on $5000 speakers, through $10,000 preamps. Professionals mix and master to very high standards, which you and I cannot achieve on our home computers. Yes, we can do well. If fixing sound quality means removing pops and clicks, or tweaking the bass "boomy-ness" of a recording, sure we can. However, one cannot improve the mix. If the vocals are too low, they will always be too low. If a girl is screaming into your microphone, you cannot adjust the vocal frequencies downward without losing the vocals from the stage as well. If Paul's guitar is too low and Bobby's is too high, that's the way it is. While you or I may be able to "fix the sound quality", I don't know if I'd want to pay for it! People are complaining about wait times, I shudder to think about their complaints about my "sound fixing" abilities!
Another interesting point to ponder: I asked the Hip's sound engineer about the July 1st "Livedownloads" release, specifically about the mixing, as I was less than satisfied with the results. I was happy to have the product, don't get me wrong, but I had some questions I wanted to ask. I spoke to him in mid-October before a show, and as I recall the Livedownload was released on or around October 8th, more than THREE MONTHS after the show took place. Not one week people, but three months. (Also noteworthy is Live Between Us, which was recorded November 23, 1996, and released in July 1997.) Back to the point in question: I asked him about the mixing of the July 1st show, and he said it was done "on the fly" in the truck (live location-recording truck), by people who weren't experts in all things Hip. Meaning, they couldn't predict in advance what would be happening, the way experienced concert-goers (such as yourselves) can. This information jived with what I was hearing on the recording, which is the mix gets more "dialed in" after the first few songs. I was also told the band would have liked more time to tweak (or perhaps re-mix) the recording, but management wanted to get it out to the public a.s.a.p., so that was that. Fans got the recording faster, but not necessarily the best possible final product. I for one can wait more than a few weeks if it means a better result. To summarize: three months after the July 1st show, we got a less than perfect product. What can we possibly expect after only a few weeks? I hope the band was waiting until the tour was finished, and will now put the appropriate personnel in charge of mixing and releasing the shows. I hope. I'll still buy whatever they release, as will most people here. However, the better the product, the better off we all are.
See y'all in Hamilton!
-
jgardz
- Sherpa
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:47 am
here's my short response to a very long (though interesting) post.... for those of you who might not be aware, livedownloads.com is also the home of Metallica's recent world tour. They released 96 shows I believe (through livemetallica.com, which is run by livedownloads.com). Each of these shows was released within 3 or 4 days of the show, often only 2 days afterwards, and the sound is very good. Each show sounds just like it did at the venue for the most part, (at least the shows I was at anyways). This isn't meant to disprove what was said in the last post, it is just meant to further the conversation. I hope that the reason for the delay in releasing the shows is that they do want to make sure the sound is decent, but I don't think that this should take very long. I do understand that they just finished the tour, so maybe they haven't had time to put their stamp of approval on them quite yet, but I doubt that the hip will spend much time "polishing" up the shows, as in interviews around the release of live between us, the band stated their desire for the album to be a warts and all show, as approved to a slick production. I'm also aware that the hip ARE NOT Metallica, and might not have the same level of resources on hand, so I don't mean to compare the 2. I'm just stating some facts as food for thought, and I'm still holding out hopes for a quick release...
-
briansmccabe
- Experienced Groupie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:35 pm
In my opinion, releasing a download of a concert with superb audio qualities is very possible in one week.
Now obviously, "superb" is an incredibly subjective term, so allow me to qualify it. This business about how "what sounds good on iPods / walkmans etc will sound bad on $5,000 speakers" simply doesn't wash. It's no doubt 100% true, but it's entirely irrelevant. Certainly TTH's management knows better than to consider it neccesary to cater to that level of expectation; their core demographic doesn't own $5,000 speakers, so what's the difference?
If we look to Phish as an example of how this sort of thing can be done, we'll see how they made all of their post-hiatus shows available for download within 48 hours of the show's conclusion. They achieved this without forsaking audio quality. Again, these files Phish provided wouldn't neccesarily sound perfect on an ultra-high-end system (read: "$5,000 speakers") but Phish definitely knows their core fanbase doesn't have the cash for that kind of equipment, let alone a bottle of shampoo (but that's another topic altogether).
The difference here is that Phish released their shows "warts and all" meaning they committed up front to release ALL of them, whether the performance was any good or not. With that being the case, there wasn't endless scrutiny on the band's part and the stuff could get posted quickly. As I see it, The Hip's big blunder here is plastering the venue(s) with signs informing concert goers that the show was being recorded and would be available in a week. If they had used the Phish approach of simply doing this with all shows, then there would be no particular significance in the London and Ottawa shows being recorded. Instead, these posters essentially issued a quasi-promise to fans that they could not possibly guarantee. Like someone else already said, what if the equipment was up and down all night? what if Gord's voice was completely shot half-way through the show? If a killer show is what the band is looking to release, they can feel free to pre-select dates, venues, etc - but for God's sake, why tell the fans IT WILL BE AVAILABLE with no question?
That said, I for one don't really care that they are not out yet. I am very much looking forward to them and will buy them both as soon as they are released, and I'll be a tad bummed if they don't get released, but lets put this in perspective. It's a concert recording. In the big picture, it really doesn't matter and nothing is gained from getting angry over it. I DO think that if the band's management put posters up at a venue saying it WOULD be released, and then they don't do it, they'll wind up looking really stupid. But lesson learned, I guess.
Now obviously, "superb" is an incredibly subjective term, so allow me to qualify it. This business about how "what sounds good on iPods / walkmans etc will sound bad on $5,000 speakers" simply doesn't wash. It's no doubt 100% true, but it's entirely irrelevant. Certainly TTH's management knows better than to consider it neccesary to cater to that level of expectation; their core demographic doesn't own $5,000 speakers, so what's the difference?
If we look to Phish as an example of how this sort of thing can be done, we'll see how they made all of their post-hiatus shows available for download within 48 hours of the show's conclusion. They achieved this without forsaking audio quality. Again, these files Phish provided wouldn't neccesarily sound perfect on an ultra-high-end system (read: "$5,000 speakers") but Phish definitely knows their core fanbase doesn't have the cash for that kind of equipment, let alone a bottle of shampoo (but that's another topic altogether).
The difference here is that Phish released their shows "warts and all" meaning they committed up front to release ALL of them, whether the performance was any good or not. With that being the case, there wasn't endless scrutiny on the band's part and the stuff could get posted quickly. As I see it, The Hip's big blunder here is plastering the venue(s) with signs informing concert goers that the show was being recorded and would be available in a week. If they had used the Phish approach of simply doing this with all shows, then there would be no particular significance in the London and Ottawa shows being recorded. Instead, these posters essentially issued a quasi-promise to fans that they could not possibly guarantee. Like someone else already said, what if the equipment was up and down all night? what if Gord's voice was completely shot half-way through the show? If a killer show is what the band is looking to release, they can feel free to pre-select dates, venues, etc - but for God's sake, why tell the fans IT WILL BE AVAILABLE with no question?
That said, I for one don't really care that they are not out yet. I am very much looking forward to them and will buy them both as soon as they are released, and I'll be a tad bummed if they don't get released, but lets put this in perspective. It's a concert recording. In the big picture, it really doesn't matter and nothing is gained from getting angry over it. I DO think that if the band's management put posters up at a venue saying it WOULD be released, and then they don't do it, they'll wind up looking really stupid. But lesson learned, I guess.
-
cferneyh
- Lighthouse Keeper
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 3:22 pm
I think jgardz made that point with his comment: I'm also aware that the hip ARE NOT Metallica, and might not have the same level of resources on hand, so I don't mean to compare the 2.mark wrote:but metallica would have a hell of a lot more money and man power to put behind their project then the hip would
HugeHipFan - thanks for your interesting post. Interesting to hear the point of view of an audiophile. I think my counter-point would be that anyone who downloads a live show from the 'net from a service like Livedownloads and expects it to sound like a studio recording is pretty naive, no? Furthermore, the vast majority of us don't have $5000 speakers, nor $10,000 preamps. Personally, I thought the sound of the July 1st show was fantastic, and I imagine 95% of people who downloaded it would agree with me. Anyway, I'm not trying to discount your opinion - I just think you need to be aware of the point of view of us non-audiophiles. Sooner is better, especially if slowing the process down by three months means it is going to sound better to only a small minority of those purchasing the show.
-
Moosehead
- Experienced Groupie
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:13 pm
I figure that the quality of these shows "should" be somewhat better than the average recording from a microphone in the crowd (although as noted above, these can be quite good) but maybe a little rougher than Live Between Us (owing to the shorter turnaround time.)cferneyh wrote:. I think my counter-point would be that anyone who downloads a live show from the 'net from a service like Livedownloads and expects it to sound like a studio recording is pretty naive, no?
That said, it's hard to tell the difference between some of the better bootlegs and LBU. That's probably because my speakers are only worth $3500 though (j/k)
-
jgardz
- Sherpa
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:47 am
Thought this might be of interest, PM'd to me today from the guy who started this thread....
Ya - I hear ya.
Some unexpected technical hassles, which we're working through..
Can't thank you enough for your patience.
Should know the status in a couple days.
thanks.
ddd444
Ya - I hear ya.
Some unexpected technical hassles, which we're working through..
Can't thank you enough for your patience.
Should know the status in a couple days.
thanks.
ddd444
-
crazykid
- Advanced Groupie
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:50 pm
HugeHipFan,
I know exactly what your talking about, the reason I said sound board experiance is the fact I didnt wanna post a long thread like you did, I thank you for informing everyone of the work that goes into live sound production. you are absoultly correct, what the audience hears isnt always great sound of the board. I have recorded a few live shows beofre on real time cd recorders, the sound was less the apealing by going off the main outs.
Now im sure the sound men/ladies would be alot better at it then I was, im just a guy who has had the opprotunity to start off doing small gigs, and have even done a few larger venues, but by no means a pro.
Im waiting patintly for my recording, just get a little frustrated, its like waiting for anything your excited about... you want it ASAP. I think its a the best souviner from any show... you can relive that show anytime. And I will wait 6 months if I have too... it will only make me appreciate the hard work that went into that show by the people involved.
Lets just keep our fingers crossed that this show did make it on tape in good shape... and will be released soon... so we can all post how amaing it is to "re-live" the show, time and time again.
I know exactly what your talking about, the reason I said sound board experiance is the fact I didnt wanna post a long thread like you did, I thank you for informing everyone of the work that goes into live sound production. you are absoultly correct, what the audience hears isnt always great sound of the board. I have recorded a few live shows beofre on real time cd recorders, the sound was less the apealing by going off the main outs.
Now im sure the sound men/ladies would be alot better at it then I was, im just a guy who has had the opprotunity to start off doing small gigs, and have even done a few larger venues, but by no means a pro.
Im waiting patintly for my recording, just get a little frustrated, its like waiting for anything your excited about... you want it ASAP. I think its a the best souviner from any show... you can relive that show anytime. And I will wait 6 months if I have too... it will only make me appreciate the hard work that went into that show by the people involved.
Lets just keep our fingers crossed that this show did make it on tape in good shape... and will be released soon... so we can all post how amaing it is to "re-live" the show, time and time again.
-
jgardz
- Sherpa
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:47 am
Crazykid, you took my exact feelings and put them into words....it is the best souvenir you could ask for, and that's why I'm so pumped to get it... I am optimistic about it, because if the quality was such that it couldn't be fixed, I feel that we'd likely know about it by now....I just hope I'm right.
-
HugeHipFan
- Advanced New Maybe
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:18 pm
Firstly, thanks to all of you for an intelligent and interesting discussion. It's nice to see the potential of the internet realized, in a manner similar to the old Henhouse. Speaking of which, my fellow old-school Henhouser Mr. McCabe has chimed in. Good to hear from you.
If the Hip were using a service such as Disclive, which recorded the Pixies tour, the turnaround might be faster. I'm not sure what/who Metallica is using, but you can bet it's a professional company that is used to the process. When the Pixies tour first started, Disclive was under-equipped, and suffered from logistical problems. However, they were experienced in recording/mastering live audio. I would point out that the July 1st Hip show was recorded/mixed on location specifically for release, and it still took three months. I'm not sure that a separate company recorded the London and Ottawa shows on-site. I guess my point is that the Hip might not have employed the company/personnel necessary to ensure a fast turnaround time. Cost may have been a factor, I can't say.
In regards to Mr. McCabe's comments, I'd like to point out that I'm not a true audiophile. Perhaps an audiophile in training, who doesn't (yet) have $10,000 speakers. Absolutely, "releasing a download of a concert with superb audio qualities is very possible in one week". I just don't think the Hip employed the resources necessary to accomplish this. In regards to "superb" audio, I don't think it's "entirely irrelevant". Perhaps not as relevant as I made it out to be, but it's still important. If you are the band, you want the product you release to be of a certain quality. You may strike a balance between speed and quality, as I believe they did with the July 1st show. None of us would say "sure, release the rough mix of IBE, don't bother taking the time to fix, rerecord, and master it the way you want." A band puts out an album when they are satisfied with it, not when the fans want it. I believe a similar approach can and should be taken with a live recording. Even though their demographic might not have expensive equipment, the band shouldn't lower their standards. Remember, it's about their legacy now. They aren't necessarily trying to attract new fans, but if fans of live music are looking for a fix, they could do much worse than the Hip. If you are a livedownloads customer and decide to "try" a Hip show, you should discover a product worth owning, which may entice you to buy more, or attend a show, or buy an official album release.
Phish is an interesting example, because they have the largest taping community, with the highest-end equipment. The plebs might not wash, but the tapers bring the gear and the $$ in full force. Phish simply decided to cash in on the scene, and release soundboard shows of their own. Who can blame them? Why not try to generate extra income, especially since they sell very few albums, and rely on touring revenues to survive. Sound like a band we know? Apart from sales and radio (publishing) fees in Canada, this is the Hip. Hardcore fans, willing to travel, willing to support their band in perpetuity. Phish knew that to compete with the professional results of the tapers, they had to "bring their "A" game" to the releases. They had to offer an exceptional product, with fancy artwork and packaging, to provide value for the purchaser. To offer the shows as quickly as they did, a team of professionals was employed. The Hip are doing this on the cheap, and the consequence is that we have to wait. I agree that the Hip made a mistake with the venue signs indicating release dates. "Warts and all" is what the Hip are about (especially Gord D.), and is why I for one keep coming back for more. The shows should be taken for what they are, a moment in time; it can be relived but not repeated.
"Anyone who downloads a live show from the 'net from a service like Livedownloads and expects it to sound like a studio recording is pretty naive, no?" I don't think so. While it can't and shouldn't sound like a studio recording, since it isn't, there should be a certain level of quality. Just because something is sold on the internet doesn't mean we should lower our expectations. In this "quick-fix, instant oatmeal society" of ours, we have to learn to be patient. I too was pleased with the sound of the July show, don't get me wrong. I simply had some concerns, which would have been negated if the mixer was experienced in mixing the Hip. In the end, if the band is happy with it, then I'll be happy with it, warts and all. If a show is released prematurely simply to make money (due to management pressure), then I won't be happy. Although, I would get to hear Hiccups>Daredevil sooner.
Matt
If the Hip were using a service such as Disclive, which recorded the Pixies tour, the turnaround might be faster. I'm not sure what/who Metallica is using, but you can bet it's a professional company that is used to the process. When the Pixies tour first started, Disclive was under-equipped, and suffered from logistical problems. However, they were experienced in recording/mastering live audio. I would point out that the July 1st Hip show was recorded/mixed on location specifically for release, and it still took three months. I'm not sure that a separate company recorded the London and Ottawa shows on-site. I guess my point is that the Hip might not have employed the company/personnel necessary to ensure a fast turnaround time. Cost may have been a factor, I can't say.
In regards to Mr. McCabe's comments, I'd like to point out that I'm not a true audiophile. Perhaps an audiophile in training, who doesn't (yet) have $10,000 speakers. Absolutely, "releasing a download of a concert with superb audio qualities is very possible in one week". I just don't think the Hip employed the resources necessary to accomplish this. In regards to "superb" audio, I don't think it's "entirely irrelevant". Perhaps not as relevant as I made it out to be, but it's still important. If you are the band, you want the product you release to be of a certain quality. You may strike a balance between speed and quality, as I believe they did with the July 1st show. None of us would say "sure, release the rough mix of IBE, don't bother taking the time to fix, rerecord, and master it the way you want." A band puts out an album when they are satisfied with it, not when the fans want it. I believe a similar approach can and should be taken with a live recording. Even though their demographic might not have expensive equipment, the band shouldn't lower their standards. Remember, it's about their legacy now. They aren't necessarily trying to attract new fans, but if fans of live music are looking for a fix, they could do much worse than the Hip. If you are a livedownloads customer and decide to "try" a Hip show, you should discover a product worth owning, which may entice you to buy more, or attend a show, or buy an official album release.
Phish is an interesting example, because they have the largest taping community, with the highest-end equipment. The plebs might not wash, but the tapers bring the gear and the $$ in full force. Phish simply decided to cash in on the scene, and release soundboard shows of their own. Who can blame them? Why not try to generate extra income, especially since they sell very few albums, and rely on touring revenues to survive. Sound like a band we know? Apart from sales and radio (publishing) fees in Canada, this is the Hip. Hardcore fans, willing to travel, willing to support their band in perpetuity. Phish knew that to compete with the professional results of the tapers, they had to "bring their "A" game" to the releases. They had to offer an exceptional product, with fancy artwork and packaging, to provide value for the purchaser. To offer the shows as quickly as they did, a team of professionals was employed. The Hip are doing this on the cheap, and the consequence is that we have to wait. I agree that the Hip made a mistake with the venue signs indicating release dates. "Warts and all" is what the Hip are about (especially Gord D.), and is why I for one keep coming back for more. The shows should be taken for what they are, a moment in time; it can be relived but not repeated.
"Anyone who downloads a live show from the 'net from a service like Livedownloads and expects it to sound like a studio recording is pretty naive, no?" I don't think so. While it can't and shouldn't sound like a studio recording, since it isn't, there should be a certain level of quality. Just because something is sold on the internet doesn't mean we should lower our expectations. In this "quick-fix, instant oatmeal society" of ours, we have to learn to be patient. I too was pleased with the sound of the July show, don't get me wrong. I simply had some concerns, which would have been negated if the mixer was experienced in mixing the Hip. In the end, if the band is happy with it, then I'll be happy with it, warts and all. If a show is released prematurely simply to make money (due to management pressure), then I won't be happy. Although, I would get to hear Hiccups>Daredevil sooner.
Matt
-
cferneyh
- Lighthouse Keeper
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 3:22 pm
Some great points HugeHipFan.
I can't tell you how much I loathe Disclive. They royally screwed me with their Lowest of the Low show. The download didn't work.....they charged me for a CD, which I never got.....and eventually they just emailed me the MP3s (despite charging me for the CD which I never received). And even though I'm not an audiophile (or one in training), I can tell you that the sound on some of those files was brutal. In short, unless the Hip or Wilco decide to use Disclive, they'll never see my money again.
I think I need to convince my wife that we need $5000 speakers. Maybe then I'll have a more discerning ear.
I can't tell you how much I loathe Disclive. They royally screwed me with their Lowest of the Low show. The download didn't work.....they charged me for a CD, which I never got.....and eventually they just emailed me the MP3s (despite charging me for the CD which I never received). And even though I'm not an audiophile (or one in training), I can tell you that the sound on some of those files was brutal. In short, unless the Hip or Wilco decide to use Disclive, they'll never see my money again.
I think I need to convince my wife that we need $5000 speakers. Maybe then I'll have a more discerning ear.
-
jgardz
- Sherpa
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:47 am
Hugehipfan, you make some very good points. All I would add is one response about something you said...when you mentioned Metallica, you said you weren't sure who they used...Well, their shows were all produced using ProTools by one guy, who then added the show to livemetallica.com (run by livedownloads.com). As I mentioned, great quality sound from these shows, and 3 days from show to release...I don't know if that adds anything to the conversation, it's just meant to provide some more info on what "could/should" have happened. While Metallica obviously have more resources, etc, I doubt greatly that the hip couldn't afford to employ one sound guy who can run ProTools....again, this is just meant to offer an example of the way things CAN be done when the right approach is used....