musicdav24

Next Archive - Any Rumors?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Tim1218 said:

Currently listening to The Roxy at work right now...It does sound excellent.  Not sure a remix is necessary for this show.

Yep. It was baffling last year when people criticised the audio, and it's still baffling today. 

As far as the other two '78 shows go, I'm fine with the Houston soundboard given it wasn't an official First Friday release. The Agora, however, is the show that people should've been lambasting instead of the Nassau NYE one. I'm still not sure if the copy I've got is actually the Archive release given how poor it sounds. I'm half sure I've somehow got the bootleg because surely the 2014 release sounds much better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one who criticized the Roxy audio on this and other boards however it was not mix related in my case.  I personally didn't have any issues with the mix, the issue was the mastering and that it was compressed at such a high level, that it causes ear fatigue and actual discomfort in the ears when listening to the audio at a similar level as other shows that haven't been compressed as much.  

If you are listening to mp3 versions or with lower quality equipment AND/OR you are not sensitive to compression than the issue might seem baffling. But it is there, it is quantifiable by the Dynamic Range Numbers for the show showing a high level of compression.  I think the mix of the official release is better than the bootleg but due to the compression and the discomfort caused by listening to it, the bootleg is a much nicer listening experience despite the inferior mix at least for me.  I can't speak for anyone else.

Agora is the same basic source as the boots just  lower generation so the mix is identical from what I can tell.  It was only a 2 track stereo tape that has been premixed on the fly for the broadcast. That is why it doesn't sound any different mix wise. Again the issue with this release is also compression.  This results in the sound having no dynamics which makes it sound narrower and not as full as the boots despite the same basic mix and the boots being from a higher gen from the source.  I wish they would get the multi-tracks from the estate of that guy in Cleveland and let Bob C take a crack at them.

Tower 75 is another that is a compressed mess. The mix is good but not perfect but the compression is so bad it muddies the sound and makes it unlistenable to some.  I don't find it as bad as some do and unlike Roxy I can actually listen to this show without too much discomfort although I can't listen to it all in one sitting before ear fatigue sets in so I only listen to this on shuffle with other archive shows to mix it up and give my ears a break.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 10:00 PM, Paolo's Circus Story said:

The familiarity I have with it - truth be told - and how I feel a release of it would imply "laziness"/"incompetence".

 There's a bunch of excellent shows from the Reunion Tour - fair enough not every one was recorded - so I've felt that if they were to release this show, which was used heavily(?) for Live in New York City, it would be a case of "we're doing this because it's easy for us with it being on LINYC" and a case of "we didn't record that many shows when we really should have". In the last few months though I've thought about it, and as long as there'd be more from the tour in the future, I wouldn't mind this one at all. 

*Some might think, "but, Paolo, what about July 1st, 2000? You love that one!", which is valid. I reckon when comparing setlists, though, July 1st is so much stronger than June 29th and much more worthy of release, regardless of LINYC

There's the best ever version of Racing in the Street, so June 26 2000 could be a great share

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 11:21 PM, unclejosh said:

I was one who criticized the Roxy audio on this and other boards however it was not mix related in my case.  I personally didn't have any issues with the mix, the issue was the mastering and that it was compressed at such a high level, that it causes ear fatigue and actual discomfort in the ears when listening to the audio at a similar level as other shows that haven't been compressed as much.  

If you are listening to mp3 versions or with lower quality equipment AND/OR you are not sensitive to compression than the issue might seem baffling. But it is there, it is quantifiable by the Dynamic Range Numbers for the show showing a high level of compression.  I think the mix of the official release is better than the bootleg but due to the compression and the discomfort caused by listening to it, the bootleg is a much nicer listening experience despite the inferior mix at least for me.  I can't speak for anyone else.

Agora is the same basic source as the boots just  lower generation so the mix is identical from what I can tell.  It was only a 2 track stereo tape that has been premixed on the fly for the broadcast. That is why it doesn't sound any different mix wise. Again the issue with this release is also compression.  This results in the sound having no dynamics which makes it sound narrower and not as full as the boots despite the same basic mix and the boots being from a higher gen from the source.  I wish they would get the multi-tracks from the estate of that guy in Cleveland and let Bob C take a crack at them.

Tower 75 is another that is a compressed mess. The mix is good but not perfect but the compression is so bad it muddies the sound and makes it unlistenable to some.  I don't find it as bad as some do and unlike Roxy I can actually listen to this show without too much discomfort although I can't listen to it all in one sitting before ear fatigue sets in so I only listen to this on shuffle with other archive shows to mix it up and give my ears a break.

 

 

 

There's a lot of posts like this at the Hoffman site. I find them interesting but the terminology defeats me. I mean, what is 'compression' what are DR numbers and what relevance do they have to sound quality? How can something be mastered too loudly. I'm a bit of a Luddite and I tend to think something sounds good, or it doesn't. I agree a lot of the Archives don't, or at least not the level you might have expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bobfan1976 said:

There's a lot of posts like this at the Hoffman site. I find them interesting but the terminology defeats me. I mean, what is 'compression' what are DR numbers and what relevance do they have to sound quality? How can something be mastered too loudly. I'm a bit of a Luddite and I tend to think something sounds good, or it doesn't. I agree a lot of the Archives don't, or at least not the level you might have expected.

This will help. The BOB production of Magic was heavily compressed and DR was affected.

https://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/future-musics-guide-to-mastering-understanding-dynamic-range-and-compression-574533

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article pretty much explains it. Basically dynamic range is the audible range from the loudest part of a recording to the quietest.  What modern mastering has become in a lot of cases is use compression to lower the dynamic range so the difference between the loudest part and softest part are not so great.  This makes it sound better on lower quality equipment such as boomboxes, car stereos, and in formats such as mp3.  It also can add a layer of "mushiness" or like a wall of sound with no air or breath (but not in a good way like Phil Specter which is a mixing choice not a mastering choice) which some people who are sensitive to it can perceive and can cause your ears to literally have fatigue and become uncomfortable when listening.  It can feel like an assault on the ears.  For me, depending on the recording (and I do not have audiophile equipment BTW) when I play a song loud in my car/ or through my LG DAC with headphones with a recording with a bad DR number, my ears almost feel the sound waves hitting it and it can cause discomfort and then pain if i keep listening for a period of time. The problem with the bad DR number is that to avoid that feeling I have to turn it down so much that it is basically not worth listening to.

One easy way to notice it even if you aren't sensitive (and many if not most people are not) is take a rocking (BTR will work) song that is on both Live 75-85 and the newest 12/31 show or Tower or Roxy from the archives.  Crank up the version from 75-85 to a comfortable but loud level.  Listen for a bit.  Now without touching your volume level, immediately play the other version.  It should sound much louder and most likely you will need to turn it down to be at the same comfortable level.  This tells you that the other version has been more highly compressed.  You can do it in reverse as well.  Play a song from the archive show at a nice loud level, then play the 75-85 one.  You will likely notice is sounds much quieter and you will need to turn up your volume to be at the same loudness level.

 For reference Live 75-85 has a DR number of 13/14 and Tower is 8.  The new NYE release is a 7.  The original mix was an 11.  12/29 is a 9.  Passaic is a 10 and Tempe is an 11.  The higher the number the less compression is used.  This site lists all the releases.  http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Bruce Springsteen.  I will also say that that number is not the be all end all, it is merely an indicator that the compression was applied and it may cause an issue for those sensitive to such auditory sounds.  In my case the new version of NYE doesn't bother me even with the bad number although i know it does others.  Yet Roxy which has the same number does.

Sorry for the "novel" of a response!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unclejosh said:

The article pretty much explains it. Basically dynamic range is the audible range from the loudest part of a recording to the quietest.  What modern mastering has become in a lot of cases is use compression to lower the dynamic range so the difference between the loudest part and softest part are not so great.  This makes it sound better on lower quality equipment such as boomboxes, car stereos, and in formats such as mp3.  It also can add a layer of "mushiness" or like a wall of sound with no air or breath (but not in a good way like Phil Specter which is a mixing choice not a mastering choice) which some people who are sensitive to it can perceive and can cause your ears to literally have fatigue and become uncomfortable when listening.  It can feel like an assault on the ears.  For me, depending on the recording (and I do not have audiophile equipment BTW) when I play a song loud in my car/ or through my LG DAC with headphones with a recording with a bad DR number, my ears almost feel the sound waves hitting it and it can cause discomfort and then pain if i keep listening for a period of time. The problem with the bad DR number is that to avoid that feeling I have to turn it down so much that it is basically not worth listening to.

One easy way to notice it even if you aren't sensitive (and many if not most people are not) is take a rocking (BTR will work) song that is on both Live 75-85 and the newest 12/31 show or Tower or Roxy from the archives.  Crank up the version from 75-85 to a comfortable but loud level.  Listen for a bit.  Now without touching your volume level, immediately play the other version.  It should sound much louder and most likely you will need to turn it down to be at the same comfortable level.  This tells you that the other version has been more highly compressed.  You can do it in reverse as well.  Play a song from the archive show at a nice loud level, then play the 75-85 one.  You will likely notice is sounds much quieter and you will need to turn up your volume to be at the same loudness level.

 For reference Live 75-85 has a DR number of 13/14 and Tower is 8.  The new NYE release is a 7.  The original mix was an 11.  12/29 is a 9.  Passaic is a 10 and Tempe is an 11.  The higher the number the less compression is used.  This site lists all the releases.  http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Bruce Springsteen.  I will also say that that number is not the be all end all, it is merely an indicator that the compression was applied and it may cause an issue for those sensitive to such auditory sounds.  In my case the new version of NYE doesn't bother me even with the bad number although i know it does others.  Yet Roxy which has the same number does.

Sorry for the "novel" of a response!

 

 

 

 

No, thanks. I sort of get it, sort of! I have noticed that Live '75 is much lower in volume, but 'better' sound quality, but then I also attributed that to the much discussed 'studio trickery'.  I don't know about fatigue with the Archives because I find the shows are so long I can't get through them in one go anyway. I do find that I turn them down in volume though. How do people figure out what number a release is at? How do they measure it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, unclejosh said:

The article pretty much explains it. Basically dynamic range is the audible range from the loudest part of a recording to the quietest.  What modern mastering has become in a lot of cases is use compression to lower the dynamic range so the difference between the loudest part and softest part are not so great.  This makes it sound better on lower quality equipment such as boomboxes, car stereos, and in formats such as mp3.  It also can add a layer of "mushiness" or like a wall of sound with no air or breath (but not in a good way like Phil Specter which is a mixing choice not a mastering choice) which some people who are sensitive to it can perceive and can cause your ears to literally have fatigue and become uncomfortable when listening.  It can feel like an assault on the ears.  For me, depending on the recording (and I do not have audiophile equipment BTW) when I play a song loud in my car/ or through my LG DAC with headphones with a recording with a bad DR number, my ears almost feel the sound waves hitting it and it can cause discomfort and then pain if i keep listening for a period of time. The problem with the bad DR number is that to avoid that feeling I have to turn it down so much that it is basically not worth listening to.

One easy way to notice it even if you aren't sensitive (and many if not most people are not) is take a rocking (BTR will work) song that is on both Live 75-85 and the newest 12/31 show or Tower or Roxy from the archives.  Crank up the version from 75-85 to a comfortable but loud level.  Listen for a bit.  Now without touching your volume level, immediately play the other version.  It should sound much louder and most likely you will need to turn it down to be at the same comfortable level.  This tells you that the other version has been more highly compressed.  You can do it in reverse as well.  Play a song from the archive show at a nice loud level, then play the 75-85 one.  You will likely notice is sounds much quieter and you will need to turn up your volume to be at the same loudness level.

 For reference Live 75-85 has a DR number of 13/14 and Tower is 8.  The new NYE release is a 7.  The original mix was an 11.  12/29 is a 9.  Passaic is a 10 and Tempe is an 11.  The higher the number the less compression is used.  This site lists all the releases.  http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Bruce Springsteen.  I will also say that that number is not the be all end all, it is merely an indicator that the compression was applied and it may cause an issue for those sensitive to such auditory sounds.  In my case the new version of NYE doesn't bother me even with the bad number although i know it does others.  Yet Roxy which has the same number does.

Sorry for the "novel" of a response!

 

 

 

 

Thank you, that was really interesting. I'm no audiophile, but I do sort of hear what you mean. A while ago, I played some tracks from Stockholm and then played some tracks from Passaic. Even I noticed a difference, the Stockholm show sounded sharper (as in say, edgier or perhaps more shrill) than the Passaic songs, which just sounded more...well, pleasant and fuller. I've also noticed the same on NYE 75 vs Hammersmith. It doesn't bother me too much, but once you've noticed it, you can't unnotice (is that even a word?) it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Youën said:

March 3, 1974,Washington D.C. at Georgetown University.

 

Anything from 74... would love the Houston show! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna go with an epic...not sure which.

Based on the precedent of last Summer with Roxy '78 and Wembley '81.

Maybe Winterland or something of equal value. (Although in truth nothing will beat it until a Summer '81 show with Racing is released.)

If I am wrong, will go with Joad or another Magic show. Neither would be bad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want much....

a box set of Bottom Line 1975 performances....both Winterland shows (mixed by Clearmountain)....a couple Meadowlands '81 shows after those...and the Bruce Springsteen Band show that I read once that's on master reels according to Brucebase...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soulcrusader78 said:

I don't want much....

a box set of Bottom Line 1975 performances....both Winterland shows....a few Meadowlands '81 shows after those...and the Bruce Springsteen Band show that I read once that's on master reels according to Brucebase...

According to Bruce Bottom Line was not recorded. So the box is not likely. Not sure about the Bruce Springsteen Band show  had never heard about that before. The rest likely coming in time. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 11:21 PM, unclejosh said:

I was one who criticized the Roxy audio on this and other boards however it was not mix related in my case.  I personally didn't have any issues with the mix, the issue was the mastering and that it was compressed at such a high level, that it causes ear fatigue and actual discomfort in the ears when listening to the audio at a similar level as other shows that haven't been compressed as much.  

If you are listening to mp3 versions or with lower quality equipment AND/OR you are not sensitive to compression than the issue might seem baffling. But it is there, it is quantifiable by the Dynamic Range Numbers for the show showing a high level of compression.  I think the mix of the official release is better than the bootleg but due to the compression and the discomfort caused by listening to it, the bootleg is a much nicer listening experience despite the inferior mix at least for me.  I can't speak for anyone else.

Agora is the same basic source as the boots just  lower generation so the mix is identical from what I can tell.  It was only a 2 track stereo tape that has been premixed on the fly for the broadcast. That is why it doesn't sound any different mix wise. Again the issue with this release is also compression.  This results in the sound having no dynamics which makes it sound narrower and not as full as the boots despite the same basic mix and the boots being from a higher gen from the source.  I wish they would get the multi-tracks from the estate of that guy in Cleveland and let Bob C take a crack at them.

Tower 75 is another that is a compressed mess. The mix is good but not perfect but the compression is so bad it muddies the sound and makes it unlistenable to some.  I don't find it as bad as some do and unlike Roxy I can actually listen to this show without too much discomfort although I can't listen to it all in one sitting before ear fatigue sets in so I only listen to this on shuffle with other archive shows to mix it up and give my ears a break.

 

 

 

Very interesting points re the compression and ear fatigue. I find Upper Darby Tower 75 horrendous for this. After a few songs I have a headache. And yet I can listen to the Roxy 78 archive without any problems and I love its sound. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soulcrusader78 said:

...and the Bruce Springsteen Band show that I read once that's on master reels according to Brucebase...

Brucebase mentions a high-quality soundboard recording of a band rehearsal (not a show) on 14 March 1972, including 'fascinating beween-song banter'. No mention of a recorded show [on another day] as far as I could see, but I did only look very quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, doesthisbusstop said:

Very interesting points re the compression and ear fatigue. I find Upper Darby Tower 75 horrendous for this. After a few songs I have a headache. And yet I can listen to the Roxy 78 archive without any problems and I love its sound. 

Yeah compression affects everyone differently and even though 2 shows may have the same Dynamic Range value which would indicate a similar overall amount of compression was applied, it isn't uniform and not everyone will hear it the same exact way.  Just one of the many quirks of audio waves and how our ears receive them and our brain interprets them.

  • Love Love Love! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lampi said:

Brucebase mentions a high-quality soundboard recording of a band rehearsal (not a show) on 14 March 1972, including 'fascinating beween-song banter'. No mention of a recorded show [on another day] as far as I could see, but I did only look very quick.

I found it once, about this full show recorded, but when I tried to look again today I couldn't find anything. Again though, I looked pretty quick myself.

But the new way it's set up makes it harder sometimes to find things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, unclejosh said:

Yeah compression affects everyone differently and even though 2 shows may have the same Dynamic Range value which would indicate a similar overall amount of compression was applied, it isn't uniform and not everyone will hear it the same exact way.  Just one of the many quirks of audio waves and how our ears receive them and our brain interprets them.

I find Buffallo 2009 hard to listen to for this reason. One of my favourite shows, but affected so much by the compression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2019 at 2:45 PM, Lampi said:

Brucebase mentions a high-quality soundboard recording of a band rehearsal (not a show) on 14 March 1972, including 'fascinating beween-song banter'. No mention of a recorded show [on another day] as far as I could see, but I did only look very quick.

Session circulates among collectors FYI 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From these  vintige shows should be exsist in  Multi-tracks or in soundboard in archive from Springsteen and maybe we can some of these shows expect in Archive series

 

1978-06-16         Memorial Hall, Kansas City -SBD bootleg

1978-06-24         Paramount Theater, Portland - SBD bootleg

1978-06-25         Paramount Northwest Theatre, Seattle - SBD bootleg

1978-07-01         Community Auditorium, Berkeley - SBD bootleg

1978-08-05         Louisville Gardens, Louisville -  SBD bootleg

1978-08-15         Capitol Centre, Cargo - SBD bootleg

1978-08-19         The Spectrum, Philadelphia - SBD bootleg

1978-09-17         The Palladium, New York - SBD bootleg

1978-09-19         Capitol Theater, Passiac - radio broadcast

1978-09-21         Capitol Theater, Passiac - SBD bootleg

1978-09-30         Fox Theater, Atlanta - radio broadcast

1978-11-02         Capitol Centre, Cargo - SBD bootleg

1978-12-15         Winterland, San Fransisco - radio broadcast

1978-12-16         Winterland, San Francisco  - used for Live 1975-85

1980-12-28          Nassau Colliseum, Uniondale - used for Live 195-85

1981 -08-20        Sports Arena, Los Angeles  - SBD Bootleg

1981 -08-24        Sports Arena, Los Angeles  - SBD Bootleg

1984-08-06          Meadowlands Arena, NJ - used for Live 1975-85

1984-08-19          Meadowlands Arena, NJ - used for Live 1975-85

1985-08-19           Giants Stadium, East Rutherford - used for Live 1975-85

1985-08-21           Giants Stadium, East Rutherford - used for Live 1975-85

1985-09-30           L.A. Colliseum, Los Angeles - used for 1975-85

 

        

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe time for another Rising show?

A show that starts with 'W' and ends with 'embley 2002' or another 2002 show with a Rising-heavy setlist.

A 2003 show with rarities and 'special guests' not needed now.

  • Love Love Love! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lampi said:

A show that starts with 'W' and ends with 'embley 2002' 

I'd be OK with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats so special about Wembley 2002 ? I got the CC bootleg but nothing  to me really sounds better on it than on any other 2002 bootlegs I have, with the excpetion of 'Incident' maybe. The official Barcelona DVD is great too although the mix is shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Youën said:

Whats so special about Wembley 2002 ? 

Are you new on Greasy Lake?

(In no way meant to be offensive)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.