Hi all, dont mean to start another thread, just wanted to shed a little light. Before you post comments/continue the thread, please read the bw tax...
PJP Said: > I didn't really mean to start such a long thread. The point of my > original comment was to suggest that the dankseeds group, which goes to > such painstaking lengths to make sure that all of the objective aspects > of a seed are top flight should also have some discussion of the actual > listenability of the show. When we started dankseeds, a lot of discussion went into setting the criteria, and the criteria were established as: Show is tracked well Show plays at least as seamlessly as the source DAT Show has no undocumented dae gens Show has lineage provided Show has not been unneccesarily resampled Show has no diginoise or dropouts any of these can be overruled if by vote, it is agreed, for example: to archive shows that are only available as master cass>audio cd>eac>shn (lotsa older gd like this) to archive shows where diginoise is known to be on the master (certain phish sbds are like this) Focus is on listenability, but overall sound plays into that in non-quantifiable ways. since source comparison is so subjective for newer shows, it was not put into the criteria. However, a lot of pre-screening goes into the source selection of newer shows. Candidates must first be known to be compliant (full lineage from a good rig, no cuts/drops/flips,transferred on a bit-accurate setup with no poor resampling, and known to sound pretty good. Then, samples are put up to compare, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dankseeds/polls a lot more goes on behind that. I generally patch out of 2 or 3 rigs, then usually only submit the best sounding imho before it even gets considered by others as Brothercrow said: > simply that at a show that has 20-50 tapers, out of those 20-50 tapers > only half (or less) of those recordings will get widely traded. > more often than not, it is out of that half of the recordings that the > dankest copy(s) will be certified. some time after that a new > (rare) source > may surface which is better (altho i doubt there will ever be one that is > VASTLY better) than the copy that was "danked". generally, we are happy with 2 or 3 good sources. some trey shows from this summer we had 5 very good versions to compare. (which was too many, I think!) While you can never be sure you have _the best_ source, you can approach it through reasonable comparison of known good sources. so say for example, you have a larger show with a decent tapers section, like a phish show. Say there were 4 schoeps rigs,a few neumanns, and a few b&k's. of these rigs, most are in the section, but there are 3 good rigs up front. Say the best tape that comes out that night is a schoeps TS = 100% on some hypotheytical scale. Well, that taper didnt have a lot of people patched out of him, and that show didnt get out in time for dankseeds comparison, which compared 3 other HQ sources and another version is danked. Does that make the first version not dank because its not the ultimate? no While you usually cant be sure you have the 100% best tape, by comparing several hq sources for any given night, you should be in the 95% range 9 out of 10 times, which is pretty good. FOB's are a different story, they are so remarkably different from TS tapes in so many ways, that FOB's are considered/danked independently from TS tapes. Where dankseeds shines is the seeding of older phish, pulling together the best from several large collections, the objective criteria such as completeness and cleanness become more dominant. Weve kinda moved away from the danking of newer shows for awhile until most known versions surface. Occasionaly people bag on DS because a dank show doesnt sound perfect. But geez, when you are talking a 1980 GD cassette master straight off a dragon, you have to accept it for what it is. if you got a better one, bring it on! PJP said: > Finally, anyone who takes this as a slam on the dankseeds group, or as > me mocking them, is simply wrong. These folks spend a lot of time to > try to get the best seed out there and we all owe them some thanks for > doing so. I just think that there should be some other criteria noted > in the .dnk file, or whatever it is called. no offense taken, etree rules, dankseeds rules, though what each does is different together lots of people get lots of hq music really really fast. in so many ways it is a subset of etree, as dankseeds is just quantifying the things a seed should be as defined in the etree seeding faq... Anyway, sorry if I wasted any bandwidth, I didnt read any of this tread, as I had been browsing headers, and 'etree terminology' didnt spark my fancy. I saw pjp's wrap-up comments, and wanted to make sure people knew what was actually up with the source comparison. Anybody who is really into promoting good sources, feel free to join DS, we can always use more active people. Thus bw tax is offered as follows: 1. please dont reply to list. If you have questions/comments, please email me directly 2. I will take some logins on my serever for siteops who can host the dank. We have over 100 shows done now, and need to focus more on hooking up to the etree servers to get it out there. funk on, jamie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.314 / Virus Database: 175 - Release Date: 1/11/2002 _______________________________________________ etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree
