atrocity wrote:
One thing that fascinates me about some audience recordings is that they
may not be all that great in a standard objective sense but what they
lack in technical quality they make up for in ambience..
Agree!
*Home:* VortexBox 4TB (2.3) LMS 7.8 Transporter, Touch, Boom,
ralphpnj wrote:
Gary I believe that you are correct and that is my understanding of the
label pre-FM in that it was a live recording made for FM broadcast but
the pre-FM version is one that is taken from the broadcast source
(either a direct soundboard feed or a tape made from the
garym wrote:
Good question. I always assumed this was from the soundboard feed
(maybe with some on the fly mixing) that was being delivered to the
radio station for broadcast on FM radio. So this would be better than a
post FM recording, which would have been broadcast and then recorded
The only bootlegs I can pretend to have any real knowlege about are U2
recordings and it can be incredible how much the location of the taper
has on the sound of the recording. I was at the show at the Forum in LA
on 5/26 and recorded it myself. I was seated in the upper bowl portion
and my
Interesting discussion. I have many non-commercially released
recordings (many from archive.org, a legal place for obtaining concert
performances). Many of these are Grateful Dead shows. I often find the
best of both worlds is a matrix recording where a Soundboard and
Audience tape are merged
arnyk wrote:
Agreed.
That can be true or not.
Underlying this is probably the idea that the ideal location for
microphones and the ideal locations for listeners are the same or at
least similar.
I did live recordings of band and choir festivals professionally for
about 12 years
ralphpnj wrote:
Perhaps the reason for this is that a microphone is like an ear but a
good recording is like an ear plus a brain that processes (mixes) the
sound coming from the ear (microphone) to create a more coherent overall
sonic picture.
I think that there is no comparison between a
Julf wrote:
One reason is that our ear-brain combination is very adaptive, and
listening in a live situation gives enough clues to allow us to
compensate for and filter out some of the conflicting sound - something
we can't do once a lot of the clues have been reduced down to one or two
ralphpnj wrote:
What I've noticed is that for the most part soundboard and FM recordings
usually sound better than even the best audience recordings (and there
are many excellent sounding audience recordings available).
Agreed.
So my question is this: when one is at a concert the
The internet has made the collecting of bootleg recordings much easier
than ever and over the years I have up many very good recordings with
many of these recordings often rivaling in sound quality officially
released live recordings. For the most part I tend to stick with what
are called
ralphpnj wrote:
So my question is this: when one is at a concert the sound is often
quite good - well balanced and crystal clear with nice high end and good
but not over powering bass, however many audience recordings, even those
made using top quality microphones and equipment located in a
A type of recording not mentioned so far is the pre-FM recording, which
to be honest I do not truly understand.
Many SBD recordings from the late 60's-early 70's that become available
these days are of poor quality due to the deterioration of the recording
tape.
I like garym tend to like matrix
dasmueller wrote:
A type of recording not mentioned so far is the pre-FM recording, which
to be honest I do not truly understand.
Good question. I always assumed this was from the soundboard feed
(maybe with some on the fly mixing) that was being delivered to the
radio station for broadcast
ralphpnj wrote:
Why is this the case and what is happening to make the sound captured by
the microphone so different from the sound captured by one's ears?
just google the real story behind the very first Live Rock Album (or
was it the first ever live Rock double Album)?
Kiss Alive and even
14 matches
Mail list logo
