ANNOUNCE: Roger Taylor - The Waterfront, Norwich, England 3.29.1999 FLAC

[QUOTE]

[b]Khizzy wrote: [/b] I was there!!!!!!!!!!! After deciding to go there on the day of the gig (4 hour train journey from Birmingham), I was right in front of Rog. Great gig! I've been waiting too long to hear this. Tiny venue, must have been around 400/450 people there, packed in.

And I saw the guy taping the vid, he was behind me from what I remember.[/QUOTE]

thanks for sharing your experience with us Khizzy!

shouldn't take long to see the vid being shared over here... 

;D

[QUOTE] [b]bokkepoot wrote:[/b]
Thanks you for sharing this concert !
Soon I bring also some new Roger solo shows to Queenzone ![/QUOTE]

That'd be great.
We need to get organised with the solo stuff as it's been sadly neglected.

[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
thanks for sharing your experience with us Khizzy!shouldn't take long to see the vid being shared over here... ;D[/QUOTE]


Are you in contact with the taper / someone who has the video?

[QUOTE]

[b]people on streets wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
thanks for sharing your experience with us Khizzy!shouldn't take long to see the vid being shared over here... ;D[/QUOTE]

Are you in contact with the taper / someone who has the video?[/QUOTE]

Not actually, but I can give it a go!

For everybody who prefers torrents:

Thank you.

You lot make me laugh about your lossless formats. Funny how FLAC was only released in 2001. People ask for concert recordings done in 1973 and recorded on cassette players under someones arm and posted on youtube, then ask, to sound superior, I think, 'Have you got it in FLAC'. Musicall snobs, the lot of you.

Thanks Alex for this share I'm really looking forward to listen to it.

And... thanks horse f... for your unrefined comment. Do not download what you don't like or don't understand. If your QVC homestereo doesn't point out the difference between flac and mp3 then it's up to you to buy some better audio equipment.

Don't patronise me fallenqueen. I am a sound engineer and musician, producer and mixer. Here's a simple question for you, do you actually know the difference between the digital domain and the anologue domain? We'll start with a simple one first, shall we?

[QUOTE] [b]horse feathers wrote:[/b]
You lot make me laugh about your lossless formats. Funny how FLAC was only released in 2001. People ask for concert recordings done in 1973 and recorded on cassette players under someones arm and posted on youtube, then ask, to sound superior, I think, 'Have you got it in FLAC'. Musicall snobs, the lot of you.[/QUOTE]

Should we all be asking for a copy on cassette then?
All any of us want is the best quality copy feasible at the moment and that is generally considered to be either wav or FLAC.

If you're happy with shitty mp3, then go look elsewhere and don't come complaining when crowd clapping noises between songs sounds squelchy (because it does depending on the bitrate - I've got a few mp3 concerts at 128kb/s from the late 1990s and they sound awful.)

Snoberry? No. Just standards.

Brians Wig. The bottom line is, they are all crap recordings. I went to Elland Road in 82, I was about 10 yards from the front of the stage. No sound from either the CD or DVD of that concert replicates the sound I heard from my position on the night. I have tried to replicate it myself, by using Waves Mercury bundle, so I can hear the sound as I did on the night. I can't do it. Freddies voice, cut right through you, The kick drum made you bounce, and the noise was absolutely deafening. My ears were still ringing the next day, honestly. I went to 4 nights of the works tour, indoor sound, sounded fantastic, Rogers snare, well it didn't sound like that while you were there. And I went to Manchester in 86, they were crap that night, I was too far away and couldn't hear.
The point I am making is, no format digital or anologue will capture the sound. So as a purest and someone who likes to listen to music properly, I would rather leave them alone.
I will however replicate the Elland Rd sound, 'as I heard it' and make it available. I have also cleaned up 'The Works' live stuff and I'm doing the Live Killers stuff too, so take the piss as much as you want, it's water of a ducks back to me, and 128kbs, isn't that like listening to it down a telephone line?

seems you're simply in the wrong forum. Go and take a Queen bootleg of great sound quality like No sanity clause or some of Mannheim 86. Rip it to mp3 and flac and compare with your wonder sound machines. If you point out the difference than you find exactly what this discussion is all about.

You're a a sound engineer and musician, producer and mixer - congratulations! Do some good work and remaster bootlegs for the community instead of insulting people in this forum. B.t.w thanks for clearing up that indoor sound is much better than open air recordings, didn't know that so far :-(

[QUOTE] [b]horse feathers wrote:[/b]
Brians Wig. The bottom line is, they are all crap recordings. I went to Elland Road in 82, I was about 10 yards from the front of the stage. No sound from either the CD or DVD of that concert replicates the sound I heard from my position on the night. I have tried to replicate it myself, by using Waves Mercury bundle, so I can hear the sound as I did on the night. I can't do it. Freddies voice, cut right through you, The kick drum made you bounce, and the noise was absolutely deafening. My ears were still ringing the next day, honestly. I went to 4 nights of the works tour, indoor sound, sounded fantastic, Rogers snare, well it didn't sound like that while you were there. And I went to Manchester in 86, they were crap that night, I was too far away and couldn't hear.
The point I am making is, no format digital or anologue will capture the sound. So as a purest and someone who likes to listen to music properly, I would rather leave them alone.
I will however replicate the Elland Rd sound, 'as I heard it' and make it available. I have also cleaned up 'The Works' live stuff and I'm doing the Live Killers stuff too, so take the piss as much as you want, it's water of a ducks back to me, and 128kbs, isn't that like listening to it down a telephone line?[/QUOTE]

Well. The text you've written above does not, in any way, correspond to your original post which was, no matter how you read it, having a go at us for preferring lossless files of recordings, regardless of the source, over other lossy formats.
If that wasn't your intent then you should have been clearer with your comment.

We get so many dickheads on this website that it inevitably invites other members to have a go back and that's what's happened here.

As for the quality of the recordings in the first place, the tapers did their best with the equipment they could afford at the time and all praise to them for having the balls to take the risk of getting caught just so the rest of the Queen family can listen to the performance even if they can't experience how it "felt" to actually be there.
The bass at some concerts I've been to has made my chest thump and my ears distort after only 15 minutes and I've actually had more enjoyment from listening to my "poor quality" recordings and actually being able to hear lyrics, than I did being there!
So. Each to their own.

The point is: regardless of the actual sound quality of the recording, we'd all prefer (and strive!) for a lossless recording of it, so please don't take the piss out of us for that, intentionally or otherwise.

On a final note, I think I speak for us all when I say that we look forward to hearing what you've done with The Works, Live Killers & Elland Road recordings and thank you in advance for sharing them with us :)

Dear fallenqueen, I never heard a 'recording' of the indoor shows, I was there to hear them live. I suggest you get that book, 'How to read'. You may take on board what people are actually saying then, instead of trying to pick holes, to look clever.
Brian's wig, yes good points and I apologise for coming across as being 'a bit smart'. Your points are all valid.
The point I was trying to make got lost, I will try to explain what I meant.
The best version of the nights recording is always going to be the taped audience member version. Everytime you play the tape, even if played on the origional machine that recorded it, is going to be different. Each play also degrades the tape. When it is then transferred to Flac, it becomes digital as you know. Digital is all 1's and 0's, binary, as you know again. But digital isn't pure sound, it doesn't create sound waves, there is no gradual curve, but points, like a bar chart, which doesn't give a true reflection of what has been recorded. It is too clean and creates things that aren't really there, but what it percieves to be there. This is why all the early digital transfers were garbage. For one the sound won't distort, like anologue, but clips, which means it can't quite reproduce it. The Beatles albums had sounds on them that dogs could pick up. On the CD's of these albums those sounds aren't on them. Also Simon and Garfunkels early CD's couldn't be done, because of the tape delays they was using, they were running the tape loops round chair legs and stuff in the studio, which couldn't at the time be reproduced digitally.
My point is Flac isn't lossles, it can't be. But anologue can be, even though it will produce natural and harmonic sounds, which will benifit it, in most cases. Digital is too pure and cold.
Digital is improving all the time, some great stuff out there. Take a look at Melodyne Editor, for example, with that you can pick out individual notes and change them. Like 'Don't Stop Me Now' it took me seconds to correct Freddies Bum note, you can't do that with anologue. My point is, there is no such thing as lossles. Sorry again, No hard feelings, Paul.

As a professional studio engineer myself, I have to respectfully disagree.

"Digital is too pure and cold."

^ that is an opinion, not a fact.  The analog vs digital debate will forever go on.  But that really isn't what we're talking about here.

Lossless means maintaining what was created in the original transfer to digital - regardless of its source.  FLAC is WAV, just compressed to about half the size but maintaining the quality.  Mp3 removes certain frequencies, whereas FLAC retains them all.  It's like WinZip - you can go back and forth as many times as you want.  The original WAV file will remain intact.  Even the file date and time will revert back to its original creation date after the FLAC is decoded to WAV.

It doesn't matter if it's a pristine studio recording or a live recording done in someone's pocket 40 years ago in the back row of an arena.  The point of FLAC is to preserve what is there, however much or little.

No matter the recording or source - convert the WAV to mp3 and quality is irreversibly lost.  Any bitrate below 160 kbps will even be audible to most ears.

Every online collecting community for old concert recordings uses FLAC as its primary format.  What alternative would you suggest?