Golden Salmon
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
tassilo
Thank you.
TheAdmiester
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
Self Made Man was edit by someone in here, can't remember who, there are not two versions, just one.[/QUOTE]
Can you please provide your source? I mean, the differences are there. The genuine audience recording (2001) does not match the rougher, hiss-ridden version (2005), but it does match the complete, very clear sound, high quality version. There are details you can't just fake, such as the different volume levels on top of at least one extra detail you can hear in the intro (a sort of guitar twang in the 2005 version not present in the others). If someone really did engineer the audio in the high quality version, they do deserve some special recognition and I'm ready to eat crow in that case.[/QUOTE]
I don't have a source on it being fan made, but the rough quality one is definitely just an edit of the higher quality one. Compare the first "loop" of the intro of the rough quality version, then listen from 4:14 on your file of the higher quality one. Exact same percussion, keyboards, guitar twang, etc.
It seems to me that the rough version is just an edit created using by compressing the audio a bit and cutting some bits of the outro to create a new intro.
EDIT: Managed to miss the entire second page, whoops...
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
Self Made Man was edit by someone in here, can't remember who, there are not two versions, just one.[/QUOTE]
Can you please provide your source? I mean, the differences are there. The genuine audience recording (2001) does not match the rougher, hiss-ridden version (2005), but it does match the complete, very clear sound, high quality version. There are details you can't just fake, such as the different volume levels on top of at least one extra detail you can hear in the intro (a sort of guitar twang in the 2005 version not present in the others). If someone really did engineer the audio in the high quality version, they do deserve some special recognition and I'm ready to eat crow in that case.[/QUOTE]
I don't have a source on it being fan made, but the rough quality one is definitely just an edit of the higher quality one. Compare the first "loop" of the intro of the rough quality version, then listen from 4:14 on your file of the higher quality one. Exact same percussion, keyboards, guitar twang, etc.
It seems to me that the rough version is just an edit created using by compressing the audio a bit and cutting some bits of the outro to create a new intro.
EDIT: Managed to miss the entire second page, whoops...
Ale Solan
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.
Golden Salmon
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.[/QUOTE]
Golden Salmon
Wow, this board is so buggy. Reposting:
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.[/QUOTE]
May I ask for the reason behind the condescending tone? I'd love for this to be a healthy debate and you don't seem to actually follow what I'm posting, yet you write everything off as if I were clueless. Mind you, I'm no elite collector and never claimed to be, so I'd appreciate a more constructive approach rather than the edgy attitude. I'm doing this for fun and also to find out the truth, I don't think there's a need or point to offend anyone.
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.[/QUOTE]
May I ask for the reason behind the condescending tone? I'd love for this to be a healthy debate and you don't seem to actually follow what I'm posting, yet you write everything off as if I were clueless. Mind you, I'm no elite collector and never claimed to be, so I'd appreciate a more constructive approach rather than the edgy attitude. I'm doing this for fun and also to find out the truth, I don't think there's a need or point to offend anyone.
ataqueen
it's an idea...look and tell me
AOCQ
Great job! Thanks
Golden Salmon
[QUOTE] [b]ataqueen wrote:[/b]
it's an idea...look and tell me[/QUOTE]
Haha, thank you! If you really want to create any artwork for this we can come up with better text, or you can simply omit it and just include the tracklists.
I know it is very lame, but again, I did this for fun. Here you have the "artwork" I did for track icons and PDF document, with a golden salmon instead of the original banana.
ataqueen
grazie
ataqueen
thank you
ataqueen
another idea.....
ataqueen
Give me ideas! bye
Chopin1995
Thanks for the share!
Ale Solan
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
Wow, this board is so buggy. Reposting:
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.[/QUOTE]
May I ask for the reason behind the condescending tone? I'd love for this to be a healthy debate and you don't seem to actually follow what I'm posting, yet you write everything off as if I were clueless. Mind you, I'm no elite collector and never claimed to be, so I'd appreciate a more constructive approach rather than the edgy attitude. I'm doing this for fun and also to find out the truth, I don't think there's a need or point to offend anyone.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I wasn't being harsh at you, just wanted to make a funny comment but it came out the wrong way. My apologies.
Wow, this board is so buggy. Reposting:
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
^It's been a while since I'm not talking about versions, but sources. And we can't document a source we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're new at this... you don't document a source of a demo but a version.[/QUOTE]
May I ask for the reason behind the condescending tone? I'd love for this to be a healthy debate and you don't seem to actually follow what I'm posting, yet you write everything off as if I were clueless. Mind you, I'm no elite collector and never claimed to be, so I'd appreciate a more constructive approach rather than the edgy attitude. I'm doing this for fun and also to find out the truth, I don't think there's a need or point to offend anyone.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I wasn't being harsh at you, just wanted to make a funny comment but it came out the wrong way. My apologies.