ANNOUNCE - Osaka 3-29-76 (afternoon show) LP, FLAC

Thank you very much Sir GH for this great jewel.
I've had it in mp3, but hear it in all full glory,this is bliss.Thanks man.
Just some suggestions for future uploads, if you'll had time and if other queenzoners would want some of this:

-Cologne 1974 (one of the earliest complete show)
-Tokyo 14 4 1979 (excellent sound,don't think it's been shared here at all)
-Paris 28 2 1979
-Buenos Aires 28 2 1981 (excellent sound)

WOW thank you Sir Bob, I was waiting for someone to seed this one from another post for a few weeks now! Cant wait to finish D/L.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]

Lineage: AUD > ? > LP > Cassette (1) > WAV > CDR (2) > WAV > FLAC frontend level 8

This is one of those essential 70s recording every Queen fan must have. It's first generation from the rare Zoom LP, so it's probably the best quality we'll hear this show in, unless one day there is a miraculous discovery of the audience tape used for the LP.[/QUOTE]

If this is indeed a "1st gen" from the LP, then the lineage should be like this: AUD>?>LP>Cassette(0)>CDR....

"Cassette(1)" indicates that the recording was copied to analog tape twice, from the LP to a cassette "master" or zero gen and then to another cassette which was then digitized. "Cassette(0)" means that there was one tape in the lineage.

[/QUOTE]
Info such as this should be posted by the mediators as a sticky. I just learned something new.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If this is indeed a "1st gen" from the LP, then the lineage should be like this: AUD>?>LP>Cassette(0)>CDR....

"Cassette(1)" indicates that the recording was copied to analog tape twice, from the LP to a cassette "master" or zero gen and then to another cassette which was then digitized. "Cassette(0)" means that there was one tape in the lineage.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info. It makes sense, but I still think it would be much easier if the number simply indicated the generation. Does the same apply with the CDR generation? I wrote a 2, because mine is the second CDR generation. It was LP to cassette to CDR to my CDR. Thus "2" makes most sense to me.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If this is indeed a "1st gen" from the LP, then the lineage should be like this: AUD>?>LP>Cassette(0)>CDR....

"Cassette(1)" indicates that the recording was copied to analog tape twice, from the LP to a cassette "master" or zero gen and then to another cassette which was then digitized. "Cassette(0)" means that there was one tape in the lineage.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info. It makes sense, but I still think it would be much easier if the number simply indicated the generation. Does the same apply with the CDR generation? I wrote a 2, because mine is the second CDR generation. It was LP to cassette to CDR to my CDR. Thus "2" makes most sense to me.[/QUOTE]

Well, it does indicate the generation. The term "generation" is only used if a recording gets copied to the same format that the original recording was, i.e. master cassette>1st gen cassette etc.

Whenever a recording is transfered from one format to another, (for example: cassette>DAT, LP>cassette, LP>CDR) the resulting recording is called a zero gen. Some people also call that recording a master (for example: cassette>DAT master, cassette>CDR master), but I try to avoid the term "master" here, because IMO only the tape the show was originally recorded to should be called a master.

Therefore the correct lineage (IMO!) for the Osaka show should be like this: AUD>?>LP>C(0)>CDR(1)>FLAC

As I said above the first cdr in the lineage, that your copy was made from, is CDR(0) and your CDR is a first gen CDR so to speak.

Another example: When I digitized the alternate master of 09-07-84, I transfered the cassette to DAT and then transfered the same DAT to the computer. Therefore, the lineage is Analog Master>DAT(0)>WAV. It would be incorrect to label that DAT a "1st gen" or DAT(1), because the recording was transfered to another format.

But don't you lose quality when you transfer it to another format? That's why I qualify it as a generation.

In most of the cases, yes. But don't mess with the convention, Bob! ;-)

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But don't you lose quality when you transfer it to another format? That's why I qualify it as a generation.
[/QUOTE]

That depends on what you are transferring. Any analog tranfers are "lossy" so to speak. DAT>CDR is, when done properly (i.e. with a digital connection), completely lossless. DAT>DAT is also completely lossless and that is why DAT copies are sometimes refered to as "clones" and not generations.

However this has nothing to do really with what we were talking about. As I said, you are only referring to the term "generation" if a recording is distributed in one and the same format. If it gets transfered to another format the resulting copy is called zero gen of the new format (despite the quality loss in the transfer!)

Another example: Reel Master>VHS(0)>DAT(0)>CDR(1)

This is the lineage of the Long Beach'72 show that I sent you. The Reel master was first copied to a hifi-vhs, then this vhs was transfered a DAT. Later the same DAT was transfered to CDR. The CDR resulting from the DAT>CDR transfer is called CDR(0). This cdr was copied one more time and here we have a 1st gen cdr.

So you indicate "O" when it's a transfer that doesn't have quality loss. That makes sense to me, because you don't lose quality in certain transfers, as they are clones. But... transferring from an LP to a cassette is quality loss, is it not? Cassettes always lose quality, right?

The number in brackets just indicates the number of generations.

A generation number is defined for EACH media format used, by the act of copying the original in that format to a blank media IN THE SAME FORMAT.

A zero indicates that the original in that media format (and not a copy) was used for the transfer, and that is why the (0) is sometimes omitted.

Exact bit-to-bit audio clones are omitted too: a DAT to DAT transfer is often just stated DAT, but IMHO is better to use DAT(0)->DAT(0') and then specify method of cloning (for example: fiber optic between player X and recorder Y set at the same sampling rate).

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So you indicate "O" when it's a transfer that doesn't have quality loss. That makes sense to me, because you don't lose quality in certain transfers, as they are clones. But... transferring from an LP to a cassette is quality loss, is it not? Cassettes always lose quality, right?
[/QUOTE]

No. Whether or not there is a loss of quality in the transfer has nothing to do with how the resulting copy is called. To quote my own post:

"You are only referring to the term "generation" if a recording is distributed in one and the same format.If it gets transfered to another format the resulting copy is called zero gen of the new format (despite the quality loss in the transfer!)"

Thanks for this great show.

Okay... so, for example, let's use the second generation Vienna 78. Are these three lineages equivalent?:

AUD > Master > Cassette > Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)

AUD > Master > 2nd Gen Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)

AUD > Master > Cassette (1) > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)

If that's the case, then the first two are much easier to understand, I think. People will think "1" means first generation.

If I don't have it right this time, then I give up! :P

Could somebody put this on BitTorrent please?

Thanks
Dave

Just did... good download and enjoy! Thanks again to Sir Bob for sharing this :-D