Appreciate the effort but digital recordings have terrible audio in my opinion. Compare this to a early 90's show and see how much better it is. It's not just because the band was better, this is a really good performance.
@dubified89 Hmm...even in the '90s "real tapers" recorded to DAT at 48,000. Whether or not the audio recording is good or bad here is subjective but I don't think it's related to digital/analog.... It beats the audio from the camera....
Thanks for your work on this. Would be great to have links to individual songs/times in the description. That way we can skip to certain songs easily.
@malder83 I would but I still don't think youtube allows for timestamps over 1hr for some reason. So I'd only be able to stamp out the first half. For example 58:45 will take you to 58min 45seconds, but 1:58:45 won't link....don't know if there's a workaround for that.....
Appreciate the effort but digital recordings have terrible audio in my opinion. Compare this to a early 90's show and see how much better it is. It's not just because the band was better, this is a really good performance.
dubified89 3 weeks ago
@dubified89 Hmm...even in the '90s "real tapers" recorded to DAT at 48,000. Whether or not the audio recording is good or bad here is subjective but I don't think it's related to digital/analog.... It beats the audio from the camera....
ChesterCopperPot5 3 weeks ago
Thanks for your work on this. Would be great to have links to individual songs/times in the description. That way we can skip to certain songs easily.
malder83 1 month ago
@malder83 I would but I still don't think youtube allows for timestamps over 1hr for some reason. So I'd only be able to stamp out the first half. For example 58:45 will take you to 58min 45seconds, but 1:58:45 won't link....don't know if there's a workaround for that.....
DrCopperpot 1 month ago