PDA

View Full Version : Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?


GRC
2010-11-08, 08:20 AM
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87142

When most of are trying to share torrents which are close to the source, with the minimum of processing and interference, imposing a 'watermark' with the seeder's username audibly included in the torrent, seems ..... wrong.

Thoughts, please.

commander_hg
2010-11-08, 08:22 AM
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87142

Thoughts, please.

Demand. Your. Money. Back!

paddington
2010-11-08, 09:02 AM
lame

freezer
2010-11-08, 09:57 AM
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87142

When most of are trying to share torrents which are close to the source, with the minimum of processing and interference, imposing a 'watermark' with the seeder's username audibly included in the torrent, seems ..... wrong.

Thoughts, please.

Tooleman is being up front about it.

If you don't like what the seeder did, then don't suck it down, right, go find an 'unblemished' version and offer it up yourself, why don't ya.........


lame

Well, didn't this turn into another entitlement thread, .........


:rolleyes:

GRC
2010-11-08, 10:56 AM
Tooleman is being up front about it.

If you don't like what the seeder did, then don't suck it down, right, go find an 'unblemished' version and offer it up yourself, why don't ya.........


I asked in the thread if it WAS audible, and got no response.

It was only after I'd downloaded it that I realised that the seeder's name, audibly spoken, had been superimposed over the music.

I have no source for an unblemished version other than a search which would start with this site. I'm on a different continent from the taper, and probably the seeder, too......

GRC
2010-11-08, 01:07 PM
This goes totally against the mission statement of the site.

Strive for the highest quality, insist on lossless, tidy up SBEs, then someone goes and puts a processed voice speaking their own username over the top of it......

No, no, no......

Thulani
2010-11-08, 01:57 PM
I think they should search another hobby.

mdshrk1
2010-11-08, 05:09 PM
I just put my user name on the file tags. No muss, no fuss.

sysoverload
2010-11-08, 07:26 PM
Whatever ambient noises happened at the concert are one thing. Adding extra sounds and instruments and shit after the fact is a degradation of the show, and a reduction in quality IMO. But the way these discussions usually go is that it doesn't matter if the quality is reduced as long as the file hasn't been compressed with lossy compression. Quality is subjective anyway. Whatever the remasterer chooses to layer over the show is his prerogative, and is sacrosanct. The only limitation, I guess, would be that remasterers can't add copywritten material to a show.

Wolf
2010-11-08, 10:32 PM
I would have never imagined watermarks would make their way into audio bootlegs. Sure you see them in photography and even video bootlegs, but this is new, sad but funny at the same time

paddington
2010-11-08, 10:47 PM
Whatever ambient noises happened at the concert are one thing. Adding extra sounds and instruments and shit after the fact is a degradation of the show, and a reduction in quality IMO. But the way these discussions usually go is that it doesn't matter if the quality is reduced as long as the file hasn't been compressed with lossy compression. Quality is subjective anyway. Whatever the remasterer chooses to layer over the show is his prerogative, and is sacrosanct. The only limitation, I guess, would be that remasterers can't add copywritten material to a show.



you make a good argument for us not allowing remasters here anymore.

we've discussed it and I don't think we really want to ban them, outright...


Would anyone have a problem if we added a rule that no seeder may add audio to a recording that was not captured at the time it was recorded?

sysoverload
2010-11-08, 10:50 PM
The funniest and saddest thing is that these shows which have been marked in order to prevent bootlegging wind up being bootlegged anyway. The best way to prevent bootlegging is to share it, and share it everywhere, even in lossy formats (which some people want, but obviously aren't allowed here).

paddington
2010-11-08, 10:53 PM
The funniest and saddest thing is that these shows which have been marked in order to prevent bootlegging wind up being bootlegged anyway. The best way to prevent bootlegging is to share it, and share it everywhere, even in lossy formats (which some people want, but obviously aren't allowed here).


lossy formats are allowed almost everywhere else. The idea, at TTD, is to raise the bar. We don't always do the best job possible.

the question, here, is whether our standards are too high to allow a recording that some guy has "remastered" and recorded his own voice and name over.

I think they are.

sysoverload
2010-11-08, 11:02 PM
you make a good argument for us not allowing remasters here anymore.

we've discussed it and I don't think we really want to ban them, outright...

some remasters sound great if the person knows what they are doing and has experience.


Would anyone have a problem if we added a rule that no seeder may add audio to a recording that was not captured at the time it was recorded?

excellent :clap: :thumbsup

freezer
2010-11-08, 11:14 PM
Would anyone have a problem if we added a rule that no seeder may add audio to a recording that was not captured at the time it was recorded?

You gonna ban the Millard recordings that he personally marked, jimmy-jam?

paddington
2010-11-08, 11:52 PM
Would anyone have a problem if we added a rule that no seeder may add audio to a recording that was not captured at the time it was recorded?

You gonna ban the Millard recordings that he personally marked, jimmy-jam?


Millard didn't add sounds to his recordings... I assume you are familiar with tape marking.
This guy is speaking his name over someone else's recording. It didn't happen at the show.

Your whistle happened at the show. It was there.

Millard was the taper. I wish he didn't mark.. but that was his business. He wasn't yelling "MIKE MILLARD" into a teac as he made copies.


no one but a fucking imbecile would do some shit like that.

chinajoe
2010-11-08, 11:58 PM
I was listening to the Johnny Winter 1975-06-07 recorded by freezer, and when that whistle went off, I was so scared, I dropped my bong and burned a hole in my 30 year old sofa.


.

Yeah.

thats the best part of the story!

adding your name audibly after the fact is rather lame. most tapers do mark
shows in some manner, but most do it on the fly with announcing the date of the show, belching/sneezes, whistles, etc. thankfully i havent heard any one mark their tapes with farts.

mooncusser
2010-11-09, 02:11 AM
thankfully i havent heard any one mark their tapes with farts.
you just gave somebody an idea! :fart:

GRC
2010-11-09, 04:25 AM
Would anyone have a problem if we added a rule that no seeder may add audio to a recording that was not captured at the time it was recorded?

Sounds like a good plan to me....

co9ol
2010-11-09, 07:02 AM
sounds like a good rule to me, although it might get hard to tell in some cases if someone did a really good job at making them sound like they were in the audience at the time. It'd get hard to tell if they just yelled it then, or if it was put in later.

weedwacker
2010-11-09, 07:46 AM
Why don't do you require seeders to disclaim either as a category choice or some other form that they fucked with something they didn't tape in the first place and just let the downloaders decide if they want it or not. You can't stop people from doing this stuff but you can dictate the terms of participation for this one venue. It is easy to get these guys to disclaim it since they tend to remaster not because they are good at it but do it to stroke their own egos.

mdshrk1
2010-11-09, 07:56 AM
Is this really that big a deal? The only show I have that is "marked" was done by the taper, gave info on the gear, the date, and where the mics were set up. It is also after the show ended. And, I've d/l'd more than a few shows. :hmm:

oxymoron
2010-11-09, 09:51 AM
should not you also specify the type of wire?
or physical / mental condition of the tapers?
which PA the band have used ....
:hmm:

the music is the most important :wave:

GRC
2010-11-09, 12:12 PM
Is this really that big a deal? The only show I have that is "marked" was done by the taper, gave info on the gear, the date, and where the mics were set up. It is also after the show ended. And, I've d/l'd more than a few shows. :hmm:

At the end of the day, no, it's not a big deal. It's one torrent out of ... many.

However, some folks suggest "If you don't like it, don't download it". Well, I can't tell if I like it or not UNTIL I download it. Others say "Go find another source if you don't like what the seeder did here". Well, I don't really have anywhere to start other than here. I don't subscribe to DaD, and the only other torrent site I've used is an occasional dip in Pirate Bay. Someone who posted on the torrent thread seems to know who taped it, or who passed the tape to whom, but I'm out of the loop there.

So; not a big deal, but I'd like to know how others feel about it, since it seems to go straight against the grain of what this site claims to stand for.

Oh, and if anyone does have a clean source for the same show, please consider posting it here.

freezer
2010-11-10, 12:33 AM
Millard didn't add sounds to his recordings... I assume you are familiar with tape marking..[/QUOTE]

Very familiar with tape markings, and YOU have no idea what I did to some of those masters before I "released' them, Captain Entitlement.

So YOU need to quit pretending to be an expert on Mike Millard recordings or on and my Freezer tapes.

Why don't you just stick to talking about the recordings YOU personally made, jimmy-jam?




Your whistle happened at the show. It was there.

Prove it, jimmy.........PROVE it happed that way in every instance.

You can't and know it, Cap.n.



Millard was the taper. I wish he didn't mark.. but that was his business. He wasn't yelling "MIKE MILLARD" into a teac as he made copies.

You have no idea. Millard absolutely detested non-taping traders. You and yours would have been low man on the Millard totem-pole.

And if he had lived, YOU know he would have denounced the torrent communities and sites.

YOU know this is true. Mike Millard would have called out you and the entitlement community repeatedly.




no one but a fucking imbecile would do some shit like that.

Any future FREEZER releases from this point out will include new markings --- go ahead and ban 'em... See if I give a fuck, jimmy-jam.

No one but an imbecile would ban any future releases from my stash.

You have no idea what's in there, and as they slowly leak out, you ain't got the balls to ban my recordings.


But let's see you put your money where your mouth is, James-KY.

Ban 'em, please.

Make your promouncement that you are going to ban any future freezer recordings to surface will be banned at TTD from this point forward, OK? Starting now, Tuesday, November 9, 2010....OK?

I sent out a package last week with some unreleased and uncirculated recordings.

Go ahead and ban 'em.

.....if the person who got 'em isn't already disgusted with the raqmpant entitlement running loose, as exemplified in this thread alone.


AND I'll make a point of offeriung the YES recording from September 29, 1972, recorded in New Orleans Municipal Auditorium, from the same seats where I recorded Led Zeppelin in 1973.

It will be marked audibly, I'm working on it now.

I dare you to ban it.



OR..........You can put up your personal recordings of YES from 1972, jimmy jam. Or your YES recordings from any year....or the Alice in Chains recording you made last month, OK?


Good luck with all that, jimmy.

freezer
2010-11-10, 12:37 AM
Is this really that big a deal?

It's no big deal, unless you're under the delusion that you're entitled to have everytrhing on immediate demand.

Otherwise, a clean copy of this show will eventually appear. (Christ'A Mighty, I'd bet The TooleMan would have made the unbblemished version available himself, IF he hadn't been just ganged up on by the "Gimme-It-On-Demand" crew).

UNLESS you're disturbed by how the taper marked it himself.

Only an imbecile would publicly whine about something so petty as this.

GRC
2010-11-10, 04:24 AM
Only an imbecile would publicly whine about something so petty as this.

You're surely not suggesting that this can't be discussed in open forum because you think it's 'whining' .....?

AAR.oner
2010-11-10, 08:25 AM
leave it to bored post whores to take an honest question/concern, skip all intelligent discussion, & turn it into the same rehashed short bus battle we've seen time & again


i hear what yer sayin GRC, i find someone "marking" a recording [and especially one they didn't record & added in post] to be ridiculous and against the philosophy of this site...however, it'd be nearly impossible to police, since if we officially banned it certain folks would then purposely add em without saying so in the info, just to prove they can [cuz they're immature idjuts]

freezer
2010-11-10, 09:00 AM
You're surely not suggesting that this can't be discussed in open forum because you think it's 'whining' .....?

No, I'm mocking Captain Entitlement and his next in command, Lieutenant Strongarm.

Discuss away, but I'm still gonna add markings to my recordings, as did Mike Millard.

Let's see someone ban my recordings across the board........
I'm only sayin'.

werd.

set list thief
2010-11-10, 09:49 AM
I find calling people names is a surefire way to win an argument. Especially on the internet.

freezer
2010-11-10, 09:55 AM
I find calling people names is a surefire way to win an argument. Especially on the internet.

See. this guy knows that it's the toonzs that come first, not calling anyone an immature idjut that wins the arguement.

Surely that was the point of yer post, Mr. thief, wasn't it?

I thought your irony in yer post was well thought out, Mr. Thief. :thumbsup

weedwacker
2010-11-10, 10:16 AM
leave it to bored post whores to take an honest question/concern, skip all intelligent discussion, & turn it into the same rehashed short bus battle we've seen time & again


i hear what yer sayin GRC, i find someone "marking" a recording [and especially one they didn't record & added in post] to be ridiculous and against the philosophy of this site...however, it'd be nearly impossible to police, since if we officially banned it certain folks would then purposely add em without saying so in the info, just to prove they can [cuz they're immature idjuts]

God forbid the mods actually have to do some work to enforce their own rules. And you are right that people can and probably will defy it just to prove they can but like any social site if the mods are on the ball they know their regulars and know who will be potential troublemakers and so on and so forth and that information alone makes it that much easier to create/enforce rules. You guys claim to be the bastion of live digital music purity you should lead by example(even if it fails) instead of paying lip service to the problem.

AAR.oner
2010-11-10, 10:49 AM
God forbid the mods actually have to do some work to enforce their own rules. And you are right that people can and probably will defy it just to prove they can but like any social site if the mods are on the ball they know their regulars and know who will be potential troublemakers and so on and so forth and that information alone makes it that much easier to create/enforce rules. You guys claim to be the bastion of live digital music purity you should lead by example(even if it fails) instead of paying lip service to the problem.

if you have the time to download every torrent posted, check every millisecond of every recording for what is deemed an inferior quality, and can figure out who every troublemaker is of the 80,000 members on this board -- by all means, i vote weedwacker to be head BT mod!

truth is we do have the highest standards of any of the major live recording torrent sites [i'd say bt.etree is on par as well, but with far less diversity/number of torrents]...unfortunately, there is a degree of simple trust that must be made, especially when it comes to things like lineage which have no "litmus test" as compared to audio analysis for lossless/lossy-ness


for everyone here -- lets keep in mind these are merely concert recordings and have absolutely no effect on quality of life...the fact that some collectors and tapers take this so seriously is laughable...just enjoy the hobby & realize that this ain't all that important in the grand scheme of things ;)

dcbullet
2010-11-10, 12:06 PM
if you have the time to download every torrent posted, check every millisecond of every recording for what is deemed an inferior quality, and can figure out who every troublemaker is of the 80,000 members on this board -- by all means, i vote weedwacker to be head BT mod!

truth is we do have the highest standards of any of the major live recording torrent sites [i'd say bt.etree is on par as well, but with far less diversity/number of torrents]...unfortunately, there is a degree of simple trust that must be made, especially when it comes to things like lineage which have no "litmus test" as compared to audio analysis for lossless/lossy-ness


for everyone here -- lets keep in mind these are merely concert recordings and have absolutely no effect on quality of life...the fact that some collectors and tapers take this so seriously is laughable...just enjoy the hobby & realize that this ain't all that important in the grand scheme of things ;)

Amen to all of this. And I think weedwacker would make a great mod. I'd welcome him, especially if he's willing to download and listen to all the torrents to check for stuff like this. :)

Five
2010-11-10, 12:20 PM
I would be thrilled to have weedwacker on staff as well...

I think this incident is something that only Toole would do. That having been said, I'm all for banning this weird voiceover stuff it just seems ridiculous to have a rule in the seeding rules that's only there for Toole.

dcbullet
2010-11-10, 12:39 PM
What a tool!

Sorry. :angel:

Five
2010-11-10, 12:43 PM
:roflol:

commander_hg
2010-11-10, 12:46 PM
You old knudsons should get over it.

I mean, c'mon guys nobody is interested in any of that
shitty bands y'all are "sharing" anyway so what's the deal?

freezer
2010-11-10, 04:07 PM
I would be thrilled to have weedwacker on staff as well...

I think this incident is something that only Toole would do. That having been said, I'm all for banning this weird voiceover stuff it just seems ridiculous to have a rule in the seeding rules that's only there for Toole.

You know me well enough Jamie, and you know I'll do it also.

That is, if you can be absolutely sure I haven't already done it.



So you guys gonna ban my as yet uncirculated masters as they trickle out, just in case they're marked?

But then allow a silver boot with the same watermarks? Source ZERO, remember?.

Start with the Rod Stewart and Faces September 25, 1973 show from Baton Rouge that you got in a package some time ago.


Ban that one.....no one else besides the taper has a copy of that one except you, five.

You can put it up at DaD, and once a bootlegger puts it out, then you can put it up at TTD.

I sent it to you over a year ago == does it have any particular audio watermarks on it a few times?



Maybe James-KY can tell you with 100% certainty if it does, just like he knew for certain that my stand-alone couldn't record with microphones.........




yow.

rspencer
2010-11-10, 04:35 PM
Almost all of my shows are marked. My voice. A friend's voice.
Cuts for bathroom runs.

There's even a flush during one show. :D
Of the 200 people that got it, nobody mentioned it. :lol:

All were on the original master.
Can't say I'd want somebody else talking over my recording to get his name on it though.

Five
2010-11-10, 05:54 PM
hey freezer ...sorry about that. I just kinda snapped about a year ago. too much on my plate! I've got at least 20 seeds to post, in varying stages of completion. I'm really excited to get back to posting a whole bunch of uncirculated shit in the coming months!

dcbullet
2010-11-10, 06:01 PM
hey freezer ...sorry about that. I just kinda snapped about a year ago. too much on my plate! I've got at least 20 seeds to post, in varying stages of completion. I'm really excited to get back to posting a whole bunch of uncirculated shit in the coming months!

Please don't put a voice over of your name over the music.

Five
2010-11-10, 06:14 PM
hey now so long as its not overlapping the music

of course I wouldn't do that?

how about making a loop of crowd noise and reading the text file aloud at the end of the show. like a wwo broadcast. don't tell me you wouldn't download that and check it out :nono:

we're seeing the future starting here. it will become a requirement in the seeding rules. we can get rid of all the people who aren't tapers or at least the ones who don't have mics. its genius.

seems like an awful lot of bother, tho...

Chrisedge
2010-11-10, 06:25 PM
If I have NO interest in this recording, and I tape, and I hardly ever even download anything anymore, BUT think this is a shitty practice (putting your own name over a tape you didn't pull, but "remastered") can I still be called "Captain Entitlement"? or Greedy-Demanding-Leecher?

freezer
2010-11-10, 06:34 PM
If I have NO interest in this recording, and I tape, and I hardly ever even download anything anymore, BUT think this is a shitty practice (putting your own name over a tape you didn't pull, but "remastered") can I still be called "Captain Entitlement"? or Greedy-Demanding-Leecher?

Yes, please just look in a mirror and scream those names at yourself, if it'll make you feel better.

There are other names that come to mind, but you'll have to be creative and just think of 'em yourself while you scream in that mirror, OK?.

mudshark68
2010-11-10, 06:40 PM
I'm not a taper nor someone who does remasters. However, I probably speak for the majority of the live music collecting population when I say I download/trade music because I like the music; not because of who taped it or remastered it. There's a big difference between listening to music because I like Yes (and some anonymous internet person did a good job of cleaning it up) and downloading a recording because some anonymous internet person does a great job of cleaning up live recordings that happen to be Yes.

Bottom line; I choose to collect certain recordings because I like their music. I look for the best versions I can find. If that isn't you, it will be someone else. And my life won't change a bit. I'd prefer people keep their names off of recordings they had no hand in making.

Five
2010-11-10, 06:40 PM
am I in the bizarro universe or something?

freezer are you backing toole?

is anybody else backing toole? freezer counts for 10 votes imo but the rest of the world says this practice is ridiculous. even the only guy who ever crashed the den says so :disbelief

GRC
2010-11-10, 06:42 PM
I think this incident is something that only Toole would do. That having been said, I'm all for banning this weird voiceover stuff it just seems ridiculous to have a rule in the seeding rules that's only there for Toole.

You know me well enough Jamie, and you know I'll do it also.

Why?

freezer
2010-11-10, 06:47 PM
am I in the bizarro universe or something?

freezer are you backing toole?

is anybody else backing toole? freezer counts for 10 votes imo but the rest of the world says this practice is ridiculous. even the only guy who ever crashed the den says so :disbelief

Not really, this is nothing but a tempest in a teacup, it's fucking ridicilous that the person who started this thread won't wait a few minutes until someone could have given him the unblemished copy of the show he wants....er, is now demanding immediately.

You don't like TooleMan's work, don't download it.


He stated his case in the description.

TooleMan was upfront about it.

IF he had just threw it out there with no warning that would be different, now wouldn't it, Five?

Five
2010-11-10, 06:48 PM
because there's only one person on earth who would do this!

by your logic we might as well add a rule that you are not allowed to include any exe file inside your torrents as it makes us suspicious of viruses.


this is not like dime where the conversation is very short. ttd is also a message board where we bash it out and relate with one another.

we have to get toole in here everybody can let him know how they feel about this. maybe he can explain it all to us and at the end we'll all have a group hug and say "freezer was right, he knew all along and we were so blind". you never know until you try.

freezer
2010-11-10, 06:50 PM
....... I'd prefer people keep their names off of recordings they had no hand in making.

Then the Mike Millard "masters" (which ain't really masters) wouldn't circulate...


OR there'd be 200,000 less versions of 'em circulating. :lol4:

Five
2010-11-10, 06:51 PM
okay I'm guerilla and you're jesse

we're trying to get toole in here to help us straighten this out.

what a mess you've made! help!

freezer
2010-11-10, 06:53 PM
okay I'm guerilla and you're jesse

we're trying to get toole in here to help us straighten this out.

what a mess you've made! help!

Heenan here.
















because there's only one person on earth who would do this!

..........

Not any more, Jamie.

Every uncirculating master of mine will now come with freshly added watermarks, OK?

Suck 'em down or don't and see if I care.

GRC
2010-11-10, 06:55 PM
I'm not 'demanding' anything.

I asked - if anyone had a clean copy, could they upload it here. Do you read that as a 'demand'?

Why is it 'effing ridiculous' that I started this thread to discuss it before waiting to see if anyone had a clean copy? How long should I have waited? Days? Weeks? Months?

Catch 22. I couldn't decide whether or not I liked or disliked his work, his watermark, until I'd downloaded it and listened to it.

I couldn't tell what it sounded like from his description in the text file.

Five
2010-11-10, 06:56 PM
Not any more, Jamie.

Every uncirculating master of mine will now come with freshly added watermarks, OK?

Suck 'em down or don't and see if I care.
well okay but also can you add a bonus track at the end telling your memories of the show? like a dvd bonus feature, yeah, I can live with this. :cool:

anybody else like this idea?

freezer
2010-11-10, 06:57 PM
I'm not 'demanding' anything.

I asked - if anyone had a clean copy, could they upload it here. Do you read that as a 'demand'?

Why is it 'effing ridiculous' that I started this thread to discuss it before waiting to see if anyone had a clean copy? How long should I have waited? Days? Weeks? Months?

Catch 22. I couldn't decide whether or not I liked or disliked his work, his watermark, until I'd downloaded it and listened to it.

I couldn't tell what it sounded like from his description in the text file.

Then delete it AFTER you listened to it and wait til you get what you want.






And be sure to get all your money back from TooleMan, OK?

mudshark68
2010-11-10, 07:00 PM
because there's only one person on earth who would do this!

..........

Not any more, Jamie.

Every uncirculating master of mine will now come with freshly added watermarks, OK?

Suck 'em down or don't and see if I care.

And that's kinda my point too...post 'em or don't. I really don't care. If I d/l a recording that has annoying things added to it, I'll delete it and I'll eventually stop d/l'ing your posts anyway. Its really no biggie. But to intentionally add your name over music is a bit ridiculous, imo. Someone remasters a show and gets mad because someone takes it and makes more changes. Ever think maybe the artists are annoyed people want to take credit for their work?

Kinda hypocritical isn't it? Someone takes someone else's work, tinkers with it, and gets mad because someone else takes their work and tinkers some more?

Whatever.

freezer
2010-11-10, 07:00 PM
well okay but also can you add a bonus track at the end telling your memories of the show? like a dvd bonus feature, yeah, I can live with this. :cool:

anybody else like this idea?


I promise you the entitlement crew ain't gonna like my watermarks.

I have some choice words about the greedmongers to add.

dcbullet
2010-11-10, 07:01 PM
I asked - if anyone had a clean copy, could they upload it here. Do you read that as a 'demand'?

Yes, he does.

Five
2010-11-10, 07:03 PM
GRC do you have a dime account? somebody go grab it and upload it here so I don't have to.

Five
2010-11-10, 07:08 PM
presenting thetooleman managed by bobby "the weasel" heenan.

aside from you two the entire world is offended. everybody with common sense. even the people without (not naming any names here...)

where is he? talk to us, bro this is a social site and we want to meet you

mudshark68
2010-11-10, 08:00 PM
As requested by Five here's my opinion on the "watermark".
In this instance it occurs about 10 seconds before the transition from the intro music (Close Encounters) to Siberian Khatru. In this case I'll probably delete the intro and let the show start abruptly with SK. If it were between SK and HotS, I probably wouldn't keep the files or look for a way to edit it out with EAC. Either way, seems kinda a shame to do this to an otherwise high quality recording (judging from tracks 1 & 2 anyway).

BTW, the watermark itself ("The Tooleman" in a deep voice) sounds, well, kinda toolish imo.

rspencer
2010-11-10, 08:39 PM
well okay but also can you add a bonus track at the end telling your memories of the show? like a dvd bonus feature, yeah, I can live with this. :cool:

anybody else like this idea?

If freezer wanted to do that, yeah, that would be killer. I often find the stories as much if not more entertaining than the show. The music history buff in me loves 'em. He was there, I wasn't, so it's cool to hear about it firsthand from the guy that taped the show.

Hell, I even dig the stories about shows when I don't particularly care for the band. :lol: I almost feel like I've been to A Warehouse just based on his descriptions.

Chrisedge
2010-11-10, 09:03 PM
Freezer is an extreme...If you wonder where the original is, you're demanding it. If you ever traded for Millard recording, you had a hand in creating it.

Freezer, I actually don't mind you trading the way YOU want, but it seems like to you, that everyone on earth that would simply like a recording at any point, they are demanding it INSTANTLY.

You crack me up.

chinajoe
2010-11-10, 11:30 PM
what if the added material turns out to be lossy? would the recording be banned? after all, the concert recording initself isnt lossy.

freezer
2010-11-11, 01:06 AM
........Freezer, I actually don't mind you trading the way YOU want,.................

Very condescending of you, but I don't remembering asking for your permission, ok?

:rolleyes:

GRC
2010-11-11, 03:39 AM
How soon was it that you posted in the show thread and then started this thread?

35 minutes??? correct, you waited a whole 35 minutes before your pink panties got bunched up......

(for a show that's 31 years old? No wonder TooleMan hasn't responded to you, he hasn't stopped laughing yet.)

Because it was weighing heavily on my mind, as the 'watermark' was still rolling around in my head whilst Anderson, Howe and Co were half an hour into their set.......

"Pink Panties bunched up" ??? Oh, come on, leave out the school yard insults......

OK, the show's 31 years old. I won't last another 31 years, so I can't wait that long again. I'd LIKE to hear a clean version now, but I'm not DEMANDING a clean version. I'm ASKING if there is one (and there appears to be, at Dime.... Thanks to that poster).

GRC
2010-11-11, 04:02 AM
And somebody please, please, please get GRC an unblemished recording of that show direct from the "master tape"... And my friend, I really wasn't trying to be mean to you, but waiting only 35 minutes before you got hysterical about not getting a 31 year old show within moments of your learning that it exists, because you didn't like something you got for free...a bit much, when a simple request would have gotten you what you want. I sure hope you get what you need. I think I have a copy from the same source that TooleMan's version, (acquired in a trade through TTD) and if no one gets it to you, I'll look for it now.


I'm looking for it on Dime as we speak, so I may get there before your appeal bears fruit.

I thought my request WAS a simple one, with a lack of hysteria..... but there ya go. It's all in the 'nuance', apparently ....

Thulani
2010-11-11, 05:17 AM
Interesting thread. Some people are clearly in need of another hobby.

AAR.oner
2010-11-11, 09:24 AM
fwiw GRC, yer post/question showed no "demanding" or "entitlement" to myself [or to the majority of us i have a feelin ;) ]

paddington
2010-11-11, 09:51 PM
Tooleman dubbed himself speaking his name over a concert tape.

that's all I really need to know.

Five
2010-11-11, 10:08 PM
its computer generated or taken from duke nukem or something. duke nukem voice on a Yes show :disbelief

sysoverload
2010-11-11, 10:40 PM
i hear what yer sayin GRC, i find someone "marking" a recording [and especially one they didn't record & added in post] to be ridiculous and against the philosophy of this site...however, it'd be nearly impossible to police, since if we officially banned it certain folks would then purposely add em without saying so in the info, just to prove they can [cuz they're immature idjuts]

You could ban if a post show watermark is announced in the lineage, and ban if there's a watermark on a remaster of a source that already circulates without that added sound. If a taper or trader has the only copy of a source, and wants to add sounds after the show with a mic and/or audio editor, you will probably never know that it didn't happen at the show. Adding a rule about watermarks won't get rid of the problem entirely, but at least you'll narrow the field considerably to those who tape and/or possess sources that don't circulate. Maybe lots of tapers will start to do this, but this way at least the stuff that's already circulating is protected from further degradation.

Save the mash-ups for flash streaming sites and elsewhere, or at least make a separate forum where people can add their own recorded rhythm guitar track to a power trio show, or add sounds of them hitting a bong, etc.

saying we can't ban when someone states that they did add a watermark, or when it can be proven they added a watermark to a remaster of an already circulating source, because someone might lie is not very wise. what if someone put up a dvd and they gave the lineage one way, but it turned out they were lying about re-encoding the video, and they posted later on that they rendered it twice, and that everyone who downloaded it and the site were suckers. what if they say that they were then just joking about re-encoding, and that it was really only rendered once, and someone re-uploads the show to the tracker. then they take that back and say that, no, it was rendered twice. the show goes up, the show gets pulled, and on and on, because nobody can prove that it was only rendered once. does that mean that we can't enforce any kind of rule about encoding only once? because there might be some jokester who wants to fuck with the site? if the only rules that existed were the ones that could be enforced upon download by analysis with a piece of software, then several rules would vanish. can you always tell if a show transferred with an audio CD in the lineage is a re-extraction? optical drives have a wide range of possible offsets. someone could pull the same stunt and say their previously uncirculated show has an extra CD gen than what was stated in the lineage, and that everyone who downloaded it is a sucka. some people are gonna lie about stuff, but that shouldn't mean that certain rules which are based mostly on trust shouldn't be in place. you can still filter out some of the pollution, but you'll never get all of it if someone is bent on deception and practical jokes.

oxymoron
2010-11-12, 01:47 PM
Detecting Hidden Information from Watermarked
Signal using Granulation Based Fitness Approximation

http://davarynejad.com/Resources1/WSC%2708-Draft.pdf

dave91169
2010-11-12, 06:01 PM
lame

I think this is one of the lamest things I've ever seen done, here.

why do you say that Jim? he's really just trying to stop all his good work being sold back to you SILVER disc buyers at outrageous prices...surely this is helping to save you guys your hard-earned cash? if you KNOW the silver is just a copy of this then you won't have to buy it right?

calling an uploader "lame" seems a bit unnecessary...he is sharing shows with the rest of us, who, like me, without the know-how and time to do this work would otherwise not get at all.

and really it's just a 1/2 second long...and we can always downlaod the pre-remaster if jon with the DAT tapes ups a copy for us.
dave.

paddington
2010-11-12, 06:07 PM
lame

I think this is one of the lamest things I've ever seen done, here.

why do you say that Jim? he's really just trying to stop all his good work being sold back to you SILVER disc buyers at outrageous prices...surely this is helping to save you guys your hard-earned cash? if you KNOW the silver is just a copy of this then you won't have to buy it right?

calling an uploader "lame" seems a bit unnecessary...he is sharing shows with the rest of us, who, like me, without the know-how and time to do this work would otherwise not get at all.

and really it's just a 1/2 second long...and we can always downlaod the pre-remaster if jon with the DAT tapes ups a copy for us.
dave.


ok. That's a great plan.


still lame

dave91169
2010-11-12, 06:15 PM
AND I'll make a point of offeriung the YES recording from September 29, 1972, recorded in New Orleans Municipal Auditorium, from the same seats where I recorded Led Zeppelin in 1973.


y'know all of you are so busy arguing you missed the most important part of all these posts...new Yes Show tapes!!!! woo-hooooooo :) seed 'em baby seeed...please :)
"Lieutenant Leech",
dave ;]

GRC
2010-11-13, 04:43 AM
...and we can always downlaod the pre-remaster if jon with the DAT tapes ups a copy for us.
dave.

Is he active here?

showtaper
2010-11-13, 06:58 AM
why do you say that Jim? he's really just trying to stop all his good work being sold back to you SILVER disc buyers at outrageous prices...surely this is helping to save you guys your hard-earned cash? if you KNOW the silver is just a copy of this then you won't have to buy it right?

calling an uploader "lame" seems a bit unnecessary...he is sharing shows with the rest of us, who, like me, without the know-how and time to do this work would otherwise not get at all.

and really it's just a 1/2 second long...and we can always downlaod the pre-remaster if jon with the DAT tapes ups a copy for us.
dave.

I disagree. Some will now pursue the silvers, hoping that they can get a
clean copy. You'll never stop the hardcore collector who has to have
everything from buying the bootleg, even knowing that it is watermarked.

It would be helpful to know in advance as I won't be interested in a marked
tape as I find the "intrusion" very jarring and it really kills the atmosphere
of the show.........

Lucifer burns
2010-11-14, 04:21 AM
Wow...things are gettting "deep" over here.
Well i guess someone will upload it here eventually.
I'm the person who uploaded the "Non-watermarked" version over at DaD.
I'm not so well know over here i guess as i've become over there.

Hope everyone can get which ever version they chose.
I know it wasn't my place to tell somneone what they could or couldn't do and the bottom line for me personally is i just get enjoyment out of sharing what i have to share.

With that said, and no disrespect to the people like the "Tooleman" and many others that like to do "remasters", but at heart i'm a purest. I really am a collector of "Masters" and "Low Gens". I truly prefer them "unaltered".

But who am i to stop others from doing what they will do any.
I checked out alot of of the "remasters" done by the "tooleman" as well as many others.
Some of them are very good, but i ask this question?
How many times does a show need to be remastered and by how many different people??
It bad enough the "Offical" record labels are constantly "ripping off" the fans with "remasters" of Classic Lp's...i' mean seriously, how many re-masters have there been of say "Darkside Of The Moon!??
So now were gonna "remaster" live recordings???
THAT DON'T EVEN BELONG TO US!!???

Aagin no disrespect to the people that like to do this sort of thing, but to me they are really ruining the "gen pool".

showtaper
2010-11-14, 08:47 AM
I've uploaded the "raw" version here:

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1512752

While I am a taper, I've been very hesitant to post any master recordings here
or any other torrent site. Partially to retain their trade value (also an "old school"
trader) and partially because of the shit storm that occurs when you don't
provide what people want and on their schedule. The third issue I have is
with people who just have to get their names associated with their favorite
(read: obsessively collected) band's recordings. The only way seems to be to
"re-master" a recording. Get your butt out and tape some shows.

Any kind of watermarking that is obvious is irritating, and I guess I understand
the urge. I'd prefer that the show was never uploaded.......

kingjman
2010-11-14, 05:14 PM
IMO watermarking video or audio is "LAME"(mod approved werd)....especially whistles! :D
It's especially lame when it's not even your "master"...or your intellectual property.
Post your best work and hope others do the same....don't raise the bar, then lower it.
Glad I'm not into Yes or LZ boots.

freezer
2010-11-14, 11:48 PM
IMO watermarking video or audio is "LAME"(mod approved werd)....especially whistles! :D


Glad I'm not into Yes or LZ boots.

Glad you aren't into any bands from the 60's or 70's or 80's.

It'll keep you out of threads pertaining to recordings I made, and keep your trolling ass away from passing opinions on things that are none of your business, Mister "it's all about kingjman". :D

kingjman
2010-11-15, 05:08 AM
Releasing a watermarked version to avoid being ripped off won't work....a bootlegger can still benefit from 99% of your work....just get both copies (which are now available) patch the watermark and now this patched recording may be more desirable to a potential buyer since it's the patched-remastered edition...the only real way for anyone to prevent themselves from being "ripped-off" would be to stop posting the content....Think of how the actual artists feel....They're constantly being ripped-off....What if all bands had the mentality that since all their fans rip them off anyways, they just released destroyed recordings......ie death magnetic.

freezer
2010-11-15, 06:16 AM
Releasing a watermarked version to avoid being ripped off won't work....a bootlegger can still benefit from 99% of your work....just get both copies (which are now available) patch the watermark and now this patched recording may be more desirable to a potential buyer since it's the patched-remastered edition...

Bootleggers ain't takin' the time.

Once they download it from TTD, they just run their own eq on it and press it up. And once it becomes a "silver boot" it becomes that much more desirable at this site.

What's really surprising is that there hasn't yet been a series of boots labelled "Direct from The Traders' Den"

With that as a logo, a bootlegger can probably guarantee a 40% to 50% spike in sales.




the only real way for anyone to prevent themselves from being "ripped-off" would be to stop posting the content....Think of how the actual artists feel....They're constantly being ripped-off.....


At TTD, the artist is not only "ripped off" -- the artist gets ripped a new one, because the entitlement crew can't stand any artists to express an honest opinion, as exemplified by this thread:

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87023&highlight=greg+lake.

bellham
2010-11-15, 02:40 PM
At TTD, the artist is not only "ripped off" -- the artist gets ripped a new one, because the entitlement crew can't stand any artists to express an honest opinion, as exemplified by this thread:

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87023&highlight=greg+lake.


Seriously, how exactly is this different than your vitriolic rants, which offer nothing but attempts at "ripping a new one" into anyone who offers a fair opinion contrary to your own frozen views. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

Five
2010-11-15, 03:09 PM
or perhaps the toilet calling the bathtub white? ;)

okay guys we gotta stay on topic here because its a good one. I completed the 'raw version' and hope to get a close look at both side by side tonight.






guys I gotta say excellent posts all around and I do mean EXCELLENT except freezer :laugh:






okay just kidding about the last part. lets stay on topic because its a good one.

with a little less sass in the S.A.A.S. forum, okay? :wave:

Lucifer burns
2010-11-15, 11:48 PM
or perhaps the toilet calling the bathtub white? ;)

okay guys we gotta stay on topic here because its a good one. I completed the 'raw version' and hope to get a close look at both side by side tonight.






guys I gotta say excellent posts all around and I do mean EXCELLENT except freezer :laugh:






okay just kidding about the last part. lets stay on topic because its a good one.

with a little less sass in the S.A.A.S. forum, okay? :wave:

I hope you enjoy the "raw" version.
I posted another Millard recording this past weekend(1977-09-24 Long Beach) "across the street", not knowing all the controversary going on over here:hide:

freezer
2010-11-16, 01:28 AM
............

except freezer :laugh:

:wave:

Still cheesed off after you found watermarks on the shows I sent you? Cheer up, because you haven't found then all, Five. And since they weren't part of a trade, I just sent them....you should just toss 'em out, you'll feel better.

Nobody wants Rod Stewart and Faces September 25, 1973 in Baton Rouge.












Seriously, how exactly is this different than your vitriolic rants, which offer nothing but attempts at "ripping a new one" into anyone who offers a fair opinion contrary to your own frozen views. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

Greg Lake was defending his right to own intellectual property, and all those idiots ripping into him have serious entitlement issues....many of them specifically having entitlement issues about Greg Lake's property.

And in reference to MY comments, YOU along with a LOT of others are not reading for content or comprehension, Mr. Kettle...





RE: "WATERMARKS"

I personally could give a flying fuck about leaving "watermarks" on any recording. This sort of behavior has LONG been part of the high standard of standardness inherent in all collectors.

So what, really.

BAN'em or don't. Who cares.

The recordings I was priviliged to make (that infinitesimal small percentage which are in common circulation) are now "owned by the "community" and the "community" has seen fit embrace bootlegs, specifically when crappy copies were used for source material for bootlegs of those recordings.


Again, so what?

So this: EVERY time a new silver bootleg joins the trade pool, it already has its own watermarks (which is the way it was REMASTERED by the bootleg label).

Sorry, but in reference to my tapes, not one silver boot of any of my recordings has ever done a single fucking iota of good to the sound on the original recording.

Sorry but it ain't happened yet. Not once has one of my recordings been altered and the alteration sound better from a silver bootleg. But that's OK at this site.

BUT some of my concert recordings now circulate with ALL stage announcements removed (Lou Reed 11081974), with wrong information purposefully added to the description (Robert Palmer 111776), some circulate with wrong dates now purposefully added (Moody Blues 1978), incorrect venues (Rolling Stones 060175), gaps between each song (Clapton 1974), set lists altered (Clapton 1976 Baton Rouge), missing songs (Rolling Stones 1975, Led Zeppelin 02281975, Clapton1976), songs from other shows edited in, seeders adding throughly wrong information ON purpose (Stones 1975)........nobody gets upset about that, right?

right.


So why is this watermark different than someone who re-eqs a show that was already poorly eq-ed to begin with? Don't most of you already delete versions you don't like anyway?

Why all the hub-bub, Bub?


What Tooleman did is just a tempest in a teacup..,,,,,,,,

GRC
2010-11-16, 04:59 AM
BUT some of my concert recordings now circulate with ALL stage announcements removed (Lou Reed 11081974), with wrong information purposefully added to the description (Robert Palmer 111776), some circulate with wrong dates now purposefully added (Moody Blues 1978), incorrect venues (Rolling Stones 060175), gaps between each song (Clapton 1974), set lists altered (Clapton 1976 Baton Rouge), missing songs (Rolling Stones 1975, Led Zeppelin 02281975, Clapton1976), songs from other shows edited in, seeders adding throughly wrong information ON purpose (Stones 1975)........nobody gets upset about that, right?

So why is this watermark different than someone who re-eqs a show that was already poorly eq-ed to begin with? Don't most of you already delete versions you don't like anyway?

Because no-one would know about these alterations unless you told us. Nobody can get upset about a missing song unless they know it's missing.

This is different because we know it's there, and because we know it's been deliberately tacked on to a tape where we all know it doesn't belong.

freezer
2010-11-16, 08:46 AM
BUT some of my concert recordings now circulate with ALL stage announcements removed (Lou Reed 11081974), with wrong information purposefully added to the description (Robert Palmer 111776), some circulate with wrong dates now purposefully added (Moody Blues 1978), incorrect venues (Rolling Stones 060175), gaps between each song (Clapton 1974), set lists altered (Clapton 1976 Baton Rouge), missing songs (Rolling Stones 1975, Led Zeppelin 02281975, Clapton1976), songs from other shows edited in, seeders adding throughly wrong information ON purpose (Stones 1975)........nobody gets upset about that, right?

So why is this watermark different than someone who re-eqs a show that was already poorly eq-ed to begin with? Don't most of you already delete versions you don't like anyway?

Because no-one would know about these alterations unless you told us. Nobody can get upset about a missing song unless they know it's missing.

This is different because we know it's there, and because we know it's been deliberately tacked on to a tape where we all know it doesn't belong.

WRONG, my friend.


The fellow who edited out all the stage announcements on the Lou Reed 110874 show did announce what he'd done.

So did the fellow who fucked with the Robert Palmer, and the goofus who diddled on the Moofy Blued dfd like wise.

And all did so after snatching the show from TTD.

All shows wrer complete from the master and then the people who fucked with those shows did so thinking they were doing the right thing.

Who am I to tell 'em not to?

Only the taper.

Did I voice my displeasure?

Sure as fuck did....it did no good at all.

thebigguy
2010-11-16, 11:38 AM
Long memories.

freezer
2010-11-19, 12:08 AM
Looks like nobody gives a fuck after they all were served the un-watermarked version ON DEMAND.


:lol4:

GRC
2010-11-19, 10:48 AM
Looks like nobody gives a fuck after they all were served the un-watermarked version ON DEMAND.

Well, I've been working. How 'bout you?

My view hasn't changed, even though I haven't posted since the un-watermarked version was uploaded, so there was no real need for further comment on my part.

Nice to know you still care, though.

freezer
2010-11-19, 01:02 PM
Well, I've been working. How 'bout you?

My view hasn't changed, even though I haven't posted since the un-watermarked version was uploaded, so there was no real need for further comment on my part.

Nice to know you still care, though.

It's still a big fucking joke to me, especially when watching the rampant entitlement issues on this site.

Spelunker
2010-11-22, 05:14 PM
Audio watermark:

Because I've been ripped off many times in the past by so-called progressive rock
restoration groups, and because sales of my mixes have been reported in such far-flung and
exotic locations as Atlanta and Japan, you will find an "audio watermark" in this recording.
This watermark will definitively identify this version of this recording as having been mixed
by me. Others who want to use this mix will have to deal with it. They should, after all, go
to the original tape and not use my work as the foundation for theirs. The watermark is
designed to be difficult to remove. I feel this is a small price for downloaders to pay for
two hours of total Yes music enjoyment. It only occurs once and then it's over.

I don't understand. :hmm:
How is he getting ripped off? If he does find that someone is selling a mix, he mixed, because of the watermark, what can he do about it? Take them to court because he has proof he owns the recording? The only thing that makes sense to me is he wants some kind of adulation for what he has done.

toys
2010-11-22, 07:28 PM
yes

freezer
2010-11-22, 09:48 PM
Audio watermark:

Because I've been ripped off many times in the past by so-called progressive rock restoration groups, and because sales of my mixes have been reported in such far-flung and exotic locations as Atlanta and Japan, you will find an "audio watermark" in this recording.

This watermark will definitively identify this version of this recording as having been mixed by me. Others who want to use this mix will have to deal with it. They should, after all, go to the original tape and not use my work as the foundation for theirs. The watermark is designed to be difficult to remove. I feel this is a small price for downloaders to pay for two hours of total Yes music enjoyment. It only occurs once and then it's over.

I don't understand. :hmm:
How is he getting ripped off? If he does find that someone is selling a mix, he mixed, because of the watermark, what can he do about it? Take them to court because he has proof he owns the recording? The only thing that makes sense to me is he wants some kind of adulation for what he has done.

Spe, for once you and I agree, but step back and look at the entire picture --- - - - this is also most definitely about 'someone' being unable to get what he wanted "ON DEMAND" immediately. Then freaking out over it.

That's why it's all a big fucking joke to me.

The recording that Tooleman put the watermark on is in circulation already anyway. Has been for years.

The easiest thing to do was just ignore this "Tooleman" version altogether and just take a deep breath and and wait five minutes until you can get an unblemished version without the marking.

It was just that easy....... this is all "much ado about nothing" -- right?

Step back and think about this.......... Within 5 years there'll be 52 competing versions available anyway.


It ain't gonna change the price of rice in China so who cares?

paddington
2010-11-22, 09:58 PM
what a bunch of shit.

dcbullet
2010-11-22, 10:02 PM
Spe, for once you and I agree, but step back and look at the entire picture --- - - - this is also most definitely about 'someone' being unable to get what he wanted "ON DEMAND" immediately. Then freaking out over it.


No, that is not at all what this is about.

freezer
2010-11-22, 11:53 PM
what a bunch of shit.

No, it's exactly what happened, and you're the Queen of Denial, Groucho.




Spe, for once you and I agree, but step back and look at the entire picture --- - - - this is also most definitely about 'someone' being unable to get what he wanted "ON DEMAND" immediately. Then freaking out over it.


No, that is not at all what this is about.

Another TTD mod/parrot checks in.

It's exactly all that happened.

You'll allow 52 different remasters if they ALL are on different "silver bootlegs", and you've already said as much.

Why don't you two guys get your stories straight? At least one time?


:lol4:

paddington
2010-11-23, 12:01 AM
I deny nothing. I don't even know what you're talking about... this is still a bunch of shit.


Audio "watermarks" that are audible in normal listening are asinine.

freezer
2010-11-23, 12:17 AM
I deny nothing. I don't even know what you're talking about... this is still a bunch of shit.

You guys will allow that Toolemen remaster if Godfather releases it as a silver bootleg, and you know you will.

You always said that all silver boots are allowable as "Source zero" as you two have proudly proclaimed in the past.

You and Billy the Bullet have said as much in the past. R E P E A T E D L Y said so.

Anything else and that makes you the Queen of Denial, James-KY

paddington
2010-11-23, 12:36 AM
I deny nothing. I don't even know what you're talking about... this is still a bunch of shit.

You guys will allow that Toolemen remaster if Godfather releases it as a silver bootleg, and you know you will.

You always said that all silver boots are allowable as "Source zero" as you two have proudly proclaimed in the past.

You and Billy the Bullet have said as much in the past. R E P E A T E D L Y said so.

Anything else and that makes you the Queen of Denial, James-KY


We likely would, as long as it wasn't lossy and I'm not denying it.

We give members an opportunity to have bootleg silvers without having to pay, as long as they are not lossy and are extracted properly from the silver.


don't be grumpy

be happy!

:wolfkat:

freezer
2010-11-23, 12:49 AM
We likely would, as long as it wasn't lossy and I'm not denying it.

We give members an opportunity to have bootleg silvers without having to pay, as long as they are not lossy and are extracted properly from the silver.


don't be grumpy

be happy!

:wolfkat:

You finally decided to be truthful, Groucho.... how'd that happen?



That means this dust-up was ONLY about someone's entitlement issues, after all.

paddington
2010-11-23, 12:52 AM
We likely would, as long as it wasn't lossy and I'm not denying it.

We give members an opportunity to have bootleg silvers without having to pay, as long as they are not lossy and are extracted properly from the silver.


don't be grumpy

be happy!

:wolfkat:

You finally decided to be truthful, Groucho.... how'd that happen?



That means this dust-up was ONLY about someone's entitlement issues, after all.


I think it is more of a referendum on the actions of an idiot.

freezer
2010-11-23, 02:58 AM
I think it is more of a referendum on the actions of an idiot.

Aw, don't be so hard on yourself, yer a fool, hardly an idiot, Groucho.

TFEC
2010-11-23, 10:58 AM
Maybe it's some sort of variant on the Stockholm Syndrome, but after reading Freezer's comments on various message boards over the years, he's starting to make sense!

AAR.oner
2010-11-23, 10:58 AM
dead horses & cooking utensils




back on topic, i'm fairly sure staff is in agreement that although this instance of "watermarking" [and all watermarking in general] is completely ridiculous and unnecessary, trying to police every recording for "marks" is impossible...and banning them would only encourage folks who employ this tactic to come up with more creative ways to do so, further muddying up the pool

hopefully in the future, when a recording is stated to have, or found to have, a "mark" by a d/l'er, they will make it public knowledge in the thread and others will be able to choose whether or not they want to d/l it...much like how "re-masters" are handled

dcbullet
2010-11-23, 11:27 AM
You guys will allow that Toolemen remaster if Godfather releases it as a silver bootleg, and you know you will.

You always said that all silver boots are allowable as "Source zero" as you two have proudly proclaimed in the past.

You and Billy the Bullet have said as much in the past. R E P E A T E D L Y said so.

Anything else and that makes you the Queen of Denial, James-KY

Actually, this is false. Silvers are difficult to moderate, that's for sure. As James-KY has indicated, we generally do allow Silvers, warts and all. However, we certainty do pull them. Lossy is the easiest example. If show had one source that was clearly superior to other releases of the same source, I would certainly pull the inferior releases, even if silver. There may be other situations where a silver will be pulled.

In short, we won't ever make perfect decisions all the time but you can be assured that not all silvers are welcome here.

Hope that helps.

freezer
2010-11-23, 12:10 PM
Actually, this is false.
If you say so, but considering the "source", it's a given.


In short, we won't ever make perfect decisions all the time but you can be assured that not all silvers are welcome here.

Hope that helps.

Billy, you already allowed lossy sourced boots here, but never mind, your rationalizations have most definitely shown your true colors again.


And you already have proven that you and jimmy-KY don't have the foggiest clue about how many recordings were made.

No bullshit, Hurricane Billy-Bob, remember.
And yes, it did help.

dcbullet
2010-11-23, 12:15 PM
Billy, you already allowed lossy sourced boots here,

Please report them.

kingjman
2010-11-23, 01:52 PM
So then we all agree on lowest gen with correct linage listed?

IMO it was just a waste of time for him to remaster.
He was not successful at what he was trying to accomplish.
He wanted credit for cleaning up a recording...
Not much credit 'cause he didn't really clean it up by adding impurities.
...and it's not gonna prevent sales of his mixes by so-called progressive rock
restoration groups in such far-flung and exotic locations as Atlanta. :wtf:

Five
2010-11-23, 08:02 PM
Maybe it's some sort of variant on the Stockholm Syndrome, but after reading Freezer's comments on various message boards over the years, he's starting to make sense!

Yes I agree there's gold in these posts. Here Freezer is giving his take on keeping the trading pool clean & makes sense:

The recording that Tooleman put the watermark on is in circulation already anyway. Has been for years.

The easiest thing to do was just ignore this "Tooleman" version altogether and just take a deep breath and and wait five minutes until you can get an unblemished version without the marking.

It was just that easy....... this is all "much ado about nothing" -- right?

Step back and think about this.......... Within 5 years there'll be 52 competing versions available anyway.

Hardcore traders want the best available source... the unaltered original source.

So then we all agree on lowest gen with correct linage listed?
Sometimes the master is not stored well and a 1st gen backup will sound better. But most of the time, absolutely.

IMO it was just a waste of time for him to remaster.
He was not successful at what he was trying to accomplish.
He wanted credit for cleaning up a recording...
Not much credit 'cause he didn't really clean it up by adding impurities.
...and it's not gonna prevent sales of his mixes by so-called progressive rock
restoration groups in such far-flung and exotic locations as Atlanta. :wtf:

Exactly :clap:

back on topic, i'm fairly sure staff is in agreement that although this instance of "watermarking" [and all watermarking in general] is completely ridiculous and unnecessary, trying to police every recording for "marks" is impossible...and banning them would only encourage folks who employ this tactic to come up with more creative ways to do so, further muddying up the pool

hopefully in the future, when a recording is stated to have, or found to have, a "mark" by a d/l'er, they will make it public knowledge in the thread and others will be able to choose whether or not they want to d/l it...much like how "re-masters" are handled

Yes, this is exactly how I feel.

Five
2010-11-23, 08:05 PM
Wow...things are gettting "deep" over here.
Well i guess someone will upload it here eventually.
I'm the person who uploaded the "Non-watermarked" version over at DaD.
I'm not so well know over here i guess as i've become over there.

Hope everyone can get which ever version they chose.
I know it wasn't my place to tell somneone what they could or couldn't do and the bottom line for me personally is i just get enjoyment out of sharing what i have to share.

With that said, and no disrespect to the people like the "Tooleman" and many others that like to do "remasters", but at heart i'm a purest. I really am a collector of "Masters" and "Low Gens". I truly prefer them "unaltered".

But who am i to stop others from doing what they will do any.
I checked out alot of of the "remasters" done by the "tooleman" as well as many others.
Some of them are very good, but i ask this question?
How many times does a show need to be remastered and by how many different people??
It bad enough the "Offical" record labels are constantly "ripping off" the fans with "remasters" of Classic Lp's...i' mean seriously, how many re-masters have there been of say "Darkside Of The Moon!??
So now were gonna "remaster" live recordings???
THAT DON'T EVEN BELONG TO US!!???

Aagin no disrespect to the people that like to do this sort of thing, but to me they are really ruining the "gen pool".

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

freezer
2010-11-24, 12:01 AM
Please report them.

Already did that, wasted my time trying to communicate seriously with you.

And that's no bullshit, Billy.




Yes I agree there's gold in these posts. Here Freezer is giving his take on keeping the trading pool clean & makes sense:

The recording that Tooleman put the watermark on is in circulation already anyway. Has been for years.

The easiest thing to do was just ignore this "Tooleman" version altogether and just take a deep breath and and wait five minutes until you can get an unblemished version without the marking.

It was just that easy....... this is all "much ado about nothing" -- right?

Step back and think about this.......... Within 5 years there'll be 52 competing versions available anyway.

Hardcore traders want the best available source... the unaltered original source.


Five, you were away too long.....


Silver boots are considered source "ZERO" at this site and can and will be allowed, even to the point of competing with - in your own terminology- the best available source... the unaltered original source......That's why I've been laughing at all this foolish nonsense.




This is a hobby, nothing else. I made recordings at concerts as a part of MY hobby.

Many of you do the same, cool.

Many of you don't. Those that don't have to take what's offered and that's it.



IF that TOOLEMAN abomination/remaster had been first introduced to the TTD customers as a "SILVER BOOTLEG" there would be certain TTD ABT mods absolutely defending the decision to allow it at TTD.

Hell, Hurricane Billy Bob would be tumbling ass over elbows while running to defend it......period.


Like it or not, by allowing "SILVER BOOTLEGS" as stated policy at TTD, the policy is actually allowing bad remasters... fuck, let's say it properly, encouraging bad remasters to proliferate. As bad or worse than what TOOLEMAN did...and these "SILVER BOOTLEGS" allowed without any description or lineage as to the remastering devices used.

None of us have any idea what a bootlegger does to remaster his garbage product, yet TTD's policy is to allow them so nobody has to buy the bootleggers' wares.

OK, cool........understood.



TOOLEMAN gave something away freely, and honestly said UP FRONT what he did about marking the recording so each and every downloader could make their own decisions about this remaster. Well, shit-fire, let's punish him and rip him a new one in the process for this. Even though nobody was forced to suck it down.

NOBODY had to take it, and some collectors in that thread were thanking TOOLEMAN.... the whiners missed that.

Empress Valley or C&D or Godfather or whoever your favorite flavor of bootlegger is, well, TTD will allow their pisspoor remasters -- and the BootBoys give NO details like TOOLEMAN did -- but the ABT mods say that's OK.

SO........Of course a "SOURCE ZERO" like that will be allowed. While TOOLEMAN is roasted alive for trying to do something proactive and being up front about what he did.

That is a BULLSHIT rationale on the part of the ABT staff.

Either allow all remasters and shut up about it or ban all remasters including them "SILVER BOOTLEGS".


Stop being hypocrites, ban ALL remasters or allow them all.




Sometimes the master is not stored well and a 1st gen backup will sound better. But most of the time, absolutely.



maybe... I can only speak for myself in this part, as I own a lot of master tapes..........
My masters are kept in a climate controlled environment and sound as crisp and clean as they did directly after they were originally recorded. (My Dave Mason from the Warehouse in 1975 is squeeling, but I don't lose sleep over it, I probably wouldn't listen to it any more any way if it didn't).

I am still amazed at the sonic quality that I got using cassette recorders and reel to reel. As I write this, I'm listening to something I recorded in 1974, recorded from the dead center of the first row in a balcony. I used my shoes and sox to cushion the mics against any 'rumble' and there's nothing on the recording but a clean capture, with a lot of binaural seperation; with headphones turned up as loud as I can take it, I'm back at that show again. This recording is not in circulation, but if it were, the goddam thing would be announced as a bootleg before a week was out. Fleetwood Mac fronted by Bob Welch 11/1/74. And sure as shit, a SILVER BOOTLEG of it would be allowed here in competition with the master tape, no matter what Five says.

(You wanna prove me wrong, Five, then call me and we'll talk about a YES 9/29/72 master..... if you give me your word that a SILVER BOOTLEG of my tape will never be allowed at TTD, then I'll loan you the master tape of this show to work on... You can have this show to debut at TTD and you can ban all other versions of my tape, as NO other copies of this circulate -- because yours will be the FIRST digital mastering directly from the analog tape. You make the definitive and FIRST circulating version -- and there's no need for any other "versions" of this particular and individual recording. And That's a final version. All it needs is a transfer and some smoothing of tape flips. It was made from the exact same seats as the LZ 5/14/73 recording..... on the same recorder as used for the Stones 6/27/72 Mobile.
Jamie, you can also say no and I'll never offer this a 38 year old recording anywhere ever. I don't care if this never circulates, I just want to prove a point, and in the process, we can make a lot of collectors happy. A win-win situation.... and the whiners can come to you to complain -- or they can go to TOOLEMAN's complaint department, Helen Waite.)

By the way, Five, how many shows that I sent you are you still sitting on?
A Stones from 1975, Faces 1973....... anything else?

You decide you wanna share them, call me -- you have my number or get it from 1zeppelin2 -- and we'll discuss lineage. I'll give you just enough to piss off Hurricane and the Jelly-boy. Let's see them whine at you for a while, OK?











And by the way, I dislike REmasters altogether.

Use your own tone controls and equalizers for playback ONLY. :thumbsup

Lucifer burns
2010-11-24, 01:45 AM
Already did that, wasted my time trying to communicate seriously with you.

And that's no bullshit, Billy.







Five, you were away too long.....


Silver boots are considered source "ZERO" at this site and can and will be allowed, even to the point of competing with - in your own terminology- the best available source... the unaltered original source......That's why I've been laughing at all this foolish nonsense.




This is a hobby, nothing else. I made recordings at concerts as a part of MY hobby.

Many of you do the same, cool.

Many of you don't. Those that don't have to take what's offered and that's it.



IF that TOOLEMAN abomination/remaster had been first introduced to the TTD customers as a "SILVER BOOTLEG" there would be certain TTD ABT mods absolutely defending the decision to allow it at TTD.

Hell, Hurricane Billy Bob would be tumbling ass over elbows while running to defend it......period.


Like it or not, by allowing "SILVER BOOTLEGS" as stated policy at TTD, the policy is actually allowing bad remasters... fuck, let's say it properly, encouraging bad remasters to proliferate. As bad or worse than what TOOLEMAN did...and these "SILVER BOOTLEGS" allowed without any description or lineage as to the remastering devices used.

None of us have any idea what a bootlegger does to remaster his garbage product, yet TTD's policy is to allow them so nobody has to buy the bootleggers' wares.

OK, cool........understood.



TOOLEMAN gave something away freely, and honestly said UP FRONT what he did about marking the recording so each and every downloader could make their own decisions about this remaster. Well, shit-fire, let's punish him and rip him a new one in the process for this. Even though nobody was forced to suck it down.

NOBODY had to take it, and some collectors in that thread were thanking TOOLEMAN.... the whiners missed that.

Empress Valley or C&D or Godfather or whoever your favorite flavor of bootlegger is, well, TTD will allow their pisspoor remasters -- and the BootBoys give NO details like TOOLEMAN did -- but the ABT mods say that's OK.

SO........Of course a "SOURCE ZERO" like that will be allowed. While TOOLEMAN is roasted alive for trying to do something proactive and being up front about what he did.

That is a BULLSHIT rationale on the part of the ABT staff.

Either allow all remasters and shut up about it or ban all remasters including them "SILVER BOOTLEGS".


Stop being hypocrites, ban ALL remasters or allow them all.






maybe... I can only speak for myself in this part, as I own a lot of master tapes..........
My masters are kept in a climate controlled environment and sound as crisp and clean as they did directly after they were originally recorded. (My Dave Mason from the Warehouse in 1975 is squeeling, but I don't lose sleep over it, I probably wouldn't listen to it any more any way if it didn't).

I am still amazed at the sonic quality that I got using cassette recorders and reel to reel. As I write this, I'm listening to something I recorded in 1974, recorded from the dead center of the first row in a balcony. I used my shoes and sox to cushion the mics against any 'rumble' and there's nothing on the recording but a clean capture, with a lot of binaural seperation; with headphones turned up as loud as I can take it, I'm back at that show again. This recording is not in circulation, but if it were, the goddam thing would be announced as a bootleg before a week was out. Fleetwood Mac fronted by Bob Welch 11/1/74. And sure as shit, a SILVER BOOTLEG of it would be allowed here in competition with the master tape, no matter what Five says.

(You wanna prove me wrong, Five, then call me and we'll talk about a YES 9/29/72 master..... if you give me your word that a SILVER BOOTLEG of my tape will never be allowed at TTD, then I'll loan you the master tape of this show to work on... You can have this show to debut at TTD and you can ban all other versions of my tape, as NO other copies of this circulate -- because yours will be the FIRST digital mastering directly from the analog tape. You make the definitive and FIRST circulating version -- and there's no need for any other "versions" of this particular and individual recording. And That's a final version. All it needs is a transfer and some smoothing of tape flips. It was made from the exact same seats as the LZ 5/14/73 recording..... on the same recorder as used for the Stones 6/27/72 Mobile.
Jamie, you can also say no and I'll never offer this a 38 year old recording anywhere ever. I don't care if this never circulates, I just want to prove a point, and in the process, we can make a lot of collectors happy. A win-win situation.... and the whiners can come to you to complain -- or they can go to TOOLEMAN's complaint department, Helen Waite.)

By the way, Five, how many shows that I sent you are you still sitting on?
A Stones from 1975, Faces 1973....... anything else?

You decide you wanna share them, call me -- you have my number or get it from 1zeppelin2 -- and we'll discuss lineage. I'll give you just enough to piss off Hurricane and the Jelly-boy. Let's see them whine at you for a while, OK?











And by the way, I dislike REmasters altogether.

Use your own tone controls and equalizers for playback ONLY. :thumbsup



Well "Freezer" is completely right in the first half of this.
And WOW what an offer he has made in the 2nd half.
Hope this happen and thanks to "Freezer" and all involved if and when it finally ever does.

dcbullet
2010-11-24, 11:36 AM
Please report them.

Already did that, wasted my time trying to communicate seriously with you.

And that's no bullshit, Billy.



Bullshit.

freezer
2010-11-24, 12:25 PM
Please report them.

Already did that, wasted my time trying to communicate seriously with you.

And that's no bullshit, Billy.



Bullshit.

No bullshit, Billy.

Trying to communicate seriously with you is a waste of time.

paddington
2010-11-24, 12:34 PM
Freezer, it seems like you are unhappy being at TTD.

freezer
2010-11-24, 01:55 PM
Freezer, it seems like you are unhappy being at TTD.

How'd you come to that conclusion, jelly boy? Just because you became a petty martinet at a music trading site, your 10 cent badge didn't make you omnipotent.

You became a petty martinet because that's what's within you, the 10 cent badge just made it worse.


And just because I pointed out the hypocracy that you wanna hide behind, doesn't make me unhappy. It made YOU unhappy. Consider that, instead.


You really don't like anyone to have an opposing viewpoint, and you like it even less when it's logically presented and someone else agrees, huh, Jimmy?


Maybe if and when you convince the site admins to change the name of the place to JAMES-KY'S Torrent Den, you'll feel a lot better about yourself.

I doubt it, as I suspect your problems are far deeper rooted within your own ego than anyone should delve into at a music trading site. Good luck with that. Spiritual counseling might help you, if you can't afford psychotherapy; please consider it.



I suppose I'd be happier if you stoped being a hypocrite, Pee Wee, but then again, that probably applies to everyone you come in contact with.




Now, let's talk about music trading, as this is supposed to be the main reason for this site's existence:

Was I supposed to report every trade I make to you, so you can keep track of my activities? Personally, I think that my snail mail trades are none of your motherfucking business? What do you think, Jimmy?

You wanna be nosy, OK, let's compare notes, then, OK?

How many shows did you snatch in 2010, jelly boy?

I made a few trades here, and one was for a 50 disc spindle, and bluzman and I swapped around 20 discs. and that's only 2 of the trades I made based at TTD in 2010.

Was I supposed to report any of this to you? Is it any of your business anyway?


What about you, James-ky? Have you gone over 100 shows collected through this site in 2010?

Why would adding that many shows to my collection make me unhappy? Seems like it's making YOU unhappy, James-KY.




And the other staff members I communicated with today are perfectly fine with me, chuckles. In fact, they're very much folks I consider friends.

You feel the need to read my private mesage, Jimmy? I don't think they're any of your goddam business, what do you think, James-KY?

If the site owner wishes to read my private messages, she is more than welcome, in fact, most of what she'd see is me wishing folks a wonderful and blessed holiday, which I also wish for her and her family.... and I have no problem in saying so publicly. I think she's terrific, especially for putting up with the crap she endures, and for taking the risk running this site.

You ever tell her that you appreciate her efforts, -- without being prodded or shamed into doing that much, Jimmy?

You -- on the other hand............. "sigh" God bless you too, somebody's got to like you, somewhere.

Have a great holiday, Jim... stop being a twat for a few days and see if you don't feel better about yourself. :thumbsup

daddyray
2010-11-24, 02:08 PM
Happy holidays, man!

freezer
2010-11-24, 02:33 PM
Happy holidays, man!

God bless us, daddy-o, one and all..............

U2Lynne
2010-11-24, 03:56 PM
As far as I can see, the question the original poster asked "Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?" was answered sometime a few pages ago. We are not going to be banning shows with audio watermarks. We would like the uploader to state if a show is marked, that way the user may make the decision whether to download it or not. Of course, it would be nice if the non-watermarked version were also available somewhere also for those that would like the un-marked version.

Thread closed unless another mod decides it is worth opening again.