|
Site Announcements & Suggestions This is where you should make your suggestions to us on how to improve your experience here and where to post about site problems/issues.
Moderators |
|
Thread Tools |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Quote:
ok. That's a great plan. still lame
__________________
"There are some of these recordings where it is just a whirring, and you cannot hear the music. " - Jimmy Page, 2007 / JUL / 26 Torrent Help: seed policy | MiniDisc ban | seed guide | Ripping |checksum (st5 ffp) | restricted bands | software | download
No members have liked this post.
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Quote:
"Lieutenant Leech", dave ;] No members have liked this post.
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Is he active here?
No members have liked this post.
|
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Quote:
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......... No members have liked this post.
|
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
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". No members have liked this post.
|
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
I've uploaded the "raw" version here:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/....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....... No members have liked this post.
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
IMO watermarking video or audio is "LAME"(mod approved werd)....especially whistles!
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. No members have liked this post.
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Quote:
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".
__________________
No members have liked this post.
|
#84
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
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.
No members have liked this post.
|
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Quote:
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. Quote:
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/...ight=greg+lake.
__________________
No members have liked this post.
|
#86
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Quote:
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? No members have liked this post.
|
#87
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
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 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?
__________________
Checksums Demystified | ask for help in Technobabble thetradersden.org | ttd recommended free software/freeware webring shntool tlh eac foobar2000 spek audacity cdwave vlc Quote:
No members have liked this post.
|
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Quote:
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 No members have liked this post.
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
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. Quote:
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..,,,,,,,,
__________________
No members have liked this post.
Last edited by freezer; 2010-11-16 at 12:34 AM. |
#90
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?
Quote:
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. No members have liked this post.
|
The Traders' Den |
|
|