The Traders' Den  

  The Traders' Den > Where we go to learn ..... > Site Announcements & Suggestions
 

Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #76  
Old 2010-11-12, 06:07 PM
paddington's Avatar
paddington paddington is offline
please look after this bear
TTD Staff
83.17 GB/882.10 GB/10.61
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave91169 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskg View Post
lame
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskg View Post
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
__________________
"There are some of these recordings where it is just a whirring, and you cannot hear the music. " - Jimmy Page, 2007 / JUL / 26
  #77  
Old 2010-11-12, 06:15 PM
dave91169 dave91169 is offline
761.42 GB/239.23 GB/0.31
 
Join Date: May 2008
Icon6 Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by freezer View Post
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 ;]
  #78  
Old 2010-11-13, 04:43 AM
GRC's Avatar
GRC GRC is offline
Trader since 1980
1.86 TB/1.37 TB/0.73
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave91169 View Post
...and we can always downlaod the pre-remaster if jon with the DAT tapes ups a copy for us.
dave.
Is he active here?
  #79  
Old 2010-11-13, 06:58 AM
showtaper's Avatar
showtaper showtaper is offline
304.10 GB/469.31 GB/1.54
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave91169 View Post
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.........
  #80  
Old 2010-11-14, 04:21 AM
Lucifer burns's Avatar
Lucifer burns Lucifer burns is offline
308.26 GB/649.15 GB/2.11
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A.
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".
  #81  
Old 2010-11-14, 08:47 AM
showtaper's Avatar
showtaper showtaper is offline
304.10 GB/469.31 GB/1.54
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
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.......
  #82  
Old 2010-11-14, 05:14 PM
kingjman's Avatar
kingjman kingjman is offline
The King of all Me
142.13 GB/650.39 GB/4.58
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minnesota
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.
  #83  
Old 2010-11-14, 11:48 PM
freezer's Avatar
freezer freezer is offline
TTD VIP
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in your worst nightmare
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjman View Post
IMO watermarking video or audio is "LAME"(mod approved werd)....especially whistles!


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".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskg View Post
I don't think I troll anyone, other than freezer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2Lynne View Post
You wall-eyed apple-knocking pig-fuckers! You don't know shit!
  #84  
Old 2010-11-15, 05:08 AM
kingjman's Avatar
kingjman kingjman is offline
The King of all Me
142.13 GB/650.39 GB/4.58
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minnesota
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezer View Post
"it's all about kingjman".
  #85  
Old 2010-11-15, 06:16 AM
freezer's Avatar
freezer freezer is offline
TTD VIP
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in your worst nightmare
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjman View Post
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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjman View Post
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/...ight=greg+lake.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskg View Post
I don't think I troll anyone, other than freezer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2Lynne View Post
You wall-eyed apple-knocking pig-fuckers! You don't know shit!
  #86  
Old 2010-11-15, 02:40 PM
bellham's Avatar
bellham bellham is offline
988.81 GB/2.28 TB/2.36
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Indiana, USA
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

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.

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?
  #87  
Old 2010-11-15, 03:09 PM
Five's Avatar
Five Five is offline
TTD Staff
186.65 GB/588.32 GB/3.15
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Canada
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 EAC Config MakeTorrent WinAmp Config

Modern social theory casts a highly skeptical eye on any declaration that a group of persons is without conflict, and insists, on the contrary, that conflict is natural to groups, and even more, is essential to them. -Patrick Henry
  #88  
Old 2010-11-15, 11:48 PM
Lucifer burns's Avatar
Lucifer burns Lucifer burns is offline
308.26 GB/649.15 GB/2.11
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A.
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five View Post
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?
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
  #89  
Old 2010-11-16, 01:28 AM
freezer's Avatar
freezer freezer is offline
TTD VIP
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in your worst nightmare
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five View Post
............

except freezer

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:
Originally Posted by bellham View Post
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..,,,,,,,,
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskg View Post
I don't think I troll anyone, other than freezer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2Lynne View Post
You wall-eyed apple-knocking pig-fuckers! You don't know shit!

Last edited by freezer; 2010-11-16 at 01:34 AM.
  #90  
Old 2010-11-16, 04:59 AM
GRC's Avatar
GRC GRC is offline
Trader since 1980
1.86 TB/1.37 TB/0.73
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by freezer View Post
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.
Closed Thread

The Traders' Den > Where we go to learn ..... > Site Announcements & Suggestions


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forums


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - , TheTradersDen.org - All Rights Reserved - Hosted at QuickPacket
no new posts