Quote
Silver Dagger
Is the version on Leeds 82 of You Can't Always Get What You Want the longest ever?

There are even longer versions 75/76, about up to 15 minutes.

For example:

Okay, I got drunk last night and downloaded it as, at the time at least, it was still just $4.99. Sorry to be a sourpuss, but what is so good about this show - it sounds like Hampton 81, just a lot faster? There's little warmth or soul here, just a few guys sounding as if they're in a hurry to get it over with. Sure it has its charms, and the sound quality is great, but is that all there is?

I'd have paid 4 times the price for a quality No Security tour archive release.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
teleblaster

Quote
falo01

Quote
Mathijs

Man, you get a great show from a great tour of which almost nothing was available, and from a time they still where a really great R&R band, for only 10 bucks. What’s not too like here? That we still don’t have a proper release of Chantilly Lace…..

Mathijs

1982 is the only tour where every show is available and much of them in excellent AUD quality. Only one INCOMPLETE SBD, but many other tours
are represented worse.
and yes, the absence of chantill lace is the only low point for me in this release. if there is any reason to release a 1982 show, it would have been because of chantilly lace.

Can you point me in the direction of a decent recording of the Glasgow show, then? The one I've got sounds like it was recorded in the chip shop next door.

2nd half of the Glasgow show is available in G-VG quality. Adotulipson here on IORR sent me that tape, and we put it on DIME. 1st half of the show is completely unlistenable. Maybe the worst RS recording ever

Thanks, Erik. Will track this down.

Quote
theimposter
I'd have paid 4 times the price for a quality No Security tour archive release.

I'd pay 4 times the price for a Taylor-era live release. Still think it's ridiculous that they didn't represent that period more. With all the mystique and lengendary hoopla surrounding '69 and Altamont and Exile and the '72 tour, you'd think they'd want to put something definite from that era out.

This release is amazing! I've had the bad quality-boot for ages, but this is a revelation. The best release of the six archive-shows.

The guitars are on fire, and the sound is better than Hampton.

BTW, what's with Keith's guitar? Some funny sounds in there - is he stepping on the phaser-box when playing licks? Very cool analogue delay-playing as well. Ronnie is really good on this one, imo.

This doesn't sound like a tired band wrapping up a tour. It's full tilt rock' n'roll

+ Fantastic slide solo on YCAGWYW!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-14 16:37 by DandelionPowderman.

They left out the one song they didn't write themselves (C. Lace)!?

EDIT : you're right mads they didn't play CL in July'82...
Sorry Mick for calling you Lead wallet



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-14 16:37 by dcba.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This release is amazing! I've had the bad quality-boot for ages, but this is a revelation. The best release of the six archive-shows.

The guitars are on fire, and the sound is better than Hampton.

BTW, what's with Keith's guitar? Some funny sounds in there - is he stepping on the phaser-box when playing licks? Very cool analogue delay-playing as well. Ronnie is really good on this one, imo.

This doesn't sound like a tired band wrapping up a tour. It's full tilt rock' n'roll

Got it now on my hard disc, your review let me hope that I will have a good evening show.

For people purchasing from Europe in euro the FLAC version from Stones Archive at 7€ is cheaper than the MP3 version on Google Play (7.99€). And the MP3 from the Archive is even cheaper (5.50€).

Quote
dcba
They left out the one song they didn't write themselves (C. Lace)!?

Unbelievable... and so cheap!

And added Angie - great! Love the 1982 renditions of Angie.

Quote
dcba
They left out the one song they didn't write themselves (C. Lace)!?

Unbelievable... and so cheap!

They didn't play it at leeds.
They also didn't write 20 Flight Rock, Going To A Go Go, Time is on my side and Just My Imagination.

Quote
LieB

Quote
theimposter
I'd have paid 4 times the price for a quality No Security tour archive release.

I'd pay 4 times the price for a Taylor-era live release. Still think it's ridiculous that they didn't represent that period more. With all the mystique and lengendary hoopla surrounding '69 and Altamont and Exile and the '72 tour, you'd think they'd want to put something definite from that era out.

Well don't get me wrong, I agree with you. As I said in an earlier post, I would love to have the entire 2 night run from MSG 69, no overdubs, for example. Or maybe Philadelphia or Ft. Worth 72 form the Taylor era. I just find this release redundant and I'd love to have seen every era represented. No Security was a personal favorite tour of mine and the fact that it never even produced a decent soundboard boot (the only tour to not do so) makes it all the more justified to release, IMO.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
falo01

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
falo01

Quote
tomcasagranda
I wonder if it'll come out as an mp3 on Stonesarchive, and when ?

I don't know how to fiddle about with googleplay and convert the music to itunes.

mp3 only on google, never on stonesarchive

Yes it is. We have always had the option to choose mp3s at stonesarchive.

oops surprise, no serious collector ever cared for mp3 at stonesarchive, so it was unknown to me and probably most others.

Don't be so sure. The bitrate is good

Yeah, they sound the same to me. I had both the MP3 and FLAC on my computer (thanks to people hooking me up with the FLAC) and I just ended up deleting the FLAC off my computer, though I saved them on my External Hard Drive I back up my files to.

I think somebody said there's no real difference, until you go burning them to CD's or something, that's when there is sound loss. I personally don't hear a difference on the CDs I burned either, but it's probably there. But the CDs I made are just a second string backup, in case the two backup devices I have the original zip file in fail for some reason.

At $4.99, it's hard to complain...

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Don't be so sure. The bitrate is good

Yeah, they sound the same to me. I had both the MP3 and FLAC on my computer (thanks to people hooking me up with the FLAC) and I just ended up deleting the FLAC off my computer, though I saved them on my External Hard Drive I back up my files to.

I think somebody said there's no real difference, until you go burning them to CD's or something, that's when there is sound loss. I personally don't hear a difference on the CDs I burned either, but it's probably there. But the CDs I made are just a second string backup, in case the two backup devices I have the original zip file in fail for some reason.

you obviously don't get it, but that's ok. IORR

Dont complain!!! I wanna hear and see everything live they did. Anything from 1962-1982! ANYTHING!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
you'll get FLAC-files at stonesarchive.com.

Does anybody know when?

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
falo01

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
falo01

Quote
tomcasagranda
I wonder if it'll come out as an mp3 on Stonesarchive, and when ?

I don't know how to fiddle about with googleplay and convert the music to itunes.

mp3 only on google, never on stonesarchive

Yes it is. We have always had the option to choose mp3s at stonesarchive.

oops surprise, no serious collector ever cared for mp3 at stonesarchive, so it was unknown to me and probably most others.

Don't be so sure. The bitrate is good

Yeah, they sound the same to me. I had both the MP3 and FLAC on my computer (thanks to people hooking me up with the FLAC) and I just ended up deleting the FLAC off my computer, though I saved them on my External Hard Drive I back up my files to.

I think somebody said there's no real difference, until you go burning them to CD's or something, that's when there is sound loss. I personally don't hear a difference on the CDs I burned either, but it's probably there. But the CDs I made are just a second string backup, in case the two backup devices I have the original zip file in fail for some reason.

To me the MP3 sound thiner and harsher like if it was a watered-down version. Plus bass has less presence and highs are less defined. Just like a cheap photo print.

Quote
TooTough

Quote
DandelionPowderman
you'll get FLAC-files at stonesarchive.com.

Does anybody know when?

Now....

[www.stonesarchivestore.com]

I'm can't DL this for a few days. Looking forward to it. I think one of the things that will make it uniqe is that it is from an outdoor show. That gives it different acustics from the other releases. That footage looks amazing. It would make for a nice DVD.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-14 18:15 by ryanpow.

no mp3 link yet?

Quote
Rik
no mp3 link yet?

[play.google.com]

Quote
falo01
you obviously don't get it, but that's ok. IORR

That seems to be a trend these days. Whenever somebody disagrees, people just say you don't "get it".

I'm not entirely sure what FLAC is all about, but even most FLAC supporters have said there's not really that much difference between a first generation mp3 (as in hasn't been copied to CDs or whatever) and the FLAC files. I don't know all that much about it, but that's what I've gathered. If you care to expand on it, then do so by all means, I'm all ears.

As for what my ears hear, there's no "getting it" required. Maybe you have a more discerning ear or something (I don't claim to have perfect pitch or anything), I don't know, but side by side comparison doesn't have any difference, TO ME.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-14 18:31 by NoCode0680.

Listening to FLAC first time now:

This is HOT ! My new favorit version of Shattered? Punk- version of Neighbors. Interesting that Richards uses this Delay-effect like he did then on She Was Hot.
I like Jagger`s voice more then 1981: less deep voice, more loose and relaxed.
Love it !

Tom

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
falo01
you obviously don't get it, but that's ok. IORR

That seems to be a trend these days. Whenever somebody disagrees, people just say you don't "get it".

I'm not entirely sure what FLAC is all about, but even most FLAC supporters have said there's not really that much difference between a first generation mp3 (as in hasn't been copied to CDs or whatever) and the FLAC files. I don't know all that much about it, but that's what I've gathered. If you care to expand on it, then do so by all means, I'm all ears.

As for what my ears hear, there's no "getting it" required. Maybe you have a more discerning ear or something (I don't claim to have perfect pitch or anything), I don't know, but side by side comparison doesn't have any difference, TO ME.

FLAC is same audio quality as CD but to be read on computer or audio portable device. MP3 is a degraded version of CD quality (that's why it's called "lossy" ). In its best available quality MP3 has high frequencies cut above 15k hertz which means a thiner bass sound and less defined highs than on the CD quality version.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-14 18:38 by kowalski.

Quote
vudicus

Quote
Rik
no mp3 link yet?

[play.google.com]

sorry meant for the stonesarchive :-)!

Quote
Rik
no mp3 link yet?

MP3 version on Stones archive : [www.stonesarchivestore.com]

FLAC version on Stones Archive : [www.stonesarchivestore.com]

Thanks Kowalski!

Couldn't find it

Quote
kowalski

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
falo01
you obviously don't get it, but that's ok. IORR

That seems to be a trend these days. Whenever somebody disagrees, people just say you don't "get it".

I'm not entirely sure what FLAC is all about, but even most FLAC supporters have said there's not really that much difference between a first generation mp3 (as in hasn't been copied to CDs or whatever) and the FLAC files. I don't know all that much about it, but that's what I've gathered. If you care to expand on it, then do so by all means, I'm all ears.

As for what my ears hear, there's no "getting it" required. Maybe you have a more discerning ear or something (I don't claim to have perfect pitch or anything), I don't know, but side by side comparison doesn't have any difference, TO ME.

FLAC is same audio quality as CD but to be read on computer or audio portable device. MP3 is a degraded version of CD quality (that's why it's called "lossy" ). In its best available quality MP3 has high frequencies cut above 15k hertz which means a thiner bass sound and less defined highs than on the CD quality version.

Thanks for the explanation. But I've also heard that a lot of these difference aren't really all that discernible, at least to some people I guess. I don't guess it really matters to me personally, I can't hear it, maybe I have bad hearing. I'm content with the MP3, that's my personal choice though. If somebody wants a FLAC, that's their choice. I was just kind of butthurt over the "get it" remark, came across kind of snot-nosed to me. I know that wasn't you kowalski. Thanks for the explanation again.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
kowalski

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
falo01
you obviously don't get it, but that's ok. IORR

That seems to be a trend these days. Whenever somebody disagrees, people just say you don't "get it".

I'm not entirely sure what FLAC is all about, but even most FLAC supporters have said there's not really that much difference between a first generation mp3 (as in hasn't been copied to CDs or whatever) and the FLAC files. I don't know all that much about it, but that's what I've gathered. If you care to expand on it, then do so by all means, I'm all ears.

As for what my ears hear, there's no "getting it" required. Maybe you have a more discerning ear or something (I don't claim to have perfect pitch or anything), I don't know, but side by side comparison doesn't have any difference, TO ME.

FLAC is same audio quality as CD but to be read on computer or audio portable device. MP3 is a degraded version of CD quality (that's why it's called "lossy" ). In its best available quality MP3 has high frequencies cut above 15k hertz which means a thiner bass sound and less defined highs than on the CD quality version.

Thanks for the explanation. But I've also heard that a lot of these difference aren't really all that discernible, at least to some people I guess. I don't guess it really matters to me personally, I can't hear it, maybe I have bad hearing. I'm content with the MP3, that's my personal choice though. If somebody wants a FLAC, that's their choice. I was just kind of butthurt over the "get it" remark, came across kind of snot-nosed to me. I know that wasn't you kowalski. Thanks for the explanation again.

I listen to MP3 myself but when I have the choice I prefer to go for the better quality. I can hear the difference especially when listen to the music on headphones. It's a bit the same difference as when you compare cassettes and vinyls I guess.