anybody know any sites where bootleg material can be downloaded as mp3's, etc?

www.rockpassion.com

yes but there must be some others,please teach us,guide us we are young stones fans!give us some more!!

www.dimeadozen.org

thkbeercan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anybody know any sites where bootleg material can
> be downloaded as mp3's, etc?


avoid mp3's as a source for bootlegs. Most traders wont touch them and for live shows they're useless

Download lossless versions instead on bit torrent, Without the gaps too.

Dimeadozen.org is the best one, but has reached the maximum of its membership and you may have to try several times to be able to register

New Stones bit torrent site just launched here in the last few days:
[rocksoff.kicks-ass.org]

discussions and tips on it : [www.novogate.com]

only a few shows up so far, but there will be lots more in the coming weeks, once we get it running properly

Never tried this site but have a look at

[stonesconcerts.com]

Well, in my opinion mp3s are alright. If the bitrate is high enough you won't hear a big difference... just my opinion though.
If you are a audiophile - you might avoid mp3s :-)

KeithRichards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, in my opinion mp3s are alright. If the
> bitrate is high enough you won't hear a big
> difference... just my opinion though.
> If you are a audiophile - you might avoid mp3s :-)
>
>


theyre fine for individual tracks. Most collectors will avoid trading for them however, especially when it comes to sources for live shows.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Never tried this site but have a look at
>
>
>


he's selling shows though, not offering them for download!!

Search on this (Google): BooTleg (remember the big T). There are boots from the stones as well.

It's not only about being audiophile
MP3 sourced live CDs leave very audible mini gaps between the songs, unless you spend some time re-editing your CD before burning it.
Today there are great lossless formats like FLAC or SHN that you can directly burn on CD if you have the plugins (which are free)

Metallica is selling their official live recordings from the last tour in FLAC format for 2 dollars more than MP3 format, at it makes a lot of fans happy.

Anyway, most traders don't accept to trade MP3 sourced stuff

What's so bad about the 1/1000nd of a second mini gaps bewteen songs? OK for me. The worst problem with mp3s is the amount of sound lost in the compression.

But let's face it, if we have a mediocre audience recording, the format doesn't matter that much.

DandelionPowderman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But let's face it, if we have a mediocre audience
> recording, the format doesn't matter that much.


That's a matter of the level of sophistication you want to achieve. I don't have a problem with people who are into two-bit recordings, but for myself I'd hardly go for anything that's not top-of-the-line.

"avoid mp3's as a source for bootlegs. Most traders wont touch them and for live shows they're useless "

Come on Gazza, you really exxagerate !

I made some CDs from MP3 sources about 5 years ago and they're still playing perfectly ! and I really can't see a major difference between original CDs and burned CDs from MP3 source as far as the sound quality is concerned.
if you convert audio files in MP3 below 128 kbps, then you can have some trouble with the reading on some players.
On my site, you'll only find audio files which have this minimum rate.

about the gaps between the songs : if you use a standard burning program, then you must be able to avoid that...i use Nero and all I have to do is to click on "Properties" and choose "0" (zero) in the "Pause" tab..

I'm not sure you can get rid of those gaps if you choose to burn with Windows XP media player...

stonefan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "avoid mp3's as a source for bootlegs. Most
> traders wont touch them and for live shows they're
> useless "
>
> Come on Gazza, you really exxagerate !


nope. Most serious traders wont touch them with a barge pole.

If you find them up to standard - great,whatever you prefer is your own choice - but personally Id avoid them for live shows for the reasons indicated by Doc and Dandelion Powderman above

stonefan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on Gazza, you really exxagerate !
>
> I made some CDs from MP3 sources about 5 years ago
> and they're still playing perfectly ! and I really
> can't see a major difference between original CDs
> and burned CDs from MP3 source as far as the sound
> quality is concerned.
> if you convert audio files in MP3 below 128 kbps,
> then you can have some trouble with the reading on
> some players.
> On my site, you'll only find audio files which
> have this minimum rate.

Wrong - MP3s pollute the trade pool, especially when bad traders burn them onto a CD-R and try to pass them off as lossless.

It's not just about sound quality, although plenty of people can hear the difference between a song encoded as a low-bitrate MP3 and a lossless file. When you encode to MP3, that sound information is lost forever - think of it as cutting off the edges of a photo. If an MP3 is re-encoded several times, the result will be unlistenable.

this is what i said ..if you use a low-bitrate (under 128 kbps), then you may have some trouble...I never had any because i use at least this minimum rate...

Some people think that they can hear stuff that they can't. Just put a blindfold on and people stop being able to tell the difference. This is why speakers are always tested in darkenned rooms. This is a well known phsyco-acoustic phenomenon.

Whilst I agree that there is, by definition, some loss in mp3 format, it certainly does not make the resultant file unlistenable. Bearing in mind that the human ear can hear between 20 Hz - 20 kHz then if, as stonefan says, you use a good sampling rate, you shouldn't experience any major difficulties.

If boot traders won't trade with mp3 sourced stuff then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, I believe that mp3 files are fine for 99% of the people. (Particularly when you realise that 75% of CD are pretty poor quality audience recordings anyway!)

After all, how many times have I spent £15 on a bootleg at a record fair, only to find when I get home that the recording is very poor making the whole thing unlistenable. I must have wasted hundreds of pounds over the years and this had put me off collecting live boots until recently. Using MP3's via the internet, however, means that we can listen to the bootleg without spending our dosh, and then source the printed CD if we like what we hear.

For example, I downloaded the live at sydney boot from Stonefans site and liked what I heard. I can now look to buy the printed CD knowing that I won't waste my money. However, the mp3 downloaded version sounds BRILLIANT to me, although I expect that the printed CD will sound slightly better.

I just recently read a test about two guys from the Vienna philharmonics - they were played an mp3 and a cd track from the same song. They couldn't tell the difference when the mp3 was recorded with 192kb/s. (They could hear a slight difference, with 128 kb/s)
So, if they can't hear it and technical analysis show that the sound that's lost through the compression is not audible for humans - then I think using mp3s is fine!
And I use minimum 192 kb/s now...

I'm sure that Mathijs, Gazza and some others will disagree when they read that






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-03 19:13 by KeithRichards.

I have listened to some early 70's boots where you probably couldn't tell the difference between the CD and a 5 kbps encoded mp3 of the same boot. And probably most of you know what I mean...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

KeithRichards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, if they can't here it and technical analysis
> show that the sound that's lost through the
> compression is not audible for humans - then I
> think using mp3s is fine!
> And I use minimum 192 kb/s now...
>
> I'm sure that Mathijs, Gazza and some others will
> disagree when they read that


You seem to overlook the fact that I'm not actually human.....

Gazza,
Maybe you're too human !

The point is not whether you REALLY hear a difference in sound quality between CD audio and mp3 or not. Although it is a fact that sound quality is significantly degraded when converted from CD audio to mp3.

Mp3 should never appear in the history of a live recording distributed through trading. It is an inferior, diluted audio format which is fine for casual listening only. Serious traders (like me and several other people on this board - people who generously share their lossless sources with us) expect the best quality recording of a particular show that´s out there, nothing less.

Mp3 is unacceptable for serious traders because it is important to keep the INTEGRITY of the music we are sharing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-03 19:37 by Tornandfrayed.

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Whilst I agree that there is, by definition, some
> loss in mp3 format, it certainly does not make the
> resultant file unlistenable.

Encoding once won't make it unlistenable. Several re-encodes will - which is what I already said.

>
> After all, how many times have I spent £15 on a
> bootleg at a record fair, only to find when I get
> home that the recording is very poor making the
> whole thing unlistenable. I must have wasted
> hundreds of pounds over the years and this had put
> me off collecting live boots until recently.
> Using MP3's via the internet, however, means that
> we can listen to the bootleg without spending our
> dosh, and then source the printed CD if we like
> what we hear.
>
> For example, I downloaded the live at sydney boot
> from Stonefans site and liked what I heard. I can
> now look to buy the printed CD knowing that I
> won't waste my money. However, the mp3 downloaded
> version sounds BRILLIANT to me, although I expect
> that the printed CD will sound slightly better.

If you have broadband (and I accept that not everyone does), why bother with an approximation of a bootleg when you can get the real thing for free through BitTorrent? If an original silver CD has been ripped using Exact Audio Copy, it will be identical to the original, right down to the last bit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-03 19:49 by Andy L.

i say
whats the difference?
most bootleg audience recordings sound crappy anyway
you can re-mix it some to make it better
They couldn't possibly get worse

I have taped a few shows in my time
and i was very surprised to hear other boots
worse than mine selling for $40
all you pay for is the packaging

Donkey Girl Scout Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i say
> whats the difference?
> most bootleg audience recordings sound crappy
> anyway
> you can re-mix it some to make it better
> They couldn't possibly get worse
>
> I have taped a few shows in my time
> and i was very surprised to hear other boots
> worse than mine selling for $40
> all you pay for is the packaging
>

your last line is the main reason why I've never collected bootlegs.
In total, I probably own no more than about five or six Stones bootleg LPs or CDs.

However, in the last 22-23 years or so, I have accumulated probably about 95-99% of the Stones shows or sessions that are in circulation, exclusively by trading tapes, then CDRs and now by downloading bit torrents. All its cost me is the price of blanks. I've spent a lot of money on them but the saving on buying bootleg LPs and CDs is incalculable.

Why buy 10 shows on CD for $400 when that amount of money will buy you enough blank CDRs to accumulate a huge collection?

Cant agree with your point that most audience recordings sound crappy - these days thats no longer the case

*true*


Audience recordings are sounding alot better
but i think your lose (just a little) warmth when recording on disc
rather than a tape
i have never used disc when recording
and it's been since 90 since a taped a show
Maybe i'll pick it up again
since it has changed so much

ok now tell us more about the topic!!there must be more of those sites