So, if from Italian seller it's not the real deal? Call me stupid but those graphs look identical to me, there should be a huge difference in dynamic range between 320 and 160. Maybe they were mastered at different (lower or higher) levels as most cd's are



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-12 00:55 by shadooby.

Again, well, yeah, thats what we got. Thats what they (the producers) got. Its either that or nothing. Just put it on the bay and you might even make some money. Or pass it on to someone here and give them a break on the price. Thats the way it goes with boots.

Personally, I think it sounds fine for what it is. If an official version ever comes out somehow, maybe it will be better, but I would not bet the farm on that.

jb

Italian seller? I "pre-ordered" one from the second batch that is supposed to be coming in in 2-3 weeks, but the seller is from Stockholm. So WTH???


plexi

like I said ... every bootlegger
and their dogs will be pumpin' out
copies of this one baby .....

ya might even get it in blood splatter vinyl ...



ROCKMAN

Quote
retired_dog
It's not really complicated, it only gets complicated because people mix up songwriter's copyrights (including first release rights) with neighboring copyrights (performers, record companies) all the time - despite the fact that it all has been discussed here again and again in the past.

Only the latter (neighboring copyrights of performers, record companies) expire if they are not legally released within a period of 50 years in the EU, counting from the end of the year the actual recording of a performance took place. This does not affect the songwriter's copyrights because they usually expire 70 years after their death(s).

That means that while the recording of say, Rolling Stones in Paris 1965 is already in the public domain, if one actually uses it for a CD or vinyl release, one still has to pay mechanical royalties to the songwriters who can't block such a release, but still need to get paid.

This basically also works for studio outtakes of previously released songs, but not for previously unreleased songs like Curtis Meets Smokey or She's Doing Her Thing because while the recordings are in the public domain, the songwriting copyrights aren't, and songwriters can still use their first publication right to effectively block them from release.

If 100's of sharp dressed lawyers can make a living out of this matter I call it 'complicated'.

Question though -your example of the 1965 Paris show: who has the publishing rights? You would expect hundreds of 'official' releases from 1960's artists, but that is not happening. In fact, try to release something I consider to be in the open domain by Jimi Hendrix or The Beatles and you will be prosecuted the next day.

Mathijs

Quote
timbernardis

Italian seller? I "pre-ordered" one from the second batch that is supposed to be coming in in 2-3 weeks, but the seller is from Stockholm.

There're currently 2 sellers: [www.eBay.it] - Milan , [www.eBay.com] - Stockholm.

This is a part of eclectic Stones sound that i miss more on their last works.
Those r'n'r'n'reggae vibes!!

[youtu.be]

Yeah that was a good surprise of the set as I remembered the known versions from the "RCA sessions" as a bit of a bore. But I went back to them after getting this new set and was surprised to find that they already had a bit of reggae in them, not as fleshed out as this new version though.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
shadooby
So, if from Italian seller it's not the real deal? Call me stupid but those graphs look identical to me, there should be a huge difference in dynamic range between 320 and 160. Maybe they were mastered at different (lower or higher) levels as most cd's are

Graph are identicals because the source is the same : 128 kbps mp3.

You can convert the files to 320 kbps mp3, flac CD quality, or flac HD 24 bits 96 kHz, the graph 'll be still the same.

Frequencies over 16 kHz are definitively lost because the files were encoded at some point (before the bootleggers got them) in 128 kbps mp3.

We can't compare with the original files, but many high frequencies are now missing in this wonderful leak.
If one day we get the lossless files, the difference 'll be clearly perceptible for everyone.
128 kbps mp3 is very lossy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-12 13:18 by Massimo68.

What nonsense...I've wasted enough time with this ridiculous lossy/lossless when we just got the best sounding outtakes in the history of boots (apart from possibly the Voodoo Series and the 2002 sessions) but these are NOT 128kbps MP3 files because you can hear encoding artifacts with that bitrate (much harder at 192, impossible at 320), like swishing cymbals and there is none of that here.

There could be many reasons for the frequencies above 16khz to have been lost (not that anyone can hear them mind you, don't believe me ? Just try an online frequency generator above 12khz and see what happens !) like cassette dubs (max frequency 15khz). Now since you have time to waste just put all your "lossless" boots through the free Spec application [spek.cc] and be ready to cry when you see most of them top off at 12khz (at best) in terms of actual audio with the rest above being "noise", you know the horrible hiss we were happy to get with any outtake that made its way to us ;-)

Oh and one last thing, the cutoff limit has nothing to do with the actual bitrate, it's just a setting in the encoder, you can set it to 12/16/20khz regardless of the bitrate. Actually the lower the better because you have more bandwidth the the actual frequencies you can hear, it is after all a perceptual codec...

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-12 14:09 by gotdablouse.

My opinion :
with lossy files you just don't lose the high end, all the frequencies are affected. That is the music loses some of its fleshy quality.

Listen to this boot repeatedly and them play a 1985 outtake (say the wonderful "What Am I Gonna Do With Your Love") and you'll notice the music suddenly sounds fuller (even though it's probably taken from that cassette leaked - by Ron? - around 1987).

Am I complaining about the "Fully Finished Studio Outtakes" being lossy? Not one minute. Given my life expectancy (and most members' here) it's my only chance to get an opportunity to have a glimpse at the band's vaults.
This massive leak of new music might force Mick to change his mind and release the stuff "soon" [3/5 years] instead of "some day" [never?] but in the meantime, I'll go the 128 or 192 way.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
retired_dog
It's not really complicated, it only gets complicated because people mix up songwriter's copyrights (including first release rights) with neighboring copyrights (performers, record companies) all the time - despite the fact that it all has been discussed here again and again in the past.

Only the latter (neighboring copyrights of performers, record companies) expire if they are not legally released within a period of 50 years in the EU, counting from the end of the year the actual recording of a performance took place. This does not affect the songwriter's copyrights because they usually expire 70 years after their death(s).

That means that while the recording of say, Rolling Stones in Paris 1965 is already in the public domain, if one actually uses it for a CD or vinyl release, one still has to pay mechanical royalties to the songwriters who can't block such a release, but still need to get paid.

This basically also works for studio outtakes of previously released songs, but not for previously unreleased songs like Curtis Meets Smokey or She's Doing Her Thing because while the recordings are in the public domain, the songwriting copyrights aren't, and songwriters can still use their first publication right to effectively block them from release.

If 100's of sharp dressed lawyers can make a living out of this matter I call it 'complicated'.

Question though -your example of the 1965 Paris show: who has the publishing rights? You would expect hundreds of 'official' releases from 1960's artists, but that is not happening. In fact, try to release something I consider to be in the open domain by Jimi Hendrix or The Beatles and you will be prosecuted the next day.

Mathijs

The "100's of sharp dressed lawyers that can make a living out of this matter" only exist in your imagination.

If you show me any cases where certain "public domain" releases have been successfully sued, I'm 100% certain that I can show you exactly why. There are indeed releases that do not stick to the rules I mentioned in my above post by including material, maybe just even one or two tracks, that legally should not be there, but that's because the respective labels either didn't know what they were doing or were intentionally trying to push the legal boundaries a bit further and end in illegal territory, and lots of those remain in print since years, untouched by your "100's of sharp dressed lawyers"...

The reason why not more of public domain recordings from 1960's artists are released has imo more to do with a) the scarcity of sufficient quality material and b) the general market situation. Exclude the big names like Stones and Beatles and a few others and you may experience a hard time trying to sell more than possibly a few hundred of, let's say, a mediocre live recording of the Spencer Davis Group. It's just not worth the effort.

And of course, you have to know exactly what you're doing to avoid trouble.

Your question alone of who's owning the publishing rights to the 1965 Stones Paris show is telling enough that you still have absolutely no clue, otherwise my explanation in my post above concerning Paris 1965 would have been more than enough!

Just a small hint: Who composed "Hey Crawdaddy", "Carol", "It's All Over Now", "Little Red Rooster", "Off The Hook" and all the other songs included in this particular show?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-12 18:29 by retired_dog.

so what is the more popular theory about the origin of this collected material at the moment?

Wow, this has been quite a thread. I've learned some things, been confused by some things and shook my head at A LOT of things, but ultimately...I hope to finish this collection this weekend. I've gotten through 2 1/2 discs worth so far. I burned the initial offering of mp3s to CDRs and then burned the "FLACs" that were later offered, though they sound to me like they are the same quality...which seems to have been confirmed by the reports that these "FLACs" aren't actually FLACs after all.....but whatever they are.....these sound AMAZING! I too remember listening to countless hours of hissy outtake bootlegs over the decades, and indeed paying $75-100 for a collection such as this (boxes like "Performances", "Hot Stuff Vol.2 - In Studio", etc.) and now you can get this stuff for free AND it sounds this good?? Holy hell, how great is that! Even as mp3s I'm in hog heaven.

P.S., I'm still the weirdo (I suppose) who thinks that "Nobody's Perfect" could be from later than '85, seems too clean for the Dirty Work seesions, maybe even a track from the Licks sessions...the production seems very "Keys to Your Love"-ish to me. But that's another story



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-12 20:10 by floodonthepage.

Here is the CMR verdict

[www.collectorsmusicreviews.com]

Quote
Massimo68

Quote
shadooby
So, if from Italian seller it's not the real deal? Call me stupid but those graphs look identical to me, there should be a huge difference in dynamic range between 320 and 160. Maybe they were mastered at different (lower or higher) levels as most cd's are

Graph are identicals because the source is the same : 128 kbps mp3.

You can convert the files to 320 kbps mp3, flac CD quality, or flac HD 24 bits 96 kHz, the graph 'll be still the same.

Frequencies over 16 kHz are definitively lost because the files were encoded at some point (before the bootleggers got them) in 128 kbps mp3.

We can't compare with the original files, but many high frequencies are now missing in this wonderful leak.
If one day we get the lossless files, the difference 'll be clearly perceptible for everyone.
128 kbps mp3 is very lossy.

I've found out there are at least 2 types of tracks in this compilation : very low bitrate tracks with a very straight cut off above 15k Hz (typical of a 128kbps mp3) and tracks with a little higher bitrate with a gradual cut off around 17k Hz (it looks like a 190~220kbps mp3).
This may be (or may be not) a hint at two different sources for this compilation.

The lower bitrate tracks (with the straight cut off) are mostly the older ones (Blood Red Wine, She's doing her thing, Scarlet, Living in the heart of love, IORR demo, etc.).

The following link has been added to the first post of this thread, as a reference:

Ideas about the sources of the new outtakes collection (Hot Stuff Thread)

Bjornulf

Quote
floodonthepage
Wow, this has been quite a thread. I've learned some things, been confused by some things and shook my head at A LOT of things, but ultimately...I hope to finish this collection this weekend. I've gotten through 2 1/2 discs worth so far. I burned the initial offering of mp3s to CDRs and then burned the "FLACs" that were later offered, though they sound to me like they are the same quality...which seems to have been confirmed by the reports that these "FLACs" aren't actually FLACs after all.....but whatever they are.....these sound AMAZING! I too remember listening to countless hours of hissy outtake bootlegs over the decades, and indeed paying $75-100 for a collection such as this (boxes like "Performances", "Hot Stuff Vol.2 - In Studio", etc.) and now you can get this stuff for free AND it sounds this good?? Holy hell, how great is that! Even as mp3s I'm in hog heaven.

P.S., I'm still the weirdo (I suppose) who thinks that "Nobody's Perfect" could be from later than '85, seems too clean for the Dirty Work seesions, maybe even a track from the Licks sessions...the production seems very "Keys to Your Love"-ish to me. But that's another story

The vocals on Nobody's Perfect are obviously from the 2000s. The guitars sound like 1977-79 to me.

Quote
bv
The following link has been added to the first post of this thread, as a reference:

Ideas about the sources of the new outtakes collection (Hot Stuff Thread)

thanx a lot

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
floodonthepage
Wow, this has been quite a thread. I've learned some things, been confused by some things and shook my head at A LOT of things, but ultimately...I hope to finish this collection this weekend. I've gotten through 2 1/2 discs worth so far. I burned the initial offering of mp3s to CDRs and then burned the "FLACs" that were later offered, though they sound to me like they are the same quality...which seems to have been confirmed by the reports that these "FLACs" aren't actually FLACs after all.....but whatever they are.....these sound AMAZING! I too remember listening to countless hours of hissy outtake bootlegs over the decades, and indeed paying $75-100 for a collection such as this (boxes like "Performances", "Hot Stuff Vol.2 - In Studio", etc.) and now you can get this stuff for free AND it sounds this good?? Holy hell, how great is that! Even as mp3s I'm in hog heaven.

P.S., I'm still the weirdo (I suppose) who thinks that "Nobody's Perfect" could be from later than '85, seems too clean for the Dirty Work seesions, maybe even a track from the Licks sessions...the production seems very "Keys to Your Love"-ish to me. But that's another story

The vocals on Nobody's Perfect are obviously from the 2000s. The guitars sound like 1977-79 to me.

Could maybe be used for an 'Emotional Rescue' Deluxe then?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-12 22:07 by floodonthepage.

Quote
johnnythunders
Here is the CMR verdict

[www.collectorsmusicreviews.com]

Always nice to see a detailed review and he's read the threads here and even references a...reference thread (no link though) but there are way too many mistakes ! He should have had it proofread by even a casual fan. I guess it's ok not to know that "Trouble's A Coming" was previously booted as "Break Away" but not that Keith originally sang "Deep Love", that "Fast Talking" is not from the Paris 77 sessions or that "Giving It Up" and "Ivy League" were not officially released (since "CV" seems to mean that, Current Version?) somehow ?!

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-12 22:30 by gotdablouse.

The guitars sound like 77-79? On Nobody´s perfect? Where is the weaving? The bendings and the licks? Sounds more like 2002 to me.

And on NP Mick sounds exactly like he did on Primitive Cool so...each to their own I suppose ;-)

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-13 15:01 by gotdablouse.

Quote
gotdablouse
Andbon NP Mick sounds exactly like he did on Primitive Cool so...each to their own I suppose ;-)

NP seems a Primitive Cool outtake

Not according to Bill Wyman who would probably know!

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Are these for sale somewhere? When it comes to downloading music & different formats I am clueless

Yes, on ebay from an Italian and a Swedish seller. The links have been posted in the last couple of pages in this thread.


plexi

The song 'It's a lie' ... best track of the bunch. Sugar Blue & guitar at end wow

Thanks

Quote
monkberry00

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The vocals on Nobody's Perfect are obviously from the 2000s. The guitars sound like 1977-79 to me.

You may have a lot of guitar strings but you don't have a clue about the music, you never did.

Not very nice.
If you have another opinion there's no need getting rude