24th June 2013 - Verizon Center, Washington DC

Recorded by Lostbrook - Mastered by CQ - Remastered by Strettonbull

Full size artwork in Rar file.







Download - [www.filefactory.com]
Corrected Artwork - [www.filefactory.com]

We Transfer: [www.wetransfer.com]

Thanks as always to the taper.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-29 16:23 by strettonbull.

Thanks Chris for all your work

Ray

what program do you use to make the artwork

Thanks a lot

Thank you very much for another release. Only 3 to go!

thank you

Great thank you Strettonbull
Friendly from Paris
J.M

THANKS !!!!!

Thanks mate.

The front cover at the top of this topic has 21st June on it btw

thanks strettonbull i have been looking for a program

Thanks Chris, downloading now by Wetransfer!

Quote
JimmyShelter
Thanks mate.

The front cover at the top of this topic has 21st June on it btw

No it doesn't!

Thank you !!

First of all, thanks to Lostbrook for a very an excellent recording, and thanks to Strettonbull for a fantastic remastering job. Kudo to both of you!

I ask the following in the friendliest of ways:

Why remaster something that was already mastered? What is different now? EQ? Track names? New art? Why cut cosmicquake out of the loop? Afterall, you're remastering his master. I'm not downloading it but from the artwork there appears to be no mention of him. Perhaps that's covered in the text file. Are my taper's notes still there? Obviously you can do anything you like with it but when many people were raving about the quality of my recording and his master, what needed to be changed? And if there were problem areas, why not ask me for the raw file? I may not have given it to you but why not try to work form the original?

Peace,

Lostbrook

It's covered in the text file.

And yes your taper's notes are there.

Are all of my questions answered in the text file? I guess I'll have to download it.

LB

I too am in the process of remastering your work Lostbrook.
I thought the capture and the mastering job were very good but for me it lacks "presence", a bit bass heavy, lacking in upper mid-range/top.

I always try to give credit to everyone involved and include all original info files (as I know strettonbull does), although I hadn't given credit on my artwork to cosmicquake because this is the first time I've heard the name, although I did wonder what CQ meant.

I always provide my own artwork with my remasters because normally people ask you to as it is seen as different to the original source (not meant to replace it), so requires it's own artwork.

There seem to be lots of people interested in the remasters, as is evidenced by the number of downloads and requests.

Personally I would always prefer to work with raw captures, but it is not always possible, although if it is possible to obtain yours I would certainly be interested.

Respect to you for the capture and for sharing, and to CQ for a good mastering job. Our remastering of your work should not be taken as an insult to it, it just reflects the different tastes and ears that we all have.

I just downloaded your re-master and while I was glad to see CQ mentioned in the text doc, I’m still puzzled. I did an A/B comparison with “Worried about You” and I hear absolutely no difference. If there is indeed a difference, it would be so minor as to not justify a re-master. So all I can see is that you named the tracks, split the CDs differently, and put your name on it. At a minimum I think your new artwork should say “Recorded by Lostbrook – Mastered by CQ – Remastered by Strettonbull.” So I’ll repeat my questions from my previous post and edit out what was answered by the text doc:

“Why remaster something that was already mastered? What is different now? EQ? Obviously you can do anything you like with it but when many people were raving about the quality of my recording and his master, what needed to be changed? And if there were problem areas, why not ask me for the raw file? I may not have given it to you but why not try to work form the original?”

Lostbrook

To JimmyShelter: Thank you for answering some of my questions. It’s a lot more detailed than “It’s covered in the text file.” I don’t see it as an insult and it’s fine if you want to tweak it for your own ears. I just don’t see the necessity of sharing a re-master a day or two after the original has been shared, especially when plenty of people have indicated that they are extremely happy with this recording. I strongly disagree about it “lacking presence,” and would love to hear other opinions on that one. Maybe this is just a hobby for you guys as taping is for me.

Both Jimmy Shelter's and my remasters of this tour have been downloaded by in excess of 100 people per show. Some in excess of 400.

Whilst it is not necessary that they HAVE to be remastered and shared on here it would seem that there is a demand for them.

I believe that the sound is improved by our work, but you are fully entitled to your opinion.

Your recording was extremely good; one of the best from the tour so far, but I'm surprised you cannot hear any difference. Obviously different sounds are heard differently depending on people's hearing and their equipment.

To conclude, I remaster for my own benefit and if someone else likes it, then that's great too.

IORR is a hobby for us and downloading and sharing is part of our community.

That's all from me for tonight. I'll let other people post their thoughts on it.

Enjoy your weekend.

Sorry but the number of times someone downloads one of your remasters means nothing to me. I'm just a newcomer here but I can see that you've built your own following by remastering absolutely EVERYTHING. Of course people will download something if it's made available. Some want to collect everything, especially when it relates to this band. And hey, a "remaster" has to be better, right? This very website has rated the original recording as EXC+. Read some of the comments in the "Audio Archive" thread and in the "Washington on Dime now" thread, not to mention the comments on Dime itself. Sharing is "part of our community?" The original recording is already available on mega and wetransfer through links here on IORR.

And here's a fact that I forgot to mention earlier - CQ is a professional mastering engineer, as in he does this for a living. He has worked with some big name bands that I can't mention. Yet you have somehow improved on his work. You're surprised I can't hear a difference? I did a blind test with 6 people in my house using the same song fragment and nice speakers. Most couldn't tell the difference and one person picked mine. To me, what you have done is nothing that couldn't be achieved by turning the treble or bass knobs a tad on your system. The only credit I'm taking for this recording is knowing where to sit in the arena. All I did was stand still and keep an eye on the levels. I've produced some crappy recordings since 1975 and CQ made all of those sound better. Some of those might have a need for remastering - we made some mistakes back then. But this one needed nothing that called for an immediate Strettonbull remaster. Looks like you couldn't stop yourself if you tried. I guess you've really made a name for yourself. Congratulations.

I would welcome other opinions too, though I wonder how many will see this.

People are looking but no one is commenting. Perhaps they're waiting for your next response - if there's going to be one. A couple of more thoughts in the meantime: the idea that this is a "remaster" is a joke. By very definition, a remaster means that the original files were mastered over again, presumably because there was a problem to be fixed or a benefit to be gained. Unless you can tell me what you "fixed," all you did is diddle with the cute little eq sliders and attach your name to this recording. If it had been for your ears only I would have no problem with that. By releasing this to the world, you have HIJACKED our recording. Picture this - years down the road when we're all dead, Stones fans will still be collecting recordings. Given a choice, they are going to assume that your "remaster" must be the better of the recordings and that you had something to do with this project when, in reality, you are nothing more than a hijacker. Perhaps they'll even be confused by your "artwork" with the June 21 date. Way to go. You may have fixed that, but it's too late. It's already out there. These recordings get posted to other websites and spread like wildfire - or disease. Tell us the truth - you like having your own little series and your name associated with recordings that were just fine without you. The download numbers and the praise feel good, don't they? In fairness, maybe you have improved a few. I'm not going to collect them to find out. Answer this - is there ANY quality recording that you wouldn't touch or do they all have to have the "strettonbull treatment?" I see you're already planning to "remaster" the rest of the tour so I guess that answers my question. Why don't you "remaster" "Live'r Than You'll Ever Be" and see how that goes over. Better yet, buy some recording gear and tape some shows yourself. It's not that hard. I would be glad to help.

Edit:

@JimmyShelter...if you haven't already released your "remaster" how about doing me a personal favor and keep it to yourself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-29 15:54 by Lostbrook.

There's probably no comments because there's not really anything more to say.

What's eating you up? You waiting for someone to say how BRILLIANT you and your recordings are? It's good, the mastering was good.

Why do you share your stuff? It seems to me that you probably do it for praise. Is that why you're here? You seem to have been everywhere else looking for it.

Forget it, we have.

If you don't want people to HIJACK your stuff, don't share it. Simple.

Wow. I was hoping for more from you JS. I've already stated above that all I did was know where to sit in the arena. A monkey could pull off a good tape with the proper equipment and training. The bottom line is you are the one looking for praise, not me. I also stated that I have many crappy recordings. This is not one of them. Enjoy your "remaster" if that's what you think it is. Thanks for nothing.

Quote
Lostbrook
Wow. I was hoping for more from you JS.

Like what?

Quote
Lostbrook
..I have many crappy recordings. This is not one of them.

Never said it was. I said it was good, and so was the mastering. I also explained why I felt the need to "remaster" it.

Quote
Lostbrook
... your "remaster" if that's what you think it is.

You haven't even heard it.

I ask again, What's eating you up?

We keep getting this recently. People signing up here since this US tour started, going on about remasters, where we upload stuff, 'pissing in the pool', telling all of us idiots how it all should be done, launching scathing, insulting attacks on well-respected members.

Who do you all think you are? Yes, I've heard of Lostbrook but that doesn't give you the right to come here telling everybody else what to do.

I'm bored with it.

Goodbye.

I was hoping for a more detailed response to my concerns and a possible decision by you to respect my wishes. Your "need to remaster it" based on its "lacking presence", a bit bass heavy, lacking in upper mid-range/top" is absurd. Cardioid microphones at the distance I recorded from exhibit a LOSS of bass response and tend to favor the high end. I signed up here at the start to follow the tour, to keep my kids informed, and to keep an eye on a possible DC date. I found myself getting very excited about this tour due to some of the very insightful analysis on this forum. When DC tickets went on sale, a large part of my decision to buy the expensive seats was so I could bring a quality recording to collectors, especially the well-deserving fans on this site. Yet you say I'm everywhere in search of praise. Was that because I posted a message on HC stating "glad you're enjoying the recording?" Go ahead and continue your circle jerk, telling yourself that you're doing this for the community. Shouldn't you be selecting cool fonts for the Glastonbury recording which will surely need to be remastered?

Maybe if you were more precise about what your actual concerns are. Most of the above posts are a bit rambling.

I take the point that you don't agree with my reasons,ie "presence" etc. But isn't that just a difference of opinon?

We keep getting this point about contaminating the source pool, or however we choose to put it. But personally I think if things are documented, ie. sources used, what was done etc, then we should leave the choice of what people want to listen to to them. I always try to credit everybody concerned, I explain what I've done and why, what software I've used, even how I've used it if I feel it helps explain things, and include all original info files.

Quote
This is taken from my info file for my Remaster of your capture:
* Although the Waves L3 Multimaximiser contains a multi-band compressor,
levels are set to ensure only extreme peaks (if any) are controlled, ie. the audio is NOT compressed.
The dynamic range of this remaster is no less than that of the original.

It does nobody any good to insult people's intelligence wholesale, ie.

Quote
Lostbrook
Given a choice, they are going to assume that your "remaster" must be the better of the recordings

You don't seem to think much of people's ability to make their own minds up.

And a decision to respect your wishes. Am I to take it then that you are asking me not to post my Remaster? If that is your expressed wish, then OK, I will respect that wish.

Like everybody else here, I am very grateful to people like yourself who have the means and the opportunity to go out there and record and share these shows.
Unfortunately I have neither the means nor the opportunity and have to rely on others to it.

When I say you seem to be everywhere in search of praise, it is response to things you have already said above, such as:

Quote
Lostbrook
.. but when many people were raving about the quality of my recording and his master

I am not looking for an arguement, but it seems that every post you have made in this thread so far ends with an unprovoked assault on somebody:

Quote
Lostbrook
Go ahead and continue your circle jerk, telling yourself that you're doing this for the community. Shouldn't you be selecting cool fonts for the Glastonbury recording which will surely need to be remastered?

Take responsibility for what you bring on yourself.

Look, this is starting to get out of hand. I think my concerns were very clear and that my posts were anything but "rambling." I don't think it's insulting at all to assume that most person will believe that a remaster is better and that it fixed something wrong with the original. Not everyone is going to download all sources. And again, it's not really a remaster, is it? Some people did rave about the recording. I didn't. One guy here said it was the best he's heard in decades, which I thought was a bit over the top. It is rated as EXC+ on this site as I mentioned earlier. So again I ask, is there any quality recording that you would keep your hands off or do you have to tinker with them all? I already asked you earlier to keep your "remaster" to yourself. I guess you missed that since I type in paragraphs that you consider rambling. I apologize for the circle jerk comment. It's more of an echo chamber I guess. Most of this discussion was intended to be had with SB, but he hasn't responded recently and at this point it doesn't matter anymore. I'm off to hack up the local golf course. If anything needs remastering, it's my swing.

I've now credited CQ with the mastering, on the artwork. Apologies - I should have done that originally.

All I'm going to finally say on this matter is that it's a matter of personal opinion which sounds better. Whether it's the original, the JS remaster, or the SB remaster, it's really down to opinion.

The fact that one guy on the forum rates the original recording as EX+ is meaningless - it's subjective. I could counter that by saying that judging by the emails I've received since this kicked off, quite a lot of people think that it's now been improved.

No doubt you'll come back at me with an attack of some sort, but it's all getting rather tiresome now, so I won't be responding to any more of your tedium.

Hope the golf went well.