http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=564975 (http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=564975)
http://db.etree.org/shn/124863 (http://db.etree.org/shn/124863)
this is the same source as shnid 23043. but these are 48 kHz that are identical to the original DAT recording. bitchin'
thanks to Terry for sending me the raw 48 kHz files :)
Phish
February 21, 1997
Tenax
Florence, Italy
source:
Schoeps cmc6/mk4 > Oade M248 (w/ HPF) > Sony SBM-1 > Tascam DA-P1 (@ 48 kHz)
transfer:
Sony PCM-R500 > Tascam HD-P2 > .WAV > CD Wave v1.98 (track splits) > Samplitute SE v9.1.1 (fades) > FLAC v1.3.0 (Level 8)
recorded by Don Wright
DAT clone provided by Craig Hillwig
transferred by Terry Watts
tracked/FLAC'ed by Jason Sobel
seeded June 27, 2013
FLAC tags added with metaflac v1.3.0
These are 16 bit / 48 kHz files and are identical to the original DAT recording.
Set I - [74:01]
01 - [05:03] - My Soul
02 - [09:50] - Foam
03 - [16:05] - Down with Disease >
04 - [10:48] - The Lizards
05 - [13:27] - Crosseyed and Painless
06 - [18:47] - You Enjoy Myself
Set II - [79:15]
01 - [10:37] - Ya Mar
02 - [11:23] - Run Like an Antelope ->
03 - [04:33] - Wilson ->
04 - [01:59] - The Oh Kee Pa Ceremony >
05 - [07:56] - AC/DC Bag >
06 - [06:50] - Billy Breathes
07 - [13:21] - Reba >
08 - [05:25] - Waste >
09 - [08:20] - Prince Caspian
10 - [02:07] - encore break
11 - [06:45] - Character Zero
----------------------------------
shntool 3.0.4 len mode output:
length expanded size cdr WAVE problems fmt ratio filename
5:03.347 55.54 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.6139 ph1997-02-21set1t01.flac
9:49.907 108.02 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5454 ph1997-02-21set1t02.flac
16:05.013 176.70 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.6044 ph1997-02-21set1t03.flac
10:48.467 118.74 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5792 ph1997-02-21set1t04.flac
13:26.840 147.74 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.6030 ph1997-02-21set1t05.flac
18:47.427 206.44 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.6005 ph1997-02-21set1t06.flac
10:36.707 116.58 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5675 ph1997-02-21set2t01.flac
11:22.893 125.04 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.6180 ph1997-02-21set2t02.flac
4:32.547 49.90 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.6373 ph1997-02-21set2t03.flac
1:58.520 21.70 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5426 ph1997-02-21set2t04.flac
7:56.107 87.18 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5907 ph1997-02-21set2t05.flac
6:49.907 75.06 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5817 ph1997-02-21set2t06.flac
13:21.240 146.71 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5818 ph1997-02-21set2t07.flac
5:25.333 59.57 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5643 ph1997-02-21set2t08.flac
8:20.480 91.64 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.6156 ph1997-02-21set2t09.flac
2:06.667 23.19 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.5807 ph1997-02-21set2t10.flac
6:44.600 74.08 MB cxx -- ---xx flac 0.6529 ph1997-02-21set2t11.flac
153:16.000 1683.84 MB 0.5945 (17 files)
Thanks!
Thanks Jason and Terry.
There is a current thread on TS about the difference between 48k and 44.1 and whether it is worth recording at 48k. comparing the old transfer and this new one and listening for a difference will be interesting.
Quote from: DoW on June 28, 2013, 11:20:05 AM
Thanks Jason and Terry.
There is a current thread on TS about the difference between 48k and 44.1 and whether it is worth recording at 48k. comparing the old transfer and this new one and listening for a difference will be interesting.
well, recording at 48 kHz vs 44.1 kHz is a different debate than seeding something at 48 kHz vs resampling to 44.1 kHz first.
In reality, there is little difference to recording at 48 kHz vs 44.1 kHz. I actually have no interest in doing any listening tests on that one, because
so many other factors influence the sound of the recording so much more than the sample rate that is chosen.
however, in regards to seeding a recording that was made at 48 kHz at 48 kHz vs resampling first, that is more about the theory of processing the recording as little as possible, and so everyone gets a couple that is absolutely identical to the original recording. The only real reason to resample from 48 kHz to 44.1 kHz is that someone could burn it to CD. but hardly anyone burns CD's anymore, so that's not a very compelling reason anymore. In practice, the resampling algorithms that are used are very high quality (SoX, r8brain, Izotope, etc, etc), and don't actually think anyone could realistically tell the difference between the original 48 kHz file and the resampled 44.1 kHz file. but I do like the idea of everyone getting a copy of the recording that is identical to the original recording...
different but the same concept in avoiding the one step in processing.
anyway thanks for the new source.