Every Concert On Itunes?

[earthshell]

I have heard from several people that every show for the new tour will be available for download on Apple's Itunes. Has anybody else heard this too? Cuz that would be sweet if it happenes. You know the quality of the bootleg is going to be absolutely crisp-clear. I'm just wondering if this is going to be true or not. Anybody else hear anything?

jon

 

[Axver]

It's a rumour and probably won't happen, which is good. We don't need shitty lossy bootlegs only available to people blessed enough to have iTunes in their country. It should be lossless and available to any fan - just the way it is in the bootleg world.

 

[namkcuR]

It's a rumour and probably won't happen, which is good. We don't need shitty lossy bootlegs only available to people blessed enough to have iTunes in their country. It should be lossless and available to any fan - just the way it is in the bootleg world.

Forgive my ignorance...but what is the difference between lossy and lossless?

 

[MrBrau1]

Forgive my ignorance...but what is the difference between lossy and lossless?

Nerd and nerdy.

ITunes would be better than some MD or DAT bootleg recording.

 

[Axver]

Forgive my ignorance...but what is the difference between lossy and lossless?

When music is compressed to lossy formats (i.e. MP3), some frequencies of sound are removed and cannot ever be restored. When it is compressed to lossless formats (i.e. SHN, FLAC), these frequencies are not lost and when you decode it to WAV, you have an exact copy of the original.

 

[popshopper]

But what the bootleg community fail to realise in their ongoing quest for lossless releases is that a lossy soundboard recording in almost infinately better than a non mixed single lossless bootleg recorded with a omni-directional mic. It's that simple.

Though in an ideal world both options would be available. I take the point that AAC isn't exactly the best form of compression and is pretty lossy, but complaining about the possibility of high-quality mixed recordings of every show (and they would be high quality) just because they don't meet a standard that 90% of the audience wouldn't notice (btw that's going to become more pronouced as the current generation are lucky if they ever hear uncompressed music) and which is far higher quality than any audience recording seems a little silly.

 

[Axver]

I actually often prefer the sound of audience bootlegs ...

 

[bono_man2002]

I dont notice much of a diffrence between Lossy and Loseless.....So I dont mind what format they come on.

 

[RademR]

i would love if they had every show on i-tunes. some people can't get i-tunes in other countries, but it's not like the shows wouldnt be SOMEWHERE on the net the next day.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

Hearing waves and Spanish in the background should be standard for every boot.

 

[Skwege]

Screw iTunes and its crappy compression.

U2 should just do what many other bands have done. Offer shows in both MP3 and FLAC format. Metallica and Phish have done it to much success. MP3 shows are a few bucks cheaper, while the FLAC shows cost more. However nerds like me will gladly pay extra for a GOOD format.
Its the best of both worlds. Considering that U2 is one of the most bootlegged bands, and that they have complete control over their catalog, they have no excuse not to do this.

 

[broken toy]

On the one hand, I totally agree that they should release lossless versions, either on CDs like Pearl Jam or via download, like others.

On the other hand--and I am a fan of well-recorded audience tapes--the quality of a properly mixed show will be too good to pass up. I've heard the lossy singles from iTunes, and they beat the crap out of my 7" singles, with their pops and such.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Hearing waves and Spanish in the background should be standard for every boot.

hola

 

[deltau922]

Yeah I much prefer some stupid chick asking "Like the Edge needs a WHAT?" over a professionally mixed mp3.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well I'm a sellout. You heard me. I like quality, not complete crap. If iTunes gets in on this one, I'm all for it.



PS- there's a way to put iTunes on mp3 through some program I don't really know of, but it's out there.

 

[PhoenixGNX]

I've been collecting U2 Boots since 1996 and I must say I hope this happens. I feel sorry as hell for those people who buy crap on ebay for $45 and think its this brilliant show because its a SILVER DISC when in actuality its some jackass with a recorder in the crowd with some chic standing next to him screaming how hot Bono is. Will their be a loss in quality? Yes. But, even with that loss, the quality of a professionally recorded show will blow any audience boot out of the water...even the good audience ones.

Now, if your a "fan" of audience boots...then thats just your taste. But when it comes to quality, its rediculous to compare the two. And for you tech nerds out there, get yourself a nifty remastering program and remaster the I-Tunes tracks yourself and enhance the sound. I've done this myself and it literally restores the lost life back into the recording.

 

[broken toy]

Phoenix, it's great that you have found a "post-production" technique that enhances your enjoyment of lossy files....

But to be clear, there is no earthly way to restore sonic information that has been removed in the compression process. Anything you did would just be a computer guessing and filling in artificial information. You can downsample effectively all you want, but you cannot upsample and have it mean anything. I don't want non "tech nerds" thinking they can resurrect the dead.

And I have heard top-quality audience recordings that sound better than soundboards, but I'll grant those are few and far between, compared to the many iffy audience recordings, even those made with good equipment by competent tapers.

My bottom line: U2 releasing live shows is a good thing, however it comes about.

 

[Skwege]

Thank you for saving me the trouble of replying to Phoenix's rather ignorant post.
I would rather be a "tech nerd" than an ignorant simpleton.

Anyhow, yes compressed studio mixed live recordings will sound better than an audience recording.
However there is a difference between a post-concert mixed live recording and just a raw soundboard recording (like many bootlegs are.) Sometimes a audience recording sounds better than a raw soundboard recording. It all depends on how good the live sound crew is at the mixing desk.

Nevertheless if the band does offer live shows. They should offer them in more than one format, and neither should be in the iTunes format. However that seems unlikely considering their relationship with Apple. In all likelihood they will be iTunes exclusives, which is just really lame.

Pressed CDs would be a good option as well. Especially for fans that are still on dial up or don't have internet access.

iTunes are complete garbage. The only reason most people dont realize that is because they

A. Listen to them on their inferior computer speaker setup.

B. Or listen to them on their iPod with lousy headphones.

Here is a suggestion for thos who are interested in performing a test. Go download a U2 album off of iTunes. Burn it to CD, then play that CD on a good home stereo system. Then after that, play a pressed store bought version of that same album on the same stereo.
That should convince even the most technologically ignorant of people.

Phoenix, it's great that you have found a "post-production" technique that enhances your enjoyment of lossy files....

But to be clear, there is no earthly way to restore sonic information that has been removed in the compression process. Anything you did would just be a computer guessing and filling in artificial information. You can downsample effectively all you want, but you cannot upsample and have it mean anything. I don't want non "tech nerds" thinking they can resurrect the dead.

And I have heard top-quality audience recordings that sound better than soundboards, but I'll grant those are few and far between, compared to the many iffy audience recordings, even those made with good equipment by competent tapers.

My bottom line: U2 releasing live shows is a good thing, however it comes about.

 

[PhoenixGNX]

Thank you for saving me the trouble of replying to Phoenix's rather ignorant post.
I would rather be a "tech nerd" than an ignorant simpleton.

Anyhow, yes compressed studio mixed live recordings will sound better than an audience recording.
However there is a difference between a post-concert mixed live recording and just a raw soundboard recording (like many bootlegs are.) Sometimes a audience recording sounds better than a raw soundboard recording. It all depends on how good the live sound crew is at the mixing desk.

Nevertheless if the band does offer live shows. They should offer them in more than one format, and neither should be in the iTunes format. However that seems unlikely considering their relationship with Apple. In all likelihood they will be iTunes exclusives, which is just really lame.

Pressed CDs would be a good option as well. Especially for fans that are still on dial up or don't have internet access.

iTunes are complete garbage. The only reason most people dont realize that is because they

A. Listen to them on their inferior computer speaker setup.

B. Or listen to them on their iPod with lousy headphones.

Here is a suggestion for thos who are interested in performing a test. Go download a U2 album off of iTunes. Burn it to CD, then play that CD on a good home stereo system. Then after that, play a pressed store bought version of that same album on the same stereo.
That should convince even the most technologically ignorant of people.

Hey dildo, since we're getting personal now. Cut the shit with a personal attack. In my post I never once directed an attack at anyone, so get the fuck off the board if this is how you're going to respond. If I have to write a 5 page essay on the logistics of audio formats just to please your ass that I'm not "ignorant", then I will. However, thats 20 mins I'll never get back. Yes, there are soundboard recordings out there that sound like crap. But, OBVIOUSLY these recordings aren't going to sound like some bootleged piece of crap from Italy if they're going to be for sale on I-Tunes. And, hello, the tech nerd term was directed at myself, so I'm sorry if I offended you oh holy one of the technological world.

 

[PhoenixGNX]

Phoenix, it's great that you have found a "post-production" technique that enhances your enjoyment of lossy files....

But to be clear, there is no earthly way to restore sonic information that has been removed in the compression process. Anything you did would just be a computer guessing and filling in artificial information. You can downsample effectively all you want, but you cannot upsample and have it mean anything. I don't want non "tech nerds" thinking they can resurrect the dead.

And I have heard top-quality audience recordings that sound better than soundboards, but I'll grant those are few and far between, compared to the many iffy audience recordings, even those made with good equipment by competent tapers.

My bottom line: U2 releasing live shows is a good thing, however it comes about.

This on the other hand was a first class response and I completely respect and agree with 'Broken Toy's response.

 

[Skwege]

Hey dildo, since we're getting personal now. Cut the shit with a personal attack. In my post I never once directed an attack at anyone, so get the fuck off the board if this is how you're going to respond. If I have to write a 5 page essay on the logistics of audio formats just to please your ass that I'm not "ignorant", then I will. However, thats 20 mins I'll never get back. Yes, there are soundboard recordings out there that sound like crap. But, OBVIOUSLY these recordings aren't going to sound like some bootleged piece of crap from Italy if they're going to be for sale on I-Tunes. And, hello, the tech nerd term was directed at myself, so I'm sorry if I offended you oh holy one of the technological world.

Why don't you calm down and chill the hell out.

 

[Sjoa]

I've been collecting U2 Boots since 1996......

I've bee collecting and trading u2 boots 4 years (before I only bought bootlegs in shops), btw. Are you trading ? I am always open for trades I have a lot of u2 audio stuff, some rare SBD/IEM recordings .... so if you have some boot-list send me an email to sjoa@centrum.cz and I can send you my list What do you think ?

 

[jammin909]

Originally posted by Skwege

iTunes are complete garbage. The only reason most people dont realize that is because they

A. Listen to them on their inferior computer speaker setup.

B. Or listen to them on their iPod with lousy headphones.

sorry I dont have thousands to blow on audio equipment.

 

[xellente]

99.9% percent of fans would love to have a live downloadedable version (even if on itunes) even if i not 100% quality. Something tells me though that if u2 will release shows digitally, it would be on itunes.

 

[STERKERNOG]

I've been collecting U2 shows since 1987 and back then it was all cassette tapes. Talking about losing quality. But I wanted the shows anyway. I understand lossless is preferable. But that's what the torrents are for. I updated many of my shows in the internet-age from old cassttes to great quality CD, but there are a lot of shows (pre 1987) that only exsist on tapes. And there are really great shows from the early eighties with an oke quality that I prefere above the elevation tourshows.
My point is, if people want mp3's, let them. And if you want the high quality, be patience, look aroud and you'll find them sooner or later. But don't look down on people that want mp3's

And be patience. I believe a year from now all the shows will be available lossless and lossy. take your pick...

 

[CTU2fan]

Of course soundboards of every show would be cool...but it's a shame that we'd be forced to have them as some lossy aac/mp3/whatever files. This whole iTunes thing is shit IMO, making people pay for lossy music? Mp3's were cool when you got them for nothing off napster/kazaa/soulseek whatever, but paying for them? I'd happily pay $15/show for cd's, if they did it pearl jam style...or even downloadable flac's. But lossy? F that, I'll get 'em for free somehow, just like I did the unreleased & rare...pay for lossy music, my ass

 

[Sjoa]

I agree with CTU2fan... If oficial live recordings will be in lossy format. it's bad thing for great music quality and for all new sound technology.... I would like to pay for quality recordings not for mp3!!

 

[Diemen]

I understand the point most of you lossless fans are making, but there is an important distinction to make here. If U2 were to do this iTunes thing (which they aren't, but for argument's sake), most likely they would be using their own soundboard recordings mixed in with some audience noise - aka, professional level recordings. Now unless some taper got lucky and tapped into the soundboard that night, it doesn't really matter if the compression is lousy - an iTunes AAC file from a soundboard recording will sound uncomparably better than some MD/DAT recording done from the audience.

Now given the same recording source, then of course lossless would be preferable.

 

[applenut]

Thank you for saving me the trouble of replying to Phoenix's rather ignorant post.
I would rather be a "tech nerd" than an ignorant simpleton.

Anyhow, yes compressed studio mixed live recordings will sound better than an audience recording.
However there is a difference between a post-concert mixed live recording and just a raw soundboard recording (like many bootlegs are.) Sometimes a audience recording sounds better than a raw soundboard recording. It all depends on how good the live sound crew is at the mixing desk.

Nevertheless if the band does offer live shows. They should offer them in more than one format, and neither should be in the iTunes format. However that seems unlikely considering their relationship with Apple. In all likelihood they will be iTunes exclusives, which is just really lame.

Pressed CDs would be a good option as well. Especially for fans that are still on dial up or don't have internet access.

iTunes are complete garbage. The only reason most people dont realize that is because they

A. Listen to them on their inferior computer speaker setup.

B. Or listen to them on their iPod with lousy headphones.

Here is a suggestion for thos who are interested in performing a test. Go download a U2 album off of iTunes. Burn it to CD, then play that CD on a good home stereo system. Then after that, play a pressed store bought version of that same album on the same stereo.
That should convince even the most technologically ignorant of people.

CDs are "compressed" as well dipshit.

for 99 cents a track you're complaining. Guess what, just don't buy it. pretty easy.

 

[Skwege]

CDs are "compressed" as well dipshit.

for 99 cents a track you're complaining. Guess what, just don't buy it. pretty easy.

Since you put it so eloquently, the compression in an MP3 is far worse than a standard compact disc you dumbass.
Though there is a depency on how competent the mastering engineer is.
Nevertheless the bitrate on iTunes is utterly ridiculous, hence why I never buy anything off of iTunes.

Nevertheless my friend, go sit through an Audio Engineering Program, then feel free to come back and debate with me as an informed human being, not as a dumb fucking troll.