This is a tagged version of shnid: 94260

Grateful Dead
Aug 5 1971
Hollywood Palladium
Hollywood, CA
gd71-08-05.fob.kaslow-todd-smith.sbeok.flac16


MR > R > CD > EAC > WAV > FLAC

MAR (Harvey Kaslow)* @ 7 1/2 ips. > R @ 7 1/2 ips.
(Will Boswell via Rob Bertrando) Maxell UD tape > CD
'loser' was missing on this reel but used Don Wolfe's MAR>R>R @ 3 3/4 ips
copy...
One of the mics malfunctioned before the second set resulting in a
mono recording on set 2

R copied @ 7.5 ips using a Revox A-77>A-77 ---
Mastered to cd by Matt Smith ---

Playback info:
R > Akai GX625 > apogee mini me (24/96) > apogee mini dac (monitoring) >
Lynx One soundcard > wavelab 5.0 (dithered to 20/44) >CD ** > EAC > WAV
(shntool confirms no sbes) > FLAC (TLH)
___________________________________________________________________________

--Set 1--
101-d1t01 - Intro -> Bertha
102-d1t02 - Me & My Uncle
103-d1t03 - Mr. Charlie
104-d1t04 - Sugaree
105-d1t05 - El Paso
106-d1t06 - Cryptical Envelopment ->
107-d1t07 - Drums ->
108-d1t08 - The Other One ->
109-d1t09 - Wharf Rat
110-d1t10 - Me & Bobby McGee
111-d1t11 - Casey Jones

--Set 2--
201-d2t01 - Truckin'
202-d2t02 - Loser
(missing) - Sugar Magnolia
(missing) - Bird Song
(missing) - Not Fade Away
206-d2t03 - //Goin' Down the Road Feeling Bad ->
207-d2t04 - Not Fade Away
208-d2t05 - Johnny B. Goode
___________________________________________________________________________

notes:
I want to thank Will Boswell & Matt Smith for this gem, and especially
Matt for his generosity and friendship.

8/5 & 6 1971 are legendary audience recordings. they simply sound great!

While I'm sure you're content if not ecstatic with what you already have,
there are a few reasons to consider acquiring this dat-less version new
to general circulation (and please understand this isn't a competition
and I'm not trying to pit Charlie Miller against Matt Smtih).


The most recent version to circulate is the one Miller remastered:
http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=88859

>> the tape flip during The Other One in Miller's version doesn't seem
to exist on this copy

>> the other repairs that were made seem consistent with a dat source not
reels (drop outs and pitch correction)

>> this source seems to lack the cut Sugar Magnolia however and I have
no idea why it's missing


There are a few reasons to put this source into general circulation:

1. It's important to preserve your right to choose
You're the expert in this case and can decide what sounds best to you.
You, the listener, should have the choice. it would be wrong of me to
hoard this and rob you of your choice in other words. when it's this
close I'm not going to arrogantly tell you what sounds better or best
to you.

2. lowest hq generation sources should be available
Since we're dealing with hq sources in both cases, this source is
technically the lowest generation we have seen and should be in
circulation at a minimum. that should be a key goal to preserving the
music we love so dearly, to make hq sources with the lowest
generation available.


3. Known transfer
Another reason to add or prefer this source is we have no idea when
or how Miller's most recent versions of these shows were transferred
whereas we know Matt recently transferred this reel with
professionally endorsed techniques and high end equipment. We simply
know Miller received his DATs in 2000. As Miller explains, "I got my
DAT of this show back in 2000. I have no clue as to how it was
transferred. I'm sure Matt's A>D is better than the one in the deck
used back in 2000."


4. unedited hq seeds should circulate at a minimum
Miller's source was "remastered" which isn't always a good thing,
especially if that's all we have. Raw, hq transfers, should circulate
at a minimum and are the best ways to preserve the music. Once these
sources are available, then remasters may or may not be desirable.
But since remasters can make irreversible changes, locking us into
the subjective bias of the editor, we need these hq raw transfers
before we should consider possible enhancements. In this case, pitch
correction has proven to be tricky business. We've seen tech wizards
debate whether or not it was done correctly. Since it's very easy to
over or under correct, and even tech wizards often disagree, we can
only go on what feels, sounds, or seems right. Because of this
difficulty, we should make sure sources like this are available.


* Recorded By Harvey Kaslow and Craig Todd
(FOB) Sony ECM-22P condenser mikes into a Sony 770 portable 7 '' reel
deck.


** For the purpose of archival documentation, here are additional notes
on how this seed was made, and why it was made this way. As Matt
explains:

"My basic approach to transferring/mastering is LESS IS MORE. The basic
goal should be to attain the cleanest signal possible going TO digital.
It all starts with analog Equipment in top condition. I've had my
equipment restored and even the tape heads aligned. I also clean all the
heads/ect. every reel side I play which is also paramount. Audio cables
are very important as well to get a good clean signal. There can be a
big difference at times depending on whatever you are using which is a
whole other chapter. Now comes the most important part, the A/D
conversion. I personally use Apogees just because they are the best in
our specific usage IMHO. Apogee's are renowned for their 'UV22HR'
dithering algorithm. This specific algorithm is used in about 80% of all
the mastering houses across the country and most of the stuff you hear
commercially uses this. Even if dithered down to 16/44 it 'sounds'
like a 24/96 to put in simple terms. So basically load in at 24/96
then dither down and you've got yourself a nice, clean file to work
with. Now the DAT thing. DATS/CD recorders are great but that's
really the 'end of the chain' so to speak. I don't mean to be a name
dropper but when I was struggling trying to learn the "what the hell's
the difference??" debate Jeffrey Norman put it best, "the A/D converters
in DATS and CD's are compromised since it's crammed with other equipment
resulting in a loss of overall dynamics. a stand alone A/D converter
that was made specifically for that purpose before going to DAT/CD/DAW
is always the way to go if done correctly"... This simple fact is mainly
not even considered (or understood) by most people but still, the most
vital part in the transfer chain without question. There is no doubt
to me (and others) there is more dynamic range or overall a more defined
sound vs. something going into just a DAT/CD recorder from analog.
A nice fat(and clean) low end is also part of the result as well lots
of times that DAT transfers are missing at times. Proper monitors are
also very important too!! I have a Mini DAC hooked into a Hafler
550 watt power amp going to a pair a very nice Audix studio monitors.
One needs to HEAR the flat uncolored signal when editing anything IMHO.
Otherwise something can be ruined forever b/c some guy decides to NR/EQ
and no one will know the difference 20 years from now!! Original
transfers should be treated with great care and that's what I basically
try to do to the best of my ability. When I get it all done I also have
the unique luxury of owning Jerry's old McIntosh stereo system
(MR77 tuner,C28 Pre and MC2105 power amp)"
___________________________________________________________________________

Tagging notes:
Show information is embedded within the header of each flac file.
It will display on any player capable of directly playing flac
files. If converted to wav during processing, all tags will be
stripped, however audio data will remain unaffected. If you must
transcode to a lossy format, do so directly Flac > Lossy.
Use ffp to validate audio integrity.
Md5 values will change if tagging is altered.
B. Proctor 7-03-09