REC
Active topics
  1. I'd have to compare but I thought the Vancouver mix was better. There wasn't the phasing issues on vocals, and cranked shrill eq in that one. At least quite so much
  2. The London recording is not 4.5 stars in my opinion
  3. I like the Seattle iem mix but that's a personal preference
  4. Originally posted by hoserama:I'd have to compare but I thought the Vancouver mix was better. There wasn't the phasing issues on vocals, and cranked shrill eq in that one. At least quite so much
    Any chance you are going to clean it up or if it can be fixed like the Chicago 2015? That one was a big improvement!
  5. Originally posted by hoserama:I'll argue that the scope of the star system is very vague, and thereby not very useful. It is a very simplistic rating system. [...]
    Well I guess that what you call "simplistic" is for most of us rather intuitive and self-explanatory.
    The FAQ might be in need for some updates, but there is no need to revolt the rating system as such.

    I do admit that the rating system seems to function better for audience recordings (by far the largest
    part of the u2start collection!) then it does for iems and matrixes (or matrices?). But to have two
    different rating standards (1 for aud & 1 for iems) is bound to cause more confusion than it would promise clarity.

    Perhaps you prefer some sort of absolute ratings, while we're offering rather relative ratings.
    Relative, that is, to 1) the qualifications in the faq, and 2) relative to personal taste.

    And again, from a pragmatic point of view the ratings are primarily meant as an indication of quality.
    An encouragement (or dis-encouragement if you like) for a particular recording to visit and enjoy (or not).
  6. Originally posted by fastcars:[..]
    Any chance you are going to clean it up or if it can be fixed like the Chicago 2015? That one was a big improvement!
    Not the same type of fix--bigger issues with the mix itself. If they had just tried doing a Bono IEM + AUD mix like Chicago 2015, it'd be better.

    It's kind of like if you make a soup, but then accidentally pour in the whole container of salt. No way to get it out and fix it by then.
  7. I'll add something as a funny aside. I'm a moderator on the U2Torrent site, where there is a user voted star ranking system too. Any person can vote, and the system runs without any real oversight. I completely discard and don't spend any time with those rankings. I guess the only reason I'm being an irritant on this site (and I do appreciate your polite and fair discussion!) is because U2Start seems to emphasize and value the star system more. As in, a number of posts often refer to a recording as "And we have a brand new 4-star recording from XYZ"

    To maybe put it in a different mindset, think of it like academic grades. A "C" grade is a still fine and adequate result. Nothing spectacular, but it's your average type of recording. An "A" grade would be exemplary, and really stand out of the bunch. One problem we have here in the US, particularly in high school, is grade inflation. Most kids just get A's & B's just for doing the basic work. I would argue that it cheapens the value of an A, while the C should not be looked down upon quite so much.

    You're correct in that I'd prefer to see something more of an absolute rating. A 4 star grade should be pretty consistently and clearly superior to a 3 star grade. And a five star grade should pretty much be the cream of the crop, and reserved only for outstanding recordings.

    I understand and would concede your point about different rating scales for audience vs sbd/iem/ald recordings being confusing.

    To use a plug of my own recording, take a recent mix I just did at https://soundcloud.com/hoarderhoserama/u2-one-tree-hill-exit-live-2017. I would probably give that a 4.5 stars by my own standards. The drums aren't as snappy as I'd like, and it could be better given a multitrack soundboard. So it's not a 5 star because it could be better. However, I'd argue it's better than all but a very very small handful of U2 AUD recordings within the last ten years. Yet we'd probably rank those AUD recordings much differently. So again, I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I just like to talk about it.

    Anyways, I know it's not going to change so take the discussion for what you will! I just enjoy playing devil's advocate sometimes.
  8. I can't really weigh in on the rating system as I find it personally quite hard to rate at times. That recording of yours above though is sensational. I'll not argue with your rating, but for me personally it doesn't get any better than that, in fact it's probably 10.38 of the most enjoyable minutes I've had listening to live u2 because of the recording quality and the particular songs. What concert was that taken from?
  9. You do great work Hoserama. I loved your mix of California. Which recording was that from? Have you done any full shows?
  10. Wait until the tour is over and I might release full recording.
  11. Originally posted by hoserama:I'll argue that the scope of the star system is very vague, and thereby not very useful. It is a very simplistic rating system. Then again, as you've stated before, samples are easily provided so one can easily check the sound. It sounds like you're emphasizing a rating as more of a recording enjoyment, rather than a technical assessment of sound quality.

    It's like reviewing movies. A 4 star movie may have bad CGI and poor lighting, but might be a really good film. I have the same issue with a lot of film reviewers distilling a review into star system like U2S does. But doesn't seem like it's going to change any time soon!

    I'd argue the Seattle IEM mix to be a 2.5 stars at best, at least in my book. A clean Bono feed by itself of the show (which sounds like they have, as do I) would be a preferable listen to the messy mix.


    LOL, always overly critical. You probably think the Springsteen nugs recordings are less than desirable.
  12. They were until Jon Altschiller took over on the mixing. When Cooper was doing the mixes it was pretty messy, and varied a lot in quality. Once they outsourced the mixing it got MUCH better and consistent.