HW: live material

[Iain Ferguson]

don't forget chaps, that there woyld be royalties to all those involved.

Iain

Carl Edlund Anderson wrote on 11/07/2007, 13:10:

 > On 11/07/2007 12:17, john-paul wrote:
 > > surely there are people on this list capable of "cleaning" up
 > recordings
 > > on their computers, with the software that is available nowadays.
 >
 > Well .... I don't think it's _quite_ as easy as just that.  Sure, any of
 > us can load up a WAV file and tweak the EQ a bit -- but cleaning up
 > and/or remixing archival audio *well* still requires (I think) pro-grade
 > gear and (not to be forgotten) a good and well-trained ear.  Though,
 > obviously, the cost of the technology keeps coming down and the
 > capabilities keep going up so the possibilities improve with each
 > passing minute.  (Ears, however, remain at a premium! ;)
 >
 > Of course, a rubbish quality source is still a rubbish quality source.
 > There's only so much that can be done to fix up, say, grimy 2-track
 > audio that sounds like it was recorded in a toilet.  You might be able
 > to make it sound like it was recorded in a slightly posher toilet :) but
 > that's about it.
 >
 > Still, the likelihood is that Dave's got a few gems squirreled away that
 > could well be polished off.  IMO, selling digital downloads of any
 > forthcoming archival material direct from the band's web site or through
 > an outfit like livedownloads.com or whatever is the way forward.  No CD
 > production and shipping costs! :)  More percentage for the band, cheaper
 > music for the fans :)
 >
 > Cheers,
 > Carl
 >
 > ps - I've heard some very good fan-made rescues of archival Grateful
 > Dead live recordings, though when I say "fan" here, I mean fans who
 > happen to be pro audio engineers with a studio full of snazzy gear over
 > which hunched for *aeons* of their spare time, manually ironing out each
 > click and pop in the source tapes.  Sounded pretty good in the end, but
 > clearly a _lot_ of work.
 >