The Real Wizard 11.10.2006 23:50 |
Queen Kosei Nenkin Kaikan, Osaka March 29th, 1976 (2pm show - Queen played two shows on this day) Lineage: AUD > ? > LP > Cassette > WAV > CDR (2) > WAV > FLAC frontend level 8 This is one of those essential 70s recording every Queen fan must have. It's first generation from the rare Zoom LP, so it's probably the best quality we'll hear this show in, unless one day there is a miraculous discovery of the audience tape used for the LP. I'd give this copy an EX- rating. Disc 1: 1. Intro / Bohemian Rhapsody (opera/rock) 2. Ogre Battle 3. Sweet Lady 4. White Queen 5. Flick Of The Wrist 6. Medley: Bohemian Rhapsody / Killer Queen / The March Of The Black Queen / Bohemian Rhapsody (end) 7. Bring Back That Leroy Brown 8. Brighton Rock 9. Son And Daughter (end) Disc 2: 1. The Prophet's Song 2. Stone Cold Crazy 3. Doing All Right 4. Lazing On A Sunday Afternoon 5. Keep Yourself Alive 6. Liar 7. In The Lap Of The Gods...Revisited 8. Now I'm Here 9. Rock 'n' Roll Medley 10. God Save The Queen DO NOT CONVERT THIS RECORDING TO MP3/WMA/OGG or any other lossy format, unless it's for your OWN use, and nobody else's. If you want an mp3 recording of this show, then find an older share of an inferior version. The quality of this version must be maintained. If I discover that this version was converted to a lossy format, then I will NEVER share a thing here again. It goes without question that one should include the lineage information when distributing this recording. This is how people can be certain they are receiving the best version possible. I just realized that I wrongly used the word "lossless" instead of "lossy" in the .txt files of my previous shares. There's nothing like having a few hundred copies of your mistake all around the world! I've finally got it right this time. Here are all six parts: link link link link link link Enjoy! |
stark 12.10.2006 02:10 |
This is great - thank you! Been after this for a while, and I'm fresh out of the £1000 I need for a copy of Zoom... Cheers! |
lucame 12.10.2006 02:28 |
Hi Sir SH, I cant keep up with your uploads :) Thanks again, i just sent you a couple of emails. |
lucame 12.10.2006 02:28 |
Hi Sir GH! I cant keep up with your uploads :) Thanks again, i just sent you a couple of emails. |
PBB 12.10.2006 02:48 |
Thank you again.... |
TheGame 12.10.2006 02:55 |
Many nice shares here recently, hope i will be back online soon so i can join this flac attack ;) Still, we need more people to join this attack.... Anyway, i just wanted to say i had this recording, but i got the Wardour release some time ago. This Wardour release is cleaned up, and sound even better... |
The Real Wizard 12.10.2006 03:29 |
TheGame wrote: Anyway, i just wanted to say i had this recording, but i got the Wardour release some time ago. This Wardour release is cleaned up, and sound even better...Honestly, I didn't think Wardour was an improvement for this show. If anything, theirs has a bit less treble. |
Wilki Amieva 12.10.2006 07:58 |
I have the ZOOM 2xCD (LLX-1/2) with the evening show, but 2xLP has the afternoon one, right? |
tilomagnet 12.10.2006 08:01 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Lineage: AUD > ? > LP > Cassette (1) > WAV > CDR (2) > WAV > FLAC frontend level 8 This is one of those essential 70s recording every Queen fan must have. It's first generation from the rare Zoom LP, so it's probably the best quality we'll hear this show in, unless one day there is a miraculous discovery of the audience tape used for the LP.If this is indeed a "1st gen" from the LP, then the lineage should be like this: AUD>?>LP>Cassette(0)>CDR.... "Cassette(1)" indicates that the recording was copied to analog tape twice, from the LP to a cassette "master" or zero gen and then to another cassette which was then digitized. "Cassette(0)" means that there was one tape in the lineage. |
Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 12.10.2006 08:08 |
Thanks, GH! :D Cheers, Ogre- |
gaspar 12.10.2006 09:18 |
thank you . You're great! |
pow wow 12.10.2006 09:22 |
Another stunner. Thanks again. |
Nummer2 12.10.2006 09:44 |
Thank you one more time! I'm looking forward to hearing the difference ;-) |
Maruga 12.10.2006 09:49 |
Thank you so much once again... damn... i still have to download Hannover 84, Chicago 80 and now this one... damn rapidshare xD but i have patience. |
Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 12.10.2006 10:33 |
<b><font color="blue">J.P.S.G wrote: Thank you so much once again... damn... i still have to download Hannover 84, Chicago 80 and now this one... damn rapidshare xD but i have patience.I know what you mean. Being without spare time and seeing all these downloads at the same time I ended up doing a one-month subscription to rapidshare for the very first time. :/ Cheers, Ogre- |
wingman 12.10.2006 11:37 |
Thank you very much Sir GH for this great jewel. I've had it in mp3, but hear it in all full glory,this is bliss.Thanks man. Just some suggestions for future uploads, if you'll had time and if other queenzoners would want some of this: -Cologne 1974 (one of the earliest complete show) -Tokyo 14 4 1979 (excellent sound,don't think it's been shared here at all) -Paris 28 2 1979 -Buenos Aires 28 2 1981 (excellent sound) |
Sithmarauder 12.10.2006 12:12 |
WOW thank you Sir Bob, I was waiting for someone to seed this one from another post for a few weeks now! Cant wait to finish D/L. |
Sithmarauder 12.10.2006 12:16 |
tilomagnet wrote:Info such as this should be posted by the mediators as a sticky. I just learned something new.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Lineage: AUD > ? > LP > Cassette (1) > WAV > CDR (2) > WAV > FLAC frontend level 8 This is one of those essential 70s recording every Queen fan must have. It's first generation from the rare Zoom LP, so it's probably the best quality we'll hear this show in, unless one day there is a miraculous discovery of the audience tape used for the LP.If this is indeed a "1st gen" from the LP, then the lineage should be like this: AUD>?>LP>Cassette(0)>CDR.... "Cassette(1)" indicates that the recording was copied to analog tape twice, from the LP to a cassette "master" or zero gen and then to another cassette which was then digitized. "Cassette(0)" means that there was one tape in the lineage. |
The Real Wizard 12.10.2006 12:37 |
tilomagnet wrote: If this is indeed a "1st gen" from the LP, then the lineage should be like this: AUD>?>LP>Cassette(0)>CDR.... "Cassette(1)" indicates that the recording was copied to analog tape twice, from the LP to a cassette "master" or zero gen and then to another cassette which was then digitized. "Cassette(0)" means that there was one tape in the lineage.Thanks for the info. It makes sense, but I still think it would be much easier if the number simply indicated the generation. Does the same apply with the CDR generation? I wrote a 2, because mine is the second CDR generation. It was LP to cassette to CDR to my CDR. Thus "2" makes most sense to me. |
tilomagnet 12.10.2006 13:14 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Well, it does indicate the generation. The term "generation" is only used if a recording gets copied to the same format that the original recording was, i.e. master cassette>1st gen cassette etc.tilomagnet wrote: If this is indeed a "1st gen" from the LP, then the lineage should be like this: AUD>?>LP>Cassette(0)>CDR.... "Cassette(1)" indicates that the recording was copied to analog tape twice, from the LP to a cassette "master" or zero gen and then to another cassette which was then digitized. "Cassette(0)" means that there was one tape in the lineage.Thanks for the info. It makes sense, but I still think it would be much easier if the number simply indicated the generation. Does the same apply with the CDR generation? I wrote a 2, because mine is the second CDR generation. It was LP to cassette to CDR to my CDR. Thus "2" makes most sense to me. Whenever a recording is transfered from one format to another, (for example: cassette>DAT, LP>cassette, LP>CDR) the resulting recording is called a zero gen. Some people also call that recording a master (for example: cassette>DAT master, cassette>CDR master), but I try to avoid the term "master" here, because IMO only the tape the show was originally recorded to should be called a master. Therefore the correct lineage (IMO!) for the Osaka show should be like this: AUD>?>LP>C(0)>CDR(1)>FLAC As I said above the first cdr in the lineage, that your copy was made from, is CDR(0) and your CDR is a first gen CDR so to speak. Another example: When I digitized the alternate master of 09-07-84, I transfered the cassette to DAT and then transfered the same DAT to the computer. Therefore, the lineage is Analog Master>DAT(0)>WAV. It would be incorrect to label that DAT a "1st gen" or DAT(1), because the recording was transfered to another format. |
The Real Wizard 12.10.2006 13:50 |
But don't you lose quality when you transfer it to another format? That's why I qualify it as a generation. |
Wilki Amieva 12.10.2006 14:18 |
In most of the cases, yes. But don't mess with the convention, Bob! ;-) |
tilomagnet 12.10.2006 14:32 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: But don't you lose quality when you transfer it to another format? That's why I qualify it as a generation.That depends on what you are transferring. Any analog tranfers are "lossy" so to speak. DAT>CDR is, when done properly (i.e. with a digital connection), completely lossless. DAT>DAT is also completely lossless and that is why DAT copies are sometimes refered to as "clones" and not generations. However this has nothing to do really with what we were talking about. As I said, you are only referring to the term "generation" if a recording is distributed in one and the same format. If it gets transfered to another format the resulting copy is called zero gen of the new format (despite the quality loss in the transfer!) Another example: Reel Master>VHS(0)>DAT(0)>CDR(1) This is the lineage of the Long Beach'72 show that I sent you. The Reel master was first copied to a hifi-vhs, then this vhs was transfered a DAT. Later the same DAT was transfered to CDR. The CDR resulting from the DAT>CDR transfer is called CDR(0). This cdr was copied one more time and here we have a 1st gen cdr. |
The Real Wizard 12.10.2006 14:47 |
So you indicate "O" when it's a transfer that doesn't have quality loss. That makes sense to me, because you don't lose quality in certain transfers, as they are clones. But... transferring from an LP to a cassette is quality loss, is it not? Cassettes always lose quality, right? |
Wilki Amieva 13.10.2006 09:51 |
The number in brackets just indicates the number of generations. A generation number is defined for EACH media format used, by the act of copying the original in that format to a blank media IN THE SAME FORMAT. A zero indicates that the original in that media format (and not a copy) was used for the transfer, and that is why the (0) is sometimes omitted. Exact bit-to-bit audio clones are omitted too: a DAT to DAT transfer is often just stated DAT, but IMHO is better to use DAT(0)->DAT(0') and then specify method of cloning (for example: fiber optic between player X and recorder Y set at the same sampling rate). |
tilomagnet 13.10.2006 10:26 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: So you indicate "O" when it's a transfer that doesn't have quality loss. That makes sense to me, because you don't lose quality in certain transfers, as they are clones. But... transferring from an LP to a cassette is quality loss, is it not? Cassettes always lose quality, right?No. Whether or not there is a loss of quality in the transfer has nothing to do with how the resulting copy is called. To quote my own post: "You are only referring to the term "generation" if a recording is distributed in one and the same format.If it gets transfered to another format the resulting copy is called zero gen of the new format (despite the quality loss in the transfer!)" |
oldrelic 13.10.2006 13:41 |
Thanks for this great show. |
The Real Wizard 13.10.2006 17:19 |
Okay... so, for example, let's use the second generation Vienna 78. Are these three lineages equivalent?: AUD > Master > Cassette > Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8) AUD > Master > 2nd Gen Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8) AUD > Master > Cassette (1) > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8) If that's the case, then the first two are much easier to understand, I think. People will think "1" means first generation. If I don't have it right this time, then I give up! :P |
Freddie89 13.10.2006 17:45 |
Could somebody put this on BitTorrent please? Thanks Dave |
Ginger01 13.10.2006 17:58 |
Just did... good download and enjoy! Thanks again to Sir Bob for sharing this :-D |
Bobby_brown 13.10.2006 18:46 |
Thanks for sharing. Take care |
Wilki Amieva 13.10.2006 22:48 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Are these three lineages equivalent?: AUD > Master > Cassette > Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8) AUD > Master > 2nd Gen Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8) AUD > Master > Cassette (1) > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)It is pretty obvious that "Cassette (1)" and "2nd Gen Cassette" could not possibily mean the same. But which one correctly represents the first statement? It all depends on the media of the "master". If it was a cassette master, then the cassette used for the WAV transfer was indeed a second generation cassette and a "(2)" should be used instead of "(1)" in the third statement. If the master was another media (an open reel, for instance), then the second statement is wrong and should read "1st Gen Cassette". By the way, "master" is not a good way of describing the source - the lineage should definetely state media formats. |
Another Person 13.10.2006 23:28 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: By the way, "master" is not a good way of describing the source - the lineage should definetely state media formats.Only when that info is available, quite difficult especially when we talk about 60's/70's equipments. Wilki Amieva wrote: I have the ZOOM 2xCD (LLX-1/2) with the evening show, but 2xLP has the afternoon one, right?That's right. |
tilomagnet 14.10.2006 03:18 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: It is pretty obvious that "Cassette (1)" and "2nd Gen Cassette" could not possibily mean the same. But which one correctly represents the first statement? It all depends on the media of the "master". If it was a cassette master, then the cassette used for the WAV transfer was indeed a second generation cassette and a "(2)" should be used instead of "(1)" in the third statement. If the master was another media (an open reel, for instance), then the second statement is wrong and should read "1st Gen Cassette". By the way, "master" is not a good way of describing the source - the lineage should definetely state media formats.Correct. These lineages are equivalent: 1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR 2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR 3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDR As Wilki wrote, 2) and 3) are the same as 1) assuming the master was a compact cassette. IF the master had been an open reel, these lineages would be equivalent: 1) AUD>Master Reels>Cassette>Cassette>CDR 2) AUD>Reel(0)>Cassette(1)>CDR |
The Real Wizard 14.10.2006 20:56 |
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet... I get it now! Thanks everyone for the help. |
tassilo 15.10.2006 06:54 |
Thank you very much for this concert! |
paynee365 16.10.2006 03:40 |
Thank you very much |
on my way up 02.11.2006 05:12 |
great version, thank you |
The Real Wizard 02.11.2006 23:29 |
tilomagnet wrote: These lineages are equivalent: 1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR 2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR 3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDRDid you edit your post or something? I thought "AUD>Cassette(1)>CDR" was equivalent to a second generation tape... ? |
tilomagnet 03.11.2006 11:23 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:No, I didn't edit anything at all.tilomagnet wrote: These lineages are equivalent: 1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR 2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR 3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDRDid you edit your post or something? I thought "AUD>Cassette(1)>CDR" was equivalent to a second generation tape... ? The number in brackets indicates the generation for each media. Since the master of the Vienna show is/was apparently a cassette (and not an open reel), "cassette(2)" is equivalent to what you'd call a 2nd gen tape. As I stated above, if the master had been an open reel, this lineage: Master reel > cassette > cassette > CDR would be equivalent to this: Reel(0) > cassette(1) > CDR Another example: A cassette copy is made from a DAT master, i.e. DAT Master > Cassette According to you, the resulting cassette copy would be called a '1st gen cassette' from the DAT master, right? This is wrong however. "1st gen cassette from DAT master" would look like this: DAT master > Cassette > Cassette with the first cassette in the lineage being called cassette(0)/cassette master/zero gen cassette. The second cassette in the lineage above is the actual "1st gen cassette copy" or cassette(1). The difference of the DAT master lineage to the lineage of the Vienna show is that the DAT master got copied to another format, hence the resulting cassette copy is called zero gen of the new format. The Vienna recording only got copied onto the same format as the master was, therefore "2nd gen cassette" is equivalent to C(0/master) > C(1) > C(2) > CDR or just Cassette(2) > CDR |
*Freddie Forever* 03.11.2006 15:44 |
Thank you very much! Great show!!!! |
The Real Wizard 04.11.2006 23:19 |
tilomagnet wrote: The difference of the DAT master lineage to the lineage of the Vienna show is that the DAT master got copied to another format, hence the resulting cassette copy is called zero gen of the new format. The Vienna recording only got copied onto the same format as the master was, therefore "2nd gen cassette" is equivalent to C(0/master) > C(1) > C(2) > CDR or just Cassette(2) > CDROK... makes sense to me! |
such_a_jollification 16.11.2006 12:45 |
Thank-you! :o) |
ppaappoo 26.12.2006 15:20 |
Here is in direct download and much more link by |
pompon67 01.11.2007 09:27 |
Upload one more this concert, please... |