1. But 95% in poor quality. Let be honest. A fan made release vs an official soundboard?
  2. Many recordings here are documents of an event. That is something. No one is saying some recordings are soundboard quality.
  3. I’ll take a fan recording over an official release most days of the week.
  4. That’s crazy, the tapers do a great job on here no doubt but they are limited with what they can do. An official release is the best you can get. You’ve got professionals working on mixing it and they’ve got all the instruments nice and clearly recorded. You get the odd great bootleg which still doesn’t really match up to the official releases and you get people on here that I’m sure are professional level when it comes to mixing etc but they will always have the limitations to deal with that the people working for the band don’t have.
  5. Originally posted by miryclay:Many recordings here are documents of an event. That is something. No one is saying some recordings are soundboard quality.
    So if the band cared so much about what this site offers why wouldn’t they just release stuff this site doesn’t have then or that exists in below average quality?
  6. I much prefer the fan recording of 1980-11-21 over any potential official release
  7. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    That’s crazy, the tapers do a great job on here no doubt but they are limited with what they can do. An official release is the best you can get. You’ve got professionals working on mixing it and they’ve got all the instruments nice and clearly recorded. You get the odd great bootleg which still doesn’t really match up to the official releases and you get people on here that I’m sure are professional level when it comes to mixing etc but they will always have the limitations to deal with that the people working for the band don’t have.
    Official U2 releases are unfortunattely no guarantee for quality.
    Professional working by most expensive experts using best studios brought us some really bad U2 releases in terms of sound quality. Some lose this game against better recordings here on u2start.com. Take a look at the DVDs of Sydney 93 (pcm) and Chicago 05. How could this rubbish be released??
    It's U2
  8. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    That’s crazy, the tapers do a great job on here no doubt but they are limited with what they can do. An official release is the best you can get. You’ve got professionals working on mixing it and they’ve got all the instruments nice and clearly recorded. You get the odd great bootleg which still doesn’t really match up to the official releases and you get people on here that I’m sure are professional level when it comes to mixing etc but they will always have the limitations to deal with that the people working for the band don’t have.
    I agree
  9. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    So if the band cared so much about what this site offers why wouldn’t they just release stuff this site doesn’t have then or that exists in below average quality?
    Because their approach to bootlegs hasn't changed since 1980.
  10. Anyone else find it odd that they've been playing the new episode of Extracts on the channel a few times over the past week? I mean, the whole point of Extracts is that it's for people that don't have the channel, right? Just seems odd.

    Looking forward to the new episode of Close To The Edge with Daniel Lanois 0n Thursday.
  11. Me as well
  12. Close to the Edge with Lanois? Sounds cool, enjoy it!