Grateful Dead

A lot of you really don't seem to understand what is going on here. There has been no remix from the master tapes to produce a true 24/96 file set. That much was obvious from the get go. "YAH BUT IT SOUNDS BRIGHTER!"

So? Turn up the treble and bass on your players and you will get the same result when playing the 16 bit shows you have had for years.

Secondly, they tipped their hand when the only show you can download is the 26th. It's 16 bit which they fucked up on. Which means the other 16 bit shows are being transcoded - BLOWN UP ARTIFICIALLY - to 24/96.

So, sure it's your money but you are fooling yourselves if you think this is some remix straight from the vault masters. IT ISN'T. From what I have read here in the forum, most of you are novices at this digital thing. And now some are talking about purchasing it AFTER you get your refund? There's a word for people like that.

Rhino hasn't actually told us what resolution these files are supposed to be (yet another indication of incompetence) but it seems to me they are unlikely upsampled from the 44-16 bit (ignoring the effects of HDCD) files used for the suitcase release. Those discs were stated to have used the Plangent Process to transfer the music from the tapes and clean it up. That was very likely done at 96-24, or higher, resolution. It's likely that the remix at that time was done at the same resolution and following the remix of the Plangent Processed files, the resulting mix was then downsampled to 44-16 (with HDCD processing somewhere in there). I agree it's likely there has been no new remix of the suitcase files but these downloads ought to be of the 96-24 files created in that process, not the 44-16 files upsampled.
That said, I'm as pissed as everybody else at Rhino's abysmal performance here.

Randall, you are slightly incorrect. These concerts have never been available in the original 24/96 format used for the original mix and mastering. True, there is no remixing, but there is remastering (based on the CD of 5/26, slightly more than just EQ) and it should be true 24/96 rather than HDCD 16/44.1 as in the "steamer trunk" and subsequent download options. Of course all that is academic IF THESE ARE NEVER AVAILABLE, as is looking increasingly likely. Really, these files were used to cut the LP's that people are already playing; how hard can it be to set them up for download? Don't we go through this a couple of times every year?

Ooh, escalated. "Hello Sgtdcorbett,

Thank you for contacting us!

I have escalated your message to a specialist on our team, who will follow up with you as soon as possible.

I apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your patience.

Sincerely,

Dead.net Store"

With 50-year old live music, I'm willing to accept (and I expect) less than the highest quality. Not all of us already have these shows (at any bit rate!) so whining about bit rates from someone who didn't even buy the product rings hollow. We've got enough problems just getting anything, we don't need to be insulted from fellow deadheads too. It's an easier life if you can enjoy the music at whatever bit rate.

Clearly the files aren’t 24/96. WTF?

They screwed up again. Did anyone purchase the ALAC files and, if so, can they please confirm that that the files are lossless 44/16? If so, Rhino needs to explain the $20 premium it charged for the FLAC files with the same resolution unless they are supposed to be 96/24, or better as we all reasonably assumed.

Received my ALAC downloads just now. I can confirm they are 44/16. They sound great, but I need to go through them carefully before I'm happy. So far, the 5/26 Truckin' STILL HAS 6 1/2 MINUTES OF SILENCE in it which sucks. Hopefully there aren't further issues.

Good luck everyone.

Randall,

The comments below regarding how the Europe '72 box set CDs were produced is exactly correct, as that process (creating hi resolution digital files and then down-mixing for CDs) has been standard in the industry for a very long time, certainly well before the Europe '72 box set was produced. Moreover, that box set was mastered (like so many of the Dead's box sets) by David Glasser at AirShow Mastering in Ft. Collings, CO. As it happens, I have spoken with David directly about the process he uses for the Dead remasters as he also mastered a jazz CD that my wife recorded about the same time, and I was curious about the resolution at which the remastering was being done for the Dead material that was not released in high resolution downloads.

So, your conspiracy theory about them scrambling to up-sample the files (which would constitute fraud, and wire fraud at that given money paid for fraudulent goods using the internet/telecommunications infrastructure) is no more likely the truth than the assertion by Trump that the FBI planted TS/SCI documents at Mar-a-lago a when they executed a duly authorized search warrant. In addition, since you seem to attack me personally (I note that we have never met and so your election to do so would seem to indicate that you need to get a life), I will point out that my stated intent to repurchase the product was expressly conditioned upon these folks getting their "poop in a pile" and fixing the problem. There is a word for people who make spurious, ill-informed and inflammatory arguments online: troll.

Now that we have that out of the way, what is obvious here is that the folks running this operation are straight up incompetent and should hand the process over to more experienced professionals, because at the end of the day, it's just not that complicated.

So I bought the flac files, or I think I did :) Last night I got a new email, and a coupon code, guess what? It doesn't work! Instead I get this lovely message (code removed) Coupon code is not yet available. Please try again later. COME ON, this SHOULD NOT BE THIS HARD!!!!

Maybe they will be real 24/96 and maybe they won't. There's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest they aren't.

No press advertising for months before specifically saying they would be straight from the initial hi rez process. They would NOT pass up an opportunity to endlessly pat themselves on the back. And here in this posting, NO evidence whatsoever saying they are straight from the hi rez files used to create the 2011 files for cd and later digital download. Just a regurgitation of the process used to initially produce the cd's. Come on. We don't actually believe they wouldn't use this as a major opportunity to blast us with the good news that these are actually the hi rez files used to produce the box set?

That sort of advertising would be a no-brainer since we have all been yelling for true hi-rez of these shows since they were all released.

And since you bring it up peripherally, how do we trust an outfit who has bumbled virtually every digital release they have offered to date with nary a word? Get a message nearly 3 weeks later from them and suddenly they are good guys again? The fact the one show that was actually able to be accessed was 16 bit means something is wrong.

I myself have been doing this digital thing for almost 20 years and can see signs of subterfuge a mile away. The price of this package ALONE is suspect. They are the same price as the 16 bit downloads found elsewhere. NO vendor sells 24/96 for the same price as 16 bit. Not even in bundle deals. Find me the vendor that does and I will buy from them.

If anyone thinks there is no fraud in the hi-rez, DD industry, they are naive. Most people I know can't even do a proper checksum test on their files, say nothing about spectrum analysis. There are PLENTY of so called "hi-rez files" being sold that are no better than 16/44 upon close scrutiny.

And have you ever noticed when WE see signs of something wrong, we are being observational, cautious and concerned? Skeptical?

When OTHERS are and we don't want to believe it for our own reasons, they are conspiratorial and subject to delusional thinking?

For the record, I hope I am wrong. I won't buy it regardless just because there are too many red flags and I am happy with what I have. This one just hasn't felt right since the release date. 3 weeks ago with no fulfillment in sight. I have always wished for a hi rez - a REAL hi rez fileset for the entire box. Now - given this release, I don't know that I trust them to release the rest in real hi rez.

But Hell. You all do you.

I got one. Took a lot of nagging.

Has anyone here actually been able to download the flac files. I see a few comments here about the ALAC versions but I still can't get the FLAC files. My code says its not ready yet, anyone else have the same issue?

I'm downloading the FLAC files now but it looks like they are 16/44 the same as the ALAC so I'm assuming this is still wrong considering the $20 price difference.

Also both times I've downloaded the 26/5 show I've had no dead air on Truckin. Not sure why some people have? Is it just the ALAC version that's affected by that?

Just for the heck of it I checked the FLAC files I downloaded last night and none of them are HDCD encoded. The suitcase CD set discs were HDCD encoded, although in a few cases no-HDCD features (peak extend being the only one that mattered) were actually used. For example, the first two 5-25-72 discs used peak extend and discs 3-4 did not. The inconsistency is another example of Rhino's sloppiness. No idea what they are claiming re HDCD these days (if they haven't already dropped it, they should; the last Dave's Picks release that actually used peak extend was volume 5 even though subsequent releases are marked HDCD and trigger the HDCD flag in players). This has nothing to do with the current download fiasco, of course, except maybe to demonstrate that they didn't just rip the files they tried to stick us with from the old CDs.

Funny thing, those. When we compare via spectral analysis, they are exactly the same as the 16 bit and the HDCD part is 20 bits compared to 16 bits. Both are 44.1 The word to use is "negligible". Also, "hype". And since the vast majority of players don't/didn't have HDCD decoders, another word that applies is "pointless" and yet another "obsolescence". And so whatever. Very little value for the vendor to hassle with or the purchaser/listener. When I listened to both versions, there wasn't a lick of difference in the sound. Just a little light came on the player when the HDCD layer was played. The little light coming on didn't improve the sound, either.

From what I remember from 2011, these E72 shows were mastered AS 16/44.1, then pressed to cd and there was no plan to release them in HD and there was no digital download option either when the boxes were being offered. As I recall, the question almost immediately came up as "Will there be digital downloads available and if so, will they be 24/96?" The answer in 2011 was the former. These were mastered as 16/44.1.

The time to release these shows as true 24/96 was in 2014 when the DD were released but those were 16 bit as well. They would have needed to go back to the original multi-track tapes and master to PCM, then 24/192 then 24/96. Basically redo the entire release. That would have given them the opportunity to improve the sound that everyone was (for some reason) bitching about at the time as well. But that would have meant more work and more $$$ to redo the entire tour.

And so the 2014 releases were 16/44.1. The same masters used to create the discs were used to create the DD. Or it's entirely possible they ripped their own discs. Why go through the hassle of cutting each individual track on their own sector boundary again?

Theoretically, they could do the same with Dick's Picks. But guess what? The DD of those are complete with disc fades in the same place as the discs are. As are The Download Series. It's cost prohibitive to go back to the master tapes those releases are culled from and go through the same process again but this time in hi-rez W/O the cursed disc fades.

A friend went through ALL of the Dick's, Dave's Download Series and even some of the latter day digital releases and got rid of the fades and they are a nice, linear, digital listen now with no music missing. And NOT hi-rez because they weren't created in hi-rez to begin with. Because if you want things done well, leave it to the fans who have the know-how and most importantly, they care enough to do it right.

Randall, these shows were mixed and mastered in 24/96 back in 2011. They are now remastered at that same resolution, though not remixed. The EQ of the new 5/26 CD’s is different from the HDCD-decoded originals; iZotope’s Ozone program has a “match EQ” function which can clearly demonstrate this.

It seems to me that if these shows will ever be able to be downloaded in remastered (not remixed, no new A>D) 24/96 there will be a slight (yes, very slight but real) improvement over what has been available. There is no reasonable excuse, though, for them not being available RIGHT NOW when they have been available for pre-order for months and the files have already been used to cut LP’s that have been in customers’ hands for weeks.

Nice to see you again, Rob.

I am only going on what I can remember, of course. I was fairly certain these were never mastered at 24/96. You would know better than I.

And I think you nailed it. EQ is of course way different than an honest to God remix from the masters. EQ is something any one of us (almost) could have done or HAVE done with what we already have.

So, I still believe this is just a lipsticked pig. A giant milk job. The same basic recordings we have had for 11 years. I have always been fine with the sound quality. But 24/96 by EQ'ing the 16 bit recordings? Dirty pool and nothing new under the sun.

My question then is if the things exist in actual 24/96, then why sell a charade? "Keep the price low"? When had Rhino ever concerned itself with low prices? Grateful Dead shows are among the most - if not THE most - consistently expensive digital downloads being offered across all platforms.

I think I speak for a good deal of us when I say "I would buy every single show in real 24/96 from those sets of masters". Fuck an EQ'ed version. It's still a fraud.

And yeah, The other problem here is the unavailability of the purchase. The overall high pricing, the fake bit rate and depth, the fake "enhanced" sound quality PLUS unavailability all equals contempt toward the customer base. They can't even manage to get their charade product to their customers. Bunch of mutes.

Ah, well. I guess that'll be enough about it. I'll know when the real deal happens. I'll save my money until then.

These downloads are the original raw transfers from 2011 @24/96 remastered. The downloads should be in 24/96 rez and until it says that in the product details I would not purchase.

Is it safe now?

This may be poor etiquette, but Ill pay someone for a rip of the box set.
Heck, Id buy the box for not eBay prices if i could.

Almost 3 weeks out, still not a peep from anyone involved

The digital has been screwed for the Joni Mitchell stuff also!

Warner have always been the problem. Guaranteed every Neil Young release would have download problems until he launched NYA and started doing downloads through OraStream.

The Dead just need to stop making these digital boxsets dead.net exclusives and allow them to be sold elsewhere

I know we still haven’t got the hi res files but I’ve listening to the 16/44 flac files and I’m so glad they’ve done the same as the last few digital box sets and got rid of the disc fade in and out that would be on the CD versions. Means the shows flow seamlessly

Not sure about the flac files, but the alac downloads have two major issues. 5/24 The Other One is mostly silent except a few minutes at the beginning and end. Same goes for 5/26 Truckin’. Maybe someone can confirm on the flac files?

There are no silent gaps on The Other One 24/5 and Truckin 26/5 on the FLAC files.

Thanks for confirming on the FLAC files. At least those are good, even if they're not the correct rate.

I was actually given a refund on my purchase, so I suppose I can't really complain, but it would be nice to have the music without dead air on those two big jams.

Good luck all.

I wonder if the truth of the matter is that they don’t have the 96/24s anymore, that they worked with the 44.1/16s for the LPs…? Would be nice if they (and other companies) were more transparent about these things…

Nugs.net charges $20 for the individual Lyceum shows in FLAC quality, $5 less per show than we ended up paying for the Lyceum shows in the same quality. Nothing about this is okay.

Hey all, I have been working with rhino/warner to figure out all the issues. I am happy to report that I finally have all 4 shows now in 24/96 and after a few tweaks I expect them to release to all of you. Just wanted to let everyone know that the resolution is close. Its been a long wait but glad this has been resolved.

Well, I took a leap, and yes, 5/23 shows as 24/96 in audio properties.

lyceum_theatre_1972_the_complete_recordings_5_23_72_live_digital_album_2022_remaster_flac

4.18 GB (4,493,298,155 bytes)

Artist Grateful Dead
Title Promised Land (Live at the Lyceum Theatre, London, England 5/23/72) [2022 Remaster]
Album Lyceum Theatre 1972: The Complete Recordings (5/23/72) [Live] [2022 Remaster]
Track 1/30; 1/30
Disc
Genre Rock
Year 2022
Rating
Composer Composer Information Unavailable
Size 68.86 MB (38% Compressed)
Original Size 110.27 MB
Length 3 minutes 20 seconds
Channels 2 (stereo)
Sample Rate 96 KHz;
Sample Size 24 bit
Bit Rate 4,608 kbps (DVD)
Encoder FLAC reference libFLAC 1.3.1 20141125
Encoder Settings
Audio Quality Perfect (Lossless)
Contains Album Art, CRC, ID Tag [Vorbis Comments]
Channel Mapping
File 01_Promised_Land_Live_at_the_Lyceum_Theatre_London_England_5_23_72_2022_Remaster_2022_Remaster
Type FLAC Audio File (VLC) [.flac]

That is good news, please let us know when it’s ready for prime time!

Has anyone compared the sound quality against the CD’s from the Box?
Significant improvement in audio quality, slight improvement, or not noticeable?

I did an A/B/C with one of the 16 bit shows a friend sent me. Pointless effort because both the available 16 bit downloads - available since forever - and the CD's are the same files. And comparing this 16 bit release to the former 2? Sounds the same to me. Because - you know - "remastered" isn't "remixed". It didn't even sound equalized at all. There is still the same bits of over-saturation in some spots as well.

24 bit isn't going to be some miracle sound design. 24 bit doesn't make things sound any better. The initial mixing and then mastering DOES. From the SOURCE TAPES.

The value in real 24/96 is simply having the best archival copy. That whole "I CAN hear a difference" thing has been put to bed long ago. No. We CAN'T hear the difference in any meaningful way beyond wishful thinking. You would have to be a dog or a bat.

Wanna do it right, Rhino? Take the master tapes and make a .dsf master copy of all the shows and EQ along the way. Then, release in true 24/192 (overkill) and 24/06. Ahhhh. That would hit the spot.

This package is a fraud and a fiasco.

The files are now encoded FLAC at 24/96

While they may be upsampled from 16 bit, they do say "remastered"

I do not have any of the previously released CD's to compared to or the digital copy of the "steamer trunk" to compare to.

I must say the dark star of 5/23/72 was very nice, there seems like lots of dynamics and clarity between instruments. It is not as "dense" as a rock n' roll style track, so the spaciousness of the sound may merely be how it was recorded rather than any remastering of a previous release.

I have not listened to it from from high quality DAC convertor and head phones yet. Typically on that I can better tell how well something had been recorded and encoded.

Obviously - having a credible response from the vendor on the chain which these produced from would be useful.

Randall, there is a large meta-analysis (published in 2016) of listening tests involving hi-res digital audio, with about 12,000 listeners; although differences may be small, there is a significant minority of listeners who consistently identify hi-res digital (compared to 16/44.1).

If you have or can find Ozone 8 or 9, the "match EQ" will clearly show the differences in EQ between the new files and the older, previously available ones.

Now, whether all that makes a difference to you, only you can tell.

To add to the previous info, I downloaded "speck" audio analyzer and looked at what the files look like

They have a hard line at about 32K with no info above that. There is empty space to 48k (-120 dB). Comparatively, a remastered track from Patti Smith "Horses" uses the full 0-48K space.

The 5/23 Dark Star has a much more spread/varying spectrum while still hard lines at 32K

too bad I cannot post pics

The -60 dB info seems to max out around 5k on the GD, and 10k on horses.

So, it is possible the files were not 96 kHz to begin with although they now are in that container.

With out looking at something up sampled, I cannot judge how they expanded the files.

Lossless Audio Checker 2.0.7 logfile from Saturday 20 August 2022 05:59:59 PM

File: Q:\24-96\5-25-1972\01_Promised_Land_Live_at_the_Lyceum_Theatre_London_England_5_25_72_2022_Remaster_2022_Remaster.flac
Result: Upsampled

I noticed a significant improvement in sound quality of my CD’s just by upgrading my stereo system from Onkyo to Cambridge Audio.

I’ve also read articles that say most people can’t tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit.
The only 24/96 download I have ever bought was when OSF released the unedited ABB files that were used for the Bear’s Sonic Journals CD (I bought the CD too).

I did buy Led Zep Song Remains The Same on Blu-ray audio which I think is 24/196. Sounded pretty good the first couple times I listened to it, but then my Onkyo Blu-ray player decided that it could no longer recognize the disc. It’s been a while since I tried to play the disc. I need to try again, maybe the player will now recognize it again (the error message is similar to when a PAL DVD is put into an NTSC player).

I listened to the CDs and compared to the 24/96 downloads on high quality headphones. Admittedly my hearing is somewhat degraded from years of loud music but I hear absolutely no difference. Only difference is where the tracks are cut - some are longer/shorter but otherwise no difference that I can hear.

Upsampled. That's all we need to know. We spoke of this earlier. Needless and frankly pointless bloat. Empty calories. So, we are left with the question: "WHY?"

I think they just put the widely and long available 4 16 bit digital shows together in a package and sold fans an upsampled bill of goods. I really think they wanted funding to produce the MSG box.

Do they need "funding"? That has to be a revenue machine.

What I mean is why spend THEIR money when they can throw some shows in a box they have already released and make people think they are getting something new? Spend tens or even hundreds of thousands for something the neophytes think is "new". Take that cash and pay their engineers and production costs.

Soon as I saw the ad and saw the word "remastered" I thought "This is a gyp." "Remastered" really means nothing. And NOwhere did they give any fresh lineage or production steps. "Remastered" is an ambiguous term, IMO. "Remixed" or "Remixed and Remastered" would have been awesome and I would have bought it myself.

You may agree with me that the surviving band members kinda sold their souls and along with that, the faith of the fans when they leased the vault. They never step in and try to right any of the many wrongs that have occurred over the years and we have seen them involved in some pretty heavy cash grabs.

You would think that if they cared all that much, this shit wouldn't happen at this late date. They pay someone to do their caring for them so they don't have to think about it.

But - you know. I have an "attitude" so I may be incorrect. But it's the fans slavish attitude that bothers me because they end up getting burnt a lot due to their endless faith and positivity and that isn't something they are prepared to deal with. The idea their counter-culture heroes are actually very much establishment and businessmen.

This outfit doesn't normally go back and re-release something. Sure, they digitize the back catalog and many of the releases have been legit. I don't remember when they have ever gone back and re-released a digital item or a package of items. Not like this one.

I am forced through empirical evidence to declare this a fraud and a fiasco at least AFAIC. My Trust-O-Meter just fell into the red with Rhino. I was wary when I 1st saw this release and now I will be doubly aware in the future. I will certainly avoid any future releases of any shows pertaining to E72. When I see the correct lineage claims and the bomb bursting back slapping ("Master tapes! New Remixes! Also Sprach Zarathustra!"), then I'll get on board the gravy train.

I don’t quite understand how these can be upsamples if there is a hard cut off at 32k. If they were upsampled from the CDs there would be a hard cut off at 22k.

For there to be information up to 32k the only 2 file resolutions could be 24/88 or 24/96 (I highly doubt these were mastered at 16/96 and then padded to 24 bit). I’m guessing at some point along the chain there has been a conversion from 24/88 to 24/96.

Nowadays Plangent transfer at 32/384 so I’m sure back in 2011they would have been transferring at 24/96 at least.

Basically if these files have info going up to 32k then you are not being ripped off if they are in a 24/96 container.

If someone could chime in without saying “this is a sham!” That would be useful.

My infinitely small amount of knowledge of sound manipulation means I cannot really look at a plot of a song's spectrum and the the tale of where its been and how it got to be in this shape.

Since it appears that they were 24 bit to start with, that is a significant advantage over 16 bit.

So that is a significant point in their favor, they are not CD files that were ripped and then converted to 24/96.

The upsample tag is a bit more complicated. In reading online (That makes one an expert) indicate that there are various ways to do that and some DACs do that in order to improve the sound. They can just add "zero" samples to increase frequency or interpolate to guess what data should be there.

The 32K line might be a high pass filter, basically, if there is no "audible" info in that range, kill it.

A CD rip hard lines at 22K

Here is a my Dave's picks with dB power amp rip to FLAC using the HDCD plug in for 24 bit, and it shows "upscaled"

And as a test, the HD-Tracks download of "Horses" in 24/96 shows it is "clean"

Lossless Audio Checker 2.0.7 logfile from Sunday 21 August 2022 07:50:01 AM

File: \Grateful Dead\Dave's Picks, Vol. 43 Dallas, 12-26-69\01 Grateful Dead - Casey Jones (Dallas, 12-26-69).flac
Result: Upscaled

File: HD_Tracks\Patti Smith\Horses (Remastered)\01-Gloria (Remastered).flac
Result: Clean

Sooooooo

Whiles the files are not what would be expected as a direct FLAC conversion of 24/96 material, they are in true (AFAICT) 24 bit sourced

While the sampling rate shows "upsampled", they are most likely not 44.1 kHz originals, but may have been filtered and processed.

FWIW, the Allman Brothers Complete Live at the Fillmore East Blurays and hi-res downloads also have that hard cut-off at around 32 kHz.

when do we actually get to hear said 24/96 downloads?

I managed to download all of them. Don't know if that was supposed to happen, a miraculous chance based on planetary alignments, or they are up for all. I only purchased these Friday night.

Edited to add YMMV, and god knows if these are in their final form.

Would welcome some advice.

On Aug. 15, I received the "Your Lyceum ‘72 Digital Download" email, with code, etc. Been traveling so I haven't taken the step to download yet. I saw the post from @GDHEAD77, who said the resolution of this insanity "is close."

So what am I to make of the Aug. 15 email? And should I attempt to download from it? Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

They have messed up again. There must be individual people working on these multiple sets because every time there are tags in multiple CDs or digital that are labeled differently. It makes a mess of a digital library. This time 4th show is labeled differently from the other 3. It has GD or Grateful Dead in front of title, and songs numbered from 85 to 115, instead of 1 through 30. What a real pain. Come on people it can't be that hard to get on the same page.

What I would do is simply load the files into mp3tag and make them the way you want them. For example, I renamed the entire file content. For example:

gd19720523_s1_t01. Promised Land.flac
gd19720523_s1_t02. Sugaree.flac
gd19720523_s1_t03. Mr Charlie.flac
gd19720523_s1_t04. Black-Throated Wind.flac
gd19720523_s1_t05. Tennessee Jed.flac
gd19720523_s1_t06. Next Time You See Me.flac
gd19720523_s1_t07. Jack Straw.flac
gd19720523_s1_t08. China Cat Sunflower.flac
gd19720523_s1_t09. I Know You Rider.flac
gd19720523_s1_t10. Me and My Uncle.flac
gd19720523_s1_t11. Chinatown Shuffle.flac
gd19720523_s1_t12. Big Railroad Blues.flac
gd19720523_s1_t13. The Stranger Two Souls in Communion.flac
gd19720523_s1_t14. Playing in the Band.flac
gd19720523_s1_t15. Sitting on Top of the World.flac
gd19720523_s1_t16. Rockin Pneumonia and the Boogie Woogie Flu.flac
gd19720523_s1_t17. Mexicali Blues.flac
gd19720523_s1_t18. Good Lovin.flac
gd19720523_s1_t19. Casey Jones.flac
gd19720523_s2_t01. Ramble on Rose.flac
gd19720523_s2_t02. Dark Star.flac
gd19720523_s2_t03. Morning Dew.flac
gd19720523_s2_t04. He s Gone.flac
gd19720523_s2_t05. Sugar Magnolia.flac
gd19720523_s2_t06. Comes a Time.flac
gd19720523_s2_t07. Goin Down the Road Feeling Bad.flac
gd19720523_s2_t08. Not Fade Away Pt 1.flac
gd19720523_s2_t09. Hey Bo Diddley.flac
gd19720523_s2_t10. Not Fade Away Pt 2.flac
gd19720523_s2_t11. Uncle John s Band.flac

Did that with all the shows. Then loaded them all into mp3tag. Made minor adjustments to the text. Stripped the artwok from the files. That ranged from 86 kb to 4mb. Made a 100kb art file while KEEPING the 4 MB art folder found in the last 2 shows to add to the folder I named "Grateful Dead - Europe 1972 - Lyceum Box Set". Then added the 100kb art folder to all the files. Why force my player to read through those large art files?

THEN! I renumber the entire thing. 1- whatever it ends up being. My player doesn't care what the numbering is when I load a show. it will start where I tell it to start.

At any rate, tags are personal preference IMO. If Rhino can't get a download with dubious origins out anywhere near on time, I don't expect them to nail my personal tagging preference. Half the fun of purchasing live music all the time is playing in my sandbox with the files so they get in line with my library.