• 1,689 replies
    admin
    Joined:
    jq171(document).ready(function (jq171) { var covertArtDownloadMarkup = 'Looking for the digital cover art? You can download it here.'; setTimeout(function() { jq171('#digital_cart').append(covertArtDownloadMarkup); }, 500); });

    What's Inside:
    •144-page paperback book with essays by Nicholas G. Meriwether and Blair Jackson
    •A portfolio with three art prints by Jessica Dessner
    • Replica ticket stubs and backstage passes for all eight shows
    •8 complete shows on 23 discs
          •3/14/90 Capital Centre, Landover, MD
          •3/18/90 Civic Center, Hartford, CT
          •3/21/90 Copps Coliseum, Hamilton, Ontario
          •3/25/90 Knickerbocker Arena, Albany, NY
          •3/28/90 Nassau Coliseum, Uniondale, NY
          •3/29/90 Nassau Coliseum, Uniondale, NY (featuring Branford Marsalis)
          •4/1/90 The Omni, Atlanta, GA
          •4/3/90 The Omni, Atlanta, GA
    Recorded by long-time Grateful Dead audio engineer John Cutler
    Mixed from the master 24-track analog tapes by Jeffrey Norman at Bob Weir's TRI Studios
    Mastered to HDCD specs by David Glasser
    Original Art by Jessica Dessner
    Individually Numbered, Limited Edition of 9,000

    Announcing Spring 1990 (The Other One)

    "If every concert tells a tale, then every tour writes an epic. Spring 1990 felt that way: an epic with more than its share of genius and drama, brilliance and tension. And that is why the rest of the music of that tour deserves this release, why the rest of those stories need to be heard." - Nicholas G. Meriwether

    Some consider Spring 1990 the last great Grateful Dead tour. That it may be. In spite of outside difficulties and downsides, nothing could deter the Grateful Dead from crafting lightness from darkness. They were overwhelmingly triumphant in doing what they came to do, what they did best — forging powerful explorations in music. Yes, it was the music that would propel their legacy further, young fans joining the ranks with veteran Dead Heads, Jerry wondering "where do they keep coming from?" — a sentiment that still rings true today, a sentiment that offers up another opportunity for an exceptional release from a tour that serves as transcendental chapter in the Grateful Dead masterpiece.

    With Spring 1990 (The Other One), you'll have the chance to explore another eight complete shows from this chapter, the band elevating their game to deliver inspired performances of concert staples (“Tennessee Jed” and “Sugar Magnolia”), exceptional covers (Dylan’s “When I Paint My Masterpiece” and the band’s last performance of the Beatles’ “Revolution”) and rare gems (the first “Loose Lucy” in 16 years) as well as many songs from Built To Last, which had been released the previous fall and would become the Dead’s final studio album. Also among the eight is one of the most sought-after shows in the Dead canon: the March, 29, 1990 show at Nassau Coliseum, where Grammy®-winning saxophonist Branford Marsalis sat in with the group. The entire second set is one continuous highlight, especially the breathtaking version of “Dark Star.”

    For those of you who are keeping track, this release also marks a significant milestone as now, across the two Spring 1990 boxed sets, Dozin At The Knick, and Terrapin Limited, the entire spring tour of 1990 has been officially released, making it only the second Grateful Dead tour, after Europe 1972, to have that honor.

    Now shipping, you'll want to order your copy soon as these beautiful boxes are going, going, gone...

Comments

sort by
Recent
Reset
  • wjonjd
    Default Avatar
    Joined:
    Double blind
    You COULD do it double blind. But, you HAVE to make sure you start with the same files. Take your 24/96 or whatever file, have it professionally converted to 16-bit. Don't just get separate files to start with. Even very slight differences in volume will make a difference (louder is almost always reported as better in testing). Then get someone to help with the a/b testing. Ideally, you should NOT be able to see the other individual, and it would better if he didn't even talk if he is going to know which is which; to keep it double blind he nor you should know which is 24 and which is 16 until after all testing. Try to take no less than 100 listens. Use equipment to make sure volume level is truly identical, not the volume setting of the playback equipment, but the volume of the playback itself. And, of course, he shouldn't just switch back from one to the other. Use a random number generator to determine the order of which files to playback in what order. Ideally, you should check both files with visual analysis software so that you can really see if the conversion to 16 bit was done well. The sine wave results should be virtually indistinguishable in amplitude when overlayed. The only real visual dupifference you should be able to see would be possible content in frequency ranges above 22khz in the hi res file that wouldn't exist in the 16/44.1 file. If this is not the case you're not comparing apples to apples and the test won't mean anything. P.S professionals use 24 bit recording for reasons that have nothing to do audio quality of the listening experience of those files. It has to do with the playing room it gives for subsequent digital manipulation. I think one of the articles I linked to talks about this.
  • wjonjd
    Default Avatar
    Joined:
    Yes, we will have to agree to disagree
    "Do frequencies (including noise purposely placed) outside the audible range change our reaction to music?" People keep missing the point that even if it's just feelings or some unquantifiable non-auditory affect, if it made ANY difference - even one you couldn't put your finger on, that would SHOW UP on the results of the double blind test. Scientifically (as far I'm concerned) they've proven that there is nothing, not even something inaudible or even supernatural, that is making a difference, or the results would be different. As far as noise, it is the EXACT same issue. Scientifically, any added noise from dithering should be inaudible unless you have a noise floor about zero, which never happens. And again, exactly as before, if it made ANY detectable difference it would skew the results of the double-blind studies - which clearly it did not; that speaks for itself. Yes, we can agree to disagree. I prefer engineering that errs on the side of not intentionally trying to take advantage of the less technically informed for a buck. And I also disagree with the characterization that this is going a "step beyond" and what it implies. You are repeating things like "demonstrably greater noise" while ignoring that noise you can't hear isn't really noise. If snake oil makes someone feel a little better it NEVER changes the original intent behind the making of that snake oil, and never will. Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of disagreement, discussion and outcome that the folks who ARE aware of the science behind digital audio technology and are trying to capitalize on it are counting on. They have to. But, like I said, it's not my money and there are much more important things to worry about. For what it is worth, if you do spend your extra money on "hi res" files and equipment and storage space and download times, etc., I do hope you enjoy them. Especially if it's Jerry! EDIT - And, doesn't it bother you AT ALL that in the marketing on places like HDTracks and other Hi-Res sites, they are intentionally misleading. While you, after reading some of the science, have realized that the "smoothness" issue, and the "stair step" issue are bogus, even if you don't seem to see the same with the "noise" issue, it is simply fact, not opinion that there is no "stair-step" issue, but if you go look, that is precisely the kind of material using graphs, etc., that they use in their marketing. In other words, they are using something that, regardless of how you feel about so called hi-res audio files, is entirely scientifically bogus - you can see on audio sound analyzers that the music/sound waves that are produced are as smooth and identical to the originals, but these sites display graphs showing stair steps of rectangular discreet "samples" and showing more samples making a sound wave smoother, using words like giving the music a more "natural" less digital "feel" (demonstrably false). Doesn't this kind of marketing TELL you anything about what is going on??? And, in light of that, when you refer to how we don't understand everything about how humans/the brain respond to this or that, are you implying that they might be right BY ACCIDENT, that even though they're clearly intentionally lying to their buyers about much, that COINCIDENTALLY they might be selling a higher quality product?? Not buying it. I'm with the Society of Audio Engineers on this one. EDIT 2 - And, while you're talking about the (as far as I'm concerned illusory) intangible but maybe real and subtle differences, doesn't it bother you to read about the legions of people out there are who buy these hi-res files and then post about how they're SO MUCH better, you can just hear how much deeper the sound is, the cymbals are so much crisper (that would be in the AUDIBLE frequency range), the sound is so much smoother, you HAVE TO experience it for yourself! You now know how much of that is simply not factually possible (other than in the mind due to expectations), but you can still stand behind this? Sorry, I can't, I just can't. EDIT 3 - I thought of something else, too. While you appear willing to overlook the most glaring falsehoods being perpetrated on the off-chance that the "hi res" MIGHT offer some virtually intangible benefits, you appear completely ready to ignore things like the quote from the first link I sent which reads "Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space." He goes on to explain why, and I believe at least one of the other articles mentions it also - if not, I know you can find ones that do. The reasons for the slight inferiority, which have to do with the potential affects of inaudible frequencies attempted to be reproduced by sound equipment whereby the actually AUDIBLE frequencies are interfered with (something that wouldn't happen from listening to live music, like a guitar, but DOES happen due to the inherent inadequacies of speakers and headphones of whatever quality) - you seem to be perfectly willing to just ignore any negative (and in this case demonstrable) affects of using playback files that store frequencies that are not just a little but astronomically above human hearing level. Again, to quote "Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible." Also being ignored are the fact that virtually no microphones (certainly none in use commercially) are even capable of picking up these frequencies to begin with, so ANY frequencies in that range ARE noise introduced as part of the digital file manipulation phases, which 16/44.1 files would simply lop off, but are still contained in a 96 or 192khz file? The list goes on and on and on. And, for me, I just will never get over the INTENTIONALITY of the original deception for the sake of greed, and how it has now spilled over into otherwise well-intentioned, but misguided supporters. EDIT 4 - the argument also reminds me of psychic pay per minute phone lines. It's like hearing an argument from people who spend a few hundred dollars a month on these psychic hotlines explaining that we don't know all the capabilities of the human mind. No, we don't. Does that make it one scintilla more likely that the "psychics" on the other end of the $2.00 per minute phone call are anything but frauds? Nope. And the fact that people can and do legitimately bring up our lack of complete understanding of the capabilities of the human mind muddies the waters and gives some reasonable semblance of credence to these frauds drives me similarly batshit.
  • One Man
    Joined:
    Owsley Can You Hear Me Now?
    I wish Owsley Stanley were still alive to debate this. He said to me that digital audio (all of it) is "a bad joke" and I tend to agree as far as in comparison to analog. The day I plugged in my (24 bit/48K) multitrack in place of my old Otari MX-70 (1-inch 16-track analog magnetic tape) was the day my studio began sounding less warm and snuggly. Of course, there are a million reasons why this is true, none of which are likely to be cured by "better" digital audio technology. I'm sure someone has tried to invent a tape emulation algorithm and I don't see that gaining any traction. That aside, virtually all professional studios use 24 bit recording, even knowing the product will end up as 16 bit. I have the choice but have never used 16 bit multitrack. Maybe I'll try that. It won't be double blind, but it could be revealing if I use a MIDI source, drum machine and/or other "pre-recorded" sources so there will not be any performance cues. I could even transfer a song from an old LP and hear it both ways. I'll report back with results. I am not down with false marketing of 24-bit audio. The science should not be tampered with to make a buck. PONO makers and the like should just explain what they have done and see what the market will bear. I don't plan to buy one, but I could change my mind.
  • One Man
    Joined:
    Snake Bit
    Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the "snake oil" issue. If 24 bit has demonstrably lower noise, it's not snake oil, even if subjects in a double blind test can't "hear" it. The effect of audio on humans can only be measured to a certain degree. The rest -- call it "feelings" if you must -- is in the ear and brain of the beholder. Do frequencies (including noise purposely placed) outside the audible range change our reaction to music? I don't know, and no test can prove there is no effect. I'm sure that Warlocks box "sounds" great on paper. It apparently met whatever specs were used to produce it. I prefer engineering that errs on the side of quality. I want digital audio to go a step beyond the old 16/44.1 design, and now it is going there. And it is unlikely to go further in that direction, if that is any consolation to anyone thinking this will never end.
  • wjonjd
    Default Avatar
    Joined:
    I Guess There Are Worse Things For Me To Worry About
    I'm not sure what to say. While the Warlocks sound has issues, are they mastering issues? Mixing issues? One thing we know is that it is not a 16/44.1 vs 24/96 issue. We know that that is not the problem. In the tests (talked about in one of the links) where they did a double blind test where they inserted a 16.44.1 loop, they didn't even bother dithering. Dithering is NOT the issue. It moves quantisation error/noise into the mostly inaudible regions of the frequency range. Part of the problem is that by asking, "So why not go 24/96 from here on out?", it's like hearing someone listen to a snake-oil pitch - snake-oil that won't do any harm, but costs major bucks and for which an entire industry is ready to sell you lots more of it and lots of extremely expensive accessories to go with it. You're asking, what's the harm? And, part of the ability for them to do that is predicated on people having the same preconceptions and and misunderstandings about digital audio that were in your original post - believing in things like "granularity", a "smoother" sound because you have more discrete samples (probably the most frequently heard misunderstanding), greater "depth" to the recording because you have more bit-depth (COMPLETELY off), the idea it is closer to analog, the idea of that what you get is a "stair-step" sound wave and having more samples makes for more steps, and smoother sound wave, etc. Even many audio professionals who don't deal directly with the technical aspects of how the files work buy into this demonstrably nonsensical understanding of what is going on - and this is CRITICAL for the people who want to take your money unnecessarily (many of them probably belive it too). As long as there are folks bringing up ambiguity (similar to "the snake oil coulnd't HURT), as long folks repeat nonsense like "well, the extra frequency range in 96khz recordings may not be in the audible range, but the harmonics created by those frequencies probably affect the way the music FEELS". If that were true IN ANY WAY the double blind tests would fail - people would be able to pick out the difference. In any case, the train's probably already left the station. The idea of "high resolution" is probably already too firmly entrenched, and I expect many people will buy into it. I guess there are worse things, but the snake-oil thing drives me batshit. P.S. Edit - I recently found out that, contrary to what I implied in an earlier post, unlike in the early years of digital audio, modern DAC's (digital to audio converters), even the most inexpensive ones are virtually perfect. There is no longer really any such thing as a "better" or "higher quality" DAC. They all virtually perfectly reproduce an analog sound wave that is identical to the original.
  • One Man
    Joined:
    Caveats
    Thank you for the links. The common caveat seems to be "if properly dithered". I am sure I have heard many digital recordings that lacked proper dithering (or other treatment) because they sounded obviously harsh. So we can't necessarily assume we are always talking about properly dithered recordings. Some sound terrible and it is clearly a digital issue as you don't hear analog recordings sounding this way (although they can obviously have their own problems). Also, John Siau says in his article, "Long word lengths do not improve the amplitude "resolution" of digital systems, they only improve the noise performance. But, noise can mask low-level musical details, so please do not underestimate the importance of a low-noise audio system." So if 16/44.1 is "good enough", it is just barely "good enough" and sometimes probably isn't. So why not go 24/96 from here on out? We will never need to go higher than that. Relating this to the Grateful Dead, the release "Formerly the Warlocks" sounds terrible to me, and I am nearly certain this is a digital issue. I have never heard an analog recording that lacked this much "depth" and sounded this harsh. By "depth" I am not talking about dynamic range nor frequency range. There is something missing throughout the signal. I can't measure my dissatisfaction with this recording -- all I have for instruments are my ears. But I am sure some other listeners hear what I hear in this recording. I'm not blaming it on 16/44.1. I am blaming it on poor digital engineering of some kind.
  • wjonjd
    Default Avatar
    Joined:
    Hi One Man
    Hi One Man, Respectfully (seriously), there are too many factual errors and misunderstandings about digital audio technology in your post to reply without writing another tome. I will instead point you to some links that explain some of it. http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/15121729-audio-myth-24-bit-audio-h… http://productionadvice.co.uk/no-stair-steps-in-digital-audio/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded In particular your understanding of the relationship between how digital audio technology works, and what you are referring to as "granularity" is simply incorrect, but conforms to "common sense" in the sense of how most people believe digital audio works. If you're interested in the topic I would suggest reading those links in their entirety (I believe they have references to many other locations for further information as well). Taken together, I think these go a long ways to a good explanation of some things that are not intuitively obvious, things like, from that last link: "So, 24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio." You will also see, as explained in the article on bit-depth, that each "sample" as represented by a 16-bit (or 24-bit or 2-bit) binary number ONLY encodes the amplitude (volume) of the signal. Frequency is controlled ENTIRELY by sampling rate. When you have a particular "volume" measurement played back 1000 times a second, you get a sound frequency of 1000hz at the volume specified. It's easier if you think of each "sample" as encoding a virtually instantaneous "tick" sound where the number of bits controls only the volume of the tick. How fast the ticks are made produces a tone. While it is true that 16-bit encodes 65,536 different possible numbers, and 24-bit encodes 16,777,216 different numbers, the granularity you refer to I don't think is granularity as you believed it to mean. The difference between 65,536 and 16,777,216 is ONLY the difference of how many VOLUME levels can be encoded. While there is some controversy over whether frequencies over human hearing can affect what we hear (there shouldn't be), there is no controversy that no one can detect the difference in volumes from one level to the very next at the granularity level of either 16-bit or 24-bit, so their "smoothness" is identical to human hearing. For instance, LP's are the equivalent of about 11-bit recordings (they have to compress the dynamic levels so the lowest volume to loudest fits within this range due to the limitation in groove/needle technology). Assuming with the most modern technology, the newest LP's can be equivalent to 12-bit (and I have no reason to think this, but let's assume they've improved), that means LP's as you knew them had a "granularity" of about 2,048 volume levels with newer ones MAYBE having up to 4,096. I don't think the "granularity" of 65,536 is a problem and certainly NOT distinguishable from 16,777,216.
  • One Man
    Joined:
    Dither Tizzy
    It's partly my fault this board has digressed into a long discussion about digital audio. Sorry about that. But I must say (at least) one more thing. Saying that bit depth only affects dynamic range is way off the mark. Bit depth is the number of values available for each digital sample of the waveform. So the granularity (resolution) of the sound is dependent on bit depth. Sure, it ends up as a sound wave by the time it reaches your ears, but the shape of the wave is modified by digitizing it. Take the logic to the extreme. If you could have a 2 bit recording, each sample could only be assigned to one of 4 values. Imagine how raw that would sound. The number of available values is the number 2 raised to the power of the bit depth. So, an 8 bit recording has a "granularity" of 256 available values per sample. A 16 bit recording has 65,536 available values per sample and at that point is getting quite a bit more resolved. A 24 bit recording has 16,777,216 available values per sample and is thus 256 times more resolved than 16 bit. I'm not saying everyone can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit. But people can certainly hear 8 bit vs 16 bit. So some people - maybe not enough to statistically skew the even odds stats - probably can hear 16 vs 24. I can tell you from my experience that my analog studio tape machine sounds noticeably better than my high-end 24 bit digital recorder with excellent AD and DA converters. And anything that approaches analog by providing higher resolution is a move in the right direction, even if Neil Young is a grumpy old man having a mid-life crisis about 2 decades late.
  • DJMac520
    Default Avatar
    Joined:
    "Many are critical of Neal [sic] Young's pono"
    I suspect that this is based in some degree on the fact that Neil can be a rather abrasive personality and people will take shots at him when they can. There is also probably a bit of a reflexive distaste for the pricing and kickstarter campaign that came with the pono rollout. As we see here often, any time a product is priced above what a kind veggie burrito cost in the lots at SPAC 1985, people bitch and moan.
  • wjonjd
    Default Avatar
    Joined:
    Thanks Dantian
    I realized after the fact that every time I referred to uncompressed CD quality files I should have referred instead to lossless CD quality files, as some might not get it that FLACs and SHNs are digitally identical to the uncompressed wav files at playback. I agree about the need for greater availability of lossless downloads. It drives me batshit that iTunes doesn't offer FLAC, and even most sites that have the largest selection of classical music still only offer mp3's. You would think that classical music places would be the first places to realize the demand for lossless download purchases, but I guess not. I create my own high quality mp3's so that I can fit my entire music library on several 160GB portable devices, but I like to have the originals on my home playback library.
user picture

Member for

17 years 6 months
jq171(document).ready(function (jq171) { var covertArtDownloadMarkup = 'Looking for the digital cover art? You can download it here.'; setTimeout(function() { jq171('#digital_cart').append(covertArtDownloadMarkup); }, 500); });

What's Inside:
•144-page paperback book with essays by Nicholas G. Meriwether and Blair Jackson
•A portfolio with three art prints by Jessica Dessner
• Replica ticket stubs and backstage passes for all eight shows
•8 complete shows on 23 discs
      •3/14/90 Capital Centre, Landover, MD
      •3/18/90 Civic Center, Hartford, CT
      •3/21/90 Copps Coliseum, Hamilton, Ontario
      •3/25/90 Knickerbocker Arena, Albany, NY
      •3/28/90 Nassau Coliseum, Uniondale, NY
      •3/29/90 Nassau Coliseum, Uniondale, NY (featuring Branford Marsalis)
      •4/1/90 The Omni, Atlanta, GA
      •4/3/90 The Omni, Atlanta, GA
Recorded by long-time Grateful Dead audio engineer John Cutler
Mixed from the master 24-track analog tapes by Jeffrey Norman at Bob Weir's TRI Studios
Mastered to HDCD specs by David Glasser
Original Art by Jessica Dessner
Individually Numbered, Limited Edition of 9,000

Announcing Spring 1990 (The Other One)

"If every concert tells a tale, then every tour writes an epic. Spring 1990 felt that way: an epic with more than its share of genius and drama, brilliance and tension. And that is why the rest of the music of that tour deserves this release, why the rest of those stories need to be heard." - Nicholas G. Meriwether

Some consider Spring 1990 the last great Grateful Dead tour. That it may be. In spite of outside difficulties and downsides, nothing could deter the Grateful Dead from crafting lightness from darkness. They were overwhelmingly triumphant in doing what they came to do, what they did best — forging powerful explorations in music. Yes, it was the music that would propel their legacy further, young fans joining the ranks with veteran Dead Heads, Jerry wondering "where do they keep coming from?" — a sentiment that still rings true today, a sentiment that offers up another opportunity for an exceptional release from a tour that serves as transcendental chapter in the Grateful Dead masterpiece.

With Spring 1990 (The Other One), you'll have the chance to explore another eight complete shows from this chapter, the band elevating their game to deliver inspired performances of concert staples (“Tennessee Jed” and “Sugar Magnolia”), exceptional covers (Dylan’s “When I Paint My Masterpiece” and the band’s last performance of the Beatles’ “Revolution”) and rare gems (the first “Loose Lucy” in 16 years) as well as many songs from Built To Last, which had been released the previous fall and would become the Dead’s final studio album. Also among the eight is one of the most sought-after shows in the Dead canon: the March, 29, 1990 show at Nassau Coliseum, where Grammy®-winning saxophonist Branford Marsalis sat in with the group. The entire second set is one continuous highlight, especially the breathtaking version of “Dark Star.”

For those of you who are keeping track, this release also marks a significant milestone as now, across the two Spring 1990 boxed sets, Dozin At The Knick, and Terrapin Limited, the entire spring tour of 1990 has been officially released, making it only the second Grateful Dead tour, after Europe 1972, to have that honor.

Now shipping, you'll want to order your copy soon as these beautiful boxes are going, going, gone...

user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

12 years 4 months
Permalink

7/4/87... I vividly remember stating loudly as the boys stumbled from Althea into UJB, "I think the second set just started!" Very strange day and one of the lamest shows I saw for sure.
user picture

Member for

17 years 2 months
Permalink

Supposedly this is what Dick Latvala had to say about this show: ------------------- In Wichita (11/17), one of the best shows, of this period occurred. Garcia is playing with gusto and originality thru-out the show. :"Bird Song" and "Sugar Magnolia" are the highpoints outside of the real goods delivered in the jam: "Truckin->jam->The Other One->jam->The Other One->Brokedown Palace". (the "jam" segments contain lengthy and very unique playing.) I should also add that the Cumberland smokes and the sound quality is very good to my ears. I friend of mine attended this show and as a tour veteran, ranks it as the best he's ever seen. There were only about 500 people in attendance and the scene was very cool because it started to snow as they waited outside the venue. Later after the show the Dead showed up at the rotating bar at the top of the hotel across the street for a few drinks. Wish I was there.
user picture

Member for

12 years 10 months
Permalink

thanks for posting the whole setlist. the first 8 songs were missing at 'the setlist program'.

Member for

17 years 3 months
Permalink

Katky, With all due respect, there'd be no legitimate reason for consternation about an '84 release on top of a '90. They're six years apart. We do have three Fall '72 Dicks already (though they're Sept), and last year's near-Fall classic. All masterpieces that I love, but just putting it in perspective. There's now at least one Dave's for every Keith year in the '70's. But only one of Brent's 11 years in the band. Nothing between '80 & '90, even with the box. If there WAS consternation, and if you closed your eyes and concentrated, you could hear the world's smallest violin playing in my living room........ Again, though, DP11 is sure to rock : )
user picture

Member for

10 years 6 months
Permalink

Just to pile on, I have a tape from 12-26-81 which just rips from start to finish. Told a friend. He looked at the setlist. "Oh, that doesn't look like much." Which made the point for me (this is 1995 and we were gathered for a Jer memorial) that setlists only amount to so much. An old standard played with verve can make you gaga again over a song you thought had become ordinary. And when verve and execution align, the actual setlist becomes secondary. And songs that I look for -- a Hard to Handle, perhaps, a Me and Bobby Magee or a Wheel -- don't resonate if they don't hit a groove. In that sense, though they're such different aspects of the experience, tapes and actual performances could be tepid or they might leap from the speakers. Me likes the leapers....
user picture

Member for

16 years 10 months
Permalink

Bolo, I'm very curious about the future hall of famer clue: was it Craig Biggio (songs that start with the letter b) or Tony LaRussa, who played minor league ball in Wichita? I'm thrilled about this pick, really, really thrilled. Star Dark's mischief was just enough to keep us from being sure and now that it's official it feels really good. Fall of '72, the Spring '90 box, the Branford show for those who can' afford the box and a new Pure Jerry, all following the fantastic Thelma show. There's something for everyone! Except, unfortunately, those looking for a mid 80s release. But I'd wager that the next DaP will be from the early to mid 80s...then again, we still haven't seen anything more from the returned tapes, so, maybe not.
user picture

Member for

14 years 8 months
Permalink

"I'm going to Wichita"
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

12 years
Permalink

Twenty-seven reasons why my Dave’s Picks 11 is going straight to either File 13 or eBay: 9/27/1972 9/21/1972 9/17/1972 8/27/1972 5/26/1972 5/25/1972 5/24/1972 5/23/1972 5/18/1972 5/16/1972 5/13/1972 5/11/1972 5/10/1972 5/7/1972 5/4/1972 5/3/1972 4/29/1972 4/26/1972 4/24/1972 4/21/1972 4/17/1972 4/16/1972 4/15/1972 4/14/1972 4/11/1972 4/8/1972 4/7/1972 And tongues and tails are wagging over 11/17/72? NOTHING new. NOTHING interesting. I just might enjoy taking a hammer to this one.
user picture

Member for

14 years 9 months
Permalink

Craig Biggio, one of the Astros' Killer B's and wore uniform #7. Should get in the Hall next year. 7 of the 25 songs start with "B" (28%)
user picture

Member for

15 years 8 months
Permalink

Looking forward to it! Thanks for the insight. GD Projects puts it in their top 100 - I know it's totally subjective and open for debate, but this show's probably a potential gem... Dave' your show selection is great! Keep them gems coming - whatever year. I'm really getting to love the jazzy dead era (early keith), but I have my list of shows from the 80's & 90's too. If you have to mix it up, just make sure it's the best of the best of the rest...
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

10 years 7 months
Permalink

Amen Christian!!! Johnny was one of the best guitarist of all-time! He's probably jammin' with Hendrix and Stevie Ray right now!
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

12 years
Permalink

... well, Dave has gotten lazy. Either that or he realizes many Heads' ears have gotten lazy. Yeah, '72 was a great year. Fine. We get it. Move on.
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

10 years 10 months
Permalink

The first set cooks ! Jerry's playing on this one is great. The lead on Me and My Uncle is inspiring. Unfortunately, until now most copies circulating have lots of sound quality issues. Looking forward to this one.
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

12 years
Permalink

"First set cooks?" "Jerry's playing is great?" Uhhhh... you just described nearly every show from this period. Nothing new. I'll enjoy smashing this one, thank you!
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

11 years
Permalink

What a troll. Threatening to smash a limited release that others might want? You're a real piece of work.
user picture

Member for

14 years 8 months
Permalink

no such thing as too much GD72. no such thing. smear it liberally all over yer mind. oh yeah...that's it...

Member for

17 years 3 months
Permalink

How is Star Dark a troll because he subscribed and is frustrated at another '72 release? 22 shows released in 2011, another one last year, and another this year? He has every right to be disappointed, just as you have every right not to be. I do think the community pool here is getting so non-diverse that future subscriptions should just advertise ALL 72-74 +77 and you guys can have at it. That's where Rhino is headed, methinks.
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

12 years
Permalink

Keep in mind that I'll enjoy taking out my frustration on this steaming pile of **** just as much as you enjoy listening to it. This (in addition to not subscribing next year) constitutes my protest against Dave's shameless catering.
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

17 years 3 months
Permalink

YEA HEAVY AND A BOTTLE OF BREAD........Love this release, thank you David.
user picture

Member for

13 years 10 months
Permalink

As soon as something is released from GD Merchandising, someone immediately starts complaining about the release.You can set your watch by it. "I'm soooo upset! I didn't get exactly what I wanted!" Holy crap... Get a grip. Whatever is released will be great. It's the Grateful Dead! All the complaining makes you look like a bunch of babies.
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

17 years 3 months
Permalink

StarDark... do us a favor, just do us and yourself a favor, and just go find something more productive to do elsewhere.Never have I seen such childish behavior. Do you stamp your feet and pout when you don't get your to play with the blue Thomas train at the table in Books A Million too? Poor baby... it's one thing to disagree and post about it civilly. Posting "I'm gonna destroy this w/ a hammer, and throw it in the trash...".. wow. My 5 year old does that. There's frickin 2000+ shows. You don't like one, don't be a whiny bitch, just shut your mouth and wait for the next one... or go buy some Phish cd's instead. Find another band. Yes it's another 72 show... so what. A show is a show. It's a different show. no 2 shows ever the same. Just enjoy it. Lord almighty, it's just good music.
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

12 years
Permalink

@kjohnduff: "Whatever is released will be great. It's the Grateful Dead!" Huh?? That's why we get the same old stuff over and over. Folks like you eat it up. @brianhehehehehe: I wouldn't care as much if I hadn't already paid for this (though in principle it still bugs me). And I have just as much a right to release my angst as you do to praise another same-old release. Dave and company DO read these posts. And what on earth does Phish have to do with this? If I were a fan, I guess I'd be insulted. Never really cared for them. In any case, telling me to shut up is more or less like telling your typical protester to keep quiet and accept the status quo. Mighty fine of you. Bottom line: I've given Lemieux the benefit of the doubt over and over again. Yeah, I'm obviously REALLY ticked - and suspect I'm far from alone.
user picture

Member for

10 years 5 months
Permalink

Yea Biggio!Yea Killer B's (and yea H-Town)! Great clues bolo...very creative. Yea 11/17/72! I'm very excited about this. Gracias, Dave!
user picture

Member for

13 years 10 months
Permalink

I do eat it up... Would never dream of complaining about a Grateful Dead release. No matter what era. I don't think that all '72 shows sound the same either. Brian is right... No 2 shows are the same. I'm thankful for what we get.
user picture

Member for

14 years 11 months
Permalink

Same old Afghani Primo again? I'm just gonna throw it in the fireplace! That'll show 'em!
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

11 years
Permalink

It's one thing to be bummed that you didn't get what you were hoping for. It's quite another to throw a little hissy fit and threaten to smash a limited cd set that others are going to miss out on. It's like when a 6 year old doesn't get his way, he takes his ball and goes home. We're the luckiest goddamn fans in the world, with a series of releases that far, far exceeds anything else in the world of rock. It's sad that a small minority can't be grateful.
user picture

Member for

16 years 2 months
Permalink

Star Dark, Easy, my friend. You sound like a stockbroker in October 1929. There is a fine line between disappointment and disrespect and you pole vaulted right over it. Leave the section 8 routine to the other infamous malcontents. You seem smarter than that crowd. You did crack me up, though. Steaming about the same old releases from 1972 in a string about 8 new releases from 1990 is so absurd you must be going for the WWF vibe. 1972 is such a stunning year. Would you really take a hammer to it? If this really throws your compass that badly what on earth did you do in 2008 when your 401(k) went down 50%?

Member for

17 years 3 months
Permalink

Go easy, Star Dark, for ranting (not actually smashing anything, mind you, just ranting).... But don't go easy, ye "civil" posters who immediately called him a troll, and a whiny bitch who should shut his mouth....simply for speaking his mind. Sure, tell the guy you don't agree with to go easy, but everyone else is writing in a perfectly respectful manner. Um, yeah.
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

12 years
Permalink

Thanks for the smile! What the jack guy (and others) miss is the main point. It's not that *I* didn't get exactly what *I* want. It's that DL is stuck in an apparently interminable rut. It's the principle of the thing. There are only so many releases per year, and he is incapable of branching out. Argh. Heck, I'd have been happier with a post-Spring '90 release for variety's sake alone (and I generally despise those last 5 years). This shall be my last post on the topic. Jack can celebrate with a nice hoppy.
user picture

Member for

17 years 2 months
Permalink

....last time I checked, this is the first 72 DaP. I've already had a few hoppies, so don't mind me. ...

Member for

17 years 3 months
Permalink

Bolo, c'mon. You may or may not agree with the mid-80's or post-90 candle holders, but please don't insult our/their patience. How would you define "in good time" ? One From the Vault came out in 1991, and Dick's 1 in '93. Some of us have been buying these for over 20 years. Dick's 21, the only release from 84-86, came out in 2001. My time has run out. I've got enough Dead to fill a room. I'm not threatening not to subscribe anymore because of the mid-80's dearth. I've simply got enough Dead. But I will say that the lack of variety in recent years has certainly contributed to my feeling of "enough." I've got enough November '73. I've got enough Spring '72. I may even have enough '90. I'm with Star Dark in that I'd rather see a '92 release than another 70's. I'm quite grateful the vault was opened. I LOVE the December '69/Feb '70 releases Dave has graced us with--some of his most inspired choices. But where are the '75's, '84 & '87, & '91, that appeared on the original advert for the Dave's Picks series? Fall '68? Summer '73? I'm not sick of '72, I'm psyched to hear Dave's 11. But it's true that releases from these "perfect Dead" years of 72-73 meant more when any era was fair game for release, and you had to wait for your favorite year to come up. That's part of what Star Dark, and Spacebrother, have been trying to say. Every '72 show may be different, but Jerry's tone won't be different. Phil's tone won't be different. The setlist won't be different. And YES, I DID get tired of hash--my favorite--when it was in town too long! You need something to look forward to. With a 30-year career and so many claiming they'd never complain about a release because they love it all.....well, if you love it all, how can you NOT respect a complaint to release a greater variety of it all? Why is that seen as naysaying, rather than an appreciation of all GD music? I've trod these waters before, sorry for the novel. As I said, I'll enjoy DP11, and 12. But my time for waiting for what's "just around the corner, you'll see!" has come to an end. Partly, because those releases are NOT coming in good time, nor likely ever....and partly because I care less & less if they even do. To have enough is to be a rich man, and I've got more than enough. Thanks, Dave, for all you've given us. May the releases keep coming as long as there's an audience.
user picture

Member for

14 years 9 months
Permalink

I guess I just vividly remember the days when we would maybe get one release per year. I also recall a time (80s) when it was six years (!!) between official releases. And most those of were just studio albums, some of which were mediocre at best. If not for our second and third generation cassettes of taped shows, many of us probably would have abandoned the Dead altogether at some point. Compared to then, we're now flooded with high quality music several times a year, almost too much to keep up with. An embarrassment of riches, one might say. So I suppose my perspective might be a little different. Y'all have a great evening.

Member for

17 years 3 months
Permalink

I remember those same days vividly. The ensuing embarrassment of riches of releases is all the more reason why there should be enough to go around for all eras. Enjoy the rest of your night also!
user picture

Member for

17 years 2 months
Permalink

...the phases of my life come and go like the tides. I had my comic book phase, I had my video game phase, I had my fishing phase, I had my RC car phase, etc....but, nowadays if you presented all of those options, and threw the Dead in the mix and said, "What do you want to do?", playing a Dead show would never respond with a thumbs down. I may not be in the mood for a 1990 show or a 1968 or a 1977 show right now, but eventually, I would down the road. The comfort of having a physical disc or lp I can pop in at a moment's notice to sate the hunger is comforting to me. The road is long and winding (cue The Beatles), and returns full circle. 1986-1991 were formidable years in my life. Yes, I was careless. Blew a lot of money on tix, gas, plane fare, hotel rooms, grilled cheese sandwiches, drugs, beer, etc. But I regret none of it. I love this band, and all it's faces. Whether it be a Cosmic Charlie-> Born Cross-Eyed or a Corrina->Days Between, I know that, eventually I will want to experience that sequence again. It's only a matter of time.... Speaking of time, will someone invent that time machine already!
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

11 years 4 months
Permalink

I'm a head from the 80's, but love all of Dave's picks, so far. Keep them coming Dave and thanks for your hard work!
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

11 years 4 months
Permalink

Hi Bolo -- now that the cat is out of the bag, could you give us a run-through explaining your clues so we can see how they tied to the show? I think it would be fun to go back through and see how everything tied together. Thanks in advance!
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

11 years 4 months
Permalink

I remember the 80's, too. My only source of pre-80's Dead was rushing home from work once per week to load the cassette deck so I could record another episode of the Grateful Dead Hour. We were lucky to get 4-5 songs strung together from a show, and never had the luxury of hearing a whole show. Few of my friends were into the Dead and those that were did not collect tapes, so if I wanted to hear a show besides attending one, the Grateful Dead Hour was about it. We had no internet. We even had to call a stinking answering machine in NJ to find out when the next tour was starting (anybody else remember calling back 2-3 times to record all the Soup Nazi like instructions for filling out your blank 3x5" card, under threat of having your whole order rejected if you screwed up just one detail?!). Fast forward to today. Four times a year, a dedicated archivist picks one of his favorite shows. Then, he remasters the music from the original sound board tapes (as opposed to some crappy audience recording, replete with distortion, numerous cuts, and idle audience chatter), generates informative liner notes, and has an artist pull together some kick-butt artwork for the CD cover. After that, he mails same said full length, remastered show to my door for my listening pleasure. I think most can agree that Dave is a very knowledgeable, hardworking, and enthusiastic proponent of the Dead's music. I would almost consider him a professor of the Dead. I am personally glad to sit back and see what the good professor has to offer. Perhaps if I listen closely, I might just learn something new beyond the scope of my own preferences or personal biases. I, for one, would like to thank Dave for the great job he does in bringing the music to us and opening my eyes to possibilities I may never have considered. Pelke
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

14 years 6 months
Permalink

It seems a little strange DP11 was revealed in an email regarding address confirmation. Fortunately, a memo was intercepted between the email tomato and the website tomato- All it said was "Ketchup."
user picture

Member for

11 years 1 month
Permalink

Nice post! I remember those days too. Taping the Dead hour on the radio, my finger hovering nervously over the stop button trying to figure out the perfect spot to flip the cassette tape, lol. I think I was even a little more fortunate than some, in that I had a Deadhead cousin who was a wheeler and dealer and was involved in the whole DAT trading scene, and would regularly supply me with crisp soundboards. We would partake, sit back and have our minds blown by some newly acquired amazing '73 show playing on his high-end system. I would invariably say something like "Whoa...holy shit, did you hear that?" and he would start giggling like a mischievous little kid. Ah, those were the days. Even so, to think that now we have these pristine recordings delivered to our doorsteps, is pretty incredible. As Bolo said, an embarrassment of riches.
user picture
Default Avatar

Member for

14 years 6 months
Permalink

In Bolo's original post he included lyrics from He's Gone, Bird Song and Box Of Rain. Though at the time it was suggested "It's all a dream" could refer to Stella Blue. He also mentioned how his Van "Brokedown" and he "might as well". So that's 6 potential songs. Only Might As Well was not a clue- it was included incidentally. The list really narrowed only after Bolo said 28% of the songs have something in common- and the conclusion reached it must be a 25 song show. So He's Gone, Box, Brokedown, Bird Song, 25 songs, and 7 of these songs have something in common. This led to a number of guesses, including Wichita- and that guess turned out to be right.
user picture

Member for

17 years 2 months
Permalink

Hey all - Pelke and Bolo, nice posts. Star Dark - as usual, I totally respect your opinion. What I do wish you could see is that when you go beyond an opinion of the music, or the releases, to insulting people here, you are bound to cause reactions - which unfortunately also included insults aimed at you (which I don't agree with either - you're not a whiny bitch :-). In your first post about this, you compared those of us who are excited about this release to overeager, rather silly, puppies (I don't know how else to interpret the "tails wagging" comment). So, after my gushing excitement about this release - a show I dearly love - I findmyself compared to a stupid dog willing to lap up whatever is dished out. Rather than merely posting your opinion about this release, you expressed an opinion about those of us who are happy about it. I gotta be honest, I felt personally crapped on by that comment (sad face). In short, please keep expressing those opinions - smashing your CD's, whatever - it's all good, even entertaining as someone said. Just please don't make me feel like a moron for being happy about a release. Thanks.
user picture

Member for

17 years 2 months
Permalink

We only have Netflix, and the three channels we can get from our antennae (not many good signals in the Berkshires). My five-year old just finished watching "Land of the Lost" on Me TV. She loves it! Given the demographic of this site, I figured ya'll would appreciate that. (That show actually holds up better than I would have thought - dimensional travel and great banjo music, sweet).
user picture

Member for

13 years
Permalink

I never enter into the trenches of this period/that period discussions posted here, though I sometimes take pleasure in the creativity put forth extolling the virtues of specific eras. However, when I read Star Dark's post, I realized I had to throw in my opinion on top of the heap. (Hate to pile on S.D., but geez!) Here goes: You're complaining about more stellar '72?!?! Really?!?! I remember a time when Dead releases were so far and few between, I would have settled for the worst 1995 show and STILL have been happy to have it! What the hell are you waiting for?!? That KILLER 6 song first set from Fall '93 featuring the most badass "Greatest Story" ever played? Oh how the ones from 1972 sucked with the pumping groove and rippin' wah wah solos 'till you thought your mind was going to melt! Or how 'bout that acid-drenched "Wave to the Wind" that goes on for 30+ glorious psychedelic minutes, exploring every nook and cranny of your consciousness! And hey, how about we petition for a release of all the "Me & My Uncles" from Spring '94 on one super-duper collector's release, individually signed and numbered, of course. BE HAPPY WITH WHAT WE ARE GIVEN!!! There was a time when a '72 show was worth it's weight in gold, and yes S.D., there is a plethora of '72 available, but you have got to be the only person here who thinks that's a bad thing. How 'bout puttin' the "grateful" back into "The Grateful Dead"!! Anybody really complaining about too much Afghan Primo?!? Good Lord, what a piece of work!
user picture

Member for

12 years 2 months
Permalink

I don't remember reading any complaints -- other than the price -- about the Spring 1990 (TOO) box. Or about the stand-alone 3/29/90 release. Or Dave's Picks 8. So maybe there's something to be said for more Brent/80's releases.
user picture

Member for

15 years 11 months
Permalink

yawn, a 72 show with no dark star, not real thrilled about this one, if I had not subscribed, would pass on this. Call me lame but the only reason I subscribed at all was the release of dap 8. I was really hoping for some more early 80's releases, maybe next time for dap 12. Not gonna subscribe again Dave, sorry. Look for a lot of this one on ebay soon.
product sku
081227958688