Monkey_Driven wrote:I've said it countless times on this board, but to me, the Canada/US 2005 tour is the peak live-PJ.
word. the two Newfoundland shows are great.
and the 2005 boots are certainly mixed well, compared to other tours available.
I think they sound pretty terrible.
Definitely not as bad as 2008-2010 (not hard) but definitely Brett Eliason's worst mixing job on the official boots.
Really? I think 2005 is fairly dynamic and well-mixed compared to other tours, such as 2003...which was super cluttered and baked. It's kind of like the 2000 Euro tour, but much louder and with bass, haha.
Monkey_Driven wrote:I've said it countless times on this board, but to me, the Canada/US 2005 tour is the peak live-PJ.
word. the two Newfoundland shows are great.
and the 2005 boots are certainly mixed well, compared to other tours available.
I think they sound pretty terrible.
Definitely not as bad as 2008-2010 (not hard) but definitely Brett Eliason's worst mixing job on the official boots.
Really? I think 2005 is fairly dynamic and well-mixed compared to other tours, such as 2003...which was super cluttered and baked. It's kind of like the 2000 Euro tour, but much louder and with bass, haha.
I feel the same way.
96583UP wrote:i recently bought travel-size packets of metamucil
Birds in Hell wrote:I think the drums and guitar sound really weak on the 2005 boots, not sure what was going on.
Maybe it's the lack of compression? Most of the Eliason boots from back then are hyper-compressed which brings up the levels of everything and squishes everything together. This creates the illusion of cohesion but also makes it sound cluttered and fatiguing. I like the 2005 boots because they are sonically "loose" and you can crank them up...much like Euro 2000, which has its drawbacks with the lack of mastering but at least doesn't make you deaf after 30 seconds of listening.
Birds in Hell wrote:I think the drums and guitar sound really weak on the 2005 boots, not sure what was going on.
Maybe it's the lack of compression? Most of the Eliason boots from back then are hyper-compressed which brings up the levels of everything and squishes everything together. This creates the illusion of cohesion but also makes it sound cluttered and fatiguing. I like the 2005 boots because they are sonically "loose" and you can crank them up...much like Euro 2000, which has its drawbacks with the lack of mastering but at least doesn't make you deaf after 30 seconds of listening.
Oh I love the 2000 Euro boots - I think the 2005 shows sound much worse.
Birds in Hell wrote:I think the drums and guitar sound really weak on the 2005 boots, not sure what was going on.
Maybe it's the lack of compression? Most of the Eliason boots from back then are hyper-compressed which brings up the levels of everything and squishes everything together. This creates the illusion of cohesion but also makes it sound cluttered and fatiguing. I like the 2005 boots because they are sonically "loose" and you can crank them up...much like Euro 2000, which has its drawbacks with the lack of mastering but at least doesn't make you deaf after 30 seconds of listening.
Oh I love the 2000 Euro boots - I think the 2005 shows sound much worse.
How much of it has to do with the guitar tones utilized for that tour? The overall tone of the instruments themselves never sounded good to me and i remember being very aware of that at the actual shows.
Birds in Hell wrote:I think the drums and guitar sound really weak on the 2005 boots, not sure what was going on.
Maybe it's the lack of compression? Most of the Eliason boots from back then are hyper-compressed which brings up the levels of everything and squishes everything together. This creates the illusion of cohesion but also makes it sound cluttered and fatiguing. I like the 2005 boots because they are sonically "loose" and you can crank them up...much like Euro 2000, which has its drawbacks with the lack of mastering but at least doesn't make you deaf after 30 seconds of listening.
Oh I love the 2000 Euro boots - I think the 2005 shows sound much worse.
How much of it has to do with the guitar tones utilized for that tour? The overall tone of the instruments themselves never sounded good to me and i remember being very aware of that at the actual shows.
I've always found the 2005 boots very unsatisfying, but I think Strat is right - the tone of the 2005 guitars and drums has a lot to do with that. Matt's snare drum sounds very weak and echoey to me, and Ed's guitar tone in particular sounds anaemic. 1998 and 2000 boots and tones FTW
Birds in Hell wrote:I think the drums and guitar sound really weak on the 2005 boots, not sure what was going on.
Maybe it's the lack of compression? Most of the Eliason boots from back then are hyper-compressed which brings up the levels of everything and squishes everything together. This creates the illusion of cohesion but also makes it sound cluttered and fatiguing. I like the 2005 boots because they are sonically "loose" and you can crank them up...much like Euro 2000, which has its drawbacks with the lack of mastering but at least doesn't make you deaf after 30 seconds of listening.
Oh I love the 2000 Euro boots - I think the 2005 shows sound much worse.
How much of it has to do with the guitar tones utilized for that tour? The overall tone of the instruments themselves never sounded good to me and i remember being very aware of that at the actual shows.
I've always found the 2005 boots very unsatisfying, but I think Strat is right - the tone of the 2005 guitars and drums has a lot to do with that. Matt's snare drum sounds very weak and echoey to me, and Ed's guitar tone in particular sounds anaemic. 1998 and 2000 boots and tones FTW
Agreed. On the '05 tour, Stone started using a Strat on most of the tunes for which he previously used a Les Paul. His tone noticeably waters down the overall impact of otherwise really solid performances.
The 2005 shows were good but I never really feel compelled to revisit them -- they lack the vitality and urgency of 2000, 2003, and 2006, without really offering anything defining to set them apart otherwise. To me the 2005 tour feels kind of like the proto version of the no-new-music quickie tours that have been the norm for the last decade or so.
Kevin Davis wrote:The 2005 shows were good but I never really feel compelled to revisit them -- they lack the vitality and urgency of 2000, 2003, and 2006, without really offering anything defining to set them apart otherwise. To me the 2005 tour feels kind of like the proto version of the no-new-music quickie tours that have been the norm for the last decade or so.
They were definitely a sign of things to come in terms of touring without supporting a new album. But, there's a novelty in the cities and venues they were playing that elevates each performance. It seems like the band is all on the same page, which makes sense since they were essentially touring in between studio trips to write/record S/T.
seattle '98, night 2. i never did download the mixed version of this, so i'm listening to the soundboard mono version that first circulated.
i really enjoy this one. still holds up, but it's probably based on the fact that it's a soundboard copy. plenty of other shows from that tour i'm hoping make their way out of the vault.
96583UP wrote:i recently bought travel-size packets of metamucil
Indiana 2000, I've decided to return to the tail end of the leg 2 of the 2000 tour for the first time in like 17 years. Man, what a show, just burning through songs. Lukin into light years? Killer versions of STBC and Brain of J. A rare Throw your arms around me when ed barely came out and played solo. Ed's voice really was great back in 2000.
