Red Mosquito

AndySlash wrote:

Tass Man wrote: So what if the scenario went down like this:
- his membership expired November 30 2012, and its renewed sometime in January
- it still expires on November 30 2013
- 10c says anyone who is a member as of December 15 gets the 2013 single

it would expire one year from the date the person renews, not their old end date.

bodysnatcher wrote:

AndySlash wrote:

Tass Man wrote: So what if the scenario went down like this:
- his membership expired November 30 2012, and its renewed sometime in January
- it still expires on November 30 2013
- 10c says anyone who is a member as of December 15 gets the 2013 single

it would expire one year from the date the person renews, not their old end date.

My membership is due in mid-November. the last two years, I've renewed in January. My due date is still November.

bodysnatcher wrote:

AndySlash wrote:

Tass Man wrote: So what if the scenario went down like this:
- his membership expired November 30 2012, and its renewed sometime in January
- it still expires on November 30 2013
- 10c says anyone who is a member as of December 15 gets the 2013 single

it would expire one year from the date the person renews, not their old end date.

My membership is due in mid-November. the last two years, I've renewed in January. My due date is still November.

@SkitchP wrote:I cant remember when my membership lapsed.

bodysnatcher wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

surfndestroy wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

surfndestroy wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

McParadigm wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

I agree completely with all of this. I'd say that, in a case like this, the amount of time drastically reduces my expectations. When the reason it's taking so long to make your new album is because you can't be bothered to make your new album, or because you prioritize touring over creation to the point of not WANTING to have a new album ready unless you can schedule a tour around it....then you're simply not guided by muse or by passion any longer. And if that's the case, what are you really?

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

I agree completely with all of this. I'd say that, in a case like this, the amount of time drastically reduces my expectations. When the reason it's taking so long to make your new album is because you can't be bothered to make your new album, or because you prioritize touring over creation to the point of not WANTING to have a new album ready unless you can schedule a tour around it....then you're simply not guided by muse or by passion any longer. And if that's the case, what are you really?

Nothingman.

CC55781 wrote:Hi Guys - I just purchased the FLAC HD bootlegs for Sao Paulo, Atlanta Midtown, and Missoula. According to the info pages on each album the FLAC HD version is supposed to be 24 bit / 96 kHz. After downloading the files I opened a few from each album in Adobe Audition to run a frequency analysis. All of the files are 24 bit. However, all of the files appear to be upsampled from 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz to 96 kHz rather than original 96 kHz HD recordings.

I've included a link to an image below of the analysis showing what I'm talking about. These FLAC HD downloads are not original 24/96 HD files.

http://images.computeraudiophile.com/ca/PJ/pj.png

Chris Connaker

Founder
Computer Audiophile

cutuphalfdead wrote:That's pretty fucking lame.

McParadigm wrote:Any Pearl Jam sellable that uses the word 'audiophile' should be setting off alarm bells, guys.

bodysnatcher wrote:more like audiopile

Spoiler: show