Lossless Bootleg Bonanza: Grateful Dead – Mountain View, CA (06/15/90)

Grateful Dead - Mountain View - 1990-06-15-Shoreline-Amphitheatre<

Grateful Dead
June 15, 1990
Shoreline Amphitheatre
Mountain View, CA

Download: FLAC/MP3

I can’t remember if someone sent this to me or I got it from a torrent or what. The FLAC files are massive. The show takes up almost 5gigs worth of space. Is anyone here interested in that? Does 24 bit really improve the sound that much? I started prepping this show before I realized how bit it was. I almost didn’t post it at all but I thought it might be an interesting experiment. Amazon doesn’t tell me how many people download a show so I can’t tell how popular this will be. So I’m asking you to leave a comment if you do download it and are interested in this kind of file. If no one is interested I may delete the FLACs in order to save space. – Mat

Recording Info:
Ultra Matrix SBD > Cassette Master (TDK MA-X90)

Transfer Info:
Cassette Master (Nakamichi CR-7A) > Tascam DA-3000 (DSF 1-bit/5.6 MHz) >
KORG AudioGate 4 > Adobe Audition CC 2015 > Samplitude Pro X3 Suite > FLAC/24

Patch Info:
UltraMatrix SBD > Dat (shnid=106114) supplies:
Stagger Lee (5:46 – 6:04) (post song tuning only)
Set 2 Tuning (0:00 – 2:24)
Man Smart (Woman Smarter) (0:03 – 0:11)
Space (0:52 – 0:56)

All Transfers and Mastering By Charlie Miller
November 21, 2018

— This is the longest Grateful Dead show I attended (2nd Set is over 2 hours long)

Set 1:
01 – Tuning
02 – Help On The Way >
03 – Slipknot! >
04 – Franklin’s Tower
05 – New Minglewood Blues
06 – Just A Little Light
07 – Stagger Lee
08 – Desolation Row
09 – Ramble On Rose
10 – Hell In A Bucket

Set 2:
11 – Tuning
12 – Scarlet Begonias >
13 – Fire On The Mountain >
14 – Blow Away >
15 – Man Smart (Woman Smarter) >
16 – He’s Gone >
17 – Drums >
18 – Space >
19 – The Other One >
20 – Wharf Rat >
21 – Around And Around

22 – Encore Break
23 – Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door
24 – Post Show Music

22 thoughts on “Lossless Bootleg Bonanza: Grateful Dead – Mountain View, CA (06/15/90)

  1. I have to say I rarely listen to Brent era Dead so won’t be downloading but later stuff with Hornsby/Welnick would go down well. Thanks anyway for all you do

    1. You are missing lots of pure magic Fall 89 and Spring 90 is by far the best late period playing they did, not to mention Bob,Phil and Mickey all have said that was there favorite time period to play, Jerry was in much better health his voice sounded better because he had cut back on smoking cigarettes, he lost a lot of weight cut his drug use down to the point where he was hardly using at all (to bad it didn’t last) also Jerry said after Brent died that the magic was gone and the GD would never be the same (he was right) Jerry also wanted to take a break sometime in 94 I believe, he clearly needed one,but the touring went on and by 95 Jerry looked so sad on stage,we literally were watching our hero die in front of us I rarely listen to stuff from the Vince era the stuff from late 90 through 92,rarely do I listen to anything from 93-95 especially 95

  2. For ref,assuming source is ‘worthy’ there is a noticeable upgrade from 16-44 to 24-44 (DAT Standard), even on budget kit or half decent cans, of course you need a half decent DAC, even a $40 usb laptop sound upgrade with a proper headphone amp makes a world of difference (try a DACMagic) . The crummy ‘onboard’ sound chip on your mother board really won’t cut it, for any music full stop, whatever the guy in the shop told you! The bit depth makes by far the biggest difference, to bass and dynamic range principally. The sampling frequency adds extra clarity and definition, however it is a law of diminishing returns. The upgrade from 24-44 to 24-96 can be appreciated on reasonable ‘budget’ hifi separates. The upgrade from 24-96 to 24-192 requires higher end kit to properly appreciate. Also is not only the absolute quality of the rec which determines listening quality. It is also the ability of your kit to decode it in real time, this is a point most people don’t appreciate. Truth is your moderate system may produce a better result playing back 24-96 if your DAC is at the limit of its operating range.
    If your system is more ‘humble’ you might consider downsampling the files from 24-192 (these must be if 5gb!) to 24-96, this will save you a lot of space and may produce better listening results. In win, try ‘r8Brain’ it’s free and does a very good job, there are also several very decent plugins for foobar, get ’em from sourceforge. This is actually a processor (rather than sound chip) function, so should be fine on any system. Just remember the Old Skool rules and reboot first, ideally take the machine offline and don’t check your mail halfway thru!
    Whatever your sound chip is, check for ASIO drivers. That stands for Audio Stream In Out. This will bypass the Windows mixer and send the digital stream direct to the DAC on your sound chip. Just select the ASIO drivers in the foobar output preferences, ensure all DSP effects are disabled. Then don’t adjust the volume on pc or in foobar as this will re-engage the win mixer. If no ASIO drivers are present, try downloading ‘ASIO4ALL’. This is a low latency generic driver emulator. Works great w some chips, not so well with others. Just try it, you can always go back to the foobar preferences and re-select ‘speakers’ or whatever.
    Or in other words Mat, the answer to your question is ‘yes’

  3. I suspect that the upgrade may only be detectable to higher quality ears, which my aging body lacks! I have this show in MP3 and would be glad to also have it in the lower quality Flac. Thanks for all your hard work, you’ve made such a difference in my listening library!

  4. Just my 2 cents – these are bootleg concerts…most originating from a lowly cassette source. While many will say they can hear a difference (just like there are many who claim to hear a difference by upgrading audio cables), I can’t tell the difference in blind comparisons. I may grab this because it fills a gap in my collection, but in general I avoid these 5 gig files. Interesting topic, though. Thanks, Mat.

  5. Couple of points, an analog source (even a humble cassette) is in theory ‘infinite’ in quality terms. A digital source by comparison is fundamentally limited. At 16 bit quality the spec of a CD is far below the capabilities of the human ear. Some audiophiles would tell you that you need 192kz rather than 96 as this produces data points at a distance which is shorter than the diameter of the inner ear, thus removing all traces of digitization. Another reason tapes are captured at high resolution io allow much more precise remastering, identification and removal of noise bands, clicks etc, and to allow precise correction for noise reduction circuits like dolby b. Also 16 bit mastering is often associated with Dynamic Audio Compression (of mid-rnge) and harsh limiting (of top end). This is ‘loudness’ (remember the button on your old amp) and is a totally different thing to ‘volume’. 16 bit mastering is often optimized for sub-optimal environments such as car stereos (especially those with multiple speaker systems, that is using DSP by the way, the music only has 2 channels!), smartphones, portable ‘beat boxes’ etc.
    By comparison 24 bit mastering is optimized for a proper listening stereo environment, i.e. you at the point of a triangle facing 2 speakers pointing square and forward. Remember stereo is an effect which can place particular instruments in particular locations (like placing Miles’ trumpet above the Yucca plant in the corner!) it is NOT simply 2 different channels. Also headphones are not a true stereo experience. In a proper listening environment as described above, both ears hear both speakers, with a ms delay, this is a fundamental part of the stereo effect. It is absence of this effect which makes listening on headphones for extended periods of time a wearying experience. It is a real shame that so few people nowadays get to experience the sheer joy and ‘wow factor’ that true stereo can produce. By comparison surround sound or multiple speaker sound is vulgar, cheap, often ‘lossy’ and ultimately unsatisfying.
    For these reasons 24 bit recs are often quieter (less ‘loud’) than 16 bit, but with greater dynamic range, i.e. greater difference between the quiet sections and the louder ones. This requires you to turn up your amp (that’s the big button!) which has the significant addtitional benefit of moving it into it’s optimal operating temp range (it wasn’t designed to operate stone cold at level 2 out of 10!). It further benefits massively by sending more current down your speaker wires so that the cones in your speakers actually move to produce the same output volume.
    In short the same output volume from a lower base, with greater dynamic range and detail equals far better sound qual!
    ps – complete myth and lie that human hearing degenerates linearly with age. It is actually closer to an exponential decline, with all significant loss happening towards the end of the human life span. You probably just need some drops!

    Tomorrow: Why tea should ALWAYS be made in a POT!

    1. I bow to your superior knowledge of my hearing and my listening experience, DylanDave. Everything I’ve listened to up to this point must have been vulgar and cheap. I’ll try the drops. Thank you.

  6. I think I have a FLAC copy of this already . . . But I’ll check when I get home.
    If so, I’ll do A to B comparison with what I have currently.

    I have read so much conflicting information about HD vs standard audio . . . I’m dubious that any of us mortals with average ears and average gear can tell the difference. To me it sounds like an “aint broke dont fix it” situation.

    But I’m no expert. I just like to jam out to the Dead.

  7. Surely by now lossless DVD audio cds should have replaced 16 bit redbook format cds. Oddly enough lossy mp3 files seem to be prevalent. Things progress slowly. The lplex program on Sourceforge enables you to create lossless DVD audio discs at higher bitrates than 16 bit cds.
    even audio that has been created at 20bit/48 sampling rates sounds good to me. For really good sounding recordings especially SBD recording i would favor higher sampling rates. One of my older receivers has an audio upsampling function. The audio first passes through the Dac. The frequency of the digitized data is then doubled. The audio especially pcm sources tend to sound better but this is subjective. When downsampling audio a good dither function has to be used. I have read that free software that converts sampling rates produces files that are inferior in sound quality to files that are produced by Pro quality converters. I don`t know if this is fact. With lossless surround formats becoming prevelant we will eventually see the end of compressed Artifacts (Lossy Audio). I hope.

  8. Interesting points – not gonna ramble just confirm that bit rate has by far the biggest impact on sound and dynamic range, 24 is plenty, 32 is a gimmick padded with zeros. Higher sampl freq just brings added joy. Space saving 192 to 96 is very significant, however disk space is cheap, uncompressed pure hi res audio recs free of the mastering compromises forced on CD engineers are rare and precious. On the plus side, with Mat’s Amazon arrangement makes d/ling these large file sets viable for all, anther rare and precious thing!
    Other factors mentioned relating to dig/analog, upgraded cables, choice of medium etc are relatively incidental. None of this will make a jot of difference if you don’t position your speakers properly, listen in the right place and hear the stereo soundstage the engineer laboured and crafted to produce.
    So, move that Yucca, put the speakers back where they should be, get down the charity shop and get yourself a suitably indulgent and tatty listening chair, put the kettle on and listen again.

  9. sorry, point of tech interest for some maybe. Further to THRAK’s well made points. Of course i would always recommend that Adobe Audition or similar paid software would be best for downsampling/ditthering. However the general consensus i’ve read on web and my own limited experiences suggest that r8brain and the free plugins for foobar do a good job. It is unlikely you will hear any difference in performance within the same bit depth. maybe if you dither 24 bit to 16 bit CD ‘Redbook’ standard you might. Especially if you listen using fairly high end separates. You will reclaim a couple of gigs of disk space going 24-192 to 24-96. I never bother for the reasons i mentioned above. Only exception is downsampling ridiculous 32_192 bit file sets to 24_192

  10. Sorry everyone for asking a question then disappearing while all the discussion happens. Thanks to everyone, especially DylanDave for the discussion and information. I don’t understand half the technical stuff, but I appreciate the info being shared.

    I was pretty sure the short answer was going to be ‘yes’ you can tell the difference. I was really interested in whether or not anyone who comes to my blog actually cares. That answer seems to be yes as well so I’ll keep the files up. I’m not sure I’ll do a whole lot of other 24 bit files as they take up massive amounts of space on the Amazon Drive, but if I come across a show that “deserves” it I may do some more.

  11. A-B comparisons from cafe regulars would be very welcome and interesting. I have done many and can hear a very distinct upgrade in sound, even thru my Bose clock radio (really good kit but hardly audiophile) and certainly in my $150 headphones. Just make sure you have configured your system properly. You will obviously not hear any difference if your system is re-sampling your audio without your knowledge or consent. Foobar is the best win media player full stop (and for 24 bit in particular) supporting sample rates up to 24-192, and allowing choice of ASIO drivers or ASIO4ALL. You need to bypass the windows mixer, and Dig Sound Processing effects, some older versions of windows downsample everything to 16 bit in the mixer. Follow the instructions i posted earlier. Most critically of all, make sure you have positioned your speakers properly. Good hi-fi sound is about a lot more than just technical specs and $s spent.
    Also do not confuse absolute comparisons of 16 bit res with 24 bit, with the entirely different and even more significant factor of the mastering of CDs to produce loud output in sub-optimal scenarios. It is perfectly possible to enjoy well mastered digital sound in 16 bit CD qual by purchasing audiophile CDs from companies like MFSL or Audioquest who lease the raw 2 track master tapes from the orig record Cos and then do their own mastering optimized for proper h-fi playback.
    These are 2 entirely different, but equially important issues. Don’t get confused and compare apples with pears

  12. How about a new class of time limited post Mat, 2 weeks, a month whatever?
    You could just announce the expiry date plus no reposts ‘disclaimer’. Long enough surely for the true believers (regulars anyhow i’m sure) to grab it with much thanks, but without tying up too much valuable storage for too long. I certainly wouldn’t want to hold up or restrict the flow of classic posts in regular lossless qual
    This is absolutely my final comment on this post, unless anybody has some specific question or query in relation to setting up for 24 bit playback, in which case i’d be happy to share whatever limited knowledge and experience I’ve managed to scrape together over the years.
    Food for thought: If you have an old desktop or laptop then $200-300 well spent on class beating budget (or 2nd hand) DAC plus either decent cans or an amp/speaker combo (PROPERLY POSITIONED!) could give you a very close approximation to proper audiophile hi-fi which would otherwise cost you $10-15,000. And it will blow your mind!
    Just think about it. Santa is coming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s