Zappa.com

With the exciting release of the Halloween 77 box set, could there be a chance that the Beat The Boots series might get a USB stick treatment? Especially Beat The Boots Volume 3 which hasn't been available for some time?

Gee, I would hope this is pretty far down the list.

same, give me vinyl

Guys I'm a mega fan of Vinyl myself but the honest truth is that 24bit 96KHz or higher sampling, outperforms Vinyl hands down.

Also Beat The Boots Volume 3 was never given a vinyl release to the best of my knowledge, it was available for a short while as a download only set.

Anyway, each and to there own and who knows, maybe a vinyl release is possible with the recent Vinyl resurgence.

I'd be happy with just a downloadable release of the BtB albums. I wouldn't pay top dollar for it though, especially considering the questionable sound quality of several of them.

All of the material on all three BTB releases can be found VERY easily elsewhere on the net, usually in much better quality. BTB III was only ever available as a lousy mp3 download.

I would hope that the ZFT would be working on releasing pristine, previously unheard recordings before trying to peddle crappy sounding old bootlegs.

As a listener, in any case you don't need more, than 48 KHz. But if we're talking about muddy, low-quality bootlegs, MP3 is probably more than enough.

I suppose for some systems and depending on the source. However I'd argue that with master tapes it would have been ace to go to at least 96KHz. Perhaps it's more classical music that benefits but I have to say, I for one have noted a difference between a 48KHz audio DVD and a Bluray 96KHz or 192KHz sampled performance of a symphony for example. Fear not, brunofulax is correct in that at 24bit 48KHz all details will be there across the audible frequency range, the main difference is a compression of the dynamic range.

That said, I wouldn't part with my Frank Zappa audio DVD's. The quality is exceptional and those are 48KHz. What matters most is that it's good music and that's exactly what Frank Zappa always aimed to deliver.

In this case I am guessing the main issue was compatibility for the various majority players. That's probably the main choice for the slightly lower sampling frequency. There's a lot of data to sample and they wanted to limit the required disk space for sampling that data as much as possible without sacrificing the audio to any great extent perhaps. That said with today's USB stick sizes, I'm still convinced a 96KHz release at least would not have been an issue even for 6 complete Zappa concerts like with the Halloween 77 release.

For Beat The Boots, perhaps not, but then perhaps as Frank had actual source tapes for the concerts he put into that collection, perhaps a re-mastering could see the ultimate release of these releases and put an end to the whinging about the quality of the original releases.

I just wish they'd release full shows from all years and versions of the band.... I've said before... give the tapes to recording schools to check mixes, then have them mastered and available for download!

Give up the cheezy boxes and crap!

Just wandered over to the site... It has the BTBIII stuff listed, and as an Mp3 download, but no place to download.... (and why bother putting a bootleg quality release on Mp3 which is the worst possible format to release something)

http://www.zappa.com/music/beat-the-boots

^^^Some of us like the cheesy boxes and crap.

yeah....but some of it has been REALLY cheezy!! I just want music...didn't someone once say: "Music is the best!" ?

I support the idea of just having the music available without all the doo dads too.

But I also like having other kinds of art being part of the whole product (album art, liner notes, Halloween costumes, berets, etc.). I think you could argue that those things are part of the Project/Object even if Frank didn’t put it together. This could extend to posters, books, documentaries, my posting on this forum, your posting on this forum, some kid (or middle aged man) trying to learn a FZ guitar riff in his lonely teenage room, and on and on and so on and so forth.

Everyone's ears are different. We all hear things differently. There are factors. The honest truth is that there is no honest truth.

I suppose there's also no right or wrong? Of course there's truth. Existence is Truth. Discovery is part of Existence. Learning is part of Discovery.

I still hold a collection of all the Beat The Boots series on USB stick would be a nice addition. Perhaps slightly better recordings around that time may be found and presented to enhance them?

There's no accepted "truth" when it comes to what sounds better to each individual. I'm speaking specifically about the "truth" as it applies to your quote about vinyl and 24bit 96KHz or higher sampling. It was not a generalization of "truth" in all "existence".

Right and wrong is a matter of perspective.

Now, aren't you supposed to be pushing Zappa product? I would never purchase a USB stick of Beat The Boots. Never.

who is the master who makes the grass green?

YES THERE IS!!!!

What I'm getting at here is that if you grab your favourite stereo, play the same album in CD format, Vinyl format, SACD format, DVD audio format, Bluray format, high definition(24bit, 44.1 to 192KHz sample rate), your going to hear differences. The main one is better dynamics which is a no brainer(louder or softer), however what you will also notice is extra details. Now these details may very well not be wanted because there not what your used to listening to but they will be there, so perhaps that may not sound better to some and to others amazing.(a great example would be finger slides on violin solo's, Vangelises famous Blade Runner soundtrack in SACD for example allows you to hear more buzz to the synth, Dire Straights Brothers in arms practically sparkles like it was live in your living room. The point I'm trying to get across is that better quality sources will always deliver better quality audio, there's absolutely no denying it once you've sat down, had a listen and experienced it. As to if you like it or not, that's not my concern, but the fact that the hi-definition audio delivers superior sound and detail of sound is undeniable.

I get passionate about this because sadly many folks have crap stereo systems and poor quality sound sources to system delivery methods and there missing out on audio that's worth while. Surely you must notice the difference in sound between a good quality vinyl and a CD for example? Set your favourite EQ settings and volume. Leave those then play the 2 sources. You'll hear the difference. Especially since a lot of CD's(especially earlier CD's) were sampled directly from Vinyl's in any case.

What I'm trying to get across is that the better the actual source, the better your sound quality no matter if it's fart sound effects or a symphony. What ever someone likes or dislikes will be more liked or more disliked from a better quality source without doubt.

Interestingly, the new remaster of 'Hot Rats'(only currently available retail version) for example, was without doubt a better quality sound source than the earlier Ryko. It was even better on the Vinyl that was released also(now that's comparing apples with apples as they came from the same remastered source correct?). That said, I actually liked the Ryko recording and wished that could have been re-done. It was how Frank remastered it as well if I'm not mistaken. The only reason was that I got used to this recording and was shocked at how much more jumped out at me on the Vinyl release. I'm hoping a 24bit 192KHz of Hot Rats may be a possibility in the future.

At least no one seems to go for cassette tapes anymore. I remember a friend who had a copy of Pink Floyd's The Wall on cassette and when I played my CD copy he was going 'what the hell.' the speed is all wrong!!! We checked his cassette tape and it turned out that the tape had actually stretched(I believe Joe Travers has encountered similar issues with some of Frank's vault tapes.) So higher quality sources are a good thing. My saddest issue with vinyl is that each time you play your record your getting some minute wear(although a lot of folks argue that's your stylus and turntable setup. I use a good quality stylus and ensure it's setup correctly in the hope. Also I've got a few vinyl's I've inherited which lasted 50 years+ and with looking after them, the wear is more than likely negligible at best to most ears).

Now we have the possibility of having a source that's exactly like having the master tapes and that's 24bit/192KHz sampled audio fellow fans. The best part is as it's digital, you'll be able to play it for the rest of your lives and never have quality degradation of this source AT ALL.

So that point again: The better the actual source, the better your sound quality.

PS. USB stick for Zappa is awesome. The proof is Halloween 77 which I can't recommend highly enough(it's a SUPER PRODUCT) and if you can't hear how amazing the audio is compared to say the CD or DVD of Baby Snakes then I'd say there's something wrong with your equipment because it's a massive difference.(A good example as all those recordings will be 44.1KHz but Halloween 77 is 24bit instead of 16bit. Check it out for yourself.)

My suggestions:

Beat The Boots Volume 1 - Hi-Def 24bit 48KHz or higher USB stick wav delivery would surely be possible (remaster perhaps from original source tapes though)
Beat The Boots Volume 2 - Came out on CD so higher sample rates must already be available (same as above)
Beat The Boots Volume 3 - Only came out in crappy MP3 so higher quality samples would without doubt be available and make this release seamless as well.(same as above)

I'm not up on album marketing etc but having the whole collection together on a nice USB stick with PDF's of the box art and booklets etc would be an affordable method and a bargain for fans to enjoy these(perhaps for the first time as there now rather pricey to obtain and you can only get Volume 1 and 2 (I've wanted to download Volume 3 but it doesn't seem to be available anywhere and Zappa site doesn't seem to have a download for it anymore.). It would also reduce the outlay required to produce the produce(all three on one stick instead of individual releases on separate sticks.)

You could bundle a beret and pin in a box like what was done for the Halloween 77 box set if desired.

Just my suggestion for making these recordings available to fans who want them. There's a plus, while some folks are not interested, there are others who certainly are. Hey if there not interested, they don't have to buy them, but having them available to all, allows them to be heard by Frank Zappa's audience who want to listen.

Hello Spaceresearcher! Glad to see someone talking audio data sound stuff and things. Thing is, I don't agree with many of the above statements. I'll stop there, cuz I don't think we've really met yet and I don't wanna be a dick. Maybe after a while, I'll spew my perspective on the above. Rock on.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

It's too exhausting to argue with people who are either full of shit, ego tripping, or claiming their own personal perception as superior.

The more digital approaches an analog curve the better it sounds. To me. Digital is not as "warm" to me as an old 2 inch analog tape recording. I like overtones. Artificial harmonics. Digital recordings round those off more than the old analog tape. My ears notice. Electricity is alive and I don't want it tamed. I'm not saying we should all go back to tape. Digital recording has a whole bunch of amazing advantages! but don't tell me it always sounds better than some of that stuff from the 70s. It might always sound better to you. I accept that. And yes, the equipment being used to perform, record and to play back all come into play etc...

I'm denying it. I trust my own ears. It's an illusion. It's like, where's the point where it can't be improved anymore? Is it going to sound more real than real? I mean, HD video does not look like real life. Real life is not that glossy.

Well then there's a great case for you. What I'm trying to get across here, is that you can have your tape in digital form with hi-def audio. Why, because it's for all intents and purposes identical and the only reason you may like an old tape deck over the hi-def digital sound will be that there's some noise from the audio player that's playing back the actual tape that you like. There's a bit of this analogue issue that people call 'warmer sound' with vinyl. It has nothing to do with the recording and everything to do with the equipment playing back that source.(however with vinyl your getting the possibility of full frequency range and while it may be out of audible range, it is felt by the ears. With hi-def digital you remove all that ambiguity and have simply the pure source.

I hear you though. Sometimes for nostalgia it's nice to have those interfering sounds because they take us back. You mentioned video and of that there's no doubt. Personally I love Laserdisc to this day because I can jog shuttle and experience the picture like the old VHS and Beta max tapes I used to watch as a kid but without tape issues. Personally I don't enjoy 4K video because I believe it's pointless unless you have a massive screen and sit 10 meters away from it(there already talking about an 8K standard(maybe handy for cinema screens) and it's all just more gimmicks to sell more screens). However with audio, I'd argue that going from 16bit to 24bit is well worth the added expense. Surely you remember when you were a kid and had one of those crappy mono tape recorders and perhaps a budget microphone to go with it or an inbuilt one in the device. Compare recording with that to recording with studio quality recording gear and that's what I'm talking about with low definition versus high definition recordings my fellow fans. It's like a cassette tape recording versus one of Frank's studio quality scotch reel to reel tapes. A mind blowing difference that can not be ignored or pushed under the rug by the all ears different chestnut. Because all ears no matter what the personal taste can hear distortion and hiss versus clarity and sound devoid of interferance.

I'm just glad that Frank Zappa didn't decide that any cheap sound recorder will do and that everyone's ears are different so what does it matter what I use to record my music or we wouldn't have the awesome sounding works we do today. If better analogue recording devices can not be denied, then why is it so hard for some people to understand that better digital recording devices and sources can also not be denied.

More than happy to chat audio anytime. Also no problems at all disagreeing. This argument has been going on for decades. No one can deny that a CD sounds better than a low sampled MP3 for example yet when it comes to hi-def recordings, for some reason people get all up in arms instead of embracing a good thing. The cost for us to have high quality reel to reels would be mind blowing in todays standards. Hi-def digital recordings however for me anyway, allow for the first time in history to have the actual hi-def source, instead of a down sampled one. That is a really amazing thing and I emplore you to listen to the difference. I'm not pulling this out of my ear so to speak, listen for yourself.