I've got a few Prince .flac files

how the frig do i play them? do i need a convertor or something

no doubt a very obvious question but i'd appreciate the help nevertheless - thanks

What's the difference?

Or are you trying to imply Sab are the only ones that know how to "master" something properly?

(it sure sounds like that, the way you worded it)

They already pulled such a bashing stunt in one of their "extensive" liner notes before.

Sorry man, you can't convince me of their "skills", meticulously or not.....

And saying they sourced it from the original Superhero disks doesn't change a thing, because so did 4DF.

LOGIC said:

It's an obvious fact that these are remasters provided by SAB

and certainly not some tweaking efforts done by some fans for their free

"label".

[Edited 8/30/10 7:53am]

honer said:

I've got a few Prince .flac files

how the frig do i play them? do i need a convertor or something

no doubt a very obvious question but i'd appreciate the help nevertheless - thanks

You must be a windoze user.

You must be unware of the powers of google.

You must be unware of your powers to use google.

Google 'how to play flac'. On e of the first hits: http://www.afterdawn.com/...flac_files

How much time did you invest in finding the answer?

vc40 said:

What's the difference?

Or are you trying to imply Sab are the only ones that know how to "master" something properly?

(it sure sounds like that, the way you worded it)

They already pulled such a bashing stunt in one of their "extensive" liner notes before.

Sorry man, you can't convince me of their "skills", meticulously or not.....

And saying they sourced it from the original Superhero disks doesn't change a thing, because so did 4DF.

What is which difference?

If you imply to say that SAB and 4DF sound exactly the same you need to listen again and/or use some tools to see the difference. Please do and quit brining up this subject again and again.

Your interpretation is what it is.

It is not about convincing. It is about listening. It is about proof.

You show them they 1 on 1 stole who evers work. Until then they are innocent even while you keep repeating your mantra.

Another mantra:

How certain are we that the tweaked '4DF' CL releases weren't leaked SAB preproduction copies?

Yes, this story was not spread, but if one party says A, I can say B.

So just for fun, try to answer...

[Edited 8/30/10 9:15am]

udo said:

How certain are we that the tweaked '4DF' CL releases weren't leaked SAB preproduction copies?

hahahaha!! Surely you're taking the piss now.

vc40 said:

udo said:

How certain are we that the tweaked '4DF' CL releases weren't leaked SAB preproduction copies?

hahahaha!! Surely you're taking the piss now.

Yes, it's as absurd as someone claiming the opposite.

So what is the proof?

udo said:

How certain are we that the tweaked '4DF' CL releases weren't leaked SAB preproduction copies?

Definitely, you don't know what you're talking about.

Amongst many other things, you should learn that the 4DF remasters of some of the Superhero City Lights volumes started circulating in the beginning of 2006.

In the event of them being 'leaked SAB preproduction copies' ( ), the marvellous SAB would have taken a hell of a lot of time to put out 'their' definitive work.

This thread is hilarious, to say the least. I mean, really.

There's no definitive proof until there's a definitive proof. You know you're right with that tautology.

But there's some evidence, to say the least.

It goes like this:"Large parts of Sabotage's and Eye's latest catalogue were taken directly from 4DF's and FBG's free releases". And I mean MOST of their catalogues. If you're going to question that, you'll make a fool of yourself.

djThunderfunk said:

(And ANYBODY thinking aWould it be better if Sab gave credit to 4DF? I'm not saying it would make a difference, I'm seriously asking, would it make it okay?

ABSOLUTELY!

That would make THE difference, to a point I'd dare to say we won't be discussing this. It's like covering a song, if someone is able to play my song, giving it a creative twist and making it sound fresher, it's great and as long as they give credit to the original songwritter is fair game. I would even feel flattered some else dig my work so much that feel the need to work on it.

On the other hand if someone covers a song of mine and credit it as theirs, no matter if they do it great or not, it's just rip-off and totally despicable.

LOGIC said:

...

That's ALL of the original CITY LIGHTS shows on SAB's new REMASTERED

series. It's an obvious fact that these are remasters provided by SAB

and certainly not some tweaking efforts done by some fans for their free

"label"...

It's an easy and quite naive assumption - read many times before here and at other boards - that all free labels come from amateurish fans.

udo said:

vc40 said:

hahahaha!! Surely you're taking the piss now.

Yes, it's as absurd as someone claiming the opposite.

So what is the proof?

The proof lays in that the original CDs had a lot of gaps and blanks on their audio which were carefully patched and filled by 4DaFunk in a very particular way - some musical excerps needed even to be recreated since they didn't exist on the original. It's very easy and obvious to recognise those patches on Sab's release. It's would be an incredible coincidence - near miracle -, that Sabotage had done the exact same patches on all recordings. It's not only about the sound, but the editing.

And suggesting that maybe 4DF stole prerelease copies from Sab it's just nonsense crap since 4DF's started sharing theirs 5 years ago.

[Edited 8/30/10 14:30pm]

vitriol said:

Amongst many other things, you should learn that the 4DF remasters of some of the Superhero City Lights volumes started circulating in the beginning of 2006.

Who said how long SAB have been working on their CL R+E?

In the event of them being 'leaked SAB preproduction copies' ( ), the marvellous SAB would have taken a hell of a lot of time to put out 'their' definitive work.

This thread is hilarious, to say the least. I mean, really.

A lot of time, yes. But impossible?

FunkyDissCo said:

There's no definitive proof until there's a definitive proof. You know you're right with that tautology.

But there's some evidence, to say the least.

It goes like this:"Large parts of Sabotage's and Eye's latest catalogue were taken directly from 4DF's and FBG's free releases". And I mean MOST of their catalogues. If you're going to question that, you'll make a fool of yourself.

The mantra is quite popupar!.

Listen. Compare. Listen again. Repeat.

And please do not spread baseless rumours.

Eye: yes, they `borrow`. But for SAB I doubt it very much.

Not that they don't but a whole lot less than you make it appear.

udo said:

FunkyDissCo said:

There's no definitive proof until there's a definitive proof. You know you're right with that tautology.

But there's some evidence, to say the least.

It goes like this:"Large parts of Sabotage's and Eye's latest catalogue were taken directly from 4DF's and FBG's free releases". And I mean MOST of their catalogues. If you're going to question that, you'll make a fool of yourself.

The mantra is quite popupar!.

Listen. Compare. Listen again. Repeat.

And please do not spread baseless rumours.

Eye: yes, they `borrow`. But for SAB I doubt it very much.

Not that they don't but a whole lot less than you make it appear.

Oh really??? Sab don't "borrow" that much??? LOL!!

How about Rehashed and Expanded volume 4?

Disks 1,2,3 and 4 are straight rips from FBG, from these releases:

http://thedigitalgarden.org/la22385.html

http://www.thedigitalgarden.org/anotherlonelyexmas.html

I LISTENED and COMPARED, because you insist.

The only "work" they've done is lowering the volume and a minor decrease of the low end.

(oh, I almost forgot to mention their trademark woofull patchjob on LGC, which makes the intro a few seconds longer)

That's probably what they call "Meticulously remastered"......

I just call it the way it is: making profit on someone elses work....

I can't believe they sunk this low, I used to respect them, you know.

vc40 said:

udo said:

The mantra is quite popupar!.

Listen. Compare. Listen again. Repeat.

And please do not spread baseless rumours.

Eye: yes, they `borrow`. But for SAB I doubt it very much.

Not that they don't but a whole lot less than you make it appear.

Oh really??? Sab don't "borrow" that much??? LOL!!

How about Rehashed and Expanded volume 4?

Disks 1,2,3 and 4 are straight rips from FBG, from these releases:

http://thedigitalgarden.org/la22385.html

http://www.thedigitalgarden.org/anotherlonelyexmas.html

I LISTENED and COMPARED, because you insist.

The only "work" they've done is lowering the volume and a minor decrease of the low end.

(oh, I almost forgot to mention their trademark woofull patchjob on LGC, which makes the intro a few seconds longer)

That's probably what they call "Meticulously remastered"......

I just call it the way it is: making profit on someone elses work....

I can't believe they sunk this low, I used to respect them, you know.

Mantra, mantra and mantra. You repeat yourself immensely without even detailing your statements. This is not about factfinding anymore.
You do not explain why despite the `minor` differences the basis of the audio is the same.

This is the essence of your mantra which is as of yet unexplained.

Get the LOGIC analyser, check the spectrum. See the differences if you cannot hear.

Take out the headphones. Listen again. Back to back.

Then explain they are the same. So far to you they only sound the same even though you detect differences. (!) Keep up the good work.

The 'respect' thing makes it personal and less scientific than I intend things to be.

^ i give up, I just explained you in detail AFTER comparing how they ripped it.

You refuse to accept the facts.

As a matter of fact, I have been collecting Prince official and unofficial releases since 1984.

Like Udo said somewhere above, there are people around, who want to have certain things on pressed CD.

So do I !!!

I have the original City Lights set, and I also have the new released Sabotage version.

I don't care they used the FBG release(s).

I like the fact FBG does some outstanding work ... and that it is free, but if they were to release their releses in limited edition PRESSED cd's, I would buy them straightaway.

=====

vc40 said:

^ i give up, I just explained you in detail AFTER comparing how they ripped it.

You refuse to accept the facts.

Where are the facts?

I just see mantra after mantra.

I am open for discussion but if you do not show proof, the truth isn't changed by mantra.

Saying what they added , 'but the rest is the same', is no proof.

So they did not rip anybody except the original masters.

On the other side, again an idea and just my speculation, why can't a free label be proud to be `ripped` and be stored on a pressed disc?

It appears you can't see that side: `may the best audio be spread widely` as the ultimate goal.

What part of you is inhibiting that?

Do you really think a few sales of overly expensive CD's will lower the download counts of a free release siginificantly?

If you -as 4DF represenattive- can't appreciate that...

Vol. 4 seems to be making the rounds now...

Your use of the notions "fact", "proof" and even "truth" (LOL!) is childish, naive and completely ridiculous. Wow, how old are you, dude?

FunkyDissCo said:

Your use of the notions "fact", "proof" and even "truth" (LOL!) is childish, naive and completely ridiculous. Wow, how old are you, dude?

Whose notions?

I know facts from one side.

I want to see proof for certain allegiations which look untrue to me.

Age doesn't matter.

It is about the age you act.

By trying to keep stuff slightly scientific I hope to keep your age expectation on par.

udo said:

I want to see proof for certain allegiations which look untrue to me.

OK, just that. How could such a "proof" look like? Please keep your answer slightly scientific.

udo said:

as 4DF represenattive

Well, thanks for the cool compliment, but you're deadwrong (once again).

As for proof: the real sources and facts have been posted numerous times by several folks in this topic. It's probably your "mantra" you keep denying them.

My advice: go LISTEN and COMPARE again, don't let the linernotes fool you, it's not the first time they are inaccurate and full o' bollocks.

I'm out of here, no use to keep this going on when you keep ignoring the truth.

(or are you in some way involved with Sab??)

^Good question.

All this desperation for propaganda looks suspicious...

djThunderfunk said:

Vol. 4 seems to be making the rounds now...

Yep, and that discussion is gonna be even more fun that this one...

They just went too far with that one.

vitriol said:

djThunderfunk said:

Vol. 4 seems to be making the rounds now...

Yep, and that discussion is gonna be even more fun that this one...

They just went too far with that one.

Am I right in the assumption that 2 of the shows on vol 4 are not soundboard?

^ LA and St.Paul are both audience and both ripped from previous free releases, as stated in this topic.

It's not worth to repeat what has been posted by several people above, namely vitriol, vc40 and jasfunk. I fully agree with their points.

Now let me post here something I posted elsewhere:

It might seem impossible to believe now, in 2010, but once upon a time, Sabotage was a legendary name in the world of Prince bootlegs, and they had a big respect in this little world.

Unfortunately, such a prestige is vanished by now (for unknown reasons to me, as they could have continued working on their own stuff). And at this point, the "best" I could say is that Sabotage has become merely a luxury printing service for Prince fans who prefer pressed CDs instead of burning their own discs from the releases provided by fan labels. And this, I'm sorry to report, is more an insult than a compliment.

vc40 said:

(or are you in some way involved with Sab??)

Yes, I have ALL of their stuff. So that implies(according to you) also some of other peoples' stuff.