LiveNIRVANA.com used to host a guide to the best available sources for each concert, but this document was removed by Frank Morris following criticism from some eminent collectors. The problem was that a few unscrupulous traders were incorrectly assuming that any CDRs they possessed of any particular show were from the best available source, when that was not the case.

We implore you all not to make this mistake: if you do not know the generation and provenance of a CDR, please do not guess its generation, simply label it as "unknown." (We shall elaborate later what precisely we mean by this, please read on.) If we discover such abuse is taking place again, we shall be forced to remove the best sources information to avoid the trading community being polluted with incorrectly-labelled CDRs. This is particularly crucial if your CDR is MP3-sourced, which is greatly frowned upon in trading circles owing to its discernibly inferior sound quality.

We emphasise, we know there is great temptation to claim the source of your CDR is better than it actually is, but we ask you to be considerate of other traders and be honest at all times.

We must also address the issue of defining what is the 'best' source for each particular concert. To elucidate this point, we shall define each bit of jargon carefully.

Many shows were recorded by audience members to analog cassette. This master tape is known as the 'analog master', or ANA(M) in traders' shorthand notation.

The taper would then trade out copies of his master cassette: a direct copy of the master tape is known as a 1st generation cassette, ANA(1) in shorthand. A copy of the 1st generation copy is an ANA(2), etc. Generally speaking, the higher the generation copy, the worse the sound quality, since copying cassettes is an imperfect process and adds tape hiss and distortion to the sound.

Recordings can also be taped onto Digital Audio Cassette (DAT), an obscure format used by industry professionals. A master tape in this case would be listed as a DAT(M) in traders' shorthand. The advantage of DATs is that they can be cloned digitally, i.e. copied without any quality loss (unlike audio cassettes). However, it is important to keep track of digital generations as well (in case of problems or faulty copying somewhere along the chain), so a DAT copy of a DAT copy of a DAT master, for example, would be a DAT(2).

Analog cassettes are often transferred to DAT so that they can be copied without further quality loss, for example, a DAT transfer of a second generation analog cassette would be listed as: ANA(2) -> DAT(1).

In recent times, traders have begun a massive coordinated effort to preserve the music in as good quality as possible for current and future live concert enthusiasts. Traders have scoured the world to track down the lowest possible generation of each source of each show. (Sometimes it has proved to be impossible to get in touch with the person who owns the master tape, so traders look for the next best thing - a first generation copy.) This lowest known generation is then transferred to CDR. Currently, most audio trading takes place on this format. As a result of this, traders would like to know what is the best available CDR transfer in collecting circles.

It is far from simple to determine what actually is the 'best' available source, as we shall explain. There are seven crucial factors:

1. Different Sources.
   
   Often, concerts are recorded by more than one person on different equipment. Which one is better will depend on the quality of equipment used (for example, a DAT recording using an expensive microphone will sound better than a Dictaphone recording). The positioning of the taper within the concert arena is also a crucial factor: Generally, the near to the speakers, the better the recording sounds.
   
   Usually, a soundboard tape will sound better than a DAT tape, which will sound better than an analog tape, which will sound better than the audio part of a private video. However, there are many exceptions to this 'rule of thumb'.
   
   
2. Length of source.
   
   Sometimes the better/best sounding source may be incomplete, so collectors who like to collect complete concerts will opt for the less good sounding source. Sometimes tapers arrive late, or their batteries fail, which results in incomplete recordings.
   
   
3. The generation of the source used for the CDR transfer.
   
   The lowest generation source is usually produces the best sounding CDR. In general, we assume that a CDR transfer of, say, an ANA(2) will be better sounding than an ANA(3) -> CDR.
   
   
4. Completeness of the source tape.
   
   There have been occasions when the CDR made from the lower generation tape, e.g. ANA(2) -> CDR, has been found to be less complete than a ANA(3) -> CDR from the same original source. Traders should compare total times of CDRs to avoid this. Many traders now list total CDR times for this very reason.
   
   
5. Quality of analog copying.
   
   It is, of course, possible that an ANA(2) can sound worse than an ANA(3): for example, if an ANA(1) was copied on a boom box onto poor quality cassette, this will probably sound worse then an ANA(1) copied twice using state-of-the-art hi-fi equipment onto expensive tapes. The only way to detect if this is the case is to listen to each tape carefully. Most traders who have analog tape collections try to compare the sound quality of their CDRs to their tapes, and question the provenance of any CDRs which sound worse than their old tapes.
   
   
6. Quality of the transfer to CDR.
   
   Another important factor is the method used to transfer the a cassette to CDR: the quality of the transfer depends on the skill of the person who transfers the tape, and the quality of his equipment. If inexperienced traders attempt to make tape -> CDR transfers, often clicks and skips appear in the tracks, which are irritating to most traders.
   
   Often, the same generation cassette, e.g. the ANA(M) of NIRVANA's concert on September 10th 1992, has been transferred by different people. Because different equipment was used in each case, the transfers sound different. In order to differentiate between the ANA(M) -> CDRs, we must also note the name of the person who conducted the transfer.
   
   In the NIRVANA trading community, Kris Sproul (who maintains the Nirvana Live Guide) is widely acknowledged to be the the best person around, although a few dissenters consider that he uses too much noise reduction. Benoit Martigny and a few others are also known to produce excellent results.
   
   
7. Quality of CDR copies.
   
   Finally, we request that all traders note the digital (CDR) generation of their concerts. For example, if you transfer a master tape to CDR yourself, the CDR you produce is ANA(M) -> CDR(1). Any direct copies of this CDR are referred to as ANA(M) -> CDR(2), etc.
   
   Copying can introduce digital errors into the music if CDRs are copied using inferior copying programs or onto poor quality CDRs. When all other factors are equal, we recommend trading for the lowest possible CDR generation to reduce the liklihood of such digital errors.