Monday 01/24/2022 by ucpete

MYSTERY JAM MONDAY PART 490

Welcome to the 490th edition of Phish.Net's Mystery Jam Monday, the third puzzle of January. The winner will receive an MP3 download code courtesy of our friends at LivePhish.com / Nugs.Net. To win, be the first person to identify the song and date of both mystery clips, which are connected by a theme. Each person gets one guess to start – if no one answers correctly in the first 24 hours, I'll post a hint. After the hint, everyone gets one more guess before Wednesday at 3 PM PT / 6 PM ET. Stay safe!

Hint: Similar to last week's MJM, this week's features two different songs played on the same date. (Sorry the hint was late - you'll have till 6 pm ET Wednesday to get your answer in.)

Answer: Pencils down! The blog has somehow won for only the 31st time ever, this time using two jams from the same damn show: 6/30/98 "Stash" and "David Bowie." I'm shocked folks didn't jump immediately to the small rooms of the late '90s, but what do I know? And in case anyone is wondering, @jambot totally nailed it. We'll play for two next week!

If you liked this blog post, one way you could "like" it is to make a donation to The Mockingbird Foundation, the sponsor of Phish.net. Support music education for children, and you just might change the world.


Comments

, comment by Zands
Zands These clips are quite distinctive and I'm super excited to see the jams they're from! Hope y'all are having an alright Monday :)
, comment by jambot
jambot Howdy. I think I've got the answer. I've written an audio fingerprinting algorithm to search the Phish archive (every song in "the spreadsheet"). Since it's cheating, I won't post the answer or try to claim the prize. But just for proof, I can post a hash (SHA-256) of the text of my answer (75b31641cc7977048378c8f47fee8b19c6473f15b9b8a905d65fea57d957f307). If anyone cares if I'm lying or thinks this is interesting, that can verify my answer later.

I've been experimenting with audio fingerprinting, so just built this system for kicks. I'm not sure if there's any real positive use for it - maybe identifying mislabeled tracks, etc... first time I'm trying out a newly released mystery jam.
, comment by RollinInMyGrego
RollinInMyGrego I just ran the same audio fingerprinting algorithm and got "We Don't Talk about Bruno" - Encanto and "I Love Rocky Road" - Weird Al. Is that right @ucpete?
, comment by PhreePhish
PhreePhish @jambot said:
Howdy. I think I've got the answer. I've written an audio fingerprinting algorithm to search the Phish archive (every song in "the spreadsheet").

I've been experimenting with audio fingerprinting, so just built this system for kicks. I'm not sure if there's any real positive use for it - maybe identifying mislabeled tracks, etc... first time I'm trying out a newly released mystery jam.
Hopefully it isn't tooo good, if you get what I'm saying ;) .

Oh, and handle/post?
, comment by ucpete
ucpete @jambot said:
Howdy. I think I've got the answer. I've written an audio fingerprinting algorithm to search the Phish archive (every song in "the spreadsheet"). Since it's cheating, I won't post the answer or try to claim the prize. But just for proof, I can post a hash (SHA-256) of the text of my answer (75b31641cc7977048378c8f47fee8b19c6473f15b9b8a905d65fea57d957f307). If anyone cares if I'm lying or thinks this is interesting, that can verify my answer later.

I've been experimenting with audio fingerprinting, so just built this system for kicks. I'm not sure if there's any real positive use for it - maybe identifying mislabeled tracks, etc... first time I'm trying out a newly released mystery jam.
Cool! We've been talking about this for years, and finally someone did it :)

I wonder how source dependent it is - I didn't use the spreadsheet source. We had even considered introducing some (imperceptible) noise to fuck with people using fingerprinting schemes, but decided no one would ever spend that much time cheating for a $10 code haha

PM me if you want to kang your answer (I didn't get a matching hash but only tried a couple date formats)
, comment by A_Buddhist_Prodigy
A_Buddhist_Prodigy @ucpete said:
@jambot said:
Howdy. I think I've got the answer. I've written an audio fingerprinting algorithm to search the Phish archive (every song in "the spreadsheet"). Since it's cheating, I won't post the answer or try to claim the prize. But just for proof, I can post a hash (SHA-256) of the text of my answer (75b31641cc7977048378c8f47fee8b19c6473f15b9b8a905d65fea57d957f307). If anyone cares if I'm lying or thinks this is interesting, that can verify my answer later.

I've been experimenting with audio fingerprinting, so just built this system for kicks. I'm not sure if there's any real positive use for it - maybe identifying mislabeled tracks, etc... first time I'm trying out a newly released mystery jam.
Cool! We've been talking about this for years, and finally someone did it :)

I wonder how source dependent it is - I didn't use the spreadsheet source. We had even considered introducing some (imperceptible) noise to fuck with people using fingerprinting schemes, but decided no one would ever spend that much time cheating for a $10 code haha

PM me if you want to kang your answer (I didn't get a matching hash but only tried a couple date formats)
I wish I had any sort of clue of what you all are talking about . . . It sounds smart . . . I don't think I'm smart enough to follow this. Is "kang" related to "Kung?"
, comment by jambot
jambot @ucpete said:
Cool! We've been talking about this for years, and finally someone did it :)

I wonder how source dependent it is - I didn't use the spreadsheet source. We had even considered introducing some (imperceptible) noise to fuck with people using fingerprinting schemes, but decided no one would ever spend that much time cheating for a $10 code haha

PM me if you want to kang your answer (I didn't get a matching hash but only tried a couple date formats)
PM'ing my answer. Yeah, I'm not sure, but it seems pretty robust. I tried comparing to the MJM history spreadsheet, it seems to get about 95% correct on first guess, with some caveats - only running on the "one-song" samples (not attempting to split into multiple clips - today's I split into two files by hand), skipping the non-phish, etc. I'd like to go back and see what it is getting wrong and why. Some annoyances with matching song names (eg the spreadsheet will have names like "__ > Jam" , etc).

Yeah, I don't want to spoil the fun here or take the prize and don't plan to put online, but since I recently decided to store all the shows I could get locally, I thought I'd give it a try.
, comment by PhreePhish
PhreePhish @A_Buddhist_Prodigy said:
@ucpete said: [quote @jambot said: [quote]Is "kang" related to "Kung?"
No. Kang is related to Kodos.

Wait, this isn't the Simpsons thread?
, comment by ucpete
ucpete @jambot said:
@ucpete said:
Cool! We've been talking about this for years, and finally someone did it :)

I wonder how source dependent it is - I didn't use the spreadsheet source. We had even considered introducing some (imperceptible) noise to fuck with people using fingerprinting schemes, but decided no one would ever spend that much time cheating for a $10 code haha

PM me if you want to kang your answer (I didn't get a matching hash but only tried a couple date formats)
PM'ing my answer. Yeah, I'm not sure, but it seems pretty robust. I tried comparing to the MJM history spreadsheet, it seems to get about 95% correct on first guess, with some caveats - only running on the "one-song" samples (not attempting to split into multiple clips - today's I split into two files by hand), skipping the non-phish, etc. I'd like to go back and see what it is getting wrong and why. Some annoyances with matching song names (eg the spreadsheet will have names like "__ > Jam" , etc).

Yeah, I don't want to spoil the fun here or take the prize and don't plan to put online, but since I recently decided to store all the shows I could get locally, I thought I'd give it a try.
5% is also about how often I spruce up the tapes I’m dealing with, whether making a SBD / AUD matrix or adjusting an old tape to the right speed (the latter of which I’d expect to fool your tool every time)
, comment by wforwumbo
wforwumbo @ucpete said:
@jambot said:
@ucpete said:
Cool! We've been talking about this for years, and finally someone did it :)

I wonder how source dependent it is - I didn't use the spreadsheet source. We had even considered introducing some (imperceptible) noise to fuck with people using fingerprinting schemes, but decided no one would ever spend that much time cheating for a $10 code haha

PM me if you want to kang your answer (I didn't get a matching hash but only tried a couple date formats)
PM'ing my answer. Yeah, I'm not sure, but it seems pretty robust. I tried comparing to the MJM history spreadsheet, it seems to get about 95% correct on first guess, with some caveats - only running on the "one-song" samples (not attempting to split into multiple clips - today's I split into two files by hand), skipping the non-phish, etc. I'd like to go back and see what it is getting wrong and why. Some annoyances with matching song names (eg the spreadsheet will have names like "__ > Jam" , etc).

Yeah, I don't want to spoil the fun here or take the prize and don't plan to put online, but since I recently decided to store all the shows I could get locally, I thought I'd give it a try.
5% is also about how often I spruce up the tapes I’m dealing with, whether making a SBD / AUD matrix or adjusting an old tape to the right speed (the latter of which I’d expect to fool your tool every time)
Additionally, the string of MJMs that I made starting in 2018 and hosted in 18-19 and sporadically since did not use spreadsheet AUDs or SBDs for the most part so those likely have mixed results if trawling for matching hashes. I’m curious about your tool’s performance on those.

This is super cool that you did this, and even cooler that you’re being a good sport by not sharing the answers.
, comment by jambot
jambot @wforwumbo said:
@ucpete said:
@jambot said:
@ucpete said:
Cool! We've been talking about this for years, and finally someone did it :)

I wonder how source dependent it is - I didn't use the spreadsheet source. We had even considered introducing some (imperceptible) noise to fuck with people using fingerprinting schemes, but decided no one would ever spend that much time cheating for a $10 code haha

PM me if you want to kang your answer (I didn't get a matching hash but only tried a couple date formats)
PM'ing my answer. Yeah, I'm not sure, but it seems pretty robust. I tried comparing to the MJM history spreadsheet, it seems to get about 95% correct on first guess, with some caveats - only running on the "one-song" samples (not attempting to split into multiple clips - today's I split into two files by hand), skipping the non-phish, etc. I'd like to go back and see what it is getting wrong and why. Some annoyances with matching song names (eg the spreadsheet will have names like "__ > Jam" , etc).

Yeah, I don't want to spoil the fun here or take the prize and don't plan to put online, but since I recently decided to store all the shows I could get locally, I thought I'd give it a try.
5% is also about how often I spruce up the tapes I’m dealing with, whether making a SBD / AUD matrix or adjusting an old tape to the right speed (the latter of which I’d expect to fool your tool every time)
Additionally, the string of MJMs that I made starting in 2018 and hosted in 18-19 and sporadically since did not use spreadsheet AUDs or SBDs for the most part so those likely have mixed results if trawling for matching hashes. I’m curious about your tool’s performance on those.

This is super cool that you did this, and even cooler that you’re being a good sport by not sharing the answers.
Yeah, I think changing the speed would definitely mess it up. I think different mp3 encodings of same recording would handle well. Different recordings of the same show, I'm not sure. When I get a chance to look at the details, I'll let you know.
, comment by ucpete
ucpete I always upload FLACs to SoundCloud (and have for a couple years since they enabled lossless audio) so I think you're golden on the encoding robustness. Also, I almost never use the same source as the spreadsheet (and use a ton of SBDs, which aren't on the spreadsheet), so it seems you're golden on different sources as well. Would be cool to characterize the failures - I can likely tell you why they failed, given a list...

Also it would be fantastic to get the track timings for all past MJMs - I have many of them in text files but the data are a mess and not necessarily accurate (for reasons I won't elaborate on here only because it's not that interesting lol), and have long thought about crowdsourcing an effort to annotate them all ... but your tool would make this trivial and I could just add a column to the results spreadsheet, linking back to phish.in (which began with the set of spreadsheet sources but has diverged a bit over the years).

Really cool stuff, thanks for sharing
, comment by stevemott
stevemott 7/9/94 Antelope
7/9/98 Tweezer
, comment by ucpete
ucpete you guys really gonna let the blog win?

does the show sound outdoors or indoors to you? does it sound like a large crowd or a small crowd? does it sound like the recording was made up front or way in the back?
, comment by phishroc
phishroc I don't know. All I can hear is the chicks in the front row.
You must be logged in to post a comment.


Phish.net

Phish.net is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.

This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.

Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA

© 1990-2022  The Mockingbird Foundation, Inc. | Hosted by Linode