What Constitutes A Remaster

[theancientritual]

Are removing microphone bumps, smoothing transitions or repairing drop-outs considered to be remastering or does ‘remastering’ only cover EQing the sound.

Thanks.

[dorrcoq]

The first sounds more like editing that remastering, to me.

But a remaster really needs the original raw files as a starting point.

[Hitman Horton]

Are removing microphone bumps, smoothing transitions or repairing drop-outs considered to be remastering or does ‘remastering’ only cover EQing the sound.

Thanks.

I would consider EQing the sound to be a remix not a remaster. I would also say that remixing should NEVER be done. Once you do that, the audio is now a representation of your taste instead of the artist's.

[LeifH12345]

Are removing microphone bumps, smoothing transitions or repairing drop-outs considered to be remastering or does ‘remastering’ only cover EQing the sound.

Thanks.

It depends if you're working from scratch or if you're tweaking something that was already shared (presumably by the original taper), however fixing the type of issues you mentioned is more editing/repairs than remastering.

[GRC]

I would consider EQing the sound to be a remix not a remaster. I would also say that remixing should NEVER be done. Once you do that, the audio is now a representation of your taste instead of the artist's.

Mixing is, IMHO, modifying the audible levels of component parts - what are these days called Stem Tracks - or the individual tracks of a multi-track tape.

EQ is not mixing.

[Hitman Horton]

Mixing is, IMHO, modifying the audible levels of component parts - what are these days called Stem Tracks - or the individual tracks of a multi-track tape.

EQ is not mixing.

We're talking about two different kinds of remixing. You're talking the kind of remixing that DJs et cetera do and I'm talking about something like Triumph's Greatest Hits remixed CD.

[LeifH12345]

Mixing is, IMHO, modifying the audible levels of component parts - what are these days called Stem Tracks - or the individual tracks of a multi-track tape.

EQ is not mixing.

We're talking about two different kinds of remixing. You're talking the kind of remixing that DJs et cetera do and I'm talking about something like Triumph's Greatest Hits remixed CD.

I don't think that's what GRC is talking about - although that sounds like a fun project to sample+remix an audience recording?!!?:wtf::lmao::lol4::lol:

[Hitman Horton]

Mixing is, IMHO, modifying the audible levels of component parts - what are these days called Stem Tracks - or the individual tracks of a multi-track tape.

EQ is not mixing.

A quote from producer Steve Albini to illustrate my point. "A remix takes the original sounds from the session—the individual tracks, like the drums, bass, guitar, voice tracks—and rebalances them in a completely new stereo master."

[GRC]

A quote from producer Steve Albini to illustrate my point. "A remix takes the original sounds from the session—the individual tracks, like the drums, bass, guitar, voice tracks—and rebalances them in a completely new stereo master."

I think Albini and I are saying the same thing with different words.

Mixing, whether done at or immediately after the original recording session, or at a later date, involves taking the tracks (the original sounds) and determining their level (balance) in the final "mix". This may INVOLVE EQ as part of the process, but EQ is NOT the whole thing....

I don't consider this the domain of "DJs etc." DJs play back the final mix, UNLESS someone has provided them with single 'tracks', 'beats' or whateve else they call them, to be assembled on the spot, in a live context.

I've never encountered "something like Triumph's Greatest Hits remixed CD." so can't comment on that...

Back to your earlier post ("I would consider EQing the sound to be a remix not a remaster".) - simply EQing a 2-track L/R Stereo Master is NOT 'mixing' ....



EQ = Equalisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_(audio))

"adjusting the volume of different frequency bands within an audio signal"

This is not the same as mixing - i.e. adjusting the level of an individual track within a 4-track, 8-track, 16-track recording, where each track contains a different instrument or set of instruments.

[Hitman Horton]

I think Albini and I are saying the same thing with different words.

Mixing, whether done at or immediately after the original recording session, or at a later date, involves taking the tracks (the original sounds) and determining their level (balance) in the final "mix". This may INVOLVE EQ as part of the process, but EQ is NOT the whole thing....

I don't consider this the domain of "DJs etc." DJs play back the final mix, UNLESS someone has provided them with single 'tracks', 'beats' or whateve else they call them, to be assembled on the spot, in a live context.

I've never encountered "something like Triumph's Greatest Hits remixed CD." so can't comment on that...

Back to your earlier post ("I would consider EQing the sound to be a remix not a remaster".) - simply EQing a 2-track L/R Stereo Master is NOT 'mixing' ....



EQ = Equalisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_(audio))

"adjusting the volume of different frequency bands within an audio signal"

This is not the same as mixing - i.e. adjusting the level of an individual track within a 4-track, 8-track, 16-track recording, where each track contains a different instrument or set of instruments.

Call it whatever you want. The actual point of my post remains true. You should NEVER alter the audio portion of a live recording.

[GRC]

Call it whatever you want. The actual point of my post remains true. You should NEVER alter the audio portion of a live recording.

What other 'portion' could a live recording have?

It's audio. End of. The one and only portion.

Back to the OP, and "removing microphone bumps, smoothing transitions or repairing drop-outs considered to be remastering or does ‘remastering’ only cover EQing the sound."

I have no problem with editing an existing live recording to remove or suppress intrusive audience noise, to cover drop-outs or other flaws, and, if the overall EQ is particularly bad, applying compensation to make it more listenable.

This has nothing to do with artist's intent, and is a function of the recording equipment used by the taper, and the circumstances of the taping.

Choice of microphone, position in hall, design of taping equipment, audience mood/intoxication, etc.

[co9ol]

I would consider what the OP is asking about mastering, or more like "mastering lite". They are making the master from the raw files. I say "mastering lite," as actual mastering involves eq and dynamic compression. They're just fixing up a few final flaws.

[Hitman Horton]

What other 'portion' could a live recording have?

It's audio. End of. The one and only portion.

Back to the OP, and "removing microphone bumps, smoothing transitions or repairing drop-outs considered to be remastering or does ‘remastering’ only cover EQing the sound."

I have no problem with editing an existing live recording to remove or suppress intrusive audience noise, to cover drop-outs or other flaws, and, if the overall EQ is particularly bad, applying compensation to make it more listenable.

This has nothing to do with artist's intent, and is a function of the recording equipment used by the taper, and the circumstances of the taping.

Choice of microphone, position in hall, design of taping equipment, audience mood/intoxication, etc.

Question: What other 'portion' could a live recording have?
Answer: Video.

[GRC]

Question: What other 'portion' could a live recording have?
Answer: Video.

Sure, you've been talking about remastering video this whole time.....

Puh-leeze.

[Hitman Horton]

Sure, you've been talking about remastering video this whole time.....

Puh-leeze.

Is it possible for a live recording to have both an audio and a video portion? If it is, then your statement is incorrect and mine is correct. Sorry to the original poster for getting this thread off topic. I am moving on. It was my original intent to only provide my opinion.

[GRC]

Is it possible for a live recording to have both an audio and a video portion? If it is, then your statement is incorrect and mine is correct.

OK. You win. You caught me in your trap and proved yourself right.

Feel better?

Now, are we talking about Audio or Video? You pick, since you seem to think you're King of the Thread.

[Homebrew101]

:popcorn:

[Audioarchivist]

I think a finer point to make in fixing up and / or re-equalizing a recording and doing other tweaks to it to remaster it is whether or not it is your recording or if you have the specific permission of the taper to mess around with it...

I think it's great when someone is able to take a poor recording with flaws and clean them up to make a new version of the recording that is more presentable and listenable, but only if it's done from a taper's raw master recording and not from taper's processed files without their knowledge as a "surprise".

If you're a bedroom remasterer, taking other folk's work and futzing with it, you should at least ASK them if you plan to re-share it anywhere. Not asking and flooding the torrent sites with 3rd party remasters is why there is a rule against remasters here. Fixing something that someone else recorded for your own ears is fine, but when people start re-sharing re-worked recordings from other tapers without their approval, things get ugly. No need to pee in the trading pool...

To me, it's about original taper approval for re-working old recordings, no matter what's being done to them. I am looking forward to new technology to de-mix a stereo recording of a full band into a clean multitrack of individual instruments, so we actually CAN remix live audience recordings, but we're not quite there just yet. For now, we can eq, play with the stereo field, spectrally edit some unwanted sounds away, and a few other tricks, but it's not remixing. It's all taking a stereo master, and re-mastering it...