PDA

View Full Version : how to prevent idiots from remastering already mastered shows ?


NINJA
2005-01-22, 06:06 AM
does anyone have any idea's as how to stop people from re-remastering an already mastered show that already sounds great and prevent them from ruining my hard work


any idea's ?

mxz440fan
2005-01-22, 09:59 AM
Burn the tapes

uhclem
2005-01-22, 10:38 AM
I think a combined program of re-education camps and eugenics would do the job nicely.

NINJA
2005-01-22, 10:51 AM
I think a combined program of re-education camps and eugenics would do the job nicely.



maybe confinement loaf !

katnapz
2005-01-22, 03:38 PM
If you ever figure out how to do it contact me as I'll invest $$ for a percentage of the profits you'll make from every music company wanting to patent the process ;) They've been trying to do the same as you for years I hear :D Just make sure you can't defeat it with a green marker!

Of course, you can always encode your recordings in Windows Media Format (I don't think it's been broken yet??) or the Apple format...don't know enough about either to really know if they can be made "lossless" Help with details someone? :hmm:

RainDawg
2005-01-24, 08:45 AM
LOL Katz....all of those codecs have been broken. There's always a way to get the audio data OUT of a file once it's put in there.

The best way is to take FLAC fingerprints of your files before you send them out. Then post those to a webspace, and let people know whever you seen that show that if their files don't match your fingerprints, it's not the originally seeded versions.

This is something I want to implement for every single seed here, but have had a difficult time getting it started.

Erich
2005-01-24, 09:54 AM
If there was a way to create remastering process files it would work. What I mean is, instead of actualy doing any work to the file itself, make some batch type file for whatever audio program you used that mimics exactly what you did to get a better sound from the files. Include that in any reseed with the note that these are the original files, along with a way to make them sound great.

That allows for the subjectivity of remastering to exist without actualy having to fuck up the sound of the originals. It also allows anyone who gets the show to reseed or trade the original files, using their discretion of whether the "remastering" file is worth it.

katnapz
2005-01-24, 04:27 PM
Hey RainDawg - I was going to make the same comment about md5s (or some kind of sanity check), as that's kinda the thinking behind the thread on putting a watermark on video...the problem with it in either case is that the person has to know to check. Sadly, there's many people who either don't care,...don't know how to care,...or just buy off ebay (I'm speaking of people who really don't know anything about computers). But on your other comment...really?!?...I honestly didn't realize that the Windows Media format had been broken. I thought that was one of the holdouts yet, but then again, you can tell by my reaction that I don't pay a lot of attention to that format.

Erich - Interesting idea you have there....not to bring up that three letter word (i.e., mp3)...but there is a program that does something similiar to mp3's that allows you to raise/lower the overall gain of mp3's, but keeps the original info intact in case you ever need to go back to the original volume. I'm not advocating mp3's or anything, but it's really handy if you're putting them on a small player for the gym (and delete afterwards of course ;) ) Check a search engine for a program called MP3Gain. That way you don't blow your eardrums out when listening to music from different sources.

New Homebrew
2005-01-24, 05:11 PM
You might try setting a better example and mastering your cassettes using a high-grade A>D converter and leaving them alone after that. Put the waves plug-in bundle down and step slowly away...

Erich
2005-01-24, 09:19 PM
Erich - Interesting idea you have there....not to bring up that three letter word (i.e., mp3)...but there is a program that does something similiar to mp3's that allows you to raise/lower the overall gain of mp3's, but keeps the original info intact in case you ever need to go back to the original volume. I'm not advocating mp3's or anything, but it's really handy if you're putting them on a small player for the gym (and delete afterwards of course ;) ) Check a search engine for a program called MP3Gain. That way you don't blow your eardrums out when listening to music from different sources.

Flac supports replaygain, which is exactly what youre talking about, but Im unsure if its a lossless addition. I think it is, in the sense that its metadata and not actualy a change to the audio, but since I dont use it i cant be sure.

It would be great if metadata EQ existed.

uhclem
2005-01-24, 10:13 PM
FLAC replaygain is metadata - no changes are made to the audio and the fingerprint stays the same.

RainDawg
2005-01-25, 08:55 AM
Once again, Katz, the answer to your question....do I have to repeat it again?

foobar2000....

It'll scan and add replaygain tags to any file type, either for "album" mode or "song" mode. And it doesn't alter the audio content, so the fingerprints are the same.

katnapz
2005-01-25, 04:59 PM
foobar2000....

foobar2000??...what's that? :D

Actually RD, why don't you put it in your signature? "The Answer to all your Questions can be found in FOOBAR2000!" :lol

To be honest, I never fool around (nor have a need to) with the volume on lossless material...I rarely mix one show with another (audio CD that is)...matter of fact, I haven't burned an audio CD for at least a year or so with the exception of the occasional quad>DTS conversion, and those would be taboo here so you'll never see them.
I usually just use dbPowerAmp to convert to mp3 (it has a volume normalize option) for taking on the road/gym/etc. When I'm listening to a show at home I like to just listen from start to finish...as long as the taper didn't fool with the volume too much I don't have to touch anything.

...and yes Dad, I delete those mp3's when I'm done... :lol:

NINJA
2005-01-25, 05:25 PM
You might try setting a better example and mastering your cassettes using a high-grade A>D converter and leaving them alone after that. Put the waves plug-in bundle down and step slowly away...

if i were to do that i might as well keep listening to the cassettes and not waste my time !

why would one bother to tranfer cassettes to digital if not to improv the quality


i know people that have cdr from around 1985 that are starting to go bad so
as far as i can tell thats not a whole lot better than tape!

if you dont remaster do the whole world a favor and keep it analog

New Homebrew
2005-01-25, 05:50 PM
does anyone have any idea's as how to stop people from re-remastering an already mastered show that already sounds great and prevent them from ruining my hard work

I bet the people who taped the shows you are "mastering" wonder the same thing about what you're doing.

...

Five
2005-01-25, 06:08 PM
if i were to do that i might as well keep listening to the cassettes and not waste my time !

why would one bother to tranfer cassettes to digital if not to improv the quality


i know people that have cdr from around 1985 that are starting to go bad so
as far as i can tell thats not a whole lot better than tape!

if you dont remaster do the whole world a favor and keep it analog
well, that's not true because the tapes will wear out then the damage is done. when you transfer to digital with checksums maybe that cdr will eventually go bad but so long as it gets copied every couple years it is safe. that's the trouble with digital, you have to keep it moving so it doesn't fade away.

NINJA
2005-01-25, 07:33 PM
I bet the people who taped the shows you are "mastering" wonder the same thing about what you're doing.

...


i dont think so they usually end up asking me for and or leeching my torrents
but maybe you should ask them

uhclem
2005-01-25, 10:43 PM
if i were to do that i might as well keep listening to the cassettes and not waste my time !

why would one bother to tranfer cassettes to digital if not to improv the quality

if you dont remaster do the whole world a favor and keep it analog

You're kidding, right? ;)

rerem
2005-02-01, 08:31 AM
How can anyone prevent idiots from doing anything? Hey,just turn on the News,lotta idiots. In this context-I don't bother to tweak what is already about as good as it will get,but on the other hand I also have dl'd a few shows that were beyond what Soundforge or Wavelab could salvage. Some remasters I know,Wolf,Bertha,Doug Oade, and they are good,though what they do is actually more master than remaster. I have cleaned up some real flawed stuff,that nobody had restored,usually those were relatively old multi-gen or off pitch-However NEVER did I remaster a Ninja download...after all,I'm no IDIOT :rolleyes:

livedead13
2005-02-01, 09:22 PM
Don't share.

malick
2005-02-03, 12:06 AM
good question, but no solution. Re-re-re-re-mastering will be the bane of traders for generations to come. Hang onto those tapes!

h_vargas
2005-02-03, 08:00 AM
if i were to do that i might as well keep listening to the cassettes and not waste my time !

why would one bother to tranfer cassettes to digital if not to improv the quality


i know people that have cdr from around 1985 that are starting to go bad so
as far as i can tell thats not a whole lot better than tape!

if you dont remaster do the whole world a favor and keep it analog


i tried to resist the urge, but forget it, i'm going to put in a reply to this post.

why would anyone bother tot ransfer cassettes to digital (CDR) if not to improve the quality? one word: PRESERVATION. like someone else said, analog tapes will deteriorate over time, and with a show on CDR/DVDR, as long as it's re-copied every couple of years (and on good media), it will be fine. oh, and there's not much chance of an audio CD getting eaten by a cd player; unlike a cassette getting eaten by an old tape player.

also, wow! as i recall, i read that CD-R technology wasn't even introduced until around 1988 or so. (and by "introduced," that would mean that not many people would have that technology.) maybe your friend/acquaintance had the prototype CDR recorder and the very first CD-R disc created...? i bet they felt bad because they spent $100+ for that CD-R disc. (that's right, CD-Rs used to cost $100+ per blank. talk about frustration when you burned a coaster.)

back to the topic at hand. my goal(s) are obviously different than yours with regard to analog transfers. my goal being, most importantly, to preserve the show. i like to pretty much transfer analog shows direct to hard drive, use a lossless compression and store them on data discs (all to preserve them). i don't do any processing at all for the data archive material (no splitting tracks, no fade ins/outs). that way, i always have the original transferred audio in its original digital stage. when i want to burn an audio copy to listen to, i just decode the show to WAV format, then do any track splitting and changing i want to do, and then burn it to audio cd. but those copies never go anywhere for trades or anything.

there are a lot of people out there ("cool edit kings" and "soundforge saviors") who really screw up recordings more than help them. audio mastering is not simply running a recording through a preset for a plugin. try hiss removal with a preset for a plugin, and you'll quickly find the music is likely screwed up totally.

there's really no way to stop people from remastering your transfers, except to not trade/share the transfer. since there are so many audio professionals out there (sarcasm intended) who remaster every show ever put out for download, why not just put out an original mostly-untouched transfer that way people can trade the original, and the "audio engineers" out there can screw up the recording for themselves however they want?

9450 Mastering
2005-02-03, 11:53 AM
there are a lot of people out there ("cool edit kings" and "soundforge saviors") who really screw up recordings more than help them. audio mastering is not simply running a recording through a preset for a plugin. try hiss removal with a preset for a plugin, and you'll quickly find the music is likely screwed up totally.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

I am a Cubase Cracker, but your words are true. And the technique for hiss removal is true too. I tend to do it incrementally. But that is me and I do restoration for a living. And as soon as I figure out my firewall I'll let a few loose and see what the mods think.

I try not to adjust things too much, mostly image correction, and some eq on the old stuff. Frequency isolation is a fine art and most of what I have heard from d/l'd "Remasters" is overdone. Keep it simple.

Its too bad there is no standard in the trading world like lossless media. You can only do x or x, but that is limited to budget and gear and the ears. I have my own dedicated workstation and outboard gear and our soundforge saviors may use some warezed version of t-racks or ozone and say its the sh*t. You can tell pretty much what has been done....the more processing the more degraded the audio signal whether analog or digital.

Or maybe have a board of govenors on the subject, have the seed sent to them to determine if it is worthy. But that is alot of time that folks dont have, just some ideas........

Five
2005-02-03, 05:03 PM
I think Walk explains it best over on zappateers.com
http://www.zappateers.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=679

to sum it up,
1. circulate a cloned version of the lowest gen source available.
2. circulate a potentially improved version (optional).

wazoo2u
2005-02-03, 06:24 PM
I like the idea of having a container that carries Metadata for the processing. That way, changes are easily both documented and made.

Avid works partially this way (don't know if ProTools does), but their system is fault intolerant and program fault feedback is non existant.

Perhaps a Professional Audio Manufacturer will step up to the plate and design a workable system.

Five
2005-02-03, 09:07 PM
I like the idea of having a container that carries Metadata for the processing. That way, changes are easily both documented and made.

Avid works partially this way (don't know if ProTools does), but their system is fault intolerant and program fault feedback is non existant.

Perhaps a Professional Audio Manufacturer will step up to the plate and design a workable system.
the cpu power necessary to run several DX/VST/RTAS plugins is too much, then there's the additional problem that in order to play back the file all plugins used would have to be installed. Then what about small edits, pop/click fixes and filled analog dropouts?

it's a good idea but it will be a long time before it happens (if it ever does).

wazoo2u
2005-02-03, 09:28 PM
Use Dual Zeon's w 2 Gig RAM ??

Editing fixes are the least of the worries. Those are often times easier to accomplish than proper use of dynamics or eq. Yes the "container" can include the edits and fills, because they're also just pointers to the modification of the original media.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that I wouldn't trust MOST people to make quality judgements on audio remastering. I mean... look at the signal chain most folks have their computer rig running thru, and you get an idea how inaccurate these attempts would be.

Five
2005-02-03, 09:46 PM
okay then all we need is somebody to program it and the trading community to accept it.

any takers?

*tumbleweed passes by*

wazoo2u
2005-02-03, 09:52 PM
Well hey... Jay Ashley's only got so much time ya know ??? :lol

rerem
2005-02-03, 10:47 PM
and what about when I DL something like a 1972 Fairport Convention and it sounds like 3+ gens of NO-dolby hiss from the analog plus a pitch problem and a fairly tubby midbase. It is either fix it or junk it. It was claimed to be pretty good- as is.it was intolerable. I wasted a lot of time working it to where it was just adequate. If I did not have a good amp and speakers for the job,of course I probably would have done worse. Had that been off a good SBD reel source,not a multigen cheap mic cassette,I'd be reluctant to alter it. I would prefer to only get the sort of quality that does not tempt me to do a salvage. I don't see a point in preserving flaws

Snapple7
2005-02-03, 11:39 PM
excellent post ninja, perfect example are these bertha remasters, zeppelin in st.louis (2.16.75) and frankfurt (6.30.80)which are soundboard and flawless in sound was remastered twice. why? what's the point? the first remaster was perfect... I don't understand why not remaster a show that is inferior in sound then one that isn't.

bowman
2005-02-04, 12:52 AM
Interesting. The comment about posting MD5's to a website and verifying with the website MD5s... what if someone created a universal server that hosted MD5 files... and instead of including and md5, you would include a small executable file that would test your files according to the md5 that the seeder uploaded to that machine... this could go somewhere... who's interested?

uhclem
2005-02-04, 09:48 AM
bowman, it's called db.etree.org, which hosts md5s of circulating shows for jam bands that allow trading of their music, i.e. Grateful Dead, Phish, etc.

As for bands that don't specifically allow such trading, it would probably make sense for a fansite of each band to post md5s like that. But someone has to set it up, spend the money, etc. Etree would be the model to follow though.

Five
2009-10-06, 10:51 AM
:bump:

J.R. Ewing
2009-10-06, 05:00 PM
:bump:some good humorous posts in that thread, son! humor with a purpose. that's what ol' J.R. likes to read of an evening! :thumbsup

stephsbear
2009-10-26, 12:53 AM
It takes an incredibly light touch to do remastering without doing some harm of some sort - perhaps impossible without losing some aspect of the audio. But I agree with the Fairport comment above - I don't care if people remaster something, I'd rather listen to something approaching decent than something unlistenable.

However, obviously the problem is if that word "remaster" disappears somewhere along the line... which ultimately seems inevitable. I much appreciate this site in particular in that there are hard and fast rules regarding providing lineage, but in some cases, how in the world can anyone know that it's accurate? I know there's some shady uploaders in the world, but even the honest ones only know for sure that they're holding some files. I really like the plugin idea - but then again, all you know is that you can separate what the last remasterer did from what they started with.

It is a big problem if you're collecting, archiving. Drives me crazy sometimes.

And don't even get me started about people calling FM Broadcasts taped off the radio "Soundboards". :-)

jameskg
2009-10-26, 01:16 AM
LOL Katz....all of those codecs have been broken. There's always a way to get the audio data OUT of a file once it's put in there.

The best way is to take FLAC fingerprints of your files before you send them out. Then post those to a webspace, and let people know whever you seen that show that if their files don't match your fingerprints, it's not the originally seeded versions.

This is something I want to implement for every single seed here, but have had a difficult time getting it started.

mission accomplished

AAR.oner
2009-10-26, 08:11 AM
Re: how to prevent idiots from remastering already mastered shows ?

only one answer to this question -- don't share your shows...with anyone

cicada
2009-10-29, 08:47 PM
On a related topic (kinda)... how many shows have I grabbed with the dreaded processing called "normalize". I would love to write a "sticky" for all newbies in an effort to stem the tide. However, it has now become an emotionally charged topic for me. LOL!

Every program has this feature sitting there for anyone to use. I mean, shouldn't you have to pass some kind of test first? So many shows that are unlistenable to my ears. The masters may have had some dynamic range, but that just goes out the window 99% of the time. Sorry to whine... really!

I still have a volume control to allow under-recorded sources to be played back comfortably. Those recordings sound just fine before being normalized in almost every case.

Remember - friends don't let friends use "normalize"! Pardon me while I go look for a "praying smilie" to attach (- or maybe a "groveling smilie").

showtaper
2009-10-29, 09:49 PM
On a related topic (kinda)... how many shows have I grabbed with the dreaded processing called "normalize". I would love to write a "sticky" for all newbies in an effort to stem the tide. However, it has now become an emotionally charged topic for me. LOL!

Every program has this feature sitting there for anyone to use. I mean, shouldn't you have to pass some kind of test first? So many shows that are unlistenable to my ears. The masters may have had some dynamic range, but that just goes out the window 99% of the time. Sorry to whine... really!

I still have a volume control to allow under-recorded sources to be played back comfortably. Those recordings sound just fine before being normalized in almost every case.

Remember - friends don't let friends use "normalize"! Pardon me while I go look for a "praying smilie" to attach (- or maybe a "groveling smilie").

If a recording is normalized properly, you'll never know. Virtually every
compact disc produced has been processed, including normalization. peak
limiting, compression, etc.

Unless the user drives the signal into clipping, the only errors introduced
are from the requantization. Obviously, the better the software, the better
the normalization.

Just turning up the volume when listening to an "under-recorded" source
will also bring up the noise floor in your playback equipment. I find this just
as objectionable......

cicada
2009-10-30, 01:18 AM
Showtaper, I appreciate your statements about normalization. I have listened to hi-gen analog tapes for too many years to truly trust my ears. But, why do so many of the recordings in the "pool" sound horrible after being normalized?

Although exceptions exist - maybe some who adhere to "proper" techniques & better eqpt... there seems to be a muddiness after normalization :hmm:

AAR.oner
2009-10-30, 08:02 AM
there shouldn't be any change to the dynamic range after normalization...now if they use compression, yeah -- but normalizing applies a constant amount of gain to the entire recording, no different than "turning up the volume"

zeek
2009-10-30, 02:31 PM
bowman, it's called db.etree.org, which hosts md5s of circulating shows for jam bands that allow trading of their music, i.e. Grateful Dead, Phish, etc.

As for bands that don't specifically allow such trading, it would probably make sense for a fansite of each band to post md5s like that. But someone has to set it up, spend the money, etc. Etree would be the model to follow though.

I created a site for the bands that etree won't handle as far as assigning ID's ect. It also backs up etree's data. It's well on it's way and we have some big upgrades in progress including an artwork and picture database that is linked to the show record.

www.livemusicpreservationproject.com

Getting the shows in a database and assigning an ID is the absolute best wa to allow you to be sure that your original source is identifiable as such. Take the site for a spin. Spread the word if ya like it. :)

rspencer
2009-10-30, 04:44 PM
It depends on the type of normalization.

Peak normalization just raises the volume so that the peaks reach the set level (e.g., if you set to -.01dB the highest peaks will now be at -.01dB). The dynamic range is preserved, as everything is raised equally. No different than turning up the volume on your stereo.

RMS normalization normalizes to an average, may utilize compression, and can crush the dynamics if heavy-handed. Any use will tend to reduce the dynamics, but it can be done well.

On the whole, obviously, peak normalization is the way to go. It's just adding gain to a source to get it where you want it.

chinajoe
2009-10-30, 08:06 PM
can we have tags to show if its been normalized or remastered?

dorrcoq
2009-10-30, 10:15 PM
Although exceptions exist - maybe some who adhere to "proper" techniques & better eqpt... there seems to be a muddiness after normalization :hmm:

Since it is unlikely you ever heard the pre-normalized master, how do you know it wasn't always muddy?

AAR.oner
2009-10-31, 10:32 AM
can we have tags to show if its been normalized or remastered?

you can tag any thread here...scroll to the bottom of any page, just above the Quick Reply box is a Tag box which anyone can edit to include whatever they want

PencilGeek
2009-11-01, 01:08 PM
Re: how to prevent idiots from remastering already mastered shows ?

only one answer to this question -- don't share your shows...with anyone

...or do a better job mastering in the first place.


Unless the user drives the signal into clipping, the only errors introduced are from the requantization. Obviously, the better the software, the better the normalization.

Bingo. That's why I started sampling in 5.6Mhz 1-bit DSD, downsampling to 96Khz, 32-bit float, and doing all of the processing in 32-bit float. This eliminates the requantization errors. Once you're done with the project, downsample to the appropriate frequency and integer bit rate -- and you've created the best sounding outcome possible.

I only perform peak normalization -- which always preserves dynamic range and never applies compression.

jameskg
2009-11-01, 01:14 PM
can we have tags to show if its been normalized or remastered?


I wouldn't be opposed to this.

chinajoe
2009-11-01, 05:27 PM
you can tag any thread here...scroll to the bottom of any page, just above the Quick Reply box is a Tag box which anyone can edit to include whatever they want

i didnt see any such tags. can we create them? while we are at it, how about
creating a tag where the linage is questioned. one will not have to spend time reading the threads and will know right away.

juxtiphi
2009-11-01, 07:44 PM
i didnt see any such tags. can we create them? while we are at it, how about
creating a tag where the linage is questioned. one will not have to spend time reading the threads and will know right away.

at the bottom of the page just abopve the quick reply box in the right corner you will see an edit tags icon, click this and add your tag.

this thread has a chinajoe tag now :D

chinajoe
2009-11-01, 10:44 PM
at the bottom of the page just abopve the quick reply box in the right corner you will see an edit tags icon, click this and add your tag.

this thread has a chinajoe tag now :D


completly missed it. thanks