PDA

View Full Version : Remaster Category and No More Names!


magicgravy
2008-03-29, 09:02 PM
I've been a taper for more than 15 years and my recent addition of torrents has opened up my collection to many new avenues. However, not all is gravy round these parts.

I think there should be a category for people who remaster concerts. Or at least a tag that i can filter out remastered efforts.

Remastering is a disease that is sweeping the trading community, now that anyone can get his hands on the software to do it, they think they now have the right to do it, not to mention the skills.

At least, let me browse for concerts that do not involve their efforts.

LeifH12345
2008-03-29, 09:05 PM
I'm with you. If it's a re-master it should be bold in the title. I don't have a problem not downloading them, though.

Ierdcram
2008-03-30, 12:11 AM
I agree that there are lots of well intentioned folks wrecking torrents through so-called remasters. At the same time there are several people who know their business and produce consistently great "remasters" of various sorts. For example, Kevin Tobin's efforts have made more than one Dead show go from good to great and both Erno and the Prodigal Son have salvaged many a Springsteen train wreck. I happen to agree with a "remaster" category for pretty much the same reasons but let's not condemn everyone that dedicates time and resources to upgrading sources.

U2Lynne
2008-03-31, 05:10 PM
We do ask that people who remaster a recording make sure that it is clearly said in the thread. But, maybe it would be a good idea to tag it like we tag a (RESEED). I'll see what Staff thinks of the idea.

shadyogrady
2008-03-31, 05:24 PM
Don't know much about this stuff, but adding a new category or tag sounds like a fantastic idea for the current problem. I hate downloading the same recording only to find out its worse than the one I already had; and to think they claimed it was "remastered" which should mean better.

Shady :nono:

Jesus Christ
2008-04-28, 06:27 PM
i'd give my support to a remaster catagory, or indeed a forum of its own.

i think it would be a good idea to separate the raw from the cooked, so to speak.

a forum/catagory for remasters exclusively would allow us to judge people that had genuine knowledge of sound engineering, and for us to flag people who think that a bit of noise reduction and a nice compression squeeze in the mid-range makes a 'remaster'.

obviously, i have heard some amazing results, and i have heard some appaling hack jobs.

if Remasters had their own forum, we could soon weed out the crap from the nice.

also, engineers could exchange ideas and directions... it could be cool.

plus it would make it easier to keep track of which version of a show was which.

Patty Mac
2008-04-29, 07:01 PM
Most tapers that I know would rather distribute copies of the raw recording and let the person themselves "re-master" it w\out redistributing it.

direwolf-pgh
2008-09-21, 10:06 PM
there should be a rule: IF you seed a remaster - the ORIGINAL source must be seeded first.

pawel
2008-09-22, 06:51 AM
^ I agree with all, plus I would add:
* Torrent description has to include details what was done with the source. I see that many shows are the result of throw a dice approach: I used some filters, don't remember which but now the recording sounds better. :lmao:
* "Remaster" which uses normalization is not allowed

There is an idiot at Dime - Gardener (http://www.dimeadozen.org/account-details.php?id=6070) who "remastered" many shows, also already remastered. Seems that all s/he uses is amplification of low and high frequencies like by loudness filter on an amplifier, and probably sometimes he adds also a reverb to make the recording to be more "spatial". If I see his crap here, I'll use my mod privileges to pull his shit immediately :cool:

Chaosu
2008-09-22, 08:46 AM
But also tip for newbies how to improve their recording would be useful (see remaster forum idea). There are way too few sound engineers willing to master thousands of new recordings. Still, some basic filters with a guide how (not)to use them can improve raw material.

direwolf-pgh
2008-09-22, 09:53 AM
But also tip for newbies how to improve their recording would be useful (see remaster forum idea). There are way too few sound engineers willing to master thousands of new recordings. Still, some basic filters with a guide how (not)to use them can improve raw material.no. average joe & some audio software is exactly the problem at hand.
there are only a handful of REAL audio engineers - and thats just the way life is.
leave altering live shows to them - the rest of us should keep our tweaked shows out of the trading pool.

There is an idiot at Dime - Gardener (http://www.dimeadozen.org/account-details.php?id=6070) who "remastered" many shows, also already remastered. Seems that all s/he uses is amplification of low and high frequencies like by loudness filter on an amplifier, and probably sometimes he adds also a reverb to make the recording to be more "spatial". If I see his crap here, I'll use my mod privileges to pull his shit immediately :cool: does his profile look like this:]

Total number of torrents uploaded: 25
The Who 1975-12-14 Springfield Massacre! Convention Center, Springfield, MA Remastered w/artwork (FLAC) - 09-21-08 ACTIVE
The Who 1971-12-09 Falling on the Floor With Power Chords! LA Forum, Inglewood, CA Pitch corrected/remastered w/artwork (FLAC) - 08-29-08 ACTIVE
The Who - Charlton Athletic Football Club, London, Uk 05-31-76 Remastered (FLAC) - 08-06-08 ACTIVE
The Ramones - CBGB, New York City, NY 06-10-77 (Both sets) Remastered (FLAC) - 07-29-08 ACTIVE
Elvis Costello & The Attractions - Paradise Theatre, Boston, MA 12-09-77 (Early Show) Remastered (FLAC) - 07-27-08 ACTIVE
The Who - New Bingley Hall, Stafford, UK 1975-10-03 Remastered (FLAC) - 07-18-08 ACTIVE
Sly & The Family Stone - Woodstock Music & Art Fair, Bethel, NY 08-16-69 Remastered w/artwork (FLAC) - 07-13-08 ACTIVE
Nirvana - Nighttown, Rotterdam, NL 11-01-89 REMASTERED SBD - 02-07-08
The Kinks - Winterland, CA 1977-02-19 REMASTERED PREFM W/SAMPLES (FLAC) - 05-19-07
Humble Pie - Reseda, CA 1981-xx-xx & Philadelphia, PA 1973-xx-xx Remastered w/mp3 Samples (FLAC) - 05-01-07
The Velvet Underground - Norman Dolph Acetate, Scepter Studios, New York City, NY 04-xx-66 REMASTERED MONO STU (FLAC) - 12-22-06
The Clash - White Men In Hammersmith Odeon , Hammersmith Odeon, London, UK 12-27-79 (FLAC) REMASTERED AUD - 11-22-06 ACTIVE
The Who - Cry Blue Murder Remastered, Oklahoma City, OK 08-24-68 & Dallas, TX 07-23-67 (FLAC) - 11-19-06
The Who 1969-10-22 Accept No Substitute Remastered, Fillmore East, New York, NY (FLAC) - 11-07-06
The Who 1970-06-19 Memorial Auditorium, Dallas, TX REMASTERED AUD RESEED (FLAC) - 11-03-06
Jethro Tull 1970-05-01 Fillmore West, San Francisco, CA REMASTERED AUD (FLAC) - 11-03-06
The Who 1979-12-03 Riverfront Coliseum, Cincinatti, OH REMASTERED (FLAC) - 11-02-06
The Who 1972-09-14 Rome Palasport REMASTERED (FLAC) - 10-18-06
The Who 1971-08-18 Chicago, IL REMASTERED 2CD AUD (FLAC) - 10-14-06
The Who 1970-06-07 Tommy Live At The Metropolitan Opera House REMASTERED (FLAC) - 10-10-06
The Who 1975-11-07 Boris The Spider REMASTERED, Ludwigshafen, Germany 2CD AUD (FLAC) - 09-28-06
The Who 1970-09-21 Aarhus, Denmark 2CD EXCELLENT AUD REMASTERED (FLAC) - 09-22-06
The Who 1968-08-10 Live At The Jaguar Club, St. Charles, IL REMASTERED AUD (FLAC) - 09-19-06
The Who 1974-05-18 Live At Charlton 1974 Complete REMASTERED (FLAC) - 09-12-06 ACTIVE
The Who xxxx-xx-xx Cry Blue Murder REMASTERED (FLAC) - 06-07-06

Chaosu
2008-09-22, 11:45 AM
no. average joe & some audio software is exactly the problem at hand.
there are only a handful of REAL audio engineers - and thats just the way life is.
leave altering live shows to them - the rest of us should keep our tweaked shows out of the trading pool.


So it's fine for You that in pool of 100 recordings which have major (repairable) issues one is remastered and rest is not circulating? or rest circulating in ther raw but low sound quality form? I don't et Your point, what should be done with bad raw shows?

direwolf-pgh
2008-09-22, 01:15 PM
So it's fine for You that in pool of 100 recordings which have major (repairable) issues one is remastered and rest is not circulating? or rest circulating in ther raw but low sound quality form? I don't et Your point, what should be done with bad raw shows?give it to someone who knows what they are doing. simple.

rspencer
2008-09-22, 01:50 PM
* "Remaster" which uses normalization is not allowed


This would be better if you specified which type of normalization.

RMS normalization is the one to avoid. Kills dynamic range. It can be used without doing much damage, but it takes a lot of trial to find the optimum settings to preserve the music. Best to avoid it.

Peak normalization is no different than applying gain. If your source is recorded with a peak of -3.2 dB, and you normalize it to -.1 dB, then you are adding gain of 3.1 dB across the board. Dynamic range is preserved, as every point is increased by the same amount, thus preserving the dynamic range.

No reason to disallow peak normalization. As above, it's no different than gain, and the majority of your original sources have had it applied.

Chaosu
2008-09-22, 02:30 PM
give it to someone who knows what they are doing. simple.
You understand there are too few sound engineers to master all recordings which need mastering, so You understand that most recordings would be never released while applying to Your rules?

direwolf-pgh
2008-09-22, 02:43 PM
give it to someone who knows what they are doing. simple.
You understand there are too few sound engineers to master all recordings which need mastering, so You understand that most recordings would be never released while applying to Your rules?I don't make rules.. I make suggestions.

If you taped the show - you can do whatever you wish. this is a no brainer.

If you are taking classic shows that have been around forever & fiddle with them.. then, IMO, you are a complete knucklehead. :bop:

my suggestion for these 'sound engineers' is this
there should be a rule: IF you seed a remaster - the ORIGINAL source must be seeded first.
this way the unaltered recording is preserved.. and mr/mrs remaster can have at it & enjoy their thing.
there have been some GREAT remasters..but these are very few and far between.

there are also people out there that remaster everything/anything...badly.
I can't think of anything worse for the trade pool. that is my opinion.

rspencer
2008-09-22, 02:48 PM
give it to someone who knows what they are doing. simple.
You understand there are too few sound engineers to master all recordings which need mastering, so You understand that most recordings would be never released while applying to Your rules?

Doesn't mean they'd never be released. Means they'd be released raw, as they were recorded (or close to it).

To many, that's a better option than being released after someone has stepped all over the show with compression, noise reduction, & EQ.

Chaosu
2008-09-22, 05:13 PM
Fine.
This is just the first time for me when someone is against spreading knowledge when it comes to recordings. So far I have met only people who wanted to share, share, share...

direwolf-pgh
2008-09-22, 05:46 PM
Fine.
This is just the first time for me when someone is against spreading knowledge when it comes to recordings. So far I have met only people who wanted to share, share, share...I see you have vlad in your sig.. this is all starting to make sense now :lol:

here !! you want to know how to be an audio engineer - try this link. (http://www.berklee.edu/summer/musicproduction.html)

sorry, i couldnt find a 'learn audio engineering in ten easy steps' e-book.

:wave:

saltman
2008-09-22, 06:26 PM
Don't forget this one also.

http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Audio-Science-Bob-Katz/dp/0240805453

U2Lynne
2008-09-22, 06:45 PM
I have heard a couple of really good remasters, but I have heard several crap remasters also. Sometimes the people who do the remaster don't realize that their listening equipment may be very different than other people's listening equipment and their remaster job is too geared towards that environment.

AAR.oner
2008-09-22, 06:46 PM
Fine.
This is just the first time for me when someone is against spreading knowledge when it comes to recordings. So far I have met only people who wanted to share, share, share...

its not about being "against spreading knowledge" or "not wanting to share" -- its about the fact that there's no tutorial that can be written, no freeware app to download

to properly re/master a recording takes years of study & practice...let me reiterate to drive the point home -- years of study & practice...not to mention the gear, which 99.999% of the engineer-wannabes will never have access to, and will never have the $ to attain...for instance, a very low-end home recording studio, i mean bare bones budgetline set up, will start in the tens of thousands US$, minimum...

the handful of cats remastering "classic" shows should be left to 00 they have the knowledge and the studios...as for the home novice with a PC, CoolEditPro, and a pair of $50 headphones -- play around & EQ the shows all you want -- have fun with it!

just keep em for yer personal use and don't trade/seed them

Chaosu
2008-09-22, 06:46 PM
wow thats almost unique sence of humour, im glad i could meet both of you

Chaosu
2008-09-22, 07:03 PM
its not about being "against spreading knowledge" or "not wanting to share" -- its about the fact that there's no tutorial that can be written, no freeware app to download

to properly re/master a recording takes years of study & practice...let me reiterate to drive the point home -- years of study & practice...not to mention the gear, which 99.999% of the engineer-wannabes will never have access to, and will never have the $ to attain...for instance, a very low-end home recording studio, i mean bare bones budgetline set up, will start in the tens of thousands US$, minimum...

I understand that point of view but what direwolf said is no even close to it. He just jumped on badly mastered shows and said stop becasue it's crap. For me it's same situation if You would said to a taper after his first (bad) tape - it's shit, stop recording. I agree with main idea of topic - remaster tags or something, but I don't see why help shouldn't be offered for those who would like to learn something. There are amateurs everywhere and some of them are good enough to compete with pros (i can't form a correct sentence in english but Pierre de Fermat as an example should make it clear). And theres nothing wrong with having sound engineering as an hobby and do that good without finishing proper studies. Sure, if You - moderators think it's bad idea to offer any help here on TTD (and community thinks the same) then don't do it. It makes no difference for me as I'm not going to master any shows and I'm not taping either so I just don't need any help (not to mention that my crappy PIII 550Mhz hardly plays flacs and I can't watch videos), but I'm not going to stay quiet when I see that kind of attitude - narrowing instead of opening - especially here where I was suprised like nowhere else with attitude of being open and friendly to eachother - thanks for that by the way.

freezer
2008-09-23, 07:39 AM
wow thats almost unique sence of humour, im glad i could meet both of you


Well, YOU came on to their site, where else did you expect to meet them all at once....

On YOUR site?





.....I'm not going to stay quiet when I see that kind of attitude.... No wonder you quote vladsmythe, with that attitude..... :lol4:

pmonk
2008-09-23, 08:52 AM
I think all recordings should be remastered

rspencer
2008-09-23, 08:28 PM
I think all recordings should be remastered

Especially yours :lol4: ;)

chinajoe
2008-09-23, 11:42 PM
so some types of normalization are ok, while others suck. how am i to tell which type of normalization is good presently, im using roxio 9 to cut tracks, and increase the volume if necessary. you can do normalization from 1x to 10x. 10x is way to much, but doing a 1-3x seems to make some recordings a little better. for the record, i use sony mdr 7506 professional headphones when doing anything w/ my recordings.

remastering old recordings should be left to people w/ the knowledge. but, new people can acquire this knowledge. helping them out would be a good thing. the new category only makes sense.

while we are at it, how about a category for the versions combining multiple sources. ive heard some terrible jobs. im not talking about patching sources for one complete version, but those "matrix" versions. usually they are complete rubbish

LazyTaper
2008-09-23, 11:50 PM
Anything done with Roxio is worthless. Pretty much everything they make is the lowest form of the associated software. Should be called Fisher Price. I bet you have SB errors in everything you have made. Normalization with Roxio. wow.

chinajoe
2008-09-24, 12:22 AM
nothing i have done w/ roxio has had any sb errors, at least to my knowledge. i should have mentioned that im fairly new to conveerting/uploading.
since roxio is so fisher price, then what would you recommend? btw, i dont have shitloads of cash to throw down on software. however, if it means i can improve my recordings then its an investment i'd consider

Five
2008-09-24, 03:26 AM
roxio is shit. it does not re-read bad sectors, provide error reports, or correct drive offsets.

use exactaudiocopy.de for PC, xAct for mac when you're extracting.

check 'the truth about offsets article' in the eac config link below in my signature.

these are both freeware

U2Lynne
2008-09-24, 10:59 AM
use exactaudiocopy.de for PC, xAct for mac when you're extracting.
Actually, XLD (http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/xld/xld-gui-20080914.tbz) I think may be better than xACT. I did a test on it and got the same exact rip as I did with EAC. More testing needs to be done since I've only tested it on one CDR I have, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the fingerprints match from the EAC extraction and the XLD extraction.

chinajoe
2008-09-24, 11:06 PM
roxio is shit. it does not re-read bad sectors, provide error reports, or correct drive offsets.

use exactaudiocopy.de for PC, xAct for mac when you're extracting.

check 'the truth about offsets article' in the eac config link below in my signature.

these are both freeware


if im extracting from a silver, then i use eac. otherwise, for the time being, its roxio. are you saying to do what i do w/ roxio, burn it, then do the eac? or should i just do if from the hard drive.

if it goes into roxio, it comes right off the memory card. you guys know, what would be the best software to use in post production before i use eac?

thanks

dcbullet
2008-09-25, 01:02 AM
if im extracting from a silver, then i use eac. otherwise, for the time being, its roxio. are you saying to do what i do w/ roxio, burn it, then do the eac? or should i just do if from the hard drive.

if it goes into roxio, it comes right off the memory card. you guys know, what would be the best software to use in post production before i use eac?

thanks

Audacity for tweaking your recordings and CD Wave for cutting the tracks.

Five
2008-09-25, 01:25 AM
chinajoe: if you're extracting from a silver or any 'audio cdr' use eac. if you're burning an audio cdr, use eac. there's no need to ever add a burning step into the lineage. If you're using roxio to do something other than extracting from a cd/cdr or burning an audio cdr then maybe its okay (?) not certain what you're asking.

saltman: sounds great! we can add that to the FAQ and start telling ppl to use XLD if they're on a mac. the offsets are correct as with EAC? :cool:

AAR.oner
2008-09-25, 07:05 AM
Five --

he's transferring his own master recordings, not from discs

if im extracting from a silver, then i use eac. otherwise, for the time being, its roxio. are you saying to do what i do w/ roxio, burn it, then do the eac? or should i just do if from the hard drive.

if it goes into roxio, it comes right off the memory card. you guys know, what would be the best software to use in post production before i use eac?

thanks

as dc mentioned, for simple audio tasks use the freeware prog Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/)...i also use it for splitting tracks, others prefer to use CD Wave for that part -- its up to you

as has been stated numerous times tho, stay away from using filters/effects yer unfamiliar with, especially if yer not trained in audio and are using a freeware prog ;) that said, you can and should use the Normalization feature in Audacity

here's a quick how-to:


Normalizing/DC Offset Correct
1. import your raw wav into Audacity
2. Effects > Normalization -- select "Remove any DC offset" and normalize to just below clipping [i usually set it to -0.1dB]...[I]do this to the whole raw file, before splitting tracks


Track Splits
1. Open your wave, Edit->Move Cursor...->Track Start and hit command-B.
2. Locate all your track splits and mark each one by hitting command-B.
3. Go to File->Export Multiple, select WAV as the export format, Split files based on:Labels, Name files:Numbering consecutively, hit Export.

Correct Sector Boundary Errors
load yer split wavs into TLH [PC] or XLD or xACT [Mac] and have it correct any SBEs before converting to flac

pmonk
2008-09-25, 10:22 AM
I think all recordings should be remastered

Especially yours :lol4: ;)

Especially mine :thumbsup

chinajoe
2008-09-26, 12:33 AM
chinajoe: if you're extracting from a silver or any 'audio cdr' use eac. if you're burning an audio cdr, use eac. there's no need to ever add a burning step into the lineage. If you're using roxio to do something other than extracting from a cd/cdr or burning an audio cdr then maybe its okay (?) not certain what you're asking.

:


i'd be using roxio 9 only on master recordings, to cut tracks and maximize
the volume when needed. it has a normalization feature, from1x to 10X. i was asking if their normalization was ok, since someone mentioned that some kinds of normalization are ok. no one has said anything was wrong w/ the 3 masters i uploaded using roxio 9. i do convert the tracks to flac via tlh w/o burning a disc.

Five
2008-09-27, 05:20 PM
instead use audacity ... roxio = joke program they sell to people like my grandma

get the latest beta (supports flac, works fine for this stuff)

go in preferences and set export quality to 16bit/44.1kHz (IMPORTANT)

load in the entire large wav file and do your normalization (its in the amplitude fx menu somewhere... easy to use)

don't screw with the eq or that stuff unless you really really (really really) know what you're doing.

cut into tracks as here:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60462
esp see the link at post #15

you can even export directly to flac

bob's your uncle!

post back here if you get stuck at any point, there are lots of people who will help out (we like talking about this stuff because if bores our wives)

chinajoe
2008-09-29, 11:22 PM
^^^

i didnt see a way i could increase the overall volume. i did try the normaliztion. it seemed to add too much. its there a way to add just a little normalization, or is it an all or nothing option?

juxtiphi
2008-10-18, 11:28 AM
so whats the verdict here? :cool: will there be a catagory for remasters or not?

I have a remaster that I would love to post here :wave:

U2Lynne
2008-10-18, 11:39 AM
We have not decided on having a single category just for remasters. It seems that there are really not many remasters out there and so far, they have been all identified clearly. So, if you want to post one, you are fine to do so, just make sure it does say Remaster in an obvious spot. Also, keep in mind that some tapers have expressed that there shows only be shared in the original unaltered way and you should be sensitive to their wishes.

Jesus Christ
2008-10-19, 04:46 AM
the best thing i read in this thread so far is that there are people who are offering up remasters of shows that have already been remastered.
:lol4:

direwolf-pgh
2008-10-19, 12:17 PM
the best thing i read in this thread so far is that there are people who are offering up remasters of shows that have already been remastered.
:lol4:they should be crucified !

Jesus Christ
2008-10-23, 01:27 AM
they should be crucified !you nailed it! :thumbsup

direwolf-pgh
2008-12-07, 09:52 PM
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=67155 :thumbsup Xontar is right on.

In order:

1. Sound quality != fidelity.

2. Anyone can apply the same changes you do to your sources when playing them back - I have to anyway, and I'd be astounded if there's many people who don't put on your recordings and have to, at minimum, twiddle the bass and treble knobs on their speakers to get better sound for their setup - same as they'd have to do with the original source.

3. Can you at least tell me the source of your Rochester recording? Your lineage of "AUD>?>FLAC" has, somehow, fallen short of convincing me of the superiority of your source.

4. Where, and by whom, is longliverock known for inferior sources and multiple remastered recordings being uploaded? I can, simply by clicking on the link to your profile, find 28 almost certainly redundant "remastered" recordings on The Traders' Den, but I see no such thing on longliverock. I can think of one instance (Dallas 1967) when they posted an improved source after seeding an inferior one - the day after, in fact, as soon as someone gave them the better source. Not quite the same as digging up a source that's gone off the tracker, applying some EQ, renaming the files and uploading it with your name the only one in the text file.

5. You and I both know god damned well there will always be people to download the new torrents at the top of the list. Doesn't mean your "remasters" are a good thing.