PDA

View Full Version : do remasters fit with the site's mission statement?


Kung Poo
2009-09-20, 05:23 AM
i don't think these remasters are in line with TTD's mission statement at all. they fit better at DIME, but not here (if the mission statement is serious).

it seems to me that "remasters" are nothing more than an opportunity for nerds to announce their brilliance at twisting knobs to a worldwide audience.
we've all got a graphic equalizer on our hi-fi, ain't we? why do we need these social retards to do it for us?

in my opinion this site should lead the way and ban remasters entirely.

Five
2009-09-20, 08:10 AM
everybody tell us what you think about this

also don't say some guy does good remasters unless you've heard the before and after comparison. most of it is pure rubbish. :mad:

only a couple guys got a good reputation

schmoe75
2009-09-20, 08:15 AM
No, Ban them
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29966

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=56066

showtaper
2009-09-20, 09:59 AM
Not going to do any good. Those chronic re-master-bators will continue to
tinker and not mention it when they post.......

Kung Poo
2009-09-20, 10:21 AM
thanks for the links to previous debates.:thumbsup

it seems that this question has always provoked strong opinions.

what i hate most about it is the way that the guys that do these remasters feel that they just have to share them with the world. i just saw a thread on this site where a dude calling himself TheFace07 found it "personally" offensive that someone suggested his remaster needed more bass... he was then accused of sharing for the sake of his own ego and he apparently lost his mind over the "insult".... does this website need to provide a stage for self-obsessed primadonnas like that?

GhostInTheMachine
2009-09-20, 01:01 PM
Not going to do any good. Those chronic re-master-bators will continue to
tinker and not mention it when they post.......agree! making a bad situation much worse!!

Those in the know should know who to avoid and which versions are worth collecting.
read this thread: http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29038

daddyray
2009-09-20, 01:26 PM
Ideally we should trade as raw a recording as is available...if someone wants to rumple n fetish them on their own so be it.....
If a show has been worked over some kinda way it is only correct to LOUDLY announce that that is what is posted is not the raw recording.....and pride is a sin no matter the guise, so fuck the prideful dinks.

Five
2009-09-20, 05:03 PM
Not going to do any good. Those chronic re-master-bators will continue to
tinker and not mention it when they post.......
I don't think people will do that because the bad ones only do it for the praise, right? :lmao:

using st5 checksums it is possible to verify exact identical audio content and effectively police ttd content. there is an archive of fingerprints in the inactive forum. Search the thread titles of that forum by date in YYYY-MM-DD format to view checksums of known sources.

we've busted guys faking txt files like this many times :wave: :lol4:

everybody can help us keep the trade pool clean by using the little red 'report this post' triangle (located at the bottom-left of every post). we're relying on the hardcore collectors of each band to keep us informed what is trash and what is not. its a great way to give back to the community (and yourself!).


There has to be a remasters 'safe list' for people who have demonstrated excellent ability when it comes to retouching shows. That having been said we will not sleep until every raw tape has been found! :thumbsup :wave:

jfaninord
2009-09-20, 08:53 PM
How about banning any mastering and only allowing raw unedited recordings here?

This does not make sense to me. When a particular recording is in need of a little more work to sound its best, I don't see a problem with it. This "safe list" idea would be nice though. Sure, it would be best if all the work happened up front before initially circulating the recording but that doesn't always happen and sometimes a remaster is a very good thing.

mooncusser
2009-09-20, 09:03 PM
However, in the same light, taking a perfectly good recording and turning up the bass then putting it back out as a "remaster" is completely unnecessary.

schmoe75
2009-09-20, 09:19 PM
How about banning any mastering and only allowing raw unedited recordings here?
You're missing the point. It's one thing for the taper to tweak their recording VS some attention seeking, clueless leech, eq'n it and seeding it as a Remaster OR some bullshit company tweak'n and selling it as a Silver.

There will always be a swath of the population who will buy Silvers because they don't know about torrent sites and it comes with fancy packaging/artwork, but these are the same people who don't understand what's wrong with mp3.

What leechs do with something once they get it can't be controlled, but when a taper shares their Master recording, there's zero reason to allow Un-Authorized Remasters to pollute the pool.

rspencer
2009-09-20, 11:26 PM
What leechs do with something once they get it can't be controlled, but when a taper shares their Master recording, there's zero reason to allow Un-Authorized Remasters to pollute the pool.

Agreed.

Mastering is a different beast. Whatever tweaking done by the taper, that IS the original source.

Although if anyone wants the raw source, bathroom breaks & all, just lemme know. One of my biggest torrents at DIME got to live the bathroom run. :lol:

dukenukem555
2009-09-21, 09:24 AM
As long as people clearly say that there shows are remastered, I think it is ok.

In order to avoid confusion with the original source, I would suggest to forbid including the original artwork.

juxtiphi
2009-09-21, 12:06 PM
everybody tell us what you think about this

also don't say some guy does good remasters unless you've heard the before and after comparison. most of it is pure rubbish. :mad:

only a couple guys got a good reputation



well I must chime in here,

I wonder if I have any kind of reputaion to speak of.

I have done about 35 reworks most with the tapers approval.

I spend hours and hours cleaning the original of digi noises and cuts then I spend more hours listening and re-listening and comparing samples to the original for an improvement. When I feel I have something worthwhile I send samples to the taper for their approval and do not post unless they give their blessing. sometimes all I do is clean out the bad noises and then re-post as there is no need to listen to clicks and mic rustle if they can be removed without hurting the music.

I have done reworks from vinyls and pressed cds that have been ruined by lables in their attempt to "ehem" improve the content but most of my reworks have been approved by the taper.

I also make it very clear that my posts have been sonically altered so there is no way anyone can download one of mine and say hey this isnt the original because if they spent even a second reading the description they would have read the warning.

I use Adobe Audition with another top notch program called Izotope Ozone for the bulk of my enhanced versions. this is not a simple eq job and cannot be compared to twisting some knobs on a stereo which is not the same as using Izotope which also does mid/side processing .

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/

My only intention is to improve the listening experience. Not everyone simply collects recordings for shelving and not everyone is interested in hearing a flat one dimensional recording and If I can pump some life into what would other wise be a limited listen i.e. once or twice then shelved and make it something you would want to listen to all the time then I see no reason not to.

I have an Frank Marino rework that is so good you'd think it was from another source but all thanks go to the taper so there is no confusion with my posts at all. Its running at jamtothis, I would have posted it here but why do I want to put up with people who will bad mouth it without even hearing the results.

Go to dime http://www.dimeadozen.org/account-details.php?id=21208 and look over my posts and check out what people have said and if you have a mind to prove me wrong download a track or to and see for yourself its its shit or not as just saying it is doesnt make it so.

Homebrew101
2009-09-21, 03:29 PM
I personally have a few shows that would/did sound like total sludge before being remastered by some BUT to get back to the actual question in post #1, I do think that having remasters at TTD does conflict with the Mission statement here

let other sites handle remasters BAN THEFACE!

Kung Poo
2009-09-21, 05:20 PM
this is not a simple eq job and cannot be compared to twisting some knobs on a stereo which is not the same as using Izotope which also does mid/side processing.So does the Waves Stereo Imager, 10 seconds of sliding things around and you have a different recording that you could just enjoy in your own bedroom... except for the fact that:I have an Frank Marino rework that is so good you'd think it was from another source.for some weird reason you remaster freaks just can't stop your left hands from finding out what your right hands are doing.
(by which i mean: you can't help yourself from telling the whole world how good you are with a piece of software... and that is sharing for all the wrong reasons (ie: giving because you get something out of giving)).

Dana Gillespie
2009-09-21, 06:01 PM
let other sites handle remasters BAN THEFACE!:clap:

Five
2009-09-21, 07:03 PM
well I must chime in here,

I wonder if I have any kind of reputaion to speak of.

I have done about 35 reworks most with the tapers approval.

I spend hours and hours cleaning the original of digi noises and cuts then I spend more hours listening and re-listening and comparing samples to the original for an improvement. When I feel I have something worthwhile I send samples to the taper for their approval and do not post unless they give their blessing. sometimes all I do is clean out the bad noises and then re-post as there is no need to listen to clicks and mic rustle if they can be removed without hurting the music.

I have done reworks from vinyls and pressed cds that have been ruined by lables in their attempt to "ehem" improve the content but most of my reworks have been approved by the taper.

I also make it very clear that my posts have been sonically altered so there is no way anyone can download one of mine and say hey this isnt the original because if they spent even a second reading the description they would have read the warning.

I use Adobe Audition with another top notch program called Izotope Ozone for the bulk of my enhanced versions. this is not a simple eq job and cannot be compared to twisting some knobs on a stereo which is not the same as using Izotope which also does mid/side processing .

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/

My only intention is to improve the listening experience. Not everyone simply collects recordings for shelving and not everyone is interested in hearing a flat one dimensional recording and If I can pump some life into what would other wise be a limited listen i.e. once or twice then shelved and make it something you would want to listen to all the time then I see no reason not to.

I have an Frank Marino rework that is so good you'd think it was from another source but all thanks go to the taper so there is no confusion with my posts at all. Its running at jamtothis, I would have posted it here but why do I want to put up with people who will bad mouth it without even hearing the results.
J, with all due respect and I'm sorry to say that this is below the bar for ttd. I thought you knew blumlein's matrix its part of his patents from the 1930s. stereo didn't become standard for 50 years after that.

from now on you gotta know blumlein's patents if you want to post a remastered show at ttd :mad: seriously, folks. Kung Poo is right, we've been spinning our wheels when it comes to maintaining the highest possible quality standards of all torrent sites. we are getting back on track.

J, look at effects>channel mixer in audition and study the MS presets. its like baking a cake from scratch rather than using a duncan heinz mix or some crap like that. you've got the right kind of mind for this so you must learn the fundamentals. you'll thank yourself.

start reading books like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Audio-Art-Science-Katz/dp/0240805453

#1 best selling audio book on amazon. check the comments.

read some threads over at gearslutz.org. this is minimum ttd requirements if we want to stick with the mission statement.


If you still don't know what you're doing but are getting pretty decent results ... keep working at it and keep that shit to yourself :nono:


Go to dime http://www.dimeadozen.org/account-details.php?id=21208 and look over my posts and check out what people have said and if you have a mind to prove me wrong download a track or to and see for yourself its its shit or not as just saying it is doesnt make it so.
it means nothing without a before and after comparison... please post a small before & after FLAC of something that you worked on and make us believers. if its bad please don't take it personally but we're gonna rip you apart because we're sophisticated enough to give you a much much much more technical review.

dude hope you're not mad at me... we're just talking here and I feel very strongly about this issue. :wave:

juxtiphi
2009-09-21, 07:05 PM
So does the Waves Stereo Imager, 10 seconds of sliding things around and you have a different recording that you could just enjoy in your own bedroom... except for the fact that:for some weird reason you remaster freaks just can't stop your left hands from finding out what your right hands are doing.
(by which i mean: you can't help yourself from telling the whole world how good you are with a piece of software... and that is sharing for all the wrong reasons (ie: giving because you get something out of giving)).

tapers get other tapes from trade to make themselves happy I make people who actually want to listen to the music more than once happy . I dont really get anything out of it but a thank you and thats enough for me.


hey poo have you ever bought an official live release from any band cause if you have then you bought something someone tweaked before releasing it.

and do you believe that your recorder has actually captured what the event sounded like in the hall? when the bass is almost non existant or the highs sound like they are coming from inside someones pocket?

all though not all tapes can be helped whats so bad about exposing those hidden freqs and making it sound more like it did live?. just because you cannot hear them in the master doesn't mean they are not there and with the right ear they can and should be brought out. and similarly if they arent there to begin with there is no way of improving them.

like I said if you want to hear a flat one dimensional tape then so be it but there is no reason to put down folks like bluecongo, winston or myself who take the time to make it right just because of your purist attitudes.

btw I was going to post the FM show here and I had already gotten U2Lynne's permission to do so but like I said why open myself to ridiculous criticisms from people who arent even willing to give it a chance plus you dont need to download it if you dont like it so why complain its not really hurting you at all. maybe if you'd give my reworks a listen you'd actually be impressed.

Ps. here are the tapers comments about my latest rework at dime. in his emails to me he actually said the files sounded gorgeous.

juxtiphi: you're a master at what you do... it's like hearing a studio recording with added audience

thank you very much for the hours upon hours of meticulous work you put into this...


i can't stress this enough folks, praise this man !


_sibbz_
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess not all tapers feel the same way you do about this freak and there are plenty of other comments echoing these sentiments by many others who have downloaded my posts and realized it was well worth it.

sure there are some out here who dont take the time I do when they try and improve something but I think eventually they all fall by the wayside as time goes by because folks can hear what a lousy job they did and simply stop responding to their posts all together.

As for me I've been posting for just over 5 years without complaint and I can guarantee that I spend far and away more time and effort in my reworks than someone who twiddles a knob for ten seconds and thats why my posts have stayed alive on the tracker for years cause even when I'm not seeding them other folks are always helping to keep them alive.

daddyray
2009-09-21, 07:08 PM
can't you make the font any smaller... I mean I can still read that.

juxtiphi
2009-09-21, 07:11 PM
J,
dude hope you're not mad at me... we're just talking here and I feel very strongly about this issue. :wave:

Im not mad at all my friend your opinions are just that opinions as are mine so no worries.

Ive never upped anything here as I know how this site rolls and when I had the inkling too do so I asked Lynne about it first to get her permission which she gave.

I dont mind the fact that you want to keep this site as it was started and I'm not saying that all remasters are great Im just saying not all folks who ehem "twiddle knobs" are ruining stuff.

ps. the reaso there arnt more samples in the post is due to the fact that anyone at dime who grabbed my rework already downloaded the original.

Five
2009-09-21, 07:14 PM
hey poo have you ever bought an official live release from any band cause if you have then you bought something someone tweaked before releasing it.
sure, man her's some I've bought:
Death Magnetic
Vapour Trails
St. Anger
Dark Side of the Moon 30th Anniversary Edition
Hendrix re-re-masters

the problem is much bigger than ttd. ttd has to be a safehouse, this is the site's mission.

juxtiphi
2009-09-21, 07:17 PM
five I just pmd you

Five
2009-09-21, 07:19 PM
Im not mad at all my friend your opinions are just that opinions as are mine so no worries.

Ive never upped anything here as I know how this site rolls and when I had the inkling too do so I asked Lynne about it first to get her permission which she gave.

I dont mind the fact that you want to keep this site as it was started and I'm not saying that all remasters are great Im just saying not all folks who ehem "twiddle knobs" are ruining stuff.

ps. the reaso there arnt more samples in the post is due to the fact that anyone at dime who grabbed my rework already downloaded the original.
phew, we're in agreement then.

we had a good thing going, used to be WR and not a whole lot else now its TheFace007 spewing diaria all over our members' collections. remasters were total anarchy and the members kept an eye on one another, spoke to one another because it was a much smaller community. now everybody and their cousin is a n00b gloryseeker with ham fists. and a drive full of warez installed yesterday. :rolleyes:

Dana Gillespie
2009-09-21, 08:07 PM
now its TheFace007 spewing diaria all over our members' collections. everybody and their cousin is a n00b gloryseeker with ham fists. and a drive full of warez installed yesterday. :rolleyes::clap:
it doesn't get fairer than that.

freezer
2009-09-22, 07:31 PM
..........

the problem is much bigger than ttd. ttd has to be a safehouse, this is the site's mission.

Does this mean you're finally ready to discuss the banning of all silver boots?


As you well know, almost ALL silver boots are 'remasters' of UNKNOWN GENERATION recordings.

chinajoe
2009-09-22, 11:47 PM
i think the best way around this is to include the raw version
in the torrent as well. maybe limit which generation can be remastered and uploaded. i wouldnt want a 10th gen tape remastered.

as some of you stated earlier, certain peeps do a great job while others suck.

another way is to have a list of people who have done a great job on remastering and let those people upload remasters. people can be added to the list, and people can be taken away from the list.

for the record, the most i usually do is increase the volume.



with all that being said, what about people who make matrix mixes?
wouldnt that go against what ttd is all about?

Five
2009-09-23, 02:08 AM
Does this mean you're finally ready to discuss the banning of all silver boots?


As you well know, almost ALL silver boots are 'remasters' of UNKNOWN GENERATION recordings.
I would like to get rid of the silvers that are crap remasters/re-issues of documented stuff.

we also don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water... but the way things are these days the bath water is an ocean and the baby is a minnow. :mad:

freezer
2009-09-23, 09:28 AM
I would like to get rid of the silvers that are crap remasters/re-issues of documented stuff.

So how're you gonna decide which is what?

OR who's gonna decide?


Shit-fire, for sure, the longer you wait to take that first step, the harder it's going to be to decide which is the "site-approved" version.

As I'm sure we're all aware, some shows/recordings have been booted numerous times, with varying degrees of eq, pitch and speed control issues, dropouts, intentional editing, unintentional editing, ....then you get to the best of these new innovations, remasters of poor quality boots that actually sound worse than the bootleg. And many other variables we could mention.

And some titles are just copies of older boots with a new set of problems and issues tacked on.


SO.........
Is the mono version with clearest sound but with the speed fluxuation issues better than the stereo version with the loud hiss and dropouts and that is edited on disc two to make it fit on a 74 minute cdr.....

OR would you allow the new remaster matrix in 5.1 which kept the speed issues intact while editing back the missing material from disc 2 to the hissy stereo copy?

Choose wisely................


Or maybe you might wanna simplify the entire problem and just interpert the TTD mission statement with more emphasis on quality over quantity.

which will mean you have to ban all them boots that do not conform, right?

choose wisely............................



Hey, I know of a Led Zeppelin 1975 show that has nine or ten different silver (or cdr) boot titles, none of which are very good, so, who's gonna make the call on something like that? (maybe the taper of the show? maybe some LZ collector who favors one japanese bootlegger over another?)


And who gets to answer on the numerous bitching threads asking why someone's favorite silver boot ain't allowed here, in favor of some different "title"???

Or why won't you allow the latest EV silver taken from the newest WR remaster because you banned the original WR remaster so that EV were forced to snatch it over at dime............ sounds like a fun time ahead.





we also don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water... but the way things are these days the bath water is an ocean and the baby is a minnow. :mad:

Yeah, do tell that to the mini-disc tapers, huh?

TTD staff took a stand, set a cut-off date and that was it...Period.


Do it, throw out that baby with the bathwater.

That garbage will still be available for anyone that continues to look for it.





Good luck, which ever way your wind blows.

AAR.oner
2009-09-23, 10:46 AM
to briefly answer the ? -- yes, i think some remasters do fit with the site's mission statement

remastering a shitty old recording to make it less shitty is not a bad thing, whether it be audio or video...depends on the knowledge/experience of the person doing the work

Kung Poo
2009-09-23, 01:20 PM
And some titles are just copies of older boots with a new set of problems and issues tacked on.That is so true.
And some of these "remasters" are actually re-works of the newer boots with the newer problems tacked on.
i can think of one in particular where the guy responsible for the "remaster" says in his notes that "there is some digital noise on track 5 that appears to have been added during the transfer from analog to digital, it could not have been present on the analog master reel because it is a uniquely digital type of noise"....
why circulate a remaster of a silver CD that has been shown to have digital errors on it?? the community should have worked to suppress the version with digital errors and get the source back into circulation, rather than a re-work of the error-ridden CD with a new improved EQ setting.

theface07
2009-09-28, 09:22 AM
This really is a pointless and redundant argument. People keep claiming "preserve the raw original recordings". These are bootlegs. Unless there is 100% confirmation that the recording is direct from a master source, you will NEVER get the raw original recording. Furthermore, even if a recording did come direct from the master source, whos to say that the person who transferred it did so adequately and without significant alteration to the original recording? Most bootlegs, YES EVEN ON THIS SITE THAT APPARENTLY PRESERVES MASTER RECORDINGS, have been "tinkered" with in one way or another, especially silver discs that often don't even have the correct pitch!
And don't even talk about audience recordings taken from some cassette tape. If it isn't from the original master, it has been "tinkered" with greatly, either through editing or simple degradation from high generation tape transfers. If someone can take a dirty sounding tape transfer and make it sound better, it shouldn't be considered musical sacrilege. 99.9% of the time, an audience recording once it gets to flac or shn format on this site or any others has already changed dramatically from it's original form.

It's sad to see immature and uneducated comments of a personal nature where the only arguments should be based on audio fidelity and edited techniques. Such people are the real polluters and do nothing but taint this forum with negativity and a teenage mentality. Even if I or anyone else who uploads a remastered recording does a horrible job, there is nowhere that says you have to download it. It's too bad this is being made an issue. There are a lot of other things that should be addressed that are "actual" problems.
Thanks to those who are rational and attempt to actually discuss things without resorting to childish attacks. Just for the record, here are some of the enlightened messages Dana Gillespie has been sending my way:

"and by the way, you are very easily taken in, and you reveal far to much about yourself. I'm guessing the Parson's Nose was your mother's favourite part of the turkey she married? is that right?"

"A REAL MAN WOULD NEVER HAVE REACTED AT ALL (can you understand that? testosterone kicks in and the shit you don't want to hear just goes over your head). come out to L.A., i'll introduce you to some of the quietest men you ever met: all of them quiet because they have nothing to prove, but they'd cut your throat without blinking if you asked for it.
maybe you'll understand that one day, little boy.
i ain't the first person on this site to note that you take things very personally; i won't be the last.
sad for you that you let a frigging woman upset you.
sad piece of dog shit. "

"oh yeah, i forget, you're SO intellectual... you sad fucking idiot; you miss half of the comments made to you because you're so fucking dumb. you are very sad, trying to boost your ego by playing around with other people's music... why don't you make some music of your own??? oh... i guess you can't.
dumb mother-fucker.... if it wasn't so obvious that you live at home with your mother, i'd guess that she was dead and that you were fucking her corpse on a daily basis.
if you had balls, you wouldn't react to criticism.... you fucking moron. "

"Oh dear... you sad, pathetic little child.
grow some balls."

And this is all because of my attempt to defend a remastered recording I uploaded. Such people are a real scourge and make no attempt to back up their criticism with actual facts or points. According to Dana, I need to grow some balls and be a real man because of my desire to defend my work.

Dana Gillespie
2009-09-28, 12:33 PM
I need to grow some balls and be a real man because of my desire to defend my work.Work?
Gee, you sure sound egocentric when you put it like that.;)
re: the quotes that you posted.... :redface: :lol4: :clap:
but, hey, wait a minute, FACE07... you only posted the things that I said...... are you painting a fair and balanced picture of this conversation??? i mean, a really fair picture???

anyone can check The Who, Munich '72 thread. anyone can see how it happened: i say "you've reduced the bass", then you say "I'm personally offended", then i ask "do you remaster for your ego", then you say "don't get personal!!!!"

but, FACE07, you took it personal way back when it was just a little criticism of the "remaster"...... you need a little more confidence in your work.

:love:

Five
2009-09-29, 01:15 PM
Some people say there's a difference between the decompressed FLAC>wav but I haven't detected it.
Some people have no idea what they're talking about.
its elementary to prove/disprove whether a fileset is identical or not. seriously.

rspencer
2009-09-29, 05:27 PM
This really is a pointless and redundant argument. People keep claiming "preserve the raw original recordings". These are bootlegs. Unless there is 100% confirmation that the recording is direct from a master source, you will NEVER get the raw original recording.

Thus making any alteration merely that, not remastering. It can be EQed, normalized, pitch-corrected, sped up or slowed down, but without using the master, it is not remastering.

jfaninord
2009-09-29, 11:10 PM
I've not missed the point at all. Pay no attention to these attention-seeking folk? That is my solution.

The point is where would one draw the line? Does only the taper (or perhaps initial seeder? someone in between?) have the right to tweak the recording for it to be ttd-appropriate? I don't expect all tapers to be experienced with editing and mastering -- some people just aren't as interested in that stuff. Sure, some (a lot) of what people do with remasters is subjective but not all of it.

Much better solution would be to add some requirement for documenting what exactly was done in the remaster work, maybe require both before and after samples so we don't have to download completely blindly, form a safe list etc. It doesn't make sense to me for the site not to allow an improved recording to be posted.

What if a taper forgets/loses his mics but another taper shares his signal so that they end up with identical recordings, then each goes home and masters their own copy with differing results? Is one more suitable for circulation than the other? And is a 44.1kHz/16bit version of a recording allowed after the 96kHz/24bit version has already been seeded? You have to place rules and rationalize all of these possibilities -- it's not as simple as, say, minidisc masters.



You're missing the point. It's one thing for the taper to tweak their recording VS some attention seeking, clueless leech, eq'n it and seeding it as a Remaster OR some bullshit company tweak'n and selling it as a Silver.

There will always be a swath of the population who will buy Silvers because they don't know about torrent sites and it comes with fancy packaging/artwork, but these are the same people who don't understand what's wrong with mp3.

What leechs do with something once they get it can't be controlled, but when a taper shares their Master recording, there's zero reason to allow Un-Authorized Remasters to pollute the pool.

freezer
2009-09-30, 01:47 AM
...Much better solution would be to add some requirement for documenting what exactly was done in ....

OK, that would just about exclude almost all "silver" bootlegs, right? You AIN'T getting much documentation on ANY 'silvers', hmmmm?

WHO knows what 'tweaking' is done by the bootleg 'labels' in addition to not knowing any other lineage on them there 'silvers'....

Hell, there's some "remaster-ers" out there that specialize in using unknown gen recordings and then "tweaking" the lineage also.... oops, sorry, "tweaking lineage"...sorry, I meant to say that they call it "speculating on the lineage" or "guesstimating the lineage"

and you can find some of these in the ABT forum here and now.

oh well.....

AAR.oner
2009-09-30, 07:18 AM
form a safe list etc. It doesn't make sense to me for the site not to allow an improved recording to be posted.



:clap:

freezer
2009-09-30, 08:33 AM
So who's to say which recording has been "improved" by 'tweaking',

especially IF the unblemished recording IS NOT used for said 'tweaking'???

AAR.oner
2009-09-30, 08:49 AM
staff

and if people don't like it, tough shit...d/l from another site

freezer
2009-09-30, 06:00 PM
staff

and if people don't like it, tough shit...d/l from another site



By the way, what if the original taper doesn't like the "remaster" ???

Still going to allow it at TTD and stick it to the taper?

:wtf:

Five
2009-09-30, 07:00 PM
technically, it could happen, but we would do our utmost to prevent this, communicate with everybody involved. :wave:

pmonk
2009-09-30, 07:00 PM
I think zep phan does a real good job - so his stuff should be board approved!

Five
2009-09-30, 07:03 PM
yeah, that's pretty much a given :thumbsup

dcbullet
2009-09-30, 07:50 PM
By the way, what if the original taper doesn't like the "remaster" ???

Still going to allow it at TTD and stick it to the taper?

:wtf:

We don't pull shows at the tapers request. If the taper doesn't want his show messed with, he shouldn't circulate it. And I'm not going to try to police and figure out which taper is real or not. This is the internet. How the hell do I know who is who?

freezer
2009-09-30, 10:39 PM
We don't pull shows at the tapers request.

Maybe that should be clearly stated as part of the site's mission statement. Very clearly stated.


But, yeah, we all remember those U2 threads about just that.

And I remember that a certain tape in question was already acknowleged to be that of the guy making the complaints.

And he got nowhere, we all remember it well. (Even though Pete Schweddy and his attorney might not be visible any longer....)




If the taper doesn't want his show messed with, he shouldn't circulate it.
No kidding.

Maybe that should be stated as part of the site's mission statement also.





And I'm not going to try to police and figure out which taper is real or not. This is the internet. How the hell do I know who is who?

Well, maybe it shouldn't be left up to you if you can't tell. Honestly, why should you be expected to do a job or task you can't figure out?

Maybe there needs to be someone on staff that specializes in knowing about master recordings and the myriad remaster-ers that now abound.


This is only a discussion, these are only suggestions.

Hell, the site could continue with the status quo and a mod can kill this discussion and that's the end of that.

You folks don't need to ban remasters or even "remasters of remasters", especially when there are multiple versions of the same show from different bootleggers already available here. And doing quite well, bringing in lots of new members, many of whom don't really care about who what when where and why, as long as it sounds 'good'.


Maybe this discussion about "quality over quantity" as a part of the site's mission statement is a non-issue considering what percent of the site's traffic in only interested in the "tunez" -- not where the recording came from nor how many levels of eq are now layered on said recording.



TTD might only need a way to sort out all the "remaster-ers"....after all, "you can't tell the players without a scorecard" -- right?

AAR.oner
2009-09-30, 11:43 PM
it is stated clearly in the FAQ:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/faq.php?faq=removal#faq_taper_removal

freezer
2009-10-01, 08:47 AM
it is stated clearly in the FAQ:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/faq.php?faq=removal#faq_taper_removal

cool, it says that THIS site's policy is similar to that at a "major torrent site".

Obviously that was written before TTD became a major torrent site.

However, we are discussing a possible clarification to the current TTD policy on remasters.

Maybe staff will have to reconsider this part of TTD's mission statement also, as it will come as a part of banning remasters.

There are always mitigating circumstances.

Every case is NOT always the same.

scoobie
2009-10-01, 02:31 PM
No, Ban them
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29966

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=56066

Remasters should at least be regulated by an official qualified definition.

Within reason, certain modifications must be allowed to address tape flaws, but certain other adjustments should not be permitted.

Correct for speed, etc., but it's a pain in the neck when someone screws around with the EQ before I get the tape. Some of the recent Nirvana uploads, for example.

Five
2009-10-01, 07:22 PM
:goodpost:

chinajoe
2009-10-02, 01:34 AM
if you limit what can be done, then how about limiting which software could be used?

Kung Poo
2009-10-02, 02:24 AM
if you limit what can be done, then how about limiting which software could be used?Exactly. Just like Sony Vegas is banned from the video torrents.
Re-Masterers seem to forget that all software imparts a unique sound upon the music. Cubase, Logic, Pro-Tools all have their own sound. It may be a very subtle variance, but it exists.
Every digital generation added to a lineage is in some form a convolution of the original recording, no matter how expensive or professional the software.

On the issue of proving that people are telling the truth about lineage or taper identities... well, i don't trust many lineages at many other places. I download the stuff because i want the music, no matter what; but that's not in line with this site's unique mission statement. i don't know why people lie about lineages; it seems that there are people who are desperate to have their name related to the music in some form. Over at Dime i am constantly amazed by the number of people that have miraculously obtained access to 40-year-old Master recordings. A lot of Master>DAT and Master>WAV>FLAC stuff; you have to wonder if these people are looking for more from the sharing experience than merely sharing. I think the insistence upon "unknown generation" becoming a mandatory aspect of any lineage that can not be varified is a good thing.

With all of that trash going on, remasters just add a whole load of rotting vegetables to the pot. Stew 'em up for long enough and even the good vegetables taste like mush and the rotten vegetables get lost in the mix. That's not a suitable attitude for the 21st Century. My grandparents boiled the shit out of their vegetables, but in this day and age we understand the benefit of nutrition -- and that means steaming our vegetables gently so that they keep their flavor, their color and their crunch.

schmoe75
2009-10-02, 12:35 PM
Just like Sony Vegas is banned from the video torrents.
No it isn't. If you're gonna post using a bullshit alias, get a fucking clue & get the facts straight.

theface07
2009-10-02, 01:05 PM
Thus making any alteration merely that, not remastering. It can be EQed, normalized, pitch-corrected, sped up or slowed down, but without using the master, it is not remastering.

Ahhhh what? This is not correct at all. A remastered recording is simply a recording that has been altered from its original state in a specific format. This does not include remixing, which could be done if the original multitrack master was available. A remastered recording does not have to come from the original master. You're confusing terminology here. I have MANY recordings, released officially, that have been remastered but are not from the original master tapes as they were either damaged or unavailable as I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. Any edits to a recording that alter the frequency response, channel levels, compression levels, pitch, etc. are EXACTLY remastering!

EX: The US Who's Next remastered audio disc from I believe it was 95 or 96, prior to the release of the deluxe edition, was remastered from the best available tapes. It was NOT remastered from the original master tapes. It was missing at the time. The subsequent deluxe edition was remastered from the original tapes after they were recovered.

Again, it's important people recognize the terms used and the proper definitions.

theface07
2009-10-02, 01:15 PM
Since no one is going to agree whether remastered recordings should be allowed or whether they are superior to the source recordings, it should be necessary that the person who uploads the remastered recording provide samples of each version to let the user compare the 2 and decide whether its worth a download. There's no way to say "THIS IS DEFINITELY THE SUPERIOR VERSION THAT EVERYONE WILL PREFER."
I know some people here think they have that ability but they are speaking for themselves and that's it, as much as they might think they are an authority or official spokesmen for everyone using the site. Perception of sound is subjective and varies from person to person. I don't see why an alternate version should be banned if there are users who appreciate them.
As far as all these childish personal comments go, these are the people who should be silenced. They do nothing but add negativity and the tendency towards blind ignorance to this great site.
I mean seriously, does someone who adds the following tags for this thread:
"ban the face07, face07 is a tool, face07 is just a tweaker, live & let live - right?, playing with software, theface07 curried mutton, tweaker!"
really have anything worthwhile to contribute? Maybe so. If they do, I've completely missed the point of free trade and technical discussions about audio data manipulation..
I guess my gargantuan ego is too big for me to notice any purpose. :hmm:

theface07
2009-10-02, 01:22 PM
Exactly. Just like Sony Vegas is banned from the video torrents.
Re-Masterers seem to forget that all software imparts a unique sound upon the music. Cubase, Logic, Pro-Tools all have their own sound. It may be a very subtle variance, but it exists.
Every digital generation added to a lineage is in some form a convolution of the original recording, no matter how expensive or professional the software.

On the issue of proving that people are telling the truth about lineage or taper identities... well, i don't trust many lineages at many other places. I download the stuff because i want the music, no matter what; but that's not in line with this site's unique mission statement. i don't know why people lie about lineages; it seems that there are people who are desperate to have their name related to the music in some form. Over at Dime i am constantly amazed by the number of people that have miraculously obtained access to 40-year-old Master recordings. A lot of Master>DAT and Master>WAV>FLAC stuff; you have to wonder if these people are looking for more from the sharing experience than merely sharing. I think the insistence upon "unknown generation" becoming a mandatory aspect of any lineage that can not be varified is a good thing.

With all of that trash going on, remasters just add a whole load of rotting vegetables to the pot. Stew 'em up for long enough and even the good vegetables taste like mush and the rotten vegetables get lost in the mix. That's not a suitable attitude for the 21st Century. My grandparents boiled the shit out of their vegetables, but in this day and age we understand the benefit of nutrition -- and that means steaming our vegetables gently so that they keep their flavor, their color and their crunch.

Nice vegetable analogy. I guess you have no technical way of explaining your point other than to say IT SUCKS LIKE OVERCOOKED VEGETABLES!
Audio editing software does NOT alter a recording just by being within the DAW. This is preposterous. A WAV file put in a DAW and then saved as a WAV file will be IDENTICAL to the original WAV file. If you make edits or adjustments within the DAW, obviously the sound will be altered. Whether it is better or worse is obviously up for debate.
It's unfortunate that you seem more concerned with lineage than the "actual" sound. Yes, history of a recording is important but if someone has a better sounding version of an already circulating recording, albeit one with less complete lineage, it would be stupid to fault that person or ban them because of such a bureaucratic reason. Maybe if you're working for an accounting firm or in an office somewhere this would be right. But when it comes to audio, the AUDIO should be the benchmark.

Kung Poo
2009-10-02, 01:36 PM
No it isn't. If you're gonna post using a bullshit alias, get a fucking clue & get the facts straight.My bad. Excuse me. As for Aliases being bullshit.... we'll hasn't everyone got one?

Kung Poo
2009-10-02, 01:43 PM
A WAV file put in a DAW and then saved as a WAV file will be IDENTICAL to the original WAV file. If you make edits or adjustments within the DAW, obviously the sound will be altered.well yeah, i think the essence of this debate takes for granted that alterations will be made during a remaster.

theface07
2009-10-02, 02:52 PM
well yeah, i think the essence of this debate takes for granted that alterations will be made during a remaster.

Takes for granted? Do you mean assumes?
When it comes to digital editing, there is no generational damage done to an audio file if kept in the same format, regardless of if it is opened in a DAW. It's not like a physical tape...
I believe that was one of your claims and thus, my rebuke.
Please clarify your point.

AAR.oner
2009-10-02, 03:09 PM
want to point out that the poll results at the top are not accurate due to certain users voting multiple times using alias accounts

just a fwiw

AAR.oner
2009-10-02, 03:38 PM
Remasters should at least be regulated by an official qualified definition.

Within reason, certain modifications must be allowed to address tape flaws, but certain other adjustments should not be permitted.

Correct for speed, etc., but it's a pain in the neck when someone screws around with the EQ before I get the tape. Some of the recent Nirvana uploads, for example.

if you limit what can be done, then how about limiting which software could be used?

i think more important than saying "only this, this, & this can be done" or "only remasters done with these software titles" would be limiting remasters to the "pros" so to speak, ones that have proven their knowledge & abilities over time...proper remastering ain't just applying a few filters & EQ, something a lot of the remasterers on the web today don't realize

for instance, the Harvested (http://www.harvested.org/) folks...we all know they're not some random kids with ProTools LE in mom's basement...they have the knowledge & experience [& gear] to properly bring out the best in some of those old Floyd recordings...not allowing HRV releases would be completely retarded

there are numerous other examples, including some tapers/collectors who have proven over the years their abilities in the studio...


a proper list would have to be worked out, and new additions would have to be taken on a case by case basis, but i believe that between all of us on Staff we can make solid decisions that are in line with TTD's mission

Five
2009-10-02, 06:39 PM
:goodpost:

feces and poo lets stop with the semantics right here. both of you have made mistakes in your posts :nono:

ccrider895
2009-10-02, 11:10 PM
:roflol:

I'm sorry Five, there's just something funny about you making that a serious statement. :D

bay1971
2009-10-03, 11:31 AM
a proper list would have to be worked out, and new additions would have to be taken on a case by case basis, but i believe that between all of us on Staff we can make solid decisions that are in line with TTD's missioni don't know this site because i'm new here. but if it's anything like the sites i do know, i'd say that there's a chance that some of the worst remaster engineers will get on the approved list merely because they are friends of moderators (or they have some influence over them) at other websites.

AAR.oner
2009-10-03, 11:49 AM
i don't know this site because i'm new here. but if it's anything like the sites i do know, i'd say that there's a chance that some of the worst remaster engineers will get on the approved list merely because they are friends of moderators (or they have some influence over them) at other websites.
doubtful...honestly i can only think of a very small handful of non-staff that get preferential treatment so to speak [but they don't remaster anything]...as for this topic, a few on staff would probly ban any source that isn't raw, and the rest of us could care less what any remasterer has to say

a few of my favorite tapers quit u/ling here when we banned MiniDisc recordings because they used MD...nothing personal, but im not gonna change my opinion on the policy because a few folks refuse to quit using a lossy recording format...you can always find yer MD sources, or bedroom remasters, or mp3 shows, etc at many othere sites on the net

truth is there ARE some people out there who know what they're doin...there are a lot more who don't...i fully confident in my ears & knowledge to be able to discern, as are many others on staff

theface07
2009-10-03, 01:31 PM
:goodpost:

feces and poo lets stop with the semantics right here. both of you have made mistakes in your posts :nono:

Please provide me with examples of semantics I've used. I'm just trying to better understand the comments in question...

saltman
2009-10-03, 03:15 PM
I voted yes because I think there is nothing black and white suggesting a remastered source is not better than a mastered source. The goal being to have the best source here.

There are certainly recordings that could be made better with remastering. I believe there are people that have remastering skills and techniques that are beneficial.


95% of what is remastered does not fit into this category. Most are a degradation of the master material in some form. How you monitor this? I don't know. It's probably easier and better to not allow them to prevent the flood of poor remasters.


I think discussions of people taking undue credit for their part is another topic all together.

Five
2009-10-03, 04:52 PM
Please provide me with examples of semantics I've used. I'm just trying to better understand the comments in question...
eg definition of the term "remaster". it has to be mastered before its remastered.

however, everybody here understands what is meant by the term so its moot, a serious waste of time to nitpick over.

Five
2009-10-03, 04:55 PM
y'see I could sit here and go ooooohhh I wasn't talking about using semantics, I was talking about over-discussing semantics. this sort of direction is pointless bickering, people who love this sort of thing should just join a bridge club.

Five
2009-10-03, 05:04 PM
semantics as it applies to the term "semantics" :lol:

how meta is that? or am I using the term wrong? :hmm:


anyhow, getting back to the basics, back in the day before cloning was possible we had to live with each analog copy being a little different and subjectively better or worse than what somebody else had in their posession. the digital age should (mostly) solve this problem, to the point where we can distribute the best copies of each source as well as sweetened versions when they become available. but the real tapes are the raw sources. if you only have a "remaster" you don't even have that show imo. and when the remaster is a step backwards and the unmolested version is difficult/impossible to locate, we're in one hell of a mess.

Five
2009-10-03, 05:07 PM
face, surely you've downloaded a pile of shit remaster that cannot be "fixed" more easily than the raw source could. we're all collectors here, we share a lot of the same frustrations.

rspencer
2009-10-03, 08:33 PM
i don't know this site because i'm new here. but if it's anything like the sites i do know, i'd say that there's a chance that some of the worst remaster engineers will get on the approved list merely because they are friends of moderators (or they have some influence over them) at other websites.

You really are new here. Mods here don't have any friends. :D



And the chance of any of the worst making a list would be slim to none. We pull killer shows often, even if we know it's great, because there are requirements we have that it doesn't meet. We have to balance strictness & wanting to have as much variety as possible, but we have no issue with enforcing the rules.

Kung Poo
2009-10-03, 11:27 PM
And the chance of any of the worst making a list would be slim to none. We pull killer shows often, even if we know it's great, because there are requirements we have that it doesn't meet.would Winston make the list? In this torrent that has been allowed to run on the site: Led Zeppelin on Blueberry Hill 1970-09-04 Winston Remaster (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52370&highlight=1970-09-04) Winston states in his notes that his use of noise reduction caused a wind-tunnell effect between songs. now, i'm not attacking him, at least he was honest in his notes and up-front about the situation; but that seems to me to be an example of a great, classic tape altered to degradation. Was it the remasterer's honesty that allowed the torrent to remain on the tracker?

rspencer
2009-10-04, 12:23 AM
There currently is no list, and no limitations barring remasters (other than the standards, such as lossiness, etc.).

ingram
2009-10-04, 04:14 PM
i don't see there problem at all
people who don't like remasters can ignore them and don't download

weedwacker
2009-10-04, 07:01 PM
i don't see there problem at all
people who don't like remasters can ignore them and don't download

Yeah that is nice and all but you can't ignore them if they are not at minimum properly tagged so when anyone uses the search they can filter them out by a tag search or they have their own special tag like audience, sbd etc. If the tags were locked so people couldn't add any old garbage they would probably be the most efficient way to search for stuff on this site.