PDA

View Full Version : New audio torrent rule, no remasters unless by specific permission


dcbullet
2011-07-02, 11:19 AM
13. Remasters are NOT allowed as of June 1, 2011.
While we understand that remastering a recording may improve the listening experience for the user, we also understand that every user has a different set of ears and a different set up for listening to their shows and thus there is no one-size-fits-all remastering that can be done to a recording to improve it for everyone. This rule is not set up to bar a taper from the little tweeks they apply prior to releasing their show, it is set up to bar Joe Blow from coming along and taking a master recording (or even a who-knows-where-it's-from recording) and applying who-knows-what to it because it then sounds better on *their* system to *their* ears and they want to share it. (There may be a couple of exceptions to this rule, but that will be on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from one of our ABT moderators.)

Drgiggles1
2011-07-02, 06:18 PM
I'm pretty sure this would come up, how about speed correction ? Does that apply to the rule also ?

Archive625
2011-07-02, 08:40 PM
this seems like a huge waste of time, or a make work project for the volunteers here.

let the downloaders determine what looks and sound better..... micromanaging everything just spoils the experience for everyone. Its not like its a waste of bandwidth for anyone when there is no share ratio.

Ghostwheel
2011-07-02, 08:54 PM
what about remasters from the original taper? i've been in the process of remastering some of my early recordings now that i know more about eq'ing & mastering than i did when i first started taping. i plan on uploading these and was actually about to put one of them up.

cicada
2011-07-02, 09:24 PM
Hi Ghostwheel,
I think this pertains to someone who does a hit and run of a perfectly satisfactory pull of some recent performance, then immediately "dumps" his altered version into the pool without consideration for the original taper's efforts. As I understand it, we don't need to step on a perfectly good recording without any "real" improvement. At a minimum, we should ask the taper about these tweaks to see what he thinks. It is likely that a certain amount of mitigation has already occurred... further tweaks may be outright destructive.

It will put a few extra pm's in the mod's inboxes... but it will keep the our pool a little cleaner, cooler and safer for tapers who still want to share their bliss.

I imagine your re-worked recordings will be welcomed here. Thanks!

rspencer
2011-07-02, 11:52 PM
Drgiggles1 and Ghostwheel, yes, those would still be covered by this rule. You can apply for an exception by the ABT mods. While these will not be common, they will be granted when felt appropriate. And Ghostwheel, working with the raw recording master, yours is more-or-less like a new transfer...similar, but not the same. Noted a such in the torrent, it should likely be OK.

cicada, we've been knocking around on this rule for over a year now. So it's not really based on anything recent, although a few certain people did help bring it about.

Archive625, we feel it is neither busy work nor a waste of time. As stated in the FAQ, we feel TTD is about quality, not quantity, and we fashion the rules to reflect that belief. Members are free to upload or download all the remasters they like, just not here. They are allowed at a number of other sites (most of which do have ratio requirements).

AAR.oner
2011-07-03, 10:50 AM
Ghost -- i'll be the first to vouch for you and any "remastering" you might do...i've got quite a few recordings that i seeded raw, as i haven't had time to do a proper mixdown on em...that is quite different from what we want to prevent here with this rule

like rspencer said, we simply want to continue our motto of quality before quantity, and we all know that 95% of the "remasters" out there are bedroom amateurs who download and remaster every damn recording they get...they neither know what they're doing, nor are they truly benefiting the recording [despite what they and a few others may think]

cicada
2011-07-03, 01:04 PM
I put this up before the rule > http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92161, but I just want to understand. Since the speed is corrected and there were various other tweaks, I should send a pm request to one of the mods (in the future)? I have no idea if PRRP got permission to work on this from team Lapinski

weedwacker
2011-07-11, 08:31 PM
I love how people throw around the term remaster without any regard for it actually means. If I record something (audio wise that is) what is initially recorded on the master analog or digital is a raw recording. It has to be mastered first before it can be remastered. If I put it up here and specifically say it is raw then any Tom, Dick or Harry can master it anyway they want it to sound and you by your own rules have to allow it because it is not a remaster but technically a mastered copy. On top of that 27 different people can take that raw recording and master it 27 different ways and you'd have to allow them all because they are all unique masterings.

AAR.oner
2011-07-12, 10:55 AM
we're using "remaster" in regards to the common trading circle use of the term, not the actual technical term...kinda like how an AUD+SBD mix is referred to as a "matrix" in trading circles, even though technically speaking it's not a true audio matrix


so no, we will not be allowing the 27 various mixes...the whole point is if a raw or old recording is gonna be messed with by some random user to "make it better" [to their ears on their listening set up], fine but it shouldn't be spread around...cuz of the hundreds of folks out there "remastering" these recordings, there are only a small handful who have the knowledge and gear to properly mix said recordings

dcbullet
2011-07-13, 12:23 AM
I love how people throw around the term remaster without any regard for it actually means. If I record something (audio wise that is) what is initially recorded on the master analog or digital is a raw recording. It has to be mastered first before it can be remastered. If I put it up here and specifically say it is raw then any Tom, Dick or Harry can master it anyway they want it to sound and you by your own rules have to allow it because it is not a remaster but technically a mastered copy. On top of that 27 different people can take that raw recording and master it 27 different ways and you'd have to allow them all because they are all unique masterings.


Don't make it harder than it needs to be.

paddington
2011-07-13, 04:14 AM
the general idea is, "don't fuck with shit that doesn't need fucking with. If you do, post it elsewhere". Like that.



basically for those that EQ and limit brand new recordings / postings and have them torrented while the original still has 150 damn seeds going...


unfortunately, some people are idiots and necessitate broad rules that are selectively enforced. Just like real-life laws.

jabulon
2011-07-13, 11:18 AM
May be you should remove the matrix option in the type of show section of the Upload Audio Show page (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/upload.php?f=12)?

Audioarchivist
2011-07-13, 04:28 PM
May be you should remove the matrix option in the type of show section of the Upload Audio Show page (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/upload.php?f=12)?

Uh, no, I don't think so. A "matrix" as it is referred to is a blend of two sources (sbd/aud, or even two complementary aud sources...) and that's much different than taking a single source and eq-ing and processing that single file to make your re-bastardization - I mean remaster...:lol4:


I think I know what incident prompted this rule. I don't think it will be a widespread draconian rule to ban some "legacy" remasters that circulate, and I hope that in some cases that new remasters of things from bootleg labels on silvers that come out with flaws would still be good (depending on who's doing them I guess). As stated earlier, it is to stop people from being jerkoffs about taking some fresh recording that just went up and altering it to allow the undeserving dick to re-post it and take credit where it isn't due.

It kind of sucks to HAVE to make a rule like that, just to keep away the goofs that take advantage. I'm hoping that if someone genuinely has corrected major flaws (speed corrections, gaps patched, blends with alternate sources, etc.) will be given proper consideration.

In other words, this "rule" should be applied with a light touch...

ballsdeep
2011-07-17, 03:43 AM
this seems like a huge waste of time, or a make work project for the volunteers here.

let the downloaders determine what looks and sound better..... micromanaging everything just spoils the experience for everyone. Its not like its a waste of bandwidth for anyone when there is no share ratio.



yet more proof that you're def, and not the "cool" kind.

pun intended.

freezer
2011-07-18, 03:26 PM
I love how people throw around the term remaster without any regard for it actually means. If I record something (audio wise that is) what is initially recorded on the master analog or digital is a raw recording. It has to be mastered first before it can be remastered. If I put it up here and specifically say it is raw then any Tom, Dick or Harry can master it anyway they want it to sound and you by your own rules have to allow it because it is not a remaster but technically a mastered copy. On top of that 27 different people can take that raw recording and master it 27 different ways and you'd have to allow them all because they are all unique masterings.

Thanks for putting up the masters I sent to you on another site.

I can't wait to see how long before someone scarfs up something of mine and runs over here to put it up............ and how long before this new rule goes right out of the window. :lol4:



Or watch and see just how long it STAYS up.... probably just long enough for certain mods to let their pals suck it down ......
















yada yada yada...

so no, we will not be allowing the 27 various mixes...the whole point is if a raw or old recording is gonna be messed with by some random user to "make it better" [to their ears on their listening set up], fine but it shouldn't be spread around...cuz of the hundreds of folks out there "remastering" these recordings, there are only a small handful who have the knowledge and gear to properly mix said recordings

So, since you have NO idea what I did to a master recording BEFORE sending it out, and since Mister Weedwacker only has what I sent him to work from.... then by your own rules, my new releases are not allowed here.

That suits me just fine.

Keep on with your Silver BOOTLEG and "Source: ZERO" garbage.

And enjoy the George Harrison 11/26/74 silver bootleg with the false lineage and whatever UMTEENTH Led Zeppelin recordings that are passed off as "master recordings" that certain ABT mods are so fond of........ :lmao:

AAR.oner
2011-07-18, 04:10 PM
bye bye then :wave:

paddington
2011-07-18, 08:47 PM
Keep on with your Silver BOOTLEG and "Source: ZERO" garbage.


:nono: that's my garbage, not aaron's


you're slipping :disbelief


oh, and it's in the FAQ... I am glad, though, that my attempt to rephrase the lineage rules we go by concerning silvers has given you hundreds of posts worth of entertainment.


That is why I come here... to entertain you :thumbsup

suprden
2011-08-08, 02:03 PM
banning terrible remasters is a great idea :clap: ......doesn't matter if it's done by someone downloading a raw recording and then butchering it (and then uploading it), or if it's an owner of an uncirculated show ruining something before uploading it.....tasteless, heavy handed post processing just sucks.

do the 'little tweaks' that would be allowed include watermarks? can the owner of uncirculated shows superimpose whatever public domain sounds he wants over the music in post, or does this ban reverse the watermarks decision of just last fall?

AAR.oner
2011-08-08, 04:24 PM
if a taper wants to do some sorta post- work on his/her own recording then by all means, thats their prerogative...personally, i usually seed my recordings raw, and then possibly seed out a "mastered version" down the line, if/when i decide to dedicate the time to do any post work to it [clearly labeled as such]...i encourage other tapers to do the same, but its really up to them whether to seed out raw transfers or not


this rule is more to keep this new wave of hurbs now involved in the hobby who *think* they know what they're doing cuz they got a copy Cool Edit or Pro Tools LE or whatever, read some stuff on the interwebs, can push a few buttons, and all of a sudden they're an audio engineer...as you'd expect:

1. 99.9999% of em aren't tapers
2. they have absolutely no real knowledge of audio post production, nor the proper tools to do a proper job
3. they d/l the shows from here or whatever tracker, and 2 days later re-up their "remaster"
4. they almost never include any of the details of what they did in post, other than "it sounds way better now brah"
5. they almost never include the original tapers info, but always plaster their own name all over it like Donald Trump on a casino

despite their usual delusions of grandeur, that shit just muddies up trading pool and isn't welcome here any longer



also, you'll note we will make some exceptions on a case by case basis [think folks like the Harvested team or certain other individuals who are well known to be audio professionals and know what they're doing ;) ]

suprden
2011-08-08, 05:40 PM
it can be hard to determine who taped what, especially from years past, which is why I used 'owner'. surely you can imagine a scenario where someone inherits a box of uncirced tapes, claims he taped it, then proceeds to do as he pleases, and then refuses to share anything but his brickwalled/watermarked reworking of the raw transfer that he did.

don't get me wrong, this is a nice new rule. it prevents muddying of the trade pool, and makes searching for the best sounding remaster or raw version much easier. but it only prevents the much less annoying bedroom remasterer (who obtains his commonly-circulating shows by downloading or trade) from circulating his version. i can just ignore his remaster, and download the raw version. however, if the owner of uncirced shows (whether it's a taper/transferrer/editor/author/remasterer/vandal or some combination thereof) botches up a bunch of shows and never shares a "tastefully massaged" or raw version, that's all you get.

the site's mission is either quality or it isn't. if it's all about the will of the owner of the show to do whatever he wants, then quality is taking a back seat. I understand that you'd rather have a multiband compressed/limited show circulate than none at all. but why doesn't this apply to mp3 then as well? wouldn't you rather have a 320k or VO mp3 encoding of a show than none at all? a high bitrate mp3 of a raw transfer would mop the floor with a multiband compressed, 0.100 db of total dynamic range, & watermarked lossless version. most if not all can't tell a high bitrate mp3 from lossless in a double blind test, yet everyone can hear the difference between a raw version and a bad remaster. quality should not only be defined by lack of lossy data compression, quality should be defined by skillful or no post processing, especially since post processing can have an even greater detrimental effect on sound quality than lossy data compression. a little long winded, but you wanted discussion and opinions....i don't have delusions that this post will solve or change anything. :lol:

AAR.oner
2011-08-09, 08:53 AM
agree completely, but it'd be pretty much impossible to police to the full extent...take yer "owner of old uncirculated cassettes" scenario -- who's to say what he/she did to the transfers IF he/she doesn't divulge the information...for all we would know, thats how the cassette sounds raw...sure there's obvious giveaways when it comes to really heavy handed processing, but other things are not quite so easy to spot, especially when yer dealing with the number of recordings u/l'ed at this site and the time it would take for our mods to go through ever second of every recording seeded...keep in mind, we're unpaid folks with real lives/jobs/families/etc, not forensic audio specialists making $2K per hour of analyzed audio -- get my drift when i say its impossible to police completely? ;)

i'll leave it up to the ABT mods to clarify further, but i'm guessing anything thats been obviously messed with will be called out and pulled

we do strive for quality here, and although it'll never reach the level some of us would like to see, i think it far exceeds most other trackers of our size and diversity of content...and we have continued to update our standards as time and technology allows...at least we're weeding out some of the mud, right? appreciate yer input :thumbsup

dcbullet
2011-08-09, 08:56 AM
We're not detectives. We apply the rules with a good faith effort. If someone is bound and determine the skirt them somehow, they probably will.

suprden
2011-08-11, 06:06 PM
I appreciate your efforts on running a quality site. no, I'd never suggest going through every second of every show, but if it's listed in the lineage or is obvious, in the pursuit of quality a raw version could be requested. I'm sure most of us have come across shows which have been noise reduced with that shitty CEP NR which leaves all kinds of artifacts (and we've never been able to find better), or shows which have been bricked to boring flatness....and in many cases the owners have every intention to improve the show, but they lack training.

Maybe it came off as though I was asking you to weed out every possible application of bad post-processing, but that wasn't my intention. All too often on these sites, we've seen an elitism from staff and others with regards to post-processing, and vehement defense of an owner to post-process however he sees fit and circulate a clearly inferior version. If someone begs to differ with an owner's choice of post-processing, they're told that they are making outlandish, ridiculous demands of the owner, and being unappreciative, and daring to question someone else's generosity. if they don't like it, make their own, mind their own business, don't download it blah, blah blah. but it's good to see that the tide is turning. :cool: :thumbsup

paddington
2011-08-11, 09:50 PM
We fucking discourage digital NR, period. With malice and great prejudice. Know that.


As far as 320k MP3 sounding ok, sure they do. The problem comes when someone tries to encode them to some other lossy format to fit their needs. You can do that with a lossless file and it sounds fine for portable usage. Do it with a 320k MP3 and it sounds like glass being juggled underwater.
We don't like aliasing artifacts, so we don't allow MP3 at TTD. Four million other sites do.
MP3 is outside the scope of this thread, though.


What we are basically saying, is we will pull a shitty "remaster" if we determine the remaster to be shitty. Our criteria for "remasters" is subjective and inconsistent as hell, so if you don't want to subject your killer EQ job to our wishy-washy merit judgement, simply seed the thing without "remastering" it

Seeding raw (or mostly raw) sources is more along the lines of what TTD is here for... So - if you have a super kick ass tape of some show that Bertha remastered and you think it's awesome, seed it. See what happens. if you don't want to worry about what we'll think, seed the source, as unmolested as possible.

tonebloke
2011-08-12, 12:56 AM
We fucking discourage digital NR, period. With malice and great prejudice. Know that.


As far as 320k MP3 sounding ok, sure they do. The problem comes when someone tries to encode them to some other lossy format to fit their needs. You can do that with a lossless file and it sounds fine for portable usage. Do it with a 320k MP3 and it sounds like glass being juggled underwater.
We don't like aliasing artifacts, so we don't allow MP3 at TTD. Four million other sites do.
MP3 is outside the scope of this thread, though.


What we are basically saying, is we will pull a shitty "remaster" if we determine the remaster to be shitty. Our criteria for "remasters" is subjective and inconsistent as hell, so if you don't want to subject your killer EQ job to our wishy-washy merit judgement, simply seed the thing without "remastering" it

Seeding raw (or mostly raw) sources is more along the lines of what TTD is here for... So - if you have a super kick ass tape of some show that Bertha remastered and you think it's awesome, seed it. See what happens. if you don't want to worry about what we'll think, seed the source, as unmolested as possible.


Tell him what you really think J. :lol4:

dcbullet
2011-08-12, 11:29 AM
What we are basically saying, is we will pull a shitty "remaster" if we determine the remaster to be shitty. Our criteria for "remasters" is subjective and inconsistent as hell, so if you don't want to subject your killer EQ job to our wishy-washy merit judgement, simply seed the thing without "remastering" it

I want to quote this for truth. The only thing for sure about this rule is that hardly anyone will ever agree with what we decide because it is so subjective. It's not like the MD rule or no siver > CDR rule. That's why it took so long for us to finally implement it.

However, it's in the spirit of what the site is about and we're going to do are darndest to enforce it as well as we can. Like it or not. :)

AAR.oner
2011-08-12, 11:44 AM
you mods and yer quality entitlement issues :rolleyes:









:lol4:

Unidecker
2011-08-12, 04:37 PM
great idea !...

Thanks be to The Traders den !!!

and Tapers in General !!!

:-)

TGIF TOO ! !

><///'>

</////////% ~~ ~ ~

rspencer
2011-08-12, 05:55 PM
So - if you have a super kick ass tape of some show that Bertha remastered and you think it's awesome, seed it. See what happens. if you don't want to worry about what we'll think, seed the source, as unmolested as possible.

Better yet, PM the mods & ask. Rather than take the "let me see how long I can seed this out before it's pulled" approach so prevalent at some sites.

Although I'm pretty sure a Bertha remaster will get a pass. :cool:

dcbullet
2011-08-12, 06:33 PM
Bertha don't you come around here, anymore?

Unidecker
2011-08-12, 07:25 PM
what's Jay gonna do with all his time now...heh

go remaster some mp3's or something yah w00k!

ethiessen1
2011-08-14, 11:40 PM
Permission is not needed to remaster, tweak, etc Lampinski recordings-
the only request is that you credit Dan for the original recording.

From every torrent we ever put up:
"Since Dan never traded copies of his recordings, they are all
essentially uncirculated. Some copies were made for friends,
but these releases are the first time most of these recordings
have ever seen the light of day, and are direct from his master
cassettes. No EQ'ing has been done to any of the transfers.
Feel free to EQ, matrix, patch, etc and re-post if you like,
just give Dan credit for the original recording. "

The moderators here will have to determine how they handle this
obviously, and is understandable based on some horribly butchered
attempts to "remaster" recordings but Team Lampinski's position
on this is clear.

suprden
2011-08-15, 03:14 PM
We fucking discourage digital NR, period. With malice and great prejudice. Know that.

cool...but would you pull an uncirculated show if the taper or owner had digital NR listed in the lineage, and lots of comments in the thread were talking about it sounding like the 'ol wind chimes that is the hallmark of over-NRed stuff?

As far as 320k MP3 sounding ok, sure they do. The problem comes when someone tries to encode them to some other lossy format to fit their needs.
You can do that with a lossless file and it sounds fine for portable usage. Do it with a 320k MP3 and it sounds like glass being juggled underwater.
We don't like aliasing artifacts, so we don't allow MP3 at TTD. Four million other sites do.

MP3 is outside the scope of this thread, though.

it's not though...overzealous and unskilled post processing ruins recordings, on that we can all agree. mp3s aren't welcome here, on that we can also agree. i wasn't advocating for allowing mp3s, I was trying to illustrate the point that there are other destructive things that one can do to a recording besides encode to mp3, and that high bitrate mp3 is benign compared to some of the things one can do with mastering plugins. not even tapers and owners of uncirced shows can upload mp3s, but they can upload all the badly post processed uncirced stuff they want. (or is this now changing?)


What we are basically saying, is we will pull a shitty "remaster" if we determine the remaster to be shitty. Our criteria for "remasters" is subjective and inconsistent as hell, so if you don't want to subject your killer EQ job to our wishy-washy merit judgement, simply seed the thing without "remastering" it

Seeding raw (or mostly raw) sources is more along the lines of what TTD is here for... So - if you have a super kick ass tape of some show that Bertha remastered and you think it's awesome, seed it. See what happens. if you don't want to worry about what we'll think, seed the source, as unmolested as possible.

banning bad remasters of existing sources is a no-brainer...but if the taper or owner of uncirced shows can do whatever, including brickwall/limit, apply gobs of digital NR, extreme EQ, watermark, etc., then quality is optional, and the taper's discretion is now the standard. shit, you might as well allow mp3s. some people would prefer that, as they have limited bandwidth, and we'd see some shows pop up here that are only available in lossy. plus, if a taper wanted to release his master recordings raw as VO mp3, holding back the raw flac as trade bait, I know I'd prefer the raw mp3s to such alternatives as a flac version of him passing his master through a cassette gen, or brickwalling it, or adding mallard quacks every five minutes and seeding that as the teaser.

paddington
2011-08-15, 04:17 PM
You are arguing about hypothetical situations.

It isn't needed. I promise you we've already discussed it all.


We'll make decisions on a case by case basis.

Don't let the technical shit take primary focus...
Go download and listen to something

suprden
2011-08-15, 04:32 PM
I am downloading a laser-disc rip! :lol:

not available on dvd.

dcbullet
2011-08-15, 05:39 PM
...and work on your share ratio.

suprden
2011-08-15, 06:02 PM
I'm applying the old audio/video ttd policy of doing whatever I want to share ratio

suprden
2011-08-15, 06:53 PM
You are arguing about hypothetical situations.

It isn't needed. I promise you we've already discussed it all.


We'll make decisions on a case by case basis.

Don't let the technical shit take primary focus...
Go download and listen to something

if only it were hypothetical jim, but it isn't. too bad ttd didn't have such wisdom years ago, quite a few shows might today circulate in the highest quality, but instead the only commonly circulating copies are the remasters.

chinajoe
2011-08-15, 11:52 PM
why not create a thread that has a couple of before and after samples.
its all subjective, but if enough of us hear such samples then we can vote
and decide together. if approved, then the torrent itself should have before and after samples.

on a side note, if you cant use digital nr, then how else do you get rid of some hiss? or would hiss reduction not apply in such a situation. fyi, it involves the only known copies (though not masters)

paddington
2011-08-16, 12:04 AM
why not create a thread that has a couple of before and after samples.
its all subjective, but if enough of us hear such samples then we can vote
and decide together. if approved, then the torrent itself should have before and after samples.

on a side note, if you cant use digital nr, then how else do you get rid of some hiss? or would hiss reduction not apply in such a situation. fyi, it involves the only known copies (though not masters)


nah

it isn't taht big a deal.

we just want certain "I'll remaster my cat" fellows to know we are going to start pulling needless "remasters" from habitual EQ-monkey offenders.

rspencer
2011-08-16, 02:28 AM
Samples would be pointless.

We take enough time coming to a consensus on things within just several mods. Mixing in lots & lots of members wouldn't help.

strychnine
2013-09-06, 04:48 AM
we're using "remaster" in regards to the common trading circle use of the term, not the actual technical term...kinda like how an AUD+SBD mix is referred to as a "matrix" in trading circles, even though technically speaking it's not a true audio matrix


so no, we will not be allowing the 27 various mixes...the whole point is if a raw or old recording is gonna be messed with by some random user to "make it better" [to their ears on their listening set up], fine but it shouldn't be spread around...cuz of the hundreds of folks out there "remastering" these recordings, there are only a small handful who have the knowledge and gear to properly mix said recordings

thank you.
on another site. some guy i don't know took my original recording and remastered - curiously retaining the one short segment that possibly could have benefited from a little work. he also incorrectly changed the record credits, did not include his additional lineage, and did not even ask, credit or thank me. upon looking up some of his previous posts, it appears he does it mostly to release material as his own. the site's policy is/was that i would need that guy's permission to have his torrent taken down. ridiculous!

i guess one exception for me would be when i want to let a person do work i could not do when i originally released it.