View Single Post
Old 2009-10-02, 01:05 PM
theface07's Avatar
theface07 theface07 is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Re: do remasters fit with the site's mission statement?

Originally Posted by rspencer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes