View Single Post
  #56  
Old 2009-10-02, 01:22 PM
theface07's Avatar
theface07 theface07 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Re: do remasters fit with the site's mission statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kung Poo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes