I see....no preservation of integrity.......for raw audio masters....
So I might as well "REMASTER" my own recordings before releasing same?
Gee, now won't that thwart the efforts of some of the remastering crowd, if I decide to randomly introduce or remove sonic frequency changes into master recordings?
Oh yeah, that's the same thing the remaster crowd already does here quite often.....hmmmm?
Remaster --- Wouldn't that kinda defeat the purpose of using the word
integrity?
Maybe this rule should also be re-written (remastered) for clarity?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by U2Lynne
We will change the wording on that rule.
|
You also might please consider removing the word "integrity" if the preservation aspect of raw master recordings isn't enforced.
Quote:
We have come together to create an online trading site with an entirely new ideology. This site will be geared towards a certain kind of collector: those who feel quality and integrity are important. Our policies will seem demanding to many users, but we have witnessed the decline in overall quality in many other trading circles due to lax restrictions.
We offer a safe haven for traders frustrated with the dilution of quality in the trading pool, as well as our combined experience and devotion to helping new users enter an elite trading community.
|
^^^
Quote:
|
Quality is not an option in the seeds here, it will be the standard.
|
^^^
Oh well, there's a handful of my RAW master recordings already on the way to be shared here.
Are they all "fair game" to have their integrity removed?
No members have liked this post.