do remasters fit with the site's mission statement?

[AAR.oner]

it is stated clearly in the FAQ:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/..._taper_removal

[freezer]

Originally Posted by AAR.oner

it is stated clearly in the FAQ:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/..._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]

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]

[chinajoe]

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

Originally Posted by chinajoe

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.

[theface07]

Originally Posted by rspencer

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]

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.

[theface07]

Originally Posted by Kung Poo

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.

My bad. Excuse me. As for Aliases being bullshit.... we'll hasn't everyone got one?

Originally Posted by theface07

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]

Originally Posted by Kung Poo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scoobie

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.

Originally Posted by chinajoe

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 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]

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