Remaster Category and No More Names!

[magicgravy]

I've been a taper for more than 15 years and my recent addition of torrents has opened up my collection to many new avenues. However, not all is gravy round these parts.

I think there should be a category for people who remaster concerts. Or at least a tag that i can filter out remastered efforts.

Remastering is a disease that is sweeping the trading community, now that anyone can get his hands on the software to do it, they think they now have the right to do it, not to mention the skills.

At least, let me browse for concerts that do not involve their efforts.

[LeifH12345]

I'm with you. If it's a re-master it should be bold in the title. I don't have a problem not downloading them, though.

[Ierdcram]

I agree that there are lots of well intentioned folks wrecking torrents through so-called remasters. At the same time there are several people who know their business and produce consistently great "remasters" of various sorts. For example, Kevin Tobin's efforts have made more than one Dead show go from good to great and both Erno and the Prodigal Son have salvaged many a Springsteen train wreck. I happen to agree with a "remaster" category for pretty much the same reasons but let's not condemn everyone that dedicates time and resources to upgrading sources.

[U2Lynne]

We do ask that people who remaster a recording make sure that it is clearly said in the thread. But, maybe it would be a good idea to tag it like we tag a (RESEED). I'll see what Staff thinks of the idea.

[shadyogrady]

Don't know much about this stuff, but adding a new category or tag sounds like a fantastic idea for the current problem. I hate downloading the same recording only to find out its worse than the one I already had; and to think they claimed it was "remastered" which should mean better.

Shady

i'd give my support to a remaster catagory, or indeed a forum of its own.

i think it would be a good idea to separate the raw from the cooked, so to speak.

a forum/catagory for remasters exclusively would allow us to judge people that had genuine knowledge of sound engineering, and for us to flag people who think that a bit of noise reduction and a nice compression squeeze in the mid-range makes a 'remaster'.

obviously, i have heard some amazing results, and i have heard some appaling hack jobs.

if Remasters had their own forum, we could soon weed out the crap from the nice.

also, engineers could exchange ideas and directions... it could be cool.

plus it would make it easier to keep track of which version of a show was which.

[Patty Mac]

Most tapers that I know would rather distribute copies of the raw recording and let the person themselves "re-master" it w\out redistributing it.

[direwolf-pgh]

there should be a rule: IF you seed a remaster - the ORIGINAL source must be seeded first.

[pawel]

^ I agree with all, plus I would add:
* Torrent description has to include details what was done with the source. I see that many shows are the result of throw a dice approach: I used some filters, don't remember which but now the recording sounds better.
* "Remaster" which uses normalization is not allowed

There is an idiot at Dime - Gardener who "remastered" many shows, also already remastered. Seems that all s/he uses is amplification of low and high frequencies like by loudness filter on an amplifier, and probably sometimes he adds also a reverb to make the recording to be more "spatial". If I see his crap here, I'll use my mod privileges to pull his shit immediately

[Chaosu]

But also tip for newbies how to improve their recording would be useful (see remaster forum idea). There are way too few sound engineers willing to master thousands of new recordings. Still, some basic filters with a guide how (not)to use them can improve raw material.

[direwolf-pgh]

Originally Posted by Chaosu

But also tip for newbies how to improve their recording would be useful (see remaster forum idea). There are way too few sound engineers willing to master thousands of new recordings. Still, some basic filters with a guide how (not)to use them can improve raw material.

no. average joe & some audio software is exactly the problem at hand.
there are only a handful of REAL audio engineers - and thats just the way life is.
leave altering live shows to them - the rest of us should keep our tweaked shows out of the trading pool.

Originally Posted by pawel

There is an idiot at Dime - Gardener who "remastered" many shows, also already remastered. Seems that all s/he uses is amplification of low and high frequencies like by loudness filter on an amplifier, and probably sometimes he adds also a reverb to make the recording to be more "spatial". If I see his crap here, I'll use my mod privileges to pull his shit immediately

does his profile look like this:]

Total number of torrents uploaded: 25

The Who 1975-12-14 Springfield Massacre! Convention Center, Springfield, MA Remastered w/artwork (FLAC) - 09-21-08 ACTIVE
The Who 1971-12-09 Falling on the Floor With Power Chords! LA Forum, Inglewood, CA Pitch corrected/remastered w/artwork (FLAC) - 08-29-08 ACTIVE
The Who - Charlton Athletic Football Club, London, Uk 05-31-76 Remastered (FLAC) - 08-06-08 ACTIVE
The Ramones - CBGB, New York City, NY 06-10-77 (Both sets) Remastered (FLAC) - 07-29-08 ACTIVE
Elvis Costello & The Attractions - Paradise Theatre, Boston, MA 12-09-77 (Early Show) Remastered (FLAC) - 07-27-08 ACTIVE
The Who - New Bingley Hall, Stafford, UK 1975-10-03 Remastered (FLAC) - 07-18-08 ACTIVE
Sly & The Family Stone - Woodstock Music & Art Fair, Bethel, NY 08-16-69 Remastered w/artwork (FLAC) - 07-13-08 ACTIVE
Nirvana - Nighttown, Rotterdam, NL 11-01-89 REMASTERED SBD - 02-07-08
The Kinks - Winterland, CA 1977-02-19 REMASTERED PREFM W/SAMPLES (FLAC) - 05-19-07
Humble Pie - Reseda, CA 1981-xx-xx & Philadelphia, PA 1973-xx-xx Remastered w/mp3 Samples (FLAC) - 05-01-07
The Velvet Underground - Norman Dolph Acetate, Scepter Studios, New York City, NY 04-xx-66 REMASTERED MONO STU (FLAC) - 12-22-06
The Clash - White Men In Hammersmith Odeon , Hammersmith Odeon, London, UK 12-27-79 (FLAC) REMASTERED AUD - 11-22-06 ACTIVE
The Who - Cry Blue Murder Remastered, Oklahoma City, OK 08-24-68 & Dallas, TX 07-23-67 (FLAC) - 11-19-06
The Who 1969-10-22 Accept No Substitute Remastered, Fillmore East, New York, NY (FLAC) - 11-07-06
The Who 1970-06-19 Memorial Auditorium, Dallas, TX REMASTERED AUD RESEED (FLAC) - 11-03-06
Jethro Tull 1970-05-01 Fillmore West, San Francisco, CA REMASTERED AUD (FLAC) - 11-03-06
The Who 1979-12-03 Riverfront Coliseum, Cincinatti, OH REMASTERED (FLAC) - 11-02-06
The Who 1972-09-14 Rome Palasport REMASTERED (FLAC) - 10-18-06
The Who 1971-08-18 Chicago, IL REMASTERED 2CD AUD (FLAC) - 10-14-06
The Who 1970-06-07 Tommy Live At The Metropolitan Opera House REMASTERED (FLAC) - 10-10-06
The Who 1975-11-07 Boris The Spider REMASTERED, Ludwigshafen, Germany 2CD AUD (FLAC) - 09-28-06
The Who 1970-09-21 Aarhus, Denmark 2CD EXCELLENT AUD REMASTERED (FLAC) - 09-22-06
The Who 1968-08-10 Live At The Jaguar Club, St. Charles, IL REMASTERED AUD (FLAC) - 09-19-06
The Who 1974-05-18 Live At Charlton 1974 Complete REMASTERED (FLAC) - 09-12-06 ACTIVE
The Who xxxx-xx-xx Cry Blue Murder REMASTERED (FLAC) - 06-07-06

[Chaosu]

Originally Posted by direwolf-pgh

no. average joe & some audio software is exactly the problem at hand.
there are only a handful of REAL audio engineers - and thats just the way life is.
leave altering live shows to them - the rest of us should keep our tweaked shows out of the trading pool.

So it's fine for You that in pool of 100 recordings which have major (repairable) issues one is remastered and rest is not circulating? or rest circulating in ther raw but low sound quality form? I don't et Your point, what should be done with bad raw shows?

[direwolf-pgh]

Originally Posted by Chaosu

So it's fine for You that in pool of 100 recordings which have major (repairable) issues one is remastered and rest is not circulating? or rest circulating in ther raw but low sound quality form? I don't et Your point, what should be done with bad raw shows?

give it to someone who knows what they are doing. simple.

[rspencer]

Originally Posted by pawel

* "Remaster" which uses normalization is not allowed

This would be better if you specified which type of normalization.

RMS normalization is the one to avoid. Kills dynamic range. It can be used without doing much damage, but it takes a lot of trial to find the optimum settings to preserve the music. Best to avoid it.

Peak normalization is no different than applying gain. If your source is recorded with a peak of -3.2 dB, and you normalize it to -.1 dB, then you are adding gain of 3.1 dB across the board. Dynamic range is preserved, as every point is increased by the same amount, thus preserving the dynamic range.

No reason to disallow peak normalization. As above, it's no different than gain, and the majority of your original sources have had it applied.

[Chaosu]

Originally Posted by direwolf-pgh

give it to someone who knows what they are doing. simple.

You understand there are too few sound engineers to master all recordings which need mastering, so You understand that most recordings would be never released while applying to Your rules?