do remasters fit with the site's mission statement?

[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

[ccrider895]

I'm sorry Five, there's just something funny about you making that a serious statement.

[bay1971]

Originally Posted by AAR.oner

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

i don't know this site because i'm new here. but if it's anything like the sites i do know, i'd say that there's a chance that some of the worst remaster engineers will get on the approved list merely because they are friends of moderators (or they have some influence over them) at other websites.

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by bay1971

i don't know this site because i'm new here. but if it's anything like the sites i do know, i'd say that there's a chance that some of the worst remaster engineers will get on the approved list merely because they are friends of moderators (or they have some influence over them) at other websites.

doubtful...honestly i can only think of a very small handful of non-staff that get preferential treatment so to speak [but they don't remaster anything]...as for this topic, a few on staff would probly ban any source that isn't raw, and the rest of us could care less what any remasterer has to say

a few of my favorite tapers quit u/ling here when we banned MiniDisc recordings because they used MD...nothing personal, but im not gonna change my opinion on the policy because a few folks refuse to quit using a lossy recording format...you can always find yer MD sources, or bedroom remasters, or mp3 shows, etc at many othere sites on the net

truth is there ARE some people out there who know what they're doin...there are a lot more who don't...i fully confident in my ears & knowledge to be able to discern, as are many others on staff

[theface07]

Originally Posted by Five

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

Please provide me with examples of semantics I've used. I'm just trying to better understand the comments in question...

[saltman]

I voted yes because I think there is nothing black and white suggesting a remastered source is not better than a mastered source. The goal being to have the best source here.

There are certainly recordings that could be made better with remastering. I believe there are people that have remastering skills and techniques that are beneficial.


95% of what is remastered does not fit into this category. Most are a degradation of the master material in some form. How you monitor this? I don't know. It's probably easier and better to not allow them to prevent the flood of poor remasters.


I think discussions of people taking undue credit for their part is another topic all together.

[Five]

Originally Posted by theface07

Please provide me with examples of semantics I've used. I'm just trying to better understand the comments in question...

eg definition of the term "remaster". it has to be mastered before its remastered.

however, everybody here understands what is meant by the term so its moot, a serious waste of time to nitpick over.

[Five]

y'see I could sit here and go ooooohhh I wasn't talking about using semantics, I was talking about over-discussing semantics. this sort of direction is pointless bickering, people who love this sort of thing should just join a bridge club.

[Five]

semantics as it applies to the term "semantics"

how meta is that? or am I using the term wrong?


anyhow, getting back to the basics, back in the day before cloning was possible we had to live with each analog copy being a little different and subjectively better or worse than what somebody else had in their posession. the digital age should (mostly) solve this problem, to the point where we can distribute the best copies of each source as well as sweetened versions when they become available. but the real tapes are the raw sources. if you only have a "remaster" you don't even have that show imo. and when the remaster is a step backwards and the unmolested version is difficult/impossible to locate, we're in one hell of a mess.

[Five]

face, surely you've downloaded a pile of shit remaster that cannot be "fixed" more easily than the raw source could. we're all collectors here, we share a lot of the same frustrations.

[rspencer]

Originally Posted by bay1971

i don't know this site because i'm new here. but if it's anything like the sites i do know, i'd say that there's a chance that some of the worst remaster engineers will get on the approved list merely because they are friends of moderators (or they have some influence over them) at other websites.

You really are new here. Mods here don't have any friends.



And the chance of any of the worst making a list would be slim to none. We pull killer shows often, even if we know it's great, because there are requirements we have that it doesn't meet. We have to balance strictness & wanting to have as much variety as possible, but we have no issue with enforcing the rules.

Originally Posted by rspencer

And the chance of any of the worst making a list would be slim to none. We pull killer shows often, even if we know it's great, because there are requirements we have that it doesn't meet.

would Winston make the list? In this torrent that has been allowed to run on the site: Led Zeppelin on Blueberry Hill 1970-09-04 Winston Remaster Winston states in his notes that his use of noise reduction caused a wind-tunnell effect between songs. now, i'm not attacking him, at least he was honest in his notes and up-front about the situation; but that seems to me to be an example of a great, classic tape altered to degradation. Was it the remasterer's honesty that allowed the torrent to remain on the tracker?

[rspencer]

There currently is no list, and no limitations barring remasters (other than the standards, such as lossiness, etc.).

[ingram]

i don't see there problem at all
people who don't like remasters can ignore them and don't download