What Constitutes A Remaster

[GRC]

Originally Posted by Hitman Horton

Is it possible for a live recording to have both an audio and a video portion? If it is, then your statement is incorrect and mine is correct.

OK. You win. You caught me in your trap and proved yourself right.

Feel better?

Now, are we talking about Audio or Video? You pick, since you seem to think you're King of the Thread.

[Homebrew101]

[Audioarchivist]

I think a finer point to make in fixing up and / or re-equalizing a recording and doing other tweaks to it to remaster it is whether or not it is your recording or if you have the specific permission of the taper to mess around with it...

I think it's great when someone is able to take a poor recording with flaws and clean them up to make a new version of the recording that is more presentable and listenable, but only if it's done from a taper's raw master recording and not from taper's processed files without their knowledge as a "surprise".

If you're a bedroom remasterer, taking other folk's work and futzing with it, you should at least ASK them if you plan to re-share it anywhere. Not asking and flooding the torrent sites with 3rd party remasters is why there is a rule against remasters here. Fixing something that someone else recorded for your own ears is fine, but when people start re-sharing re-worked recordings from other tapers without their approval, things get ugly. No need to pee in the trading pool...

To me, it's about original taper approval for re-working old recordings, no matter what's being done to them. I am looking forward to new technology to de-mix a stereo recording of a full band into a clean multitrack of individual instruments, so we actually CAN remix live audience recordings, but we're not quite there just yet. For now, we can eq, play with the stereo field, spectrally edit some unwanted sounds away, and a few other tricks, but it's not remixing. It's all taking a stereo master, and re-mastering it...