community consensus on circulating remastered recordings?

[montymole]

Of course, asking first is the polite thing to do... if only we lived in a perfect world. But we don't. I don't think it should be obligatory or even frowned upon. If someone posts an inferior 'upgrade' then the mods here can just delete the torrent - it's as simple as that. if someone creates a worthy remaster then let it stay. If someone posts a remaster which is better in some regards but worse in others, then simply post in the torrent comments and point users to the original file. There a list of 'best sources' right here that already solves this problem. These solutions are so much easier than insisting on a blanket ban on other people doing remasters (without permission) of files shared on a torrent tracker downloaded by hundreds of strangers. How else are new users going to get involved (or even interested) in remastering tools if they need to seek approval from the uploader first? You're killing a lot of potential new talent just by imposing this rule (in my opinion)

[nipote]

One thing I would like to say on this topic specifically is that I don’t like ‘remasters of remasters’.

Agree 100%
I always try (and not just the only one) to share the raw version, which is always the best base to start from.

Of course, asking first is the polite thing to do... if only we lived in a perfect world. But we don't.

I speak now as a parent (I have been for years in real life ), I always tell my children: if you want to change something, take the first step.
From your speech, I understand that you have accepted how the world works.
Education is the basis of everything, if I were jealous of what I find, my research, my tapes, would I ever share one?

[YASHA]

Of course, asking first is the polite thing to do... if only we lived in a perfect world. But we don't.

You answered yourself, didn't you notice?

It's not about property rights, it's about politeness

P.S. A talented person does not lie on the couch and free gifts from heaven do not fall into his hands.

Talent does not give rest, and requires a person to act regardless of age.

Who prevents a talent from finding a very old audio recording on the Internet and practicing it first?

[Journey Man]

Returning to the topic, don't forget that Copenhagen 1967 is official in The Early Years box.

Should that be Stockholm 1967 you are referring to?

We definitely have to embrace and encourage the enthusiasm of new and younger members to Y!

[nipote]

Should that be Stockholm 1967 you are referring to?

You are right

[Swirling Panpot]

insisting on a blanket ban on other people doing remasters (without permission) of files shared on a torrent tracker downloaded by hundreds of strangers.

Actually, your post inadvertently makes a great point. From some of the other comments, I see that several members do remasters for themselves and just never post them. It's kind of like making a "listening copy" that is tailored to their specific tastes. The question of politeness comes in when that version is shared or posted for wide consumption.

It can be hard to keep track of numerous versions of the same source. I think most of us would just like to know "the answer:" which one is best? If there are a dozen variations on the exact same source recording, that is at least inefficient for the collection. This is why I frequently visit the best sources thread, and I really appreciate the efforts of the mods to keep it reasonably current. What a great service to the community!

This is not meant to be a solution post. Just more food for thought.

[Bert13]

It can be hard to keep track of numerous versions of the same source. I think most of us would just like to know "the answer:" which one is best? If there are a dozen variations on the exact same source recording, that is at least inefficient for the collection. This is why I frequently visit the best sources thread, and I really appreciate the efforts of the mods to keep it reasonably current. What a great service to the community!

The list is very outdated in places and to get it up to date will be a massive task, obviously it's very difficult, not to mention time consuming to keep track of all the transfers, revisions, remasters and matrixes on a regular basis but I will get to work at it, time and mood permitting, as soon as I get the go ahead from the OP.

[Swirling Panpot]

The list is very outdated in places and to get it up to date will be a massive task, obviously it's very difficult, not to mention time consuming to keep track of all the transfers, revisions, remasters and matrixes on a regular basis but I will get to work at it, time and mood permitting, as soon as I get the go ahead from the OP.

Hopefully you do not have to do it alone...

[Bert13]

Hopefully you do not have to do it alone...

There are a few helpful members around here, no worries.

[vince666]

Asking before using is always the best thing to do, it is a form of respect for the work, research and time that another member has put into it.
As has been written elsewhere, not asking can lead to the opposite form, keeping new sources hidden.
Eventually Yeeshkul! (or other forums) are small communities, we know that there are many ideas and many heads, there can be inevitable contrasts, if we add to these also the lack of these small forms of kindness as a simple request, everything can be amplified.
Regarding young people, we have all been and we have all made mistakes, we must not be closed and always consider them wrong for a mistake made. Everyone, young and old, must step off our pedestal and step forward.
And we also have to admit that the young guys have given new ideas and a new boost to Y !.
I am collaborating with some of them for new research for 2022 and I have to say that in the end they are as good guys, enthusiastic and willing as their age pushes them to do.
As a dear friend of mine says of Y! "You must always have an open mind", everyone has to take a step towards the other, there is always something to learn.

I completely agree Nipote. One thing I would like to say on this topic specifically is that I don’t like ‘remasters of remasters’. I feel it disrespects the original persons efforts, and it goes against the concept of ‘keeping it lossless’ that I personally consider especially important. Mastering is something that should be done as a whole, rather than incrementally. Each step should be necessary for the end result and that can’t be the case if you’re starting with someone else’s work, IMO.

Agree with the both of you, my friends.

Anyways, I'd like to add my own anectode about that...

Back in the old days when I had started collecting PF live recordings (late 80's to mid 90's) , it was all about vinyl boots and cassettes... there wasn't any internet, so we PF collectors used to stay in touch through the several homemade fanzines and lots of paper letters...
The actual swapping/sharing was with one person at once and on cassettes, so this whole situation of fixing/restoring/remastering didn't actually exist... you simply tried to make a cassette to cassette copy (or a vinyl to cassette copy) the best way you could, with the equipment you had at hand, period....
Then, at mid 90's, I had a dozen years worth of a floydian black-out, where I got rid of my older cassettes (no worries, there wasn't anything really special which got lost with those cassettes) and re-started from scratch in year 2006, by joining the hubs and also this forum.
Back in year 2006, I remember I had downloaded one source of Montreux 1970 (it was the "Before the fire..." roio) , removed some clicks and also remastered it... then, since i was liking it, I made some artwork and put it on my sharing folder into the hubs with the title "Rien Ne Va Plus"...
And, just a couple hours after I had put my remaster on the hubs, one of the hub owner (who was and still is also a good friend, btw) wrote me and and reproached me because I hadn't asked any permission to the guy who had uploaded the actual source of my remaster... So, I immediately learnt about the unwritten rule of trying to be polite as much as possible... of course, my "mistake" wasn't intentional... but I just didn't know how all of this stuff worked about people and, of course, I had removed that remaster of mine from my shared folder in the hub just immediately... but it was also very clear to me that I should have at least tried to contact the uploader of the source I remastered, once my friend told me about that... sure, it's not always possible to get in touch with the uploader, but as soon as a source was shared here and the uploader is a member here, writing a PM and asking permission is just easy to do and, most of the times, you will actually get permission and everybody will be happy.


Of course, I do agree with Beechwoods about remasters of remasters...
Point is that digital audio is a lot less "perfect" than people usually believe it to be... and the digital processing of any kind (even a simple volume change) will degrade the actual sound quality to some degree... so, if you make remasters of remasters you'd be adding further digital processing to something which was just digitally processed in the first moment and the more you do it, the more sound will get less "natural"...
Also, a remastered source is stored in fixed point resolution and this means it was just dithered (unless they simply "truncated" it without dithering which is a rookie mistake which means throwing out some low level informations from the audio) and so, using a remastered source to make a remaster will force you to apply dither once again at the end of your work... and dithering more times isn't the best thing to do... so, it's always better to start a remastering project from a raw transfer which wasn't digitally processed before, in order to keep digital processing to what is strictly needed and to avoid applying dithering more times.

An example of how a "simple" digital process as changing the gain/level can noticeably degrade a source is the Hamilton 1975-06-28 source I recently shared and which sounded like a welcome upgrade for quite anybody (that's because I didn't do almost anything on it, then it's quite as raw as I've got it)...
The older/circulating version of it was from the exact same analog to digital transfer as what I recently shared, then, in the first moment, both the old and new versions were the same stuff...
But the older version was level boosted in a quite crazy way and the sound got worse, and without even using EQ or NR, but only with a badly made level change... in fact, the patches I've made to the new version by taking the missing bits from the older version needed only that I swap the L and R channels, reduce the level and repair the flattened/clipped peaks to finally sound the same as the new version...
This is a clear demonstration of how also a simple gain change can actually ruin the sound, if badly done.

So, digital audio isn't as "perfect" as many would think about and, in fact, you need to know the weak points of digital audio quite well to know how to avoid doing damages without even realizing it.

A question/doubt of myself, though... how many of those who have fun in doing remaster works did carefully study the "digital audio" matter with a lot of care? In other words, do they all know what they are really doing?

A last point...
When a remaster is mostly a matter of equalizing a source (without basicly doing anything else or where equalization is the main reason why you're remastering), i.e. because you'd love to listen to it with more bass or more treble, why don't you simply use the equalizers inbuilt into your digital players (or the tone controls in your amplifier) just "on the fly" while listening to it?
Is it really needed to create and share a version which is simply equalized to personal taste?
After all, we all just have inbuilt equalizers in our players or listeing devices to take care of how we like to listen to the sound, doesn't it?
And, we all have different ears, different room acoustics, different loudspeaker systems, etc... so how a "certain" equalization can work for everyone or fit the tastes of everyone?

Anyways, when a source has a frequency balance which is totally screwed up, then the EQ might be needed to simply try to restore a reasonable timbre, which is usually a quite objective improvement.

Please, don't take my comment negatively in any way... it's not my intention to be negative, at all.
I am only trying to add a few more points to the debate, which is indeed a healthy debate.


Cheers,

Vince.