Talk:Remaster

POV

Somebody should probably redo this. The style doesn't really work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.6.74 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2005 (UTC)

It's also really, really NPOV. I don't know nearly enough about the subject to rewrite the article, but the tone of the article is pervasively negative towards those selling remastered editions of things. Hold on, let me find where that "neutrality disputed" boilerplate it... — Adam Conover † 07:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is written by someone who knows A LOT about recording techniques. It is FACT that "remastering" is often just a buzzword! The "loudness war" is WELL DOCUMENTED on the internet, en many famous and respected mastering engineers, like Bob Katz, have commented on this. The author really goes into detail about why remasters CAN be better than previous digital releases (e.g. the use of first or second generation original analogue masters). In the early days, often the signal to noise ratio of the CD wasn't used to the full (that is, not loud enough) Nowadays, CD's are TOO loud, and suffer from exaggerated dynamic compression, this is called the "loudness war", and is a known topic of concern for record producers, sound engineers and mastering engineers.

the "tone" of the article can be disputed, but in fact is a balanced, generally well-informed and neutral article on remastering, showing both the enormous possibilities of improvement, and the on the other hand the "buzzword" aspect, and the fact that some remasters are not an improvement at all, becasue of the loss of dynamic range. User:193.191.138.240

Please don't delete others' words on the Talk page. Debate their points but retain their writing. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

+1 for redoing some parts.

I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaster#Music applied some changes:

I removed "Although to understand compressors and limiters work, you need to first understand dynamic range and how it works. " You can understand a compressor from a lot of different points of view. No need for this sentence.

I removed "While remastering the track, engineers tweak the faders so that the audio has fatter bass sounds and more treble details. This will keep the track balanced." After .. eq.. apply eq with more bass and treble will likely not keep any track "balanced". I seldomely make changes to wikipedia and It feels a little strange to remove stuff from articles that others have written. However, better less to read than strange/redundand or even false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orby1 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

References

confusing jargon sections

which also aided unimpressive digital transfers marked by dropouts, underutilization of SNR, et cetera. . This could benefit from some wikilinks.

and Reediting, resequencing, restoring, Jon Dowland 16:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly feel that there is some POV in this article. The last section explains how the contributor feels about digital remastering, and why they think that it is bad. However, that is just giving us the impression that it is bad, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest that somebody rewrite this to explain the arguments against and in favor of digital remastering or just delete the section altogether. Oklonia 00:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know this page will have to change eventually to be encyclopedia appropriate but for now it is the most informative and readable article on wikipedia despite (beacause of?) the pov--207.180.186.62 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

I'm not a native speaker, but I think that the following sentence doesn't make sense: "For example, a vinyl LP originally pressed from a worn-out pressing master many tape generations removed from the "original" master recording could be remastered and re-pressed from a better-condition tape." If I was knowledgeable in the field of (re-)mastering, it would certainly be easy to correct that sentence, but sadly, I'm not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.104.133 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Disregard, I get it now. I mistook removed for a verb.

Criticism

If it's going to be kept, the criticism section needs to have more citations. As it stands right now, a large portion of it reads like original research. (And a possible violation of NPOV as well) Anyone care to work on this? 50.135.73.142 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as digital remasting [sic]?

In a recent revision of this article, an anonymous editor added the phrase digital remasting to this article. Is this the correct term, or is it a typographical error? Jarble (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo. Fixed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Structure of article

This page is written more like a comprehensive guide than an enyclopedic article. Things like this example: "To understand the concept of remastering, it is beneficial to understand that...etc" are more suited for an article to understand the subject, not for a wikipedia page.

Two entire sections show no sources (references)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be entirely based on reliable external sources, and those references need be shows for every relevant passage. This article has two entire sections (Mastering & Remastering (intro section)) which have no references. This looks like original research, which is not allowed under the Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not questioning the accuracy or soundness of these sections. I'm no expert, but they seem fine to me. It's possible they're based on the articles referred to in the references section, rather than the personal knowledge and expertise of the original autor. But whatever the source, it needs to be cited specifically, showing citations (footnotes) in the body of the text. Omc (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be some outdated information in the film and television section.

I can't help but notice that this article actually states that remasters of "shows... such as Star Trek: The Original Series cannot be released in high definition... as the standard definition resolution was baked into the final cuts of the episodes" and specifically identifies Star Trek The Next Generation as being the only show to have received a bluray release which is no longer the case. (SOURCE: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series_(Blu-ray))

I don't anything about how this remaster was done but I think this section should be reworked in some way. Anyone else agree? 118.211.26.153 (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)