I haven't heard the "tree" version of the 1/15/73 show (yet) so I won't
comment on that particular recording, but this incident brings up another
issue that I think increasingly is rearing it's ugly head in the digital
age - when, if ever, is it OK to "remaster" a recording that is intended for
trading purposes? With the widespread distribution and use of software that
allows a trader to do everything from "de-noise" a recording to changing
it's speed to drastically re-EQing it, there has been a disturbing increase
in the number of "remastered" recordings that are entering trading circles.
Personally - and I think I'm speaking for most serious traders here - I
*always* prefer to receive a recording that is as close to the source
recording as possible. In fact, I insist on it. That means warts and all;
good with the bad. Signal processing, i.e. "remastering," should *always* be
done by the end user. Now if you want to diddle around with a recording for
your own private use, fine, knock yourself out. But please don't assume that
everyone down the trading chain from you wants an altered, in many cases
ruined, copy of what may very well have been a recording with only minor
flaws. Imagine what a recording would sound like after several generations
if every Phil Spector wannabe who just picked up a copy of Cool Edit Pro
fiddled around with it. At the very least, it's absolutely necessary for
traders to provide a disclaimer on their trading lists if they've done
something to a recording that is being offered for trade.
I'm receiving more and more recordings where it's obvious that somebody has
"cleaned up" or "tweaked" the recording. Now the people that do this often
have nothing but the best intentions, but as far as I'm concerned this is
worse than a TAO recording. At least that can be fixed on my end. I've
received recordings that have been so aggressively "de-noised" (which is
what I think we're talking about here with the 1/15/73 tree) that they are
totally unlistenable - the resultant phase distortion produces a "howling"
sound between songs that is often as loud as the music!
This doesn't mean that remastering is always evil. Some of the recent Rust
tree recordings have been speed corrected, for example; that's obviously a
good thing. More importantly, this information has been disclosed up front
so potential participants can make an informed decision.
At the risk of being overly nostalgic, this wasn't much of an issue back in
the analog days. Remember the "no dolby" mantra? Now that I think about it,
there wasn't much of a problem with diginoise and TAO gaps back then either.
:)
Moral of the story: just because you *can* remaster a recording, doesn't
mean you *should*.
Later...Paul Larson..."sacred roots"
