2013/4/8 LordSputnik <ben.s...@gmail.com>
> symphonick wrote
> > The word "stem" is superfluous here:
> > "Different audio recordings of the same performance will always result in
> > different audio stems"
> >
> > "Different audio recordings of the same performance will always result in
> > different audio"
> > is better.
>
> I don't think it is, but I'll go with the majority when we get some more
> opinions. The whole point is to move away from using audio difference as
> criteria for creating/merging/splitting recordings, and move towards using
> mixing differences instead. In the case of bootlegged recordings, there's a
> single stem
No, that is not a "stem".
Moving to mixing differences is good, but you don't seem to understand what
a "stem" is. I tried to find a good definition on the net, maybe these can
help:
"Stems are premixed or subgrouped tracks."
"Stems usually refers to submixes. If you have 12 tracks of strings or 30
string
mics in a live situation you might premix it down to stereo low strings and
stereo high strings, or just stereo strings, these would be stems."
IMO this term should be avoided (unless we're dealing specifically with
audio that's actually distributed in stems, e.g. raw audio on ccmixter)
> , and this can still be mixed and edited by adding fading,
> splitting it up into shorter sections or adding audio effects such as
> panning or reverb.
>
>
> symphonick wrote
> > And this part:
> >
> > *"Remaster* is a bit of a misnomer." Huh? If we must define what a
> > remaster
> > is, wikipedia's version sounds OK to me: "Remastering is the process of
> > making a new master for an album, movie, or any other creation."
>
> It's a misnomer, in that it doesn't only involve mastering, but also
> mixing.
>
You're getting way too deep into technical details here. Mastering is still
a separate process from mixing. If the mastering engineer has submixed
tracks available ("stem mastering"), issues with the audio can be solved
differently than if there were only stereo tracks available. I don't see
why this should affect us?
> If people agree, I'll remove the sentence, since it doesn't add much to the
> guideline.
>
>
> symphonick wrote
> > "A remaster typically involves "refreshing" the audio of the original
> > stems
> > used in mixing, and correcting any errors in mixing in earlier copies."
> > This is quite good IMO, if you remove the last part (we don't know if
> > there were any "stems" originally. "Errors" in mixing? No.)
> > "A remaster typically involves "refreshing" the audio"
>
> Whether they were called stems or not, every recording has stems, since
> they're the raw product of the recording process. "A stem is one or more
> raw
> audio tracks, typically captured from a studio performance, but possibly
> created from other audio sources"
>
>
No, stems are submixed tracks. See above. "Stems" also requires that you
are mixing to digital media, AFAIK there were no "stems" on tape.
> It's quite possible for there to be "errors" in mixing - things that are
> wrong with the mix which were missed on the original release. For example,
> http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/html/content/a.htm#aditl
>
> > When reading the proposed guideline, the following page should be used as
> > a
> >> reference:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording
> >>
> >> This second page isn't part of the proposal, and may eventually be used
> >> to
> >> update the Recording definition page, but that's completely up to the
> >> developers.
> >>
>
/symphonick
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
