What about this statement: “Otherwise, they’re not really a remaster anymore, they’re effectively a remix (and a different recording).” This never applies then?
In some cases, you are right. The different ISRC means nothing as is just a duplicate. To that I agree and I believe this was mentioned somewhere in here as well. I just do not think it right to take and disregard them all because some do it for wrong reasons.
No, I never said this never applies. I just said different ISRC is not a reason in itself not to merge 
If the two are significantly different, they still shouldn’t be merged - but that’s often only knowable by listening. If acoustid doesn’t match much at all, then that might be a good sign it shouldn’t be merged without more care.
That is what I am saying here though. We have different ISRC, acoustID, indication in title on the release, etc… all different. I cannot say how much the acoustID does not match though, but it is not a match. I have a conv on another post on comparing them.
This edit is in reference to recordings that are different, not just simply a different ISRC.
There is also a set of merges from another editor in there too, for those the fingerprints are NOT matching. A lot of this detail is likely lost in the mix as there is a lot of data entered in here.
But as we said, ISRC doesn’t mean that much on this case, and an indication in the release title doesn’t either. Sure, it can say “remastered edition”, but unless there’s a significant difference to the human ear, we just don’t care. Just loudness generally doesn’t count, although I would expect if something is so distorted it is very noticeable then we would indeed create a separate recording (with a disambiguation like “damaged by excessive loudness” or something). The acoustID bit counts a bit more though, when different, unless the comparison shows almost full black
I am a bit confused. This post was about an edit. The edit in reference has different ISRC and acoustID. I am trying to make new recordings for the release as the ISRC and acoustIDs are different than the other releases sharing the current recordings.
So are you saying the edit should be voted no, or it should be voted yes? So far it is going to fail a vote, but I believe your statements here indicate a yes.
Unless I am misreading… and you do mean that you do not care if there is both a different ISRC and acoustID… as is the case here.
Sorry I renamed the topic because you raised a general discussion about remasters.
The edit contains way too much English paragraphs for me to understand what is at stake so I have just asked over there « does it sound different? »
To me, yes. It sounds different. My opinion is also supported (as listening is personal making it hard to share with others) by ISRC and acoustIDs. Additionally, it is supported by the releases using it marking them as the remastered versions, not all tracks, 3 are not remastered, the rest are… per the indications on track titles.
All I am wanting to do with the edit is to have separate recordings for the release, which is what I had intended when I added the data. I did not see the fact that all the recordings were in a merge, otherwise, I would have just made it all new and this issue would not be here.
I guess this also needs to be defined. What is significant and what is not? For me, a non-stop party mix is NOT significant as the actual song is not changed, it is just blended for a few seconds at beginning and end. But for reosarevok, this is significant. For me, a remaster changing the quality and thus the sound of a recording is significant, but to reosarevok it is not.
It all depends on what you like, what you listen to, how good your hearing is, etc. The acoustIDs look at their parts, humans look at theirs individually, etc. There is a popular example of a Paul Simon remaster. The remaster is aweful (in my opinion and a large group of others), but to some it is good. Some people are more… is it loud? louder than others? Yes, ok it is good. … While others listen and hear no dynamic range, a lot of compression and other factors that can make it poor to some… some even say unlistenable. At the same time, there are some remasters that are almost senseless, and those do not need a new recording at all, regardless of title or ISRC.
On a side note… I wanted to share this as it may help on why I am so firm on this edit…
I recently complained to the record company for Sarah Brightman. I was complaining about some serious CRT whistle in many of the recordings. Not only is the noise annoying, but for albums released in the last few years there is no excuse for letting such things past the mastering stages, much less even allowing it to be recorded to the raw recordings.
My reason for sharing that is I notice things like this very easily on music, especially in the jazz, blues, vocal, etc types. There are many examples of both sides I will admit. Some remasters are great and others are poor. On the other side, some are really no different. Or another way to word it, some remasters make you want to buy the remaster, some make you want to avoid the remaster and some you just don’t care.
This is becoming very wrong here.
A cross fade is objectively different (less complete) than a cut.
Maybe you mistake recordings and works?
You say you notice very easily noises and things like that (this is not just remaster).
Well, very good then use distinct recordings and describe the difference (if you don’t, we cannot know we should not merge).
Sometimes the audience is more prominent in one mix than in another (this is not just remaster).
The community can judge if the described difference is big enough.
Cross fades are not a part of the edit in question, just the discussion. I believe you voted no, so it is up to you and those who vote to decide. All I can do is state my case, but it is being met with a good deal of resistance. So as I stated on the edit, it will be what it will be depending on vote.
But by MB standards, a cross faded version and edited out coughing version do warrant new recordings.
I am now abstaining, BTW.
If the differences are not explained (disambiguation comments) or if the explanation is just that it is a remaster with no other details, they might be merged by any clean up editor passing by.
I am the one person who voted Yes. I also have fussy ears and like to know which version of something I am listening to. I can tell the difference between some of the dozens of copies of Dark Side Of The Moon that I own, but only when listening on decent speakers.
I got lost in this conversation as it got soooooo long and complex. So don’t be surprised if other people have also not got this far down the thread.
How would I go about explanation beyond “1996 remaster”?
If you (MB) do not care that the remaster changes the recording, gives a different acoustID, has a different ISRC, then I can easily not care as well. I edit here to help others, not myself. I have my data accurate, and a different ISRC is a different recording, just like a different UPC is a different product, an different iTunes ID.is a different release and files are tagged with that correct information… regardless of why a new UPC, ISRC or any other identifier may have been used. I am completely ok if the standards here are that relaxed when it comes to the actual music. But if you assume that a new ISRC was assigned for no reason, but in reality it was assigned for good reason, then what? As an editor, assuming that you know more than the people releasing the music is not so wise as there are many things we as people do not and will not know, so it is safest and most consistent to act in accordance to what we are told… in my opinion. You either care, or you don’t. I care.
EDIT: @jesus2099 - when I say “you”, I do not mean it directed at you personally, I mean you as in MB.
What would really be ideal here - and being new, I’m probably reiterating something that’s been discussed to death before - is if there could be a structured relatonship between an original recording (“session”, or “take”), and subsequent derivatives of that (remixes, remasters, etc.) In other words if the “Audio” boxes on https://beta.musicbrainz.org/doc/Recording were represented as actual MB entities.
So Coleman Hawkins recorded “Meet Doctor Foo” in the RCA Studios in New York on October 11, 1939, with a particular group of musicians. None of that information changes with any subsequent release of that original recording, regardless of what restoration, remastering, or remixing is done in between. In the current MB model, any time a new Recording is created, all those relationships have to be re-entered. If they could be inherited instead, then remasterings become much lighter-weight objects with just a few unique properties (remastered by, remastering date).
This would be excellent! I agree also with everything you just said. I have mentioned a structure change before and have always received a quick … it is fine how it is. Maybe if enough people ask, it might be considered though. There are those like you which are very detailed on the performers and such, there are people like me with detail on the recording specifics and differences and I am sure there are other variations of that. What you have stated satisfies all, which is important because all of the mentioned approaches are important.
This “hole” also applies to other issues like digital releases where quality is a major factor in the release.
Somewhere upthread (or on the edit) jesus2099 asked what, if any, audible difference exists between the original and remastered versions. Having listened to Spotify’s version of the remaster, I can say that it is signficantly less noisy (background hiss/rumble) than the version on this CD.
So if that meets MB guidelines for a new recording, maybe the best thing is if I cancel the merges to which thwaller’s new recordings were a response.
I for one don’t think it’s fine how it is (edit: or well, I think it’s fine but could be better), and I would like complexity (I care more about works than recordings, different levels for work and arrangement are my pet split). The problem is that complexity only works if we can have an interface for it that doesn’t confuse most users, and I’m not sure we have managed that even with the current number of layers 
That is very true. There are items that are not used fully now due to interface issues and/or complexities. I have not yet looked into the work section much, but I am not personally vested in that portion… but that does not make it any more important than my interests. My interest of choice can be summarized by this example… I hear a song, now I want to know what release has this song on it. It does get strange sometimes, as you mentioned, as there are duplicates in there. Like a recording getting labeled “album version” vs others without versioning specified. But at the same time as that, there are issues like Echosmith’s release “Talking Dreams”. The original release contained the “album version” of Cool Kids. In 2014, this album was re-released changing it to a “radio edit” version. Now on the release, both are titled just “Cool Kids”, making it hard to tell what is what.
EDIT: Here is the listing for the ISRC assigned for “Cool Kids”:
https://isrc.soundexchange.com/#!/search?artistName=echosmith&trackTitle=cool%20kids&tab=search&showReleases=0&start=0&number=10
There are other release(s) involved though as well. That is why I opted to break out these recordings vs vote no on your edits. I can provide data to distinguish these recordings as different by using a label and ISRC. Whereas I do not have the data handy to identify what the other releases are using. So my logic is break out what I do know and specify it and leave the “unspecified” together until such time as someone wants to specify it further. Not sure if that makes sense, but you will see that I abstained on two of your merges and stopped there, just noting the difference in fingerprints between the recordings in question.
I’ve been following it, but there’s just not much to say. There are pros and cons to seperating out different masters, and they stay the same no matter how long the thread gets.
But I think it’s safe to say by now that not many people care about the ISRC side of things. I personally have never been impacted by duplicate ISRCs and probably never will be.
At this stage I do not think it would be practical to go back to seperating out masters.