>Remux is not a community, it's a tag that pirate release groups uses to indicate that a release contains exact copies of the original video and audio streams present on the disc.

There is a community insofar as there is a relatively small group of people who sink their time into producing high quality remuxes, and this group talks to each other (on IRC and elsewhere).

>GP is correct that files with purely additive changes (like additional audio tracks) to remuxes are called hybrid remuxes.

As I corrected on a child comment to the GP, this is not correct. It is not convention either. A hybrid remux has a stream which is a hybrid of two or more sources. Simply combining tracks from different sources isn't a hybrid remux, it's just baseline good practice.

▲

hamdingers an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> A hybrid remux has a stream which is a hybrid of two or more sources.

This explicitly breaks the rules of multiple communities I participate in. All streams must be untouched in a remux, and a hybrid remux is a release with untouched streams from multiple sources (there are also hybrids which are not remuxes).

What even is "a stream which is a hybrid of two or more sources?" Cutting between or combining multiple audio or video streams is simply editing. You're describing a fanedit.

	▲	askjdfksdbfhk 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>This explicitly breaks the rules of multiple communities I participate in. Probably. Not all places allow hybrid remuxes. I promise you that I have these definitions correct as they are most commonly used, since I am actually involved in this space. The word "Hybrid" has been used in the way you describe, most notably by FRaMeSTOR, but I would say that everyone else has coalesced on what I described and would call my definition the standard one. It's also how the "Hybrid" edition label is used on PTP. >What even is "a stream which is a hybrid of two or more sources?" Cutting between or combining multiple audio or video streams is simply editing. You're describing a fanedit. No I'm not. I stand by what I said. As an example you can look at Bridge.to.Terabithia.2007.Hybrid.1080p.BluRay.REMUX.AVC.TrueHD.5.1-BLURANiUM.mkv For the sake of those reading, I will copy from the release notes: >GER has hardcoded translated movie title which is not present in other transfers so hybrid was needed to restore the original picture. Hybrid was done with USA disc since audio from same disc was used. GER video was retimed to 23.976 FPS, trimmed on valid IDR frames and merged with MKVToolnix. In this case, two Blu-ray video streams were spliced together.

▲

opello an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

In my (admittedly limited) experience, adding audio tracks to a video track that weren't produced together often requires editing. If not for sample rate reasons, content reasons, like extra space for additional video space at the beginning or ending most basically. It seems like in any instances like that, which I would count as "nominal," it would be appropriate to identify those as "modified from" which would seemingly place you squarely into "hybrid" space within the taxonomy of this comment thread.

	▲	askjdfksdbfhk 22 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Right. There is some degree of transformation which is normal or necessary. For example, if one of {video, audio} is 24fps and the other is 23.976fps, the video will have its frame rate adjusted to match the audio. For basic video/audio mismatches you may need to trim audio, insert null audio, or add a mkv container delay. These things are normally detailed in release notes. People write pretty detailed notes laying out exactly what they did.
	▲	hamdingers 39 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The muxer can apply a timestamp offset to a track, so while the audio stream remains untouched it starts at some offset relative to the start of the video stream. Agree once you're compensating for drift by scaling the audio track you've pushed yourself out of remux territory, but again these aren't hard and fast rules (evidenced by the disagreement over terminology).