>This is an issue of confusion over terminology, methinks.  The verb
>'remaster' refers to a technical impossibility.  There is only one
>'master', which is the disc, film stock or magnetic tape which

You're right except that this is how the term has been commonly used in the music business for decades.  Perhaps unfortunately "master tapes" (or something similar since sometimes today they're computer files instead of actual tapes) often refers to the original recordings while "master" also means the actual physical object that will create an LP or CD (or at least have other duplicates made from it) and as a verb the process of creating that object.  Mastering is, like a lot in recording, a specialized combination of aesthetics and technology, resulting in mastering engineers that can charge anywhere from $200-300/hr or much more.  So "remaster" actually refers to the making of a new/second manufacturing master from the original recordings, often years after an original release that is now considered not the best possible.  Remastering usually corrects poorly done earlier masters (most early CDs for instance had a thin "tinny" sound before people understood how to master for!
!
 them) or just tampers with the sound though this starts to become actual remixing.  Audiophiles and music buffs are fascinated by the minutiae of masters and their variations.  (I used "remaster" in my original post somewhat against my better judgement since it's not actually the way films work, at least the term isn't.  However, I've been hearing it used in connection with movies more and more, probably on analogy from the music business, and added it as an alternate term to sort of cover the bases.)

http://www.digido.com/cdmastering.html
http://server3002.freeyellow.com/alohasound/masteringinfo.html
http://www.drtmastering.com/faq.htm
http://www.nthelp.com/mastering/faq.htm

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu