Schindler's List - 2CD 25th Anniversary Edition from La-La Land Records (2018)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

1 hour ago, bollemanneke said:

I didn't see anyone exclude James Horner's 'sketch' from Titanic simply because the man didn't like it at the time of the movie's release.

 

That's a silly argument really.

 

I don't know all the details about the legal rights. Maybe @Jay knows more about that kinda stuff. I remember reading years ago that basically the studio owns 50% and the composer the other 50%, but I may be wrong.

 

But again, even if the studio owns all of it and can basically do whatever they like, why would Universal sign off on a score release knowing the composer, and in this case a composer why has had his office on their grounds for decades, wasnt happy with it. Why would Spielberg allow such a thing?

 

I know soundtrack fans basically want every not, and in brilliant remastered quality, but your reasoning just sounds a little petulant.

 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

That's actually very good point. I do understand your reasoning, but would just have preferred things to be different.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You can't always get what you want....right away.

 

I'm sure one of these days an even better release will come along.

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

They could have done more!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You're going with that old chestnut...again?

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

It's a classic!

[rough cut 1,714]

Nobody’s more upset that the bonus tracks we got are (apparently) just mp3s on a disc?

 

More than missing cues, the low fidelity (or lack of disclaimer, or lack of quality control) makes me hesitant about spending money on future LLL releases. Is this what I am paying for (especially since I already own the “gold” OST, and disc 1 is the identical master). Disc 2 is the selling point here!

 

In terms of missing cues, I know what I am buying (or not buying) by looking at the track list. I can live without missing cues; I already made that decision when buying the release. But I take for granted that whatever is on there is delivered in standard quality.

 

If not, there should be a disclaimer (as there sometimes is with a ‘mono’ label as stereo is considered standard). 44.1 kHz is standard when buying a cd. I didn’t pay for anything less.

 

It’s like going to a fancy restaurant, ordering and paying for sirloin but, in the end, find out that they were serving you dog.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Lets see, LLL has so far produced hundreds of high quality releases. 

 

Schindler's List isn't perhaps their best one.

 

Will this deter me from buying future releases?

 

*thinks*

 

Nope!

 

5 minutes ago, rough cut said:

It’s like going to a fancy restaurant, ordering and paying for sirloin but, in the end, find out that they were serving you dog.

 

Lol, no thats not actually the same thing at all.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

23 minutes ago, rough cut said:

If not, there should be a disclaimer (as there sometimes is with a ‘mono’ label as stereo is considered standard). 44.1 kHz is standard when buying a cd. I didn’t pay for anything less.

 

I believe you got both stereo and a sample rate of 44.1 kHz.

[rough cut 1,714]

22 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Lets see, LLL has so far produced hundreds of high quality releases. 

 

Schindler's List isn't perhaps their best one.

 

Will this deter me from buying future releases?

 

*thinks*

 

Nope!

 

Lol, no thats not actually the same thing at all.

 

Yeah, I know I am exaggerating a bit, but it is puzzling to me.

 

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I believe you got both stereo and a sample rate of 44.1 kHz.

 

Hmmm... as indicated earlier it seems some tracks on CD2 cut off at approx 16 kHz. Or did I misunderstand?

[Holko 9,516]

Sampling rate != frequency of audio. We've been through this not long ago.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

But what's the difference between a bitrate and a sample rate?

[Holko 9,516]

Sample rate is how many samples were taken per second at the digitising of the analogue source. Bitrate is how many bits are used to describe a second of that sampled, digital audio in its final container file.

[rough cut 1,714]

Nobody’s complaining about either the sample rate or bit rate.

 

It is the frequency range that is in question.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I know.  I just had a related question...

 

4 minutes ago, Holko said:

Sample rate is how many samples were taken per second at the digitising of the analogue source. Bitrate is how many bits are used to describe a second of that sampled, digital audio in its final container file.

 

And bitrate is only ever used for lossy files, it's a description of the compression of the lossless source, correct?

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

16 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Hmmm... as indicated earlier it seems some tracks on CD2 cut off at approx 16 kHz. Or did I misunderstand?

 

The frequency range is limited upwards by half the sample rate. That's why the frequency range of any CD ends at about 20 kHz or less. Even if it ends at 15 kHz you probably won't notice that the higher frequencies are missing, unless you're very young.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Just now, Jurassic Shark said:

unless you're very young.

 

The newer JWFans are practically infants!

[Holko 9,516]

It does describe the compression. With MP3s, for example, you can select your well-known 320, 256 or 128 kbps files, the file size and quality, nonlossyness, are in an inverted relation. FLAC files still have bitrates of course, but you don't get to select it, it sets itself a rate where the result can still be considered lossless.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

Just now, Disco Stu said:

 

The newer JWFans are practically infants!

 

I guess you should know!

 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

1 minute ago, Holko said:

It does describe the compression. With MP3s, for example, you can select your well-known 320, 256 or 128 kbps files, the file size and quality, nonlossyness, are in an inverted relation. FLAC files still have bitrates of course, but you don't get to select it, it sets itself a rate where the result can still be considered lossless.

 

I sort of basically knew all this from context, but had never consciously researched it.  Thanks!

 

1 minute ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I guess you should know!

 

I'm genuinely not sure what this joke is meant to imply

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

3 minutes ago, Holko said:

FLAC files still have bitrates of course, but you don't get to select it, it sets itself a rate where the result can still be considered is completely lossless.

 

Fixed!

 

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

I'm genuinely not sure what this joke is meant to imply.

 

You jokester.

[Holko 9,516]

There is of course a certain level where it becomes complete placebo for even the biggest audiophiles, even if even higher bitrates would make the files more and more close to lossless.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

1 minute ago, Holko said:

There is of course a certain level where it becomes complete placebo for even the biggest audiophiles, even if even higher bitrates would make the files more and more close to lossless.

 

Lossless FLAC uses smarter representation of the binary strings in order to reduce the file size. It does not compress the audio like mp3 does.

[Holko 9,516]

Oh, alright then.

[rough cut 1,714]

2 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

The frequency range is limited upwards by half the sample rate. That's why the frequency range of any CD ends at about 20 kHz or less. Even if it ends at 15 kHz you probably won't notice that the higher frequencies are missing, unless you're very young.

 

We’ve had this discussion before on JWfan, regarding hi-red audio, if I remember correctly. I am against the so called Hi-res audio (24 bit/96 kHz) since it goes way beyond what the human ear can hear.

 

But the human ear is capable to hear up to 20kHz with just “normal hearing.” 16 kHz, as some cues apparently are, is well below that.

 

And that doesn’t change the fact that a standard CD today is 44.1 kHz. Not 20 kHz or 16 kHz. Anything below 44 kHz is, by definition, sub standard. Anything below 20 is... just disrespectful of the end consumer.

[Holko 9,516]

A 44.1 kHz sampling rate means a 22.05 kHz frequency range, though.

 

A 96 kHz sampling rate does not mean it includes 96kHz audio waves, or even necessarily an indeed useless 48 kHz wide frequency range - it could be the same 20 kHz range, just more finely sampled and therefore more accurately recreating the sharp transients if necessary.

 

That 16kHz cutoff does look pitiful though.

[rough cut 1,714]

33 minutes ago, Holko said:

That 16kHz cutoff does look pitiful though.

 

Thank you - That’s all I am saying!

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

1 hour ago, rough cut said:

But the human ear is capable to hear up to 20kHz with just “normal hearing. 16 kHz, as some cues apparently are, is well below that.

 

My point was that the maximum audible frequency decreases with age. Only kids can hear 20 kHz. JW's max. audible frequency, at age 87, is well below 10 kHz...

[rough cut 1,714]

We agree about hearing.

 

We seem to disagree about whether it is ok to market and sell CD2 at its current (unconfirmed?) technical specs.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

What would you like to have confirmed?

 

I agree that the frequency spectrum doesn't seem nice, but I guess Mike and the people at LLL figured the cut-off isn't audible.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

There are bigger problems than that cut-off, namely the huge difference in sound between disc 1 and 2.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

How do they differ? I haven't heard it yet.

[Holko 9,516]

Disc 2 is louder.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

That's all?

[rough cut 1,714]

People have complained that the sound image is different (because of mastering).

 

Which, really, is unsurprising to me. I can live with that considering it’s a disc of bonus material.

[rough cut 1,714]

4 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

What would you like to have confirmed?

 

It would be nice to know the background. ”Could they have done more?” to paraphrase a certain shark. ; )

 

4 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I agree that the frequency spectrum doesn't seem nice, but I guess Mike and the people at LLL figured the cut-off isn't audible.

 

More than “doesn’t seem nice” - it isn’t nice.

 

Also - “I guess /- - -/ LLL figured the cut-off isn’t audible” - Yeah, we can all guess to the reason why there’s a low fidelity product being currently sold by LLL. Your guess is that it’s a conscious decision. If so, I find it deceiving the paying public. My guess is that it is a mistake.

 

Is there a high fidelity source? Yes? No? If yes - why wasn’t it used? If no - why no disclaimer?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So you believe LLL decieved you?

[Arpy 4,145]

No, it was LLL who were deceived.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

We're all being deceived!

[rough cut 1,714]

All I am saying, is that it seems curious that MM - who seems to meticulously care about quality - would tout a 16 kHz release as a quality product. It seems more his style to be very candid about his work, the source material and his work process.

 

I don’t think it was intentional that the 16 kHz tracks ended up on disc 2.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

Expansions are being released all the time with much inferior sources than this, without any disclaimer.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

50 minutes ago, rough cut said:

All I am saying, is that it seems curious that MM - who seems to meticulously care about quality - would tout a 16 kHz release as a quality product. It seems more his style to be very candid about his work, the source material and his work process.

 

I don’t think it was intentional that the 16 kHz tracks ended up on disc 2.

 

Or perhaps that was simply the best source they had available to them at that time.

[rough cut 1,714]

2 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Expansions are being released all the time with much inferior sources than this, without any disclaimer.

 

From a movie that is 25 years old? With the material being in-studio recordings?

 

That there are other inferior releases out there, is by itself not a reason that this release should be held to the same “low” quality standard. There are also way older movies that’ve had expansions without suffering quality loss, so the argument that “there is precedent” doesn’t make it any more acceptable. There is precedent both ways. I think each release would have to be judged individually.

 

5 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

Or perhaps that was simply the best source they had available to them at that time.

 

Perhaps. But I doubt it. Why wouldn’t they?

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

9 minutes ago, rough cut said:

From a movie that is 25 years old?

 

What about the expansion of The Mummy Returns, which is an even newer film?

 

9 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Perhaps. But I doubt it. Why wouldn’t they?

 

Film score recordings get lost and mislabeled all the time, such as Jaws, Dracula, Superman...

[rough cut 1,714]

What does The Mummy Returns have to do with Schindler’s List? As I said, each release would have to be judged individually.

 

We can speculate all day about why, when, how and why not? We can only guess. I’m guessing it’s a mistake, you’re guessing it’s as good as it gets. That’s fine.

 

We can compare it to The Mummy Returns, to Superman or any other release you want - good or bad. It doesn’t matter. They are not related and no case proves either of us right or wrong.

 

Fact is: 16 kHz on a CD from sessions recorded 25 years ago is BAD.

 

Let me stress again that I don’t think that the 16 kHz were intentional. I think it was an honest mistake, somewhere in the process.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

???

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

43 minutes ago, rough cut said:

What does The Mummy Returns have to do with Schindler’s List? As I said, each release would have to be judged individually.

 

Geez, what's the matter with you? You're the one who questioned whether there exists expansions from films "as new" as SL that are based on bad sources.

[Holko 9,516]

Mummy Returns isn't a great recording in a cut off container like Schindler here, though, it's a rushed, probably badly set up and premixed recording (the LA cues, that is), in fine container files, not much you can do with that.

[rough cut 1,714]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Geez, what's the matter with you? You're the one who questioned whether there exists expansions from films "as new" as SL that are based on bad sources.

 

Yes, but followed by the statement that there are older films with stellar sources. My point was that age isn’t really a factor.

 

Also, I made a point out of saying that just because one inferior release exists for a movie, new or old, shouldn’t really be used as an excuse to put out an inferior release for another movie.

 

I specifically said “there is precedent both ways.” Didn’t you read my entire post?

 

What I really question is, I guess, whether there exist better sources for disc 2 of SL? I have also stated that we can guess all we want... Maybe it was the best available source? Maybe someone made a mistake? Neither you, nor I, have the answer.

 

But we both know that a recording in 16 kHz is not industry standard.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

Well, you made it sound like this was the only "shoddy" expanded release there has ever been, which it clearly is not.