phbart 609 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 For listening purposes, 44.1kHz/16bit is more than enough. Anything more than that is just useful for production only (recording, editing, mixing, restoring... and what have you). For instance, take whatever 96kHz/24bit (or higher resolution) music you have and make a down-rez to 44.1kHz/16bit using, I dunno, Adobe Audition, or even the ancient Cool Edit Pro (which is where Audition came from) by just setting any optimal setting, no dithering needed. And good luck telling the difference... 😉 Chewy and Jurassic Shark 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brundlefly 2,385 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 It is really time for Star Wars and Indiana Jones to get such a definitive chapter-ending treatment. This set is a great opportunity to give that score the attention it deserves. I was never a fan of the score, but maybe I will become one. karelm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterXDTV 61 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, Brundlefly said: It is really time for Star Wars and Indiana Jones to get such a definitive chapter-ending treatment. This set is a great opportunity to give that score the attention it deserves. I was never a fan of the score, but maybe I will become one. I guess I'm one of the few people here that considers Superman as John Williams' greatest work. I don't think any other score compares to this: so many unique and unforgettable themes It's my favorite movie ever, and the music is a big reason why Ollie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. A. Ron 1,742 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 2 hours ago, MisterXDTV said: Mike agrees with me then: the only thing they can do in the future is to re-release this as a FLAC 96khz/24bit version... And it wouldn't be a physical release anyway, just digital. Well, they could also release a surround sound version... bollemanneke and Mattris 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rough cut 1,714 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 Music in surround is overrated. But I guess that’s a preference. bollemanneke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterXDTV 61 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, A. A. Ron said: Well, they could also release a surround sound version... that would be great but it's even more unlikely considering that DVD-Audio and SACD are even more dead than standard CDs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. A. Ron 1,742 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 41 minutes ago, MisterXDTV said: that would be great but it's even more unlikely considering that DVD-Audio and SACD are even more dead than standard CDs DVD-A and SACD are dead, sure, but if surround took off in the domain of digital downloads, such a release could be very likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 2 hours ago, MisterXDTV said: I guess I'm one of the few people here that considers Superman as John Williams' greatest work. You shouldn't be. It's one of the few I'll accept as his greatest. This new generation of wackos will say it's one of the Harry Potters or Tin Tin. Like Kevin Spacey said, wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karelm 2,913 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 2 hours ago, Brundlefly said: It is really time for Star Wars and Indiana Jones to get such a definitive chapter-ending treatment. This set is a great opportunity to give that score the attention it deserves. I was never a fan of the score, but maybe I will become one. I personally could wait for after Star Wars IX to get the real definitive 9 OST complete set...the definitive remastered reconstructed edition...the set to end all sets. For Raiders, I'll wait for after Raiders V which I think is next after West Side Story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brundlefly 2,385 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 42 minutes ago, karelm said: For Raiders, I'll wait for after Raiders V which I think is next after West Side Story. A sequel and a remake... Spielberg is clearly running out of ideas. Seriously, the current and the preceding decade couldn't differ more regarding his innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 3 hours ago, rough cut said: Music in surround is overrated. But I guess that’s a preference. Sometimes it can be amazing, like Chicago, Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds, and Dark Side of the Moon. But orchestral music is underwhelming in 5.1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amer 2,108 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 8 hours ago, El Jefe said: I remember the chilly stare from those eyes when the Mrs came home and saw the Herrmann Varèse box set sitting next to me....... I get the same each time a package arrives from the post office. I'm also told "Shame on you! " Heck. I'm guilty as ever. 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 40 minutes ago, dougie said: Sometimes it can be amazing, like Chicago, Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds, and Dark Side of the Moon. But orchestral music is underwhelming in 5.1. We have two ears, why need 6 speakers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, Stefancos said: We have two ears, why need 6 speakers? You don't need six ears to hear what's behind you. Mattris and Naïve Old Fart 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattris 416 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 8 hours ago, MisterXDTV said: Mike agrees with me then: the only thing they can do in the future is to re-release this as a FLAC 96khz/24bit version... And it wouldn't be a physical release anyway, just digital. Like I said I don't have the right equipment to take advantage of Hi-Res Audio anyway You might not have the hearing discernment capability, either. 7 hours ago, rough cut said: I don’t see any point in 96khz/24bit releases. And I’m not just talking about Superman, I mean in general. CD quality is the perfect middle ground. 7 hours ago, phbart said: For listening purposes, 44.1kHz/16bit is more than enough. Anything more than that is just useful for production only (recording, editing, mixing, restoring... and what have you). For instance, take whatever 96kHz/24bit (or higher resolution) music you have and make a down-rez to 44.1kHz/16bit using, I dunno, Adobe Audition, or even the ancient Cool Edit Pro (which is where Audition came from) by just setting any optimal setting, no dithering needed. And good luck telling the difference... 😉 Using above-average equipment, some people can hear the difference between 44.1kHz/16bit and 96kHz/24bit music. (I can.) 5 hours ago, A. A. Ron said: DVD-A and SACD are dead, sure, but if surround took off in the domain of digital downloads, such a release could be very likely. I hope it does. To experience (hi-res) surround-sound, I suppose listeners would have to connect their computer to their hi-fi via HDMI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 30 minutes ago, Mattris said: I hope it does. To experience (hi-res) surround-sound, I suppose listeners would have to connect their computer to their hi-fi via HDMI. I miss 5.1/7.1 analog out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,528 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 12 hours ago, rough cut said: "...this outstanding reissue – simply put – is like hearing SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE for the very first time!” Actually, it's not...but I know what they mean. I first heard the OST in December, 1978. I loved it, then; I adore it, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rough cut 1,714 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 But it will be like the first time... Again! Like a second first time! Or a first second time! Naïve Old Fart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bespin 8,481 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 By the LLL catalog number we can see they tried to released it last year... bollemanneke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phbart 609 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 6 hours ago, Mattris said: Using above-average equipment, some people can hear the difference between 44.1kHz/16bit and 96kHz/24bit music. (I can.) Are you saying you can hear sounds above the 20kHz range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 They can feel it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phbart 609 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 He feels high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciarlese 250 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 hour ago, phbart said: Are you saying you can hear sounds above the 20kHz range? Sampling frequency is different than sound waves frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phbart 609 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, ciarlese said: Sampling frequency is different than sound waves frequency. In what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 In that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rough cut 1,714 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 To the human ear, the audible frequency range is 20–20,000 Hz (20 kHz). The CD standard (casually thown around under the term ’lossless’) is 44.1 kHz. That is DOUBLE to what humans can hear. For companies to sell - and charge more! - for audio content in 96 kHz must be the greatest scam of our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Holko 9,526 Posted February 17, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, phbart said: In what way? Dumbed down: sound waves are the air moving in a specific way and pattern: the faster it moves, the higher the pitch. Now, when recording this analogue air movement digitally, what you do is take "snapshots", samples regularly, then in a computer try to reconstruct the original audio by fitting a waveform onto the pattern those samples create. The more often you take samples (the higher the sampling frequency), the more accurately the audio can be reconstructed. Sound wave frequency is a number that is describing the audio itself, and humans normally hear sound between 20 and 20.000 Hz, while sampling frequency describes the recording or mixing output, the digital file, and how accurate it is to the original "air movements". Sound frequency describes the wavy line, sampling frequency is how close to each other the vertical lines are. anironwaffle, Ricard and Jurassic Shark 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Shark 12,075 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 13 minutes ago, rough cut said: To the human ear, the audible frequency range is 20–20,000 Hz (20 kHz). The CD standard (casually thown around under the term ’lossless’) is 44.1 kHz. That is DOUBLE to what humans can hear. For companies to sell - and charge more! - for audio content in 96 kHz must be the greatest scam of our time. The sampling frequency needs to be at least twice the max. sound frequency, to avoid aliasing. There's one theoretical advantage of using a sampling frequency that's greater than this: Transients - very steep waves, such as when going from silence to a cymbal hit. However, few people (if any) are able to differentiate between transients encoded with CD standard versus with higher sampling frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phbart 609 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Yes, but talking about the human hearing range (20hz-20.000hz), what gain the audio quality would get by a higher sampling that the 44.1kHz sampling (0hz - 22.050hz) doesn't cover already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Shark 12,075 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 As I said, higher sampling rate is mostly about transients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rough cut 1,714 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 We’re talking about a lot of things at the same time. Sound frequency ...is audible between 20-20 kHz. An increase in Hz does not improve sound quality as it is inaudible. Sampling frequency There are a number of studies that show that 24 bit does not sound better than 16 bit - other than in theory. @Jurassic Shark is talking about that the Nyquist bandwidth: the relationship between frequency rate and bit rate. If “frequency rate” < ”half bit rate” then this would cause distortion. CDs do not have this problem, so hi-res files can’t fix what ain’t broken. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holko 9,526 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Shannon's law says the sampling frequency has to be at least twice the bandwidth to avoid significant distortion, but a higher sampling still makes the file more accurate. Mattris and Jurassic Shark 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jurassic Shark 12,075 Posted February 17, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2019 20 minutes ago, rough cut said: We’re talking about a lot of things at the same time. Sound frequency ...is audible between 20-20 kHz. An increase in Hz does not improve sound quality as it is inaudible. Sampling frequency There are a number of studies that show that 24 bit does not sound better than 16 bit - other than in theory. @Jurassic Shark is talking about that the Nyquist bandwidth: the relationship between frequency rate and bit rate. If “frequency rate” < ”half bit rate” then this would cause distortion. CDs do not have this problem, so hi-res files can’t fix what ain’t broken. 😉 Juse a few corrections: Sampling frequency has nothing to do with bit depth or bit rate. Frequency is a rate, so saying "frequency rate" is like putting butter on butter. phbart, Holko and Mattris 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciarlese 250 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 45 minutes ago, phbart said: Yes, but talking about the human hearing range (20hz-20.000hz), what gain the audio quality would get by a higher sampling that the 44.1kHz sampling (0hz - 22.050hz) doesn't cover already? To give yourself an answer, think about the gain the video quality gets when going from SD to fullHD, then from fullHD to 4k: that has nothing to do with the human seeing range, as that il was well covered even by svga. It's all about the amount of digital information used to create the sound (or the picture): the more info used the more detailed the sound and the pictures are. Mattris and Unlucky Bastard 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 People are generally dismissive of the significance of hearing and sound. Ricard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Shark 12,075 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 It's overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, dougie said: People are generally dismissive of the significance of hearing and sound. People take good hearing for granted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post anironwaffle 9 Posted February 17, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2019 15 hours ago, A. A. Ron said: Well, they could also release a surround sound version... 15 hours ago, MisterXDTV said: that would be great but it's even more unlikely considering that DVD-Audio and SACD are even more dead than standard CDs Intermittent lurker here, so forgive the rambling and possible burying of the lead. Last paragraph is likely most of interest here but if I let myself edit this then I'll wind up never posting it. I'm likely buying this set once I rejigger my "fun money queue." Between the UHD and the extended version on Blu (turns out the UHD digital copy comes with that, so I needn't have bought the disc), Superman has been a pricey indulgence this year. II & III is very, very tempting. Way back when, II was my favorite score; more so than the original. Just not sure I need III again. The UHD and it is nice to have the score (though not isolated) in hi-res surround. I do wish the vintage sound mix were lossless but it's also nice to have that. I also confess it feels like a missed opportunity not to have the isolated score (which I believe was included, in stereo, on the original DVD). While DVD-A is truly dead, it's my understanding that SACD actually still does pretty well in classical, jazz and other niches. In fact, Pink Floyd is about to reissue two OOP SACDs (Dark Side and Wish You Were Here) and a third (Animals) which has never been on the format at all. Yes, niches within niches among neighboring niches -- just like film scores. Thing is, Blu-ray Audio is fully compatible with Blu-ray; it's the same basic spec. There's no reason hi-res and/or surround can't be played on all Blu-ray hardware easily purchased for, what, $50US? Of course, that doesn't include full surround gear but that's a deeper topic for elsewhere. It's just an acknowledgement there are still complications. I don't think I personally benefit much from hi-res but accept that others do. Likewise, I get the "we have two ears" dismissal. Forgive the diversion before returning to orchestras. Surround implementation can range from gimmicky (Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi") to "big stereo" (Beales' 1+ often gets this criticism), and points in between. One of my favorite albums, R.E.M.'s "Automatic for the People" received a 5.1 mix around 2000 or so and received a ground-up ATMOS (5.1.x) mix last year. When listening to either in 5.1 it is apparent that each was remixed differently and that each brings out elements that were buried (intentionally or otherwise). As a moderately critical listener without training, I find this wonderful. Not only is it immersive (to me) but for someone with an attentive but inexpert ear it can help me become more aware of elements I hadn't keyed into before. For some that's a distraction or even revisionist. For me it's refreshing. Then, when I return to stereo mixes (whether the original or new ones) it gives me a richer experience. Even if I still don't notice those elements in the stereo mix it somehow still feels fresher. Psychosomatic, maybe; subjective, certainly. Blasphemy... to some. Okay. Orchestral. I have a handful of vintage RCA "Living Stereo" SACDs that are in 3.0 surround from the 1950s. In the case of the orchestral ones, it helps spreading the sections across an extra channel. Same even with something like Belafonte Live at Carnegie. It brings more presence. Last year, Deutsche Grammophone released two excellent surround sets on Blu-ray audio. One is Bernstein's complete Beethoven's symphonies in 5.1. The other is Steinberg conducting Holst's "Planets" and Strauss' "Zarathustra" in a vintage quad/4.0 mix. As with the handful of classical titles I have, the rears are used more to provide "presence" than anything else. For some, that's annoying; for others immersive. I rather like it, personally. Unlike DSP settings in a receiver, this bakes it in so there is no artifacting and -- more critically -- it has human artistic intent and engineering talent behind it, rather than an algorithm. Best of all, on the Blu-ray one can listen in surround, hi-res stereo or standard stereo because Blu-ray Audio is backwards compatible. This sets it apart from SACD and DVD-A's proprietary issues. It also means that, when titles are affordable (like "Planets" and, for the disc count, Beethoven -- and unlike R.E.M.!), people who are fine with 16/44.1 get what they want, as do the hi-res folks and the surround kooks like me. Best of all, one can upgrade or downgrade to suit their taste, budget, etc.). For anyone interested, here's an interesting video about the process of prepping the Bernstein/Beethoven set. He discusses surround mid-way through: All of this is to say, it's nice having the choice. It's too bad that economic realities of this licensed niche and the waning physical media market makes it less likely such options will arrive even though it seems this (and at least Star Trek: TMP) are ready to go in hi-res stereo. If/when they become downloadable, maybe I'll give them a shot. I did buy the most recent Star Wars hi-res download; it's more problematic history and edits make it harder for me to fully embrace it, though. A. A. Ron, Smeltington, Ricard and 6 others 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, Stefancos said: People take good hearing for granted! Yes, they do, as I've sadly noted over the last eight months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phbart 609 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 21 minutes ago, ciarlese said: To give yourself an answer, think about the gain the video quality gets when going from SD to fullHD, then from fullHD to 4k: that has nothing to do with the human seeing range, as that il was well covered even by svga. It's all about the amount of digital information used to create the sound (or the picture): the more info used the more detailed the sound and the pictures are. I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. You don't measure your hearing capabilities the same way you measure your visual capabilities. And digital video, not only is far more complex than digital audio, it's also treated in many ways differently than digital audio is. I'd like you to take your time to watch these two videos here from the Xiph.org website. It's made by an audio engineer and he explains things nicely and in a very didactic way. In the second, he goes more on the digital audio part, and that's how I'm convinced that 44.1kHz/16bit for listening purposes is more than enough. Video 1: https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml Video 2: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml It's subtitled in various languages, btw. Jurassic Shark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,528 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 4 hours ago, rough cut said: But it will be like the first time... Again! Like a second first time! Or a first second time! So, @rough cut, we meet again, for the first time, for the last time. rough cut 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phbart 609 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 22 hours ago, anironwaffle said: I did buy the most recent Star Wars hi-res download; it's more problematic history and edits make it harder for me to fully embrace it, though. I won't quote your entire post because it's too long but you did make a good point. However, basically, what you said (in the parts I didn't quote here) is that the benefits of formats like DVD-A and SACD comes more from the mixing process and the multichannel configuration than the resolution itself. Which brings me to the part I quoted. Indeed there's a 192kHz/24bit of the recent SW music and the standard CD as well. How different do they sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciarlese 250 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 42 minutes ago, phbart said: I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. You don't measure your hearing capabilities the same way you measure your visual capabilities. And digital video, not only is far more complex than digital audio, it's also treated in many ways differently than digital audio is. I'd like you to take your time to watch these two videos here from the Xiph.org website. It's made by an audio engineer and he explains things nicely and in a very didactic way. In the second, he goes more on the digital audio part, and that's how I'm convinced that 44.1kHz/16bit for listening purposes is more than enough. Video 1: https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml Video 2: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml It's subtitled in various languages, btw. Thanks for the links to the videos. I don't have time to watch them now, although I read the English subtitles and I found some interesting bits which I think are most relevant to this conversation: 1:Audio and video are different indeed, although the principles behind video and audio digitization are the same. And that is the reason why the first link starts talking about audio sampling then talks about video sampling: 219 00:16:02,571 --> 00:16:08,798 One could think of video as being like audio but with two additional spatial dimensions, X and Y, 220 00:16:08,798 --> 00:16:12,787 in addition to the dimension of time. This is mathematically sound. 221 00:16:12,787 --> 00:16:19,097 The Sampling Theorem applies to all three video dimensions just as it does the single time dimension of audio. So it looks like I am not comparing apples and oranges after all. This comes from the video you posted. About your previous comment, here what your video says: 161 00:11:18,545 --> 00:11:25,100 Super-hi-fidelity sampling rates of 88, and 96, and 192kHz have also appeared. 162 00:11:25,100 --> 00:11:30,888The reason for the sampling rates beyond 48kHz isn't to extend the audible high frequencies further. That bit covers your original comment: Quote 9 hours ago, Mattris said: Using above-average equipment, some people can hear the difference between 44.1kHz/16bit and 96kHz/24bit music. (I can.) Are you saying you can hear sounds above the 20kHz range? Now if you want to say that there is no audible difference by sampling with a higher frequency than the current CD standard I can't say that I disagree. But I think it is pretty much the same as going from 4k to 8k in terms of visible difference (unless you are VERY close to the screen), even after the videos you posted (which seem to me to prove you wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. A. Ron 1,742 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 @anironwaffle I don't really have anything to add what you said, but thanks for posting it! It was a great read. anironwaffle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rick 1,157 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Nice little nugget of info from MM on the FSM board regarding STM source music on the S II/III set! Yet another example of the meticulous care Mike has demonstrated with these projects, especially when it means going back and vastly improving a work that has been done previously, in this case a couple times! Quote Quote Here's the comparison no one asked for: the new Superman source tracks as presented on the SII/SIII set are worlds away from the ones presented in the Blue Box. The stereo is more defined for one thing with a wider apparent soundstage and much more instrument separation. The sound is clearer, warmer, and less harsh owing to the use of earlier-generation masters, presumably first-generation as was the rest of the score. The overtones of each instrument are there as is a sense of natural ambience around each individual performer. The difference is not subtle. And this is just the source music. There is an editorial difference in the way "Kansas High School" has been assembled in the new version: all the parts are there but there is an introductory horn riff that started the piece in the Blue Box that has been moved to the middle in the new version, and a repeat of the melody at the end has been eliminated. No big deal - this is probably closer to Williams' original intent. Can't wait to hear the score proper with this much improvement. Lots of love to Mike M. for all his hard work. Thanks for noticing! The STM source music on SII/III is indeed exactly as it was recorded and now mixed from the 2-inch masters. On the FSM box all I had were fragments from the mixed dubbing stems that were given to me on DA88 tapes in 1999 for the Rhino project! They were already cut to fit the scenes in the TV version, so I had to editorially turn them into listenable tracks (so some have repeated sections). The only really "intact" piece was the Hawaiian music, which is why that was on the Rhino release (plus it was actually in the film) and then carried over to the FSM box. (For the record, I also did new mixes of the SII source music because I thought they could match everything else better - other than "Honeymoon Hotel," which came from the album master.) https://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?pageID=5&forumID=1&threadID=134366&archive=0 anironwaffle and phbart 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 I didn t see the post update .I guess I have to get this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. A. Ron 1,742 Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 How has no one asked when this will ship yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,315 Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 When is this shipping? bollemanneke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faleel 5,348 Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 The 22nd is what the email said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The Five Tones 302 Posted February 18, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2019 I bought the 1978 double LP around late 1980 or early 1981 - after I had already bought Superman II - and played it on the audiophile system we had in our house. I became aware that it was of middling to inferior sound quality, not only relative to SII but on a then state of art the system. I first heard the rough-sounding Arista CE3K vinyl around this time (and Raiders a few months later), so this wasn't a shock. But one usually expected the music on your home stereo to sound at least better than off the tiny mono speaker on your TV which played low quality broadcast feeds, or the tinny little speakers of the day in theatres. Despite the over-compressed/clipped/distorted audio - pre-echoes of mp3s and Soundcloud, lol - I knew Superman was an absolute masterpiece. That opening march was like Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries or Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 (and 2001/Also Sprach Zarathustra which was only a decade old release), but with a modern tempo, chordal profile and pop cultural relevance. It was, is, of my time. I believed an orchestra could fly. It is no small event for me that the original multis have been restored and remixed. The metaphor (hashtag/tagline) and the music are one. And yes, it will be a sentimental souvenir to have that original LP presentation restored. But I really just want the updated film score and precious few newly discovered moments. ScorePhile, Ricard, Mattris and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now