Raiders of the Lost Ark - Orchestral Tuning

[Salacius 7]

.

[Datameister 2,586]

I'm sure the orchestra was tuned normally - the speed (and therefore pitch) of the recording itself got messed up at some point in the process of putting it onto CD. Not sure why, but it's easily corrected. And the score still sounds plenty special after doing so.

[Jilal 681]

I'd recommend using the DCC release.

[Datameister 2,586]

Depends on what sort of mix and EQing you prefer. It's a lot easier to correct the Concord pitches than it is to make the DCC release sound like the Concord release, or vice versa.

[indy4 160]

I thought European orchestras tune to 444, to adjust to the vibraphone? And Raiders was recorded with the LSO.

[Datameister 2,586]

I don't know anything about that, but the differences we're talking about are a lot more significant than that.

[Joe Brausam 234]

442, it isn't uncommon to find mallet instruments here in the states tuned to that instead of 440.

[A24 5,155]

I'd recommend using the DCC release.

I agree. Concord messed around with it too much. DCC sounds quite natural.

[Datameister 2,586]

To my ear and my headphones, "natural" would be somewhere between the two, but a little closer to the Concord release. I like the DCC release just fine, but the sound is a little dull to my ear.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,383]

I'd recommend using the DCC release.

I agree. Concord messed around with it too much. DCC sounds quite natural.

The DCC sounds rougher, but that's simply the Williams/LSO/Tomlinson sound of that era.

It's also part of the charm.

[A24 5,155]

True. The DCC sounds how it is recorded. It's the closest thing to the original analog source (if only the original Star Wars sounded like this!). The producers of the Concord release changed the original recording with 1) A limiting plugin to increase the overall loudness. Peaks that have been pushed above maximum level have been flattened. Not so with the DCC. There the waveform is perfect. No compression is used!!! 2) E.Q. and/or some kind of exciter plugin is added to the point that it becomes very obvious, making the original trilogy of the Concord release sound a lot sharper than the sound of a modern recording (The Crystal Skull). If you EQ to hard, then you start hearing the sound of the EQ. Unless you are making new sounds for a pop music recording, the golden rule when adding EQ is, the moment you hear it, it's already too much. Good remastering should never be obvious. However, when done right, most people don't hear it. The ultimate point is of course to 'justify' a new release and sell CDs. It has to be made obvious so people hear it immediately and buy the CD.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,383]

Good EQ is like great make-up. There, but not in a way you notice.

I know a lot of people get turned of by the rough sound of Star Wars, but it does sound unique.

The closest I've heard is Goldsmiths Inchon, which was recorded in a cramped wine cellar in Italy.

[A24 5,155]

Steef, when you say Star Wars sounds rough, what release are you referring to?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,383]

The original 1977 LP, which was my first encounter with the OST.

I had it for a few years before I even had the OST CD.

It sounds quite unlike any of the other SW scores.

[Salacius 7]

.

[A24 5,155]

The original 1977 LP, which was my first encounter with the OST.

I had it for a few years before I even had the OST CD.

It sounds quite unlike any of the other SW scores.

And yet, the original LP (at least, my copy) has that dark, short roomy Tomlinson sound of that time. I was very disappointed with the CD, the brass sounds more harsh, not as smooth and analog as the LP. It's as if the top end has been lost somehow. The CD does get better after a while, I think. To be honest, I rarely listen to the CD. I once tried to make it sound better but it only became apparent that the master used for this release is of very poor quality.