Bayesian got a reaction from Bespin in Soundtracks, Compilations, or other recently purchased Music
That’s going to ensure you find your original one like the day after you get it in the mailbox.😉
Bayesian reacted to Jay in Possibility of life on Venus
The point is that it is nonsense to suggest that it is the job of the moderating staff of any forum to be on top on all breaking news 24 hours a day to create discussions threads for them right after news breaks.
It's nobody's job. If someone wants to talk about something, they create a thread. Simple as that. I hadn't seen the news yet, because I was working. Data saw the news, and posted a thread. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to say about the website as a whole. You know, the place you constantly complain about, yet keep coming back to anyway.
Bayesian reacted to Jay in Jay's Score Information Collection (John Williams Edition)
1972 - The Poseidon Adventure
Mike Matessino audio interview by Maurizio Cashetto and Tim Burden, December 2019 1974 - Earthquake
Mike Matessino audio interview by Maurizio Cashetto and Tim Burden, December 2019 1974 - The Towering Inferno
My Google Doc Mike Matessino audio interview by Maurizio Cashetto and Tim Burden, December 2019 1978 - Superman: The Movie
Mike Matessino audio interview by Maurizio Caschetto and Tim Burden, February 2019 (part 1) Mike Matessino audio interview by Maurizio Caschetto and Tim Burden, February 2019 (part 2) Mike Matessino text interview by Todd Gilchrist for Nerdist, June 2019 1984 - The River
My Google Doc Audio Interview by Maurizio Caschetto and Tim Burden, May 2020 1989 - Born on the Fourth of July
My Google Doc 1992 - Far and Away
My Google Doc Audio Interview by Maurizio Caschetto and Tim Burden, May 2020 2011 - War Horse
My Google Doc 2012 - Lincoln
My Google Doc 2013 - The Book Thief
My Google Doc 2015 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens
My Google Doc 2017 - The Post
My Google Doc 2019 - Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
My Google Doc
Bayesian reacted to Bespin in Soundtracks, Compilations, or other recently purchased Music
Ok so I wanted to listen to this album that I bought many years ago when it came out... I never really listened to it, but I saw recently that it was reissued on LP.
So I wanted to encode my CD...
Bayesian reacted to Josh500 in Will we see another Spielberg/Williams Collaboration?
Yeah, love this scene.
Munich actually features some of the fanciest and most complex single Spielberg shots ever... I know many don't know this. There's another shot which takes place inside a car with the assassins sitting inside (making use of the rear view mirror), which stuck in my mind.
Bayesian got a reaction from rpvee in John Williams & the Vienna Philharmonic: January 18/19 2020 w/ CD & Blu-ray coming August 14 2020
The will to resist finally failed me. I ordered this after reading how this was selling out everywhere; seeing @Biodome's photos sealed the deal. (Hopefully my wife will forgive what she'd call my "unnecessary" spending.) I was actually fully expecting to click the link and find it sold out, never to be had again.
I don't think I have any idea as to what I would do, what I would give, how long (or to whom) I would indenture my soul to one day come into possession of such a miracle.
Bayesian reacted to Disco Stu in What is the last piece of classical music you listened to?
Appropriately for the beginning of the month, I've always loved this hunting march from Tchaikovky's Seasons.
Bayesian reacted to rough cut in Becoming An Audiophile Or: How I Learned To Stop Accepting Sub-320kbps Bit Rates And Love FLAC
@Bayesian Good for you! Moving from mp3s to lossless really makes a difference. As do a good audio system!
As for files and gear - don’t waste your money on things that won’t up your experience.
Don’t let audiophile snobs fool you into buying hi-res stuff (24 bit/96 kHz), the advantage is purely technical. Files are more expensive and not worth the extra money.
Buy god speakers, it’s worth the investment.
Buy good cables but you don’t need audiophile level. That shit can be crazy expensive and you won’t hear any difference compared to medium price, high quality equipment. Trust me. I’ve poured more money into cables and connectors than I’d like to admit, so I’ve learned the hard way.
Bayesian reacted to Dixon Hill in Becoming An Audiophile Or: How I Learned To Stop Accepting Sub-320kbps Bit Rates And Love FLAC
Ye gods I was full of shit. Probably still am.
Bayesian reacted to KK in 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. Can we look forward to a new John Williams theme???
Nah. He's as American as it gets, at this point.
I don't think Zimmer is very good at the short form, fanfare thing. Especially since he's moved on from writing traditional "themes" per se. The few things he's done for soccer games, the Oscars and car commercials haven't been very good.
Williams ability to craft killer tunes and distill larger ideas into complex, but accessible shorter forms is way more ideal for the Olympics.
Bayesian reacted to TSMefford in Do actors who can't really sing ruin your experience of film musicals?
You know, it’s odd, I actually didn’t have an issue with Crowes voice. The other thing too is that I feel like his character would sing that way. It felt very Organic to me. I honestly never even notice what people have issues with for him. Feels natural.
I have far more issue with the grossly synthetic and auto tuned voices in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast remake. If they can’t sing or they miss a few notes, then either get someone who can sing, or embrace the natural feel.
At least Crowe and Les Miserables had the guts to put acting and performance first, and didn’t feel the need to sanitize the singing.
Bayesian reacted to BryonDavis in Death of the Compact Disc
It's not a trendy buzzword. It's how we pay royalties and mechanicals. Whatever floats your boat dude but if you refer to it as a download as far as I'm concerned you are talking about paid downloads NOT subscription services. We cool...bye.
Bayesian reacted to Jay in The Official Varese Sarabande Thread
What are you two on about? He already clearly told us the profit difference, which is revenue minus cost.
What part don't you understand?
CDs obviously cost less than LPs to manufacture, nobody would ever suggest otherwise.
CDs sell for $20. LPs for $40. Hence, with production costs factored in for each, they make 3x the profit from from a 1000 unit LP sellout vs a 1000 unit CD sellout.
It's not complicated.
Bayesian reacted to Albus Percival Wulfric in John Williams & the Vienna Philharmonic: January 18/19 2020 w/ CD & Blu-ray coming August 14 2020
In the 19th century there was a world-famous pianist, Anton Rubinstein. He was said to miss 20% of notes, but was beloved because of his overall effect.
When he was asked to "play for the posterity" during the only chance there was to record him (in 1890), he refused, because he quickly grasped that with replays mistakes would be the No.1 pondered aspect.
A part of the charm of the concert was being taken back to the age of great composers, where a composer-conductor could play a piece much slower or much faster, or make many mistakes, but still make up for these things with the overall spirit and effect of the event, and cause standing ovations.
Bayesian reacted to BryonDavis in Death of the Compact Disc
True but if the plants go away like they did when vinyl declined it will increase the price to manufacture. That is happening now.
I firmly believe there will always be releases on CD. For small labels its a better cost risk than the bigger labels where the risk is higher due to the need to sell more. Look at dvd labels like Arrow or Shout! That is a snapshot of where the Cd can go.
Bayesian reacted to Marian Schedenig in Becoming An Audiophile Or: How I Learned To Stop Accepting Sub-320kbps Bit Rates And Love FLAC
No, you don't understand. We're talking about mathematical facts, not about different views or perceptions. I don't know the technical details about the FLAC codec, but I know it's lossless and just by default I would assume it is in fact VBR. That's not a contradiction.
If you create a Zip (or Rar or whatever) archive of files on your computer, that archive will be smaller than the sum of all the files you put in it. Because it's compressed. But if you uncompress it, you will get exactly the same files as before (otherwise a program or a text compressed with Zip would be broken after unzipping). That's called lossless compression. It's still compressed, because the compression algorithm makes certain probability assumptions about its contents.
Take text files, for example. They mostly consist of upper case letters, lower case letters, numbers and a few additional characters like spaces, line breaks and commas. Let's say those characters add up to about 26 + 26 + 10 + 10 = 72 characters. In a text file, each of these characters is stored in (at least) on byte. A byte can take any value between 0 and 255, but for a text file, most bytes only contain one of 72 different values. You can therefore compress the file by putting the first character in the first byte, along with information about the next character or characters. Then the second byte might start with information about the third or fourth character, etc. You'll end up with a file that describes exactly (!) the same text, but takes up less space. If you apply the corresponding decompression algorithm, it will output an exact (!) copy of the original text file. That's lossless compression - it is in fact lossless.
Now if you try to compress a file that contains completely random data (each byte contains a random value between 0 and 255), and the content is so random that you don't have certain values that appear significantly more often than others (as described above for text files), you won't be able to make it any smaller by compressing it. But most files you compress will be text files, or images, or audio files, or program files, or data files, all of which are decidedly non-random. They have values that appear significantly more often than others, and certain repetitive patterns, that can be used to create a smaller representation of the files without losing any information. For example, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" takes up twenty characters. "20xA" takes up four characters, but if I tell you to write down the first one and then tell you to write down "20 times A", you'll end up with the same text.
Different types of files have different types of characteristics. The value distributions and repetitive patterns in text files and program files, for examples, are decidedly different. So are those for images and audio data. You can compress all kinds of files with general purpose algorithms like Zip and Rar, but if you know that you're going to compress image files, you can choose to use a different compression algorithm which is optimised for the distributions and patterns for images and will therefore be able to compress your image files more efficiently. You could for example use PNG to losslessly compress your image, or JPEG to make it even smaller, although in this case with a loss of certain details. JPEG and other lossy compression algorithms know about the data they want to compress (e.g. images) and decide what information they can throw away without anyone really noticing. For example, if you have a 100,000 x 100,000 pixels image that you're only going to view as a whole, and every pixel has the exact same colour (255,0,0 - a pure full red), but one single pixel somewhere around the middle has a minimally different colour (254,0,0 - a pure, nearly full red) which your eyes won't be able to notice, even if your display hardware is good enough to actually display it), you can take the original image of 100,000 x 100,000 x 3 bytes (3 bytes means 24 bits per pixel), i.e. 28 gigabytes, and compress it to something that says "100,000 pixels wide, 100,000 pixels high, all of them red", which you could fit in 7 bytes (!). That would be a phenomenal compression ratio of 1 to roughly 4 billion. If you want to compress it losslessly, you would have to at least say "100,000 pixels wide, 100,000 pixels high, all of them red, except pixel 45,194/49,240, which is nearly red", which would e.g. take 14 bytes - still tiny compared to the raw data, but twice the size of our lossy version. But for that increase in size, you would get the ability to restore the exact original image from your 14 bytes file, including that special pixel in the middle. That's the difference between formats like JPEG and PNG.
And for audio files, you have the same situation. You have lossy formats like MP3, Ogg Vorbis and AAC, and lossless formats like WAV (typically no compression at all), FLAC and Apple Lossless. The former work by purging audio data they believe you cannot hear (for example a barely audible noise playing at the same time as an explosion, or very low or high frequencies that most humans cannot hear anyway, or more complex psychoacoustics) and discard them. That means MP3 & Co can create a smaller file than a lossless algorithm like FLAC can, but you will not be able to exactly recreate the original raw audio data, and if you take away too much information, you will in fact be able to hear the difference.
FLAC & Co don't do that. They don't take away anything. They just use certain properties of audio data to make files smaller by saying the audio equivalent of "20xA" instead of "AAAAAAAAAA". Much more complicated than that in detail, of course, which is why it also takes CPU power to do the compression and decompression. You can therefore choose the compression strength - stronger compression means that the files get smaller, but compression (and possibly decompression) takes longer. If you want your compression to be faster, or if you plan to play the compressed files on a device that has a slow CPU (an old mobile phone) or a lot of other stuff going on (a gaming console), you might opt for slightly larger files that need slightly less CPU time on playback.
And as for variable bit rates: That just means that the compression makes some parts of files smaller than others. For example, if you have a text like "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA", you could compress it to "20xA1xB20xA". That's a variable bitrate compression - the 20 As at the beginning and and have been compressed to "20xA", i.e. 4 characters each, while the single "B" in the middle has actually become larger by turning it into "1xB". You have a lower bitrate in the beginning and end than in the middle, but you still have an overall smaller file, and you're still lossless.
Bayesian reacted to Thor in 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. Can we look forward to a new John Williams theme???
FIVE, actually. People often forget the Special Olympics theme in '87.
But yes, I also hope he has one more left in him. If he does anything for Paris, it would have to be for NBC's coverage, like he did in '88.
Bayesian got a reaction from Jay in 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. Can we look forward to a new John Williams theme???
I'll revive this thread to say that I sure do hope JW writes something for one more Olympic Games. Paris '24 or L.A. '28, either one. I've been listening to the four themes he wrote (for '84, '88, '96 and '02) and I think my fave right now is '02. But goddam, they are ALL incredible.I have to imagine there are composers who'd give their left nut to lay claim to any one of them, let alone all four. What a miracle of a human being this man is.
Bayesian got a reaction from carlborg in Lebrecht review of Williams and the Vienna Philharmonic
Haters gonna hate. Annoyingly, Lebrecht is unclear about the reason for his unnecessarily mean-spirited criticism. He says that the album getting one star would be an insult, yet appears to have no problem with JW’s conducting or ASM’s playing. He seems to think the VPO has no business ever playing JW’s film music, which supposedly can’t ever stand on its own without the visuals it was written for, although he mentions exceptional pieces (so how about discussing those?). And at the end, he makes it all about himself, just as you would expect a prick with a pretension complex to do.