Brundlefly

I think, I haven't shared these two albums that I released in October and November yet:
 
The first one is a very conventional and short mood album to create an unsettling atmosphere - you can listen to it, when you are on a stroll at night. The track titles is purely based on some test listeners associations.
 

First of all, dude, your profile picture is of a galaxy I've photographed!  Second, I like your sound design.  It is more atmospheric/ambient than scary.  I could use more tempo variety.  Variety is good.  Really nice sound design though.  
 

I think, I haven't shared these two albums that I released in October and November yet:
 
The first one is a very conventional and short mood album to create an unsettling atmosphere - you can listen to it, when you are on a stroll at night. The track titles is purely based on some test listeners associations.
 

I hate the "modernized" Universal fanfare so much! They should just have left the 1997 version untouched...

You have no idea what you’re talking about. This is EXACTLY the kind of issue that YOU DO HEAR without ever looking at a spectrogram. That’s the whole point of the complaints. One of the biggest goals in audio mastering is to make a product that maintains as much dynamic range as possible while also compressing the volume just enough that the listener doesn’t have to adjust the volume constantly during the playback. Doug’s “method” IS mediocre because he consistently fails to achieve this most fundamental of audio mastering goals.

Nope, they normalized the tracks (at least it seems like this is what they just did with the quiet tracks), so that the loudest part of each track almost equals the amplitude peaks of all the other tracks (regardless of whether the peak is a slight string crescendo or a forceful orchestral outburst).
Trying to paraphrase it in abstract manner: When the volume of a track ranges from 1 to 10, it's fine and left as is. When the volume of a track ranges from 1 to 5, on this Intrada release they raised the volume, so that the volume reaches from, let's say, 6 to 10. The result of this madness is that pieces that remain quiet for their entire running time are now unnaturally loud. This can be fixed by just lowering the volume level of the affected tracks. The cues itself are not compressed and have great dynamic range.
However: There are some tracks that combine several cues at different volume levels, so these need to be seperated first, before you can change adjust their volume. After that you can put them together again.

To be fair, here we go:
 

Here's the cover with picture noise reduced and without the Deluxe Edition banner:

 
The more you look into the master issues, the worse it gets. There are cues combined in tracks that have wildly different volume levels and there is also clipping on a few tracks.

My La-La Land package arrived - the first surprise is that I don't have to pay any customs, the second surprise is that LLL doesn't have those cheap jewel cases any more - wonderful!

That is not true at all. You hear the volume dips very clearly without any spectographs. It's like you turn the volume knob up and down troughout. The two screenshot just serve as an illustration of what is clearly audible. A quiet piece should be quiet after all, and not have its volume beefed up to the limits.
 
Besides, this kind of relativism of "each sound engineer" having "his working method", regardless of how flawed the result is, doesn't make any sense. There are objective measures for mixing and mastering an orchestral recording. Pizzicato strings playing at the same volume in two different tracks just shouldn't have that much volume difference on the final product.
 
I bought the release and I'm very happy about it, but I also wished it had been done properly. I will fix the volume differences myself and that's that.
 
However, I find it important to at least complain about the issue. After all, complaints are not the negative and destructive phenomenon that many people think it is.

The score in complete form is great, more quiet and sneaky cues make the listening experience less violent and intense and more hypnotic and insidious instead. Douglas Fake's master is as amateurish as the cover art.
 
Look at this: You see the first ten seconds from two different tracks. In both cases you hear rather calm pizzicato strings, it's basically the same notes and the same volume. However: The amplitudes in the screenshot differ conspicuously! I'll tell you why: The first track will get very loud and the second track will remain quiet. And instead of just leave that as is, the second track is kinda normalized on the Intrada release, so that the maximum amplitude equals the maximum amplitude of the louder piece. This bullshit is applied throughout the whole release, which makes for a very inconsistent and unnatural volume railcoaster. There is no volume compression within the tracks, but the tracks are compressed towards each other. Not the first time for Intrada to do this and I'm afraid it won't be the last time.

This release is great, it fulfilled all my wishes that I could possibly have - it's complete now, it sounds better, the main program is really thought out with most film versions being in the bonus section, the artwork is superb. It is not as essential as, say, Amistad, but it ranks high in Goldsmith's discography, so I don't regret buying this definitive treatment.
 
I think, that is the least I could write after my Intrada rant.

I use Adobe Audition and when I try to fix those kinda issues, I check the sound by ear and by eye. In the end, it is relevant what it sounds like, but the visuals of Audition and Audacity can help you to objectify the evaluation of the sound.
 
I can post the ups and downs of the volume levels I have applied to the tracks, as soon as I'm done.

This release is great, it fulfilled all my wishes that I could possibly have - it's complete now, it sounds better, the main program is really thought out with most film versions being in the bonus section, the artwork is superb. It is not as essential as, say, Amistad, but it ranks high in Goldsmith's discography, so I don't regret buying this definitive treatment.
 
I think, that is the least I could write after my Intrada rant.

The score in complete form is great, more quiet and sneaky cues make the listening experience less violent and intense and more hypnotic and insidious instead. Douglas Fake's master is as amateurish as the cover art.
 
Look at this: You see the first ten seconds from two different tracks. In both cases you hear rather calm pizzicato strings, it's basically the same notes and the same volume. However: The amplitudes in the screenshot differ conspicuously! I'll tell you why: The first track will get very loud and the second track will remain quiet. And instead of just leave that as is, the second track is kinda normalized on the Intrada release, so that the maximum amplitude equals the maximum amplitude of the louder piece. This bullshit is applied throughout the whole release, which makes for a very inconsistent and unnatural volume railcoaster. There is no volume compression within the tracks, but the tracks are compressed towards each other. Not the first time for Intrada to do this and I'm afraid it won't be the last time.

My La-La Land package arrived - the first surprise is that I don't have to pay any customs, the second surprise is that LLL doesn't have those cheap jewel cases any more - wonderful!

That is not true at all. You hear the volume dips very clearly without any spectographs. It's like you turn the volume knob up and down troughout. The two screenshot just serve as an illustration of what is clearly audible. A quiet piece should be quiet after all, and not have its volume beefed up to the limits.
 
Besides, this kind of relativism of "each sound engineer" having "his working method", regardless of how flawed the result is, doesn't make any sense. There are objective measures for mixing and mastering an orchestral recording. Pizzicato strings playing at the same volume in two different tracks just shouldn't have that much volume difference on the final product.
 
I bought the release and I'm very happy about it, but I also wished it had been done properly. I will fix the volume differences myself and that's that.
 
However, I find it important to at least complain about the issue. After all, complaints are not the negative and destructive phenomenon that many people think it is.

Sometimes it's like that and other times it's people putting their lust for complaints over their enjoyment of the release or score they've got. Complaints can be a great chance for change and improvement, but sometimes they are applied in a very hostile fashion - not excluding myself from that reproach.

That is not true at all. You hear the volume dips very clearly without any spectographs. It's like you turn the volume knob up and down troughout. The two screenshot just serve as an illustration of what is clearly audible. A quiet piece should be quiet after all, and not have its volume beefed up to the limits.
 
Besides, this kind of relativism of "each sound engineer" having "his working method", regardless of how flawed the result is, doesn't make any sense. There are objective measures for mixing and mastering an orchestral recording. Pizzicato strings playing at the same volume in two different tracks just shouldn't have that much volume difference on the final product.
 
I bought the release and I'm very happy about it, but I also wished it had been done properly. I will fix the volume differences myself and that's that.
 
However, I find it important to at least complain about the issue. After all, complaints are not the negative and destructive phenomenon that many people think it is.

That is not true at all. You hear the volume dips very clearly without any spectographs. It's like you turn the volume knob up and down troughout. The two screenshot just serve as an illustration of what is clearly audible. A quiet piece should be quiet after all, and not have its volume beefed up to the limits.
 
Besides, this kind of relativism of "each sound engineer" having "his working method", regardless of how flawed the result is, doesn't make any sense. There are objective measures for mixing and mastering an orchestral recording. Pizzicato strings playing at the same volume in two different tracks just shouldn't have that much volume difference on the final product.
 
I bought the release and I'm very happy about it, but I also wished it had been done properly. I will fix the volume differences myself and that's that.
 
However, I find it important to at least complain about the issue. After all, complaints are not the negative and destructive phenomenon that many people think it is.

That is not true at all. You hear the volume dips very clearly without any spectographs. It's like you turn the volume knob up and down troughout. The two screenshot just serve as an illustration of what is clearly audible. A quiet piece should be quiet after all, and not have its volume beefed up to the limits.
 
Besides, this kind of relativism of "each sound engineer" having "his working method", regardless of how flawed the result is, doesn't make any sense. There are objective measures for mixing and mastering an orchestral recording. Pizzicato strings playing at the same volume in two different tracks just shouldn't have that much volume difference on the final product.
 
I bought the release and I'm very happy about it, but I also wished it had been done properly. I will fix the volume differences myself and that's that.
 
However, I find it important to at least complain about the issue. After all, complaints are not the negative and destructive phenomenon that many people think it is.

The score in complete form is great, more quiet and sneaky cues make the listening experience less violent and intense and more hypnotic and insidious instead. Douglas Fake's master is as amateurish as the cover art.
 
Look at this: You see the first ten seconds from two different tracks. In both cases you hear rather calm pizzicato strings, it's basically the same notes and the same volume. However: The amplitudes in the screenshot differ conspicuously! I'll tell you why: The first track will get very loud and the second track will remain quiet. And instead of just leave that as is, the second track is kinda normalized on the Intrada release, so that the maximum amplitude equals the maximum amplitude of the louder piece. This bullshit is applied throughout the whole release, which makes for a very inconsistent and unnatural volume railcoaster. There is no volume compression within the tracks, but the tracks are compressed towards each other. Not the first time for Intrada to do this and I'm afraid it won't be the last time.

The score in complete form is great, more quiet and sneaky cues make the listening experience less violent and intense and more hypnotic and insidious instead. Douglas Fake's master is as amateurish as the cover art.
 
Look at this: You see the first ten seconds from two different tracks. In both cases you hear rather calm pizzicato strings, it's basically the same notes and the same volume. However: The amplitudes in the screenshot differ conspicuously! I'll tell you why: The first track will get very loud and the second track will remain quiet. And instead of just leave that as is, the second track is kinda normalized on the Intrada release, so that the maximum amplitude equals the maximum amplitude of the louder piece. This bullshit is applied throughout the whole release, which makes for a very inconsistent and unnatural volume railcoaster. There is no volume compression within the tracks, but the tracks are compressed towards each other. Not the first time for Intrada to do this and I'm afraid it won't be the last time.

I can understand what you mean regarding the first Godfather movie. I'd argue that the second Godfather movie deserves the high rankings it often gets.
 
Have you seen Lost Highway? In my opinion, this is his masterpiece and I'm mesmerized about the fact that it got so overlooked next to Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive (which would have deserved a spot on this list as well).
 
As a huge Alfred Hitchcock fan, I'm of course not really surprised about Psycho being the number one spot, however, I'd really prefer Vertigo or Rear Window to be ranked above it, now and then.

The Sugarland Express **** Jaws **** Close Encounters of the Third Kind **** 1941 ** Raiders of the Lost Ark ***** E.T. ***** Temple of Doom **** Empire of the Sun **** Last Crusade **** Always ** Hook ** Jurassic Park **** Schindler's List **** The Lost World *** Amistad **** Saving Private Ryan **** A.I. **** Minority Report **** Catch Me If You Can **** The Terminal *** War of the Worlds **** Munich **** Kingdom of the Crystal Skull **** Tintin War Horse **** Lincoln **** The BFG *** The Post *** The Fabelmans When I'm talking about my wish for a 30th collaboration I am referring to feature films of course, even though I respect the three projects you were talking about as a nice addition.