Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gurkensalat

  • Rank
    Regular Poster

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5024 profile views
  1. 1 year ago at this time I sat in the first row in the Golden hall watching John Williams conducting the Vienna Philharmonic! It was a once in a lifetime experience I will not forget.
  2. Stop it, guys! :-) Those are personal preferences, no absolute truths. Obviously nobody of us can really determine, it somebody else understands something or not, be it members of the Vienna Philharmonic or this forum. We can only say, if we like something or not.
  3. No, rubato is on a smaller time scale, but it might be interpretation :-) I personally have no problem with this.
  4. Nobody claims that, but Bollemanneke seems to think that faster equals better. There are a lot of slow, intense interpretations in the world of music. Take the better recordings by Giuliini or Celebidache for example, or some Bernstein recordings.
  5. I find the performances plenty intense. Faster does not always mean more energetic.
  6. What is a CD length program for you? I would say, Indy 2 and The River were the last LP-length soundtrack (not more than around 40 minutes). Then came Spacecamp with 47 minutes, Witches of Eastwick with 52 minutes, and around 1 hour with Always and Indy 3, which both also do not seem to have LP in mind any more with regard to the sequencing. The OST of HA I found very unsatisfying due to the mix with songs. There are a lot of later OSTs that are really good like Schindlers List, Angelas Ashes, also more recent War Horse, Tintin, the BFG only to name a few.
  7. I absolutely agree to everything you said! My comments were only with respect to digital recording, not to digital mastering of analogue recordings. In earlier posts, those things might have been mixed up a bit.
  8. Well, this is mostly what I described in the post above except for one track. But of course it is also a solution to start with "Theme". In this case you have repetition with the first 2 tracks, in my order repetition with the last 2 tracks, pick your poison. I thought about elimninating "Theme" altogether, but it is just too good a composition for that. What I eliminated meanwhile is "Love Theme", since it offers nothing extra. To follow Gloria with Book Shop is much better in my opinion.
  9. Well, then it is best to let it go. At least we agree that we wish for better sounding records and expect we will get them thanks to modern mastering methods. The more theoretical dispute about the merits of digital vs. analogue techniques is in the end not relevant; what counts is the result, no matter how it was achieved. All I wanted to say here is, that 80s digital recording technique was in most aspects superior to analogue recording, and not inferior as crumbs seems to think. And with that we should return to the topic, perhaps? :-)
  10. So we do not know exactly what the recording or master of LC was, right? Since the CD was ADD, It seems that it was an analogue recording and digital mastering. The analogue recordings would be the 1st gen, that you wish for. And we agree that a new digital master would probably sound better today. But I do not understand, that you think a AAD CD (meaning an analogue master) would have sounded better, as write above. I do not think that would have been the case, why should it.
  11. I agree. But above you write about "nice analogue" tape and other sentences that leave the impression that you think analogue recording is inherently better than 80s digital recordings. If I misunderstood, sorry.
  12. No joking. 2015 Jaws sounds very good, much better than 2000 Jaws, but a proper digital recording in the 80s would probably top it further. At least I know lots of digital recordings from the 80s that sound even better than 2015 Jaws. I am only looking at the recording technique, not what may come afterwards like mastering and restoration; those can be applied to both analogue and digital recordings.
  13. I can totally agree to this. Today we have better tools to get the last bit of information out of analogue recordings. But 80s digital recordings were already excellent, if used correctly. No contradiction, but unclear language by me. Frequencies above 22 kHz are removed, but we cannot hear them! Everything below 22 kHz is intact without loss of details. So for me as a listener there is no loss of detail. And since I never found a scientific explanation, why frequencies above 22 kHz should matter, since as adult we cannot perceive even 19 kHz any more, I stay not con
  14. You already assume that those digital recordings are primitive and obsolete, but why? Of course, today they are even better, but even then digital recordings (if done correctly; not all were) were an improvement over analogue techniques. And when analogue recordings from the 70s or 80s were already worse than 80s digital, what do you hope to gain by even better digital tools? As I said, when Mikes restorations sound better, there are other possible reasons for it.
  • Create New...