Jurassic Park 20th Anniversary OST (Digital only release)

[SF1_freeze 131]

Well, that won't help that much when they still keep the changes from the new mix like changing the volume within tracks which causes all the problems. They surely haven't done an own mix just for itunes. But let's see...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Interesting, when converted from 96/24 FLAC to 96/24 Apple Lossless, iTunes does not want to load it.

Converted to a 96/24 WAVE file and it will play in iTunes though.

[Jay 37,280]

You can have iTunes read the WAVs, and then you have have iTunes make Apple Lossless for you.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Well of course it is, but never hurts to triple-check, ya know?

I bought it this morning. It's a typo, the actual track time is correct.

[Jay 37,280]

Thanks!!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You can have iTunes read the WAVs, and then you have have iTunes make Apple Lossless for you.

I just did.

Hmm...both the wave file and the ALAC are 16 bit. still 96Khz though

What software will correctly convert a 24 bit FLAC, without making it 16 bit?

[Jay 37,280]

Sony Sound Forge for sure. Probably Audacity too, Cool Edit, etc. All the usual sound editors

[Smeltington 1,436]

Cool Edit doesn't open flacs, in my experience.

[Marian Schedenig 8,171]

Bought the 192k FLAC version, no problem with PayPal. Only listened to High-Wire Stunts so far, which sounds marginally different from what I remember from the CD (which I haven't listened to in years). I don't think my old Arcam receiver does anything above CD quality though. I'll probably do a closer comparison between the old and new release when I'm through the new batch of CDs that arrived from SAE today.

[ciarlese 248]

Bought the 192k FLAC version, no problem with PayPal. Only listened to High-Wire Stunts so far, which sounds marginally different from what I remember from the CD (which I haven't listened to in years). I don't think my old Arcam receiver does anything above CD quality though. I'll probably do a closer comparison between the old and new release when I'm through the new batch of CDs that arrived from SAE today.

So you have been able to buy this album from Austria? I live in UK but I am not allowed. Where do I find the Paypal option?

[Marian Schedenig 8,171]

I just created an account (requires only mail address and a password), logged in, look up the album, added it to the cart, and then clicked the PayPal link below the cart.

[ciarlese 248]

I created the account, but when I try to buy the album I receive the message that they don't sell in my country.

Should I deduce they sell in Austria and don't sell in UK? That's madness!!!

[JohnnyD 1,220]

I am thinking of getting the lossless version. Am I able to buy it for download with my debit card?

[Jay 37,280]

Why not go to the site and try?

[Score_Fan 36]

Here's my question...why is Journey to the Island 14 minutes on the amazon release?

[Powell90 1]

Darn it you guys beat me to it! There's a big BUT with me though. The album's been remastered with increased volume and clipping. Here's a scan of the iTunes version of track 15 at 6:13/14 mark.

Ok, so it's just ONE red but it's not just that. The over all sound of the 20th version feels "squashed", not as "fresh" as what the '93 CD offered. I'd love to know if the lossless version addressed that part of the clipping but it'd still be far from what the CD was.

[Jay 37,280]

This was also released today as 320kbp mp3s on Google Play!

http://goo.gl/nOOiJ

Only $9.49!

iTunes is now selling the worst online version out of the 4 websites selling it. Of course, they had it 2 weeks early, so there's that.

[ST-321 4]

Here's my question...why is Journey to the Island 14 minutes on the amazon release?

It's not. It is 8:53.

[Datameister 2,037]

Very pleased to have finally purchased this earlier today! I went with the lower-bitrate version on HDtracks. Honestly, if they'd sold a CD-quality version for a lower price, I would have picked that, but I'm not complaining. I'm just very glad that waiting paid off, and that an affordable lossless option was made available.

[Incanus 5,713]

Half of this page reads like some kind of visual white noise for me. All this sound quality discussion is giving me a head ache. A CD release would have resulted in much less techno babble I wager.

[Jay 37,280]

Well of course it is, but never hurts to triple-check, ya know?

I bought it this morning. It's a typo, the actual track time is correct.

Hey Koray (or anyone else who bought the Amazon version), what bit rate are the Amazon mp3s?

[paleo 63]

I so agree... So, has anyone heard any news on the European situation yet?

Maggie Thatcher has died, making Frau Merkel the only Iron Lady of Europe!

Haha, you are so funny.

[SF1_freeze 131]

Half of this page reads like some kind of visual white noise for me. All this sound quality discussion is giving me a head ache. A CD release would have resulted in much less techno babble I wager.

Sadly the problem seems not to be the bitrate. The problem is the remastered mix done for this release which suffers from increased general volume, limited dynamic range, too much equalization and lack of power/oomph through volume fluctuations within the tracks.

Better stick to the OST and only use the unreleased tracks for your edits.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Well of course it is, but never hurts to triple-check, ya know?

I bought it this morning. It's a typo, the actual track time is correct.

Hey Koray (or anyone else who bought the Amazon version), what bit rate are the Amazon mp3s?

256 mp3

[Jay 37,280]

Thanks!

[JohnnyD 1,220]

I cannot figure this out: I have listened to the ending of "High-Wire Stunts" in both releases. What exactly is different?

[Datameister 2,037]

I think I've only listened to the remastered version of that track once, but the ending sounded the same to me.

[Trent B 337]

BTW I use Cool Edit Pro all the time for my editing and it definitely does NOT open flac files. The current Adobe Audition, maybe but I haven't bothered to check it out.

I downloaded the lossless set from HD Tracks (the $18 one) and to me it definitely sounds A LOT better compared to the iTunes version.

I cannot figure this out: I have listened to the ending of "High-Wire Stunts" in both releases. What exactly is different?

I think the 20th Anniversary set uses different TAKES.

[boscacci 9]

I bought the FLAC version on HDTracks, but several tracks (for example, the JP Theme, in the first 60 seconds) exhibit a very "un-HD" hiss (a whining noise, a buzz, I am not able to find the correct word in english) in the background, quite audible in the more quiet passages...

Is it the same for you ?

Thanks

Alessandro

[Powell90 1]

You can have iTunes read the WAVs, and then you have have iTunes make Apple Lossless for you.

Little word of warning, iTunes cannot convert 24-bit to 24-bit lossless. It can play 24-bit but any conversion, even if it is lossless will automatically down convert to 16-bit. So those who plan on using iTunes, you might as well go for ALAC.

By the way, I ACCIDENTLY bought it a few seconds after my last post here. Was only curious to see how much the discount would be and ended up buying it. I now own the 24/192 version, sits 3.20GB on my laptop it's scary. I don't even have studio monitors to project the frequency.

The good news is that the tracks has no clipping. It's further proof that almost everything released on iTunes has an increase in volume. CDBaby recently extended their music to FLAC. Having compared that with my lossy iTunes version, there were either none to less noticeable clipping. Anyway, this is also the only way as of now to own the bonus tracks lossless.

The bad news, it's still over compressed. It's not to say I don't enjoy them but everything that was fresh before is now drowned to dry loudness. Can't explain it.

[Florian 4]

I know this is an old thread but HDTracks just released this with four unreleased tracks. Anyone got any idea how these now fit into this sequence? Some of the album times do not match the cue times.

[SF1_freeze 131]

Can't explain it.

It's the remastered mix. Any changes made in the remastering (volume increase,...) will be in all bitrates starting with lossless 24-bit.

[Ollie 1,059]

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23041

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23053

[Jay 37,280]

I know this is an old thread but HDTracks just released this with four unreleased tracks. Anyone got any idea how these now fit into this sequence? Some of the album times do not match the cue times.

Hi Florian,

Don't forget in additional to the forum, there is a great Main Page as well! Please see here for some information about the new release:

http://www.jwfan.com/?p=5490

And see here for all the sequencing information you desire:

http://www.jwfan.com/?p=5504

I think you'll find a lot of useful information in the Complete Score Analysis & Cue LIsts page:

http://www.jwfan.com/?page_id=4131

[rough cut 1,714]

Hey guys!

There is a (short) review up on http://theseconddisc.com/2013/04/05/review-john-williams-jurassic-park-original-motion-picture-soundtrack-20th-anniversary-edition/ which I thought was a fun read.

[King Mark 3,624]

I wonder how we would have reacted to this release if they had released every unreleased cue EXCEPT The History Lesson

(it could have happened, since they omitted The Trouble with Dennis which we kinda wanted)

[Jay 37,280]

For those debating about which HDTracks version to buy, here are two articles about how 192khz/24bit releases are actually worse than 96khz/24bit releases! The articles also points out that unless you have the right equipment, even the 96khz/24bit downloads won't sound as good as 44.1khz/24bit!

http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

If you think 96/24 isn't right for you for the setup you have, don't forget there are 3 places you can buy 44.1khz/16 bit versions (albeit all compressed):

1. iTunes Music Store - 256kbps AAC, $9.99

https://itunes.apple.com/album/jurassic-park-20th-anniversary/id621507165

2. Amazon MP3 - 256kbps MP3, $9.49

http://www.amazon.com/Jurassic-Park-20th-Anniversary/dp/B00C32U3VY/jwfancom-20

3. Google Play Store - 320kbps MP3, $9.49

https://play.google.com/store/music/album/John_Williams_Jurassic_Park_20th_Anniversary?id=Bkoo2ldzaa7e7oa3a4s55t3ynue&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImFsYnVtLUJrb28ybGR6YWE3ZTdvYTNhNHM1NXQzeW51ZSJd

[phbart 609]

For those debating about which HDTracks version to buy, here are two articles about how 192khz/24bit releases are actually worse than 96khz/24bit releases! The articles also points out that unless you have the right equipment, even the 96khz/24bit downloads won't sound as good as 44.1khz/24bit!

This seems highly illogical. I do agree that 192/24 won't do any miracles regarding 44.1/16 or 44.1/24... but, sounding worse???

Edit: I should add that this is the same as saying that watching blu-ray discs via composite video with an old CRT TV will be worse than watching DVD the same way...

[King Mark 3,624]

Well in this case playing the files in the wrong software might cause distortion, from what I understand

[scallenger 481]

This concludes that there simply cannot be a John Williams release without at least a LITTLE controversy.

[thx99 1,740]

Cool Edit doesn't open flacs, in my experience.

BTW I use Cool Edit Pro all the time for my editing and it definitely does NOT open flac files. The current Adobe Audition, maybe but I haven't bothered to check it out.

A FLAC plugin for Cool Edit Pro/Audition is available at this page: http://www.vuplayer.com/audition.php

There should be a "read me" file in the zip file that tells you where to save the plugin file. Works like a charm for me!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

This seems highly illogical. I do agree that 192/24 won't do any miracles regarding 44.1/16 or 44.1/24... but, sounding worse???

Edit: I should add that this is the same as saying that watching blu-ray discs via composite video with an old CRT TV will be worse than watching DVD the same way...

I agree, I find Jason's reasoning a little weird.

[Marian Schedenig 8,171]

It's not Jason's reasoning, it's the reasoning of the articles. To be honest, I'd never even looked at the exact numbers and bought the "highest" quality version (blind consumer I guess). It's obvious based on the Nyquist theorem (which is the basis for anything related to digital sampling rates) that 192kHz is ridiculously beyond the necessary rate for faithful audio reproduction.

The idea behind higher frequencies actually reducing quality, as far as I understand from the articles, is that sampling in general requires filters and antialiasing, and the resulting quality is very much dependent on the quality of the filter and antialiasing components. So a 44.1kHz file mastered with high quality components will sound better (objectively better - i.e. mathematically closer to the original) than a 192kHz file downsampled with medium quality components.

Now I have no idea what kinds of components (hardware, software,...) the articles talk about, or how significant the differences are on the software side, but I guess it's safe to assume that the equipment used by good audio engineers will not be outperformed by realtime consumer solutions (i.e. anything that does the downsampling in your hardware or software at home). Which doesn't exclude the possibility that a few years from now, those consumer components might actually be better than nowadays professional equipment, and that could be an argument for higher playback rates when thinking in the long run. I suppose something like 96kHz should be enough for that though.

The one thing I've never figured out about the Nyquist stuff is how it affects downsampling. If you, for example take a 48kHz file for a source that didn't include any frequencies above 24kHz (i.e. the sampling is perfect), will a down conversion to 44.1kHz (which is quite close to 48) give you worse results than if you had a 96kHz source? Downsampling 48kHz to 24kHz should, I suppose, give you pretty much exactly the same result as doing the same with 96kHz, but perhaps fractional frequency ratios might be more problematic. I (un)learned the relevant maths too long ago to figure that out.

Regardless, higher sampling frequencies certainly have their benefits up to a point, but the articles have convincing arguments for why, unless current sampling related science/math is considerably flawed, ultra high frame rates like 192kHz are at best unnecessary (and selling these files at premium rates is no different than homeopathy).

[Jay 37,280]

Did you guys read the articles?

There's no doubt that if you have a blu ray player capable of playing 96+khz and 24+ bit material, and its hooked up via HDMI to a AV Receiver that also supports that rate as well, than you WILL be able to actually hear the music at a higher quality than a CD could ever output.

However if you are playing these files on a windows PC or a portable mp3 player, there's no telling what the software is doing to the audio before it hits your speakers. I know, for example, that iTunes is only capable of outputting at 16bit. Ditto for Apple TV Players.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes so it depends on the player you are using. The way you were saying it makes it sound like there is a problem with the files themselves.

[Jay 37,280]

Then you interpreted my words wrong.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's my line, stranger!

[Marian Schedenig 8,171]

Did you guys read the articles?

There's no doubt that if you have a blu ray player capable of playing 96+khz and 24+ bit material, and its hooked up via HDMI to a AV Receiver that also supports that rate as well, than you WILL be able to actually hear the music at a higher quality than a CD could ever output.

True, though the articles also clearly say that the extra high bit rates and frequencies are overkill. 192kHz will do no harm if you actually play back at 192kHz with the same quality (at that frequency) as you would with 96kHz, but it will also not sound better. The equipment may cost more though, and if you have to compromise and get less high end equipment for 192kHz than you could for 96kHz, then you may actually get worse results.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That is the trouble with digital downloads. There really isn't a standard that is clearly defined and understood by all.

I find it interesting that you can buy Jurassic Park 192/24 in Apple Lossless, even though iTunes or Apple TV apparently won't play it at that quality.

[phbart 609]

My PC is totally onboard (video, sound, ethernet...), but it can handle up to 192/24 for playback only (for recording is only 48/16). Also my blu-ray is able to decode 192/24 PCM and DSD streams from SACDs.

Here's the JW material I have to make comparisons

With the 2005 DVD-A of CE3K and the 1990 Varese CD, the difference is definitely not worth paying the extra buck. The 192/24 doesn't sound worse or better than the 96/24 version present on the same disc nor the standard 44.1/16 of the CD released 15 years earlier. It just sounds different.

Same thing with the 2002 SACD of E.T.. The DSD stream (even when downcoverted to PCM at 88.4/24) is just different than the CD counterpart. The catch here is the 5.1 sound. That is the only reason to buy this release.

Oh, just for the sake of it, the 2001 DVD-A of A.I. is at 88.4/24, but a user from another forum found out it's just an upconversion of the 44.1/16. Really shameful. And the 5.1 sound is a mess too. Avoid it!

Now JP, comparing the 192/24 to a properly dowconverted 44.1/16 (with dithers and all) doesn't sound diferent at all.

There are 44.1/16 lovers, 96/24 lovers, 192/24 and even DXD lovers (384kHz/24bit, some samples available at 2L Nordic Sound). There are SACD lovers (both DSD-64, which is the one used on all SACDs and the higher resolution DSD-128, both with samples available at 2L Nordic Sound). There are vinyl lovers... it's an infinite debate whether which is better. We'll never know, and I'm not willing to spend a fortune on speakers and processors and stuff like that because I simply can't . So, I'm happy with what I have. The only thing that is a fact is that we have excellent JW material on all of those formats (except DXD and DSD-128) and today is somewhat easy to play them all with acceptable quality without spending unnecessary money on equipments.