Jump to content

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE - 3CD Set from La-La Land Records


Recommended Posts

For listening purposes, 44.1kHz/16bit is more than enough. Anything more than that is just useful for production only (recording, editing, mixing, restoring... and what have you).

 

For instance, take whatever 96kHz/24bit (or higher resolution) music you have and make a down-rez to 44.1kHz/16bit using, I dunno, Adobe Audition, or even the ancient Cool Edit Pro (which is where Audition came from) by just setting any optimal setting, no dithering needed. And good luck telling the difference... 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, pre-announces actually:     COMING SOON LIMITED EDITION (3-CD SET)

The 3rd disc contains a brand new rebuild of the 1978 OST album because it's an iconic album and everyone felt it should be included in the definitive release of this score.   When JW constr

12 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

It is really time for Star Wars and Indiana Jones to get such a definitive chapter-ending treatment. This set is a great opportunity to give that score the attention it deserves. I was never a fan of the score, but maybe I will become one.

 

I guess I'm one of the few people here that considers Superman as John Williams' greatest work. :)

 

I don't think any other score compares to this: so many unique and unforgettable themes

 

It's my favorite movie ever, and the music is a big reason why

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterXDTV said:

Mike agrees with me then: the only thing they can do in the future is to re-release this as a FLAC 96khz/24bit version... And it wouldn't be a physical release anyway, just digital.

 

Well, they could also release a surround sound version...

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MisterXDTV said:

 

that would be great but it's even more unlikely considering that DVD-Audio and SACD are even more dead than standard CDs

 

DVD-A and SACD are dead, sure, but if surround took off in the domain of digital downloads, such a release could be very likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, MisterXDTV said:

I guess I'm one of the few people here that considers Superman as John Williams' greatest work. :)

 

You shouldn't be. It's one of the few I'll accept as his greatest. This new generation of wackos will say it's one of the Harry Potters or Tin  Tin. Like Kevin Spacey said, wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

It is really time for Star Wars and Indiana Jones to get such a definitive chapter-ending treatment. This set is a great opportunity to give that score the attention it deserves. I was never a fan of the score, but maybe I will become one.

 

I personally could wait for after Star Wars IX to get the real definitive 9 OST complete set...the definitive remastered reconstructed edition...the set to end all sets.  For Raiders, I'll wait for after Raiders V which I think is next after West Side Story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, karelm said:

For Raiders, I'll wait for after Raiders V which I think is next after West Side Story.

A sequel and a remake... Spielberg is clearly running out of ideas. Seriously, the current and the preceding decade couldn't differ more regarding his innovation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, El Jefe said:

 

 

 

I remember the chilly stare from those eyes when the Mrs came home and saw the Herrmann Varèse box set sitting next to me.......

 

 

I get the same each time a package arrives from the post office. I'm also told "Shame on you! " Heck. I'm guilty as ever. 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MisterXDTV said:

Mike agrees with me then: the only thing they can do in the future is to re-release this as a FLAC 96khz/24bit version... And it wouldn't be a physical release anyway, just digital.

Like I said I don't have the right equipment to take advantage of Hi-Res Audio anyway

 

You might not have the hearing discernment capability, either.

 

7 hours ago, rough cut said:

I don’t see any point in 96khz/24bit releases. And I’m not just talking about Superman, I mean in general. CD quality is the perfect middle ground.

 

7 hours ago, phbart said:

For listening purposes, 44.1kHz/16bit is more than enough. Anything more than that is just useful for production only (recording, editing, mixing, restoring... and what have you).

 

For instance, take whatever 96kHz/24bit (or higher resolution) music you have and make a down-rez to 44.1kHz/16bit using, I dunno, Adobe Audition, or even the ancient Cool Edit Pro (which is where Audition came from) by just setting any optimal setting, no dithering needed. And good luck telling the difference... 😉

 

Using above-average equipment, some people can hear the difference between 44.1kHz/16bit and 96kHz/24bit music. (I can.)

 

5 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

 

DVD-A and SACD are dead, sure, but if surround took off in the domain of digital downloads, such a release could be very likely.

 

I hope it does. To experience (hi-res) surround-sound, I suppose listeners would have to connect their computer to their hi-fi via HDMI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the human ear, the audible frequency range is 20–20,000 Hz (20 kHz).

 

The CD standard (casually thown around under the term ’lossless’) is 44.1 kHz. That is DOUBLE to what humans can hear.

 

For companies to sell - and charge more! - for audio content in 96 kHz must be the greatest scam of our time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rough cut said:

To the human ear, the audible frequency range is 20–20,000 Hz (20 kHz).

 

The CD standard (casually thown around under the term ’lossless’) is 44.1 kHz. That is DOUBLE to what humans can hear.

 

For companies to sell - and charge more! - for audio content in 96 kHz must be the greatest scam of our time.

 

The sampling frequency needs to be at least twice the max. sound frequency, to avoid aliasing.

 

There's one theoretical advantage of using a sampling frequency that's greater than this: Transients - very steep waves, such as when going from silence to a cymbal hit. However, few people (if any) are able to differentiate between transients encoded with CD standard versus with higher sampling frequency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We’re talking about a lot of things at the same time. 

 

Sound frequency

...is audible between 20-20 kHz. An increase in Hz does not improve sound quality as it is inaudible.

 

Sampling frequency

There are a number of studies that show that 24 bit does not sound better than 16 bit - other than in theory.

 

@Jurassic Shark is talking about that the Nyquist bandwidth: the relationship between frequency rate and bit rate. If “frequency rate” < ”half bit rate” then this would cause distortion. CDs do not have this problem, so hi-res files can’t fix what ain’t broken. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, phbart said:

Yes, but talking about the human hearing range (20hz-20.000hz), what gain the audio quality would get by a higher sampling that the 44.1kHz sampling (0hz - 22.050hz) doesn't cover already?

 

To give yourself an answer, think about the gain the video quality gets when going from SD to fullHD, then from fullHD to 4k: that has nothing to do with the human seeing range, as that il was well covered even by svga. 

It's all about the amount of digital information used to create the sound (or the picture): the more info used the more detailed the sound and the pictures are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ciarlese said:

 

To give yourself an answer, think about the gain the video quality gets when going from SD to fullHD, then from fullHD to 4k: that has nothing to do with the human seeing range, as that il was well covered even by svga. 

It's all about the amount of digital information used to create the sound (or the picture): the more info used the more detailed the sound and the pictures are. 

I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. 

 

You don't measure your hearing capabilities the same way you measure your visual capabilities. And digital video, not only is far more complex than digital audio, it's also treated in many ways differently than digital audio is.

 

I'd like you to take your time to watch these two videos here from the Xiph.org website. It's made by an audio engineer and he explains things nicely and in a very didactic way. In the second, he goes more on the digital audio part, and that's how I'm convinced that 44.1kHz/16bit for listening purposes is more than enough.

 

Video 1: https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

 

Video 2: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

 

It's subtitled in various languages, btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, anironwaffle said:

I did buy the most recent Star Wars hi-res download; it's more problematic history and edits make it harder for me to fully embrace it, though.  

I won't quote your entire post because it's too long but you did make a good point. However, basically, what you said (in the parts I didn't quote here) is that the benefits of formats like DVD-A and SACD comes more from the mixing process and the multichannel configuration than the resolution itself.

 

Which brings me to the part I quoted. Indeed there's a 192kHz/24bit of the recent SW music and the standard CD as well. How different do they sound?

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, phbart said:

I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. 

 

You don't measure your hearing capabilities the same way you measure your visual capabilities. And digital video, not only is far more complex than digital audio, it's also treated in many ways differently than digital audio is.

 

I'd like you to take your time to watch these two videos here from the Xiph.org website. It's made by an audio engineer and he explains things nicely and in a very didactic way. In the second, he goes more on the digital audio part, and that's how I'm convinced that 44.1kHz/16bit for listening purposes is more than enough.

 

Video 1: https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

 

Video 2: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

 

It's subtitled in various languages, btw.

 

Thanks for the links to the videos. I don't have time to watch them now, although I read the English subtitles and I found some interesting bits which I think are most relevant to this conversation:

 

1:Audio and video are different indeed, although the principles behind video and audio digitization are the same. And that is the reason why the first link starts talking about audio sampling then talks about video sampling:

 

219
00:16:02,571 --> 00:16:08,798
One could think of video as being like audio but with two additional spatial dimensions, X and Y, 

220
00:16:08,798 --> 00:16:12,787
in addition to the dimension of time. This is mathematically sound.  

221
00:16:12,787 --> 00:16:19,097
The Sampling Theorem applies to all three video dimensions just as it does the single time dimension of audio.

 

So it looks like I am not comparing apples and oranges after all. This comes from the video you posted.

 

About your previous comment, here what your video says:

 

161
00:11:18,545 --> 00:11:25,100
Super-hi-fidelity sampling rates of 88, and 96, and 192kHz have also appeared. 

162
00:11:25,100 --> 00:11:30,888
The reason for the sampling rates beyond 48kHz isn't to extend the audible high frequencies further.

 

 

That bit covers your original comment:

 

Quote


  9 hours ago, Mattris said:

Using above-average equipment, some people can hear the difference between 44.1kHz/16bit and 96kHz/24bit music. (I can.)

Are you saying you can hear sounds above the 20kHz range?

 

 

Now if you want to say that there is no audible difference by sampling with a higher frequency than the current CD standard I can't say that I disagree.

But I think it is pretty much the same as going from 4k to 8k in terms of visible difference (unless you are VERY close to the screen), even after the videos you posted (which seem to me to prove you wrong).

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice little nugget of info from MM on the FSM board regarding STM source music on the S II/III set!  Yet another example of the meticulous care Mike has demonstrated with these projects, especially when it means going back and vastly improving a work that has been done previously, in this case a couple times! :)

 

Quote

Here's the comparison no one asked for: the new Superman source tracks as presented on the SII/SIII set are worlds away from the ones presented in the Blue Box. The stereo is more defined for one thing with a wider apparent soundstage and much more instrument separation. The sound is clearer, warmer, and less harsh owing to the use of earlier-generation masters, presumably first-generation as was the rest of the score. The overtones of each instrument are there as is a sense of natural ambience around each individual performer. The difference is not subtle. And this is just the source music. There is an editorial difference in the way "Kansas High School" has been assembled in the new version: all the parts are there but there is an introductory horn riff that started the piece in the Blue Box that has been moved to the middle in the new version, and a repeat of the melody at the end has been eliminated. No big deal - this is probably closer to Williams' original intent. Can't wait to hear the score proper with this much improvement. Lots of love to Mike M. for all his hard work.

Thanks for noticing! The STM source music on SII/III is indeed exactly as it was recorded and now mixed from the 2-inch masters. On the FSM box all I had were fragments from the mixed dubbing stems that were given to me on DA88 tapes in 1999 for the Rhino project! They were already cut to fit the scenes in the TV version, so I had to editorially turn them into listenable tracks (so some have repeated sections). The only really "intact" piece was the Hawaiian music, which is why that was on the Rhino release (plus it was actually in the film) and then carried over to the FSM box.

(For the record, I also did new mixes of the SII source music because I thought they could match everything else better - other than "Honeymoon Hotel," which came from the album master.)

 

https://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?pageID=5&amp;forumID=1&amp;threadID=134366&amp;archive=0

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...