Jump to content

Which E.T. release sounds better?


King Mark

which E.T. release sounds best  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. which E.T. release sounds best

    • Original OST
    • 1996 Re-Master
    • 2002 Re-Master
      0
    • 2017 LLL 2 c.d.


Recommended Posts

Not really. It has a really dull and flat sound compared to the 1996 release. The SACD doesn't improve things very much either. The only "use" for me was the then unreleased tracks and the correct and/or alternate performances of some sections compared to the 1996 release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, phbart said:

Not really. It has a really dull and flat sound compared to the 1996 release. The SACD doesn't improve things very much either. The only "use" for me was the then unreleased tracks and the correct and/or alternate performances of some sections compared to the 1996 release.

 

Shawn Murphy should be kept away from Bruce Botnick recordings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

 

Shawn Murphy should be kept away from Bruce Botnick recordings!

And from ALL recordings in general.

 

BTW Stef, you have quite a few of the 1982 OST CDs, right? The ones with differente catalogue numbers and all. Could you enlighten me if they really sound different from each other, like they claimed one was sourced from a digital master and the other from the analogue dub?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, phbart said:

And from ALL recordings in general.

 

BTW Steef, you have quite a few of the 1982 OST CDs, right? The ones with differente catalogue numbers and all. Could you enlighten me if they really sound different from each other, like they claimed one was sourced from a digital master and the other from the analogue dub?

 

MCAD-37264 sounds different, imo. Probably because it was created using the master for the Japanese audiophile LP. The front cover says it was digitally recorded, mixed and mastered, so I'm assuming it's DDD. All the other ones I have are ADD, and sound the same to my ears.

 

In all honestly I don't have great hearing at all so probably would notice minor differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

MCAD-37264 sounds different, imo. Probably because it was created using the master for the Japanese audiophile LP. The front cover says it was digitally recorded, mixed and mastered, so I'm assuming it's DDD. All the other ones I have are ADD, and sound the same to my ears.

 

In all honestly I don't have great hearing at all so probably would notice minor differences.

By different, you mean better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea if my OST is sourced from a japanese LP, but I highly doubt that any of these releases sound better than the other.

 

Comparing all four of the “major” releases (that I have personally ripped) on my high end sound system reveals, perhaps more importantly than the question “which sounds the best”, that none of them sounds bad.

 

The ET releases are not Star Wars; it’s hiatory is not marred by each release sounding distinctively different from the next.

 

A little warmer, a little “cooler”... more or less low end... it seems minuscule and more down to different EQ during the mastering process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

A copy of the OST for sentimentality sake and the LLL is really all you need of E.T. at this point.

 

 

FB_IMG_1549468470444.jpg

 

You need the 4K Blu-ray. It has a copy of the 1982 OST.

20190206_154704.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2019 at 7:48 PM, phbart said:

 

You need the 4K Blu-ray. It has a copy of the 1982 OST.

20190206_154704.jpg

 

And the LLL double LP! And the US Laserdisc and CD releases featuring the over the moon image! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2019 at 4:02 AM, Alexcremers said:

During the early days of the internet, I stumbled upon a conversation with one the technicians involved in either the recording or mastering of ET. The bottom line is that they actually screwed up the transfer of the first release because it was not yet a fully developed technology. I remember he said that the multitrack recording was analog, but at the same time the whole score was being recorded on a two-track digital recorder, which was a novelty back then. He said that, due to the early stage of the digital transfer technology, several CD releases in that period actually sound more brittle than they should. It's funny that this unintentional digital 'sheen' is being perceived as superior.

 

Link to comment
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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.