A24 4,338 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 He is a composer but I only know him as a recording engineer. His work includes Final Fantasy, Michael Collins, Heat, Batman Forever, Interview with a Vampire, Drugstore Cowboy, etc. He even recorded two Oscar winning scores: The Red Violin and Frida. I only have two recordings of him (Final Fantasy and The Red Violin) but each time I listen to them, I'm totally blown away by their astonishing sound quality. Power, clarity and dynamics! It's all there. If they ever do a re-recording of the whole Star Wars saga then Joel Iwataki, The London Symphony and Williams (as the conductor) would make an ideal combination for the job.----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,200 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Oh, he's one of the best. All his Goldenthal recordings are outstanding, as is Red Violin.Marian - who thinks nearly everyone is better than Shawn Murphy these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Yeah, Red Violin and Michael Collins are especialy great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 19, 2004 Author Share Posted January 19, 2004 Yes, it's amazing that the world's best film composer doesn't get treated the same way.----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,200 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Doesn't get treated or doesn't treat himself? I assume that if Williams doesn't want to work with Shawn Murphy, he won't. Though recently, he seems to prefer Simon Rhodes anyway, whom I also like.Marian - who has a classical CD recorded by Rhodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Woods 555 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Although not a fan of Murphy's either, his last two recordings for James Newton Howard (Treasure Island and Peter Pan) and Bennett Salvay (Jeepers Creepers 2) have been outstanding.Here's hoping that Murphy is back in his early 90's groove. Two outstanding early 90's Murphy recordings that come to mind are The Rocketeer and Home Alone 2!-Erik- Who doesn't like Simon Rhodes' recordings at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 20, 2004 Author Share Posted January 20, 2004 Ah, it's been discussed before, the ups and downs of Murphy.Truth is, some composers really don't care so much about recording as much as they care about performance. They are very occupied listening to the emotional side of things. For them the most important thing is that the music has to create the right feeling. That's what matters! Did the trumpet sound bold enough? Were the violins really menacing or did they lose their impact because the trombones were too loud? It's all these things that go through a composer's mind. The recording process is someone else's job. ----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKenLittle 6 Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 I miss Eric Tomlinson, John Richards and Lyle Burbridge.My ears tell me that Bruce Botnick and Dennis Sands are still two of the foremost engineers working... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 20, 2004 Author Share Posted January 20, 2004 Though recently, he seems to prefer Simon Rhodes anyway, whom I also like. I'm not an expert on Rhodes but I have the impression it all sounds nice though it is somewhat lacking in power. I miss the wow-factor with Simon Rhodes. If you wanna hear something unmistakably impressive, listen to the recordings of Joel Iwataki!----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I had the opportunity to finally hear DVD-Audio and SA-CD today in a high end audio store. The pre-amp was a Lexicon MC-8 and the transort was also a Lexicon. The pre-amp by itself was $7000, to say nothing of the speakers, the amplifier (Classe) and the wires. My guess is audio isn't going to get much better than this set-up.I was completely un-impressed by what I heard, but I think I may have to hear these technologies even more. I'll start with the best and get to the worst.The first disc I played was the Jerry Goldsmith "Movie Medleys" disc. The copy I have is an actual SA-CD promo, so it should be no surprise that this disc was the best sounding of the 3 that I auditioned. This recording is astonishinly clean, and the 5 channel mix is wonderful. Never at any time could I pin-point a speaker and say "the sound is coming from there". The mix placed the instruments well in the soundfield and this was a joy to listen too. I'm not sure I heard any resolution advantages with this disc over stnadard CD (and I did not get to compare that, anyway) so I won't comment on that.The next disc I played was Varese's SA-CD of Star Trek - Nemesis. I listened to one of my favorite cues, "The Mirror" in both 2 channel mode and 5 channel mode. I had to hear the 2 channel after the awful showing of the 5 channel mix. The synths and the percussion at the 2:36 mark came "hard center" in the 5 channel mode and any sense of imaging was thrown completely off. The 2 channel mix had much better imaging.The worst showing of the day (and this will not surprise Marian) was the 5 channel DVD-A mix done for A.I.. Again, I'm talking about the mix and not the fidelity (though my dad didn't even like the way the violins sounded), but this mix was ridiculous, and never once bore any relationship to any live orchestra that I've ever heard. The piano in "Hide and Seek" sounded as if it was the size of the recording studio. We didn't even make it through the complete track.The sad truth is, I don't see either of these formats taking off. Consumer audio interest is at an all time low. Everyone now want's home theater. Nobody seems to care about audio fidelity anymore. They just want the ability to carry 40 GB's of music with them at all times.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 The sad truth is, I don't see either of these formats taking off. Consumer audio interest is at an all time low. Everyone now want's home theater. Nobody seems to care about audio fidelity anymore. They just want the ability to carry 40 GB's of music with them at all times. The average consumer stopped caring a long time ago. There used to be many true(!) HiFi stores that you could find in every city. Many of them already closed their doors in the Eighties while, in contrast, in the Seventies you could find the word Hifi on every street's corner. I think Neil is quite right. People are saving up for other things now, like building personal home theatres in their living rooms, which I believe, will cause a new level of irritation with the neighbours in the future. "The sound of deep rumbling earthquaking bass will roar in every house and in every appartement. We will be literally surrounded with surround gear. In the kitchen, in the bedroom, in the bathroom, we'll be hearing distant but penetrating bass drones fom our fellow citizens. We'll have nowhere to run. The future looks bleak." I bought a Sony SACD player before the 5.1 models were available which is fine by me because I'm not into "surround". I only have a few SACDs and they sound great. But these days it's hard to tell when it comes to detail. I've moved from my old super audio room to a much bigger space with very high ceilings, which means, lots of reverberation. I no longer hear every little change that is made in my Hifi set-up. Anyway Neil, I do know that you can't go judging a CD or a HiFi system in a room you're not familiar with. The only way you can be sure about SACD is to hook it up on your system at home.----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Neil, I do know that you can't go judging a CD or a HiFi system in a room you're not familiar with. The only way you can be sure about SACD is to hook it up on your system at home.I know. That's why my main critcism was off the mixes and not the fidelity.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I cannot tell the differences anyways, so tell me why should I care as a consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I miss Eric Tomlinson...Didn't he screw up Star Wars, TESB, Superman and Dracula? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Woods 555 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I miss Eric Tomlinson...Didn't he screw up Star Wars, TESB, Superman and Dracula?How did he screw them up? I think Star Wars and ESB sound fantastic... however the mastering on Dracula is horrible. The isolated score on the Superman DVD is stellar... even better than the 2CD Rhino release! BTW, have you heard Tomlinson's "The Right Stuff/North and South" re-recording? One of the best sounding recordings I've ever heard.-Erik- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Star Wars sounds very flat, not much depth at all.I'm used to it now, but I was VERY dissaointed when i first heard the sound on the 2 LP set.The SE's sound a little better...a little.Superman sounds halfway decent, but nowere as good as like say Star Trek TMP and The Black Hole, which still sounds brilliant even today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector J. Guzman 1 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I miss Herb Spencer and Alexander Courage (yes, I know they're not engineers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Star Wars sounds very flat, not much depth at all.I'm used to it now, but I was VERY dissaointed when i first heard the sound on the 2 LP set.The SE's sound a little better...a little.A Louder and Sharper Tone... Does it Sound Better?I'm afraid it's the other way around. The Lp is far better than the SE. BTW, there is more than just a little difference between the LP and SE when it comes to sound color . The SE is taken from old deteriorated sound sources (tape and soundtrack). To hide the fact that these sources had lost their spark, they've used some enhancement method (usually always based on EQ) to boost the treble regions of the sound's spectrum in order to achieve a "fresh" sound. The result is that the SE sounds cold and digital (with lots of hiss and noise which are also enhanced!) while the LP sounds warm and natural. If, in case, you like your Star Wars sound to be a little more crisp, I suggest to get a good copy of the LP and make some of your own treble adjustments on your amplifier. Et voila! Star Wars in full glory, and without the annoying ticks and way too brittle strings that are so apparent on the SE version. Of course, you should disregard everything I said if you have truly awful bad speakers connected to your system.----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I think the SE has better tone and clearity. At least from what I've heard of the original mix, which are questionablity made mp3's, but you generally with experience can hear the difference between mp3 artifacts and recording artifacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,200 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 What I remember from the movies on TV (which I haven't seen in a long time, waiting for the DVDs), the music sounds better there than on the SE CDs...Marian - hoping for decent remastering someday, ala CE3K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I'm afraid it's the other way around. The Lp is far better than the SE. Listen to the Gerhardt re-recording, then listen to the OST, either the LP or CD.I cannot believe these 2 recordings were made less then a year apart.The Gerhardt version sound huge, and vibrant and clear, the OST sounds harsh, lacking any depth.Eric Tomlinson was a pretty poor recordist, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 I'm afraid it's the other way around. The Lp is far better than the SE. Listen to the Gerhardt re-recording, then listen to the OST, either the LP or CD.The Gerhardt version sound huge, and vibrant and clear, the OST sounds harsh, lacking any depth.The Gerhardt version I do not remember, except for the Close Encounters piece on it (amazing concert version). No, the 2-LP album doesn't sound harsh at all. Indeed, the RSO CD version of it sounds terribly harsh. And yes it's true, Star Wars sounds very "studio" and less "concert hall". That's why it sounds smaller. ----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Star Wars sounds like it was recorded in the 50's, not the late 70'sI usuallu very much prefer the studio sounds to the concert hall sound (which sacrifices clarity for reverb).I've listened to all of the releases of SW on CD and the LP.The OST LP sounds muddles, distrant and harsh, the SE will probably be the best we we ever get of this recording (it is a big improvent over the LP and first CD release)But they really screwed up when they were recording this in 77, no amount of remastering can fix this, i'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Star Wars sounds like it was recorded in the 50's, not the late 70'sThe OST LP sounds muddles, distrant and harsh.But they really screwed up when they were recording this in 77, no amount of remastering can fix this, i'm afraid.Maybe you're LP pressing has gone weary. It must be. Mine doesn't sound harsh but smooth like liquid silver.The SE sounds unnaturally boosted. Maybe, you're speakers don't tell. It has to be!Boosted highs flatters bad speakers. The tapes have deteriorated. Only a new recording that meticulously copies the original can and will be our salvation, hence Joel Iwataki!----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Muddled and harsh is right, the SE is perfect in tone and is liquid smooth. But with more clearity, of the level of say ET, it would be an ideal sounding recording. The original mix used a bunch of EQ effectives to give it reverb, that probably also makes it sound distant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 That's the biggest **** I've ever heard, Morn. You clearly have no clue. Nobody softens a whole master so it sounds more reverbish. What are you thinking? Or are you kidding? You don't have the LP. ---------------Alex cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 That's the biggest **** I've ever heard, Morn. You clearly have no clue. Nobody softens a whole master so it sounds more reverbish. What are you thinking? Or are you kidding? You don't have the LP.No, but he has mp3's and can distinguish between mp3 artifacts and recording artifacts. :roll: Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 What does a recording engineer do besides handling the mixing of the music? That doesn't sound like such a big deal to me. I feel orchestrators do alot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 But not the LP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 What does a recording engineer do besides handling the mixing of the music? Have you ever heard an amateur recording? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 What does a recording engineer do besides handling the mixing of the music? That doesn't sound like such a big deal to me. I feel orchestrators do alot more.One has nothing to do with the other. A recording engineer chooses the microphones and their placement. A instrument can sound near or far and everything in between. Mixing is an art in itself. The CDs in you collection can testify for that. All sound different. Some are amazing while others sound strange and unnatural (Shawn Murphy on a bad day). Orchestrators are not responsible if a Williams recording isn't up to par. Of course, a lot can go wrong (or fixed) during the mastering process which is done by the mastering engineer. Besides putting the tracks in the right order the overall output is determined. In pop music compression is always a must. Sometimes a little reverb is added on the overall mix to get a more coherent mix. They use exciters to enhance the higher frequencies when old masters have become dull (a very dangerous tool). The ultra low frequencies (sub bass-50 Hz and lower) is being cut if nessecary. For this the mastering engineer can check his spectrum analyser (we can't hear below a certain freq.) The whole mastering process is all done on very accurate monitors by very trained ears.----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,200 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 What does a recording engineer do besides handling the mixing of the music? That doesn't sound like such a big deal to me. I feel orchestrators do alot more.A Williams score recorded by present-day Murphy probably would sound much worse than a Zimmer score recorded by Iwataki.Marian - LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 I just did a listening test with The Empire Strikes Back. I compared The Imperial March on two different CDs. Conclusion after only a few seconds? The Empire Strikes Back SE edition sounds much worse than the RSO edition. The SE sounds very accentuated in the mid tones. The reverb of the snare is downright harsh! The natural studio ambience that makes the original CD rather enjoyable in sound is totally disappeared. SW and ESB are extremely "dry" recordings. They don't possess much of a hall sound but more of a diffused studio quality, that's not to say that the music sounds diffused, of course. If the definition of that studio ambience is lost then there is nothing much left but a cardboard sound. Most people are fooled by the SE increase in overall loudness but that is a cheap mastering trick. We perceive louder as better but that's far from always the case. So when doing the test, please adjust the volume each time you switch the CD.The whole original Star Wars Trilogy catalogue should be rerecorded. It's time!----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eplicon 53 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 How would SACD or DVD-A compare to say, the mix as heard from a movie DVD (c.f., the end credits)? Is it different? Better? Worse?The only reason why TESB: SE sounds "bad" is because they really had very little time to remix it properly to Eric Tomilson's configuration. Most of the source material used for the album was newly discovered and its raw format, not unlike what happened with The Robe.I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer the SE version (much to Michael Matessino's astounishment, when I wrote him a fan e-mail a few years ago!). But only because it sounds (qualitatively-wise) better than the boxed set from 1993. It had too many dropouts and garbled sound to make me enjoy it as much as I should have. Maybe they'll re-release it yet again when the SW Trilogy makes its debut on DVD this (?) year and get it right..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 If the music is remixed for SE then it will be certainly remixed for the SACD because of the surround possibilities. But I'm not convinced that the mix is responsible for the loss of quality. I wish I could hear the untouched music from the origins from which it's derived. ----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,200 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Eric Tomlinson was a pretty poor recordist, in my opinion.Listen to Night Crossing and then repeat that sentence if you dare. THAT's how SW should sound.Marian - listening to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKenLittle 6 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I think a lot of this debate goes back to the mastering engineer on most CDs. In the case of most pop CDs, the mastering work is turned over to engineers who specialize in this specific task. The only thing they do is take 8 or 12 track sub-masters and mix them down to 2 track masters. In the case of most soundtracks, especially now, these sub-masters are rushed through the mastering process by people who probably have no business mixing 24 track orchestral masters. Very often the task is just to mix them down to 2 track masters and get them to the stores 3 weeks before the movie opens.Now lets not forget also, very often, motion picture scores are recorded in studio soundstages. These cavernous halls are notorious for bad sound. Only in recent years, have studio soundstages had to upgrade their recording equipment and tune sound baffles to more accurately represent the music of a large orchestra. Recording engineers like Eric Tomlinson, rarely got to work with the most up-to-date sound equipment in service at the time. That's why many jazz records produced in the fifties still sound better than most recent soundtracks. Didn't he screw up Star Wars, TESB, Superman and Dracula?I am convinced of two things in this, Steef... First that the Star Wars and TESB soundtracks are largely a matter of individual taste. I have heard them on LP, Cassette, 8-track, reel to reel and CD. Each one had it's own set of individual characteristics. To date, the reel to reel version is the best sound I've heard. The LP was warm and powerful and I still play it from time to time, I was less enthusiastic about the box set than I am about the SE CDs.Secondly, Superman was perfect in it's original incarnation. The individual seperation was clean and sharp on the LP. There was a solid bass frequency a, slightly attenuated, but present mid-range and a strong high frequency... This LP was the reason I started trying to learn about sound quality. Dracula, I am convinced to this day is a mastering nightmare... The mix down (I believe done by John Neal) is so out of phase that the recording actually sounds like a monophonic recording re-mixed for stereo. It has no midrange frequency whatsoever, and it makes the mix sound like it was recorded with large pieces of cardboard taped to the microphones.Superman sounds halfway decent, but nowere as good as like say Star Trek TMP and The Black Hole, which still sounds brilliant even today. Apples and oranges, my friend. ST:TMP and The Black Hole are both Digital recordings, mixes and masters. And I said that Bruce Botnick is one of the best engineers out there.Eric Tomlinson was a pretty poor recordist, in my opinion. How can you say that after his fantastic work on Aliens and Supergirl? And I challenge you to pick up the soundtrack to Amadeus, listen, and then come back and say that again...BK: Ilia's Theme, Jerry Goldsmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 One has nothing to do with the other. A recording engineer chooses the microphones and their placement. A instrument can sound near or far and everything in between. Mixing is an art in itself. The CDs in you collection can testify for that. All sound different. Some are amazing while others sound strange and unnatural (Shawn Murphy on a bad day). Orchestrators are not responsible if a Williams recording isn't up to par. Of course, a lot can go wrong (or fixed) during the mastering process which is done by the mastering engineer. Besides putting the tracks in the right order the overall output is determined. In pop music compression is always a must. Sometimes a little reverb is added on the overall mix to get a more coherent mix. They use exciters to enhance the higher frequencies when old masters have become dull (a very dangerous tool). The ultra low frequencies (sub bass-50 Hz and lower) is being cut if nessecary. For this the mastering engineer can check his spectrum analyser (we can't hear below a certain freq.) The whole mastering process is all done on very accurate monitors by very trained ears.Spoken like a true Amateur :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Actually the mixing recording engineer can be very important for not mere sonics, but for the loudness of each instrument, which can have a massive effective on the impact of the orchestration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 AI, did you think I was posing for a real mastering engineer? Did I ever said I was one? At least I know something about it. You're only here to cough up some meaningless words. Especially "meaningless" since you returned from your absence. Show me the real AI, if there's anything left of. Every click to the post that has your name under has become a waste of time.----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 ST:TMP and The Black Hole are both Digital recordings, mixes and masters. And I said that Bruce Botnick is one of the best engineers out there.According to an interview with Michael Matessino in Film Score Monthly, Star Trek - The Motion Picture was mostly an analog recording. They knew what cues were going to be on the album, and they were going to record those digitally, but they stopped part of the way through. It was digitally edited and mastered though.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 So that would make the Black Hole the first completly digitally recorded soundtrack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 So that would make the Black Hole the first completly digitally recorded soundtrack?According to this article it IS the first soundtrack digital recorded, although there are no further details. It is probably not correct. It is however, Disney's first digital recorded soundtrack. Digital Dream is officially the first movie with a digital recorded soundtrack but that was a short movie.http://valueservices.org/reelimage/misc/jo.../johnbarry3.htm----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKenLittle 6 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 ST:TMP and The Black Hole are both Digital recordings, mixes and masters. And I said that Bruce Botnick is one of the best engineers out there.According to an interview with Michael Matessino in Film Score Monthly, Star Trek - The Motion Picture was mostly an analog recording. They knew what cues were going to be on the album, and they were going to record those digitally, but they stopped part of the way through. It was digitally edited and mastered though.NeilI stand corrected, Neil...BK: :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 ST:TMP and The Black Hole are both Digital recordings, mixes and masters. And I said that Bruce Botnick is one of the best engineers out there.According to an interview with Michael Matessino in Film Score Monthly, Star Trek - The Motion Picture was mostly an analog recording. They knew what cues were going to be on the album, and they were going to record those digitally, but they stopped part of the way through. It was digitally edited and mastered though.NeilI stand corrected, Neil...BK: :oops:Don't be so hard on yourself. It's been spread throughout the years that TMP was a digital recording. I think even Bruce Botnick's notes in the SA-CD version of Nemesis say this.Now, to also debate you, you said it's apples and oranges comparing a digital recording to an analog recording. I'm going to disagree with that, too. Just because something is digital or analog does not automatically make it better. A digital recording can sound bad while an analog recording can sound great and vice versa. There is no hard set rule that says "digital = good while analog = bad". It's all up to the skill of the person making the recording. What you are saying would be like saying a book written on a computer is better than one written by hand in a notebook. It's all up to the artists, and not the medium.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Best example of that Neil, Schindler's List is an analogue recording. Actually analogue usually only = bad because it might be an old recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Best example of that Neil, Schindler's List is an analogue recording. Actually analogue usually only = bad because it might be an old recording.How old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Well say 70's and older, generally recordings from then sounded shitty. Yet you have things like ET and Schindler's List which are analgoue that sound as good as digital. I'd rather like to here how 21st century technology makes analogue recording sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,338 Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 I suppose you never listened to The Missouri Breaks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Wha???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now