 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for releasing the complete score of ID4!!! The sound quality of the 100 minutes score is fantastic, the music is well presented and all the information in the booklet is amazing! Wonderful job!!! It's great to have another 30 minutes of Alternate Tracks as well, which makes me and some friends of mine having two questions:
#1. The “End Credits” segment does start somewhere in the middle. Wouldn’t it have been better to have the whole “End Credits” with no Choir track presented or start at least at a point which does not sound that confusing ... like at 4:42 or 6:31?
#2. The Sound Level of the alternate action (laud) tracks is around 2 db lower than the one from the film version (this is fine) but the softer (quiet) tracks are around 10 db higher than the movie version cues. This is a difference of around 12 db between the quiet and the laud alternate tracks and somehow this is quite irritating as one has to change the volume during listening to the alternate tracks all the time. What is the reason for the high Volume Differences?
As said, I'm very happy and thankful for this amazing release and admire your efforts you have done to release this fantastic score very much!!! Please don’t take this as a complaint I just wonder what the reason behind the big volume differences might be.
Thanks in advance for your explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concerning different db values between certain tracks, one of doug's recent column posts has a possible answer for you:
"(...)Some labels do a lot of "normalizing" of their programs (others do not) and yes it matters.
Normalizing is a process where - during final mastering - the reference levels are set to the very highest peak in volume of the entire program - and then subsequently, every other track is adjusted to match that level peak. We tend to avoid the process unless it becomes absolutely necessary because normalizing actually does affect the recording, especially with orchestral music. There is a tendency to subtly alter the contrasts between loud passages and intentionally soft ones. We generally prefer to let the conductor, musicians and original recording engineers determine how loud or soft they want various passages to be.
Further complicating the situation is a process (also used by some labels but avoided by others) called "compression", where the recording at both ends is literally squeezed to allow a consistently loud playback. Virtually all engineering for all labels strives for the loudest playback levels without distortion and whatnot. But normalizing and compressing simply to make the entire program louder isn't necessarily a good thing. It's one reason our recent issue of ROBOCOP, prepared from the newly re-mixed 2" 24-track masters seems less "hot" than the earlier Varese Sarabande release, even though it offers superior clarity and sonics. Our version is just as loud, but only when the performance and original recording warrant it... and not throughout.
Normalizing and compressing the recordings during mastering was a really common practice for LPs, especially in the pop and rock fields. This way, every track of the record played back at a volume roughly equivalent to every other track, making it easier for DJs to set airplay levels and let things roll instead of needing to make constant adjustments. It's a process that still gets used a lot. I'm just not a big fan of it with orchestral music, where subtle changes in performance levels really are the domain of the conductor, players and recording engineer. Over-use of it actually reduces the expressive and dynamic range of the actual recording, which is a concept I find unsatisfying.
Sadly, the process now shows up a lot with many of the current soundtracks on several labels, especially with regards to some of the more repetitive, percussion and synth-driven scores. In my opinion, it only increases the feel of the music being somewhat bland and generic.(...)"
I think the ID4 alternate of the first lady track shows signs of being normalized individually when you view it in a editing software. Its not a big deal because as you point out, the only thing you need to do to compensate this effect is to lower the volume of your player. Why it has been done that way for that specific alternate track is something i really don't know (maybe it was mixed that way during the actual recording, just a speculation) but it does not really have that much negative impact anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
La La Land Records released ID4.
Therefore, it is simply, totally, utterly, completely IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO SUCK.
Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How does the overall audio quality of the original cd compare to the La La Land cd?
It's an improvement but not massive--the original was clean but certain instruments were drowned in the mix (it's a huge recording ensemble so maybe that had something to do with it). The LLL release is crisp and sounds like it was recorded yesterday. I can hear instruments I don't remember hearing on the original, especially in the quieter moments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But...they FIXED the mixing bowl debacle, at their own expense. Therefore, I consider it a prime example of LLL kicking ass, not sucking.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
