Star Wars 1977 70mm sound mix recreation [stereo and 5.1 versions now available] (Released) — Page 17

Thanks as always h_h for the detailed update, any version you do will be cool I am sure, just as long as there is a purist version for all the projects, I have started putting all the LD ripped audio in sync now, so I am on audio for the next few days too.

As for the 2004 remix, you guys are obviously totally right. The easiest explanation for me is that the infamous Loudness War made it into a film here. Everything is pushed to the max, with no proper respect for the dynamics or even the action of the film.

What's worse is that some of the original audio elements are clearly worse for wear, and thus we get muffled and harsh sounds pushed all the way up. At least the BD did correct some of the horrible ADR'ing (Tarkin and Leia's dialogue stuck out like a sore thumb on the DVD), but compared to the samles hairy_hen posted... well, there is no comparison!

Kinda funny how the 3D re-release will be accompanied by such flat and "two-dimensional" audio...

I downloaded and listened to L.Mayer's recording, and noticed something interesting. During the Star Destroyer flyover, at 02:19, I can hear an audible "thump" which synchs up to that one explosion that didn't have an accompanying sound effect in the stereo and mono mixes, the one where they added that out-of-place ESB/ROTJ-era explosion sound in the '93 mix.

Could this sound be of the "missing" surround effects? Since the morgands1 recording doesn't have the surrounds, you can't hear it there. And since the '93 mix had that newer sound effect, we never heard this explosion effect. I always assumed it was added in to make up for the fact that the original mix didn't have a very audible sound effect there (up until now, all the pre-93 sources I've heard just have something that sounds like the echo of an explosion out in the distance), but now that I think about it, Burtt and co. did replace other sound effects in the '93 mix (like the blaster hit that scares Threepio into the escape pod), so we can't rule out that it was on the mix used as the base for '93, but replaced with the new effect.

(It wouldn't have been only in the baby boom channels, would it? I thought they just extracted the low frequencies from the other channels. And it sounds like it's in higher frequencies than just LFE...)

Of course, it could just be background noise or some glitch in the recording. Anybody wanna weigh in on this?

UPDATE: Listening to it again, I now think it's just the way the microphone picked up the percussion in the music, it occurs at one of the "DA DA DA DAAAA DAAA  DAAA" stabs in the score. Thoughts?

Well, I decided that I'll be doing the LFE channel over again essentially from scratch, so that's the thing I've been the most concerned about recently.  I'm using the in-theatre recording as a rough guide, but it's still entirely subject to my creative judgement.  The recording isn't a very reliable source, since it's filled with acoustic oddities and the fidelity isn't at all what I'd like, but it's enough to give a general idea what it should sound like, at least for the stronger parts.

This time I'm taking more care to ensure that the LFE is timed exactly right.  Before I tended to get a little lazy about it when the synch discrepancies were small enough not to be noticed easily, but since I'm having another go it might as well be improved in that sense.  I'm also re-evaluating some of my decisions about which source to use for each particular bass effect.  The '97 mix is getting used even more often this time, since despite only having a lossy source the tonal quality of its bass is usually much more pleasing to my ear: the '93, though usually closer to the original, tends to be a bit thick and boomy when amplified, and the '04 is often toneless and dull.

I'm also making even more effort to ensure that the bass blends with the main channels.  This can mean adjusting the timing to match, even after they've already been synched, and in some places I've split certain bass effects apart into segments and adjusted their volume levels individually (crossfading them back together to avoid jump-cuts).  The reason for this is that sometimes getting a good average level will result in peaks that go too high, since the SE bass can correspond to additions that weren't in the original (and also I think they went a little nuts and pumped the bass too far where it wasn't needed, while neglecting the parts that do need a strong response.)  Just for the heck of it, I also silenced all the gaps where the LFE isn't used in order to completely eliminate any noise in those parts, although that wouldn't really be noticeable anyway since the channel has an upper limit of 120 hz.

I have the LFE channels from the Bluray mixes, which theoretically would provide an improvement in sound quality in the places they're usable, but to be honest I haven't actually worked with them yet since I noticed that all the loudest bass is pushed up to the point of clipping.  The peaks aren't chopped too horribly, so I doubt anyone would really notice, but I can't bring myself to put something like that in there, "lossless" or not.  I can still use them in all the parts that aren't clipped, but it's annoying enough that I have not as of yet had the patience to do anything with them aside from converting to 16-bit.

Real life tends to kill my motivation lately, but I'd really like to get the new 70mm track done in the next couple weeks if possible.  As I've said before, on the whole it will differ only subtly from the existing version, since I think I got it mostly right to begin with, but I'm pleased with what I've been able to do so far.

The sound on these releases is beautiful. Thank you so much for your hard work on these.

Hey h_h, it's so wonderful to read about the level of care you're putting into this new update ... I'm sure everyone else is excited as I am about it. I really like the bass in the 97 version, so the fact that you're leaning more towards that is great to hear. I don't know about the bass from the 04 version as I've never brought myself to view those editions, but I trust your judgement. I just have a couple of questions about your release structure.

I know a while ago you said you were contemplating a lossless DTS MA version, is that still the case? I'd personally love to have a lossless version to mux into the film(s)... space is not a concern for me. 

Will you be issuing another 2.0 mix? I thought it was great to have the first time around for those without a proper surround setup.

msycamore said:

TServo2049, sorry I missed your post. I downloaded that audio file some time ago but haven't gotten around to listen to it yet. When I do, I will definitely pay attention during that part of the opening you described.

That's OK, I think I was hearing things. I now think that like the other pre-'93 mixes, the only explosion sound is that sort of hard-to-hear. The "thud" I heard seems to actually be mic distortion from the timpani in the music.

I can't wait for the new version. I love your current version, and can't believe it could sound any better.

Not as well as I'd hoped, unfortunately: the S/PDIF connection from my computer to the receiver has failed, and until I get that sorted out I won't be able to do any of the listening tests that are essential to determining the final sound.  (I can still connect via analogue, but without the ability to transmit the LFE channel that doesn't do me any good right now.)

There have been various other things occupying my attention as well; I'm intermittently writing a story for which my inspiration has recently returned, and am also serving as editor for a friend who is much more prolific than I am.  So this hasn't been on my mind as much lately—but with Harmy and dark_jedi making great progress on their projects, I am determined to get going again with it as soon as possible and finish up.  Aside from a few things that have still to be revised, most of what's left is just the minutia of putting the thing together, technical rather than creative concerns.  But I can promise that it's going to sound great when it's done.  :)

Finally, some news.  ;)

With my S/PDIF connection not working, and having run into some difficulties in achieving everything I'd wanted to do with the new version, I ended up putting it on hold for a while and occupying myself with other things.  But I recently got inspired to work on it again after reading a very interesting article on correcting the perceived sound of headphones in order to achieve an even response: http://www.head-fi.org/t/413900/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial

To do this properly requires the use of a parametric equalizer for precise adjustment of certain frequency ranges, so it was therefore necessary to teach myself how to do this.  Until now I hadn't even realized how much over-emphasis there really was in certain parts of the treble range, and continue to be amazed at the increased midrange clarity I've now gained.  And it's a good thing I made the effort, because it turns out that a parametric equalizer is exactly what I needed to make this 70mm project the best it can be.

The differing EQ of the edited segments was always something that prevented them from integrating as seamlessly as I'd have liked.  Adjusting it would be the obvious answer, but I avoided doing that before since I knew I wasn't truly knowledgeable enough about audio to ensure that I wouldn't make things worse in the process.  I still don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I've at least learned enough to get this thing where I want it.  So I've started going through all the edits again and tweaking the EQ of the '85 mix in order to more closely resemble the '93, and I'm pretty happy with what I've achieved so far.

Getting an exact match between the two isn't possible, or even necessary in some cases, but usually a cut in the vicinity of 2 khz blends them together very well.  Occasionally, more complex adjustment is required, and some of these I've redone more than once to ensure I have the best possible result.  I'm following the principle of looking at EQ through the metaphor of 'sculpting', so that frequencies may only be cut and never boosted (additions can be made only by adjusting the overall gain), in order to avoid adding noise or introducing unnatural resonances.  There seems to be a consensus that digital EQ is inherently inferior to analogue and more likely to create distortion, but since I can't afford a high quality hardware unit I'm doing the best I can with what I have.  So far I haven't heard any flaws in the adjusted sound that weren't already present in the source, so hopefully that won't be an issue.

Using the '85 mix has eliminated the previous problem of narrowed imaging during the replaced segments, and while the peaks are still considerably flattened, I now have greater freedom in choosing edit points, which allows for retention of more of the '93 version, therefore bringing it closer to the 70mm sound.  To illustrate this improvement, I've uploaded a file comparing the new version with the old for the opening shot of the movie: https://rapidshare.com/files/182232409/flyby_comparison.wav

It's not perfect, but it seems to work pretty well.  See if you can tell which is which.  (hint: greater dynamics = good)

I'm about half done with the EQ adjustments, and after that I'll put the finishing touches on the LFE channel.  My S/PDIF issue looks to be solved in the near future, so provided I don't get too busy with unrelated things or lose motivation, I should be closing in on completion fairly soon.

That's great news!

Maybe this is a bit early but will this "newfound" knowledge allow you to make even better versions of the ESB and ROTJ 5.1 mixes too?

I don't have a surround system myself but I'm asking since me and dark_jedi would love to have the best possible sound mixes for the Blu V2.

Absolutely.  While the number of main channel edits in the other two movies is far fewer, the benefit of EQ adjustment will surely improve them as well in those parts.  In addition, I'll be able to use the lossless LFE from the Bluray release in all the places where it isn't clipped, gaining a further improvement in fidelity for those with the equipment and ears to notice such a thing.

Neil S. Bulk mentioned there being some kind of phasing issue that popped up briefly in ESB, so I'd like to identify and eliminate this error.  Though I haven't yet heard that, I think I know what would have caused it, so hopefully it will be bypassed altogether.  Since there were not, I believe, any '85 remixes for the later films, narrowed imaging will continue to be unavoidably present in them on occasion, but with the inserts better disguised it shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Nobody but me has ever complained about that, anyway.  ;)

I'd like to make some additional edits to RotJ, because I've noticed that the music is sometimes mixed rather lower in its '93 version than in the original stereo, making it less authentic to the theatrical release.  I already dealt with this during the part where Luke defeats with Vader, but since it also occurs elsewhere I'll probably replace the most problematic instances.  Naturally this would have to be done with as little dynamic sacrifice as possible.

Ok, great!

Personally I couldn't hear anything wrong in any of your mixes but like you say that would require quite an equipment and ears.

Anyway, it's nice to know you'll be able to "perfect" the audio for ESB and ROTJ too. :)

In the new version, the Star Destroyer lasers at the beginning of the second Tantive/Star Destroyer shot seem kind of buried compared to the "before" example. I know that they're not that prominent in the '93 mix either, but they just seem too hard to hear now.

FWIW, on the LMayer in-theater recording, the SD lasers seem to sound louder and clearer than in the '93 mix or either the "before" or "after" of your comparison. Then again, it's a mono tape recording made inside a movie theater, and it's not picking up the full dynamic range anyway. (Actually, between the LMayer and morgands1 recordings, I'm surprised at how much sound fidelity I can detect that I just don't hear in any of the official releases.)

I just don't believe that laser SFX would ever have sounded as vague in '77 as in that one bit in your new test.  I understand that you can only get a certain amount of fidelity out of the '85 and '93 mixes, but could you possibly try to make them at least as audible as in the "before" example?

No can do—if you're referring to the one at 1:28, it's from the '93 at that point, and I'm only adjusting the '85 to match it, not the other way around.  Aside from the alterations, the '93 mix essentially is the 70mm version; the vast majority of it was taken directly from the printmaster and worked on from there.  Even if I could make that sound effect louder, I wouldn't, because the way I see it that's exactly how it would have sounded originally, or as close as I can get given everything I know about it and what sources are available.

The old version used the stereo mix for a longer span, since I wasn't able to edit them as precisely at that point, so it took on its characteristics unavoidably.  The dynamics are flattened both in the sense of peak reduction and of softer elements brought up in relation to the average.  In some ways it might even sound subjectively 'better', but it's less accurate.  Levels of theatre recordings can't entirely be trusted, because they're subject to acoustic and microphone issues as well as tape limitations, so neither the dynamics nor the tonal balance truly reflect what's on the master tape with anywhere near the accuracy that the '93 mix does, and getting as close as possible to the original is the primary goal of this project.

Of course it also has to sound good in its own right, being after all subject to my creative judgement where total accuracy cannot be achieved, and in some ways designed around how I want the movie to sound, but above all it must lean heavily towards what it actually would have sounded like; and if a particular sound effect is reliably determined to be a bit different than might be expected, then that's how it has to be.  ;)

h_h, I completely understand. It's your mix, you're free to do whatever you please. It is certainly more dynamic than the raw '93 mix.

The '93 mix is derived from the 6-track 70mm, but I am certain that they did something to it that can't be undone, even with your improvements (and don't get me wrong, they are definite improvements). Your recreation is amazing, but some sound effects just lack punch. If any levels were adjusted, and dynamic information was lost or dulled, it can't be fully recovered. (For another example, the high-pitched whine of the Tantive flyby will always sound at least somewhat clipped and distorted, because the peaks just aren't there.)

Mike Verta says that no video transfer can fully duplicate the color range of film, and we know that no amount of color correction to these transfers can recover what's not there in the first place. The same holds true for sound.

I now realize that I can't, and shouldn't, ask you to "fix" anything on my account. As it is, you're doing a phenomenal job.

Just for fun, though, I mixed together the morgands1 and LMayer in-theater recordings (with some pitch adjustment done to the former). I know that these recordings don't accurately reflect the raw sound information, or even how it actually sounded inside the theater, but I don't care. Since different sound information is missing from each of them, I wanted to hear what they would sound like played at the same time, and this is what I came up with: https://rapidshare.com/files/3561280182/MorganDS1_LMayer_test.mp3

Just wanted to chime in with a hearty thank you, h_h.  I know from experience this is tedious (but often enjoyable) work, and that - unless you're getting paid for it - you must attend to it when life allows.

I've only recently been made aware of your project, when a friend ran a marathon of harmy's despecialized OT films - and I remarked afterwards how going back to 1977 sound was such a thrill for me.  And I was pointed in the direction of this thread.

I'm very excited about your upcoming version 2, whenever you find the time and inspiration to complete it.

I saw Star Wars many times in '77 - but probably only 3 or 4 times in 70mm. Most of my 30 or so first-run viewings were 35mm mono, so I'm used to that more - and I confess to really enjoying the joke made by including "close the blast doors" that, as someone pointed out earlier, got a laugh every time.

But if you do an "alternate" mix, it's your baby completely.  My hat's off to you, Sir, for the fantastic and frankly important work you are doing.