ChainsawAsh said:
I don't think the Jedi bootleg is a 70mm recording, is it? And the 35mm mix is already on the V3.
I don't know, to be honest. But I think it's just a regular 35mm anamorphic print. Here's why:
The Jedi taping seems to be from a private screening, as there are no crowd noises etc. Also, the projectionist has obliged by switching from anamorphic to flat lenses on the fly, keeping the opening crawl and the end credits squeezed to accomodate the camcording. I am not familiar with cinema projection, but would such a thing be possible with 70mm projectors? Do they even have flat lenses?
Furthermore, we know this screening is of a UK print (The UK certificate at the beginning). Were there any 70mm prints shown in England?
Visit my *NEW* Star Wars on Video Collection site:
70mm is 2.2:1 with spherical (what you call "flat") lenses, which is very very close to the 2.39:1 of anamorphic 35mm. So anamorphic 35mm films are shown "flat" in 70mm.
Anamorphic 70mm is 2.76:1 (Ben-Hur is the best example I can think of), substantially wider than anamorphic 35mm.
Makes sense. I think the only real difference in RotJ (aside from dynamics and bass) is that the main title music is inexplicably the recording from ESB instead. I didn't change this, because it is kind of strange, but the rest of it should be close as well.
I forgot to mention that the snowspeeder crash sound is indeed there in ESB 70mm, which means its absence in the 1993 mix must be a mistake introduced at some point. Good thing I put it back in. ;)
I've updated the first post of the thread to contain the links for the 'purist' mixes as well as giving more accurate descriptions.
Thinking back, I'm remembering how this all started with me being bored one day and taking my 2004 ESB dvd into a high-end home theatre store, and being amazed at how powerful it sounded with a real LFE channel. Ever since then I wanted to be able to watch the movies with that kind of strong bass but without having to see the SE changes or the horrid blue-cast, so once I got myself a good subwoofer I set about trying to make that happen. It took a while to figure out, and a lot of close listening before I knew for sure what they should really sound like, but once I learned that Star Wars was actually the first movie to use LFE in the modern sense, I knew my effort was justified, and that using it for a 70mm recreation would be a worthy goal.
So, just for fun, here's a list of everything in my 70mm LFE channel, including the time, a description, and what was done to make it fit into the rest of the soundtrack. The majority of the bass in the first movie came from the 1997 special edition 5.1, which plays back with an average volume four decibels lower than the 1993 mix, so all level adjustments for '97 bass are relative to this difference, while the 2004 content did not need to be adjusted this way. The 1993 effects gain (I believe) another 3 db over what I've listed when combined during playback with what is in the main channels, and are relative to the LFE channel needing to be recorded 10 db lower.
2'10: blockade runner appears; '97, +6 db
2'14 - 2'27: Star Destroyer rumble; '97, +8 db
2'34: blockade runner hit; '97, extended beginning to match synch
2'47: reactor shutdown; '97, +2 db
3'19: ship pulled into hangar bay; '97, -1 db
3'39 - 3'47: stormtroopers blast through wall; '97, +4 db, faded in beginning to match main channels
4'27: laser impact; '97, +6 db
4'33 - 4'52: Vader appears; '04
6'54: laser impact; '97, -1 db
7'02: escape pod launch; '04, +4 db
8'51: Star Destroyer; '97
12'24: R2 falls; '04, -12 db
15'00: sandcrawler; '04, +4 db
15'23: sandcrawler; '04, partially duplicated from previous effect at lower level
36'33: Star Destroyer approaches Death Star; '97
38'13 - 38'28: Force choke; '97, +2 db, ended slightly early for better blend with main channels
41'16: cell door slams; '97, +2 db
50'21: Death Star; '97
53'10: Millennium Falcon takeoff; '93, +4 db, phase-inverted to sum correctly with upmixed main channels
53'20: Falcon flyby; '93, same
53'35: Falcon flyby, Star Destroyers; '93, same
53'56: Star Destroyer fires; '93, same
54'29: jump to lightspeed; '93, same
54'30: Death Star approaches Alderaan; '97, -4 db
56'40: Alderaan destroyed; '97, first half +2 db, SE shockwave -8 db, bass extended until end of shot, very beginning shortened to blend with main channels
1:00'41: hyperspace; '97, +2 db
1:00'49 - 1:01'09: planetary debris; '97, +2 db, last two impacts added to match main channels by duplicating from earlier
1:01'21: TIE fighter flyby; '97
1:01'29: Millennium Falcon flyby; '04
1:01'39: Falcon flyby; '04, -5 db, synch adjusted to match main channels
1:01'53: Falcon flyby; '04, -5 db, synch adjusted to match main channels
1:02'15 - 1:02'40: caught in tractor beam; '93 for 60 hz tone, '04 for 40 hz tone, +3 db
1:03'06: approaching Death Star; '04, +3 db
1:14'49: stormtroopers destroy door; '04, -6 db, synch adjusted to match main channels
1:15'55: Leia blasts garbage chute; '04, -6 db
1:17'20: trash monster roars; '04
1:19'17 - 1:19'45: walls close; '97, -4 db
1:20'38 - 1:22'06: walls close; '04, faded out ending to blend with main channels
1:25'36: chasm door slams; '04, +2 db
1:27'25: blast doors close; '97, +2 db
1:27'43 - 1:27'59: Vader appears; '97, -6 db
1:30'44: Millennium Falcon takeoff; '04
1:30'56: Falcon flyby; '97, +2 db
1:31'15: Falcon flyby; '97, -4 db
1:31'56 - 1:32'04: explosions (x3); '04, first one +3 db
1:32'31: Falcon hit by laserfire; '97, +2 db
1:32'56 - 1:33'40: TIE fighter explosions (x4); '04, +3 db
1:33'52: Falcon flyby; '04, -6 db
1:35'37 - 1:35'56: Millennium Falcon approaches Yavin (x4); '97, -1 db, -2 db, -1 db, no change
1:36'46: Death Star approaches Yavin; '04, -4 db
1:38'33: Death Star approaches Yavin, '04
1:41'32 - 1:42'02: fighters prepare for takeoff; '97
1:43'02: fighters approach Death Star; '97, +2 db
1:43'23 - 1:43'36: X-wings attack, '97
1:43'40: turbolasers; '04, +2 db
1:43'50: Luke attacks; '04, +2 db
1:43'59: X-wing flyby; '97, ended early to blend with main channels
1:44'24: Biggs and Porkins attack; '97/'04, +2 db
1:44'35: Porkins explodes; '04, +4 db
1:44'51: Luke attacks; '04, +2 db
1:45'18: TIE fighter destroys X-wing; '04
1:45'37: Luke destroys TIE fighter; '97, +2 db
1:46'28: Wedge destroys TIE fighter; '97
1:46'51: Y-wings enter trench; '97
1:47'03: turbolasers; '97
1:47'47: Y-wing explodes; '04, +3 db
1:48'01: Y-wing explodes; '04, +3 db
1:48'09: Y-wing explodes; '04
1:48'48: X-wings approach trench; '97, -2 db
1:48'58: turbolasers; '97
1:49'01: X-wing flyby; '97
1:49'18: X-wing flyby; '97
1:49'28: TIE fighter flyby; '97, -4 db
1:49'38: X-wing explodes; '97 +1 db
1:49'48: X-wing explodes; '97, +1 db
1:49'55: proton torpedo detonation; '97
1:50'30: Red Leader crashes; '97, +2 db
1:50'46: X-wing flyby; '97
1:50'56: Luke enters trench; '97
1:51'06: turbolasers; '97, +2 db
1:51'27: turbolasers; '97, +2 db
1:52'14: Biggs destroyed; '04
1:52'25: X-wing flyby; '97, -1 db
1:53'53: Millennium Falcon destroys TIE fighter; '93, +5 db, phase-inverted to sum correctly with upmixed main channels
1:53'58: Falcon flyby; '97
1:54'02: TIE fighter crashes into trench; '04
1:54'05: Falcon flyby; '04, -10 db
1:54'19: ships fly away from Death Star; '97
1:54'23: Death Star destroyed; '97, +2 db, faded out before SE shockwave
1:54'48: ships return to Yavin; '97
Empire and Jedi were pretty much the same sort of thing, except much less work because they were better mixed to begin with; the 2004 LFE was used exclusively, but these were nearly the same as the 1997 anyway. I put together new bass in a couple of places in Empire, namely during the snow battle and when the Falcon faces the Avenger, and made a general effort to restrain excessive peaks, bring up parts that needed bolstering, and improve synch as needed; but compared to the first movie they were hardly changed at all.
It's all a bit obsessive, I suppose, but I think the end results speak for themselves. ;)
Thanks hairy for posting your MO behind the LFE for Star Wars, I find it really interesting. This really shows what great care you took when doing this. I have already said this and I will say it again, you restored half the experience of this film for me when doing this reconstruction, and for that I'm forever grateful. Thank You!!
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
And I am most grateful for all the positive responses I've received, and am happy I could improve the available audio experience for these great films. :)
To continue with the subject of the LFE channel, it's worth noting that my use of 2004 bass in some places makes those particular effects sound much better than they did in the source mix. Take Vader's first appearance for example--the '04 bass is more substantial than what is heard in the '97 mix, or the '93 by itself, yet as a whole it sounds worse because the main channel portion of the sound is completely absent. That rumbling wind or rushing air type of sound, so distinctive and essential to the overall effect, is not heard at all, and by itself the bass doesn't contribute much. But when you combine it with the proper main channel sound, it comes alive and enhances the scene. The '04 mix has the same problem with the Force choke scene later on; again, only LFE is heard without the proper sound effect in the mains. Just goes to show how important it is to the mix as a whole to be able to distinguish how the different parts affect it. And, you know, to actually care about maintaining a certain vibe and not just change things for the hell of it. lol
hairy_hen said:
1:00'41: hyperspace; '97, +2 db
1:00'49 - 1:01'09: planetary debris; '97, +2 db, last two impacts added to match main channels by duplicating from earlier
hairy_hen, in this segment of the film, there's an LFE addition that doesn't sound "70mm-authentic" to my ears, there's some deceleration sound effect that sounds like a leftover from the SE. Is it something you simply missed when working on it or am I completely wrong about this?
Thanks again for your fine work on this.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
You've got a good ear. ;)
I debated with myself whether to delete that sound effect or not, since it is certainly a 1997 addition created by augmenting the low end of the deceleration effect, which was originally only present in the mono mix. But in the end I decided to leave it, since it was a relatively small thing and I do like the way it sounds. (The deceleration effect is the one of the only things about the mono mix that I miss in the others.) Since the LFE channel as a whole is pretty much a 'best guess' of what it could have been, I figured I could give myself a little leeway in that case.
In the 2004 mix, that bass effect is presented at much higher volume, which sounds really cool and is one of the few things I actually like about it. While I would have liked to be able to use that one, I couldn't justify it being that loud when I knew it wouldn't have sounded like that originally, so I compromised by going with the more subtle '97 version; and also the '04 didn't have the other impacts that the '97 did. (Both of them have the high frequency sounds of debris whizzing by the ship, which were first heard in the '93 mix, but in both SE's they seem even higher-pitched, and are timed and panned differently than the '93.)
On a low-fi subwoofer, which most mass market products are, the descending frequency sweep could be indistinguishable from a generic rumbling anyway. Like a lot of things, I guess it depends on individual preference, equipment quality, and listening ability for whether it works or not.
How did you like the bass in the rest of the movie?
Thanks for explaining, I'm so used with the original stereo track, that even minor things like that tends to distract me. But I agree that it's one of the cool additions heard in the mono track.
I think the '93 remix additions, the sounds of debris whizzing by the cockpit or the laser-impact near Threepio at the escape pod, are 1980 sound-effects created for Empire.
Anyway, I like what I've heard so far very much :) haven't done a complete listening yet.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Responding to a concern posted by corellian77 in dark_jedi's v3 thread:
corellian77 said:
Regarding the sound on the V3s, I have a quick question: I only have a modest sound setup at the moment (2.1), but Hairy_Hen's mix seems "overblown" in parts when I play back ANH (the only one I've burned so far). Specifically, some highs/lows seem to really give my speakers a workout.
So, question is... is it just my crap system unable to handle the audio, or have others had a similar experience? I've never had a similar issue with commercial DVDs in the past, so I was just curious.
Without being able to hear exactly what you're hearing, I can't really answer this with absolute authority, but I can name some possible contributing factors. If by a 2.1 system you mean that you have stereo speakers and a subwoofer connected to a receiver with Dolby Digital decoding, then a likely explanation is that you may be unaccustomed to experiencing the full dynamic range of film soundtracks. Dolby guidelines specify that anything less than a full 5.1 system must engage Dynamic Range Compression (DRC) when decoding, which means that while the quiet sections of the mix will remain at the same level, the loud portions are significantly reduced in volume. This is not optional in nearly all consumer equipment--aside from a few high end Denon products, there is absolutely no way to disengage the application of DRC, aside from adding more speakers to obtain the full 5.1 layout. How much the peak volume is reduced depends on the amount of DRC specified in the AC3 stream. So on your system, which lacks a centre channel and rear channel speakers, you will pretty much always hear Dolby Digital tracks with a significantly reduced dynamic range compared to their 'true' sound.
These custom 5.1 mixes, however, were encoded with the DRC profile set to 'None', which means that the peak volume will never be reduced regardless of how many speakers the audio system contains. The 70mm mix had a very wide dynamic range, significantly stronger than any other version of the movie--I have done a fairly extensive comparison of it with the 1997 special edition mix, and found the SE to be often lacking in dynamics and power. (Steve Hoffman, the audio mastering legend, reported a similar impression when viewing a privately owned 70mm print a few years ago.) Despite having a somewhat 'smoother' sound, the '97 mix comes off as being a bit tinny to my ear, although compared to the awful 2004 version it is still extremely good. The 35mm versions are less dynamic still, though more satisfying than the SE since they are authentic originals.
The 70mm dynamics include very strong high frequency peaks in some places, which could be part of what you mentioned; and while there was no way for me to know exactly what the bass content would have sounded like originally, I think what I came up with is a pretty close approximation, based on extensive listening tests and everything I could find from people who have actually heard or were involved with the real thing. I guess one way to get another impression would be to take the dvd into a high end home theatre store (assuming there are still any left in business in your area at this point), and ask to demo the mix on a 5.1 system with a lot of amplifier power. Compare that to what you remember of its sound on your own system, and maybe you'll have a better idea of whether it's a preference thing or if your speakers are actually just distorting under the stress. Keep in mind, too, that room acoustics play a large part in determining how sound reaches our ears--bass frequencies in particular are notorious for getting bloated or cancelling each other out depending the the room layout and the placement of the subwoofer itself.
Anyway, I'm quite interested to hear more about this and whether I've properly explained it, or if it's caused by something else entirely. On my system, the mix sounds rather fantastic overall (though I certainly don't have the best equipment ever), but I recognise that not everyone may feel the same way. If you are getting significant distortion, you might be better off playing one of other mixes until you can upgrade your sound system.
But if you thought Star Wars had a lot of bass in it, just wait until you hear Empire. ;)
Actually you make a good point.
He should enable DRC for playback, but was an appropriate dialog normalization level set when encoding these tracks for those who do use DRC?
And for that matter did D_J do anything to sync the tracks that may have stripped the dialog normalization?
Dr. M
Enabling dynamic range compression will have no effect, because h_h did not set a DRC profile during encoding.
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
These tracks don't use DRC or Dialnorm, so there's no level adjustment being made at any point. This might not always play nicely with non-5.1 setups, unfortunately, but I don't really approve of compromising a mix for the sake to hearing it through television speakers, as commercial AC3 tracks often seem to do. What recent Disney dvd's have done--and what all dvd releases should have always been doing from the start--is to include a dedicated 2.0 mix as the default track, so that people without home theatre systems can simply 'plug and play' and get an appropriate audio track, and have the 5.1 mix selectable for those who can take advantage of it.
With non-defeatable DRC applied to 5.1, and lacking the option for a stereo or DTS track on many discs, there is often no way for users with powerful stereo systems (such as myself for a long time before I could complete the surround setup) to hear the full dynamic range, which can be rather frustrating for those who enjoy that sort of thing. I don't know exactly what kind of equipment corellian77 has, so I can't comment with any greater specificity on the issues he is hearing. Though of course, it could be that he simply doesn't like the way it sounds, which is another issue altogether. ;)
Gonna test your mix on my receiver tonight hairy_hen. Recently been buying new bits for my home theater set-up; new speakers, receiver etc. Can't wait to demo your mix on it - I only heard it on an ageing 5.1 system before and it was pretty good on that old thing.
:-D
Doctor M said:
And for that matter did D_J do anything to sync the tracks that may have stripped the dialog normalization?
No, I left them as is LOL.
But, if I would have had the individual wav files then when I was doing the V3 I probably would have encoded them myself and added the Dialnorm -27, because the one and only thing I noticed, is that these files are to darn LOUD, much louder than all other files, you definitely need your finger on the volume button when starting these movies, or at least I do, still wish I had the patience to sync and edit DE's LD ripped 97 SE 5.1 files to this BD set though, I really like the sound of that 97 mix, sweet all the way through, again, at least to me.
That's a good point - while I understand the reason why h_h used a dialnorm of -31 (to avoid any attenuation being applied by the decoder), it does make it more difficult to use the track on a disc with multiple audio streams.
I spent quite a while adjusting the dialnorm values used for the three mixes on my DVD, and it's still not a perfect match, mainly I think because the '93 mix has a much greater dynamic range than the mono or Dolby Stereo mixes.
However, there is a program called VOBDNorm that you can use to change the dialnorm setting on a DVD's audio stream without encoding. I used it to make my original LD transfer louder.
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
Do the other tracks have DialNorm applied? In putting it together I was using Belbucus' level-adjusted 35mm version which has the average level approximately the same as the '93 mix, so if that was the source for that mix on the dvd then it shouldn't have needed any further reduction. The mono mix certainly would have, since it was only released with the peaks at 0, leaving its RMS level nearly five decibels higher. Flipping between the tracks on the dvd, it sounds to me as if the average levels are in the same vicinity, and that the difference in loudness is solely due to the 70mm and 1993 versions having greater dynamics. But I didn't really listen to the other ones that much, so I could be mistaken about that. This sort of thing can be hard to judge accurately, which is why there is a lot of general confusion about it.
But the dynamics are a big part of the reason the 70mm version sounded so much better (in addition to having bass and discrete channels), so with the average level the same as the other mixes, it seems appropriate that it would come off as being louder, since that's how it would have been in the theatres back then.
VOBDNorm really had one release and it was considered experimental. I've never had an issue with it though.
It's a command line only proggie and a bit hard to get your head around.
The real down side is it works on a per VOB file basis. That is if you have it edit VTS_01_1.VOB, then you have to do VTS_01_2.VOB... etc. (If there is a way to make it do an entire VTS in one command, I've never figured it out.)
On the up side, you can specify which audio track(s) you want altered. The changes do not have to be applied to all tracks.
Edit: Turns out VOBDNorm also works (possibly unintentionally) with standard mpeg files. So you can mux an mpeg video with a Dolby track and rewrite the D.Norm, then demux if you need a raw track. Much easier than working with VOB pieces parts.
Dr. M
I started out responding to Moth3r's post in the thread about what constitutes an acceptable restoration, but moved it here instead since this is the more appropriate place, really.
Moth3r said:
Unfortunately the 70mm Dolby 6-track mix cannot be simply ported over, as the "4.2" Baby Boom configuration is not compatible with modern 5.1 (or 6.1, 7.1) speaker arrangements. The most authentic solution would be to remaster the audio track from the original elements, by merging the two sub channels into one and using a mono surround channel.
I believe this is how the Blade Runner 70mm mix was presented.
Quite so, the 70mm version can't be duplicated exactly as it was on modern home video; it needs a bit of remastering to adapt to the format. The two LFE channels would need to be added together and merged into one, and the mono surround channel either duped into two rears at -3db each for 5.1, or simply presented as-is in a 4.1 layout and let the receiver distribute it among the appropriate number of speakers.
There is an additional difficulty in that the bass tracks were originally mastered with content going up to 250 hz, whereas Dolby Digital only allows for a 120 hz upper limit on frequency response, so something would need to be done about this additional bass. It could possibly be level-corrected and put back into the main channels, or it might actually have to be discarded altogether, since there are some reports that the initial use of separate bass tracks may have been to duplicate/augment what was already in the mains in addition to the separate baby booms, which would be problematic if it contained music or dialogue. In making the 1993 mix, THX chose to use only the main channels of the 70mm version while taking the bass from a separate sounds effects master, in order to avoid any potential bass 'bloat' that could have arisen from using the boom tracks directly.
So, any theoretical future transfer of the 70mm audio would have to be careful about how it handled the bass for best results. Depending on exactly how it sounded, taking a similar approach to the '93 mix and mastering a new LFE channel from the separate sound effects master might actually be the most practical option. If in the course of doing so some parts were to be augmented or added, it might be acceptable as long as it didn't stray too far from the aesthetic of the source; though of course the idea of allowing some changes opens the door for the slippery slope of others. The LFE upper limit was soon changed to 125 hz for 70mm, so ESB and RotJ probably wouldn't have this issue, but with SW it would need to be taken into consideration.
The Bluray releases of Alien and Aliens have 4.1 transfers of their 70mm soundtracks, I believe, which I haven't heard but would dearly like to. I've never seen Apocalypse Now, but I have read about it in some detail since it was another pioneering 70mm mix, one of the first to use stereo surround channels. The home video transfers have all used a close adaptation of the original--the 70mm solution for stereo surrounds was to place everything over 500 hz in the same tracks as the LFE, with the lower portions coming from the sixth channel which was still the traditional mono surround (for theatres that didn't have stereo rears). So that film had to be remastered somewhat for home video as well, though reportedly it is still very close to the way it sounded back then.
Without being able to hear the real thing, it's hard to know exactly how much bass Star Wars actually had. On the one hand, it is often reported to have been very strong, but on the other, most movie theatres didn't actually have subwoofers installed when it was first released (though its aural success prompted them to upgrade quickly), and the mixers may have assumed that the bass would have been reproduced from standard loudspeakers instead. Add in the fact that impressions of this kind of thing can be fairly subjective anyway, and that the '93 mix and the two SE's all employ their bass response differently, and the relative obscurity of the topic is made plain. I think I made a pretty good guess of what it ought to be (certainly it sounds wonderful to my ear), but sometimes I almost dread that hearing the real thing would prove me wrong. ;)
I listened to the Star Wars 70mm 6-track recreation for the first time over the weekend (on Harmy's de-specialized AVCHD). I don't have a high-end separates 5.1 system, just a "home cinema in a box" type thing.
My review in one word - flawless.
I couldn't hear any joins where the '93 mix had been patched with bits of the '77 mix, and it's nice that the added Alderaan debris and detention block glass smashing sounds have gone. I think you've got the overall dynamics and bass volume spot on.
I will always have a soft spot for the mono mix; it's the one I grew up with and in terms of content is the most complete sounding. But for the overall sonic experience this is the mix I'd listen to again and again.
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
Oh, you watched despecialized, Moth3r? I'm really curious what you thought about it, an old important member such as you ;-) And I'm also curious what you thought about the final version hairy_hen, if you've already watched it?
Preferably in my thread of course :-)
I can only agree with Moth3r, what you have done is nothing short of astonishing, IMO you found a perfect balance! my only gripe is the lack of spitting sound ;) and the LFE addition when the Falcon comes out of hyperspace, but then I am nitpicking to the extreme.
I must say though that my receiver actually do a better job at upmixing in Dolby ProLogic II, my homebrew 2.1 and 2.0 sounds better to me than the 5.1 track in terms of separation, much more clearly defined somehow which I find a little weird, but I guess it can vary dependant on what equipment you have.
Love it, hairy_hen! it is so professionally done that I think you actually need to begin work in the business. And you need to do some homework... Apocalypse Now, one of the greatest films ever made in my opinion. Go see it, now! ;)
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
It's almost like I'm hearing tape hiss on a rare 1st pressing of an album. This is truly fantastic. The amount of range present is constantly making me do double takes after all these years of watching Star Wars.
I've watched about half of Harmy's despecialized on my Logitech speakers matrixed into 5.1. It sounds good even in 2.0 and my soundcard isn't even that great. Hard to believe that yet again something wonderful can be sourced from the Definitive Collection.
I kept A/Bing between the 70mm and the 93, and this just is so much more subtle and detailed that it makes it seem like the 93 was a lower generation copy instead of the base. And the score just shines here. One of my complaints about the soundmixes has always been how the score usually suffers and that it gets partially subjugated to being behind all of the action. Not so here. It's made me drag out my soundtrack LP.
Brilliant work. I can't wait to hear it on my LD sound setup.
As far as Apocalypse goes, if you'd like to do a similar project.... ;) All of the 5.1 remixes I've heard have never given it justice. (4.2 70mm, 4.0 35mm) The original widescreen LD from the early 90's is phenomenal. I once read somewhere that Walter Murch essentially crammed the original 4.0 onto the digital track with no mucking about. It certainly sounds like it.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
hairy_hen said:
These custom 5.1 mixes, however, were encoded with the DRC profile set to 'None', which means that the peak volume will never be reduced regardless of how many speakers the audio system contains. The 70mm mix had a very wide dynamic range, significantly stronger than any other version of the movie--I have done a fairly extensive comparison of it with the 1997 special edition mix, and found the SE to be often lacking in dynamics and power. (Steve Hoffman, the audio mastering legend, reported a similar impression when viewing a privately owned 70mm print a few years ago.) Despite having a somewhat 'smoother' sound, the '97 mix comes off as being a bit tinny to my ear, although compared to the awful 2004 version it is still extremely good. The 35mm versions are less dynamic still, though more satisfying than the SE since they are authentic originals.
The 70mm dynamics include very strong high frequency peaks in some places, which could be part of what you mentioned; and while there was no way for me to know exactly what the bass content would have sounded like originally, I think what I came up with is a pretty close approximation, based on extensive listening tests and everything I could find from people who have actually heard or were involved with the real thing. I guess one way to get another impression would be to take the dvd into a high end home theatre store (assuming there are still any left in business in your area at this point), and ask to demo the mix on a 5.1 system with a lot of amplifier power. Compare that to what you remember of its sound on your own system, and maybe you'll have a better idea of whether it's a preference thing or if your speakers are actually just distorting under the stress. Keep in mind, too, that room acoustics play a large part in determining how sound reaches our ears--bass frequencies in particular are notorious for getting bloated or cancelling each other out depending the the room layout and the placement of the subwoofer itself.
Anyway, I'm quite interested to hear more about this and whether I've properly explained it, or if it's caused by something else entirely. On my system, the mix sounds rather fantastic overall (though I certainly don't have the best equipment ever), but I recognise that not everyone may feel the same way. If you are getting significant distortion, you might be better off playing one of other mixes until you can upgrade your sound system.
I finally got the chance to watch the Star Wars V3 on my LD playback setup. (4 Klipsch KG .5, Klipsch center KV-1, and Klipsch SWV 8" subwoofer all into a Sony STR-DE675 via PS3 optical, 4:3 TV) Two words:
HOLY CRAP!
I have never heard some of the dynamics here. The mix gives everything a good workout but was never to loud for me at any moment. A/B-ing between mixes afterwards shows of the power of the 70mm. What really got me was it's subtlety. Comparing the 70mm mix and the 93 shows that while the 93 is immediately louder and more forceful, the 70mm really trumps it in every way. And all of this comes down to the incredible amount of dynamic range. Incredible for Star Wars. Just freaking incredible.
I've played just about every version of SW on this system: VHS, GOUT, LD and for me this mix has become darn near perfect. It could be definitive if it had a few things from the mono mix. Even so, the range and sound field allows for a real live sound quality. For example, in the control room when 3PO doesn't say the tractor beam line there is a palpable silence in the room as all the characters look at the little monitor with the blueprint maps. You can feel all of the tension in the room now because the low sounds of the Death star operating systems are rumbling in the background.
The mono mix is the definitive mix to me due to all of the final alterations. However, the 70mm should be the reference for all mixes due to it being from the ultimate in film sound quality (6-track magnetic).
I have never heard Star Wars sound this good except for watching the Puggo Grande in my school's screening room (and if some thought the 70mm could be loud-try running the mono through professional amplifiers and then onto a custom JBL system! Every R2 whistle is screeching!) and the 97 re-release.
My favorite has always been the 97 mix because of childhood memories and that it was almost like a compromise between the 70mm and the mono. Now, I don't think that the dynamics could ever touch this. It was mastered in a way for theaters of the time and not for the film itself.
I'm gushing I know, but I can't help it. Fantastic work!
But if you thought Star Wars had a lot of bass in it, just wait until you hear Empire. ;)
Oh my....I will make sure to make my walls shake! :)
One question though: is 448kbp/s the final version, or will there be an higher quality edition for projects such as the V3 Blu? Would love a non-DVD compressed 5.1 track! I ask this because the 97 mix had always sounded better to me as I remembered it theatrically and the 384 kbp/s LD 5.1 wasn't anything as impressive as I remembered. I go the Pro Logic route when I occasionally run the SE LDs.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
captainsolo said:
One question though: is 448kbp/s the final version, or will there be an higher quality edition for projects such as the V3 Blu? Would love a non-DVD compressed 5.1 track! I ask this because the 97 mix had always sounded better to me as I remembered it theatrically and the 384 kbp/s LD 5.1 wasn't anything as impressive as I remembered. I go the Pro Logic route when I occasionally run the SE LDs.
I have the lossless wav files that were used to make the 5.1 mixes, and I used them to encode DTS-HD MA 5.1 files from this, although some think there is no difference, I myself like the DTS-HD MA files better, I am sure I am not using the right term LOL, but it seems more balanced, it is not so darn LOUD, that was my only complaint on the 5.1 mixes.
Plus it is also very cool to watch the OT Blu-ray and see DTS-HD MSTR on my Yamaha Receiver LOL.