¤ THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK ¤ The "OPTIMUM EDITION" Score Reconstruction, Remixing & Restoration Version 3 (Released) — Page 7

Obi-Wan said:

... How come that the RSO CD used for Track 12 contains such noise?

 Many Part of this track were over saturated (when the volume was ridiculous) on the original RSO CD). It is somehow noticed in the remixing details, and it is also stated in one of my two last post whan I say the music was recorded too strong. I think the "cracklings" you mention are more related to this over saturation.

However, and despite this corruption, this is the version that shows the best the original sound for the end titles. Listen to the RSO LP and you'll find these parts are really awful and the volumes very badly managed.

Well, the End Title on the last version uploaded is quite the same mix than it it since the beginning and I've just calmed down the highs of a little nothing on this final version. There is *to me* really no problem with that track and the way I choosed to render it. I can't say the same for all the tracks.

I said working with this score is full of contradictions, and indeed I've more problems with some "clear" tracks ("Mynock Cave", "Luke's First Crash" and a few others) because they are very difficult to put in relief, or to bring to the temper of what should be the sound.

Depends on what you search for. I'm personnaly more interested in version 3 (and I highly recommend you listen to that version of the Imperial March ;) ) though the sound may be found a bit less "clear". Is that more clear to you ?

I really love the distance feel to the sound. This set is the best so far imo great work :)

JediMasterFisher said:

I really love the distance feel to the sound. This set is the best so far imo great work :)

Thank you very much.

Just a word to say I've got about 10 hours of different mixings, and the selection was not obvious at all... a very hard work to listen all this and judge what is best to be put together to make the set.

With time I hope I'll be able to clear my mind and my ears about it (too much work makes you blind!) and join a slightly different selection to make a more equilibrated set. But of course, just don't wait for it before... Long.

satanika said:

Just a quick note regarding the clipping...
Well, there really shouldn't be any clipping/digital distortion, what you usually do if there are some 'outrageous' peaks is put a brickwall limiter at the end of your filter chain, it will catch anything over 0db (digital 0db) and avoid digital distortion.
Feel free to PM me if you need help with this or something.

I disagree satanika. if you just cut away stuff or compress with limiters and compressors, you're modifying that audio's dynamic range, and that's not good for an audiophile. I think that in order to avoid distortions of any kind, you should work with your data at a lower volume in the first place, by setting your filters (in this case the equalizers ABC's using) at the right volume so that we avoid clipping but just loud enough to be powerful. I've done this  several times trying to enhance some old cassette tapes.

Leonardo said:

I think that in order to avoid distortions of any kind, you should work with your data at a lower volume in the first place, by setting your filters (in this case the equalizers ABC's using) at the right volume so that we avoid clipping but just loud enough to be powerful.

 Be sure that I agree with that. But I insist: the clippings here are minor and there isn't any distortion from them, even for an attentive ear next to the first version that was too low... Or just take the lower sample for track 1 on post 1, and please show me I'm wrong.

Besides when you tell me yourself how few the clippings are you see me very reassured, when I think I've fixed all single track volume only from what I was hearing !

And by the way, we already discussed that volume matter before:

ABC said (about version2):

Too loud now ?

...

Sumguy21 said:

I wouldn't say so, ReplayGain, which analyzes the perceived loudness, reports -3.41dB, which isn't too loud (Your ROTJ Edit returns -4.26; louder, but most albums are louder still) Really, you should master is as loud as it can be without any clipping or unnecessary compression. More of the bits are being used this way, and any adjustments to the volume can be made through an amp.

May I recall we're speaking about what is yet a corrupted (and badly mixed) score through every releases, and no need clippings to have many saturated parts (I worked the set at very low volume before my last EQ settings). Should I give exemples ? Ok let's go:

• Rebel base insert (over saturation)
• Vision of Obi Wan (muffled and saturation)
• Drawing the Battle Lines (part corrupted with saturation again)
• The Asteroid Field (high freqs saturation, when the over peak comes from the clean lows)
• Jedi Master Reveled (High freqs missing)
• Imperial Starfleet Deployed (muffled and saturated)
• Lando's Palace (muffled and saturated)
• Lando And Han (Muffled and over-saturated)... Here my peak is at 37%
• Betrayal At Bespin, Captives, Deal with the Dark Lord (These are very "clear" tracks but with a poor potencial due to some dead or muffled frequencies. Some saturation in the high mediums)
• Carbon Freeze (Some muffled freqs)
• Darth Vader's Trap (Idem + some saturated frequencies, mostly the highs again)
• The Duel (Saturation in the last segment)
• Hyperspace (minor saturation in the highs)
• Escape From Bespin (Low and medium saturation, one important corrupted frequency in the lows beside)
• End Titles (many over-saturated parts, compare the samples I gave about the restoration)
• The Imperial March (Highs too strong on the recordings, so saturated)

My only concern then is about the choices I made for the sound. Through two different versions some will have a precise idea of what I did and what can be done with that score. And if you tinker with lows and treble on your hi-fi you may still have an idea of the potential of each different track.

Now I can tell you about version 3 that "the Rebels Escape" has too much bass, it fits well with the track isolately but it fits a bit less in the flow when listening to the score. "Luke's first Crash" is to low and has still that f...ing metalic resonnance accentuated with lows, and I should flatten the track a few in order to avoid this. "The Battle In the Snow" is a bit too strong and could have a bit less mediums that makes it bold, etc...

Here are some exemples of what I can do, and where are my choices.

Then I'll watch for feedbacks from people who have listenned through the set attentively considering the "poor" released materials I worked with, and that everyone knows.

Thanks for your inputs anyway.

Leonardo said:

satanika said:

Just a quick note regarding the clipping...
Well, there really shouldn't be any clipping/digital distortion, what you usually do if there are some 'outrageous' peaks is put a brickwall limiter at the end of your filter chain, it will catch anything over 0db (digital 0db) and avoid digital distortion.
Feel free to PM me if you need help with this or something.

I disagree satanika. if you just cut away stuff or compress with limiters and compressors, you're modifying that audio's dynamic range, and that's not good for an audiophile. I think that in order to avoid distortions of any kind, you should work with your data at a lower volume in the first place, by setting your filters (in this case the equalizers ABC's using) at the right volume so that we avoid clipping but just loud enough to be powerful. I've done this  several times trying to enhance some old cassette tapes.

No. I am talking about peaks that are out of the 'normal' dynamic range. And since there is already clipping, a brickwall limiter would have been the ideal way to handle it.

Clipping matters left aside, Leonardo is right.............

... My volumes are too loud.

I just compared some of my first mixings and they showed some more subtleties, even on parts where no clippings occur.

Here's what it is to listen too much "technical" advises or considerations as to forget the first right feeling. But anybody take that personnaly please... My entire fault. I spent too much time on it and lost myself.

Unfortunately this work is over for me now.

guiser said:

Does this mean that version 2 is now your ideal version? Or are you waiting to get more feedbacks before continuing with the OE (letting it rest for a bit)?

 No, version 2 only has - to me - a stronger cohesion. It is also much clear, but as I already said, this is a flat clarity unfortunately. Version 3 would finally have deserved more simple settings. I have no preference but would have been willing to know more about how it sounded for you and what difference it makes. Obviously it makes no difference to anyone here as it seems almost nobody has listened to one of these set seriously in one stroke to tell his point. ... Seems that to have a "new" ESB set is more important than what it really shows as a result.

Anyway, now I found out that the only way to give back a few or more of what is missing to those Anthology and SE tracks demand a more elaborated treatment that may allow to equalize the tracks really as I want without being limited with their apparent/relative potential. More concretely I'm about to test what I would call a "multy-dimensionnal" re-eq, at least for the fun. If it works it'll be a big work again and I'm not sure I'll go on, as I'm not sure I'm about to share -ironic word !- again. I have so much the feeling to work for leechers and lurkers... I'm sorry to say that, but now I think I understand why somebody like GoodMusician isn't on these boards again !

Worth to add the enthusiasm and concern of a few people here, and I especially think about msycamore, has been quite motivating to bring this set to a better level. And despite the taste of my last post, be sure I thank every people here trying to help, you're great !

dark jedi said:

... you should not have asked for comments LOL,just leave the thread be,let it run its own course,that is what I do now...

That's fair, you're right.

... you ask for comments ALL the time ...

Mmmh. You already said that before but I haven't found where or when I asked. But I indeed expressed my wish that this thread keeps alive with feedbacks,  what means from time to time, and considering the number of viewers of the "OT Soundtracks Salvage" next to the number of feedbacks...  Oh well, let's let it go. :)

After reading I still can't tell if v3 is better than v2

Hehe... I can tell you wich one I prefer, but "better" or "not" here is a relativity as there have not been true new enhancements. To see by yourself is the better way as in every domain. However I'm a little like you on this one: I'd like to read someone tell us ! ;)

just hope there is no clipping

Not more than on v2. You don't really read the posts do you ?...

;)

Bonjour! I don't know what "keskeucé" stands for but as far as I can see ABC's avatar has mixed emotions. So I feel free to wish a happier new year 2010! :)

To compare a score with a length of 100 minutes in two versions and in comparison to the original in three versions - RSO, Arista-Anthology, Sony-SE - an evaluation of the work takes three or four times the length of the score. And it requires very much attention and concentration. In terms of time it requires at least 4 hours (240 minutes only).

Such an evaluation that this set so richly deserves is much more time demanding than watching a movie. It is also more demanding to spot and explain the differences in music than in a movie. It requires patience from all of us.
Just an explanation to help exile some clouds from someone's mind.

Obi-Wan said:

Bonjour! I don't know what "keskeucé" stands for but as far as I can see ABC's avatar has mixed emotions. So I feel free to wish a happier new year 2010! :)

 Haha !!! Indeed it looks pretty hostile... Let's change that and bring some french art ;) ... Btw, "keskeucé" would be translated in Engish with "woatizit" or something like that.

Best wishes and optimum year to you too. :)

Burdokva said:

... I'm not exactly familiar with audio - I can give feedback on what sounds "right" to me, rather than comment in detail what should (or shouldn't be fixed).

 What you say here reminds me when GoodMusician asked to me how did I managed the remixing for my previous work with the Star Wars soundtracks as he told me he thought it sounded professional (kind!)... I was unable to explain anything ! I'm not a technician at all with sound, though technic comes obviously when you need it. Now I can explain a bit more my cheap technics but I think I better not.

Anyway, I'm far more interested in your pair of ears than in a boring knowledge with sound.

Obi-Wan said:

... an evaluation of the work takes three or four times the length of the score. And it requires very much attention and concentration. In terms of time it requires at least 4 hours (240 minutes only).

Wow! I checked them far quicker when I began the OE !... Only it requires a bit more concentration. However with a name like Obi-Wan you shouldn't be worried about that. :)

About comparison if I can help I can see clearer now what I did with this score and the biggest lack it shows (what does not keep my set to sound better the releases) is about the EQ's mostly for a bunch of tracks from the Anthology. My EQ's made the sound more thin because I "took away" a lot more than I "added", what was fair. But this is the problem with a simple equalizer: to give relief to one particularity, you have to lower an other one... You have to "choose". (And that's especially where I was waiting some feedbacks)...

Now I found and tested an other way to deal the EQ's through a multi-layered equalization, wich is quite amazing as I can measure everything that compose the character of each cues. Then the work becomes more something like feeding the sound with what makes it the best, with less of the fragile equilibrium of the relativity lows/mediums/highs. I mean I can managed to give strenght to what I lower, as to make softer what I lift. Only it needs to prepare good layers before (and let's precise from my firts mixings) and so to know what are the ranges of frequencies that will feed the character of the cue in the best way.

Looks to me like there's more than the half of this edit to be remixed then... Please, anybody quote that! :) The OE is finished for me now. Besides, note that I haven't called my edit the "Ultimate Edition"!

Just an explanation to help exile some clouds from someone's mind.

Appreciated. :)

I'm glad my suggestions have been to some help ABC:) I am going to download your latest one but I think my ears needs some rest from this score for a while, I don't want to get tired of it. You if anyone should know;)

Forget about those three versions my friend, they're no match ! (Don't ask).

"This isn't the score you're looking for ... Move along!" :)

... However, if I'm sure now feedbacks can't help me anymore about this project, I'd be glad to read any comment on the actual set... And please don't tell me that anyone watching this thread hasn't listened to it...!

Anyway, it will remain at least an info thread, and if it's quite sure I decide to upload the new set, I'm not sure it may be foundable from OT.com (to notice I know who else is actually sharing version 3 on the net - EDIT: There's no matter with that, however the guy gives an opinion about the set saying that it's a little "rough around the edges", thing that I would have liked to read here... I found that a little ironic ! ).

I'm about to renew the restoration and remixing details as many things have yet changed and improved, as to reactualise the samples (though one must consider the whole set before the details). Things I'm currently working on: new RSO parts, more RSO layers and re-layer with more accuracy the first ones through new mixings. Also I'm revisiting my own EQ's abuses for all the Antho and SE tracks as to improve a couple of those with multi-layered EQ's. Things are getting gorgeous really.

...

ABC said:

The OE is finished for me now.

Who stole my password to tip that ?

k_bacon said:

... However, you're right, the 2010 took some time to get used to.

 

I sometimes had the impression that some instruments had a clearer presence in the v2 set, to name an early example the snare in the first track around 5:10.

... I'd still put my money for the 2010 set as it has the "rounder" sound and a more competent editing altogether.

Removed.