logo Sign In

captainsolo

User Group
Members
Join date
13-Mar-2009
Last activity
28-Apr-2025
Posts
3,017

Post History

Post
#513603
Topic
Star Wars 1977 70mm sound mix recreation [stereo and 5.1 versions now available] (Released)
Time

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.

Post
#512855
Topic
Star Wars 1977 70mm sound mix recreation [stereo and 5.1 versions now available] (Released)
Time

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.

Post
#512670
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

bkev said:

 


Didn't care for The New Batman Adventures personally, the redesigns were a turn-off. Not the new designs for characters, but the entire art look - it's why I don't care for Superman TAS as much either.

 

Yeah I'm not really a fan of that art look started in Superman. It's too bright and cheery and the Batman character redesigns were really jarring after being so used to the original animated versions. (Although I must admit I love the Babs redesign...)

Post
#512048
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

The problem with Stone's movie is that it is about his imagination of what the 60's counterculture was like. He then put "The Doors" in the middle of it. Val Kilmer is astonishing but only gets to be insane. The When You're Strange doc is much better about being true to the source, but it's really not very in depth.

I dunno maybe Jim would have found the movie hysterical.

Mission Impossible. I don't know why I kinda like this movie. Maybe I've watched too many times. It is a major Hollywood blockbuster that makes you use your brain. WTH? Not a bad two hours, and probably the only major studio movie where Tom Cruise isn't annoying.

5.5 mysteriously dead rats in the ventilator shaft out of 10 overcomplicated ways to break into a room while saying "toast".

Post
#512036
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

EyeShotFirst said:

I wouldn't be as mad if they just scanned the 97 SE, but that would be a good thing, so it's not going to happen.

I've said it before. That's all they need to do to fix every problem. No OOT but everyone's happy.

As for the art, finally "The Administrator Of This Facility" TM got his own disc!!!

Post
#510771
Topic
Save Star Wars Dot Com
Time

zombie84 said:

One thing I noticed was that there was pretty much no visible grain in the film, even in the optical shots (well, I mean there was a tiny bit, but quite insignificant). This contrasted what I have seen of the GOUT. I don't own ROTJ GOUT, so I don't know if the opticals are as grainy as SW and ESB. But the lightsaber scenes were pretty much 100% identical in quality to the surrounding ones. Obviously a positive release print and the fact that the focus fluxuated a bit would have influenced this, but I could still see some light grain and there were never any jumpy moments (that extra-contrasty shot of Luke reacting to Vader's amputation being an exception).

That makes sense to me. ROTJ has never been a really grainy film. I just took a peek at my GOUT disc for the first time in years and it reflects this but the print used has dirt and speckles crop up more than I noticed originally. Not to mention the lovely frame border on the left side that keeps popping up. On the GOUT it looks more like analog noise than film grain.

 

Post
#510673
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

adywan said:

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

 

 

Of course 2001 looks great. It's been well taken care of and was shot in 70mm for later Cinerama projection! It's not your standard 35!!!!

And I take it these people didn't see the Blu-rays of Forbidden Planet, CEoT3K, and the fantastic looking Planet of the Apes and The Day the Earth Stood Still.