hairy_hen

I sent him the links right away before posting them here, but it is indeed the same file.  I also sent him the stereo mix and a level-matched mono mix, so the primary audio tracks in the DE 2.0 will all play back with the dialogue at approximately the same volume.

My first class starts tonight . . . it's funny, because doing this project is one of the main reasons I became interested enough in this kind of thing to want to actually study sound production.  It has made me all the more aware of how much I don't yet know about audio, and I'm kind of nervous about it, but looking forward to learning.  :)

negative1 said:

70mm theatrical - english (recreation)

Wait, does this mean you'll be using my 5.1 version?  I have no objection, of course, but I thought you said that this wouldn't be synched to the GOUT due to frame count differences, and my version is exactly GOUT-synched.  I guess the lossless files could be edited to match a video of different length, though . . .

Well, for starters, here are the links for the 640 kbps AC3 version:

part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6

Remember that since the DVD format restricts Dolby Digital to a bitrate of 448 kbps, this file wouldn't be compliant with the spec, though this should work with other formats, including HD.  I haven't posted the lossless files anywhere yet, since I haven't yet decided exactly how to go about doing that, but both they and a 448 version will be made available.

If you have high fidelity speakers and amplifiers I can certainly understand the aversion to lossy audio.  Aside from the new studio headphones I got for my classes, my subwoofer is the only component I own that I would consider to be truly hi-fi (got a good deal on it a few years back, just before they stopped making them), with the rest of my equipment being more of a mid-fi.  Generally I'm pretty satisfied, but I do wish I could afford to upgrade the rest.  The level of quality of many speakers is such that it is hard to tell the difference between uncompressed and lossy if the bitrate is high enough (though low bitrates should stand out immediately if it's any good at all).  I've noticed, when I've had the opportunity to hear better speakers, that lossy audio doesn't sound all that different from my setup, while lossless is able to reach its full potential, so perceived quality is very dependent on what kind of equipment you're using, although I would say that the characteristics of the recording itself are probably the most important of all.  Those without hi-fi will be more than satisfied with the AC3, I'm sure.

Also keep in mind that when people claim to hear differences between different formats, what they're actually noticing is that they're not playing back at the same volume.  AC3 for some reason is usually reduced by 4 db due to DialNorm by default encoder settings, but when everything is properly level-matched the differences become much harder to hear.  There is no level difference in my encode, so this will not influence the perception in any way.

That comparison of the 1993 mix and the 70mm version was invaluable to this project: without Belbucus' excellent work in making it, I could not have done any of it.

Once again I thank Satanika for taking care of the upmix, since my computer still isn't able to do the conversion.  He has been extremely helpful to me all along in making this essential contribution, and must be accorded the appropriate acknowledgement.  :)

I'm pleased to report that I just finished the 5.1 mix this afternoon.  ;)

Been working almost non-stop the past few days to iron out all the little details, and it's definitely been worth it.  Every manner of phase shift error that I could think of has been accounted for, the LFE levels are just right, and in a few places the imaging has been tweaked to reduce the concentration of sound in the center channel and spread it throughout the front.  I'll be encoding and posting the final mix shortly.

Though the differences from the previous version may seem subtle, they represent a distinct improvement in quality and authenticity.  I've tried to make this as close to the actual 70mm mix as I reasonably could, and even though there are undoubtedly still differences (not the least of which being the lack of true discrete channels), to my ear this really seems like the way the movie is supposed to sound.  If I were in charge of mastering the audio of Star Wars for an official release, this is pretty much the way I would do it, and I hope you'll all enjoy hearing the result as much as I do.

Now that I think about it, it would be better just to include AC3 for the mkv release and let people put in uncompressed audio on their own, if they want to.  Doing so is very easy, as you said, and it would reduce the file size of the upload considerably.  Save lossless for the version in Bluray format.

Are you using PCM or AC3 for the various stereo and mono tracks?  There's probably no need for both, since the uncompressed files should work with pretty much any player out there, hardware or software.  The only limitation of this would be that any level adjustment, for the sake of having the dialogue at the same volume in all tracks, would have to be done manually in an audio editing program, since it's basically just plain audio without any of the metadata bells and whistles that AC3 can carry with it, so Dialogue Normalization isn't available for PCM.

I recommend leaving the level of the 1993 mix exactly as it is, since it's the most powerful version and it would be best to have it play back at the same level as it does on the laserdisc.  The 5.1 will be at this exact same level, since the 1993 mix is its primary source and it hasn't been altered in this respect.  Belbucus' 1977 stereo capture is also level-matched to this as well (the file that says 'reference level'), so this leaves only the mono version in need of adjustment to come out the same.  Based on a quick RMS measurement I made of it a while back, I would estimate that a reduction of about -5 db would get the dialogue of the mono mix in the vicinity of the others, but I have not yet had time to make a more thorough analysis, so this may not be an accurate value.

Anyone wanting to use the digital stereo mix should reduce it by -4 db to match the other tracks—that's how much I had to lower it to get it to fit into the 5.1 mix.

I haven't got any of the others being talked about, though, so I can't speak for them.

I am so close to being done with this that there is no way it won't be ready in time.  If by some chance it isn't, then I'll be very disappointed in myself.

Harmy's release date is the same day my classes start, so I pretty much have to complete it in a couple days anyway . . .

Right now I'm just tweaking a few last little details on the LFE channel, which is finally coming together to my complete satisfaction.  Then there's just a couple things in the upmix to attend to, and it'll be finished altogether.  I'm very happy with how it is turning out, and I have to say I'll be glad when it's finally done!  One of the things that's prevented me from finishing it as quickly as I'd like is simply having to rest my mind and ears for a while after listening to the same thing over and over again, but soon I'll just be able to hear it as part of the movie without needing to do any more work, so that will be nice.  ;)

I'm sure I'll be busy for a while after this, but I still intend to do the other two films as well, so that all three can have completely optimized 5.1 tracks.  Earlier I'd talked about wanting to use the 1997 DTS as a source for the first film's LFE, but I realized that since I've made so many customized edits (almost every single bass effect in the movie has been modified in some way; some quite substantially), it would be like having to redo all this work over again from scratch, and that would be more trouble than it's worth.  But with ESB and RotJ, fortunately, not nearly as much adjustment is required, so it should be relatively easy in comparison.

What's terrible about the idea of rebooting is that any such thing is absolutely guaranteed to be horrible.

The original films are so iconic and excellent that any attempt to 'improve' or 'reimagine' them could only ever suck copious amounts of hairy ass through a straw.  There's just no way around this.

That it's surefire rubbish almost promises that some schmo will actually try to do it at some point in the future, if there's nothing preventing them from doing so, particularly since Hollywood these days seems entirely devoid of new ideas aside from a couple of writers and directors.  This is one way in which I'm actually grateful for Lucas' stranglehold on SW, because at least nobody else can come along and find entirely new ways in which to screw it up.

I haven't jumped on the Bluray bandwagon yet myself, but since my DVD player seems to be on the fritz, I may be doing so sometime soon-ish.

It's true that the picture quality of Bluray discs isn't going to vary hugely from player to player, because as long as they output the digital signal correctly, it'll be pretty much the same thing regardless.  What you see will depend more on the kind of display you're using than anything else.

However, you must not take this to mean that all players are created equal.  The quality of the de-interlacing and scaling can vary greatly, and many units will certainly cheap out on this aspect, giving subpar results.  For someone who still primarily wants to watch DVD's without having to buy everything over again, this becomes tremendously important.  De-interlacing in particular is critical, because accurately recovering the original frames without combing artefacts and other intrusive errors entering the image will have a major effect on what is seen.

In addition, there is the issue of compatibility to consider.  Though it may be less of an issue now, you should still be prepared to update the firmware of your Bluray player to accommodate the ever-changing copy protection schemes: failure to do so may result in some discs being unplayable, and this will also depend on whether the manufacturer keeps up with current releases in a timely fashion or not.  Some discs are notoriously slow to load, often due to overly-complicated menus and such, and players that have longer boot-up times to begin with will be particularly sluggish when playing these titles.

It is without doubt that Bluray is a more problematic and difficult format than DVD, being rather less user-friendly and requiring more effort to get things the way they should be.  The benefits of high definition make it worthwhile, but you must be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues.  Because of them, choosing the right player is a task worthy of giving thought to.

If you can afford it, I definitely recommend getting an Oppo player, because the company's support for their products is fantastic and you'll get top of the line performance for a fraction of the price from any other high end manufacturer.  Otherwise, the PS3 is widely respected for its Bluray capabilities and will give better results than many standalone players out there.

Rebooting/remaking the films is an utterly terrible idea.

The prequels and special editions already rebooted the story, anyway, and it no longer has anything to do with what it used to be about.  If you want to change it away from what it is now, going back to the original versions and disregarding the revisionism is enough of a 'reboot' on its own, because it lets you view it in a completely different context than the one Lucas has tried to shoehorn the films into.  No prophecies, no midichlorians, no celibate Jedi, no 'Tragedy of Darth Vader'; none of that nonsense.

This way, Star Wars is 'The Adventures of Luke Skywalker', as it was meant to be from the beginning.  And that's all anyone who understands good storytelling really needs.

That's an odd-looking error to be sure, but I suppose it's just as well, since I had to go out of town for a bit.  Tomorrow I'll be back at it.

To tell the truth, it may be better to use Belbucus' analogue capture of the stereo track.  Sure, the quality of the digital version is a bit better, but it also has many of the source flaws that Belbucus fixed for his version, including noticeable audio dropouts and pitch-shifting.  In addition, it is also much too loud compared to the 1993 mix (and by consequence the 5.1), while the analogue capture has already been level-matched quite precisely.  When I spliced in part of the digital stereo track for one of my edits, it had to be lowered considerably just to have the dialogue come out at the same level.  When switching between multiple audio tracks, this is going to produce a jarring mismatch.

Of course, the mono mix is also much too loud compared to the 1993 version, and would have to be similarly lowered.  Dialogue Normalization can be used for this purpose with AC3, but for PCM this has to be done manually.

Once I'm done with my stuff, I'll consult on what to do about all the audio tracks, if that would be helpful.  I'm not sure how many people really care about this kind of thing, but differences in playback level are a huge source of confusion regarding how powerful or dynamic different mixes sound in relationship to each other, and a lot of erroneous ideas have been formed as a result.

Well, a friend of mine is planning to completely rewrite the prequels from scratch in novelized form, creating a completely new story that refers only to older material.  Will that do?  ;)

The idea is to complete the "trilogy of trilogies", with the original unaltered films being episodes four, five and six; the Thrawn books by Timothy Zahn as episodes seven, eight, and nine; and these being one, two, and three and written in a manner completely consistent with them.  I've been collaborating with him on his writing for nearly a year now, and I have complete confidence that he'll be able to pull this off—he's a very talented storyteller, and he shares my enthusiasm for oldschool Star Wars as well.

Now it's going to be a while before it's ready, as he's in the middle of another project and the prequel rewrite only exists in a general outline of ideas so far, but I can surely promise that it's going to be great.  :)

The only discrete channel versions that have been released are the special editions, and of course they have a lot of extra sound effects that were not part of the original version.  I'm not entirely clear what's being asked here—taking a mono version and combining it with the surround channels from another recording?  I guess it's possible, but I don't imagine it would come out sounding that great.  I've been asked before whether the dialogue of my 5.1 can be replaced with an alternate language, but I am obliged to state with certainty that this will not work, due to the impossibility of isolating the speech from the rest of the mix.  I don't think the LFE can be used with a different recording, either, seeing how I've had to level-match it very precisely to the dynamics of the 1993 mix, and if attached to another version it would almost certainly seem as though it had been tacked on, rather than integrating smoothly into the total sound.

Anyway . . . it's nearly done, guys.  It's really, really close.  In fact it would have been done already, if I weren't painstakingly trying to identify and solve phasing errors.  I've already gone back on my previously stated position of not using the 1993 mix as a source for the LFE channel—I had to use it for the Millennium Falcon being caught in the Death Star's tractor beam, because the special edition just wasn't cutting it.  The 1997 version caused all kinds of weird phase problems, and the 2004 version is too different to be considered authentic.  Since there was nothing else I could do that would sound any good, and because the '93 version is by far the most authentic in this case, I carefully realigned the filtered '93 bass to compensate for the phase shift, and it seems to have worked perfectly.  (Hopefully it will come out the same way on other people's sound systems as it does on mine.)

In the course of trying to solve these kinds of issues, I came across a statement by Roger Dressler of Dolby Labs saying that Prologic II in movie mode does not send any low frequencies from its surround channels to the subwoofer when using bass management.  This is most likely because it would cause phase cancellation due to the surrounds having a 10 millisecond delay applied to them relative to the front speakers.  This upmix also has the 10 millisecond delay, and therefore such cancellation will almost certainly occur in the receiver during playback.  This kind of reduced bass is something that I'd actually noticed popping up occasionally in the previous version, though at the time I was at a loss to explain or solve it.  This time, hopefully, I'll be able to bypass the problem.

So, I just have to do a couple things along those lines, as well as a few final corrections to the LFE to remove my remaining mistakes.  It sounds quite awesome, if I may say.  ;)  We're almost there . . .

DuracellEnergizer said:

(a comprehensive list of ideas that defined SW before the prequels came along)

I agree with all of this.

LFE channel is coming along; the major decisions are made, so it's mostly just tweaking the details now.

I've got the five channel upmix from Satanika, and I spent a while going through it to see if there was anything that needed adjustment.  I found a rather distracting phase error early in the movie that will definitely need to be corrected: this was introduced by one of my edits and was probably unavoidable due to the impossibility of completely matching the different recordings to each other at that point.  After much trial and error, I'd made the EQ as close as I could, but the differences in dynamics and frequency response between them were such that a more exact match could not be obtained.  In stereo it sounds okay, but evidently the upmixer was confused by the difference and choked on it.

At first I despaired of being able to do anything to correct this, but eventually I had the thought of upmixing the two recordings separately and then editing them together afterwards, which would bypass the problem completely.  (Fortunately, none of my other edits exhibit anything like this, so it only has to be done once.)  In addition, I'd like to manually pan a few things out of the center channel, since upmixing tends to make the mix too centrally focused in places where the signal is strongest, causing some occasional brief clipping, as well as not being quite faithful to the original which would have sounded wider in those places.

I'm also comparing the phase relationships of the channels to each other.  It turns out the upmix did not invert the relative polarity of the surround channels, so I'm going to do that myself.  Which surround channel is inverted will depend on their coherence with the front, and how the combined bass frequencies sent to a subwoofer would interact with each other.

All of these tweaks I'm making will clear up some little nagging problems that existed in the previous version, which at the time I was not able to fix properly.  Once it's done, I'll encode an AC3 as well as uploading the edited lossless files, so that they can be used for HD projects. 

Many people today are unaware that Star Wars was a pioneering film in terms of audio; not just in its sound effects, but in the format and the way it was put together.  I myself did not realize until a few years ago that it was actually the first film ever to have a dedicated channel for recording bass effects, and as such is worthy of being preserved and heard in this form.

Anyway, the d_j set should come with two folders: a VIDEO_TS which has all the movie data, and a DVD_ROM containing the artwork, if I recall correctly.  The whole thing is already in the proper DVD format and ready to be burned to disc.

TK421138 said:

As far as audio options I'm all about old school mixes i.e. theatrical stereo and mono. Let's face it they didn't have Lossless True HD 7.1 surround sound back then.

True, but they did have high quality 4.1 mixes on the 70mm prints, which were the direct precursor to the 5.1 format used today.  The surrounds were monaural, but there was significant bass and the dynamic range was hugely increased over the stereo and mono versions.

There is no available transfer of the real 70mm mix, but the default track on the dark_jedi version is a close approximation of it.  (Yes, it says 5.1, but the surround effects are still mono, so they just play out of both rear channels equally.)  That 'oldschool Star Wars' sound is present throughout, I promise.  ;)

Seeing how it would be quite a shame for the new 5.1 not to be included when I'm so close to finishing it, I humbly request one week in which to finalize it before any uploads of this are made.  I can safely promise that it will be completely done by then.  ;)

The new colour scheme looks good, though I've become accustomed to the Technicolor approximation found on the Despecialized Edition 2.0, which has a more muted look.  If you dial back the overall saturation a bit, while keeping the balance between colours the same, it would be somewhat more accurate . . .

Quite honestly I'm not sure why having the older stereo track would be needed at this point, since everything I haven't tweaked is exactly the same as before; and all the parts I did change still sound very similar, just with improved sound quality and correction of my previous mistakes.  The new version does not really present a significant creative difference so much as an upgrade in the technical sense.  It sounds more like the real 70mm mix, and is therefore more 'authentic'.  But I guess some folks will always want to have everything ever put out for the sake of a complete archive, of course.

Unfortunately, I realized yesterday that I'd messed up some things on the LFE channel, so I have to go back and redo them.  Accordingly, I've decided that rather than trying to recreate my earlier work on the parts that sounded correct already, I'll simply port them over from the previous version, and only make any edits on the parts where I didn't properly simulate the theatrical sound, in order to reduce the possibility of any further mistakes.  This means that the bass from the Bluray will not be used at all, but since it would have only shown up in a few places, the benefit of lossless would have been minimal anyway.  I haven't ruled out using the Bluray LFE for the other two films when I get to them, though.

Almost forgot to mention it, but I combined the stereo track with Harmy's latest workprint (partially because I was tired of listening to the mono mix, lol) and found that the synch error I mentioned earlier is small enough not to be noticed, so it turns out there's nothing to worry about on that account.

Hopefully, it won't be more than another week or so until I'm done with this.  In the meantime, here's another comparison file between the 70mm and the 2004 mix, in which I highlighted some of the worst-sounding parts of the latter in order to show just how drastic the degradation really is.  (I made this for a friend who is looking forward to seeing original version of the movie again for the first time in many years.)  Be sure to note the huge swell of static and distortion when the Death Star explodes; that's always good for a laugh.

link

Here's my list of notes on the second half.  It includes all the problematic laser blasts, though I see now that you've already been working on those; but here's a thorough accounting of them.  Again, nearly all of these things are just 2004 errors that haven't yet been fixed.  And as before, anything I haven't commented on looks fantastic and excellent.  ;)

00:58:19 — There seems to be some blue light leaking into this shot that isn't present in subsequent shots.

01:11:49:11 — Some pink/purple in this explosion.

01:14:02, 01:14:14 — The side of Han's face looks weird.  Perhaps it is supposed to be that way, but to me it seems like an error caused by clipped reds.

01:22:49:01, 01:23:49:00 — Some definite purpleness going on here.

01:24:49 — Pink tint (or at least something strangely unnatural) in this shot.

Obi-wan's cloak appears too dark in nearly every shot of the duel; black instead of brown.  Occasionally it is the proper colour.

01:26:24 — Some pretty extreme magenta going on here, both on the stormtrooper who gets blasted and in the background.

01:27:03 — The Millennium Falcon's engine glow diminishes somewhat near the end of the shot.  I was under the impression that it remained constant throughout in the original version, and that changes in brightness were added in the SE.  Is this a remnant of the SE effect, or is it supposed to do this?

01:28:25 - 01:28:26 — The TIE fighter that flies by in this shot is very green, which looks bizarre.

01:34:42 — Some blue haloing from the background lights can be seen on Tarkin and Vader.

01:37:58 — Frozen artefacts on Yavin.  The ships flying away seem too dim.

01:39:00, 01:39:05 — Red Leader's helmet, normally yellow, appears green.

01:29:57:18 — This whole shot looks strange in a way that is nearly indescribable; particularly the laser blasts.  There is a softness or blockiness or something I can't really identify, but it seems wrong in some way . . .

01:41:36, 01:41:39 — Green lasers somewhat desaturated.

01:42:28, 01:42:30 — Laser blasts almost completely white, particularly right at the end of the shot.

01:42:31 - 01:42:37, 01:42:52, 01:42:57 — Lasers seen through cockpit windows have no colour.

01:43:11, 01:43:17, 01:43:35 — Red interior lighting of Vader's TIE fighter is desaturated, particularly compared to wingman shot at 01:43:14.

01:43:21 — Dull and ugly looking laser blasts.

01:43:41 — Red Leader's helmet green again.

01:44:30:06 — Laser blasts in this shot look really repulsive.  They have a hideous blue glow around them that absolutely should not be there.  A similar problem also occurs later in the 2004 master, but I see that shot (01:46:42) has been replaced with its GOUT equivalent.  Use of the GOUT may be the only option here as well, if this cannot be eliminated by other means.

01:44:32:20 — Now the lasers are back to being heavily desaturated again.  Also at 01:44:35, but less obviously.

01:45:08 — Desaturated lasers as Vader fires at the X-wing; saturation on the subsequent explosion seems too extreme, though I won't presume to say if this is actually incorrect.

01:45:47 — Red Leader's green helmet syndrome makes a return appearance.

01:46:25:12 — This is an example of a laser blast looking nicer than at 01:42:30, which is especially odd since the two shots are duplicates of each other.  It could still probably use a bit of a boost, though.

01:46:44:19 — Desaturated lasers also show up in this shot.

01:47:16, 01:47:31, 01:47:16 — Vader's cockpit lighting is dull.  In the first shot it is also slightly pink.

01:48:16, 01:48:40 — Even duller and pinker shots of Vader.

01:48:41:11 — Lasers look kind of blue-tinted.

01:48:42:02 — Is the laser blast supposed to illuminate as it goes by, or is this a colour leakage of some kind?  There's also some odd blueness to the right of frame just after this; again, I can't quite tell if this is a mistake or not, but it looks strange.

01:49:05 — Not only is Vader's lighting pink in this shot, it's so heavily desaturated there's barely any recognizable colour at all.

01:49:15 — Pink tint, both on Vader and his wingman.  Significantly worse in the wingman shot.

01:49:25 — Underside of the Millennium Falcon too dark.

Seeing the colour change you made to the Alderaan explosion made me remember that the destruction of the Death Star in the 1997 version had some interestingly varied hues, reds and blues and such.  Is any of that present in the Technicolor original?  And if so, is there any way to incorporate it?

darth_ender is exactly right in pointing out the overly critical mentality around this place.  This is exactly the reason why I like this site for its stance on Star Wars, but often become frustrated—everyone's a critic and picks everything apart because they feel somehow 'entitled'.

I surely don't think The Dark Knight Rises is a perfect film.  Like the others, it does have its flaws.  But the sheer level of teeth-gnashing and whining going on here is just incomprehensible to me.  Some folks seem so determined to prove their own 'cleverness' that they're forgetting how to have fun and enjoy something.

Any discussion of Christopher Nolan as a film-maker is a non-starter without including Inception, and I'll respectfully suggest that anyone who hasn't seen it has no business having an opinion on the subject.  For my part I consider it his best film, not to mention one of the most excellent movies to have come out in many, many years.  Also, I don't know how anyone could accuse him of over-using CGI, seeing how he goes out of his way to shoot everything with practical in-camera effects before the use of animation is even considered . . .

Still several things to be done with the LFE channel, and I tend to spend a while fine-tuning each detail until I'm sure it's exactly right; but I've been pretty focused lately and am confident that it will come out the way I'm hoping.  Even when not working on it, I've often been going over possible editing solutions in my mind, so I have a good idea what to do for most of it even beforehand.

Once the upmix is done, there are a couple things I want to tweak about the imaging, if possible, so that will be a new experience for me to edit in multichannel rather than stereo.  If it turns out as I want, some concerns I've had about too much information occasionally being sent to the centre channel will be addressed.

Editing to add: About 4.1 . . . yes, technically this would most correctly represent the original mix, which had monaural surround information.  However, the surround cues that are found in the 1993 mix are themselves monaural, and when upmixed will play equally from both surround speakers in a 5.1 setup, each at -3 db to maintain constant acoustic power.  In Prologic II using movie mode, and other similar algorithms, the surround cues are played back out of phase with each other to help disperse them and avoid direct phantom imaging, partially simulating the effect of the multi-speaker arrays found in movie theatres, according to THX recommendations.

The only actual stereo content that will be present in the rear channels is low-level duplication from the front (controlled levels of crosstalk between channels, essentially), again for the sake of ambience.  The effect of the upmix cannot exactly represent what the true discrete 70mm version would have sounded like, but given the source materials available it's about as close as it's currently possible to get.  Add in the extra bass from the LFE and things are sounding great.  ;)

I've gone back over this thing and redone certain parts more times than I care to say, but at last I'm ready to declare that the new stereo track is completely finished.  It's still not perfect, but at this point I think further improvement would be going well into the realm of diminishing returns, and would require more skill and better equipment than I possess to get any meaningful results.  So without further ado, here it is—a stereo FLAC file split into a six-part RAR archive.

part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6

5.1 mix to follow as soon as possible.