 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already own the original 30 minute Varese CD AND the Intrada 55 minute expansion.
Both sound fine to me.
I'm happy to pass on this one, but judging by the traffic here, I'm leaving my copy to a eager home (or a goddamned speculator!!).
Good to see this released again, but I also have 2 of the previous 3 releases and both sound fine to me. Hope someone gets my copy before the speculators do since there will only be 1500 copies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger chimed in again
If I remember correctly, and Doug would know better...I think Goldsmith was not in favor of using the chorus. Really not in favor...which is one of the reasons he did not include any of it on the original album. And I think Botnick added the telephone ringing when they made the album...I think it was his idea, not Goldsmith's. But then you get used to it and it sounds weird without it.
and
Gah! Of course there's chorus on the original album. Just not the big choral action cues. That's what I meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear. Doug F has just chimed in with a very interesting post
One big thing to keep in mind, and this we know from being the original label to finance the project back in 1986. The three-channel mixes for Poltergeist II were NOT designed for true stereo listening but made for the Dolby four-channel film prints. On this title, the center channel was mixed specifically with balancing underneath dialog. As such, instruments were positioned in that region separately from where they were in the proper stereo listening mixes. Re-mastering these mixes can address lots of audio issues for today's marketplace BUT can not alter the intentions of them being made to accommodate dialog in Dolby presentations. We already went through all of this with both Goldsmith and Bruce Botnick when we made the original album, one of the first digital soundtracks to hit the then-new CD marketplace, and again when we put together our first expanded release. Goldsmith specifically stated the mixes for the film presentations altered the violas, woodwinds, percussion and some of the electronics considerably and said they were not designed for listening apart from the dialog because they would phase improperly.
While there is warmth to the analog three-channel elements, the instrumental positioning is out of kilter with the actual two-track digital mixes Botnick created. Both he and Goldsmith preferred the digital two-track sources (Sony PCM format) because they reflected what the orchestra spread was intended to be. Though it was then state-of-the-art, the Poltergeist II recording has never been my favorite in terms of audio, and hot and brittle is a good way to describe the digital sources. However, the correct stereo imaging and spread of the true stereo mixes is certainly an important consideration and trumps warmth for me.
If the 1/2" three-channel tapes were all that survived, using them would be a necessity. But the true stereo PCM masters do exist. When we decided to delete the release, we sent the masters to Varese so they could do their own version.
I'll look forward to this upcoming new version and probably enjoy it just fine. Bruce Kimmel can work wonders with the audio on his albums. But that said, my personal preference will still be the true stereo mixes Goldsmith and Botnick created.
--Doug
http://www.intrada.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=65375#p65375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear. Doug F has just chimed in with a very interesting post
One big thing to keep in mind, and this we know from being the original label to finance the project back in 1986. The three-channel mixes for Poltergeist II were NOT designed for true stereo listening but made for the Dolby four-channel film prints. On this title, the center channel was mixed specifically with balancing underneath dialog. As such, instruments were positioned in that region separately from where they were in the proper stereo listening mixes. Re-mastering these mixes can address lots of audio issues for today's marketplace BUT can not alter the intentions of them being made to accommodate dialog in Dolby presentations. We already went through all of this with both Goldsmith and Bruce Botnick when we made the original album, one of the first digital soundtracks to hit the then-new CD marketplace, and again when we put together our first expanded release. Goldsmith specifically stated the mixes for the film presentations altered the violas, woodwinds, percussion and some of the electronics considerably and said they were not designed for listening apart from the dialog because they would phase improperly.
While there is warmth to the analog three-channel elements, the instrumental positioning is out of kilter with the actual two-track digital mixes Botnick created. Both he and Goldsmith preferred the digital two-track sources (Sony PCM format) because they reflected what the orchestra spread was intended to be. Though it was then state-of-the-art, the Poltergeist II recording has never been my favorite in terms of audio, and hot and brittle is a good way to describe the digital sources. However, the correct stereo imaging and spread of the true stereo mixes is certainly an important consideration and trumps warmth for me.
If the 1/2" three-channel tapes were all that survived, using them would be a necessity. But the true stereo PCM masters do exist. When we decided to delete the release, we sent the masters to Varese so they could do their own version.
I'll look forward to this upcoming new version and probably enjoy it just fine. Bruce Kimmel can work wonders with the audio on his albums. But that said, my personal preference will still be the true stereo mixes Goldsmith and Botnick created.
--Doug
http://www.intrada.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=65375#p65375
What's interesting about it? It's a self-serving post and kind of obnoxious at that. First of all, Goldsmith did the three-channel mixdowns and they sound AMAZING and there is nothing funky or incorrect about the orchestra placement and I would posit that Mr. Fake has never even heard them. And yes, we chose the half-inch analogue because the digital sounds like crap. I had no interest whatsoever in replicating any of the previous releases - why would I? We have the digital two-track mixes and I don't need them from the PCM because I have - wait for it - the Intrada and the Varese releases and if I wanted to use them I would, but don't so I'm not. Furthermore, the stereo mixes Goldsmith and Botnick created (mostly Botnick) don't really reflect the music as heard in the film, so there's that. Furthermore, there is more orchestral detail on the half-inches and one hears more of certain bits of orchestration and let me tell you I'm all for that. There is just something very oily about this self-serving post and it's kind of nauseating, actually. I will not even respond to it on the Intrada board and, of course, if we really want to go down this road we can start talking about Dressed to Kill. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger at Intrada has chimed in:
"I never picked up the Varese because I thought our expanded version was fine (it's never been my favorite score...but yes Goldsmith's program for our original release was crazy. Even with the 30 minute AFM restriction, he choose to avoid any of the action music!). The too hot doesn't surprise me, as Varese has been pumping the levels for a while. The RUNAWAY deluxe addition is really hot too...I prefer the sound of their first release. I just didn't realize they were doing this going back so far. Am I reading right that this new release is from the analog masters? Previous releases were from the digital masters (I wonder if Varese forgot to return them to MGM!). Although 1/2" have pretty good sound, if I'm interpreting the source right. Always a good score to keep in print especially for those that wanted everything."
http://www.intrada.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5734&p=65367#p65367
I was wondering if perhaps Bruce chose to use the analogue masters because they had better sound (this was the mid-80s, after all). I remember that Lukas chose to use the analogue masters instead of the digital ones for most of the FSM Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan...
I suspect the Kritzerland will totally eclipse sound-wise all of the previous releases taken from the digital tapes.
Yavar
Yes, that was the reason. If I wanted the same harsh digital sound I could have just used the three previous releases to assemble this and then just stuck on the four new tracks. But that's not what I wanted or was after. We all do things our own way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one who is tired of reading the arguments of our label friends? Enough.
If Bruce wants to spend the money to put out his release one way, good on him. We, the consumers, will decide if it's good or not with our patronage.
If Doug thinks another way is better, great, but why does he have to chime in all the time? Same goes for MV. I really do not care what record labels think about each other. I care how the music is mastered and released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
