Discussion:
PR: Lawrence of Arabia
(too old to reply)
cinemediapromo
2012-08-17 00:47:58 UTC
Permalink
SILVA SCREEN RECORDS PRESENTS
50TH ANNIVERSARY WORLD PREMIERE RELEASE
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

A Special 50th Anniversary Release of the Complete Newly - recorded Oscar-winning score from the DAVID LEAN classic with music by MAURICE JARRE

Widely considered one of the most influential films in film history this album features, for the first time, the complete 77-Minute Score performed by the acclaimed and award-winning City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Nic Raine. The album was recorded from the original 1962 orchestrations by Gerard Schurmann.

Though a virtual unknown in Hollywood at the time, Maurice Jarre would soon earn the first of his 3 Oscars for his majestic and ground-breaking score for Lawrence of Arabia. As described by film historian and author Frank K. DeWald in the booklet of the recording:

“His [Jarre’s] rich thematic material for LAWRENCE included both “Western” and “Eastern” melodic ideas, and his sweeping theme for the desert proved highly memorable (exceeded only by “Lara’s Theme” from DR. ZHIVAGO a few years later). His handling of those ideas was dramatically apt, and he proved fully up to the challenge of the many moments in the film when music alone (or, rather, music in partnership with the breathtaking cinematography) needed to carry the full emotional weight of a scene.”

1. Overture (4:23)
2. Main Titles (1:56)
3. First Entrance to the Desert
(4:25)
4. Night and Stars / Lawrence
and Tafas (5:43)
5. Lawrence Rides Alone /
Exodus (3:13)
6. We Need a Miracle (2:40)
7. In Whose Name Do You Ride?/
That is the Desert (The Camels
Will Die) (5:10)
8. Mirage / The Sun’s Anvil (5:19)
9. Gasim Lost in the Desert (3:29)
10. Lawrence Rescues Gasim /
Lawrence Returns with Gasim /
The Riding (6:37)
11. Arrival at Auda’s Camp (2:00)

12. Bedouin Feast /On to Akaba /
Attack on Akaba / Lawrence at
the Sea Shore (6:37)
13. Sinai Desert / After
Quicksands / Hutments / Suez
Canal (6:16)
14. A Brilliant Bit of Soldiering -
The Voice of the Guns
(Kenneth J. Alford) (2:05)
15. Bugle Call / Lawrence on the
Terrace / Intermission (1:34)
16. Adulation / The Horse Stampede
/ Faraj Killed (3:43)
17. Ali Rescues Lawrence / Allenby’s
Flattery (3:11)
18. Assembled Army / Lawrence and
His Bodyguard / Arab Theme (3:06)
19. Military March (1:18)
20. The End / Play-off Music (4:01)


CD & Digital Album: SIL-CD-1388
US REL. DATE: AUG 14, 2012


For more information about these recordings visit http://www.silvascreenusa.com or contact ***@yahoo.com or @cinemediapromo on Twitter
Bill Anderson
2012-08-17 01:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by cinemediapromo
SILVA SCREEN RECORDS PRESENTS
50TH ANNIVERSARY WORLD PREMIERE RELEASE
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
Is it the 3D version? The one creepy robot guy likes so much?
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
hislop
2012-08-17 02:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by cinemediapromo
SILVA SCREEN RECORDS PRESENTS
50TH ANNIVERSARY WORLD PREMIERE RELEASE
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
A Special 50th Anniversary Release of the Complete Newly - recorded Oscar-winning score from the DAVID LEAN classic with music by MAURICE JARRE
Widely considered one of the most influential films in film history this album features, for the first time, the complete 77-Minute Score performed by the acclaimed and award-winning City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Nic Raine. The album was recorded from the original 1962 orchestrations by Gerard Schurmann.
“His [Jarre’s] rich thematic material for LAWRENCE included both “Western” and “Eastern” melodic ideas, and his sweeping theme for the desert proved highly memorable (exceeded only by “Lara’s Theme” from DR. ZHIVAGO a few years later). His handling of those ideas was dramatically apt, and he proved fully up to the challenge of the many moments in the film when music alone (or, rather, music in partnership with the breathtaking cinematography) needed to carry the full emotional weight of a scene.”
I remember years ago, can't recall exactly maybe 20 years ago, sitting
in one of the largest cinemas in Melbourne that was full, watching the
restored Lawrence of Arabia. Whatever some might say about the movie,
you could tell from the feel of the place that many felt they had seen
real cinema.
Not sure what could be more restored now, but that was the largest
cinema screen I know of at the time I saw it on.
Howard Brazee
2012-08-17 13:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by hislop
I remember years ago, can't recall exactly maybe 20 years ago, sitting
in one of the largest cinemas in Melbourne that was full, watching the
restored Lawrence of Arabia. Whatever some might say about the movie,
you could tell from the feel of the place that many felt they had seen
real cinema.
Not sure what could be more restored now, but that was the largest
cinema screen I know of at the time I saw it on.
Me too. It was the first time that I had seen it since its first
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist). Shortly after I bought
the laser disk. I need to get blu-ray, as that is a movie that I
want to see all of its resolution.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
Lewis
2012-08-17 14:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by hislop
I remember years ago, can't recall exactly maybe 20 years ago, sitting
in one of the largest cinemas in Melbourne that was full, watching the
restored Lawrence of Arabia. Whatever some might say about the movie,
you could tell from the feel of the place that many felt they had seen
real cinema.
Not sure what could be more restored now, but that was the largest
cinema screen I know of at the time I saw it on.
Me too. It was the first time that I had seen it since its first
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist). Shortly after I bought
the laser disk. I need to get blu-ray, as that is a movie that I
want to see all of its resolution.
Blu-Ray is not going to give you anything close to "all its resolution."
In fact, most movie theaters can't do that as the movie was shot in 70mm.
Blu-Ray doesn't come anywhere near showing you the full detail of the
film.

I was lucky enough to see it in 70mm and it is *stunning*.
--
I don't need no stinking taglines.
hislop
2012-08-17 15:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by hislop
I remember years ago, can't recall exactly maybe 20 years ago, sitting
in one of the largest cinemas in Melbourne that was full, watching the
restored Lawrence of Arabia. Whatever some might say about the movie,
you could tell from the feel of the place that many felt they had seen
real cinema.
Not sure what could be more restored now, but that was the largest
cinema screen I know of at the time I saw it on.
Me too. It was the first time that I had seen it since its first
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist). Shortly after I bought
the laser disk. I need to get blu-ray, as that is a movie that I
want to see all of its resolution.
Blu-Ray is not going to give you anything close to "all its resolution."
In fact, most movie theaters can't do that as the movie was shot in 70mm.
Blu-Ray doesn't come anywhere near showing you the full detail of the
film.
I was lucky enough to see it in 70mm and it is *stunning*.
It's a bit like what happens with remastered audio for CDs, it sounds
better, picks up more detail, but is nowhere near the detail of analog.
No point arguing against bluray, lots of people don't care about
improved resolution as it is. Improved resolution of audio would be
appreciated, even if it still is nowhere near analog.
Lewis
2012-08-17 18:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by hislop
I remember years ago, can't recall exactly maybe 20 years ago, sitting
in one of the largest cinemas in Melbourne that was full, watching the
restored Lawrence of Arabia. Whatever some might say about the movie,
you could tell from the feel of the place that many felt they had seen
real cinema.
Not sure what could be more restored now, but that was the largest
cinema screen I know of at the time I saw it on.
Me too. It was the first time that I had seen it since its first
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist). Shortly after I bought
the laser disk. I need to get blu-ray, as that is a movie that I
want to see all of its resolution.
Blu-Ray is not going to give you anything close to "all its resolution."
In fact, most movie theaters can't do that as the movie was shot in 70mm.
Blu-Ray doesn't come anywhere near showing you the full detail of the
film.
I was lucky enough to see it in 70mm and it is *stunning*.
It's a bit like what happens with remastered audio for CDs, it sounds
better, picks up more detail, but is nowhere near the detail of analog.
No, it's not like that at all. You can SEE the difference clearly
between 70mm and 35mm and between 35mm and BlueRay.

You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this. No one has ever done statistically better
than chance. It's much like the many tests of speaker wire (lamp cord,
wire hangers, and very expensive 'audiophile' cables are perform exactly
as well)
--
RTFM replies are great, but please specify exactly which FM to R
hislop
2012-08-18 02:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by hislop
I remember years ago, can't recall exactly maybe 20 years ago, sitting
in one of the largest cinemas in Melbourne that was full, watching the
restored Lawrence of Arabia. Whatever some might say about the movie,
you could tell from the feel of the place that many felt they had seen
real cinema.
Not sure what could be more restored now, but that was the largest
cinema screen I know of at the time I saw it on.
Me too. It was the first time that I had seen it since its first
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist). Shortly after I bought
the laser disk. I need to get blu-ray, as that is a movie that I
want to see all of its resolution.
Blu-Ray is not going to give you anything close to "all its resolution."
In fact, most movie theaters can't do that as the movie was shot in 70mm.
Blu-Ray doesn't come anywhere near showing you the full detail of the
film.
I was lucky enough to see it in 70mm and it is *stunning*.
It's a bit like what happens with remastered audio for CDs, it sounds
better, picks up more detail, but is nowhere near the detail of analog.
No, it's not like that at all. You can SEE the difference clearly
between 70mm and 35mm and between 35mm and BlueRay.
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this. No one has ever done statistically better
than chance. It's much like the many tests of speaker wire (lamp cord,
wire hangers, and very expensive 'audiophile' cables are perform exactly
as well)
Don't start that again about audio, of course you can tell the
difference and people who can't have no say.
We can't all watch movies in the cinema. The clean bluray look is great
at home, but a stretch for a cinema.
Lewis
2012-08-18 06:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this. No one has ever done statistically better
than chance. It's much like the many tests of speaker wire (lamp cord,
wire hangers, and very expensive 'audiophile' cables are perform exactly
as well)
Don't start that again about audio, of course you can tell the
difference and people who can't have no say.
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.

TDK offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could got 10 for 10 on a
double-blind of digital versus audio. No one claimed the prize.

If you can't do it for $1,000,000, you can't do it.

In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
Post by hislop
We can't all watch movies in the cinema. The clean bluray look is great
at home, but a stretch for a cinema.
My home screen is 10', so 1080p video is pretty much required for
anything to not be blurry and unwatchable crap, but it's not like the
picture at a first run movie (although I prefer it to the dim ancient
projector lamps at the 'bargin' theatres). I'm not sure how they manage
it, but they never seem to have new bulbs. Perhaps they buy the old ones
off the better theatres after their end-of-life?
--
If you mixed vodka with orange juice and Milk Of Magnesia, would you get
a Philip's Screwdriver?
Stone me
2012-08-18 12:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this. No one has ever done statistically better
than chance. It's much like the many tests of speaker wire (lamp cord,
wire hangers, and very expensive 'audiophile' cables are perform exactly
as well)
Don't start that again about audio, of course you can tell the
difference and people who can't have no say.
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.
TDK offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could got 10 for 10 on a
double-blind of digital versus audio. No one claimed the prize.
If you can't do it for $1,000,000, you can't do it.
In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
Post by hislop
We can't all watch movies in the cinema. The clean bluray look is great
at home, but a stretch for a cinema.
My home screen is 10', so 1080p video is pretty much required for
anything to not be blurry and unwatchable crap, but it's not like the
picture at a first run movie (although I prefer it to the dim ancient
projector lamps at the 'bargin' theatres). I'm not sure how they manage
it, but they never seem to have new bulbs. Perhaps they buy the old ones
off the better theatres after their end-of-life?
--
I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming, since I see Blu-Ray and cd
mentioned.
I can confirm, (if it's relevant) that Blu-Ray gives me a noticeably better
audio
quality than I have been used to for movies. Of course, there are many
variables
to account for, and obtaining a dvd and Blu-Ray of the same movie, close
enough
for a fair comparison, is going to be difficult.
Again, dvd equipment might be of a wide range of ages, where Blu-ray stuff
has to
be fairly new.
Watching a dvd through the Blu-ray uses some software which "upscales",
whatever
that might be. If that is non-standard, equipment specific, than there might
also be
a reason we cannot judge fairly.

Stone me.
Howard Brazee
2012-08-18 14:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stone me
I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming, since I see Blu-Ray and cd
mentioned.
I can confirm, (if it's relevant) that Blu-Ray gives me a noticeably better
audio
quality than I have been used to for movies.
Certainly theater sound quality varies, and at home, you can position
your speakers perfectly for your seat.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
Lewis
2012-08-18 16:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stone me
Post by Lewis
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this. No one has ever done statistically better
than chance. It's much like the many tests of speaker wire (lamp cord,
wire hangers, and very expensive 'audiophile' cables are perform exactly
as well)
Don't start that again about audio, of course you can tell the
difference and people who can't have no say.
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.
TDK offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could got 10 for 10 on a
double-blind of digital versus audio. No one claimed the prize.
If you can't do it for $1,000,000, you can't do it.
In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
Post by hislop
We can't all watch movies in the cinema. The clean bluray look is great
at home, but a stretch for a cinema.
My home screen is 10', so 1080p video is pretty much required for
anything to not be blurry and unwatchable crap, but it's not like the
picture at a first run movie (although I prefer it to the dim ancient
projector lamps at the 'bargin' theatres). I'm not sure how they manage
it, but they never seem to have new bulbs. Perhaps they buy the old ones
off the better theatres after their end-of-life?
--
I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming, since I see Blu-Ray and cd
mentioned.
I am not talking about the audio differences between BD and DVDs, BD
supports more channels and has better audio overall than a DVD. Most
DVDs don't even have 5.1, do they?

What the discussion is about is whether you can tell the difference
between analog (vinyl records) and digital (everything else). And you
can't, despite many audiodweebs claiming they can. Every time they are
tested on it, they fail. It's exactly like the audiodweeb's who spend
hundreds if not thousands of dollars on special high-end speaker wire,
when plain old lamp cord or even wire hangers performs *exactly* as well
in every test.
--
Sarah, age 18, says "man, once you go crayola you can't go back."
notbob
2012-08-18 14:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.
TDK offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could got 10 for 10 on a
double-blind of digital versus audio. No one claimed the prize.
Three guesses on who provided the hardware the tests were conducted on.
Post by Lewis
If you can't do it for $1,000,000, you can't do it.
Somehow I don't think the challenge included setting up test conditions to
the challenger's specs.
Post by Lewis
In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
I don't believe that for one second, but no longer have the resources
and hardware to dispute it. I do know it's a known fact digital
algorithms were designed to delete matching notes of different octaves
to reduce total data recorded, in the belief no human can discern the missing
note. Well, they didn't have the hifi system I once had!

nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
Lewis
2012-08-18 16:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
Post by Lewis
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.
TDK offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could got 10 for 10 on a
double-blind of digital versus audio. No one claimed the prize.
Three guesses on who provided the hardware the tests were conducted on.
It doesn't matter, these test have been done dozens of times.
Post by notbob
Post by Lewis
If you can't do it for $1,000,000, you can't do it.
Somehow I don't think the challenge included setting up test conditions to
the challenger's specs.
Tests have been conducted many times, as I said.
Post by notbob
Post by Lewis
In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
I don't believe that for one second,
Yes, most audiophile don't believe it, and they continue to not believe
it even after it's been proven to them by their failure to discern a
difference. It's a religious position born on irrational belief, and you
can't argue crazy. But it's still true.
--
"Love is like war: easy to begin but very hard to stop." - H. L. Mencken
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-18 16:34:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by notbob
Post by Lewis
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.
TDK offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could got 10 for 10 on a
double-blind of digital versus audio. No one claimed the prize.
Three guesses on who provided the hardware the tests were conducted on.
It doesn't matter, these test have been done dozens of times.
Post by notbob
Post by Lewis
If you can't do it for $1,000,000, you can't do it.
Somehow I don't think the challenge included setting up test conditions to
the challenger's specs.
Tests have been conducted many times, as I said.
Post by notbob
Post by Lewis
In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
I don't believe that for one second,
Yes, most audiophile don't believe it, and they continue to not believe
it even after it's been proven to them by their failure to discern a
difference. It's a religious position born on irrational belief, and you
can't argue crazy. But it's still true.
May depend on what you're listening to.

Many CDs that were remastered from analog media (like Beatles albums)
have even less dynamics than the original LP.
--
notbob
2012-08-18 17:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
difference. It's a religious position born on irrational belief, and you
can't argue crazy.
Many CDs that were remastered from analog media (like Beatles albums)
have even less dynamics than the original LP.
You read what the man said. Of course it couldn't possibly appy to
him.

Ppl in these groups rarely listen one another. I had one person
arguing with me what I, myself, had actually heard, as if someone else
can tell me precisely what I can/cannot hear with my own ears.
Amazing! Pointless to argue with these ppl.



nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
Lewis
2012-08-18 21:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
difference. It's a religious position born on irrational belief, and you
can't argue crazy.
Many CDs that were remastered from analog media (like Beatles albums)
have even less dynamics than the original LP.
Badly mastered CDs certainly exist. As do badly mastered LPs, 8-tracks,
and any other format going back to Edison cylinders. However, there are
people who wrongly claim that they can always tell the difference
between a CD (or any digital source) and an analog source because
digital is inherently inferior (or at least different). This is not
true, is not borne out by any of the many tests that have been done.
Post by notbob
You read what the man said. Of course it couldn't possibly appy to
him.
Ah, so you're one of those "This is what I know is true and your damn
science can't change my mind" people. Fine. Your belief is irrational,
untrue, and contradicted by reality, but you go on believing it. You
might as well believe in astrology, unicorns, and a really good fat-free
mayonaise while you're at it.
--
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please." - Mark Twain
moviePig
2012-08-18 21:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
difference. It's a religious position born on irrational belief, and you
can't argue crazy.
Many CDs that were remastered from analog media (like Beatles albums)
have even less dynamics than the original LP.
Badly mastered CDs certainly exist. As do badly mastered LPs, 8-tracks,
and any other format going back to Edison cylinders. However, there are
people who wrongly claim that they can always tell the difference
between a CD (or any digital source) and an analog source because
digital is inherently inferior (or at least different). This is not
true, is not borne out by any of the many tests that have been done.
You read what the man said.  Of course it couldn't possibly appy to
him.
Ah, so you're one of those "This is what I know is true and your damn
science can't change my mind" people. Fine. Your belief is irrational,
untrue, and contradicted by reality, but you go on believing it. You
might as well believe in astrology, unicorns, and a really good fat-free
mayonnaise while you're at it.
I'm not sure this will clarify, but...

An analog recording is necessarily a mechanical transcription ...and
thus will always introduce introduce a distortion unique to the
particular physical medium and mechanics. Whereas, any distortion
introduced by a digital recording corresponds only to its sampling
rate ...and, importantly, as that rate approaches infinity, the
associated distortion approaches zero.

So, for example, recording directly onto vinyl may produce a playback
tonality that's difficult to emulate. But a sufficiently aggressive
digital recording of *that very playback* will sound identical to it,
even to the RCA Victor dog.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Nil
2012-08-18 23:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
An analog recording is necessarily a mechanical transcription
...and thus will always introduce introduce a distortion unique to
the particular physical medium and mechanics. Whereas, any
distortion introduced by a digital recording corresponds only to
its sampling rate ...and, importantly, as that rate approaches
infinity, the associated distortion approaches zero.
So, for example, recording directly onto vinyl may produce a
playback tonality that's difficult to emulate. But a sufficiently
aggressive digital recording of *that very playback* will sound
identical to it, even to the RCA Victor dog.
Thanks for the good explanation. I was going to try to say something
similar.

I've done my own non-laboratory-quality tests, where I've digitally
recorded an old LP in as flat a manner as possible, then had someone
present them to me as a blind A/B test. I couldn't tell them apart. I'm
convinced that if the recording were made with very high-quality D/A
converters, nobody could tell the difference.

Commercial CD versions of old material don't count, as they have
inevitably been futzed with (remastered.)

I CAN tell the difference between sound recorded at CD quality (16-bit)
and better (24-bit and higher) when it's loudly amplified, where a
slight zipper-y and/or grainy quality can be heard when the sound gets
quiet. It wasn't that obvious until it was pointed out to me, but now
it's unmistakable.
moviePig
2012-08-18 23:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nil
Post by moviePig
An analog recording is necessarily a mechanical transcription
...and thus will always introduce introduce a distortion unique to
the particular physical medium and mechanics.  Whereas, any
distortion introduced by a digital recording corresponds only to
its sampling rate ...and, importantly, as that rate approaches
infinity, the associated distortion approaches zero.
So, for example, recording directly onto vinyl may produce a
playback tonality that's difficult to emulate.  But a sufficiently
aggressive digital recording of *that very playback* will sound
identical to it, even to the RCA Victor dog.
Thanks for the good explanation. I was going to try to say something
similar.
I've done my own non-laboratory-quality tests, where I've digitally
recorded an old LP in as flat a manner as possible, then had someone
present them to me as a blind A/B test. I couldn't tell them apart. I'm
convinced that if the recording were made with very high-quality D/A
converters, nobody could tell the difference.
Commercial CD versions of old material don't count, as they have
inevitably been futzed with (remastered.)
I CAN tell the difference between sound recorded at CD quality (16-bit)
and better (24-bit and higher) when it's loudly amplified, where a
slight zipper-y and/or grainy quality can be heard when the sound gets
quiet. It wasn't that obvious until it was pointed out to me, but now
it's unmistakable.
You're right, of course: not only the sampling rate but also the
point-resolution (i.e., bit-width) matters ...just as it does for --
dare I say it? -- digital film.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-19 00:07:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:39:49 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Nil
Post by moviePig
An analog recording is necessarily a mechanical transcription
...and thus will always introduce introduce a distortion unique to
the particular physical medium and mechanics.  Whereas, any
distortion introduced by a digital recording corresponds only to
its sampling rate ...and, importantly, as that rate approaches
infinity, the associated distortion approaches zero.
So, for example, recording directly onto vinyl may produce a
playback tonality that's difficult to emulate.  But a sufficiently
aggressive digital recording of *that very playback* will sound
identical to it, even to the RCA Victor dog.
Thanks for the good explanation. I was going to try to say something
similar.
I've done my own non-laboratory-quality tests, where I've digitally
recorded an old LP in as flat a manner as possible, then had someone
present them to me as a blind A/B test. I couldn't tell them apart. I'm
convinced that if the recording were made with very high-quality D/A
converters, nobody could tell the difference.
Commercial CD versions of old material don't count, as they have
inevitably been futzed with (remastered.)
I CAN tell the difference between sound recorded at CD quality (16-bit)
and better (24-bit and higher) when it's loudly amplified, where a
slight zipper-y and/or grainy quality can be heard when the sound gets
quiet. It wasn't that obvious until it was pointed out to me, but now
it's unmistakable.
You're right, of course: not only the sampling rate but also the
point-resolution (i.e., bit-width) matters ...just as it does for --
dare I say it? -- digital film.
An analog to digital conversion (ADC) has several sources of errors.
Quantization error and (assuming the ADC is intended to be linear)
non-linearity are intrinsic to any analog-to-digital conversion. There
is also a so-called aperture error which is due to a clock jitter and
is revealed when digitizing a time-variant signal (not a constant
value).

These errors are measured in a unit called the least significant bit
(LSB). In the above example of an eight-bit ADC, an error of one LSB
is 1/256 of the full signal range, or about 0.4%.
--
moviePig
2012-08-19 03:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:39:49 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
Post by Nil
Post by moviePig
An analog recording is necessarily a mechanical transcription
...and thus will always introduce introduce a distortion unique to
the particular physical medium and mechanics. Whereas, any
distortion introduced by a digital recording corresponds only to
its sampling rate ...and, importantly, as that rate approaches
infinity, the associated distortion approaches zero.
So, for example, recording directly onto vinyl may produce a
playback tonality that's difficult to emulate. But a sufficiently
aggressive digital recording of *that very playback* will sound
identical to it, even to the RCA Victor dog.
Thanks for the good explanation. I was going to try to say something
similar.
I've done my own non-laboratory-quality tests, where I've digitally
recorded an old LP in as flat a manner as possible, then had someone
present them to me as a blind A/B test. I couldn't tell them apart. I'm
convinced that if the recording were made with very high-quality D/A
converters, nobody could tell the difference.
Commercial CD versions of old material don't count, as they have
inevitably been futzed with (remastered.)
I CAN tell the difference between sound recorded at CD quality (16-bit)
and better (24-bit and higher) when it's loudly amplified, where a
slight zipper-y and/or grainy quality can be heard when the sound gets
quiet. It wasn't that obvious until it was pointed out to me, but now
it's unmistakable.
You're right, of course:  not only the sampling rate but also the
point-resolution (i.e., bit-width) matters ...just as it does for --
dare I say it? -- digital film.
An analog to digital conversion (ADC) has several sources of errors.
Quantization error and (assuming the ADC is intended to be linear)
non-linearity are intrinsic to any analog-to-digital conversion. There
is also a so-called aperture error which is due to a clock jitter and
is revealed when digitizing a time-variant signal (not a constant
value).
These errors are measured in a unit called the least significant bit
(LSB). In the above example of an eight-bit ADC, an error of one LSB
is 1/256 of the full signal range, or about 0.4%.
I was addressing the theoretical limits of analog (which has them) vs.
digital (which doesn't). E.g., though I don't fully understand the
errors you refer to, I'd assume that they'd be negligible and then
some in a 256-bit ADC...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-19 15:23:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:34:02 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:39:49 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
Post by Nil
Post by moviePig
An analog recording is necessarily a mechanical transcription
...and thus will always introduce introduce a distortion unique to
the particular physical medium and mechanics. Whereas, any
distortion introduced by a digital recording corresponds only to
its sampling rate ...and, importantly, as that rate approaches
infinity, the associated distortion approaches zero.
So, for example, recording directly onto vinyl may produce a
playback tonality that's difficult to emulate. But a sufficiently
aggressive digital recording of *that very playback* will sound
identical to it, even to the RCA Victor dog.
Thanks for the good explanation. I was going to try to say something
similar.
I've done my own non-laboratory-quality tests, where I've digitally
recorded an old LP in as flat a manner as possible, then had someone
present them to me as a blind A/B test. I couldn't tell them apart. I'm
convinced that if the recording were made with very high-quality D/A
converters, nobody could tell the difference.
Commercial CD versions of old material don't count, as they have
inevitably been futzed with (remastered.)
I CAN tell the difference between sound recorded at CD quality (16-bit)
and better (24-bit and higher) when it's loudly amplified, where a
slight zipper-y and/or grainy quality can be heard when the sound gets
quiet. It wasn't that obvious until it was pointed out to me, but now
it's unmistakable.
You're right, of course:  not only the sampling rate but also the
point-resolution (i.e., bit-width) matters ...just as it does for --
dare I say it? -- digital film.
An analog to digital conversion (ADC) has several sources of errors.
Quantization error and (assuming the ADC is intended to be linear)
non-linearity are intrinsic to any analog-to-digital conversion. There
is also a so-called aperture error which is due to a clock jitter and
is revealed when digitizing a time-variant signal (not a constant
value).
These errors are measured in a unit called the least significant bit
(LSB). In the above example of an eight-bit ADC, an error of one LSB
is 1/256 of the full signal range, or about 0.4%.
I was addressing the theoretical limits of analog (which has them) vs.
digital (which doesn't). E.g., though I don't fully understand the
errors you refer to, I'd assume that they'd be negligible and then
some in a 256-bit ADC...
I guess I was addressing your remark that a digital recording of an
analog recording will sound identical to the original.

I don't know if the errors mentioned would alter the playback. I
posted the remark (from Wiki) to say that there are errors in analog
to digital conversion. Nothing is perfect.

Whether those errors are discernable to the ear (average or trained)
remains unknown as far as I know.
--
Stone me
2012-08-19 13:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by notbob
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
difference. It's a religious position born on irrational belief, and you
can't argue crazy.
Many CDs that were remastered from analog media (like Beatles albums)
have even less dynamics than the original LP.
Badly mastered CDs certainly exist. As do badly mastered LPs, 8-tracks,
and any other format going back to Edison cylinders. However, there are
people who wrongly claim that they can always tell the difference
between a CD (or any digital source) and an analog source because
digital is inherently inferior (or at least different). This is not
true, is not borne out by any of the many tests that have been done.
Post by notbob
You read what the man said. Of course it couldn't possibly appy to
him.
Ah, so you're one of those "This is what I know is true and your damn
science can't change my mind" people. Fine. Your belief is irrational,
untrue, and contradicted by reality, but you go on believing it. You
might as well believe in astrology, unicorns, and a really good fat-free
mayonaise while you're at it.
If we consider how it is that cds have replaced the vinyl LPs, then it was
not so much that the frequency range or the tightness of the recording, it
was for the extra capacity, and above all it's much longer life.
I found that LPs had almost no play life before the pops and crackles
started.
As explained elsewhere, the resolution Can be made to equal Vinyl quality.
The ultimate goal is to defeat the ear. I suppose the crux of the debate is
whether
that goal has been obtained by the current cd standards.

Stone me.
mikeos
2012-08-19 18:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by notbob
Post by Lewis
In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
I don't believe that for one second,
Yes, most audiophile don't believe it, and they continue to not believe
it even after it's been proven to them by their failure to discern a
difference. It's a religious position born on irrational belief, and you
can't argue crazy. But it's still true.
Cite?
Howard Brazee
2012-08-18 14:39:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 06:13:38 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by hislop
Don't start that again about audio, of course you can tell the
difference and people who can't have no say.
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.
I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a draft or
bottled ale either. But since I *think* I like draft better, I
enjoy it more.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
hislop
2012-08-19 11:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this. No one has ever done statistically better
than chance. It's much like the many tests of speaker wire (lamp cord,
wire hangers, and very expensive 'audiophile' cables are perform exactly
as well)
Don't start that again about audio, of course you can tell the
difference and people who can't have no say.
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.
TDK offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could got 10 for 10 on a
double-blind of digital versus audio. No one claimed the prize.
If you can't do it for $1,000,000, you can't do it.
In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
Why promote this?
It depends on decent analog equipment, CDs lack depth in the sound, mp3s
lack more depth but can half more of a warm 'feel' from the processing.
Vinyl can sound extra bassy and scratchy.
The test was probably loaded as much as possible to deceive as well.
I can certainly tell the difference, and people have no right to promote
inferior audio CDs as being the same as 24bit DVD-Audio or SACD.
It depends on the type of music, very thin, like a simple acoustic
performance is more difficult than music with a lot of substance, and
that is because a lot of detail is not necessary to sound good.
And it's also a listening experience thing, not just a quick listen,
over a long length of time on an ordinary sound system 24 bit audio is
more satisfying to listen to than 16 bit typical CD.
Post by Lewis
Post by hislop
We can't all watch movies in the cinema. The clean bluray look is great
at home, but a stretch for a cinema.
My home screen is 10', so 1080p video is pretty much required for
anything to not be blurry and unwatchable crap, but it's not like the
picture at a first run movie (although I prefer it to the dim ancient
projector lamps at the 'bargin' theatres). I'm not sure how they manage
it, but they never seem to have new bulbs. Perhaps they buy the old ones
off the better theatres after their end-of-life?
Lewis
2012-08-19 22:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this. No one has ever done statistically better
than chance. It's much like the many tests of speaker wire (lamp cord,
wire hangers, and very expensive 'audiophile' cables are perform exactly
as well)
Don't start that again about audio, of course you can tell the
difference and people who can't have no say.
Every single double blind test done has proved that you *cannot* hear
the difference, no matter how much you think you can, the science proves
you can't.
TDK offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could got 10 for 10 on a
double-blind of digital versus audio. No one claimed the prize.
If you can't do it for $1,000,000, you can't do it.
In fact, you can't tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a
CD, or vinyl.
Why promote this?
It depends on decent analog equipment, CDs lack depth in the sound, mp3s
lack more depth but can half more of a warm 'feel' from the processing.
Vinyl can sound extra bassy and scratchy.
The test was probably loaded as much as possible to deceive as well.
Many tests have been done. Many test have been done with audiodweeb equipment specifically tuned to audiodweeb specifications and they STILL can't tell the difference. People who go on and on about the different qualities of analog versus digital as simply gasbag spouting beliefs that have *no* basis in fact or verifiable, repeatable, science.
Post by hislop
I can certainly tell the difference, and people have no right to promote
inferior audio CDs as being the same as 24bit DVD-Audio or SACD.
Inferior transfers are inferior transfers, regardless of the target media. The point is that the actual media is indistinguishable given the same quality of transfer. Lots of people *think* they can hear the difference between a digital source and an analog source, but every single test proves they cannot.
Post by hislop
It depends on the type of music, very thin, like a simple acoustic
performance is more difficult than music with a lot of substance, and
that is because a lot of detail is not necessary to sound good.
No, the type of music does not make the slightest difference.
Post by hislop
And it's also a listening experience thing, not just a quick listen,
over a long length of time on an ordinary sound system 24 bit audio is
more satisfying to listen to than 16 bit typical CD.
Again, science says you are wrong.

192kHz is actually inferior, and 24bit does nothing but increase file
size.

<http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html>

"192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral
either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a
liability during playback."

And also:

"It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire
theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions. Also,
there are (and always will be) reasons to use more than 16 bits in
recording and production.

"None of that is relevant to playback; here 24 bit audio is as useless as
192kHz sampling. The good news is that at least 24 bit depth doesn't
harm fidelity. It just doesn't help, and also wastes space."

And:

"Empirical evidence from listening tests backs up the assertion that
44.1kHz/16 bit provides highest-possible fidelity playback. There are
numerous controlled tests confirming this, but I'll plug a recent paper,
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution
Audio Playback, done by local folks here at the Boston Audio Society."

Feel free to prove them wrong, but you have to do it with actual science
and not just talking out of your ass about how much better your vinyl
disc is than a MP3/V0 when you cannot in point of fact tell the
difference.

MP3/V0 or AAC-256 are indistinguishable from any other source. They are,
as far as your ears are concerned, perfect copies. Any difference you
think you can hear is based on belief and not on reality.
--
'Witches just aren't like that,' said Magrat. 'We live in harmony with
the great cycles of Nature, and do no harm to anyone, and it's wicked of
them to say we don't. We ought to fill their bones with hot lead.'
mikeos
2012-08-19 18:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this.
Cite?
Lewis
2012-08-19 22:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this.
Cite?
<http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm>

<http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195>

This one isn't really a scientific test, but the result that 160bit
encoding were indistinguishable from uncompressed were clear.

<http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off>

And for lots of reading:

<http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/>
--
It would be a pretty good bet that the gods of a world like this
probably do not play chess and indeed this is the case. In fact no gods
anywhere play chess. They haven't got the imagination. Gods prefer
simple, vicious games, where you Do Not Achieve Transcendence but Go
Straight To Oblivion; a key to the understanding of all religions is
that a god's idea of amusement is Snakes and Ladders with greased rungs.
mikeos
2012-08-20 08:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this.
Cite?
<http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm>
<http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195>
This one isn't really a scientific test, but the result that 160bit
encoding were indistinguishable from uncompressed were clear.
<http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off>
<http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/>
Thank you.
notbob
2012-08-20 14:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
<http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/>
I find it extremely suspect there is NO wikipedia site for this
seemingly huge org.

nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
hislop
2012-08-22 03:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this.
Cite?
<http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm>
<http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195>
This one isn't really a scientific test, but the result that 160bit
encoding were indistinguishable from uncompressed were clear.
<http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off>
<http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/>
I prefer to listen.
I did my own listening tests with the different versions of the lame mp3
encoder a while ago, I could certainly tell the difference in sound
between them.
Daryl
2012-08-22 10:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by hislop
Post by Lewis
Post by Lewis
You cannot (despite some audiophiles' insistence) hear the
difference
between a well-mastered CD and an record. There have been many
double-blind tests of this.
Cite?
<http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm>
<http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195>
This one isn't really a scientific test, but the result that
160bit
encoding were indistinguishable from uncompressed were clear.
<http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off>
<http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/>
I prefer to listen.
I did my own listening tests with the different versions of the
lame mp3 encoder a while ago, I could certainly tell the
difference in sound between them.
may years ago, BI (before internet), One of the major electronic
mags tried to run a test on the Crown D-600 Amp. The problem
was, their test equipment was made in Japan and the Crown was
made in the US. They registered nothing at all on all test for
flaws. All they could put on the results was "Negligible". The
amp was of better quality than the test equipment. The D-600 was
pretty famous in the Professional Outdoor Concert Series since it
put out an honest 600 watts (measured over an 8 hour period). It
peaked into the thousands.

Now, you have to understand, home stuff is rated at a 2 hours
interval. This means the Pro Stuff is many times more powerful
even if rated at the same apparent rating. What kills an amp is
heat and the D-600 had a huge finned heat Heat Sink on the back.

Are things better today than yesterday? Maybe, maybe not.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
notbob
2012-08-22 13:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Are things better today than yesterday? Maybe, maybe not.
IMO, yes.

I once owned a JBL Metragon spkr system running out of a McIntosh tube
amp. I've yet to hear ANY solid state system the even comes close.
Don't even get me started about analog (vinyl) vs. digital
(CD/mp3/etc).

nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
notbob
2012-08-22 14:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
Post by Daryl
Are things better today than yesterday? Maybe, maybe not.
IMO, yes.
....er... I meant, no.
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
Daryl
2012-08-22 14:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
Post by notbob
Post by Daryl
Are things better today than yesterday? Maybe, maybe not.
IMO, yes.
....er... I meant, no.
I know you did. Macs were infamous for home sound systems.
Great systems. Just like the old Crown DC300 series were. But
you Mac was prettier. The DC300 Crown came in one face color,
black. The C600 came in only one color, diariha Yellow. While
the Mac was the equiv of the DC300 in all ways but prettier.
Nothing has ever equaled the D600 and probably never will.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Daryl
2012-08-22 14:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
Post by Daryl
Are things better today than yesterday? Maybe, maybe not.
IMO, yes.
I once owned a JBL Metragon spkr system running out of a McIntosh tube
amp. I've yet to hear ANY solid state system the even comes close.
Don't even get me started about analog (vinyl) vs. digital
(CD/mp3/etc).
nb
I used a Fender Bassman 135 6 tuber playing through a JBL E
series cabinet. Nothing they make today equaled that combination
for a Bass system. Never did turn it up above 6 even in an
outdoor concert. The 6 tuber was a very short run built from the
same basic parts as the 6 tuber Fender Twin that is still a
legend even today.

At that time, JBL was US made and with a 26lb magnet (not 26
ounces like most others, 26 lbs) it dissipated heat through a
massive heat sink. I don't think they make anything like it
anymore. I can't find the E series 15 in I had in that cabinet.
The Caberat Speakers that is made today are inferior. But, then
again, in 1978 it was the best pro speaker ever made before, then
and now. Guess we settled for overseas junk on that one.

No, we didn't get better. The US made the best until they moved
it all overseas and started making cheap copies of the real deal.

If you powered your Mac with those speakers as hard as I did that
bass rig, it might last 1 evening.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
notbob
2012-08-22 16:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
At that time, JBL was US made and with a 26lb magnet (not 26
ounces like most others, 26 lbs) it dissipated heat through a
massive heat sink. I don't think they make anything like it
anymore.
Not likely. This metragon system was made in '64. Had 2 15" spkrs
and two massive cast iron tweeters. System was originally run thru a
Fisher 400 tube amp and in the end, a huge Sansui 4 channel SS amp.
That Sansui did an admirable job, right up to it's final end, driving a
couple outdoor spkrs in my daughters vinyl centric system. In about
'94 (?), hadda send one JBL tweeter back to company (now owned by H-K) for
a $250 mod. They wouldn't honor the lifetime warantee.

Anyway, hadda sell the spkrs and gave all my vinyl to my daughter when
I moved to CO to care for my aging mom. Regardless, I've been
listening to quality hifi systems since the early 50s and can safely
say, today's entire technology/industry is total crap. I don't even
care anymore. I sadly listen to shitty music thru shitty sound system
originating from shitty online sources. It's a cryin' shame. :(


nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-22 16:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
Post by Daryl
At that time, JBL was US made and with a 26lb magnet (not 26
ounces like most others, 26 lbs) it dissipated heat through a
massive heat sink. I don't think they make anything like it
anymore.
Not likely. This metragon system was made in '64. Had 2 15" spkrs
and two massive cast iron tweeters. System was originally run thru a
Fisher 400 tube amp and in the end, a huge Sansui 4 channel SS amp.
That Sansui did an admirable job, right up to it's final end, driving a
couple outdoor spkrs in my daughters vinyl centric system. In about
'94 (?), hadda send one JBL tweeter back to company (now owned by H-K) for
a $250 mod. They wouldn't honor the lifetime warantee.
Anyway, hadda sell the spkrs and gave all my vinyl to my daughter when
I moved to CO to care for my aging mom. Regardless, I've been
listening to quality hifi systems since the early 50s and can safely
say, today's entire technology/industry is total crap. I don't even
care anymore. I sadly listen to shitty music thru shitty sound system
originating from shitty online sources. It's a cryin' shame. :(
I came back from Vietnam in 1969 with a pair of Wharfedale 70
speakers, a TEAC 450 reel-to-reel tape deck and a Pioneer 990
amplifier. System sounded great.

Eventually hooked up a cassette player and turntable.
--
Lewis
2012-08-22 17:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
Post by Daryl
Are things better today than yesterday? Maybe, maybe not.
IMO, yes.
I once owned a JBL Metragon spkr system running out of a McIntosh tube
amp. I've yet to hear ANY solid state system the even comes close.
Don't even get me started about analog (vinyl) vs. digital
(CD/mp3/etc).
"Don'y you go telling me about your new-fangled science! I knows what I
hears, and no amount of proof can sway my beliefs. Damnit, they's *MINE*."

Someday you might take your fingers out of your ears.
--
If I were you boys, I wouldn't talk or even think about women. 'T'ain't
good for your health.
notbob
2012-08-22 19:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Someday you might take your fingers out of your ears.
Someday you might take your head out of your ass.

nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
Howard Brazee
2012-08-18 01:03:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:26:43 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Howard Brazee
Me too. It was the first time that I had seen it since its first
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist). Shortly after I bought
the laser disk. I need to get blu-ray, as that is a movie that I
want to see all of its resolution.
Blu-Ray is not going to give you anything close to "all its resolution."
In fact, most movie theaters can't do that as the movie was shot in 70mm.
Blu-Ray doesn't come anywhere near showing you the full detail of the
film.
I was lucky enough to see it in 70mm and it is *stunning*.
So was I, but I can't do that whenever I want, so I want the best
thing available, which for me, is blu-ray.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
hislop
2012-08-17 14:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by hislop
I remember years ago, can't recall exactly maybe 20 years ago, sitting
in one of the largest cinemas in Melbourne that was full, watching the
restored Lawrence of Arabia. Whatever some might say about the movie,
you could tell from the feel of the place that many felt they had seen
real cinema.
Not sure what could be more restored now, but that was the largest
cinema screen I know of at the time I saw it on.
Me too. It was the first time that I had seen it since its first
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist). Shortly after I bought
the laser disk. I need to get blu-ray, as that is a movie that I
want to see all of its resolution.
I looked it up on wikipedia after I posted. The bluray comes out in
November. They found finger print marks on the film because of handling
in the desert, that they had to remove.

As much as I like widescreen tv, I do get a bit tired of so much letter
boxing, almost anything is in 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 nowadays, it seemed as if
it was going out of style in the 90s. I wish the zoom control on TVs or
players was at all useful.
notbob
2012-08-17 20:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist).
This is something I see in waaaay too many movies. Nothing as simple
as a reversed arm, etc, but the most blatantly obvious, a flag waving
towards the pole or flames leaping towards the fuel. It's so boringly
common, I often wonder if there might be some reason it's being done
on purpose.

nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
Bill Anderson
2012-08-17 21:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
Post by Howard Brazee
release. I remember that the restoration discovered some flipped
negatives (with a watch on the wrong wrist).
This is something I see in waaaay too many movies. Nothing as simple
as a reversed arm, etc, but the most blatantly obvious, a flag waving
towards the pole or flames leaping towards the fuel. It's so boringly
common, I often wonder if there might be some reason it's being done
on purpose.
The final shot in the film TIME BANDITS is a wide crane shot that pulls
up and away from the kid's home, which has been partially destroyed by
previous events. As camera rises it's easy to see that the smoke from
the burning apartment building is actually pouring into the building --
spooky, right? It must mean something temporal is still out of whack in
this story, right?

Well, no. From listening to the commentary on the LaserDisc I learned
that the hydraulic crane was incapable of raising the camera smoothly.
So what to do? The solution was to start filming with the crane at its
highest point and then allow it to fall slowly and gently toward the
fire -- and then run the film backwards.

So in at least this one instance there was a reason.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
notbob
2012-08-17 22:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
highest point and then allow it to fall slowly and gently toward the
fire -- and then run the film backwards.
So in at least this one instance there was a reason.
Makes sense. I'll think of that next time I see this phenom. Thnx.

nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
Blue
2012-08-18 03:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by cinemediapromo
SILVA SCREEN RECORDS PRESENTS
50TH ANNIVERSARY WORLD PREMIERE RELEASE
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
A Special 50th Anniversary Release of the Complete Newly - recorded Oscar-winning score from the DAVID LEAN classic with music by MAURICE JARRE
Widely considered one of the most influential films in film history this album features, for the first time, the complete 77-Minute Score performed by the acclaimed and award-winning City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Nic Raine. The album was recorded from the original 1962 orchestrations by Gerard Schurmann.
“His [Jarre’s] rich thematic material for LAWRENCE included both “Western” and “Eastern” melodic ideas, and his sweeping theme for the desert proved highly memorable (exceeded only by “Lara’s Theme” from DR. ZHIVAGO a few years later). His handling of those ideas was dramatically apt, and he proved fully up to the challenge of the many moments in the film when music alone (or, rather, music in partnership with the breathtaking cinematography) needed to carry the full emotional weight of a scene.”
1. Overture (4:23)
2. Main Titles (1:56)
3. First Entrance to the Desert
(4:25)
4. Night and Stars / Lawrence
and Tafas (5:43)
5. Lawrence Rides Alone /
Exodus (3:13)
6. We Need a Miracle (2:40)
7. In Whose Name Do You Ride?/
That is the Desert (The Camels
Will Die) (5:10)
8. Mirage / The Sun’s Anvil (5:19)
9. Gasim Lost in the Desert (3:29)
10. Lawrence Rescues Gasim /
Lawrence Returns with Gasim /
The Riding (6:37)
11. Arrival at Auda’s Camp (2:00)
12. Bedouin Feast /On to Akaba /
Attack on Akaba / Lawrence at
the Sea Shore (6:37)
13. Sinai Desert / After
Quicksands / Hutments / Suez
Canal (6:16)
14. A Brilliant Bit of Soldiering -
The Voice of the Guns
(Kenneth J. Alford) (2:05)
15. Bugle Call / Lawrence on the
Terrace / Intermission (1:34)
16. Adulation / The Horse Stampede
/ Faraj Killed (3:43)
17. Ali Rescues Lawrence / Allenby’s
Flattery (3:11)
18. Assembled Army / Lawrence and
His Bodyguard / Arab Theme (3:06)
19. Military March (1:18)
20. The End / Play-off Music (4:01)
CD & Digital Album: SIL-CD-1388
US REL. DATE: AUG 14, 2012
SILVA SCREEN RECORDS PRESENTS
50TH ANNIVERSARY WORLD PREMIERE RELEASE
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
A Special 50th Anniversary Release of the Complete Newly - recorded Oscar-winning score from the DAVID LEAN classic with music by MAURICE JARRE
Widely considered one of the most influential films in film history this album features, for the first time, the complete 77-Minute Score performed by the acclaimed and award-winning City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Nic Raine. The album was recorded from the original 1962 orchestrations by Gerard Schurmann.
“His [Jarre’s] rich thematic material for LAWRENCE included both “Western” and “Eastern” melodic ideas, and his sweeping theme for the desert proved highly memorable (exceeded only by “Lara’s Theme” from DR. ZHIVAGO a few years later). His handling of those ideas was dramatically apt, and he proved fully up to the challenge of the many moments in the film when music alone (or, rather, music in partnership with the breathtaking cinematography) needed to carry the full emotional weight of a scene.”
1. Overture (4:23)
2. Main Titles (1:56)
3. First Entrance to the Desert
(4:25)
4. Night and Stars / Lawrence
and Tafas (5:43)
5. Lawrence Rides Alone /
Exodus (3:13)
6. We Need a Miracle (2:40)
7. In Whose Name Do You Ride?/
That is the Desert (The Camels
Will Die) (5:10)
8. Mirage / The Sun’s Anvil (5:19)
9. Gasim Lost in the Desert (3:29)
10. Lawrence Rescues Gasim /
Lawrence Returns with Gasim /
The Riding (6:37)
11. Arrival at Auda’s Camp (2:00)
12. Bedouin Feast /On to Akaba /
Attack on Akaba / Lawrence at
the Sea Shore (6:37)
13. Sinai Desert / After
Quicksands / Hutments / Suez
Canal (6:16)
14. A Brilliant Bit of Soldiering -
The Voice of the Guns
(Kenneth J. Alford) (2:05)
15. Bugle Call / Lawrence on the
Terrace / Intermission (1:34)
16. Adulation / The Horse Stampede
/ Faraj Killed (3:43)
17. Ali Rescues Lawrence / Allenby’s
Flattery (3:11)
18. Assembled Army / Lawrence and
His Bodyguard / Arab Theme (3:06)
19. Military March (1:18)
20. The End / Play-off Music (4:01)
CD & Digital Album: SIL-CD-1388
US REL. DATE: AUG 14, 2012
SILVA SCREEN RECORDS PRESENTS
50TH ANNIVERSARY WORLD PREMIERE RELEASE
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
A Special 50th Anniversary Release of the Complete Newly - recorded Oscar-winning score from the DAVID LEAN classic with music by MAURICE JARRE
Widely considered one of the most influential films in film history this album features, for the first time, the complete 77-Minute Score performed by the acclaimed and award-winning City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Nic Raine. The album was recorded from the original 1962 orchestrations by Gerard Schurmann.
“His [Jarre’s] rich thematic material for LAWRENCE included both “Western” and “Eastern” melodic ideas, and his sweeping theme for the desert proved highly memorable (exceeded only by “Lara’s Theme” from DR. ZHIVAGO a few years later). His handling of those ideas was dramatically apt, and he proved fully up to the challenge of the many moments in the film when music alone (or, rather, music in partnership with the breathtaking cinematography) needed to carry the full emotional weight of a scene.”
1. Overture (4:23)
2. Main Titles (1:56)
3. First Entrance to the Desert
(4:25)
4. Night and Stars / Lawrence
and Tafas (5:43)
5. Lawrence Rides Alone /
Exodus (3:13)
6. We Need a Miracle (2:40)
7. In Whose Name Do You Ride?/
That is the Desert (The Camels
Will Die) (5:10)
8. Mirage / The Sun’s Anvil (5:19)
9. Gasim Lost in the Desert (3:29)
10. Lawrence Rescues Gasim /
Lawrence Returns with Gasim /
The Riding (6:37)
11. Arrival at Auda’s Camp (2:00)
12. Bedouin Feast /On to Akaba /
Attack on Akaba / Lawrence at
the Sea Shore (6:37)
13. Sinai Desert / After
Quicksands / Hutments / Suez
Canal (6:16)
14. A Brilliant Bit of Soldiering -
The Voice of the Guns
(Kenneth J. Alford) (2:05)
15. Bugle Call / Lawrence on the
Terrace / Intermission (1:34)
16. Adulation / The Horse Stampede
/ Faraj Killed (3:43)
17. Ali Rescues Lawrence / Allenby’s
Flattery (3:11)
18. Assembled Army / Lawrence and
His Bodyguard / Arab Theme (3:06)
19. Military March (1:18)
20. The End / Play-off Music (4:01)
CD & Digital Album: SIL-CD-1388
US REL. DATE: AUG 14, 2012
Good ol' Album, have to go look for it and play it again.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...