Jurassic Park soundtrack wave images @ HD Tracks

[Julf]

Does it really matter if it is really better or I just THINK it is better?

 

No, it really doesn't matter, unless you want to make general claims like "hi-res sounds better than CD", or want to know if it is worth spending $8000 on an "audiophile" ethernet cable...

[chriss71]

....or want to know if it is worth spending $8000 on an "audiophile" ethernet cable...

 

There is only one question: BELIEVE.... I am 20 years working with computers and one thing is for sure, a ethernet cable of 5$ sounds exactly the same as the one of 8000$. What should sound different. It's the same stream that get's transfered (the same zero's and one's).

But if one is willing to spend 8000$ on an ethenet cable, he should do it....

[thrand1]

Although it doesn't have any external links to other info sources to validate its claims, one review states the remaster was "not at the album master tape level, but from the multitrack sources." Apparently they were looking to include cues that were "missing" from the original soundtrack.

 

Not much other info I can find about the mastering process besides that though...earlier posts about the source potentially being from the DVD for example could be spot on

[jtm]

As far as I remember Jurassic Park was the first soundtrack originally recorded and mixed in DTS. At least this is what dts and Universal Studios claimed many years ago when releasing it on DVD and later on Blu-ray.

[Julf]

As far as I remember Jurassic Park was the first soundtrack originally recorded and mixed in DTS. At least this is what dts and Universal Studios claimed many years ago when releasing it on DVD and later on Blu-ray.

 

Well, seems it at least was the first movie released in DTS. There is no fixed DTS "raw" recording format - the specifications state that "The print master can be recorded on 6 track 35 mm magnetic with SR encoding, on Akai DD-8, Tascam DA-88 or on Sony PCM-3324/48 DASH format". The only ones on that list I am familiar with are the Sony format that is 16 bit 48 kHz, and the TAscam DA-88, also a 16/48 format.

 

It think it is a fairly reasonable assumption that the original material for Jurassic Park was recorded in 16/48 (especially as they were targeting a compressed format).

[vinylphile]

I suspect I'd rather listen to the version that sounds the best to me, not the version that measures best on paper. After all, that is why we invented measurements in the first place (to better reproduce or predict with confidence sound that sounds good). The goal is the sound, not the measurement itself. Often they are one and the same but not always as there are many variables that all must come together at the same time. Does it really matter if it is really better or I just THINK it is better? I was just reading that somebody really likes the NIN remaster of PHM...but I happen to think it is overly compressed and like the original release better. Who is right? Both of us! Of course, this is just my opinion for me...

 

Best,

John

 

Wow...actually listen to decide? Listen to an audio system to determine sound quality?

 

Don't expect such a controversial suggestion to be taken lightly in these parts!

 

[Julf]

Wow...actually listen to decide? Listen to an audio system to determine sound quality?

 

The only way you can decide if *you* like a record or not is by listening. To decide if it really is a high-resolution recording or not, clearly less so.

[vinylphile]

The only way you can decide if *you* like a record or not is by listening.

 

Yes...and I do think that this sometimes gets lost in the technobabble...

[Julf]

Yes...and I do think that this sometimes gets lost in the technobabble...

 

And unfortunately sometimes perfectly reasonable technical terms sound like technobabble unless you understand them. It is equally unfortunate that people often confuse enjoyment (an emotional reaction) of music (and art form) with the technology used to reproduce sound - a well-understood field of engineering (a form of applied science). Trying to use vocabulary and concepts of the former to discuss the latter often results in true technobabble in the traditional meaning of the word - use of obscure jargon to dishonestly give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection and obfuscation. Quantum purifiers, anyone?

[vinylphile]

And unfortunately sometimes perfectly reasonable technical terms sound like technobabble unless you understand them. It is equally unfortunate that people often confuse enjoyment (an emotional reaction) of music (and art form) with the technology used to reproduce sound - a well-understood field of engineering (a form of applied science). Trying to use vocabulary and concepts of the former to discuss the latter often results in true technobabble in the traditional meaning of the word - use of obscure jargon to dishonestly give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection and obfuscation. Quantum purifiers, anyone?

 

Just important to remember that all of the "science" is a means to an end, not the end itself.

[Julf]

Just important to remember that all of the "science" is a means to an end, not the end itself.

 

Don't know about "science", but science *is* an end in itself. Not that it really has any relevance to this discussion.

 

To try to get back to the discussion at hand - let's say that engineering and other forms of applied science tells you that the "hi-res" recording you were enjoying actually isn't "hi-res". What do you think is the appropriate reaction? A) "hmm, interesting, wonder what other reasons there could be for why it sounds better to me", or B) "it still sounds better to me, so all you are giving me is technobabble".

[vinylphile]

Don't know about "science", but science *is* an end in itself. Not that it really has any relevance to this discussion.

 

To try to get back to the discussion at hand - let's say that engineering and other forms of applied science tells you that the "hi-res" recording you were enjoying actually isn't "hi-res". What do you think is the appropriate reaction? A) "hmm, interesting, wonder what other reasons there could be for why it sounds better to me", or B) "it still sounds better to me, so all you are giving me is technobabble".

 

A

 

I think it is important to find out why "high res" doesn't always sound good - after all the whole reason we study science is to attempt to explain observed phenomena. However, the observation has to come first. If high res did always sound better the whole discussion would be meaningless.

 

There always has to be an explanation for an observed phenomenon. Doesn't mean that all existing explanations are correct and complete or that we should stop deriving new theories that might be more accurate in describing the observations.

 

In other words...don't forget to listen! The numbers may or may not paint the whole picture.

[Julf]

I think it is important to find out why "high res" doesn't always sound good - after all the whole reason we study science is to attempt to explain observed phenomena. However, the observation has to come first.

 

Sure. But what if the observation isn't "there are situations where hi-res doesn't sound good", but "there are cases where a claimed "hi-res" recording actually wasn't hi-res, but some listeners still claimed it sounded better than the equivalent standard resolution recording"?

 

There always has to be an explanation for an observed phenomenon.

 

Some times the observation might be about psychoacoustic mechanisms rather than directly observable physical differences.

 

In other words...don't forget to listen! The numbers may or may not paint the whole picture.

 

Just ensure that you listen with your ears only - otherwise the picture painted is tinted...

[vinylphile]

But what if the observation isn't "there are situations where hi-res doesn't sound good", but "there are cases where a claimed "hi-res" recording actually wasn't hi-res, but some listeners still claimed it sounded better than the equivalent standard resolution recording"?

 

The possibilities as I see it:

 

(a) listeners are "hearing things"

 

(b) there is some other reason why the high res sounds better

 

© the assertion of "not actually hi-res" is not completely accurate

 

I'm sure you think it is (a) pretty much all the time?

[Julf]

(a) listeners are "hearing things"

 

I would maybe state that alternative as "the listening experience is being affected by listener expectations".

 

I'm sure you think it is (a) pretty much all the time?

 

I didn't use to, but I do keep seeing more and more evidence that makes me think "a" is indeed the most likely explanation. From the way you phrase it, I assume you don't agree. Am I wrong?

[Julf]

(b) there is some other reason why the high res sounds better

 

This is of course often the case - different mastering, processing, gain...

 

There is also the possibility of different DACs being better at reproducing/processing different sample rates and resolutions that have nothing to do with the inherent characteristics of the format - an upsampled version of a red book file might sound better simply because of the upsampling.

 

© the assertion of "not actually hi-res" is not completely accurate

 

We have seen (here on CA) a number of cases where the material has been zero-padded from 16 bit to 24, and other cases where the spectrum shows a very clear brickwall filter at 22 kHz, so in those cases the "not actually hi-res" description is accurate.

 

In the case of the Jurassic Park soundtrack, it's a slightly more complex situation, but if the source material has originally been recorded in 16/48, no subsequent processing can add the information that was never recorded - nothing will magically increase the resolution of the material. On the other hand, as the material was processed for DTS, there was probably a fair bit of perceptual trickery applied to achieve the desired final result.

[Leroy Bad]

I asked HDTracks about the recording of Jurassic Park, and they it's analogue not digital. The movie soundtrack may have been converted to DTS, but the original elements are analogue.

[Julf]

I asked HDTracks about the recording of Jurassic Park, and they it's analogue not digital. The movie soundtrack may have been converted to DTS, but the original elements are analogue.

 

I think you are right - I found an interview with Gary Rydstrom who did the sound effects, and he states that it was mixed in analog because that is all they had at the time. Seems it was recorded in both digital and analog (to provide a backup for non-DTS-capable cinemas).

[Leroy Bad]

I fear that some of the confusion may lie with the fact that I don't know how select the appropriate music and configurations in Audacity to get the best messurements.

[Leroy Bad]

Here is another Frequency chart of the same track. I think a problem in the first pic is that I didn't have the resolution size set high enough, it was 1024. Here it is again at 16384. Now the roll off goes beyond -96dB to -114dB. If this is what was causing the confusion I apologize.

 

 

[rockoqatsi]

Hiyall,

 

This is my first post on Computer Audiophile, so I'd just like to introduce myself quickly before I reply to the OP. From the moment I got wind of there being a 192/24 release of this soundtrack, I knew I just had to have it. In scouring the internet for reviews, this thread came up, and everyone's comments and opinions gave me something to think about... but that was no substitute for actually hearing it. This was the first soundtrack I ever bought as well (I was seven years old back then), and I do have the original CD on hand, but I'm too lazy to analyze waveforms and would just rather post some concise observations on how they sound, after having listened to them back to back.

 

I was happy to find that the strings and brass sound a lot more full-bodied and powerful in the remaster, compared to the original which I always thought sounded a wee-bit tinny (even compared to other orchestral recordings.) The added headroom in the high and low registers gave low-level details an added tastiness, and as the OP mentioned earlier, the soundstage is more impressive this time round. As far as my system and ears can detect, those improvements are immediately apparent.

 

My overall impression however is that this remaster suffers from what all popular remasters suffer from: make it louder, make it warmer, make it iPod-friendly. I noticed the bass and midbass had been given a noticeable bump, first from the bass strings in Track 2 (Theme from Jurassic Park) which loaded my listening room in a way the CD hadn't, and which became increasingly annoying as the album went on. (Proper room treatments might have abated this, but I have hundreds of other albums—some of them hi-res—on which this isn't a problem.) On CD, "Journey To The Island" starts off light and then majestically blooms as the fanfare starts. The remaster has the volume turned up on the quiet bits so this effect isn't quite the same, but the orchestral peaks sound unrestricted, nevertheless.

 

So the dynamic compression didn't harm the peaks, that's good. And if your system is wanting for power, the added warmth and loudness will suit it fine. And there's more detail. But for my system and I, at the moment, my old CD is a more pleasing listen. It may be because I am so intimately familiar with the soundtrack, having listened to it for the past twenty years, but the mastering tricks on the anniversary edition drew my attention to them all the time, and for the most part didn't improve my enjoyment of the music. Unfortunately the business paradigm of mastering is largely in favor of drastic changes, even if there was nothing wrong with the original product. How is the casual listener to judge if something is worth purchasing if it's not louder with more boom?

 

If the OP is interested posting his thoughts on the album, I'm sure he's had time to listen and reflect...

[Leroy Bad]

Yeah I've grown not to really like this release...I think the original CD sounds better. The compression does remove some of the excitement in certain moments as you mentioned, and there is actually less bass than the original in some opinions. For example compare the bass drums in Incident at Isla Nubla.

On another forum, while comparing the sound from the drums in the opening track it was discovered that the new version is at a different pitch than the original, because it plays slightly faster than the original. The original to me just sounds more natural, and sounds great as it is.

[davide256]

Old topic revisited. This isn't a great recording compared to the quality of other soundtrack recordings I own. A lot of louder passages sound "blenderized" for instruments,

hard to sort out the mix. While the higher res recording (96/24 in my case) has larger dynamic range, the CD rate version sounds more correct for harmonic overtone structure.