I never was very happy with my Deluxe Edition of King Kong I did more than two years ago. In an attempt the reduce the "droning", I diminished deep bass... in fact, I overcompensated, leaving the result to sound a bit hollow. But the worst thing was that I used completely automated, dynamic compression alongside automated faders (with which you�re able to retain complete control over dynamics). The automated compression created artifacts such as "pumping" and instable, opaque staging. When starting to work on it again last week, I also discovered that I didn�t fully match the recording sessions tracks to their counterpart on the OST. For one, the OST uses additional reverb on some (but not all) tracks. Secondly, the stage of the music on the OST was different - yet they didn�t use a different mix. It took me quite a while to find out how to mimic the stage of the OST. Apart from this, I repeated much of the mastering I had done for the first version. Though this time I did everything manually, gaining much more control over the end result. I also attempted to infuse the sound with a character I can best describe as "charming". This time, I also used as much of the sessions as possible. But the last tracks still consists of the last two OST-tracks. I also used the OST on two or three tracks inbetween, using snippets of it here and there. While working on it I noticed that I sometimes used the wrong versions. "Beautiful" for example was in my opinion a mixture of one of the alternate session tracks and the OST track. One example was in the wrong order ("Gorilla on the loose") - all of this is now corrected.

Special care was taken to refine the transitions from track to track. As you probably know, Codyap09 has done his own version of King Kong and it contains in some cases way superior crossfades than my old set. For my new set, I repeated some of his crossfades. But I went further than that: on the new set roughly 80% of all tracks now crossfade into each other. In some cases it sounds unusual... but I did it to improve flow even further. The result is - to my ears - a tight musical narrative that might be a bit too taxing after a while, simply because of the sheer amount of complex music. If I succeeded or not... well, you be the judge. I for one am happy with this latest version of King Kong. To get it any further, it now would need a remix or a better engineer.

The cover is not so different from the old one. Though I still corrected design issues (and updated the tracklist of course). I think it�s better this way.

Things that haven�t changed: the Steiner-material is still absent, the alternates are gone too (but I have to admit that I initially wanted to keep some of them... they were more different than I remember).

So as usual: have fun! :)


Hi Guys, I�m back! For the time being that is... Today I present to you my Deluxe Edition of "King Kong" by James Newton Howard from 2005. For this set consisting of two discs I used the lossless Recording Sessions and my official CD. As always, my main goal was to present a score as wonderful as this one as a cohesive listening experience and in order to achieve that I did the following:


deleting the numerous so called 'alternates'; they weren�t alternates at all, only different takes with slightly different orchestration
deleting the Max Steiner material - it�s stupid to include it anyway on a score by james newton howard, don�t you think?
combining several tracks into just one for better 'flow'
averaging out extreme differences in gain level - some parts on the sessions were way too low while other parts were much too loud
matching the overall frequency response of all tracks so that they sound the same
taking the last tracks from the official CD - it makes no sense to include them as they appeared on the sessions with the missing boy soprano


Everything was done using the best signal processors available with a keen knowledge of how an orchestra is supposed to sound, how the dynamic should be etc. Needless to say that I 'remastered' it - but don�t expect an iPod-ready sound with too much bass and treble to compensate for the horrible headphones Apple provides. It will sound perfect anywhere else though. If you don�t know what I�m talking about don�t bother asking and don�t download this set. If you download it you�ll get a nice cover with two CDs full of wonderful music in dynamic, impressive, balanced, warm and spectacular sound quality.

Is it complete? Yes!
Is it for completists? Probably not!
Will it play like an officially expanded version? Yes!
Does it sound well? In my opinion it sounds better than the official version.
Will I provide mp3? No, never! So don�t ask and create them yourself. If you don�t know how, ask google.


http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/HX55AMN3/BeautyBeast2014.part1.rar_links
http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/GWOXYWVQ/BeautyBeast2014.part2.rar_links
http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/8DNMARBN/BeautyBeast2014.part3.rar_links
http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/AV0ITMJD/BeautyBeast2014.part4.rar_links


Password: KongIsStillKingIn2014!

This looks fantastic! Thank you for the effort that have put into this. I can't wait to give it a listen.

This looks fantastic! Thank you for the effort that have put into this. I can't wait to give it a listen.

Thank you very much! It indeed was A LOT of work - but it was worth it, I�m very happy with it (this seldomly happens).

Thanks! Hope this is the definitive edition. Here's the score sheets:

King Kong Complete Sheets 1.rar (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?b79fzf6ny9i93x5)

King Kong Complete Sheets 2.rar (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?r2v7ic2ud7u6df3)

Thanks! Hope this is the definitive edition. Here's the score sheets:

King Kong Complete Sheets 1.rar (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?b79fzf6ny9i93x5)

King Kong Complete Sheets 2.rar (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?r2v7ic2ud7u6df3)

Well, I haven�t looked at the sheets - but I watched the movie. In my opinion my version IS the definitive edition - until an official version will be released of course (which would be bought immediately).

Disc#1 Track#4 Defeat Is Always Momentarily?

Momentary I think might be the correct answer.

Can you give this in mp3 320...????

**ducks** :awsm:

Disc#1 Track#4 Defeat Is Always Momentarily?

Momentary I think might be the correct answer.

True... gosh, sorry for that.

---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ----------


Can you give this in mp3 320...????

**ducks** :awsm:

I will kill your mother, your father, your brothers, your sisters, your children... :D

yeah 320 if poss thanks

Deutsche Grammophon called they want their logo back.

Dude, read the original post. He clearly states that he will NOT post mp3. You have to dl this and convert it yourself. It is not hard, there are numerous free programs that will do the job just fine.

**read the post**

Nice job brother, I am liking what I 'm hearing.

I may upload a VBR-0 version to feed the wolves if it's okay with you.

yeah 320 if poss thanks

If people continue to ask this because they obviously have not read the original post then I�m going to delete the files. Too dramatic? Perhaps. But I�m dead serious.

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------


Deutsche Grammophon called they want their logo back.

No way :D

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------


Dude, read the original post. He clearly states that he will NOT post mp3. You have to dl this and convert it yourself. It is not hard, there are numerous free programs that will do the job just fine.

**read the post**

Thank you.

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------


Nice job brother, I am liking what I 'm hearing.

I may upload a VBR-0 version to feed the wolves if it's okay with you.

Yes, of course it�s ok. Thank you very much in advance for doing so.

this score of JNH is a personal favorite of mine, and reading from what you did for this one sounds really enticing to me. i will definitely take a big bite out of this, thanks a "king kong" bunch!! :D

Awesome dude! So just to be clear, how did you know which alternate takes to not include? I'm assuming you chose the versions used in the film, yes?

Great to have you back Sonic! Thanks for the share...

Is there a track list for this by chance? I know you say it's complete but the film uses a few cues not on the album or the sessions... how did you present them?

Awesome dude! So just to be clear, how did you know which alternate takes to not include? I'm assuming you chose the versions used in the film, yes?

They weren�t really "alternates" - they were only different takes where maybe the orchestration had been changed. But the composition itself remained unchanged. For example: the track "Defeat is only momentary" has a jazzy outro. The outro used in the movie is the same as the one on the official CD. Not one of the so-called "alternates" for this piece have been used in the movie - at least not to my knowledge. EDIT: before I forget... sometimes I deviated from the tracks used in the movie. On some tracks from the sessions for example things like synths, choirs, solo instruments etc. had been mixed out and if I had a version at hand that were still using the original mixes I chose them.

---------- Post added at 11:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------


Is there a track list for this by chance? I know you say it's complete but the film uses a few cues not on the album or the sessions... how did you present them?

Can you tell where and which tracks these are? I�d like to have a look at the movie. I included everything from the sessions and I checked with the movie. But it�s of course entirely possible that I missed something.

I also have to specify something that maybe wasn�t clear enough: my main goal was to present a cohesive and fluid listening experience. In some cases it may appear that something is missing when in reality it only has been crossfaded into another track. I did this where it made sense musically and thematically but sometimes it obscures the beginning of pieces people might got attached to. As I said: it�s not for completists but for people wishing to enjoy a score that plays very much like an official CD.

And I really think that it�s complete - but it could be that something is missing. Please point out these tracks so I can check.

many thanks for you much hard work. i especially appreciate flac. complete scores are great in mp3, but flac is perfect :D

This is STUNNING! Fantastic effort. Great sound (and mix). Wonderful cover art. Thank you so much SonicAdventure for your hard work!

Thank you very much.

when you say you faded the tracks into each other, do you mean this plays as a gapless album? (I have not yet finished the dl, and I started when it was posted...sigh.) I only ask cause I don't really do that. I was just curious....Funnily enough, although I do have the sessions, I have never listened to them, or the OST so this might be better.

when you say you faded the tracks into each other, do you mean this plays as a gapless album? (I have not yet finished the dl, and I started when it was posted...sigh.) I only ask cause I don't really do that. I was just curious....Funnily enough, although I do have the sessions, I have never listened to them, or the OST so this might be better.

No, of course not. On Disc 1 you�ll find 18 seperate tracks, on Disc 2 20. Most of the tracks contain several tracks from the Recording sessions. In a case like that I used a crossfader. In short: out of 104 tracks from the sessions I made 38 - with the same content.

Great stuff....Awesome.....Thanks

Hey mate,

thank you a lot for your efforts. I�m curious about hearing the fruits of your work. :) I do also agree with your opinion about mp3 and lossless format. I still haven�t realized why there are no mobile sticks with any lossless codec instead the unavoidable mp3 sticks. Anyway, after 17 years mp3 is obsolete. Unfortunately lot of people are accustomed to "enjoying" music in this way.

Thank you for the effort, this will be a nice listen.


Thanks! Hope this is the definitive edition. Here's the score sheets:

King Kong Complete Sheets 1.rar (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?b79fzf6ny9i93x5)

King Kong Complete Sheets 2.rar (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?r2v7ic2ud7u6df3)
Yikes, nice share, thanks. That reminds me on a website where enthusiasts exchange score sheets. To try to start trading was a disappointment to me cos some of those guys - who got their collection apparently for free - don't wanted to give anything away. With other words I have no clue how that system works in their opinion if you don't have something rare or unique to offer.

Hello,

I'll take your archive. I'm not too agree with you, regarding the recording session full Version available on the forum.

I find it really full and just indsipensable (since the time I was expecting). It's true that the alternative versions are not really different. But that said, if you look in one ear, you can find some small changes.

In any case, the simian cinema fan, I'll take this archive. It will complement my upcoming "Soundtrackth�que."

Thank you very much! ....

Absolutely fantastic post! Thanks a million!

It is great to have another post from you. JNH's score is easily the best thing about the movie, and your post is the definitive presentation of it.

Many thanks for this, your hard work is very much appreciated!

Title:King Kong Deluxe Edition
Artist:James Newton Howard
Format:MP3
Bit Rate:VBR-0
Size:284MB
Tracks:38

Track Listing:


Disc 1

1. Main Title
2. Ann
3. Viewing The Footage
4. Death Is Always Momentary
5. Discovering Ann
6. Two Grands
7. The Venture Departs
8. Wrong Jack Driscoll
9. The Secret Revealed
10. Filming
11. It’s In The Subtext
12. There Are No Stars
13. Last Blank Space On The Map
14. It’s Deserted
15. Fight
16. Sacrifice
17. Jungle
18. An Ancient Boneyard

Disc 2

1.Stampede
2.Heroes Don’t Look Like Me
3.The Last Of It’s Kind
4.Abyss
5.Lizards
6.Tooth & Claw
7.Pit
8.Beautiful
9. An Idea
10.In Kong’s Arms
11.Bats
12.Now!
13.Captured
14.Theater
15.Gorilla On The Loose
16.Beauty Stayed His Hand
17.The Army Attacks
18.Empire State Building
19. Final Battle
20.Beauty Killed The Beast


http://www.gamefront.com/files/22331659/KKTDE_rar

Love the artwork as well! :) thanks!

thank you a lot for your efforts. I�m curious about hearing the fruits of your work. :) I do also agree with your opinion about mp3 and lossless format. I still haven�t realized why there are no mobile sticks with any lossless codec instead the unavoidable mp3 sticks. Anyway, after 17 years mp3 is obsolete. Unfortunately lot of people are accustomed to "enjoying" music in this way.

I don�t think that mp3 is obsolete. The LAME implementation of that codec is quite stunning really. But further processing of files encoded like this can be a problem, especially if one wants to use some signal processors on such material... those could reveal compression artifacts normally inaudible. Furthermore, people continue to transcode from lower quality mp3 to 320 kBit/s which is the dumbest thing one can do. They won�t gain more quality, only bigger size with worse quality. Then most people don�t have the patience to do a quality encoding - mp3 allows a 'High Quality' setting for encoding which will take longer of course. For me it�s better to be safe than sorry because there are too many things people can do wrong.

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

Thank you WildwoodPark! It�s much appreciated :)

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 PM ----------


Hello,

I'll take your archive. I'm not too agree with you, regarding the recording session full Version available on the forum.

I find it really full and just indsipensable (since the time I was expecting). It's true that the alternative versions are not really different. But that said, if you look in one ear, you can find some small changes.

In any case, the simian cinema fan, I'll take this archive. It will complement my upcoming "Soundtrackth�que."

Thank you very much! ....

Interesting argument. But these small changes don�t make that much sense in my opinion and I really don�t like redundancy. Having two or three version of the same track playing in a row destroys the impression of a consistent listening experience. Now if there would have been some real alternates with different composition, orchestration etc... those would have been included of course.

Thanks for this and Lady in the Water! I think i have all your deluxe editions and I love them all!

Thanks for this and Lady in the Water! I think i have all your deluxe editions and I love them all!

Very nice of you to say. But remember (and that goes for everyone): the moment they are officially released buy those releases. As an example I mention 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture': while my Deluxe Edition was nice the LLL-release is so much better. I subsequently deleted my version and was happy about it :)

It isn't one of my favorite JNH scores, but your improvements do make it more enjoyable than it was before. Many thanks.

SonicAdventure, this set sounds great! However, I'm wondering how you managed to fit those 20 tracks onto disc 2? Even if I remove all the time between tracks in Toast, it still says the material is too long to fit on a single disc. I could move 'Stampede' to the end of disc 1, but then the album art is wrong and I would like to burn and print everything to put it on the shelf with my other music. I'm just curious how you made this work.

SonicAdventure, this set sounds great! However, I'm wondering how you managed to fit those 20 tracks onto disc 2? Even if I remove all the time between tracks in Toast, it still says the material is too long to fit on a single disc. I could move 'Stampede' to the end of disc 1, but then the album art is wrong and I would like to burn and print everything to put it on the shelf with my other music. I'm just curious how you made this work.

You cannot burn it? That�s curious... because I managed to do that with a normal CD-R. The contents on Disc 2 are 80:03 minutes long, that should fit on every disc just fine. Toast is for mac, right? I don�t know how to get it working... I burned my release with Nero... hm... that one has an option called "Enable short lead-out", that setting creates roughly 15 MB more available space for data.

First Lady in the Water, now King Kong. Any possibility Signs or The Last Airbender are next?

What a wonderful achievement. Great sound. Great covers. Many, many thanks.

First Lady in the Water, now King Kong. Any possibility Signs or The Last Airbender are next?

Erm... I wouldn�t know how since there haven�t been any sessions or expanded versions available.

Great work, SonicAdventure!

I was already pretty familiar with the sessions but you've managed to bring out nuances I never noticed before. :)

Like your Harry Potter 1 release, this is a presentation I will often return to.

Thank you!

MP3 pls, 320kilobytes per second. Not VBR that's shit. 320 sound much better than FLACS because FLACS are bigger. Aslo why these tracks got no BASS sounds like shit man. Anyways good efort, James Howard's songs for Kong King really cool.

Seriously, though - thanks for this. I never got into JNH's score and now seems like a good time to revisit it. Cheers. :D

To stay within specifications, length has to be under 79:40ish although some burners (and some discs) won't complain if you push them further. Some players don't like them, and overburns are statistically more likely to fail in the overburned area. Your mileage may vary.

MP3 pls, 320kilobytes per second. Not VBR that's shit. 320 sound much better than FLACS because FLACS are bigger. Aslo why these tracks got no BASS sounds like shit man. Anyways good efort, James Howard's songs for Kong King really cool.

You�re good! I almost fell for it and began to get very furious :D I like that you call them 'songs' :)


Seriously, though - thanks for this. I never got into JNH's score and now seems like a good time to revisit it. Cheers. :D

To stay within specifications, length has to be under 79:40ish although some burners (and some discs) won't complain if you push them further. Some players don't like them, and overburns are statistically more likely to fail in the overburned area. Your mileage may vary.

You�re of course welcome. This score certainly deserves to be recognized, it�s one of my all-time favs. 79:40? Oops... then I overburned my version without recognizing. Thankfully it plays fine on every player I own. But your clarification is much appreciated!

You cannot burn it? That�s curious... because I managed to do that with a normal CD-R. The contents on Disc 2 are 80:03 minutes long, that should fit on every disc just fine. Toast is for mac, right? I don�t know how to get it working... I burned my release with Nero... hm... that one has an option called "Enable short lead-out", that setting creates roughly 15 MB more available space for data.


To stay within specifications, length has to be under 79:40ish although some burners (and some discs) won't complain if you push them further. Some players don't like them, and overburns are statistically more likely to fail in the overburned area. Your mileage may vary.

I'll have to try it on a different computer at home, then, and see if that will do it. For the record, I'm having the same problem with The Mummy, which Toast is saying is 84:14. That's with no gaps between the tracks.

Erm... I wouldn�t know how since there haven�t been any sessions or expanded versions available.

At least not to the public. I have seen the tracklisting for Signs, not sure about The Last Airbender

This looks fantastic! Thank you for the effort that have put into this. I can't wait to give it a listen.

I agree...a fantastic effort! :)

I'll have to try it on a different computer at home, then, and see if that will do it. For the record, I'm having the same problem with The Mummy, which Toast is saying is 84:14. That's with no gaps between the tracks.

Thanks for reminding me! In 'The Mummy'-thread I forgot to write that one would need a 900 MB CD-R.

---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ----------


At least not to the public. I have seen the tracklisting for Signs, not sure about The Last Airbender

As it so happens (curious really) I don�t like 'The Last Airbender' that much. And 'Signs' is only missing a few more or less small tracks... the official CD already is very generous.

Just to add to the above... MP3 still has a place in the world - it most certainly isn't obsolete. That said, people really need to learn about what it is, why it is, what the alternatives are, and when it is appropriate to use them.

MP3s are good for listening in the car. I burn a dual layer DVD stuffed with 128kbps MP3s, bingo, I've got about 100 hours of music in the car. I couldn't care less about audiophile sound quality when I'm rattling down the motorway. MP3s are good if you have limited disc space, but really, who does these days? MP3s are more useful for those folk for whom disc space isn't the problem; bandwidth allocation is their problem. If you're on a restrictive package, the difference between FLAC and MP3 might be downloading one album this month or downloading eight albums this month. If you're on a slow connection, the difference between downloading 80mb and 250mb is substantial. All compelling arguments for contemporary usage of MP3.

It's less easy to cock up encoding an MP3 these days - but the problem is people like to fiddle with settings too much. LAME is tuned, and optimised to provide the best quality with default settings. Why wouldn't it be? Pick a VBR level, encode, let LAME do its thing. The "high quality" setting particularly, is misleading. It's an alternative algorithm. Experiments have concluded that it provides no audible benefit almost 100% of the time. Since the VBR modes are aiming for a quality and not a bitrate the only benefit - if any - you would get from forcing -Q 0 would be files a handful of bytes smaller - with triple the encoding time. Just not worth it.

The best quality MP3 encoding is -V0; end of. There's a reason why 320kbps is called INSANE in the LAME documentation. It's useful for people who don't understand what VBR does, and for people with antique MP3 players that can't plan VBR. Apart from that, it's about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. An MP3 encode @ 320kbps is a sign that the encoder doesn't know what they're doing. If they don't know what they're doing, I'm less inclined to trust their ripping technique. Etc.

An MP3 encode @ 320kbps is a sign that the encoder doesn't know what they're doing. If they don't know what they're doing, I'm less inclined to trust their ripping technique. Etc.

Or they don't have the original recording and are transcoding a lower bitrate file up to 320Kbps because they think it makes it sound better.

True, although I think that fits into the "don't know what they're doing" category. ;)

Thanks for reminding me! In 'The Mummy'-thread I forgot to write that one would need a 900 MB CD-R.


I didn't even know those were a thing. They work in CD players?

Just to add to the above... MP3 still has a place in the world - it most certainly isn't obsolete. That said, people really need to learn about what it is, why it is, what the alternatives are, and when it is appropriate to use them.

MP3s are good for listening in the car. I burn a dual layer DVD stuffed with 128kbps MP3s, bingo, I've got about 100 hours of music in the car. I couldn't care less about audiophile sound quality when I'm rattling down the motorway. MP3s are good if you have limited disc space, but really, who does these days? MP3s are more useful for those folk for whom disc space isn't the problem; bandwidth allocation is their problem. If you're on a restrictive package, the difference between FLAC and MP3 might be downloading one album this month or downloading eight albums this month. If you're on a slow connection, the difference between downloading 80mb and 250mb is substantial. All compelling arguments for contemporary usage of MP3.

It's less easy to cock up encoding an MP3 these days - but the problem is people like to fiddle with settings too much. LAME is tuned, and optimised to provide the best quality with default settings. Why wouldn't it be? Pick a VBR level, encode, let LAME do its thing. The "high quality" setting particularly, is misleading. It's an alternative algorithm. Experiments have concluded that it provides no audible benefit almost 100% of the time. Since the VBR modes are aiming for a quality and not a bitrate the only benefit - if any - you would get from forcing -Q 0 would be files a handful of bytes smaller - with triple the encoding time. Just not worth it.

The best quality MP3 encoding is -V0; end of. There's a reason why 320kbps is called INSANE in the LAME documentation. It's useful for people who don't understand what VBR does, and for people with antique MP3 players that can't plan VBR. Apart from that, it's about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. An MP3 encode @ 320kbps is a sign that the encoder doesn't know what they're doing. If they don't know what they're doing, I'm less inclined to trust their ripping technique. Etc.

I couldn�t have said it better myself. However, compare the 'high quality' setting to the normal setting and then substract both from the original. The 'high quality' setting has a quantization noisefloor following transients and frequency content more closely while the normal versions seems to be a bit... well, sloppy. Already anticipating your response to this I�ll say this: I know, no one listens to substracted signals - especially if they are just quantization noise, but it�s still a nice way of knowing what gets 'deleted' by the encoding algorithms. BTW, the setting INSANE is only called that way because those die-hard-religious skeptics at hydrogenaudio call it that way. They rely on their DBTs too much and sometimes miss disadvantages. If they�d do a mixture of DBT and sighted listening... yes, that would be gorgeous.

BTW, you�re talking about the additional time one would need if encoding with the 'high quality' setting. In my case (with a rather ancient quad core) I need three minutes instead of one to encode a full album. That difference hardly matters.

If I would suggest a lossy codec it would either be AAC or WMA Professional. The latter one is hard to beat regarding audio quality - but because of Microsoft and very limited hardware support it�s not very popular.

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------


Or they don't have the original recording and are transcoding a lower bitrate file up to 320Kbps because they think it makes it sound better.

It�s a shame that so many people are doing this. I wish people would take part in a workshop called something like this 'How to make perfect mp3 and how to avoid stupid errors.'

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------


I didn't even know those were a thing. They work in CD players?

Not in all - but in most. Verbatim for example manufactures them.

Wow, Sonic, a big surprise!

Thank you.

Actually, I DO have limited space. I have no external, just no money for it, if i buy my meds as I should. I will explore the media players settings, but last i saw, there was no vb-0 setting? Though, now I know what i am looking for. The problem with transcodes is that one archive gets spread around all the sites like a virus. On my tiny system, I could not tell, and I have no idea how to verify a bit rate....

I think you guys hit it mostly with mp3s. While I appreciate the benefits of lossless, I just don't need to keep lossless of most albums I download. Usually I can convert them to mp3 and back up the lossless for a future date when I may have a better audio setup that will make the difference more pronounced. Until then, even at home and listening on my current speaker setup or headphones I can't really tell the difference. Sure I will listen to lossless over lossy if I have both on my computer at any given time, (usually because I keep the lossy for putting on my portable player) but I'm not sure that I would really notice a huge difference most of the time.

As for idiots who convert stuff to higher quality mp3s than they were originally released, those people drive me nuts, especially when you have something that is leaked at 128kbps and then re-posted by someone who thought it would be a good idea to convert to mp3 256kbps. It just leads to a bunch of people listening to it thinking they have a good quality mp3 when they really don't (though usually I CAN tell on my system pretty clearly that something is 128kbps and has been transcoded to a higher bitrate). I still think MP3s are the encoder to use if you are doing lossy just because they work on EVERY single device. I can upload one and know that whether the user is using a Zune, iPod, or playing it on their smartphone of choice it is going to work. The same isn't true for other encoders.

Actually, I DO have limited space. I have no external, just no money for it, if i buy my meds as I should. I will explore the media players settings, but last i saw, there was no vb-0 setting? Though, now I know what i am looking for. The problem with transcodes is that one archive gets spread around all the sites like a virus. On my tiny system, I could not tell, and I have no idea how to verify a bit rate....

foobar2000 will always tell you the bitrate. It�s butt ugly but very useful and fast. It can�t tell you about transcodes though.

---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 PM ----------


I think you guys hit it mostly with mp3s. While I appreciate the benefits of lossless, I just don't need to keep lossless of most albums I download. Usually I can convert them to mp3 and back up the lossless for a future date when I may have a better audio setup that will make the difference more pronounced. Until then, even at home and listening on my current speaker setup or headphones I can't really tell the difference. Sure I will listen to lossless over lossy if I have both on my computer at any given time, (usually because I keep the lossy for putting on my portable player) but I'm not sure that I would really notice a huge difference most of the time.

As for idiots who convert stuff to higher quality mp3s than they were originally released, those people drive me nuts, especially when you have something that is leaked at 128kbps and then re-posted by someone who thought it would be a good idea to convert to mp3 256kbps. It just leads to a bunch of people listening to it thinking they have a good quality mp3 when they really don't (though usually I CAN tell on my system pretty clearly that something is 128kbps and has been transcoded to a higher bitrate). I still think MP3s are the encoder to use if you are doing lossy just because they work on EVERY single device. I can upload one and know that whether the user is using a Zune, iPod, or playing it on their smartphone of choice it is going to work. The same isn't true for other encoders.

True. For portable use I always use lossy music, encoded by myself. Even though my player can play FLAC. But lossless doesn�t make sense with portable players I think. One won�t hear the negligeble quality advantages when listening in crowded places.

I use a program called Spectro, it's free and it does a quick passable examination of the file.

However, compare the 'high quality' setting to the normal setting and then substract both from the original. The 'high quality' setting has a quantization noisefloor following transients and frequency content more closely while the normal versions seems to be a bit... well, sloppy.

That's interesting - I've never done such a comparison. Whilst one certainly should listen to what's there and not what's not there you're right, it's interesting to see how the algorithims differ. This has still not proven any transparency benefits, though.


BTW, the setting INSANE is only called that way because those die-hard-religious skeptics at hydrogenaudio call it that way. They rely on their DBTs too much and sometimes miss disadvantages. If they�d do a mixture of DBT and sighted listening... yes, that would be gorgeous.

The setting is called INSANE because it's essentially the -V0 algorithm padded out with 100kbps of blank space to satisfy people who need to see "320kbps" show up in the bitrate box. -V0 goes up to 320kbps when needed - and internally it gets even higher due to the bit reservoir. What does this suggest? When LAME needs 320kbps to maintain a given quality (0, highest) it takes it. Othertimes, its algorithm is able to maintain the same quality with less bitrate, so it reduces the bitrate. The algorithm, at maximum quality, isn't able to generate enough data to fill 320kbps. Largely, that same algorithm is resonsible for 320kbps CBR encoding. It's the same code. It's the same output. If this particular passage of music only needed 160kbps to maintain best possible quality there's only 160kbps worth of data to store, even in CBR mode. The rest is padding, nothing more, nothing less.

HA get it right 99% of the time; it's only common sense. a) You listen with your ears, not with your eyes. b) Don't make claims about sound quality you can't back up with evidence. They have some right arseholes there, but I completely agree with their rulebook. It has been responsible for great advances in audio technology. Would LAME, AAC, etc, have advanced so far in a development environment where outlandish claims, spectrograms, placebos, and audiophile posturing were allowed to cloud the genuine intention - which is to encode audio to the best possible quality and the lowest possible bitrate? I think not.


BTW, you�re talking about the additional time one would need if encoding with the 'high quality' setting. In my case (with a rather ancient quad core) I need three minutes instead of one to encode a full album. That difference hardly matters.

It's not so much the additional encoding time; you're right, in present day parlance, it's peanuts. It's the difference between a 30 second encode and a 60 second encode. I believe it's not worth it because a) it's not been proven beneficial, and b) it's been known to cause artifacts where the default -Q level encodes adequately. LAME developers should be trusted. If they don't enforce -Q0 by default that's because it's not worthwhile.



If I would suggest a lossy codec it would either be AAC or WMA Professional. The latter one is hard to beat regarding audio quality - but because of Microsoft and very limited hardware support it�s not very popular.

AAC eats WMA for breakfast. And WMA is Microsoft. And closed source. And barely supported on hardware. And development has stagnated. And it's Microsoft. ;)

I'd pick AAC every time - although MP3 is more than sufficient for my needs and it plays on *everything*. Since MP3 is transparent to 99% of people in 99% of samples at -V0 I don't see any real world benefit in using a better encoder.

People who encode AAC at 450kbps make me laugh. What's the damn point? It's still lossy. You can't tell the difference between LAME -V0 and AAC so why are you changing encoders and doubling the bitrate? Just for shits and giggles? Because you want the higher number, because that's better? 450kbps is about 100-150kbps away from FLAC. Just encode FLAC if you want to go up that high. Silly sods! :D

Awesome post and fantastic artwork!

That's interesting - I've never done such a comparison. Whilst one certainly should listen to what's there and not what's not there you're right, it's interesting to see how the algorithims differ. This has still not proven any transparency benefits, though.

True. Still interesting though. Does not work with AAC since the encoder adds some frames.


The setting is called INSANE because it's essentially the -V0 algorithm padded out with 100kbps of blank space to satisfy people who need to see "320kbps" show up in the bitrate box. -V0 goes up to 320kbps when needed - and internally it gets even higher due to the bit reservoir. What does this suggest? When LAME needs 320kbps to maintain a given quality (0, highest) it takes it. Othertimes, its algorithm is able to maintain the same quality with less bitrate, so it reduces the bitrate. The algorithm, at maximum quality, isn't able to generate enough data to fill 320kbps. Largely, that same algorithm is resonsible for 320kbps CBR encoding. It's the same code. It's the same output. If this particular passage of music only needed 160kbps to maintain best possible quality there's only 160kbps worth of data to store, even in CBR mode. The rest is padding, nothing more, nothing less.

Very good arguments. But I�ve found - for example with 320kbps CBR that it encodes higher frequencies... the thing is I�m still able to hear frequencies beyond 16 kHz. And VBR almost always cuts them with its low pass filter. That�s why I�d recommend it. The problem with mp3 is that people tuned it to sound well at 128kbps, other bitrates are treated more or less as if they would be the unloved stepchild. I�m so sick of 128kbps being called "CD quality"...


HA get it right 99% of the time; it's only common sense. a) You listen with your ears, not with your eyes. b) Don't make claims about sound quality you can't back up with evidence. They have some right arseholes there, but I completely agree with their rulebook. It has been responsible for great advances in audio technology. Would LAME, AAC, etc, have advanced so far in a development environment where outlandish claims, spectrograms, placebos, and audiophile posturing were allowed to cloud the genuine intention - which is to encode audio to the best possible quality and the lowest possible bitrate? I think not.

All true. I wouldn�t say 99%, merely 90%, but who cares about 9%? I was there many years ago - and many people participating there have a very limited world view. Furthermore they are slowly loosing ther reputation for staying in the past. 128kbps as a standard? 16/44.1 being more than good enough (well, in 90% it really is)? C'mon! Today with high bandwidth internet connections and almost unlimited HDD space... doesn�t make sense anymore. All the while behaving like bigots. You probably know this: the developer of foobar is an asshole, appearing to fully adhere to HA rules. It has gone almost unnoticed that he programmed a component for foobar called "RAM-drive", a decidedly audiophile thing. Reason for creating it? So that people won�t have harddrive related drop-outs! Is he kidding me? They behave exactly like those audiophiles, it�s as if they are the other side of the same coin. When you tend to take the thin position in the middle like me you�re fucked because both sides hate you.


AAC eats WMA for breakfast. And WMA is Microsoft. And closed source. And barely supported on hardware. And development has stagnated. And it's Microsoft. ;)

Public listening tests have proven that WMA Prof is as good as AAC. Please consider that I meant WMA Professional. WMA Prof at 440kbps is so good (well, it should be given the high bitrate) that it can even be transcoded. But it�s true: it�s MS and barely supported. In short the death for every codec.


I'd pick AAC every time - although MP3 is more than sufficient for my needs and it plays on *everything*. Since MP3 is transparent to 99% of people in 99% of samples at -V0 I don't see any real world benefit in using a better encoder.

People who encode AAC at 450kbps make me laugh. What's the damn point? It's still lossy. You can't tell the difference between LAME -V0 and AAC so why are you changing encoders and doubling the bitrate? Just for shits and giggles? Because you want the higher number, because that's better? 450kbps is about 100-150kbps away from FLAC. Just encode FLAC if you want to go up that high. Silly sods! :D

Indeed. But I still don�t use, especially if I�d like to do some processing. Processing very soon causes mp3 encoded material to fall apart. mp3 does have a problem with transients, AAC doesn�t. FLAC is good. And we always have WavPack lossy or lossyWAV.

Thanks SonicAdventure for the great share!

And thanks to WildWoodPark for the mp3 option!

Thanks :)

Very good arguments. But I�ve found - for example with 320kbps CBR that it encodes higher frequencies... the thing is I�m still able to hear frequencies beyond 16 kHz.

Then you are very fortunate! ;)

LAME lowpass seems to be up and down like a yoyo. I didn't know that this was different now. I would still, on reflection, prefer LAME tossed away frequencies that are at the upper limit of human hearing and gave them to the mid and low ranges. I prefer a mild lowpass to artifacts.

For shits and giggles, I found a section of dynamic, orchestral music (not low rumbling stuff - full register, high volume, full orchestra with clashing cymbals, high woodwind, high brass, etc) and highpassed it at 16khz.

The results are in this file: - howl's moving castle above 16khz only.flac (http://www.mediafire.com/?j5hvts3jt6tqmfg)

The first 23 seconds are only frequencies above 16khz, unmodified in volume - ie, this is what you hear on the original track. The last 23 seconds they are amplified. Be careful - it might hurt your ears. If you can hear any musical content in either sample your hearing is better than mine. I'm 28 and had a hearing test recently at hospital that rated me as excellent for my age range. I can't hear sod nothing except for occasional hisses or sub-sonic whistling noises. There's whatsoever there which could be classified as musical.


And VBR almost always cuts them with its low pass filter.

Yep, it chops out the stuff you can't hear anyway (and which is difficult to encode) and donates the bits it saved to making a more accurate encode of the parts you can hear. ;)


The problem with mp3 is that people tuned it to sound well at 128kbps, other bitrates are treated more or less as if they would be the unloved stepchild.

For most people - and sadly, "most people" includes every tone deaf misanthrope on the planet - it's good enough. I think that 128kbps has finally shaken off the "standard" label it once had. I remember when I started off downloading in the late nineties and all you got was 128kbps - IF YOU WERE LUCKY - and probably encoded with some atrocious early version of Blade or something. It was all we knew. But now 128kbps (or, as I prefer to use, -V6 if I require that sort of bitrate) is now accepted to be a particularly low bitrate. Nobody takes it seriously from a quality perspective. It's useful for stuffing a lot of music in a small amount of space in tolerable sound quality, but that's about it.


I�m so sick of 128kbps being called "CD quality"...

Possibly the biggest marketing lie of the digital audio age. Those early encoders didn't give you a choice - at least, average Joe's encoders didn't. I remember tickboxes for "FM Radio Quality" which turned out I think 32kbps at 11025khz(!!!!), Cassette Quality at 96kbps 22050khz, and CD Quality which was invariably 128kbps at 44100khz. Those were truly the dark ages...


128kbps as a standard?

Once upon a time, not now though... If it is still a HA standard, it's probably only because it's the bitrate at which MP3 reaches transparency for Average Joe. It seems a good place to draw a line in the sand and say "this is an average MP3 - anything less is bad, anything more is better".


16/44.1 being more than good enough (well, in 90% it really is)?

16 bit is good enough, as is 44.1khz. At that sample rate, you're already preserving a full 4,000khz of frequencies above the human hearing range. No human alive can discern anything meaningful (apart from an earache) above 22.5khz which is the upper limit of a 44.1khz sample rate. If they ever start making CDs for dogs and bats, there may be a call for it. Until then, upping the sample rate to 48, 96, or 192 is nothing more than "higher number equals better" syndrome.

16 bit dynamic range is FINE, likewise. Higher depths are useful at the recording stage (so you can set your levels a bit lower than usual to protect against unforeseen clipping) but at the end, dither down to 16 and be happy. No commercially produced recording has ever come close to using 16 bits worth of dynamic range (and, of course, every year dynamic range gets narrower and narrower) - and if it had people would complain about it because it would be effectively unlistenable in any sensibly-priced consumer environment.


C'mon! Today with high bandwidth internet connections and almost unlimited HDD space... doesn�t make sense anymore.

Plentiful storage space and abundant bandwidth is no excuse for being wasteful. If something isn't audible it isn't worth storing. At these silly sample rates and silly bit depths, you're talking about multiplying the bitrate by SIX for the same piece of music! Worthwhile? No. The moment sound recording technology progressed far enough to accurately represent all sounds within the human hearing spectrum, with low noise, and maintenance of accuracy across the dynamic range, by definition it had reached as far as necessary. It's a sobering thought to realise that this was achieved in the 1950s. Digital recording twenty years later was absolutely a good thing... but the purpose of recorded sound is to play it back to humans.


They behave exactly like those audiophiles, it�s as if they are the other side of the same coin. When you tend to take the thin position in the middle like me you�re fucked because both sides hate you.

I know they can be stressful at times... but it's inescapable that the official policy of HA is nothing more and nothing less than pure logic, enforced to a point of fascism, but it's not wrong. I think their position is an understandable reaction (and a deliberate antidode to) the lunatic fringe of audiophiles; the folk who spend ���������� on gold plated HDMI cables, buy little ceramic boxes that sit on top of their CD players that make the CD's "sound better", buy a record player for �500,000 to reduce rumble (ignoring the fact that the recording wasn't made on equipment anywhere NEAR that sophisticated) etc, etc, etc. TO counter such nonsense, HA is a necessary evil; they shout loud because they have to be heard above the chorus of logical fallacies, lies, and pipe dreams that make up the majority of the audiophile community.


Public listening tests have proven that WMA Prof is as good as AAC. Please consider that I meant WMA Professional. WMA Prof at 440kbps is so good (well, it should be given the high bitrate) that it can even be transcoded. But it�s true: it�s MS and barely supported. In short the death for every codec.

Pardon me, quite right - they're about even. My money would still be on AAC, though - for future development potential, and increasing hardware support (whereas WMA support is plummeting). Vorbis is basically dead now. MP3 is reaching the limits of what it can do within specs (which were written twenty years ago). Opus looks interesting but in the here and now, AAC is, I think, the best choice for a lossy codec if you're particularly interested in low bitrates. (Above 192kbps, the gap between AAC and MP3 closes quite substantially and by the time you reach the 250-300 range there's basically nothing to separate the two in listening tests.)


Indeed. But I still don�t use, especially if I�d like to do some processing. Processing very soon causes mp3 encoded material to fall apart. mp3 does have a problem with transients, AAC doesn�t. FLAC is good. And we always have WavPack lossy or lossyWAV.

If one intends to process or transcode or anything, one should NOT USE A LOSSY CODEC full stop. Yeah, some are slightly more resilient (I'd rather transcode a high bitrate AAC than a crappy 128kbps MP3 if I had no choice) but in the end it's a choice between doing a pretty bad thing and a REALLY bad thing.

For shits and giggles, I found a section of dynamic, orchestral music (not low rumbling stuff - full register, high volume, full orchestra with clashing cymbals, high woodwind, high brass, etc) and highpassed it at 16khz.

The results are in this file: - howl's moving castle above 16khz only.flac (http://www.mediafire.com/?j5hvts3jt6tqmfg)

The first 23 seconds are only frequencies above 16khz, unmodified in volume - ie, this is what you hear on the original track. The last 23 seconds they are amplified. Be careful - it might hurt your ears. If you can hear any musical content in either sample your hearing is better than mine. I'm 28 and had a hearing test recently at hospital that rated me as excellent for my age range. I can't hear sod nothing except for occasional hisses or sub-sonic whistling noises. There's whatsoever there which could be classified as musical.

Really... that file is pure torture! BTW, I resampled it to 96 kHz (my soundcard can only work with multiples of 48 kHz since it lacks a quartz for 44.1-based samplerates) so that the shitty resampler of either the card or Windows won�t tune in. I could already hear the first half of the file, even some of the lower parts. It sounded horrible, piercing, awful. I ducked upon encountering these signals. I wouldn�t listen to the second half... not necessary. BTW, what EQ did you use? That�s a pretty steep highpass and I couldn�t discern any rounding errors. I�ll be a victim of logical fallacy right now: stripped of everything below 16 kHz music sounds like shit, the other way round it also sounds like shit ;)


For most people - and sadly, "most people" includes every tone deaf misanthrope on the planet - it's good enough. I think that 128kbps has finally shaken off the "standard" label it once had. I remember when I started off downloading in the late nineties and all you got was 128kbps - IF YOU WERE LUCKY - and probably encoded with some atrocious early version of Blade or something. It was all we knew. But now 128kbps (or, as I prefer to use, -V6 if I require that sort of bitrate) is now accepted to be a particularly low bitrate. Nobody takes it seriously from a quality perspective. It's useful for stuffing a lot of music in a small amount of space in tolerable sound quality, but that's about it.

Oh, but they do. Since we�re talking about HA... did you remember that very good article from the Xiph foundation where they talked about Neil Young's ridiculous claims? Many HA members embraced and celebrated it... as if The Second Coming was happening. And there they were again: the same, old and tired arguments that not one person on this planet will need anything more than -V6 in their entire life. But more:


16 bit is good enough, as is 44.1khz. At that sample rate, you're already preserving a full 4,000khz of frequencies above the human hearing range. No human alive can discern anything meaningful (apart from an earache) above 22.5khz which is the upper limit of a 44.1khz sample rate. If they ever start making CDs for dogs and bats, there may be a call for it. Until then, upping the sample rate to 48, 96, or 192 is nothing more than "higher number equals better" syndrome.

HA claims to be scientifically minded - in reality however they are not. They have embraced the model of belief (or as I call it: 'skeptical religion') where they challenge everything that has been stated without proof. Don�t get me wrong, this is good, really good. Too much bullshit has been claimed over the years. But their limited view of the world is revealed when they are challenging new scientific findings. A few years ago some "scientist" published a study (peer reviewed!) presenting some findings about the Hypersonic Effect. While our ear cannot technically hear frequencies beyond 20 kHz our brain still processes them - but where do the informations come from? He didn�t have an answer to this question and his article wasn�t as sound as one would have wished it to be. He measured neurological / electrical stimulation of some parts of the brain. The problem with these is just that the science working with theories about that is still in its infancies. Does that counterattack his study? No. It just means that his study must be repeated, that money needs to be poured into the matter. More research is needed. But according to many people at HA it has been proven that humans cannot ever discern hypersonic frequencies. Know what? The studies for that claim are 50 years old. The same for psychoacoustic studies. While our ear hasn�t change during those years science didn�t stand still, it advanced. Back in the '60s when psychoacoustic research was still en vogue neurological research wasn�t even thought of. Skin might be responsibe for discerning things beside the ear? Science Fiction. Today it�s different. On HA this study was either ridiculed or ignored. But more on that later.

You will now quote the article from Meyer/Moran where they found that humans cannot discern the difference between SACD and CD. This article was good but it still had some flaws. For one, it wasn�t up to the standards for the AES. They peer reviewed it for sure but they released it only because they thought it could be able to make some headlines. Why do I say this? Meyer and Moran had to publish a follow-up to that article - for a scientific article this rarely happens and only in cases when conclusions of the first article have been fishy. In all honesty, they did a really good setup. The software they used was flawed: roughly 70% of the SACD layers they used were derived from 16/44.1 & 24/44.1 or 24/48 masters. Even if they wanted to find out a difference it would have been impossible - because there was nothing to be compared. This information wasn�t made public by anyone on HA, it was published by SACD.net... by all means, they are as mad as they come. On HA? Nothing.

Back to the Hypersonic study: the Grammy foundation responsible for archiving every musical recording ever released in the U.S. requires nothing less than 24/96 or higher recordings. They are advised to do that by the AES. The AES treats 24/96 as a matter of fact, even for music distribution. HA still claims it isn�t existing. Scientists are laughing their asses off because of the unprofessional and childish behaviour of HA.

Don�t get me wrong... for me audiophiles are exactly as stupid. Just read a bit at the Steve Hoffman forum... one wouldn�t believe what can be read there. All the tweaking stuff one can buy for an awful amount of money... the things they sell... it really starts to hurt when I imagine people buying stuff like CD mats, crystals for their listening room, stands for their cables... ugh, I may vomit!


If one intends to process or transcode or anything, one should NOT USE A LOSSY CODEC full stop. Yeah, some are slightly more resilient (I'd rather transcode a high bitrate AAC than a crappy 128kbps MP3 if I had no choice) but in the end it's a choice between doing a pretty bad thing and a REALLY bad thing.

What about WavPack lossy? Good alternative. Particularly good for transcoding since some parts already have been removed. Less encoding work for mp3.

Everytime I refresh the section, I keep seeing the words King Kong, instantly thinking of the new FSM release of the 1976 John Barry score, and then seeing the James Newton Howard. Do'h!

Everytime I refresh the section, I keep seeing the words King Kong, instantly thinking of the new FSM release of the 1976 John Barry score, and then seeing the James Newton Howard. Do'h!

As much as I love John Barry I won�t wait for his King Kong since I think that JNH's King Kong cannot be beaten ;) ... of course, that�s open to debate :)

Many thanks for your efforts SonicAdventure! I look forward to listening to this.
Love the artwork too!

I'm trying to learn as much as I can about encoding CDs proper. I think I understand why VBR-O is superior to say a 320 format in MP3, mainly because there are unused frequencies and it just wastes bandwidth and space.

Does Itunes have VBR-O? What are you using for that? I would like to post Black Rain in the best possible quality.

What do you recommend for FLAC settings?

I'm trying to learn as much as I can about encoding CDs proper. I think I understand why VBR-O is superior to say a 320 format in MP3, mainly because there are unused frequencies and it just wastes bandwidth and space.

Does Itunes have VBR-O? What are you using for that? I would like to post Black Rain in the best possible quality.

What do you recommend for FLAC settings?

Vbr-0 is good enough if you want to use mp3. As an advantage over 320 kbps CBR it can even assign a higher bitrate should that be needed for certain parts of the material.

iTunes does use VBR - but only if you use 'iTunes Plus', located at the import settings. That codec would be AAC though. It�s not yet as compatible as mp3 but gives (theoretically) higher quality. It�s of course the much more modern codec and avoids some of the encoding errors mp3 makes.

FLAC doesn�t have that much setting options. The Default setting (compression rate of 5) is the optimal mixture of compression rate and encoding/decoding speed. Just asking: you do know that FLAC is lossless (100% perfect copy) and mp3 and AAC are lossy (looses roughly 80-90% of the audio information)?

Vbr-0 is good enough if you want to use mp3. As an advantage over 320 kbps CBR it can even assign a higher bitrate should that be needed for certain parts of the material.

iTunes does use VBR - but only if you use 'iTunes Plus', located at the import settings. That codec would be AAC though. It�s not yet as compatible as mp3 but gives (theoretically) higher quality. It�s of course the much more modern codec and avoids some of the encoding errors mp3 makes.

FLAC doesn�t have that much setting options. The Default setting (compression rate of 5) is the optimal mixture of compression rate and encoding/decoding speed. Just asking: you do know that FLAC is lossless (100% perfect copy) and mp3 and AAC are lossy (looses roughly 80-90% of the audio information)?

Thank you for the information. Again, I know a little and I am willing to learn as much as I can.

I am aware that FLAC is lossless and MP3 and AAC are lossy. I myself prefer MP3 as it is recognized in my car and FLAC is not. I have an external HD that I hook up via USB to use with SYNC. I do like FLAC and the quality it provides, but it is more of a hassle for me as I need to convert it to MP3 so that I can take it with me. Most of my music listening is while driving, so MP3 is my preferred format.

But I would like to know what the best settings are for MP3

Thank you for the information. Again, I know a little and I am willing to learn as much as I can.

I am aware that FLAC is lossless and MP3 and AAC are lossy. I myself prefer MP3 as it is recognized in my car and FLAC is not. I have an external HD that I hook up via USB to use with SYNC. I do like FLAC and the quality it provides, but it is more of a hassle for me as I need to convert it to MP3 so that I can take it with me. Most of my music listening is while driving, so MP3 is my preferred format.

But I would like to know what the best settings are for MP3

As someone has stated before mp3 with a setting of VBR-0 is the best setting. 320 kbps CBR (constant bit rate) is more compatible - especially with older devices as they are unable to recognize VBR (variable bit rate) but today that doesn�t play an important role anymore since 99% of all devices around nowadays are able to reocognize and properly decode VBR.

For convenience I�d recommend dBPowerAmp - good software, a foot print not that big and reliable. But there are of course countless other softwares around. You should avoid the mp3 encoder in iTunes though, it�s the encoder from FHG (original Fraunhofer) which is fairly old. The recommended encoder is LAME, it�s freely available and of high quality.

THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK YOU!

Thanks, this looks great!

Nice score but I still prefer the John Barry King Kong Deluxe Edition that was released a few weeks ago.

Thanks! Can't wait to listen!

Thanks a lot for this excellent work !

Please send me the link, thanks.

cant wait to listen, thanks!

I've tried to recreate the Sitting On Top of The World song piece with the score opening. I've made two version and would appreciate opinions on how to better it. Kong Jolson - MediaFire (http://www.mediafire.com/?p6gg56i3a0ea2)

Great job. Thanks!!!

Thank you!

Great job.
Many thanks, my friend!

Thanks!

Thank you very much. This really sounds gorgeous. Excellent work.

Thank you very much. Great work :D

thanks!!!!!! repd

again you have topped any other edition of this score, thank you

thanks very much.

thank you

Thanks very much.

Thanks for this! I can't wait to listen to it.

Thank you :) xxx

thanks for this! does anyone know if a link still exists anywhere for the complete recording sessions? i'm curious about the variations in the alt tracks - and whether there's an alt version of the central park/beautiful theme

Thank you! What a wonderful score.

Thank you

are you be working for other deluxe osts?

are you be working for other deluxe osts?

Not right now. But there�ll be others coming from me, I�m sure of that. I�m just not sure when it�ll happen.

Man, I can't thank you enough for all the work you do on these scores. They are superb listening experiences. You also have a knack for picking great scores to work on as well, such as this one. I love this score, even though JNH had to write it in near record time, composing at night and having the orchestrations and recordings done in the days. I guess sometimes it's best to just let go and let your talent do the work. I can't wait to give this a listen. Cheers.

You also have a knack for picking great scores to work on as well, such as this one. I love this score, even though JNH had to write it in near record time, composing at night and having the orchestrations and recordings done in the days. I guess sometimes it's best to just let go and let your talent do the work. I can't wait to give this a listen. Cheers.

xD

I always pick those scores because they are the ones I like the most ;)

And this one truly is one of the best scores JNH has ever written. To me it�s also one of the best scores of all time.

Thank you.

Okay, wow, this is pretty awesome. Thanks a lot.

thanks

Thank you!

Did you have the sessions in FLAC in order to do this set? I might be interested in those...

Many thanks!!!!!!!!

Can't believe I never downloaded this before. Thanks Sonic!

thank you very much for the share :awsm: FLAC format is awesome

Very Nice. Thanks.

I donwloaded all 3 files, but Im unable to joing them, the password is not working. Has it changed?

Merci Beaucoup. :)

I'm having the same problem :-/

Great job SonicAdventure! One of my favourites by far. Thank you so much for this wonderful score and beautiful cover art.

Wow, I feel like I came late to a really rock'n party? Thanks SonicAdventure ! Much Appreciated.

I'm having the same problem opening the files, with this, and another score Deluxe Edition I tried. I get all the parts, it first asks for a password, then seems to do most of the unzip work, but then asks for the same password again and again and never finishes it. Has anyone gotten this error and found a way around it?

To answer my own question...
I'm opening these on a Mac and I had this problem when I was using Stuffit Expander, so I tried using an alternate unzipper I have (The Unarchiver) and it worked perfectly. In case this helps anyone out with the same problem.

Thank you for this OST.

One of my favourite scores ever. Since I love nearly all of your deluxe editions, I'm stoked for this one!

thaaaanks great work

Many thanks!

Agh... part 2 of the sendspace files is unavailable. Can anyone else share this please...?

Confirmed, file gone. I cannot dl this either, having lost almost all of these deluxe sets. Saaaad Mandi...:sad:

amanda, watch this spot... i'll re-up this later :)

#update#
download (https://mega.co.nz/#!W9pG2T4Q!aReFB-rFduP9UOhGWYvbCIPOYofavKjJ78tFfB6uGhQ) - pass: SayThanks

great !!!! thanks !!!

Thanks for the re-up ostgems! And of course, thanks to SonicAdventure!

I don't want to sound like I'm poking holes in wonderful work, but am I the only one hearing some sort of cellphone interference at around 1:39 in "Discovering Ann"?

Thanks for the re-up (don't know why I missed this?) and thanks to SonicAdventure! I love his works on his DeLuxe-Editions!!!

I don't want to sound like I'm poking holes in wonderful work, but am I the only one hearing some sort of cellphone interference at around 1:39 in "Discovering Ann"?

You�re not the only one, it can also be found on the OST. Someone in the orchestra (or in the booth) must have had his cell on :D

amanda, watch this spot... i'll re-up this later :)

#update#
download (https://mega.co.nz/#!W9pG2T4Q!aReFB-rFduP9UOhGWYvbCIPOYofavKjJ78tFfB6uGhQ) - pass: SayThanks

Thank you for the re-up and to SonicAdventure obvioulsy!

Thanks :)

Can someone re-up parrt 2? The link is dead.

I second the request for a re-up :-)

I second the request for a re-up :-)

Just to inform everyone: right now I'm working on it again. I want to "re-make" it. I never liked this Deluxe Edition and so after more than two years I will be doing it again, hoping that it will be better than ever (lacking artifacts caused by stupid, automated dynamic compression and without the awkward transitions/crossfades).

BTW, you are now able to vote for a score I then shall turn into a Deluxe Edition. Do it here: http://forums.ffshrine.org/f2/%5Bpoll%5D-ask-sonicadventure-deluxe-edition-your-favorite-179037/#post2758074

Thank you so much^^

I�ve replaced my set with a new one -> http://forums.ffshrine.org/f92/king-kong-deluxe-edition-james-newton-howard-121142/#post2157822

Might some mod be so kind and edit the thread title?
Or can someone point to me to someone who would able to do it?

Thanks for this soundtrack, I'm looking forward to hearing it.

Thanks for the update, Sonic!

Thanks!!!

Thank you.
Your work is appreciated!

Thank you for your new edition! I have to say that I liked your previous one and I didn't heard any problem at all...

Thank you for your new edition! I have to say that I liked your previous one and I didn't heard any problem at all...

I had my thoughts about my set when I released it. Those thoughts grew into hate towards my set and towards me. For years I have asked myself "How could you master a fantastic score such as this in such a bad and lazy way?" It became so bad that I couldn�t listen to it anymore so the only solution was to do it again. To the common ear, the result might not sound better than the previous set... in fact, some people might prefer the old version. It�s more in-your-face, more punchy and aggressive. It exaggerated an already aggressive sound signature (courtesy of Alan Meyerson's mix). The new set is less aggressive, it�s more 'correct', refined. The old set sounded slightly hollow, the new one doesn�t. And IMO, the stage is much better, more holographic, less oqaque and more stable (the old set was in-your-face but flat).

I had my thoughts about my set when I released it. Those thoughts grew into hate towards my set and towards me. For years I have asked myself "How could you master a fantastic score such as this in such a bad and lazy way?" It became so bad that I couldn�t listen to it anymore so the only solution was to do it again. To the common ear, the result might not sound better than the previous set... in fact, some people might prefer the old version. It�s more in-your-face, more punchy and aggressive. It exaggerated an already aggressive sound signature (courtesy of Alan Meyerson's mix). The new set is less aggressive, it�s more 'correct', refined. The old set sounded slightly hollow, the new one doesn�t. And IMO, the stage is much better, more holographic, less oqaque and more stable (the old set was in-your-face but flat).

I have your previous version so I'll check the sound differences and let you know which version do I prefer :) Probably my problem is that I don't have such a good ear to "understand" what's wrong or right in a master, sometimes I hear something and I know that is bad mixed but not why hahaha But one of the things that I love most of your editions is that I learn a lot about sound differences.

Thank you again!

I have your previous version so I'll check the sound differences and let you know which version do I prefer :) Probably my problem is that I don't have such a good ear to "understand" what's wrong or right in a master, sometimes I hear something and I know that is bad mixed but not why hahaha But one of the things that I love most of your editions is that I learn a lot about sound differences.

Thank you again!

Well... I can tell you this: you really shouldn�t listen to music like me. Whenever I hear something I notice what�s bad and what�s good. A 'good' ear (which is nothing more than an ear having been trained) is a curse. I cannot listen to something that sounds bad, I just cannot. That prevents me enjoying much of the music ever recorded because I always want to fix the 'bad' and retain the 'good'. And sometimes I�m unable to fix it... which makes me mad. I never listen to some scores (the first three Star Wars scores for example) - just because they do not sound well and I�m unable to alter them so that I actually can listen to them. I only do my editions in order to finally enjoy the music I love so much. But enjoyment? Doesn�t happen too often. I often regard people who aren�t interested in sound as cattle or sheep... but they are the lucky ones really because they are able to readily enjoy what�s important: the music.

And now please stroke my head because of all my arrogant self-pity :D

Thank you for wonderful edition of amazing score!

Thanks for your new edition!

Listen to the first appearance of the Kong theme starting at 0:38 in track 1. Definitely an improvement in the deep bass. There's more gorilla there!

Always with the awesomeness, SA. Thank you so much.

whati is the pass word please ?

whati is the pass word please ?

Read the first post, the expression "password" comes at the bottom.

Downloading the new version right now! Thank you SonicAdventure!

Thanks again for all of your hard work!!

I don't pretend to be a supreme audiophile, but if Sonic says its better than the previous version, I'm all in!!!

Thank you!

Thanks for your work on this project and for sharing it.

I didn't notice the flaws in the previous version, but this one is certainly stunning -- beautiful work!!!

Thanks for putting even more time and effort into an already great album, you rock good sir :)

Thank you for the share!

Nice Job :)

Quite an improvement, it sounds so powerful and warm without being hazy, fits the score perfectly. Thanks for your outstanding work!

Well... I can tell you this: you really shouldn�t listen to music like me. Whenever I hear something I notice what�s bad and what�s good. A 'good' ear (which is nothing more than an ear having been trained) is a curse. I cannot listen to something that sounds bad, I just cannot. That prevents me enjoying much of the music ever recorded because I always want to fix the 'bad' and retain the 'good'. And sometimes I�m unable to fix it... which makes me mad. I never listen to some scores (the first three Star Wars scores for example) - just because they do not sound well and I�m unable to alter them so that I actually can listen to them. I only do my editions in order to finally enjoy the music I love so much. But enjoyment? Doesn�t happen too often. I often regard people who aren�t interested in sound as cattle or sheep... but they are the lucky ones really because they are able to readily enjoy what�s important: the music.

And now please stroke my head because of all my arrogant self-pity :D

You are not arrogant, in other aspects of my life I have also to deal with perfectionism so I understand your troubles when listening to some scores... it's shocking (and kind of sad) that you cannot listen to the first three Star Wars!! For me are not the best quality CD's (in particular Return of the Jedi) but still enjoyable. But even myself has problems with some bootlegs or poor recondings (Timeline from Tyler, as an example, I like the score but the sound is... maybe too loud? Not sure, but definitely there's something there hahaha).

After listening to your new Deluxe edition, comparing to the old one... Well... I almost cannot hear much differences hahaha Just subtle changes that, at least for my ears, seems more "adequate", I can hear better the whole orquestra, so I guess that is, right? :)

Thank you again!

Quite an improvement, it's sounds so powerful and warm without being hazy, fits the score perfectly. Thanks for your outstanding work!

Powerful and warm without sounding hazy / opaque - that�s always what I�m aiming for. Thanks!

---------- Post added at 10:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------


You are not arrogant, in other aspects of my life I have also to deal with perfectionism so I understand your troubles when listening to some scores... it's shocking (and kind of sad) that you cannot listen to the first three Star Wars!! For me are not the best quality CD's (in particular Return of the Jedi) but still enjoyable. But even myself has problems with some bootlegs or poor recondings (Timeline from Tyler, as an example, I like the score but the sound is... maybe too loud? Not sure, but definitely there's something there hahaha).

After listening to your new Deluxe edition, comparing to the old one... Well... I almost cannot hear much differences hahaha Just subtle changes that, at least for my ears, seems more "adequate", I can hear better the whole orquestra, so I guess that is, right? :)

That I cannot listen to the first three Star Wars scores suits me well. I also don�t like the movies too much. I know, I know... but I just prefer the prequels. The movies and the music.

Regarding Brian Tyler: he seems to want a certain kind of 'rock-star' sound, apparently it was already audible 11 years ago.

The whole orchestra has better audibility? Good, I succeeded!

That I cannot listen to the first three Star Wars scores suits me well. I also don�t like the movies too much. I know, I know... but I just prefer the prequels. The movies and the music.

Regarding Brian Tyler: he seems to want a certain kind of 'rock-star' sound, apparently it was already audible 11 years ago.

The whole orchestra has better audibility? Good, I succeeded!

Well, I'm happy that someone likes more the precuels! I prefer the original trilogy, but I also like the precuels. Regarding the music... That's difficult for me, I think that I love each one of the Star Wars scores hahahaha

Yes, maybe is that "rock-star" sound that ruins for me some of his scores.

Would someone please please post an alternate download link for king kong deluxe 2.0 in MP3 320? Most of the links for the flac version are already inactive and I would really like to have this. I would really appreciate it and I'm sure many others would as well. Thanks!!

Finding this has made my day, week, year. I humbly thank you.

Outstanding. Thank you very much. You've done a great job - again. And thanks for not providing mp3.

Sorry but how do you download it? New to this site.

Thanks for sharing!

Thank you so much

thanks btw :)

Thanks! Hope this is the definitive edition. Here's the score sheets:

King Kong Complete Sheets 1.rar (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?b79fzf6ny9i93x5)

King Kong Complete Sheets 2.rar (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?r2v7ic2ud7u6df3)

Many, many thanks for this. Possible to re-up the score sheets??

Frankly I preferred Codyap09's version over your original. But I'm giving this another chance. Thank you for your efforts over the years. Even for the couple I didn't like I sure appreciate the work you put in.

Thanks for the music.

thanks alot for the rare tracks :)

Can you re-up this to Mega, please???

Can you re-up this to Mega, please???

Please re-upload files to mega

All the links are down... Could someone reup, please?

I'll be grateful for reup too.

EDIT: Sorry, found the working link: http://forums.ffshrine.org/f92/king-kong-deluxe-edition-james-newton-howard-121142/5.html#post2713233

Thank you very much Sonic for an awesome Deluxe Edition (this one really needed it) of an overlooked score in my opinion :D

None of the mirrors worked when I followed the links. Any chance of updated link(s)?

...Aaand the Mega re-up posted by ostgems doesn't work either.

Here's a working flac link:

https://mega.nz/#!YkcWhbCS!l3lrWrDuwto65RhAMa1uJO7EGq3_EHelXRSpUj5Vay8

Password: KongIsStillKingIn2014! (same as Sonic's)

Here's a working flac link:

https://mega.nz/#!YkcWhbCS!l3lrWrDuwto65RhAMa1uJO7EGq3_EHelXRSpUj5Vay8

Password: KongIsStillKingIn2014! (same as Sonic's)

^^^^ Perfect, thanks!

Thanks! :D

Thank for the re upload, in the Flac format.

Here's a working flac link:

https://mega.nz/#!YkcWhbCS!l3lrWrDuwto65RhAMa1uJO7EGq3_EHelXRSpUj5Vay8

Password: KongIsStillKingIn2014! (same as Sonic's)

Thanks

Thanks Sonic!

thanks!

Thank you for the link.

Many thanks Mr. Slicey for the new link, and of course, many thanks to Sonic for creating this wonderful work in the first place.
Just noticed that this is now v2 so have gratefully replaced my v1 :)

Wonderful score and fantastic to have this complete presentation.

Thanks

thank you

Thanks for the mega link. and for this fabulous work

Thank you very much!

Thanks. Great score!

Great work!!

Thousand thanks for your excellent job, SonicAdventure!!!... :)
And thanks a bunch to Mr. Slicey for the re-up in flac in Mega!!!... :)

Thank you.

thanks

Thank you!

Thanks so much for this new edition. Much appreciated!!!!

Can someone please reupload the "Version 2.0" of this, please?
There is a working link, but looking at the date of the post itself i�m not so sure if this is the 2.0 Version or not.
Thank you very much.

Can someone please reupload the "Version 2.0" of this, please?
There is a working link, but looking at the date of the post itself i�m not so sure if this is the 2.0 Version or not.
Thank you very much.

Don't worry. The working link is Version 2.0. I confirmed it myself :)

Links are dead. Any chance of a re-up?

Links are dead. Any chance of a re-up?

A bit of searching would have helped: Thread 121142

Yeah, well, it's early....

Thank you very much.

Many thanks once again for this great work to Sonic and Mr Slicey for the re-up :)
Reps all round , but Sonic you're still in the queue system :)

Thank you very much all of you!

very cool ;)

Thanks so much for your work on this!

Thanks to Mr. Sonic and Mr. Slicey.