.

Thank you very much

Awesome, thanks!!

Thank. I missed this in the day that it was sold out. 2000 copies is not really enough for all Jones fan around the world. Is it reasonable and "legitimacy" to post SOLD OUT or OOP titles here? An answer is obvious, YES. I don't know why record company want to hold their legal rights when they already make profits, and let the overprice e-bay seller make more and more money, from staffs that the record company don't press anymore. Thanks again.

oh my, this is quite the surprise. been a fan of this OST for a while, but never had luck finding more than a low-quality 40mb release.

THANKS for another great upload, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar

.

A good score that gets sold out almost immediately after release. Sigh... Thanks for this. Really appreciate it.

Thank you!

Thanks for this one. Was not expecting it to sell out so fast.

Thanks Man! Great score! Great movie! Sly's The Best!

Thank you for the share. Never saw the film, or heard the music, so it will be interesting...

Where have you been?! Its an amazing movie, one of the best action films ever. The workprint is even more violent - too bad they didnt do an unrated cut.

Meh, doing other things. :D

---------- Post added at 01:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 AM ----------

Honestly, I tend to listen to older scores, well relatively. Early Horner, Williams, and Goldsmith etc. Composrrs like Trevor and Zimmer were "new bloods" to me, and I never really quite got into them the same way. And really, I still feel the same about most of today's scores, but I am always glad to give something new a listen.

thanks a lot !!

holy s**T CLIFFHANGER is one of stallone best films, and now a expanded ost, any chance of a mp3 version

Thanks Takehiro!

On a side note - I can't undurstand why I'm unable to find the Battlestar soundtrack in flac. It came out earlier...

Thank you so much!

Thanks a rather huge bunch!

Could you do a MP3 version too?

Many thanks!

MP3 would indeed be most welcome.

MP3 would indeed be most welcome.

I agree ...

Thanks a lot for the share,

here's an mp3 version, 320 kbits/sec

Multiupload.com - upload your files to multiple file hosting sites! (http://www.multiupload.com/5763SBMHXZ)

Enjoy!

Thanks...but where are .cue and log?

thanks a lot !!

cue and log would be great :)

Why is having the cue and log so important? If it's truly lossless and there are no glitches then why does it matter?

Thanks a lot!

Its really quite simple to download the FLAC version and convert it.

"DAMN YOU TUCKER!" Thanks!!!

Many Thanks!

Why is having the cue and log so important? If it's truly lossless and there are no glitches then why does it matter?

.. and why is it so difficult to create cue and log. please


without a cue and log its very hard to check the quality. and with a cue and log its easy. thats the reason.

and as i think .. if someone use eac and dont create a log and cue so the rip is not 100%. if someone spend the time to make a 100% rip (needs about 20 mins) .. he will create a log and cue for sure. needs only 10 seconds more and is the 100% guaranty for others. so .. mmhh

btw .. the log is auto generated .. so why remove it ^^

just flac means not lossless !!

Thanks so much for the MP3 version.

Appreciate the download in lossless!

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------


Its really quite simple to download the FLAC version and convert it.

Quite true. There are numerous FREE programs that can convert FLAC. I have one that can convert much anything to WAV, and I can put into my iTunes, of which I can burn a disc of the lossless.

.. and why is it so difficult to create cue and log. please


without a cue and log its very hard to check the quality. and with a cue and log its easy. thats the reason.

and as i think .. if someone use eac and dont create a log and cue so the rip is not 100%. if someone spend the time to make a 100% rip (needs about 20 mins) .. he will create a log and cue for sure. needs only 10 seconds more and is the 100% guaranty for others. so .. mmhh

btw .. the log is auto generated .. so why remove it ^^

just flac means not lossless !!



There is a way to see if it is lossless without a cue or log. Use Abobe Audition or other programs. See the frequency response and you can tell. You don't need a cue or log sheet to see if it's lossless. Enough said.

.

Absolutely.

People downloading something that someone uploaded for them FOR FREE have ZERO right to complain. Take what you've been given and be grateful.

If it being the exact equivalent of the official, physical version is so important to you, go out and get your own damn copy. Plenty of after-market sellers out there to gouge you for your prickliness.

the links is down. Please reupload. thanks

Is anyone else having trouble keeping MU links active these days? Or is some group here just being spiteful and reporting links?

I refer to my previous statements regarding lossless; software cannot confirm lossless and nor can cue sheets or log files. The only thing that can confirm lossless is your ears - and if you can't tell by listening, you clearly don't need lossless. Music files are for listening to, folks - not for fawning over, analysing, or as a catalyst for getting mad at your mates. FLAC is not a commodity - it's music.

Asking for CUEs and LOGs is another way of saying "I do not trust you" - if the ripper wishes to provide him, that's his perogative. If he doesn't, ask him what his ripping workflow is (if he is using EAC, this is usually a good sign that his rips will be competent) and decide for yourself. On the rare occasions I upload lossless, quite frankly, I do not provide a LOG out of pure spite - I trust MY own ripping method (a damn sight more than I trust most other people's) and I go to a lot of trouble to ensure that what I upload is the best quality it can be. If the downloader - lest we forget, the person who is getting a free copy of something that cost the ripper a lot of money, and is damn lucky to be getting lossless anything - does not trust the ripper or his particular choice of ripping... He can go and take a running jump, quite honestly.

Incidentally... LOGs and CUEs can be faked manually, and an even easier way to do it is to take a rip that didn't have a LOG, burn it to CD, and rip THAT with EAC and provide you with the LOGs and CUEs you desire... Will they be any use? Of course not! Will you be able to tell the difference? Of course not! They prove absolutely NOTHING except the fact that they're there. They are a source of comfort for people who don't know any better but serve no purpose out here in the real world.

It also makes me worry that folk are more interested in the fact that's it's a FLAC, and it had better be genuine lossless (which apparently means high frequencies up the wazoo even though anybody with half a brain knows that's not the case) and you'd better provide full logs about how you ripped it, what you ripped it with, what time you did it, who made your CD drive, what colour socks you were wearing, whether it was raining or sunny or snowing in London, New York, and Paris, etc, etc... and don't actually care about the music that's inside them. Some folk (NOT all) collect lossless for status.

And, as far as this upload goes, it annoys me less because the damn thing sold out in hours - yes, it's certainly illegal, but in my eyes it is no longer an issue of morality.

Not wearing socks... :D :D

---------- Post added at 02:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 AM ----------

I was curious about your opinion on sharing this. I agree that once it is sold out, it should be ok to share.

On that note, still not having listened to this...is it **that** good. Sold out in hours, cause it is that good, or just cause?

Not wearing socks...

Well, that makes your rip far better quality in my opinion. ;)

You will need to make sure this is noted this in your LOGs though, otherwise folk will complain.


On that note, still not having listened to this...is it **that** good. Sold out in hours, cause it is that good, or just cause?

Just cause, in my humble opinion. Nice solid score, but overhyped to the extreeeeeeeeeme. I don't dislike it, but it's not the sort of score that makes me wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat panting "MUST... HAVE... CLIFFHANGER... DOUBLE... DISC... SET... WITH... 40... MINUTES... OF... MUSIC... PER... DISC!"

Well, to me, some of this sounds...demanding. It's not.."say, anychance you could do a cue for me if you get time", or "I'd really like..if you could". Instead it seems to come across as:where the hell is th log!??". Post mp3, and immediatel its "why no FLAC. Post FLAC its where is thr cue and log. Post all that, and either way its, where's the covers. Where's the tray art. Why did you not scan the booklet...sigh

---------- Post added at 03:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 AM ----------

But one eason I down very little right now is the lack of space, and I have tons..even Horner, I have not heard even once, so why continue dl-ing more? Now others are collectors, and completists, like Admiral Sorei, who collect multi versions of score. Her thing, to each their own...

without a cue and log its very hard to check the quality. and with a cue and log its easy. thats the reason.
Cue file isn't that important. You don't use a cue file to check if the music is lossless. It just contains the data saying where a new track starts. If the soundtrack is already divided into separate files, there is no need to keep a cue file.

Cue file isn't that important. You don't use a cue file to check if the music is lossless. It just contains the data saying where a new track starts. If the soundtrack is already divided into separate files, there is no need to keep a cue file.
That's not entirely true, especially if you want to burn the files to a CD: most burning softwares automatically add 2 seconds gaps between tracks in the writing process, but if you provide the cue file the softwares will get from there the info, allowing you to recreate the originally ripped disc.... That's mainly why most people want cue/log when dealing with lossless, archiving purposes... The lossless fans easily forget how lucky they are to get lossless encoded stuff for free, in the first place.

Cue and log files are not just about trust. As the poster above me has stated, cue files are used by burning programs to burn the files correctly on cd's with the correct gaps between tracks. It is standard for burning programs to include a 2-second gap between each track, but many soundtracks do not have gaps between tracks. Putting gaps in-between tracks that weren't meant to have them means putting a 2-second bit of silence between tracks that are meant to run seamlessly together, thus ruining the tracks. And sometimes, scores will have some tracks with gaps and some tracks without. That is why cue files are very important. They tell the burning program what tracks have gaps between them and what tracks don't.

It takes only a few extra seconds to create a cue sheet and it is a must for correctly burning to CD. It's not that people should just shut up and take what they can get for free here, it's a simple matter of since the ripper is bothering in the first place to rip to lossless, why on Earth would you not create a cue file with it? If your original CD gets scratched or breaks, you can recreate the CD if you have the cue file and flacs - you can't do it without the cue file.

gone

Is anyone else having trouble keeping MU links active these days? Or is some group here just being spiteful and reporting links?

I wandered around a bit looking at surviving links. My megaupload links seem to have survived, as have your non-megaupload links. What the issue is, I think, is your naming conventions. You are using the actual name of the album in your file names. Depending on what I'm uploading, I use a series of code names. The idea is to have something abstract, like a collection of letters and or numbers, which a spider will not identify as an inappropriate file. For instances, this album would come out as either C_TJ.rar or C-I_TJ.rar. My Gundam albums use a code combing the series and the catalog number (but not just the catalog number, since this can be a weak spot.) I've seen others who use file names based on abstract bits of movie trivia. You want to avoid dates or composer names. (Which I admit I've never seen you use.) If you want, you could test out a new format with a few files and see what happens.
JonC

FLAC Version is offline. Could you post another mirror? Thanks Darrian

I wandered around a bit looking at surviving links. My megaupload links seem to have survived, as have your non-megaupload links. What the issue is, I think, is your naming conventions. You are using the actual name of the album in your file names. Depending on what I'm uploading, I use a series of code names. The idea is to have something abstract, like a collection of letters and or numbers, which a spider will not identify as an inappropriate file. For instances, this album would come out as either C_TJ.rar or C-I_TJ.rar.

I usually upload an archives on your way (a few letters), but sometimes they are removed, because some fu*ing maniac reports them. BUT I also upload stuff for private forum - with full names - and ALL the links are active for months... - 99% uploads on hosting servers incl. illegal stuff. Who cares about the names of files...? ;)

It comes down to who's running the search. Sometimes it's the label, concentrating on a particular server. Sometimes the server is working in cooperation, hoping that helping now will keep them off their back later. Files without passwords can have their contents scanned. There is also apparently a system that measures collective file sizes, and measures them against a database of known albums to determine a probable match to an illegal upload, although this is more relevant for rock than it is for scores. Since I also tweak my metadata, I'm less likely to be caught for that.
You are correct, in that if a specific file, no matter what precautions are taken is reported, that file goes away. In Babydoll's case, it seems to have only effected her megaupload files. This means a) only megaupload took the report seriously, or b) a random check through megaupload swept them up. I've never had a megaupload file been reported. (As far as I can tell.)
That's why I recommend a test. Put up the file, list it on the forums, and see if it gets busted. (I'd also change something in the files structure, such as the metadata, to remove the file sizes as a variable.) Seems like a lot of work? Maybe. But it gets you a better sense of what's going on. Specifically whether you specifically are being targeted, or only the server.
JonC

In Babydoll's case, it seems to have only effected her megaupload files.....

I thing in this case maybe not babydoll was 'a target' (a maniac's or a MU target.. ;) ), but... Horner's files. I checked now: all Horner's uploads by stereoelf are dead now too.

Sure. So somebody should do a test with a Horner file (or two) and see what happens. Don't forget to post the link is the same areas and see what happens.

A couple years ago somebody did the same thing with Danny Elfman scores. (That was an individual, not a label.)

JonC

I am thinking it may be Horner in general, as most non Horner links of mine are still active, All pm share links are active too, and I never really bother with those file names. The Hotfile and Multi-upload links still work. With Hotfile, it seems harder to report a link. Lotta hoops and stuff.

Hey everyone. In response to a previous post, software CAN confirm something is lossless. Just put it into Adobe Audition and you can see black areas where MP3 has degraded a signal. Even a 320CBR in LAME will be blantantly obvious once you put it into a spectrum analyzer. But enough of that crap :)

Anyway, I will post another link. It'll be in FLAC from original discs. Sound OK?

So we can assume you did not delete the link yourself. So it is not **just** Horner scores, unless this going down so fast was coincidence...it may be best to avoid MU, then....?

Hey everyone. In response to a previous post, software CAN confirm something is lossless. Just put it into Adobe Audition and you can see black areas where MP3 has degraded a signal. Even a 320CBR in LAME will be blantantly obvious once you put it into a spectrum analyzer. But enough of that crap :)

No, it can't, as already stated.

What if the original source has no signal above 16khz? (Let's say it's an older digital recording at 32khz, or perhaps an older analogue recording that has undergone restoration. In addition to the lowpass filtering that would be present, there are some multi-band noise-reduction systems that, when applied to noisy analog recordings, look remarkably like an MP3 under the spectral scanner. They do strange things at high frequencies like LAME does. It can look very disconcerting.)

There are settings in LAME you can apply that will turn off the lowpass filter (and other various things) and will make a file that looks lossless under the spectrum analyser. Other MP3 encoders (not everybody uses LAME - they should but they don't) do this by default. Other lossy encoders (WavPack in Hybrid mode springs to mind) do no filtering and do nothing to the signal that you could see under a spectrum analyser.

I repeat; software CANNOT confirm or deny that something is lossless. Only your ears can do that. If your ears can't, be happy and don't worry because lossless will never help you.

Looking at a spectral scan can, in some cases give you a pretty good idea that something was encoded with LAME (or another lossy encoder that does stuff to the signal that is clearly visible) at default settings. That is all. "Sometimes, probably" is not the same as "always, definitely" - and the word "confirm" implies something definite that cannot be disputed.

Here are some screenshots that should give folk who think spectrum scans are completely foolproof lossless detectors some food for thought...

(http://img191.imageshack.us/i/spectrumanalyserisnotin.jpg/)

:)

So we can assume you did not delete the link yourself. So it is not **just** Horner scores, unless this going down so fast was coincidence...it may be best to avoid MU, then....?

I wont use MU. Funny, thats the first issue I've had with it...

I repeat; software CANNOT confirm or deny that something is lossless. Only your ears can do that. If your ears can't, be happy and don't worry because lossless will never help you.


I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong.

Anyway, I will post another link. It'll be in FLAC from original discs. Sound OK?

Sounds perfectly a-ok to me!

I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong.

I'M sorry, but that is absolutely right and saying the opposite doesn't make it true. I don't want to argue and I have nothing but respect for everybody here, but spreading misinformation helps nobody.

Spectral analysis - for the third time - can give you a good idea under some circumstances but is not an infallible means of detecting lossless. To make an informed judgement about sound, you have to listen to it. The facts speak for themselves.

Another reason why I buy CDs

I'M sorry, but that is absolutely right and saying the opposite doesn't make it true. I don't want to argue and I have nothing but respect for everybody here, but spreading misinformation helps nobody.

Spectral analysis - for the third time - can give you a good idea under some circumstances but is not an infallible means of detecting lossless. To make an informed judgement about sound, you have to listen to it. The facts speak for themselves.


Again, you are wrong and I'm NOT spreading misinformation. Get your facts right. You are the one spreading misinformation. Not me. Only your ears can tell? What a bunch of crap!!

Again, you are wrong and I'm NOT spreading misinformation. Get your facts right. You are the one spreading misinformation. Not me. Only your ears can tell? What a bunch of crap!!

Yeah, what crap - ears are for hearing. Never heard anything so ludicrous in my life! Why do you feel the need to attack me? If you disagree, counter my evidence with your evidence. Don't denounce it as "crap" just because you disagree. With the greatest respect, if what I am saying is genuinely wrong, I'm sure you will have lots of hard facts, evidence, precedents, etc, with which to prove me wrong? Something a little more constructive than "what crap!" would be nice.

Instructing me to "get my facts right" is nonsense, as a fact by definition is right - and that is what I've presented. A spectral scan is not an infallible way of detecting a lossless source. I have even proven it with illustrations. Why are you getting so angry? It's not the end of the world.

A spectral scan will show you tell-tale signs of certain sorts of lossy encoding; LAME - MOST OF THE TIME - does a very distinctive adaptive lowpass that is very easy to spot. Other encoders do other things you can see in the upper frequencies. NOT ALL! As per the illustration, lossy Wavpack doesn't do any filtering at all that is visible on a spectral scan, and MP3 encoders other than LAME (ie, Fraunhofer - still occasionally used) do the same thing. Even LAME with certain switches invoked will turn off the lowpass filter and the spectral scan will look just like the lossless source.

Also as previously stated, the look-for-the-lowpass technique depends on their being data above 16khz, which there sometimes isn't - in the case of remastered recordings as previously discussed which may have been lowpassed in post production to reduce hiss (or indeed use adaptive hiss reduction that looks EXACTLY like the LAME adaptive lowpass - once again, see the illustration) or it may simply be a case of an older digital recording made at 32khz instead of the more standard 44.1khz - a spectral scan of *that* would look completely identical to the lossless source because there is no data in the areas where LAME does its filtration.

Ultimately you'll believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe the truth. I don't care if you want to hold incorrect views yourself, but I object when you forcefully put them forward as truth and attempt to discredit the actual facts. That is how misconceptions begin; with ignorance combined with arrogance - one person who doesn't know the facts speaks as if he does - and a thousand other people who also don't know, believe him.

sorry for missunderstood maybe.

i am super happy about this share !!!

just asked for the cue and log because i like to have it , like the coclatte on a cake ^^






---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------


There is a way to see if it is lossless without a cue or log. Use Abobe Audition or other programs. See the frequency response and you can tell. You don't need a cue or log sheet to see if it's lossless. Enough said.

i know .. as I said:
without a cue and log its very hard to check the quality. and with a cue and log its easy. thats the reason.


ok .. its not very hard .. just need work :)

but i like it to trust a rip. i am on other boards too. closed boards with hard rules. and the sunshining side there is that u ever know .. its 100% :)

without a cue and log its very hard to check the quality. and with a cue and log its easy. thats the reason. but i like it to trust a rip.

Hey look, if you dont trust me, dont download the rip. Simple as that. But its a FLAC 8 rip from physical CDs, with FLAC verificarion and ACCURATRE-RIP ENABLED which is as good as ripping it a log file. But if my word means nothing, by all means look elsewhere for it.

Everyone else - you're most welcome for the share!

Hey look, if you dont trust me, dont download the rip. Simple as that. But its a FLAC 8 rip from physical CDs, with FLAC verificarion and ACCURATRE-RIP ENABLED which is as good as ripping it a log file. But if my word means nothing, by all means look elsewhere for it.

Everyone else - you're most welcome for the share!

omg, now it turns to I DO NOT TRUST U
dont be angry, .. i just asked because i wanna download it and because i like the release. it was just a question. and i did not know about u are used ACCURATRE-RIP ENABLED

i say it again: THANK YOU FOR THIS NICE SHARE

I'm not angry. What made you think that, homes? Sometimes its hard to read tone of words on a screen but Im not angry. I couldnt care less if you trust me or not, lol. Lifes too short. And if you dont know what Accurate Rip is, look it up. It will explain everything :)

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 PM ----------

OK new links posted.

As I was too late for the previous link, many thanks for the re-upload!

Here are some screenshots that should give folk who think spectrum scans are completely foolproof lossless detectors some food for thought...

Actually, only the WavPack one looks correct. I can tell the MP3 is not lossless.

And how often do you really have to worry about WavPack?

Not often. Point is, it highlights the fact that a spectral scan is not an infallible method of detecting lossless, which is all I was saying all along. It works sometimes - one could even say most of the time - but it does not work *all* the time and there are scenarios where it quite clearly fails. My initial post was prompted by an earlier statement (from a poster I notice has now disappeared) that the scan was a 100% reliable, definitive method of detecting lossless. It isn't, it never was, it never will be.

The MP3 sample wasn't the best one, as the high frequency rolloff was present in the original too - which rather illustrates my point; there is more to lossless audio than looking at spectral scans. It is possible for lossless audio to look suspiciously like a lossy encode, and it's equally possible for a lossy encode to look like a lossless encode.

Which brings me back to the original point - the one the other poster derided as "what crap":

Audio is for listening. You can argue until you're blue in the face about audio that you have converted into a picture and analysed on that basis - but ultimately sound is designed to be processed by your ears; and lossy encoding algorithms proceed on that basis.

Now we understand that looking at a spectral scan can fail, what else do we have that can definitively tell lossy from lossless? NOTHING! Except your ears! And if your ears can't do it, then the lossy encoding algorithm has suceeded 100% in its intended purpose - to encode audio at a low bitrate but sound indistinguishable from the original. If you can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter.

I can't tell the difference between Kellogg's Rice Krispies and Sainsbury's Rice Pops - except that the Rice Pops cost a quarter as much. In a bowl, covered in milk, they both taste the same. I'm not about to convert them into some other format and analyse them to prove that there's a difference - I know there's a difference, but I don't care, because breakfast cereal is for eating and therefore the only test it should be made to pass is one of flavour.

Peace :)
TT

Aaaaaaanyway, whos enjoying the score? :)

Me...! ;)

I confess I hadn't really given it much time... It always seemed to be one of those "great theme, boring score" situations - but now, listening to it all, I'm really enjoying it. The action setpieces are great. :-D

Its definitely not a case of good theme, boring score, as I am pleased youre discovering. I love the texture the electronics give. Im gonna go ahead and unsub from this thread, so if anyone needs anything, PM me.

My initial post was prompted by an earlier statement (from a poster I notice has now disappeared)TT


I didn't disappear. I have nothing more to say about this. You are wrong and it looks nothing will convince you otherwise. It's a complete waste of time going around in circles about this.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------


what else do we have that can definitively tell lossy from lossless? NOTHING! Except your ears!


Again with the EARS. Completely wrong. Now, I will "disappear" again. You can keep writing long passages about this if you want.


Peace and Love.

.

Takehiro: Perhaps I should just clarify - I wasn't saying "why bother with FLAC" because I understand and agree with the reasons, and I collect FLAC myself. My comments were intended only to highlight the futility of chasing blindly after FLAC if you actually can't perceive any benefit in sound quality. I can't tell the difference some of the time but I keep FLAC for comfort, for insurance, and in case I should invest in a better audio system in the future and suddenly be able to hear artifacts all over my MP3s! ;)

My other comment was that you cannot reliably detect lossless audio using a spectral scanner. That is plain truth, no matter how much some people like to repeat the mantra "you're wrong, you're wrong, what crap! You're wrong, you're wrong, what crap!" without providing one shred of common sense, fact, or proof to support their position.

I think people are taking me out of context and thinking I hate FLAC, or that I think FLAC is worthless. Not so! Far from it! My only thoughts are that audio should be heard with your ears, not seen with your eyes, and that folk who have an MP3 but scream blue murder to get a FLAC - but can't actually tell the difference between the two - are creating unnecessary pain for themselves.

So - long live FLAC, but also long live MP3 - for both have their benefits and their purpose in this world. And long live listening to music through those two circular disc-shaped protruberances on sides of your head; that's what they're designed for. :)

As for fake lossless... If your sources are reliable and knowledgeable, not a problem! (And assuming you know how to tell the difference.)

I have had lossless rips of mine criticised because some joker has put them under the spectro-scan and noticed a frequency rolloff! Frequency rolloff does not equal fake lossless, it just equals frequency rolloff. There are a thousand reasons why there might be frequency rolloff in a finished recording - several of which have been discussed (and ignored by some) earlier in the thread. You cannot take two and two and come up with nine. But they were more interested in arguing (from an untenable position and with a clear lack of understanding of how recording technology works, what sampling rates are for, and how lossy encoders actually encode) that I was trying to hawk fake lossless rips on the internet, I should be strung up and put before a firing squad for my crimes against humanity, etc, etc. They hadn't even listened to the damn thing. (And yes, it was a genuine lossless rip!)

Last time I checked, that was what most people did with music.

.

I can't usually tell a difference between FLAC and a well-encoded MP3, but I collect FLAC in case a new format comes along that I want my music to be in.

And thanks, Takehiro, much appreciated.

Youre most welcome :)

Hi KaFaraqGatri...thanks for the quick re-upload! I appreciate it very much. :)

On the subject of Mr. Horner...yes, any new addition to my library is welcomed with open arms. I'll try to get back to you once I regroup (ummm...get my act together ;) ).

Once again...thanks for your help...

Thx for uploading :)

EDIT: This is weird. The way, way earlier release actually sounds better. Less tracks of course. But somehow they have more bite.
Intradas release is kinda ... less colorful, washy.

Anyone else has the same feeling?

Thank you very much for the glorious music from Cliffhanger.

Thanks.

Many many thanks for this re-up, it's very much appreciated!

Such a Gentleman - Thank you :)