[Closed] HANS ZIMMER

translation... he can't follow it.

Jordi, I usually support you so if I'm disagreeing with you, that probably means you should think twice

I too found that none of the sequels (POTC2 included) were ever able to keep up and follow the pace and coherency of the first movie. POTC2 - especially, almost made me fall asleep half-way.

I liked both CoTBP and DMC a lot. AWE was kinda overlong, yeah, with a bit too many side plots. But I liked some of the sequences like Davy Jones' Locker scene (multiple jacks), the duel un the maelstorm scene (had a terrific, sadly unreleased version of Hoist The Colours theme) and of course the final battle (Beckett's day-sleepwalk ) Hans' score prevented me from falling asleep in the duller scenes anyway Anyway, I like the series a lot, along with the scores

Wow....

The screenplays for the sequels were much smarter than you guy realize. Characters were created with their own mythology and backstories that were pull from other established sources. They didn't tell you everything and you were actually had to watch it, and think about it. The first 2/3 of DMC was there to serve as a first act to AWE, and though we would judge it to stand on its own, it wasn't meant to. And although both sequels had its faults, they were entertaining and refreshing, more than I can say for most of the offerings at the time.

As you can fathom most of us really didn't think any of the outings were smart, and for the better part the last instalment certainly was entertaining nor refreshing! I'm slightly confused what you think there was to think about in any of the films, which were about as straightforward as possible.
I fear you read a bit too much in what really was not much more than an action-adventure series, of which the last part was muddled and overlong.

Good...there are actually sane people left on these boards....

to everyone that thinks otherwise

Apparently, Warner Brothers Records will release not one but FOUR different versions of the TDK soundtrack: a regular jewel case CD, a 2 LP set of heavy-weight 180 gram vinyl version, a special edition digipak, and a collector's edition with special artwork to come after release.



Big question is: WHY? Unless one has more music than the other, I see no point in these different releases.

With the right equipment IT SOUNDS BETTER!

You're not loosing anything mate; stick with the first one, the most (if not the only) entertaining of the trilogy.

Rrrrriiiiiiiiiight.

Nostalgia...Hm...that makes a lot of sense.
More so, with all due respect, than the old and a million times disproven "it sounds better" argument.

Silly idea though, and somehow decadent to my mind.
It caters to a demand that simply isn't there.
Well, welcome to the wonderful world of marketing.

Demetris, perhaps you can tell me whether or not this is true: I've always thought that the trjth behind this stubborn urban legend was that in the very early days of CD, the recording actually *was* clipped (not compressed, mind, but actually clipped) at a certain amount of hertz at the top and the bottom for space purposes.

Now obviously while this wasn't audible, there isa certain resonance in non-clipped audio that affects the bone structure to vibrate sympathetically (especially when using cans). This resulted in many finer-attuned people to complain of the "cold" sound of CDs.

However this clipping has been abandoned very early.
The legend remains though.

This is how it was explained to me by a friend in the music/recording business, but I've never found anything yet in literature to confirm or disprove that.

Any thoughts on that?

Because people are afraid of the CD Monster!!!!

Watch out, it eats everything!
Including sound quality!

Simple as that: monster + eat

It's never been proved, just a myth like the myriads of others humans like to spread.

Here's how it goes:

Supposedly, LP's (because they were direct 'scratchings' / markings of the actual sound waves on the vinyl's surface which were later reproduced exactly by the needle (head) in an analog way instead of the binary digital form of the audio cd and the reproduction by laser beam in digital instead of analog) could descend a bit below the lower minimum auditory limit of the 20 hz for the human hearing * (the lower limit varies between human being though, some (very, very few though) descend to 16 or even 10 hz but nothing's actually 'heard' below 20hz, you just MAY feel it, never hear it) and that, while not audible it is said to have attributed the particular "warmth" and "depth" to sound which LP lovers accuse CDs to lack.

Now, lower frequency ranges in the sound are indeed partly - but not solely - responsible for the warmth and depth of a sound (whilst high ones are responsible for clarity) but the whole thing is nothing but a myth, for 3 main reasons:

1) Nobody got into the laboratory / studio and actually had his hearing frequency scientifically measured.
2) People who carry these claims always know in advance what they are listening to and that filters their perception tremendously (see below for more)
3) As psychoacoustics and academics of sound / sound engineers will tell you, the whole theme it's subjective up to a very large degree as our hearing system which functions on sensations and not clear-cut events, is possibly the most advanced and deeply complex thing we have in our bodies and it has - and never will - never functioned in the simple way the LP lovers put it to be, i.e. IT IS THAT AND NOT THIS. It takes experiments and researches you'd never thought possible and still, nobody would ever be sure, at least with today's scientific standards.

It's SO VERY complex. To put it very roughly for everyone to understand - you only need to take into account that sound waves (ups and downs of air pressure) enter your ear, are filtered and amplified via the movement of 3 inter-connected bones which form a marvellously functioning, united system and which themselves vibrate the ear drum which then passes them to the cochlea and the sound nerves which transform mechanical energy to electrical (electrical signals) which are - and this is where things get very complicated - passed to the brain as electrical signals and as such the auditory events are analyzed and rendered as acoustical / musical sensations. That's what Psychoacoustics study, an area which is very premature and preliminary itself and i think you realize now that listening to stuff in your very own house to stuff you control and you know about in advance (something which - as i told you before - is very crucial as to how unbiased and 'real' your acoustical perception is, and that is proven) and actually CLAIMING that you KNOW what you're listening to, is - at least - ridiculous.

You'd never believe (and believe me, I've been there) what specially designed audio experiments on perception in a sterile environments (specially formed studios) in situations TOTALLY UNCONTROLLED by you would do to your standards on what you thought you were listening to all this time, up to that point. You'll be shocked, amazed and never listen in the same way you did before;

Or at least never claim you actually know exactly how you listen, even again

Here's a paragraph from a Time's article i always held dear to my beliefs

It's not good that I can only come here once a day now and have to read over 70+ posts that I have no comment on. Damn the new job!