BlahBlahCafe - Jean-Michel Jarre forum

Promotion:

That's an odd mix of Stardust. Or maybe just my headphones? I think I now understand what JMJ meant by "unsatisfactory sound quality", but then again it could have been simply replaced/mixed with studio versions?

Jote wrote: Fri Aug 08, 2025 4:20 pm That's an odd mix of Stardust. Or maybe just my headphones? I think I now understand what JMJ meant by "unsatisfactory sound quality", but then again it could have been simply replaced/mixed with studio versions?

It sort of sounds like an audience recording, let's see how the other tracks will be, really curious about RV2.

It sounds like the bitrate is compressed to 128kbps or something at times (for example the percussions at 2:52 onwards), and indeed as if the recording position was in the audience.

(In fact, that's something that's always bothered me about CPLT, to my ears it kind of sounds like it's been filmed from the middle of the audience so it lacks just "that something" to me)

Sounds bad, but I guess that's what Jarre was referring to. They worked with what they had to bring it as a memory of unforgettable evening.
It will be interesting to see the video quality too.

The original audio streaming was better. I have my own version from this streaming, a little bit enhanced and it's no so bad.
The official Stardust single today shows again bad choice, with the worst amplified frequencies... as if the sound was compressed to 128kbps as Finareo has written.
It's really disappointment one more time.

Listened on Tidal today and it doesn't seem to be 128kbps... but 96kbps

It is unbelievable, sounds like a hasty, FOH, measurement microphone recording. With all those Digico equipment and mixing by genial sound engineers...

Looking at the spectrum (Deezer 16/44 lossless), low-pass filtered at 16 kHz (as we hear it), really must be lossy source.

Surely this won't actually sound like this on the release, now will it? Will it?!

Seriously, why not dig into the archives and release something else of THIS is somehow acceptable?!

shadow wrote: Sat Aug 09, 2025 8:01 am Surely this won't actually sound like this on the release, now will it? Will it?!

Sadly we all know it will.

Zero wrote: Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:13 pm Sounds bad, but I guess that's what Jarre was referring to. They worked with what they had

But see, this makes no sense. They do have "studio" versions of all the tracks from the concert. And no, I don't mean "album versions". No, the entire concert - minus the guitars on Time Machine/RV2, choir on RV2 and brass on RV2 - was prerecorded. So why not just use that as a basis and overlay this with the live recording instead of deferring to live recording exclusively?

Jote wrote: Sat Aug 09, 2025 6:23 pm

Zero wrote: Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:13 pm Sounds bad, but I guess that's what Jarre was referring to. They worked with what they had

But see, this makes no sense. They do have "studio" versions of all the tracks from the concert. And no, I don't mean "album versions". No, the entire concert - minus the guitars on Time Machine/RV2, choir on RV2 and brass on RV2 - was prerecorded. So why not just use that as a basis and overlay this with the live recording instead of deferring to live recording exclusively?

Of course, but it would involve some serious work or maybe it was problematic in some manner too?
I am very curious to see the actual video now. If they have used the footage that was broadcasted on Slovak TV, did they even had the feed/recordings from different cameras at all to work with? The video is labeled as directors cut, but why did they prominently wrote that it was made from Slovak TV Broadcast, so it will be interesting to see it.

Zero wrote: Sat Aug 09, 2025 6:42 pm Of course, but it would involve some serious work

No, not really.

or maybe it was problematic in some manner too?

Doubt it.

It's the Zoolook Anniversary all over again.

What is so wrong with the sound? I really don’t hear something strange or that it is compressed. In my opinion its a decent recording