I was simply trying to answer someone’s question about the terms near-field and far-field mix. My point was that a near-field mix is created to sound better in a home. That’s all. 😃
Basically, as I understand it, a near-field mix is a remix of the theatrical audio for home theater. Near field because you’re near the speakers in a home theater, and in a far-field mix (i.e. a commercial theater) you aren’t. So, the Laserdisc audio is redone to sound better in a home, whereas the original optical track sounds better in a movie theater.
Thus I’d rather assume that it was in fact the LD audio which was originally created as the cinema master back then and not vice-versa. If they would have adjusted it to sound “good” on home theaters afterwards, normally that would have meant a reduction of dynamic range, not an increase as many nowadays low-end soundbar stuff (or worse) actually sound better with higher compressed sources. And given that it the mass market, no surprises here. However, the LaserDisc would predate that loudness-war era anyway so I wonder where the “near-field mix theory” comes from.
At least from what I’ve heard now, the optical track sounds like a decent attempt to reproduce the original master, however with all the limitations of these analog optical systems that time whereas the LD gives you the raw, dynamic deal.