The frequency pics are only useful if you have something to compare them against. Otherwise, they simply exist in a vaccum.

I do have to agree though--audio-wise, LDs have value. Yes, HD audio is lossless and in theory should be the same. But sometimes its not. Its re-mixed, and I find often that modern re-mixes simply aren't as good as the original mixes. But there's also the problem of digital audio. As an ardent vinyl collector, I will never listen to a CD if I have a well-preserved LP of the same recording. Even if its the same mix, in theory the digital version should identical or superior, but in practice there is a certain unmeasureable quality than an LP has. People describe it as a "warmth", but its something more complex than that, there is a harshness and crudeness to a lot of digital audio that you simply don't get in analog, aside from the often inferior mixing jobs. Maybe people will argue its just psychological, maybe they are partly right, and certainly many digital audio files are better than the best LP pressings for various reasons, but I do think there is a bit of truth in what JediTray is saying. I'll admit I've not heard very many BDs, though.

On the other hand, I would think its a bit exaggerated to say LD is better than BR. LD looks like shit. Yeah, it sound better--a little bit--but there is no way in the world anyone anywhere could say the soft, noisy picture of a Laserdisc compares to the rich, velvety quality of a high-def image. I mean, sometimes its better than what you saw in the theatre. A movie is not audio, and even though Lucas says "sound is 50% of the experience", this is just a philosophical expression, as the brain processes visual information at a much higher rate so its really only like 20% of the experience, and the difference between an LD and a BD in terms of audio, even though I would say in some cases there may be a difference, is not exactly huge.