lol. I just got back the 5.1 ac3 file already, though I haven't been able to listen to it yet. Tis true that a 44.1 khz rip would make for the purest source to work with, but the captures do sound quite good. I haven't noticed anything deficient about them, although I do have to admit that my speakers aren't the sort of hifi gear needed to resolve that kind of subtle distinction, since I can't afford the real elite stuff (though what I do have is pretty good quality). I have heard that some pro's actually put digital sources through DAC's in order to use analogue mastering tools such as EQ, since they are said to sound more natural as opposed to harsher digital versions, before going back through ADC's again, and achieve transparent results provided the conversions are of high quality. Seems to me that in this case the lossy ac3 encode would ultimately do more to affect the sound than the DAC would, but then I'm not really an expert in such things, so I'll defer to more learned opinions.
I posted a wav file comparing the scene, the first part being the straight 1993 version and the second my edited revision. Part of it comes from the 35mm version having less dynamic range, so the peak volumes were limited while the music was allowed to take control of the scene, but that doesn't account for the '93 mix having a lower music level in general. To me it's a pretty distinct difference, but you can listen for yourselves.