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.
What can you get a Wookiee for (Life Day) Christmas when he already owns a comb?