logo Sign In

Info: The LID Project: Laserdisc is dead. — Page 6

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Laserman
The audio often sounds better on laserdisc in 5.1 than on DVD on 5.1 because the 5.1 mixes for laserdisc were 'pure' 5.1 mixes.
That is they were designed to be played back through 5.1 equipment *only* and the mix was done accordingly, and was usually very close to the cinematic release.


Forgive me, but how can you prove this? It sounds like speculation to me.

<span>GAV</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Altough it's not something I have first hand experience of - I have no AC3 laserdisc titles and no demodulator - but I have heard this theory repeated several times on forums for AV enthusiasts. The Phantom Menace (AC3) and Titanic (DTS) are two movies in particular that sping to mind.

That said, it would probably be easy enough to prove - a simple measurement of average vs. peak levels should show if the laserdisc track has a higher dynamic range.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
It depends on the title. For Episode I LD vs DVD audio, no contest the LD wins. It is an incredible soundtrack on LD, just like I heard in the theater. For Titanic DTS LD vs the new DVD's DTS, I find them to be very equal, with the DVD maybe having a slight edge in my opinion. In the case of Apollo 13, I have the DTS LD and the new HD-DVD with Dolby Digital Plus. While the HD-DVD is far superior in video, the DTS audio on the laser just kills the HD-DVD. THe Dolby digital plus is weak and puny compared to the DTS laser.

I do think that laserdisc was most often just pretty much the theatrical soundtrack put right on disc, whereas DVD's are now often "modified" for home theater environments. Like a previous poster also said, DD on DVD must be able to play on anything, whereas LD DD was 5.1 only with no downmixing. Whether or not if affects quality is another matter.
Author
Time
Post link
...Which may be why DTS generally comes off as superior on DTS DVDs: It's more of an enthusiast format.
That and I think the people at DTS don't like to compromise on their audio quality.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Post link
True; some people say DTS is superior because it's 768kbps compared to AC3 at 448kbps, when in fact it's the actual sound mix that's better.
I don't know much about the specs for DTS on laserdisc.
In theory laserdisc AC3 at 384kbps is lower quality than DVD AC3 at 448kbps but as stated above this is not always the case.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
Thank you that just explained a mystery to me.

5.1DD is almost ALWAYS 448kbps.
My recent Little Mermaid restoration used the old DVD's audio (which according to sources is sonically identical to the laserdisc (and theater) release).
I couldn't understand why they had used 384kbps since, well, no-one uses 384kbps for 5.1.

That's a good reason, and even with the lower bitrate it still kicks the ass of that DEHT mix.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Doctor M
Thank you that just explained a mystery to me.

5.1DD is almost ALWAYS 448kbps.



Are you sure about that? I've seen 5.1 mixes that were 192kbps. I wouldn't say even most are around 448.
Author
Time
Post link
I think most actual DD 5.1 mixes on DVD are at 448kbps. Many are also at 384. Warner used 384 for most all titles up until a year or two ago. Usually it's the dolby 2.0 mixes that are 192kbps.

Dolby digital on LD was 384. So theoretically, the Star wars episode I dvd at 448 should be better than the lasers 384, but it's not the case.

Another one is Saving private Ryan. I had the DD DVD at one point, which was 448. Then I got the DTS DVD, which was 754, and it was loads better than the DD DVD. Then I got the DD laserdisc at 384 and it beats the pants off of them all. It is to this day the most intense soundtrack I've heard.

DTS on laserdisc was 1235kbps. DTS DVD started out at 1536kbps but was then cut in half to 754 to save space.
Author
Time
Post link
"Forgive me, but how can you prove this? It sounds like speculation to me."

Might take awhile to find the material, but believe me, when DVD was emerging, this was talked about quite a bit - especially in all the AV magazines (Widescreen magazine, etc.) It's very true.

"some people say DTS is superior because it's 768kbps compared to AC3 at 448kbps, when in fact it's the actual sound mix that's better."

To my knowledge, there was no real "remixing". Dolby and DTS both received the same master soundtrack (The individual streams), and compressed it to their own formats. (This is not to say that there weren't instances of Dolby and DTS using different mixes, or having a second mix made specifically for one or the other, but this was not the standard method.)

"So theoretically, the Star wars episode I dvd at 448 should be better than the lasers 384, but it's not the case."

Because, again, the difference between the SW LD and DVD isn't just the bitrate. The LD is a different mix as well.

And your SPD LD comparison makes perfect sense.

[EDIT]

Doing a quick search, and I ran across this:

The process of "channel coupling" you are referring to is actually rather more complex than simply "mixing channels". Additionally, the 10kHz number refers to AC-3 5.1 encoded at 384 kb/s. At 448, the channel coupling, when it occurs, is above 15kHz. It is also worth noting that at bit rates above 448, AC-3 can be fully discrete up to 20 kHz, which is one of the factors I credit D-Theater soundtracks with for superior soundstaging. So, while DTS chose to roll off frequencies above 15 kHz with their coder, Dolby instead felt these upper frequency fundamentals were important enough to keep and instead use channel coupling to improve efficiency when necessary. - LINK

There's a lot of good info in that thread, and it gives some idea of why channel separation of the same soundtrack would give the effect of a different mix. Also, I had completely forgotten about D-theater (digital videotape) which had full bitrate Dolby Digital soundtracks. I rarely read a bad review of those versions.

[EDIT]

After locating all the materials of the film, Van brought in Gary Rydstrom, the movie’s original sound designer and the re-recording mixer who had won two of his four Oscars for T2, to begin re-mixing the entire movie and adjust it to near-field listening environments. “We did the mix last November,” Van recalls. He and Lightstorm representatives went to George Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch to remix the movie’s soundtrack for use on the DVD. It took them about a week to do the work needed for both versions of the film and several other elements for the disc. “Luckily in 1993 when we did the Special Edition Laserdisc, we tried to do all the audio materials in six track, which helped us immensely now.” LINK


"near-field listening environments" says a lot. This means the theatrical soundtrack was remixed for a smaller listening environment, like a family room. This was not done for early LD releases.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link

"So theoretically, the Star wars episode I dvd at 448 should be better than the lasers 384, but it's not the case."

Because, again, the difference between the SW LD and DVD isn't just the bitrate. The LD is a different mix as well.

And your SPD LD comparison makes perfect sense.

[EDIT]

This gentleman states that the Episode I dvd and LD same mix is essentially the same.

http://www.videophile.info/Graphs/TPM/TPM_01.htm

"Apart from the difference in overall volume, the mix on both is basically the same. While a lower recording level could also be called a different 'mix' already, it usually isn't. A different mix suggests that either the frequency response of the track is altered (roll-off of the ultra low sub 30hz bass for example, see JP DVDs), or the impact and design of single effects is changed (see beginning of T2 UE). Neither of which happened on TPM.

The only 're-mix' that happened here, is that the level difference between the 2 versions is not constant (lets say 8db), but differs from one part of the movie to the other. The 'Podrace' for example is recorded 7db lower than on the LD, while the 'Invasion' and the 'Bigger Fish' scene in the beginning are recorded 9db lower. So Lucasfilm chose a different balance between the scenes. Whether the new balance on the DVD or the old on the LD is closer to the theatrical presentation is anyone's guess. But considering that the mix on the DVD was prepared by the same people that created this fabulous soundtrack in the first place, implies that the balance on the DVD is either correct or at least prefered by those involved. "

And can you elaborate on your statement that the SPD LD comparison makes perfect sense? Not sure what doesn't make sense. The Dolby digital DVD was recorded at a bitrate of 448kbps, the DTS DVD at 754kbps, and the Dolby digital LD at 384kbps. My point was to say that bitrate isn't the end all factor as is a common conception. the LD is the reference soundtrack for this film, and it's the one at the lowest bitrate.

Author
Time
Post link
I have the Japanese laserdisc of tpm, a Pioneer Elite laserdisc player and demodulator sitting in my closet. Maybe one of these days I'll get them out and record the DD track off of
the laserdisc. One of these days.

"You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could...you never stopped to think if you should." - Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Moth3r
Originally posted by: Karyudo
I first captured the AC3 from the 1997 SE in about 2002. I can't believe it's this long later, and I still haven't really done anything with it!
Did you have anything planned for it? It might contain useful material for a 70mm mix re-creation (you and Molly should talk, if you haven't already ).

Do you have the japanese laserdisc of TPM? Apparently the 5.1 mix on that disc is more powerful and has better dynamics than the mix that was on the DVD (you could speculate that it was the true theatrical mix, downsampled to 384kbps, rather than the "remixed for the home" effort that was used on the DVD). Therefore, the optimum TPM fan-authored DVD - for those so inclined - would contain HD2DVD downconverted video (because the original video on the NTSC DVDs suffered horrendous edge-enhancement) combined with the AC-3 track sourced from the laserdisc. Just an idea...


http://theswca.com/relics/prerelease/dolby.jpg

I like this thread and it needs simplified pictures, edited in at the beginning, to show how to do this in the simplest of ways.

Star Wars was realised in what is called a (road show) realise 70mm six-track Dolby stereo with baby boom track and monaural surrounds or (format 42). The front channels where all discrete full spectrum sound along with the surrounds.

The format of the 70mm print helped the projectionist to select the correct setting on the Dolby CP-100 processor at the time and in later years around early 1980’s the Dolby CP-200 was introduced and is still in common use in the best sound cinemas to this very day.

So you can ticker around with the mix on the (1997) version of Star Wars special edition and besides there’s no way of telling which parts of the split-stereo surrounds that where created for the (1997) Dolby digital or 5.1 mix there’s no reference marks to tell us what the (original monaural surrounds) sounded like back in (1977).

Only Ben Burtt and the re-recoding mixers know that, if they can remember that far back?


One other thing you have to remember with 70mm Dolby six-track is, that some of the channels may not be carrying sound information, for example the surrounds may not always be active as they are on the 35mm optical Dolby stereo because of the nature of the (matrix decoding circuitry) generates cross-talk between adjacent channels so the surrounds on the 70mm Dolby print may have different musical sound notes! As to those playing at the front including sound effects.
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/Brainstorm3417/saberwalker.gif
Only the originals from the 70mm six-track Dolby stereo Dolby format 42 will sound better on DVD.
Author
Time
Post link
Wow, I forgot about this thread. The admins should probably lock it since it had no point from the very first post.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Doctor M
Wow, I forgot about this thread. The admins should probably lock it since it had no point from the very first post.


Just because a few can’t figure it out doesn’t mean it needs to be locked up. I guess there a few here that haven’t read it yet might have a few wonderful bright ideas regarding the laserdisc Dolby digital mix. I have the (1997) THX laserdisc box-set but what I don’t have is the modification to the Pioneer laserdisc players, nor a (Dolby digital demodulator AC-3).

I have Dolby and dts decoding for DVD so the PCM uncompressed Dolby mix would have to suffice until the day comes and, I buy a third laserdisc player with Dolby AC-3 and a demodulator as well, as I would like to listen to the 1997 mixes.

I heard The Empire Strikes Back in six-channel dts at a local UCI cinema well partly six-channel, they forgot to install a sub bass array below the screen in the auditorium when dts was installed back in 1993.

So the LFE.1 or subwoofer channel was more than likely down-mixed into screen left and right, not that it was impacting enough to give me Goosebumps.
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/Brainstorm3417/saberwalker.gif
Only the originals from the 70mm six-track Dolby stereo Dolby format 42 will sound better on DVD.