Sign In

Soundtrack for Star Wars OOT DVD?

Author
Time
Ok, can someone confirm what this guy is saying aboutthe OOT soundtrack? And wether or not the 2.0 soundtrack (played in prologic sound) would be the same as the 6 track surround?

Cause from what I read, "The sound editing and re-recording team began by preparing a four-track master mix (Left-Center-Right-Surround), which would serve as the basis for both the 35mm and 70mm stereo versions. The master mix was dubbed into a matrix-encoded two-track Lt-Rt (Left total-Right total) printmaster for use on the 35mm Dolby Stereo prints. The same four-track master, with some enhancements, was also used to create the six-track version. In comparison to the 35mm Dolby Stereo version, the six-track soundtrack during playback offered discrete channels, greater clarity and dynamic range characteristics, and special low-frequency content (bass extension, or "baby boom")."

So basically, how I understand it is that instead of getting 4 discrete channels(like we would with the 6-track 70mm soundtrack), we are only getting two channels of discrete sound with the 2.0 DVD soundtrack...which won't sound nearly as good.
Author
Time
I have been wondering the same thing since the announcement of 2.0 on the new set. Last night, I put in the 2004 SE OT DVD's and put on the 2.0 Dolby Surround and it did come up Dolby Prologic on my decoder/surround sound system, and ALL 6 channels were playing.

I compared it to the 5.1 DD for each movie, and yes, 5.1 was better and a little more deep, but it wasn't THAT much better that it pissed me off. If the O-OT in September has roughly the same sound in 2.0 as the 2004 SE OT did in 2.0, I will be satisfied.

Author
Time
There were 3 original soundtracks; the mono, the Dolby Stereo and the Dolby 6-track.

Mono is equivalent to 1.0.

Dolby Stereo, aka Dolby Surround, is a 2-channel format with surround information matrixed into the signal; on playback it is decoded into 4 channels - left, centre, right and surround. Dolby Surround tracks are labeled 2.0 surround.

The Dolby 6-track had 6 discrete channels - left, right, centre, surround and 2 low frequency effects channels. This would be 4.2, but that configuration doesn't exist in home theatre setups. However, it could conceivably used as a source to remix to 5.1.

The soundtrack was also remastered twice for home video, in 1985 and 1993. These two mixes were also in Dolby 2.0 Surround.

Normally in 2.0 surround, there is a flag in the Dolby Digital stream that activates Dolby Prologic decoding on the receiver/decoder. So you should automatically get surround sound, if you have the equipment. Dolby Surround was the format used on the majority of movies in the 80s and early 90s - it was good then and it's still good now.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Ok, as far as "Star Wars", Ben Burtt confirmed there were 3 different versions of the soundtrack for the original release. "One was a Dolby Stereo, for the 40 US theatres equipped for it at that time, one was a six-track 70mm version, and another was a conventional mono. Because you had to perform the mix over again for each one, you would do things differently, just by chance, and also by design." Even though the six track magnetic, and the 2 channel matrix for the Dolby System may have been created from the same base mix, that does not necessarily mean that they were identical.

So the appropriate way of recreating this would be to have 3 soundtrack choices on the DVD. One would be a Dolby Digital 4.1 soundtrack which would recreate the six track magnetic (the six track was 4 main channels, and 2 low frequency channels). The second soundtrack would be the Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround, to recreate the Dolby System optical tracks on 35mm stereo. The third soundtrack would the Dolby Digital 1.0, to recreate the sound from the monaural 35mm prints. DVD is well capable of having all these included.

My understanding is that there were also differences between the original release 70mm and 35mm versions of "The Empire Strikes Back," and not only in the soundtrack. I don't believe there were any of these variations in "Return of the Jedi."
Author
Time
One word: bitrate. If these discs use the standard 192 kbps rate for Dolby 2.0, it's going to sound anemic in comparison to a 5.1 track (which is the case with the 2004 discs). If they use a 384 kbps rate, the sound will be fuller. Ideally, THX would use a PCM track instead, which has a bitrate of over 1500 kbps, but I doubt they'll do this. I don't see them using a 4.1 track to approximate the 70mm experience.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
One word: bitrate. If these discs use the standard 192 kbps rate for Dolby 2.0, it's going to sound anemic in comparison to a 5.1 track (which is the case with the 2004 discs). If they use a 384 kbps rate, the sound will be fuller. Ideally, THX would use a PCM track instead, which has a bitrate of over 1500 kbps, but I doubt they'll do this. I don't see them using a 4.1 track to approximate the 70mm experience.


what was the bitrate for the 04 DVDs?

Furthermore, would the 2.0 decoded into pro-logic sound nearly as good as the 6-track (70mm) audio?

Author
Time
The official starwars.com announcement mentions Dolby 2.0 Surround sound, which is decoded into 4 channels as described by Moth3r, above. However, it does not specify AC3 encoding and AFAIK, does not rule out the possibility of a PCM soundtrack (although it's unlikely given the AC3 2.0 tracks on the '04 release). Perhaps Neil or Moth3r can set me straight here if I'm wrong.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: BountyHunter

what was the bitrate for the 04 DVDs?

Furthermore, would the 2.0 decoded into pro-logic sound nearly as good as the 6-track (70mm) audio?

Bitrate for the 2.0 tracks on the 2004 DVDs was 192kbps, which is pretty much the standard for 2.0 tracks. Some companies have used 384 kbps, but not many.

In answer to your second question, a 2.0 track, by nature of its design, is not going to sound as good as 6-track 70mm. It may come close to sounding like Dolby Stereo in a theatre (4 track surround matrixed into two tracks), but it will lack the "baby boom" elements of a 6-track 70mm track. For that, you would need a 4.1 DD track.

Keep in mind that Dolby Digital (AC-3) is a lossy compession system, so something of the original tracks will inevitably be lost. The only way to come close to the original theatrical sound experience is to use a lossless audio codec, like Dolby TrueHD, which uses MLP (Meridian Lossless Processing) for compression.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
Originally posted by: BountyHunter

what was the bitrate for the 04 DVDs?

Furthermore, would the 2.0 decoded into pro-logic sound nearly as good as the 6-track (70mm) audio?

Bitrate for the 2.0 tracks on the 2004 DVDs was 192kbps, which is pretty much the standard for 2.0 tracks. Some companies have used 384 kbps, but not many.

In answer to your second question, a 2.0 track, by nature of its design, is not going to sound as good as 6-track 70mm. It may come close to sounding like Dolby Stereo in a theatre (4 track surround matrixed into two tracks), but it will lack the "baby boom" elements of a 6-track 70mm track. For that, you would need a 4.1 DD track.

Keep in mind that Dolby Digital (AC-3) is a lossy compession system, so something of the original tracks will inevitably be lost. The only way to come close to the original theatrical sound experience is to use a lossless audio codec, like Dolby TrueHD, which uses MLP (Meridian Lossless Processing) for compression.


Which LD release had the best bitrate? Or were they all 2.0, 192kbps

Author
Time
Only the Special Editions had AC3.

<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
Originally posted by: BountyHunter
Which LD release had the best bitrate? Or were they all 2.0, 192kbps

MeBeJedi is correct. The bitrate on the Definitive Collection and Faces LDs would have been PCM, which is @ least 1141kbps (CD audio bitrate).

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
...and will form the basis of the first projects involving the September discs, no doubt. But not until Jan 1st 2007, of course.
Author
Time
Stupid question, but why does Laserdisc have better audio than a DVD?


(BTW - What were the specs for the SE LDs from 1997?)
Author
Time
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
Originally posted by: BountyHunter
Which LD release had the best bitrate? Or were they all 2.0, 192kbps

MeBeJedi is correct. The bitrate on the Definitive Collection and Faces LDs would have been PCM, which is @ least 1141kbps (CD audio bitrate).


This is probably a typo, but CD audio bitrate is 1411 kbps, not 1141 kbps. Also if wikipedia has any value to it, NTSC has a bitrate of 1410 kbps, and PAL has a bitrate of 1411 kbps

From wikipedia: 2 channels, 16 bit, 44.1KHz sample rate for PAL and 44056Hz for NTSC.

The audio on Laserdiscs is ususally better than on DVDs because it is uncompressed PCM on laserdiscs, while most dvds have compressed sound in order to save space. The 97 SE also had a 5.1 track stored on one of the analog channels, which has a bit rate of 384 kbps (standard for most 5.1 dvd dolby tracks)
Author
Time
The 97 SE also had a 5.1 track stored on one of the analog channels, which has a bit rate of 384 kbps (standard for most 5.1 dvd dolby tracks)


So the 97 SE track is actually better than the 04 DVD track(blunders aside)?
Author
Time
It's not just a space issue. On DVD, there's a maximum bitrate, so any of that which is given over to audio is inherently "taken away" from video, thus requiring greater compression of the video (even on a 1 minute film with a whole disc to itself).
Author
Time
Originally posted by: BountyHunter
The 97 SE also had a 5.1 track stored on one of the analog channels, which has a bit rate of 384 kbps (standard for most 5.1 dvd dolby tracks)


So the 97 SE track is actually better than the 04 DVD track(blunders aside)?

Depends. There are a lot of DVDs out there with a 448kbps DD 5.1 track.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.