5.1 Dolby Digital Laser disc vs. DVD, is there a difference in sound?? (1 Viewer)

[Mattias_ka]

Michael Reuben, and I don't agree with you. I clearly prefer Mission: impossible LD soundtrack over the DVD's. But that's just me!

 

[Declan]

Ironic this. I bought Mission Impossible on laser on Monday (along with Field of Dreams, Executive Descision, Silverado: Criterion, Dumb and Dumber, Bound and 2 versions of Wyatt Earp, theatrical and extened edtion boxset).
I have to say that I was blown away by the sound on Mision Impossible. Very clear and also very loud. But not loud in a sense that your speaker will soon be sawdust "loud". Just good clear well balanced and in your face when it wants to sound. When Cruise goes up the ladder and out onto the top of the train at the end there was a sudden and frigtening blast of sound that made the whole listening area come alive and made the walls dissapear and it diddnt quit until the end of the scene. Executive Descicion was also an extremely ballsy soundstage and dynamics, especially with Jerry Goldsmith's thilling score and the Amora Stealth when it fires up it's engines on the runway.
I could watch the DVD version to see what the sound was like but when you say that the DVD of Mission Impossible was mixed for near field listening I have to doubt as this was an early release for the format and I would assume that near field mixing for DVD would'nt have been as widespread as to do a back catelouge title such as MI. My beleif is that the DVD has a sub-par 5.1 track compared with the LD's...........which is fantastic (plus I was surprised how great the picture on this disc was as well).
my 2c..........although the amount I wrote it's more like $7

 

[Michael Reuben]

My beleif is that the DVD has a sub-par 5.1 track compared with the LD's

Sub-par, near field -- it's all just words. Clearly the DVD track has been mastered in a manner that's different from the LD's. I'm not surprised when people prefer the LD track, because louder is generally regarded as better. For reasons already stated, I don't share that view.

M.

 

[Declan]

it's not that it's louder, the 5.1 track on MI feels and sounds to me like it did on theatrical release. Even though that was 6 years ago, when I watched that disc it brought all the thrills back of seeing it on the opening night and the soundtrack was the reason. It sounded very theatrical and dynamic something I have found to be lacking on some DVD releases. Yes I am sure that it is because of the near-field mixing, which has been done recently for Blade 2 and LOTR. But it would be good if the studios left the 5.1 tracks alone and just include a 2.0 track (am I preacing to the converted or what).
Michael, you and me can have this friendley argument all day , but the only way we'd know for sure would be to get one of the films sound designers to tell us which disc (LD or DVD), is the closest to the original theatrical track in terms of dynamics and volume. Gary Rydstrom is'nt on the fourm is he?
but I think that we have proven the tread title's question..........is there a difference......well in this case, yes.

 

[Jerome Grate]

I was hoping that you guys would convince me and say, no you don't need the demodulator just deal with DTS Laserdiscs and DD 5.1 on DVD is the same or better than laser, but you guys are killing me. The comments here clearly states that laser 5.1 is better and mor robust than DVD 5.1. Well, keep it coming, I'll have to make up my mind soon before I lose out on the sale.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Michael, you and me can have this friendley argument all day

It's not an argument, because we agree there's a difference in sound. We just have different preferences about how soundtracks are presented on home video.
I'll be the first to admit that my preferences have changed over the years. When I got my first DD setup in 1996 (and I'm betting that's further back than most people in this thread), I loved every ear-splitting, gut-wrenching knock-your-socks-off effect that I could find, first on laser and than on DVD. Over time, I've become less interested in such effects and have come to prefer tracks that blend with and contribute to the overall effect of a film. Now, when I encounter a soundtrack that strikes me as bombastic and overcooked, I find it more of a distraction than an enhancement (a recent example was Behind Enemy Lines).
But to each their own. Many of the purported differences between LD and DVD can be eliminated rather easily with a simple device known as the volume knob.
M.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

There are actually 2 types of remixing being lumped into one- remixing for nearfield, and remixing for fold down. Blade 2 and LOTR are remixed for nearfield-- and have gotten rave reviews as a result.

-Vince

 

[Jerome Grate]

Damn Vince, in that case if one train leaves the station at 2:00pm and the other train from the opposite direction leaves at 3:00pm when will the two trains.....

 

[Declan]

Michael......
Have to agree with you on the maturing of my listening pleasures over the years when it comes to surround sound. I really have gotten to the point where if I think some films have their sound too mitch matched I will not take it as a good transfer or mix. When I stated out with stero off my laserdisc in January 98 (never had a nicam video, ever), I was amazed at the effects off Face/Off (my first laser). Over time I got into pro-logic in 99 with a JVC hi-fi and thouroghly enjoyed the car jumping over my head at the start of Speed for many an hour. Last year when I finally got my 5.1 kit I was able to hear the differences between a many variety of sound formats and processes (such as THX/ THX 5.1), which have enhanced viewing in my house so much it defis belief that i have a system capable of such power sitting in the next room, the only thing hapering it is that there is four stud walls surrounding it, which does'nt help the sound.
While I do love to hear a natural sounding track that does'nt skimp on the surround effects or bass I really love hearing an in-your-face track like The Rock (which sounds more aggressive on the Criterion DVD than it does on the Laserdisc, although the laser has lower bass). I would'nt class Mission Impossible as in-your-face because it is how i remeber it sounded in the theatre, The Rock however sounded more aggressive than it ever did (from what i heard) at the theatre and therefore i found it more enjoyable at home.
This is just gonna run and run

 

[Michael Reuben]

Declan --

I think The Rock is a good a example of a soundtrack that's meant to be bombastic and loud and has no interest in subtleties of atmosphere. It's hard to "overcook" such a soundtrack. I've owned all three LD versions and both DVDs, and I agree with you that the Criterion track is excellent. The DTS LD is also very good, but the image on the Criterion disc is so much better that it's hardly worth watching the LD anymore.

I remember reading an interview with an Oscar-winning sound designer (Bruce Stambler?) who said that the last thing he does before signing off on a mix is to listen to it through a cheap TV speaker. The purpose is to make sure that the sound has been mixed in such a way that, even through the most rudimentary playback equipment, it will convey the essential information, atmosphere and story support. I found that perspective both enlightening and very refreshing.

M.

 

[Declan]

yeah i think that was said on the Se7en SpEd DVD if my brain serves (which it usually does'nt ). It is a good point to make that with all this big 5.1ex DTS, etc, that you can see if it works in such a way, cause not everybody can be arsed getting or wanting 5.1 in their living room.

 

[Geoff_D]

But to each their own. Many of the purported differences between LD and DVD can be eliminated rather easily with a simple device known as the volume knob.

I ain't the expert here, but that's a lazy comment. (And one trotted out with the age-old DD vs DTS debate as well). It would be nice if it was that easy, but in my opinion it isn't. Some LD soundtracks aren't simply louder than their dvd counterparts. If that was the case I would've cranked up my crappy r1 ST:Generations dvd soundtrack to ridiculous levels and happily enjoyed it. But I didn't enjoy it.

Generations on dvd is seriously undernourished in the sound department, and bumping my amp up by 5 or 10db can't make anaemic bass sound any better. And the Generations LD isn't this towering edifice to all things overcooked, it just sounds fuller, more lively, with a respectable bass extension, at nowhere near Mission:Impossible levels. Now that is one loud soundtrack.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

It's interesting that you say that, because a similar mindset is essentially destroying music recording (or at least in the eys of some).

What Bruce (or whomever) expressed is not revolutionary- or at all uncommon. Most mixing facilities for music or movies are equipped with various quality of speakers for double checking playback (which usually includes a cheap boom box and a set of powered computer speakers). This approach is commonplace, and I'd guess 100% of masters at a certain level are checked in this environment before being sent out into the world.

However- this desire to have material sound "good" (or worse "the same") on every playback environment is effectively stomping any real variety to the production in the popular music realm. Dynamics and freq are slaughtered in an attempt to homogenize the music material to be equally listenable on a $50,000 system, in your car, on a boombox, on your walkman, etc (ironically- this dumbing down also resulted in an ideal audio formula for compressing MP3 type lossy systems- allowing 128 MP3 of popular songs to be passable for file sharing).

While I sympathize with the sentiment of compatibility across multiple platforms- I think the concept has to have lines drawn in order to ever achieve any sort of move towards quality. It's an unfortunate reality that in order to move forward- some people will be left behind. Are we going to be repeatedly willing to sacrifice a quality playback on even the most modest of systems in order to accommodate the mono TV speaker??

For me personally, the only thing worse than hearing my wonderful mixes sound like shit when played back on cheap speakers is turning the wonderful mix into a mediocre one in order to appease those cheap speakers.

-Vince

 

[Michael Reuben]

Vince, I can appreciate the problem in the music business, but I don't think movies are comparable. Music is nothing but sound; in movies, sound is a secondary element -- a very important secondary element, but still not the raison d'etre. Sound should serve and support the storytelling, and good sound designers understand this. The issue being discussed in the interview I read (damn, I wish I could remember who gave it!) was not compatibility across multiple platforms; it was about maintaining focus on what was essential in the soundtrack -- what aural information was critical to carrying the story forward.
Sidney Lumet has said that The Silence of the Lambs had one of the best film scores he's ever heard, but he couldn't remember a note of it. It blended so thoroughly into the film that it wasn't memorable in its own right. HT sound enthusiasts often take the opposite tack -- they get so caught up in the details of the soundtrack that they effectively divorce it from the film (the classic example being the DTS version of The Haunting, which people always recommend for the bass extension, because you certainly can't recommend it as a film ).
M.

 

[Declan]

Oh God yes, what was DeBont thinking..........

anyway, the opposite of Lumet's argument is also true. What abut Star Wars, Great Escape, Indiana Jones, Gladiator, etc. All those films have great scores and should be appreciated also for what they do with the pictures. Silence Of the Lambs is a great example. But it would be a score that I would'nt go out of my way to listen to on it's own. Some films suit scores like that and others need the opposite. Variety is the spice of life. You can have the best of both worlds.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

Without getting into the technical arguments, let me state, that to me and to everyone that I know who have had experience with Laser Discs and DVD, the AC3 track on laser discs have almost always sounded by far superior to the DVD DD5.1 track of the same DVD title. My wife who is least bothered about technicalities also has pointed out on numerous occasions on how the DVD just does not sound the same or as good as the Laser Disc of the same film. I have approx 3000 Laser Discs and approx 1300 DVDs, which gives me a large enough sample base and experience to I think to make a respectful comparison. Although I would like to add that the convenience and the vast superiority of the video on DVD have pretty much relegated my Laser Disc collection to the store house.

Sanjay

 

[Michael Reuben]

I have approx 3000 Laser Discs

How many of them have DD tracks?

M.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

547 of the 2876 Laser Discs I own have AC3 (Dolby Digital) sound. Do keep in mind that I have been collecting Laser Discs since 1989 and that Laser Discs have been around a lot longer than even that. On the other hand AC3 on Laser Discs only showed up in 1995 I think, with Forest Gump being the first title (or atleast amongst the very first)on Laser Disc to have AC3(DD) sound.

Sanjay

 

[Michael Reuben]

Sanjay, the first DD LD was Clear and Present Danger. The second was True Lies. Both were 1995 releases.

It sounds like you have almost every DD LD ever released. Nice collection!

M.

 

[Tony Kwong]

note on the older release like True Lies there is a "Dolby Stereo Digital" logo, instead of the more common "Dolby Surround AC-3 Digital" or just "Dolby Digital" Logo.