Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: Speed Racer (1 Viewer)

[Aaron Silverman]

As for that PG rating. . .a few words and gestures are one thing, but what is the level of violence? Are there any horrible crashes, gunplay, blood, etc.?

 

[Brandon Conway]

I don't recall any blood. There is some discussion/repercussions about the inherent danger of racing, but there's nothing graphic.

 

[teapot2001]

I think there's only one bad word and it was bleeped out. It provided me with the biggest laugh during the movie. The finger gesture made by the kid is no big deal. I think there was some blood but nothing major. Really, I think it's one of the best movies you could watch with the entire family.

~T

 

[CraigF]

I am one of those who equates lossless audio with HD. You don't have to agree, but my point has been the whole movie is not HD if the audio isn't too. Strictly that, I made no bit rate specification to qualify as HD audio (some well-rated, like Batman Begins, have an extremely low supposedly lossless bitrate...IMO partly because it's rather compressed). But the bit rate has to be higher than SD. I watched an SD disc yesterday that had DTS 5.1 @ 755kbps (seems an odd number...). The odd SD disc once had DTS at ~ double that rate.

So...IMO, for a MOVIE to qualify as HD, the audio must be HD. Otherwise it's not a "complete" HD movie. Just my opinion... HD audio must be a significantly higher bitrate than SD audio to qualify. (I am pissed at Warner with the BB audio, it is the minimum acceptable for an HD movie IMO, and hopefully they will do MUCH better in the future.)

In my opinion, SR is not yet available in a FULL HD format. I'm sure it will be, one day, but WB is not exactly the double-dipping king, so that may be a long time. There's always the BD bargain bins, I can only hope (yes, price does enter the equation for me when a product is "not acceptable", I *may* buy it if it's dirt cheap because I consider it disposable, like if I could only find an SD in P&S).

I think we should be demanding and we should expect lossless audio. It is easily doable, it was "promised" with BD, and just about everybody else does it regularly for BD releases of new (or all) movies. It's not like I (we) are making an outrageous left field request.

This is just an opinion. Who, in fact, is the arbiter of what qualifies as an HD movie? Nobody as far as I know. Might as well be "us", the would-be customers...

 

[Michael Reuben]

You're right, I don't have to agree. First of all, your first two sentences are circular reasoning. You equate HD with lossless audio; therefore, without lossless audio, it's not HD. Well, of course. But the equation is just an assertion. It has no basis in anything.

Second, DTS bit rates are not comparable to DD bit rates. 755kbps would indeed be an "odd number" for DTS, and I suspect what you were playing was 768kbps, which is the most common bit rate for DTS on standard DVD.

Third, it's not a simple matter of exceeding the sheer number of bits that one could fit on a standard DVD audio track. Except among the most rabid DTS diehards, it's reasonably established that, at 768 kbps, DTS cannot maintain audio transparency. However, DD at 640kbps can do so, as can DTS at 1536 kbps. IOW, put either of those on a disc (Blu-ray or S-DVD), and the vast majority of listeners will not be able to distinguish them from lossless.

Is lossless preferable? Absolutely. Should we lobby studios to include it? Undeniably. Does its absence make the disc "non-HD"? Get real.

M.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Well said, Michael.

 

[CraigF]

Michael: I still think, with nothing to differetiate *the audio* from SD, that it is not HD audio. It is SD audio. That is the point. I think MOST people get that, we are not all lawyers or logicians or wordsmiths here. Anyway, I fail to see why my saying "high definition movies must have high definition audio" is a circular argument. Perhaps if I said "high definition movies must NOT have standard definition audio", that would be more acceptable? If so, I'll use that in future...seems the same thing to me.

I'm sticking to my guns. I never said "no DTS = no sale", but I am saying "no BD lossless audio = no sale". This seems very much like the people who ~10 years ago pooh-poohed the lack of anamorphic transfers (please don't say I said you said this, I'm making the analogy of circumstances). WB is not cutting it with the audio on their BDs, in my opinion. Even with some of their so-called lossless tracks.

I am glad you are fully satisfied with the product.

Stephen: I am glad you are fully satisfied with the product too. It is unfortunate IMO that WB is turning off the people such as me who actually bought (thousands of) DVDs and continue to buy (quality) BDs. I'm sure that's their business model, and it's nice to see people supporting it. I am glad the lowest common denominator is happy with them, and that WB continue to supply product to them.

P.S. Funny thing is, I am in the middle of watching a *stereo non-anamorphic* DVD. So you can see, absolute quality is not the point for me. It's what was available *then*, from a studio that never embraced DVD, then they were purchased. I got tired of waiting for a proper DVD, took until maybe 2 years ago for that. Maybe I'll buy SR in 6 years if it hasn't been "fixed" yet.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Perhaps not, but we should all be capable of understanding the impact of technical specifications on our common hobby. Since you don't dispute the point about audio transparency (and it would be futile to do so), that leaves your whole "HD = lossless" as an article of faith. You're welcome to it.

M.

 

[troy evans]

Speed Racer on Blu ROCKED! Sound wise and picture wise. I don't know what some of you guys are talking about when you say the sound is weak. With no lossless track for this title to compare it to, saying the audio is somehow substandard is unbelievable. I mean, we all know by now you can't judge something against a completely different source from a completely different film. To say TrueHD on other movies is better than the 5.1 on this title is one thing. To say this audio track is bad because it's not TrueHD is bullshit. Cameron, good review. 4/5 for audio is fair.

 

[RickER]

I know you were not talking to me, but man your last comment really didnt need to be made. You want people to join you in your crusade? Right?

 

[Jim_K]

Watched this last night via Blockbuster rental and the wife and I really enjoyed it. In fact she absolutely loved it and wants to add it our movie library so it's going to be a purchase in the future once I find a good deal on it.

PQ was amazing, the audio was fine when compared to other 5.1 tracks. However flawed the analogy, the audio doesn't measure up against the average lossless tracks of other more recent films. Yes I'm one of those who can definately hear the extra fidelity, so sue me.

As it stands the fact that it's not lossless doesn't make the SR 5.1 audio crap, it's just not all that it could have been.

But I guess it's not a deal breaker for me in this case.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Lossless is an amazing technology, but ultimately the production and sale of movie software is a business and business decisions have to be made based on return on investment. Speed Racer was an incredibly expensive movie to make and did not return on its investment at the box office. We can all point fingers as to why that was the case (I blame marketing, but that's only because of Warner's record on family films), but ultimately someone has to make a call on what gets to disc. Warner could have spent a bundle to put out a balls-out disc or disc set, but they were still smarting from the disastrous box office. They were also dealing with supply issues in terms of the industry's access to BD 50 replicating facilities, so they made a judgement call: get the film out on a BD 25 with a 640 Kbps DD audio track and solid picture quality, which I might add is still double what you would hear in theatres in terms of bitrate.

Speed Racer is going to be a niche title unless and until good word of mouth gets out about the film and sales justify revisitation. As much as I hate double dipping, this is just the sort of title that will not get the deluxe treatment until Warner thinks it deserves it.

 

[Brent Avery]

Even though I usually stick to older films if it looks promising enough I am open to more recent releases - and I thought Speed Racer on the whole was certainly entertaining enough. Lots of pop, pop, pop on those colors! And the sound track was definitely passable. I've heard worse so overall it is a welcome addition to my bluray collection. A lot of harmless fun!

 

[Ron-P]

It may be bullshit to you, and that's fine, it's not to me. Transformers for example. The HD-DVDs DD+ track is not near as good as the Blu-rays TrueHD track, same source as far as I know. You don't need to do an audio comparison with with every single film to know lossless is far superior to lossy.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I guess movies in the theater don't have "HD" audio as they are typically DD at 320kpbs.

I've never understood the term "HD Audio" What exactly does that mean? Is it simply anything that is lossless? What if the original masters included sounds that were lossy in nature to begin with? (some actually do)

Is lossless sound at 16bit 44khz HD? Or is that not a high enough sample rate? Does only 24bit 96khz qualify as HD?

Doug

 

[PaulDA]

I would like to examine the results of a double-blind, level-matched comparison of full bitrate "lossy" DD/DTS vs "lossless" where identical masters are used. I doubt any "night and day" difference would manifest itself (I'd even go so far as to say it was physically impossible since a "lossy" version, played 180 degrees out of phase with the lossless will result in silence for the vast majority of the population and for those for whom it is NOT silent, the remaining sound will be rather subtle).

I am an avid collector of DVD-A and SACD--despite the fact that their "lossless" characteristics are not their most significant characteristic. I've also found many of my "hi-res" audio discs to sound better than their standard-res counterparts. However, this has far more to do with the extra care in the mastering such releases receive than the "lossless" nature of the signal.

Now, issues of dynamic range in various audio formats come into play--but that's a separate element (as are the different masters used). Add to that the attention and focus that are split in movie watching vs purely listening and the odds of a double-blind, level matched comparison showing a "night and day" difference become vanishingly small. So while, for peace of mind (or access to better mastering), "lossless" has its place--I will not let a "lossy" track derail me from either this or any other BDs that are otherwise fine.

People are free to do as they wish, of course, but it seems foolish to dismiss something without even trying it.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

You raise a valid point, Doug. Both of the examples you cite would qualify as lossless, because no compression is involved; however, one has longer "word length" in terms of bits and would therefore be more transparent to the source. When the 8mm video format was first introduced, it could record audio in 16 bit PCM but only from 20 Hz to 15kHz. Lossless? In the purest sense of the word, yes, but the high frequency cutoff didn't yield pure fidelity to the source.

Ultimately, this is a test where you have to let your ears be the judge. If you're happy with the audio track as provided, don't let the fact that "it's not lossless" influence your decision. If the soundtrack is sourced from a half eaten CrO2 cassette tape with no noise reduction, but is labeled as "lossless", is it really using the technology as intended? Hardly.

This blind "lossless or nothing" mentality is the type of thing that in the "OAR or nothing" days led the studio in question to think we'd want a tilt n' scanned Season 1 of Kung Fu "enhanced for 16 x 9 TVs."

 

[Michael Reuben]

Now, the fact that this particular speaker initially tried to pretend he did not make up his mind about Speed Racer's audio track in advance, only to be forced to admit otherwise, pretty much shatters his credibility. But he's still a good illustration of how these folks operate.

M.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I realise that the "lossless or nothing" crowd is a lost cause, pardon the pun; I just have a (somewhat faint) hope that their proselytising hasn't almost completely polluted the HT community and that there are a few people out there with some common sense, which I'm well aware isn't all that common.

 

[troy evans]

Yes, yes it is.