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

[Robert Crawford]

Frankly, I don't understand why a BRD isn't high definition until it has a lossless soundtrack too.






Crawdaddy

 

[Felix Martinez]

- really funny, actually. Some gun play in a few scenes, but again, nothing brutal or graphic.

The only shot my 5 year-old son was intimidated by was one quick glimpse of the creepy entrance into the ice cave.

We just had a screening with a bunch of kids over (ages ranging 4-10) and their reactions were extraordinary. I haven't seen that kind of a response since the original Star Wars. Warmed my heart.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I watched this last evening. I'm sorry I didn't see it theatrically. It's a highly imaginative and entertaining film. It deserved a better critical and box office reception.

The BD picture quality knocked my eyes out. This movie looks gorgeous and, besides the eye candy, has some beautifully composed shots. I know that everyone is disappointed that a lossless track wasn't included, and it certainly should have been. But I've never been unhappy with plain old Dolby Digital, and I thought the sound was great. I never felt that I was missing anything or that it could have been much better. But that's just me.

This is definitely worth at least a rental, and I'm happy that I purchased it on a blind buy. I know I'll be watching this one again.

 

[Ron-P]

Well sure, they all sound different, but those differences are minor and not near as drastic a difference as compared to lossless. Like I stated before, Transformers is a perfect example of that and it meets your requirement of being from the same source.

 

[Douglas Monce]

This MAY have more to do with the way your system is processing the audio than anything to do with actual difference in the audio tracks themselves.

Now of course you could be one of the very small part of the population that has "golden ears" and can perceive a huge difference between lossless and lossy. However the vast majority of people can't tell the difference even between a fairly low bitrate Dolby Digital track encoded for theaters at 320kbps, and the original master tapes. Its been shown in blind tests.

For myself I can hear a minor difference between a high bit rate DD+ track and lossless, but it is just that, very minor.

I have listened to Transformers in both DD+ and lossless on the same system. I'll be damned if I can tell the difference.

I prefer that blu-ray releases have a lossless audio track if at all possible, but if its a film I really want, the lack of lossless won't stop me from buying it.



Doug

 

[PaulDA]

Ron-P: When you've done a double-blind, level-matched comparison of multiple "lossless" vs "lossy" tracks and correctly identified each one, then I'll believe the "night and day" difference stems from the delivery format of the audio rather than other things (like differences in level settings, different mastering, AVR or player treatment of LFE--all things that are notorious for affecting what people are hearing and which vary widely from one set-up to another).

Lossless is preferable to lossy if available, largely for the peace of mind of knowing one has a transparent to the original track, but as tests have been done that have shown a lossy signal from legacy DD/DTS when played 180 degrees out of phase with a lossless original results in silence, I will focus on making sure the other elements of a sound system/room treatment interaction are optimal before worrying about lossy vs lossless (particularly since no double-blind, level-matched test has ever produced a consistent result where people could always pick out the lossless track, much less a result with dramatic "night and day" differences).

 

[Ron-P]

Maybe it's my system, maybe it's my ears, I don't know but the difference between every lossy and lossless track I've heard is significant.

The biggest difference in the Transformers tracks (DD+ vr TrueHD) to me is the clarity, fidelity and the overall envelopment of it, that's what really stands out to me and it's not minor between the two.

I'm very willing to do that, but, it has to be done with movies off the store shelf as that is the only type of audio / video I buy. Please recommend some movies I can do this with, the closest I've come is Transformers, HD-DVD vr Blu-ray.

I am far from being the only one who has predetermined that lossless is the better format, just look at the posts in the Dark Knight specs thread. People are questioning Warner about lossless on it's release before it's even officially announced. If people didn't predetermine lossless was better then lossy they wouldn't be asking for it.

 

[RickER]

OK, i just finished watching the movie.

Out of 5 stars, i would give it 2 1/2
Looked good, sounded good. So what, its not a good movie. I have been a fan of anime, before we called it that. I have watched it since Speed Racer, Marine Boy, and Kimba, back in the 60s.
So while we go on in this review thread for 3 pages about lossless audio... so what. Polish this turd (OK, to be fair its close to being one. I hope The Love Guru is lossless!) all you want.
Yes, i get it. If you like it, more power to you. Its just, 3 pages on lossless, for this! Id rather have a good movie, but thats just me, and my opinion.
Yes, i still have that little boy in me, and he will watch The Incredibles to get the taste of this movie out of his mouth!

 

[Lance Rumbolt]

In fairness Rick, the 3 pages have been between only a few people. I got this disk a couple of weeks ago and was very pleasantly surprised I enjoyed it and my 3 sons absolutely lapped it up so much so we have speedracer lego, computer games and posters, isn't that the point?

 

[Aaron Silverman]

First, thanks to everyone for the comments on graphic content. It doesn't sound like there's anything in there that would bother my son, although I think the chaotic visuals might be a bit much for him.

Second, when I was in grad school (at a prestigious music school), we did a blind test of CD vs. MiniDisc on very high-quality equipment. I was the only person in my program who could tell them apart every single time. So I don't find it so strange that Ron might notice a clear difference between these lossless and lossy codecs where most of the rest of us might not (although I do take exception to the arbitrary assignation of the term "HD" to lossless audio).

Third, I am a little disturbed by Ron's comment that DNR doesn't bother him at all when he's so adamant about the audio tracks being of the highest quality. For some people the video is more important, and for others the audio is more important, but that particular statement struck me as extreme. A lossy audio codec will degrade the experience less than all but the mildest DNR will, unless one's system mates top-notch audio equipment with crappy video equipment.

 

[Ron-P]

For you this may be the case, but not for all.

I have asked a couple of times now that someone please give me some films that I can buy that will allow me to accurately compare DD to lossless, but I seem to get no help or responses to those questions. I'd love to be able to do what some here have suggested but can't get any help or suggestions in doing so form those who seem to have done it.

 

[PaulDA]

The problem is in identifying a film where the DD/DTS lossy tracks are from the same master as the lossless (they are frequently remastered for lossless). After that, you have to be able to truly level match the two sources so (not as easy as it may seem). After that, you have to set up a double-blind switching system (that means someone other than you has to do the switching AND neither he nor you can know which version you are listening to--also, the switching has to be as close to instantaneous as possible). This has been done for music and movie tracks and NO ONE has yet to infallibly identify the "hi-res" or "lossless" version. However, the setups required to do this completely correctly are not readily available for the "home user".

I don't really doubt you find the lossless noticeably better. However, having examined just about all the angles with respect to hi-res (DVD-A/SACD), where there is no video to diminish one's focus on the sound, every time I've found a "night and day" difference, it has always come down to a factor other than the format itself. It is usually the mastering (hi-res tends to [not always, but often] have less compression and the increased dynamic range enhances the listening experience--but that would be true even if the audio was not "hi-res"). It can be the levels. It can be the EQ setting for the sub (in my case) or the "autoEQ" found on many devices today (many of which have different settings for each input). If one can eliminate all those factors, then the difference between lossy and lossless becomes much more subtle.

So why make all this fuss if there are so many variables at play? I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it's about not making assumptions about quality before experiencing something. A friend of mine has a sophisticated home recording studio and he can make a hi-res audio track sound worse than a 128kbps mp3 file just by fiddling with the mastering tools in his workstation. It's not the format, it's the quality of what is produced for the format. All things being equal, the lossless should be the "best". But things are rarely "equal". And some excellent results can be had with "lossy" formats when done well. That's why I don't put that much stock in the notion that a soundtrack for a movie on disc sounds "bad" because it is "lossy". It is far more likely that something else is at work (either at the mixing/mastering stage before the encode or at the gear stage in the playback chain).

 

[Ron-P]

Thanks Paul.

Reading what you wrote tells me that everything required to do this is extremely impractical, like you said, for the "home user".

What about that home user and what is available to him? Maybe in that hi-end room (that I'm sure 95% or more of the people on this forum do not have) the difference is minimal or not noticeable at all. But for that 95% that are the home user the difference can be very noticeable, like with myself.

Until someone can come up with something substantial to prove to me otherwise for the "home user" (which it seems no one can without going fully hi-end) I will not change my view that lossless sounds better over lossy, even from disc's I have yet to hear based on the 100's and 100's of films I've watched (and listened to) over the years. But, I will change my view on this once I hear a lossy track that equals that of lossless, again, for the home user.

 

[RickER]

Im pretty sure my kids would like it too. I will have to ask them if they have seen it yet.
Shoot, i even like the chimp, and the boy. You would think that would be the first thing to grate on me, but it wasnt.
The picture and sound were A+, the story and a few of the actors (John Goodman isnt fooling anyone with the dye job on his hair!) are really pulling it down. IMO

Oh, and interesting use of Johnny Quest music while the chimp and boy were watching cartoons.

 

[PaulDA]

Essentially, the "home user" and his gear can introduce any number of factors that make the "lossless" track seem qualitatively better than the "lossy" track but those factors are not specific to the format of the audio codec itself. And since the fact that having a soundtrack encoded in a particular format is NOT a guarantee of higher (or lower) audible quality, then "home users" should look to other factors besides the codecs to explain the difference in quality (should they care enough to want to know WHY one codec sounds "better" in their system than another). They should also not be too quick to dismiss something prior to hearing it simply because of the format in which it is delivered. In other words, the reason I prefer my SACD of Dark Side of the Moon over my CD (in 2 channel, to be fair--MCH is my preferred playback choice, but that is not a fair comparison to my CD) owes very LITTLE to the fact that it is "hi-res" and A LOT to the fact that it is mastered differently. The same applies to movie soundtracks.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

DNR is a different animal from edge enhancement. A little DNR isn't a problem -- the issue is when they use too much of it and thus wipe detail from the image. It's not like edge enhancement, where you don't always notice it if you don't know to look for it. Discs with lots of DNR produce clearly less detailed pictures.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Incidentally, a friend rented the movie yesterday and gave the disc to us to check out. We only saw maybe a third to a half of it, but it was pretty fun. The battle scene with the big truck and the guns and the killer fish was a bit much, but I got to explain to my little guy about "bad guys" and "heroes," which we'd have to get around to soon enough anyway, I guess.

The DVD image was good, but less than perfect. I look forward to watching the rest of the film on BD at some point.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The statements in this thread are somewhat more politic, but the sentiment hasn't changed.

M.

 

[Ron-P]

Thanks for the explanation Aaron, but I still don't want to know what DNR looks like, in fact, pretty much anything that has anything to do with issues degrading the image, I don't want to know because all it does is become a distraction for me and from then on I cannot help but notice it, it pulls me away from fully enjoying the film. I still regret finding out what EE was many, many years ago because it bothers me with every film I watch to this day.

I have seen several hundred Blu-ray films now and have not yet been anything but very impressed with image quality. The only Blu-ray I didn't like was "28 Days Later" that looked horrid, but I read it was director intended. I gave it away. Good film but too painful to watch.

 

[RickER]

Let me play the devils advocate...i dont care to know what 7.1 lossless audio sounds like. I dont want to know how good it can sound. I will punch a hole in my ear drums if you try to make me listen!