Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Uncompressed audio should be a standard used on every Blu-ray release. Anything less is shortchanging the home audience. The most important part of the audio handling should be the mastering of the signal made during the transfer of the film in preparation of the home video release. Much as the video portion of the film can be restored and tweaked (and taken from different sources) to shine in its high-def home presentation, the same can be true of the audio side. The fact that the audio track is uncompressed should only serve to mean that the best possible means of presenting the best available audio track is being used for the home audience.
Not necessarily. One can certainly work with an uncompressed audio image in high end reproduction, but in order that it properly reproduced the original, nominally with Academy cutoff, one would have to deal with the audio and massage it into place before using it uncompressed, so that the compressed image and uncompressed image might sound both equal and proper. Some studio tracks had a much higher resolution than others, down to the optical track negs. It's a balancing act. One cannot simply thread a print from the '40s onto a projector, turn it on, and expect the track to sound as it should.
So care needs to be given to an older soundtrack to make it the best it can be. That's understood. Again...it's basically the same as the video transfer.
And once that soundtrack sounds as good as it possible can, it should then be given to the home consumer in the kind of format that only "high-definition sound" can bring to the home audience...uncompressed files. We should expect nothing less.
Once the soundtrack is processed so that it is in its best possible condition, it should be then transferred to the home audience in as high a quality as is possible. The better fidelity should not yield anything that the film's handlers don't want us to hear.
Personally, I'd rather hear a faithful reproduction of a not-so-good available audio track than know that I'm being given a lesser presentation because someone else made a determination that it's either not worth the effort or that it's better for me to hear a lesser track because the original elements don't hold up so well.
This has nothing to do with "effort." And "faithful reproduction" has nothing to do with compressed vs. uncompressed. You're being sucked into the great world of smoke and mirrors of home theater "high fidelity." Bigger and louder is not always better.
Nowhere have I called for "bigger and louder" audio. I believe that the audio reproduction should simply be given the same high-quality treatment as the video.
I DO believe that uncompressed audio can have EVERYTHING to do with "faithful reproduction."
Robert, if you can believe that Blu-ray can provide a more accurate reproduction of the original film experience in the home due to its higher video resolution, I believe it is legitimate for me to believe that Bu-ray can also provide a more accurate reproduction of the film experience in the home due to its higher audio resolution.