Originally Posted by Mike Frezon /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/30#post_3906061
Robert: Thanks for engaging in this side discussion.
But I would expect the audio to be properly restored. Given that expectation, the uncompressed audio would then be the best way to deliver the audio track. I just can't see the downside (unless the audio is botched by the studios...and, as Scott noted above, there was a need to save space on the disc by using a lower resolution file).
I have a hard time thinking that lower resolutions might ever be used to act as a cover-up (or to use your expression "smoke and mirrors) to hide deficiencies within an audio track. I certainly wouldn't support the idea.
Why not strive for that high-level of audio excellence? Doesn't the HD video benefit those with higher-end displays?
Restoring audio has little to do with what is heard that should not be heard. Preparing a old track for uncompressed reproduction will take more effort and expense than delivering compressed, but to what advantage?
This is what you're hearing:
This example is 1/8 of a second of Vertigo.
Which is a copy of a copy of a copy. If one is hearing a reproduction of an analogue image, that has been digitized, unlike a modern soundtrack, it is still no better than the black and white image seen at the left. That image is turned back into sound waves as it is projected on to a cell via light from an exciter lamp. That impulse then goes through various amplification and filtering toward a final result, as it travels through wires, and generally into speakers coated with dust. In the final analysis, the difference between the compressed and uncompressed information on a Blu-ray disc is zero.
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence