Does lossy audio on Blu-rays of early talkies really make a big difference? (1 Viewer)

[Brent Reid]

I’ve quite a few BDs which disappointingly only have Dolby Digital audio and while I appreciate it significantly diminishes the quality of modern soundtracks, how much difference does it make to older films?


I’m talking about largely dialogue driven films of the 1930s and 1940s, like the BDs of The Most Dangerous Game and It’s a Wonderful Life*. There are also many films with remixed surround audio that only include the original mono in DD.


When playing them I always feel I’m somehow missing out on an optimum audio experience. In real terms though, to what extent is that really the case, if at all?



*It’s dual-layered with very few extras; why no lossless audio, Paramount?!

 

[schan1269]

I'll get the date wrong, but prior to 65, unless it had 6track sound...

Lossless is pointless.

 

[Tony Bensley]

On older, monaural tracks, lossy audio is pretty much a non issue. For me, a bigger concern is that on any given title, the original audio track is included! DRACULA (1931) and the 1999 Philip Glass scoring immediately springs to mind. While it's nice to have this as an option, I'm also thankful that my 2004 DVD issue includes the original soundtrack, complete with crackling sounds that in my opinion, lend to this Classic Gem's charm!


CHEERS!

 

[Mike Frezon]

While not an "early talkie," we had quite a go-round on this basic question in RAH's "A Few Words About...The African Queen."


I'm in the camp that they all oughta be lossless.


Do the best job you can on the existing audio elements in terms of restoration, and then deliver them to me in the highest quality presentation possible.

 

[Robert Crawford]

While not an "early talkie," we had quite a go-round on this basic question in RAH's "A Few Words About...The African Queen."


I'm in the camp that they all oughta be lossless.


Do the best job you can on the existing audio elements in terms of restoration, and then deliver them to me in the highest quality presentation possible.

I'm all for lossless, but I think it's questionable as to whether we can tell the difference if it was lossless or not when it pertains to certain film classics from yesteryear.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think it depends on what the source of the audio is - I've read that the compression that goes into an optical track is more severe than what's on a Dolby Digital (lossy) track. So if there's less information in an optical track used for a source than what Dolby Digital can hold anyway, I don't see a problem with that.


I'm all for lossless when possible, but if it's been determined that a lossy and lossless track of the same audio sound identical, and that space on the disc can be better used to improve picture quality, I'm all for it.


I've got the the 1960s Batman series on Blu-ray and that has a lossy mono track. Before the discs came out, I was a little worried that the audio might not live up to the video, but it sounds just fine to me. Meanwhile, I've also go the Blu-rays of The Twilight Zone, which include uncompressed PCM audio, and even though it's obviously not an exact comparison, the two shows from roughly the same eras both sound equally good to my ear. Twilight Zone doesn't seem any "stronger" for being uncompressed, and Batman doesn't sound any "weaker" for being compressed.


The part of me that likes absolute perfection thinks on principle that if it's a Blu-ray disc, it sound have some kind of lossless or uncompressed audio, but the part of me that just sits back and watches the things doesn't usually have a problem with this.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Probably not much in most cases, it would be very dependent on the system in which it's being played back. The main thing, which has already been done in a lot of instances, is to clean up/remove hiss and dropouts etc. The work on Dracula (1931) is a great example.

 

[bigshot]

I don't judge quality by bitrates... the way digital works, you can heap on a whole pile of extra bandwidth, but past a certain point, it isn't going to get you any better quality. The big bottleneck I find with sound quality is the mastering itself, not whether it's lossy or lossless. Digital artifacting isn't a subtle thing. It usually sticks out like a sore thumb. You know for sure if the bitrate isn't high enough.

 

[Brent Reid]

Thanks for your replies. You've set my mind at rest and pretty much confirmed what I always thought.


Thanks especially for the link Mike; I see this very subject was already beaten to death five years ago. As I've just posted in that thread though, it's hilarious that there are eight pages discussing, and largely justifying, the lossy audio on the US African Queen BD. Then a few months later the UK BD is released with more extras, all in HD, and a lossless PCM soundtrack... and no one says a word!

 

[Brian Kidd]

I think it depends on what the source of the audio is - I've read that the compression that goes into an optical track is more severe than what's on a Dolby Digital (lossy) track. So if there's less information in an optical track used for a source than what Dolby Digital can hold anyway, I don't see a problem with that.

Amen. The bandwidth on old optical tracks from that era is so limited that using DD won't affect the final result and leaves more space for the video. Now, if there's a good video encode and still tons of space left over, not including lossless (or even uncompressed PCM) audio is just stupid.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Amen. The bandwidth on old optical tracks from that era is so limited that using DD won't affect the final result and leaves more space for the video. Now, if there's a good video encode and still tons of space left over, not including lossless (or even uncompressed PCM) audio is just stupid.

Will you be able to hear any difference if they didn't include either? Again, I'm all for having the best presentation possible on these optical discs, but the question remains whether you can discern the difference between a DD or Lossless audio track on a disc for a movie filmed in 1951?

 

[Worth]

It used to be that all 35mm releases with Dolby Digital soundtracks were limited to a constant 320 kbit/s and I don't recall anyone complaining about the sound quality.

 

[Tony Bensley]

It used to be that all 35mm releases with Dolby Digital soundtracks were limited to a constant 320 kbit/s and I don't recall anyone complaining about the sound quality.

In the grand scheme of things, 320 kbits/s seems comparatively generous for audio, at least by today's standards. Just as a comparison, I believe that 192 kbits/s for lossy audio is fairly standard. In my opinion, the latter seems to be just fine with the BATMAN 66-68 TV Series, and I've been listening to the monaural audio with Headphones for these episodes!


CHEERS!

 

[Mark-P]

In the grand scheme of things, 320 kbits/s seems comparatively generous for audio, at least by today's standards. Just as a comparison, I believe that 192 kbits/s for lossy audio is fairly standard. In my opinion, the latter seems to be just fine with the BATMAN 66-68 TV Series, and I've been listening to the monaural audio with Headphones for these episodes!


CHEERS!

320 kbit/s may be generous for 2 channels, but not so much for 5.1 channels which is what the 35mm releases were in reference to. Laserdisc was limited to 384 kbit/s and DVD to 448kbit/s. Blu-ray can accommodate all the way up to 640 kbit/s which is almost in DTS territory. A lot of people say they can hear the difference and 384 is just way too compressed.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

I don't judge quality by bitrates... the way digital works, you can heap on a whole pile of extra bandwidth, but past a certain point, it isn't going to get you any better quality. The big bottleneck I find with sound quality is the mastering itself, not whether it's lossy or lossless. Digital artifacting isn't a subtle thing. It usually sticks out like a sore thumb. You know for sure if the bitrate isn't high enough.

You mean severe digital artifacting isn't a subtle thing. By definition. That does not mean that digital artifacts at a lesser degree don't exist and can be ignored. The road from no digital artifacts (from compression) to severe is continuous for image and sound and where the visibility/audibility threshold is crossed depends on the person watching/listening and the conditions. An expert will see/hear problems long before a non expert will, using the same equipment. And since experts usually use more revealing equipment it gets even worse.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You mean severe digital artifacting isn't a subtle thing. By definition. That does not mean that digital artifacts at a lesser degree don't exist and can be ignored. The road from no digital artifacts (from compression) to severe is continuous for image and sound and where the visibility/audibility threshold is crossed depends on the person watching/listening and the conditions. An expert will see/hear problems long before a non expert will, using the same equipment. And since experts usually use more revealing equipment it gets even worse.

I think that goes without saying, but such an expert is a very small demographic compared to the general public that buys these discs.

 

[Rick Thompson]

I'm waiting for lossless audio on silent films.

 

[Tony Bensley]

320 kbit/s may be generous for 2 channels, but not so much for 5.1 channels which is what the 35mm releases were in reference to. Laserdisc was limited to 384 kbit/s and DVD to 448kbit/s. Blu-ray can accommodate all the way up to 640 kbit/s which is almost in DTS territory. A lot of people say they can hear the difference and 384 is just way too compressed.

Hi Mark!


You make a great point in your multi track observations.


However, by its nature, I believe the topic at hand has to do mainly with monophonic sound.


CHEERS!


Tony

 

[Brent Reid]

Nice try Rick but as I'm sure you're aware, silent films were never actually silent. They had, and still have, musical soundtracks and on silent film BDs those are almost invariably in lossless - so your wish is granted.


Anyway, as Tony says, back to mono soundtracks of the 1930s and 1940s!

 

[bigshot]

You mean severe digital artifacting isn't a subtle thing. By definition. That does not mean that digital artifacts at a lesser degree don't exist and can be ignored.

There is no such thing as lesser digital artifacting. An artifact is created when the bandwidth can't resolve the sound. You get a nice nasty digital splat or blorf. The difference between low bitrate lossy and high bitrate lossy is the *frequency* of the artifacts, not the intensity of them. "Subtle" differences between high bitrate lossy and lossless are almost always due to the placebo effect. It's been proven over and over again, that in blind comparisons, people can't distinguish between MP3 LAME or M4A at their top bitrates and lossless. Once the bandwidth is sufficient to resolve the sound, more bandwidth won't improve it. Human ears are human ears. There is a range of human hearing abilities, but above a certain point, modern compression codecs are transparent for ALL ears. (except for bats and dogs)