Laserdisc sound vs DVD sound. Which is better? (1 Viewer)

[NathanP]

I feel like opening a can of worms.
I'm a bit confused.
Which has better?
Some tell me Laserdisc and some DVD.
Anyone want to clear this up?
Thanks
Nathan

 

[Michael Reuben]

I feel like opening a can of worms.

OK, but that means you have to eat all of them.
Part of the problem is that people aren't precise about what they're comparing. A few examples:
1. If you're comparing DD 5.1 on LD to DD 5.1 on DVD, it's apples-to-apples, and differences in sound are almost always attributable to the mix. (The bitrate on LD was limited to 384kbps; many DVDs offer a higher rate, but it's never been clear how much improvement that provides.)
2. If you're comparing 2-channel PCM on LD to DD 2.0 on DVD, it's apples-to-a different variety of apples, and LD almost always wins because the digital sound isn't compressed.
3. If you're comparing 2-channel PCM on LD to DD 5.1 on DVD, you're comparing apples-to-oranges. Depending on the mix, some people prefer the 2-channel LD tracks, finding them more involving and immersive. But now we're talking about purely subjective preferences.
4. If you're comparing DTS on LD to DTS on DVD, chances are very good that the mix is different. Also, the DVD is more likely to contain half-rate DTS, in which case LD will probably have the edge.
M.

 

[Henry Gale]

IMO...LD

But the shiny lights are always better on DVD. And shiny lights are where it's at.

 

[Shane Martin]

I've yet to hear a dvd sound the equal to the Laserdisc and its mix. This is in regards to 5.1 comparing to 5.1 Dolby Digital.

I'm not thoroughly convinced its the mix issue either. I think Vince Manskeeper(sp?) had brought up a couple of points in a past thread discussing this.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Manskeeper? Hey, I keep men?
Anyway-
My point was, and has been, I've got a bit of an issue with the 5.1 DD LD vs 5.1 DD LD concept being attibuted to mix.
If it were mix, in theory- one would imagine that a DVD vs LD faceoff would fall to 50/50- afterall, if it's an issue of mix, it is also an issue of preference- and one could imagine that it should go both ways...
Moreso, if it were the mix, DVD should win most of the time. Afterall, mixing technology is much further now than it was before, so new remixes should be better than old ones. Even further, DVD remixes are often geared with the HT playback in mind, so being optimized for the HT environment should give DVD even more advantage.
However, when it comes to preference of DD 5.1, laser wins more often than not. And normally I would chalk that up to "everyone is a moron" syndrome, but I can't deny that I've experienced it myself on SEVERAL discs and have found the LD to be an improvement, even in DD 5.1 Anyone who knows me knows I'm not the type to jump on a bandwagon as far as this stuff goes. I don't buy into the bullshit- and I don't make subjective claims as fact. However, that being said- I have found some very strange issues when comparing DD 5.1 on laser and DD 5.1 on DVD-- and the shocking number of times the LD has come out in favor.
So, I'm still wondering about DVD as an audio carrier for DD5.1 - certainly it could be other issues- ones that I have alluded to in the past (different production equipment- such as pro tools, beinf prevalent in DVD master preperation..)
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=17979

And it seems to happen a bit too consistantly for me to believe it is a fluke. If anything 9 out of 10 DVDs should toast the LD counterparts-- but it seems to be happening the other way around- and I'm curious to know why.
The only real theory I could imagine would be encoder issues. I don't know what the popular outboard DD encoder was at the time of LD- but it is possible that the industry standard encoder was a better unit THEN than what is currently used. It's a shot in the dark, but the only think I can think of...
I think it's got to be something in the process of how things are done now.
It could be that now audio stems are dumped into pro tools for encoding to DD, and I imagine it stays in the digital realm for throughput from protools to the encoder. How was it done before pro tools? Possibly that the A/D stage in protools isn't providing the fidelity the previous process offered? I think the previous processes were offering better fidelity in some stage of the encoding process.
I'd really love to hear from someone working in high end film production and prep to talk about the processes and how they may have changed over the years. I would imagine the houses preparing masters for AC-3 laser (like Pioneer Japan) are using older equipment, and possibly different processes than the modern DVD production studios are using- and I wonder what those differences are- and if they are having an effect on what I'm hearing.
Again- please understand that I am a rather critical listener- and a little bit of exra bass will not fool me into preferring one version over another. The are some real differences going on- differences which cause me to prefer the LD versions. And I am at a complete loss to give a real answer as to WHY!
What I'm wondering is if DD ever had an encoding process that would output a raw RF modulated DD stream for LD? In otherwords, would the strict format needed for DD on LD come at the encoding stage, or done at the mastering stage?
To put it even another way, is the analog RF signal needed for LD created from the digital bitstream (thus possible that the same bitstream was used for LD and DVD)--- OR is the RF created at the encoder stage- so a specific encoder had to be used for LD (and a different for DVD), and thus the whole encoding process would be completely different.
If that were the case, you could still have differences between LD and DVD coming from the same hands!
I know the DD LD of Savig Private Ryan was made at the same time as the DVD, yet the sound on the laser is "better" than the DVD and even gives the DTS DVD a serious challenge. Did they purposefully sabotage the DD DVD to give an edge to the DTS DVD?
Lots of weird options- I wish I had my own encoding system and there was recordable LD- just so I could encode some things and do some tests of each as a digital carrier and see what happened.
Anyway- there is something weird going on, and I don't think even the studio people are really aware of it. Something is different, but I can't put my finger on what.
Again- there is something going on... and I'm certainly leaning to newer digital production methods- maybe the A/D stage isn't all that it could be when doing the encoding for DVD, vs a straight analog to encoder with the encoder doing a A/D conversion (or did they use outboard converters pre the DD encoding stage?) --- whatever- I just think the processes are lowering the quality a little- but is being overlooked because no one is making a stink about it because no direct comparison is being used.
My theory, could certainly be wrong.

So, I would suggest Nathan that you check out the link above, many issues pertaining to DD vs DD on LD/DVD were discussed there.
As far as 2 channel, Laser clobbers DVD- as laser featured 16bit/44.1 uncompressed PCM audio (the same as CD) while DVD contains a greatly compressed (15 to 1) dolby digital audio for 2 channel. Laser PCM is, without a doubt, better sounding. It's actually amazing that DD 2.0 sounds as good as it does, but PCM kills it. Some DVDs are being made available with 2 channel PCM audio, a choice I hope will continue.
Then for DTS, as other have mentioned- basically DTS was full bitrate on laser, and truncated half bit rate on DVD... so most lasers will whip the DVD on DTS. There are a handfull of full bitrate DTS DVDs, but the majority are half.
-Vince

 

[Scott Strang]

Vince Sez...

Some DVDs are being made available with 2 channel PCM audio, a choice I hope will continue.

Do you have any speculation as to why this doesn't happen more? I have only 3 DVD's that are linear 2 channel PCM. It really seems dumb not to use it when multi-channel audio is not needed.

 

[Adam Barratt]

Scott, probably because a PCM track consumes eight times the space required by a Dolby Digital track. That, and the fact that studios know most buyers are completely unaware of the difference between the two (which is sadly the case, bring up numbers or mention compression and most people's eyes simply glaze over).

Adam

 

[Brian Perry]

Could it be because LDs have separate PCM/Pro-Logic and AC3 datastreams, whereas DVDs must be mixed in such a way as to enable the transformation of the 5.1 track into the 2.0 Pro-Logic matrix?

 

[Chris PC]

Worms, apples and oranges. We should start an orchard!

 

[Scott Strang]

Worms,

Oh nooooooooo. Not the boreworms.

Quick, what movie did that come from?

 

[Francois Caron]

Flash Gordon!
Hmmm... Better stay on the subject...
I've compared a lot of 5.1 DVDs with their Laserdisc counterparts on my Sony DVP-S500D DVD player and Pioneer CLD-D704 Laserdisc player with an external Pioneer AC-3 RF demodulator.
The one element I've noticed more than anything else is that the Laserdisc soundtracks always had better bass response. I don't know if this is because the mix is different, or if the signal is cleaner coming from the Laserdisc player than from the DVD player.

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Manskeeper? Hey, I keep men?

Actually, you keep mans.

And yes, it is indeed Flash!... AAAHHHHHH!

 

[Shane Martin]

Sorry about that Vince but I'm glad you poked your head in to give us your quite worthwhile post regarding this issue.

 

[Aaron Garman]

I too notice extremely good bass response from DD5.1 on laserdisc too. I think it could very well be a mixing issue as well. Check out Mission: Impossible. The first time I heard it in DD5.1 in my home was on DVD and it sounded great. When I finally got a LD player capable of DD5.1, I finally could hear my M:I laser in dolby digital. HOLY MOLEY! It was like I had a new system in my house. Everything sounded better. I still use the last scene of the film to demo my theater because it is just so loud, clear, and extremely involving.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Could it be because LDs have separate PCM/Pro-Logic and AC3 datastreams, whereas DVDs must be mixed in such a way as to enable the transformation of the 5.1 track into the 2.0 Pro-Logic matrix?

Possible, however some studios (Fox for example) are not remixing for home theater/downmix- rather are doing direct from theatrical mags into pro tools encoding.

So, it's possible that is an issue- but what about titles that offer seperate 2.0 mix? MOst of those are also offering an "uncompromised" 5.1 mix.

What's more, much of the changes made for a 5.1 mix to downmix to 2.0 involve moving bass levels from LFE to main channels- an issue which would serve practically no difference if you use a proper bass management configuration. In otherwords, its not so much a change, as a different form of encoding- one that would be essentially identical if using bass management. Bass tone on the LFE channel should sound exactly the same as bass rerouted to the sub from a main channel!

So, if anything, DVD again should have the advatage.

-Vince

 

[Kwang Suh]

Here's the million dollar question:

How do know which one is more accurate? That's what I've been wondering.

Yeah, sure, the LD might have more bass. How do know it's not juiced? Mike Knapp said it well one: "I don't want LFE from a sock dropping". More bass does not necessarily equal more accurate.

 

[NathanP]

Wow,
So sometimes DPL on a Laserdisc is better then DD 5.1 on a DVD?
Well, that must really encourage people with only DPL!
Thanks people.
Keep talkin'!
Nathan

 

[Philip Hamm]

How do know which one is more accurate? That's what I've been wondering.

That's the trick, isn't it. Typically DVD contains a mix that was designed for nearfield or home theaters. Often it has a direct copy of the original theatrical presentation. LaserDisc (at least with 5.1) always contains a simple dump of the original theatrical presentation.

Which do you want? A direct port of the theatrical presentation, which may have the sub and surrounds jacked up for the theatrical environment? Or a purpose built nearfield mix for a home theater which may be compromised in a larger home theater and will almost certainly have less LFE and surround volume. There are compelling argulemnts for both strategies.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I also consider the ending scene from Mission Impossible on LaserDisc to be a Dolby Digital benchmark. It is immersive and high fidelity, and exciting. One of my main demo pieces.

Here's a perfect example of how personal taste affects these evaluations. I don't know whether the Mission: Impossible LD is or isn't true to the theatrical sound experience, but I do know that I've never been able to watch it without having to reach for the volume button during the last scene (and a few others). Playing it at the level that's appropriate for most of the movie, that scene is just too LOUD for my room, ears and listening preferences. I find the DVD to be less thunderous, and for that reason more involving, because I'm not jarred out of my seat by sudden extreme shifts in overall volume.

M.

 

[NathanP]

Alright, sorry for the mistake Michael.
So, some prefer DPL on Laserdiscs to DD 5.1 on movies.
Can you guys give me an example of that?
Which movies do you prefer in DPL?