A Few Words About The Big Country (redux) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Richard Gallagher]

Kino just put everything on sale. The Big Country 60th Anniversary Blu-ray is $13.48.

 

[Stephen PI]

At the time the laserdisc was produced, all that was available to me for transfer was a 35mm three-track mono master, from 1958, with the following configuration:
Channel 1: mono composite
Channel 2: blank
Channel 3: mono music & effects
At the time no stereo material was found in MGM's inventory.

For the isolated score we used a mono source transferred from 1/4 masters. A copy of the back of the 1/4 reels was sent to me and a note written at the time when the transfer was done was 'stereo combine' referring to the original source which was provided for transfer:



The laserdisc, produced by Image Entertainment, was a gate-fold and I provided some notes (It may or may not contain inaccuracies but I tried to make it a factual as possible at the time of writing).

 

[AnthonyClarke]

https://www.deepdiscount.com/big-country-1958-the-big-country/738329214708

My copy of The Big Country is coming ... slowly... from Deep Discount, which is still shipping to Australia. The new tax impost by the Australian Government being forced on international sellers dates from July 1, so the clamps come down then.

 

[willyTass]

Hello Anthony
What happens to aussies if the package arrives after 1 July .?
Will the government still charge 10 % gst?

 

[AnthonyClarke]

That's anyone's guess.
Since Australia Post has said it's not their job to collect tax, I guess it will just arrive untaxed ... but then we also have to consider the additional $5 charge per parcel the Government has said they will put on as an additional charge to keep local retailers (and donors to the Liberal Party) happy. They claim that's to cover customs processing cost!

 

[willyTass]

Thanks Anthony

 

[chrislong2]

My copy finally came in and I compared to the original. The good news for those of us that couldn't stand the flicker problem on the old is that it is indeed fixed. As is the stretching issue. And I would say given the significance of both of those issues plus the bonus features that overall the new Kino release is better than the old. But the bad news is there are 2 problems on this new release that weren't on the old.

1) First they mastered the audio different and it is now 16-bit instead of 24-bit. After doing back-to-back listening tests with my headphones between the old and new, here is what I can say: The old audio had a slightly less clear, but much more spacious sounding feel which fits the feel of the movie perfectly (since it is after all The *BIG* Country). The new audio is much more "in your face" and while perfectly fine, just isn't as enjoyable to me with this particular picture. For those that know audio, that is a big part of the benefit to 24-bit over 16-bit is that it gives you increased headroom to work with and makes things more spacious sounding as opposed to "more cramped". This would all be less noticeable to someone not listening with headphones as I was, but it's still noteworthy. I would have rather they just copied the audio track from the old release - it was perfectly fine - I don't know why they felt the need to make changes here.

2) The second issue is that there are more noticeable compression artifact issues as compared to the old, which I am sure is a function of the decreased bitrate given to the feature on the new disc to make room for the bonus features. If they had just stuck to what the original announcement seemed to indicate and released as a 2-disc set instead of 1, this likely would have been avoided.

It's kind of frustrating to me that Kino fixed some problems while introducing new ones. Overall, it's still the better option and a noticeable improvement as RAH mentions, but it still isn't as good as it SHOULD be.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

That's sad news. I will welcome the fix to the 'stretch' issue but audio is very important to me, which is why I've been assiduously replacing all my favourite CDs with their equivalent issues in 24-96 format. There is a huge difference in listening pleasure!

 

[ScottHM]

1) First they mastered the audio different and it is now 16-bit instead of 24-bit.
2) The second issue is that there are more noticeable compression artifact issues as compared to the old

I don't have any problem with 16-bit vs 24-bit audio when we're talking about a 60 year old analog recording, but adding obvious compression artifacts to make room for bonus material is not good. Throw the bonus stuff out as far as I'm concerned--I don't have time to watch it anyway.

---------------

 

[dpippel]

I thought it looked superb upscaled to 4K on my 65" LG OLED. Compression artifacts? If there were any they were fleeting and few, because I didn't notice them. There were a few soft shots here and there, but that's the source, not the authoring. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

 

[chrislong2]

I don't have any problem with 16-bit vs 24-bit audio when we're talking about a 60 year old analog recording

I understand that logic, but it's a view that really doesn't understand audio. Analog recordings whether from yesterday or 60 years ago, stereo or mono, still will sound different at 16-bit versus 24-bit when brought into the digital domain, especially as effects and tools are used on the audio for cleanup purposes etc. 16-bit will sound more "compact" and "in your face" and 24-bit will have more breathing room and more spacious. With a BIG (pun intended) film like this that's meant to have a large feel, I do feel the 24-bit is a better fit with the visuals. I can tell you having personally listened to several scenes tonight including with mostly the score with the old at 24-bit and the new at 16-bit, this bit difference IS noticeable especially if one knows what they are listening for. But I also don't think that most people will care. The new is louder and clearer (the old was a little soft and slightly muddled) but also less spacious - it's more "upfront" and "direct". Since originally it was done by MGM as 24-bit, I'm not sure why it was then changed to 16-bit this time around - whether MGM provided the new remaster that way to Kino or Kino changed it to 16 figuring it didn't matter and it would give them another GB to use on the disc since they decided to squeeze the feature and special features together on the disc. My guess is the latter.

 

[chrislong2]

I thought it looked superb upscaled to 4K on my 65" LG OLED. Compression artifacts? If there were any they were fleeting and few, because I didn't notice them. There were a few soft shots here and there, but that's the source, not the authoring. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

In switching back and forth earlier, I could clearly see the difference between the old and new. Some people have said that the new is just showing more of the grain, but the difference I'm seeing anyway doesn't really look natural to me. If it's not all actual compression artifacts, it might be some sort of digitally applied grain filter of some sort - IDK. Realistically it's probably a mix of stuff - certainly at least some of it is attributable to the decrease in available bits and a tighter compression. Whatever it is tho, it's certainly different. Even the Fun in the Big Country special feature is much different on the new (I thought it looked better on the old when comparing). I still think all in all, the new remaster of the film looks better since it solves the other problems, but it's clear to me that it's not as good as it could be. That doesn't mean it doesn't still look great and breathtaking. But there were people saying that about the old blu too (even with its stretched image issue which not everyone even noticed).

 

[ScottHM]

I understand that logic, but it's a view that really doesn't understand audio. Analog recordings whether from yesterday or 60 years ago, stereo or mono, still will sound different at 16-bit versus 24-bit when brought into the digital domain

That's just your opinion. They certainly can sound different, but they can sound the same. An analog recording with limited dynamics doesn't care about the extra headroom 24-bits provide.

---------------

 

[chrislong2]

That's just your opinion. They certainly can sound different, but they can sound the same. An analog recording with limited dynamics doesn't care about the extra headroom 24-bits provide.

With all due respect to you, I work with audio, and I don't believe that's just opinion. Once an analog recording is transferred into the digital domain it is subject to the processing of the audio editing programs. That processing one way or another will effect a difference between 16 and 24-bit - they just do - the different plugins and so forth operating at 16 vs 24 etc. Now it could be quite mild difference or a bigger one, but they won't be the "same". Your statement regarding analog recordings with "limited dynamics" as you say not caring about the extra headroom is just not correct... My guess is the reason we ended up with a 16-bit track on this Kino blu instead of the 24 is precisely because someone at Kino held your type of thinking and didn't think a 60-year-old film could possibly benefit from having a 24-bit track. And since we are specifically talking about The Big Country here, I've listened to both the old 24-bit and new 16-bit track through my studio headphones, and there IS a noticeable difference where the 24-bit DOES take advantage of those extra 8 bits and provides a more expansive and less "in your face" sound. Now you can choose to not care about that and that's totally fine - I suspect many would agree with you. But that doesn't mean there ISN'T a difference because there certainly is. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. If you want to think there isn't one or that 60-year-old films can't benefit from having 24-bit audio or that it doesn't matter to you, that's totally fine - do what makes you happy.

 

[Robert Harris]

Deleted

 

[john a hunter]

That's sad news. I will welcome the fix to the 'stretch' issue but audio is very important to me, which is why I've been assiduously replacing all my favourite CDs with their equivalent issues in 24-96 format. There is a huge difference in listening pleasure!

Watched last night. Knocks the old BD for six both on PQ and SQ.
Add a host of extras and you should be more than happy with its purchase.
To nit pick over sound resolution on a 60 or so year old track which was originally compromised for optical replay way back when is rather silly in the extreme.

 

[haineshisway]

With all due respect to you, I work with audio, and I don't believe that's just opinion. Once an analog recording is transferred into the digital domain it is subject to the processing of the audio editing programs. That processing one way or another will effect a difference between 16 and 24-bit - they just do - the different plugins and so forth operating at 16 vs 24 etc. Now it could be quite mild difference or a bigger one, but they won't be the "same". Your statement regarding analog recordings with "limited dynamics" as you say not caring about the extra headroom is just not correct... My guess is the reason we ended up with a 16-bit track on this Kino blu instead of the 24 is precisely because someone at Kino held your type of thinking and didn't think a 60-year-old film could possibly benefit from having a 24-bit track. And since we are specifically talking about The Big Country here, I've listened to both the old 24-bit and new 16-bit track through my studio headphones, and there IS a noticeable difference where the 24-bit DOES take advantage of those extra 8 bits and provides a more expansive and less "in your face" sound. Now you can choose to not care about that and that's totally fine - I suspect many would agree with you. But that doesn't mean there ISN'T a difference because there certainly is. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. If you want to think there isn't one or that 60-year-old films can't benefit from having 24-bit audio or that it doesn't matter to you, that's totally fine - do what makes you happy.

I think I'll just parrot my friend Robert A. Harris and say: Deleted. Other than to say, I'd like to understand how exactly you work with audio, because I'm here to tell you I have been working with audio for CD releases for thirty years now. And I know how "audiophiles" are, trust me. They hear stuff no one else hears, but I guarantee you if I put you in a room and you didn't know sources you would fail a blind test as much as you would pass a blind test.

 

[chrislong2]

I think I'll just parrot my friend Robert A. Harris and say: Deleted. Other than to say, I'd like to understand how exactly you work with audio, because I'm here to tell you I have been working with audio for CD releases for thirty years now. And I know how "audiophiles" are, trust me. They hear stuff no one else hears, but I guarantee you if I put you in a room and you didn't know sources you would fail a blind test as much as you would pass a blind test.

Whatever. I don't really feel a need to tout credentials because the degree to which I do or do not work with audio has no bearing on the observable fact that the old track sounds different from the new track (whether one thinks it sounds better, worse, or just different is irrelevant to this point - only if one wanted to try and claim they are exactly the same would I say they are full of baloney). Unless you've listened to both back to back through your headphones as I did, it's really easy to just come along and throw out the "well anybody can hear anything they want" type card. Tho as a general rule, I do largely agree with you about audiophiles. Regarding this release, I specifically said I thought the new release was overall better and that the new audio is better in some respects (it's louder and clearer). I merely made an observation that the old disc had 24-bit audio, which sounds more spacious/has more room to breathe, and the new disc has 16-bit audio which is clearer and more "in your face" and stated that personally I preferred the 24-bit track for this movie because I felt it fit the expansiveness of the picture better. And I do. Anybody that records audio in 24-bit as I do and then downmixes to 16-bit for CD knows that when 24 goes to 16, the mix gets tighter and loses the more spacious sound that 24-bit provides. If you or anyone else don't think there's a difference between 24-bit and 16-bit or specifically don't think there's a difference between the old disc's 24-bit track and the new disc's 16-bit track, then you can have your opinion all day long and I'm certainly not going to change it. I already stated that I don't think most people watching that weren't using headphones would notice the difference or care. Indeed to most people it would probably sound like the new track was better. For me, I DO often watch movies with headphones and I DID notice the difference right away, but yes, it's fair to say I'm somewhat of an audiophile. Like I said to ScottHM above, if you or anyone else don't care about it or just think it's nitpicking to even bring this up for such an old movie or want to think I'm just hearing things or whatever, that's totally fine - whatever makes you happy. Pardon me for dare mentioning that I actually prefer the audio track on the old disc.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Whatever. I don't really feel a need to explain or defend anything. I specifically said I thought the new release was overall better and that the new audio is better in some respects (it's louder and clearer). I merely made an observation that the old disc had 24-bit audio, which sounds more spacious/has more room to breathe, and the new disc has 16-bit audio which is clearer and more "in your face" and stated that personally I preferred the 24-bit track for this movie because I felt it fit the expansiveness of the picture better. Anybody that records audio in 24-bit as I do and then downmixes to 16-bit for CD knows that when 24 goes to 16, the mix gets tighter and loses the more spacious sound that 24-bit provides. If you or anyone else don't think there's a difference between 24-bit and 16-bit or specifically don't think there's a difference between the old disc's 24-bit track and the new disc's 16-bit track, then you can have your opinion all day long and I'm certainly not going to change it. I already stated that I don't think most people watching that weren't using headphones would notice the difference or care. Indeed to most people it would probably sound like the new track was better. For me, I DO often watch movies with headphones and I DID notice the difference right away. Like I said to ScottHM above, if you or anyone else don't care about it or just think it's nitpicking to even bring this up for such an old movie or want to think I'm just hearing things or whatever, that's totally fine - whatever makes you happy. Pardon me for dare mentioning that I actually prefer the audio track on the old disc.

I rarely dispute what another poster says he sees or hears when viewing any movie at home. If that's what you're hearing then so be it. As you stated, most other people are probably very happy with this release and I'm one of them. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this disc.

 

[chrislong2]

Sorry Robert - I edited my post before I saw your reply. I realized I said I didn't feel a need to explain or defend, but then went on to explain and defend. lol So I fixed to make clearer what I was really trying to mean. Anyway, yes, in some respects all this stuff is subjective. The fact that the two tracks are different is not subjective - that can be proved very easily in an objective way. But whether one person thinks one track is BETTER than another or fits the mood of the picture better or whatever is by definition going to be subjective and can be affected by such things as listening environmen (quality speakers vs headphones vs cheapo speakers etc). So that part is definitely just my opinion and I'm totally cool with others having a different opinion.