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

[haineshisway]

My problem is I don't listen to movies via headphones so I'm probably not hearing what you're hearing. I do have both releases and perhaps I'll do a little A/B myself come Monday, just to see.

 

[chrislong2]

My problem is I don't listen to movies via headphones so I'm probably not hearing what you're hearing. I do have both releases and perhaps I'll do a little A/B myself come Monday, just to see.

Well if you do, a great part to check is from 20:30 to about 22:30 through the score and then some dialog with Ramon. Note that I never claimed the difference was HUGE or anything or that I hated the new track, but there is a difference and the old one is more expansive sounding (yes, even for a mono track). In my case, I can listen literally back to back without any delay but if you're loading the discs in between you might have to try going back and forth a few times to see what I mean.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

My copy of the Kino Big Country only arrived two days ago so I can't do a cross-check yet. But while I agree with you about the tangible diffference between 16 and 24 bit audio re the headspace and extra air around a performance versus the flattened two-dimensionality of the average CD (though there are brilliant sounding exceptions) I'm sure the improved picture quality will make up for any audio loss.
Re the difference between 16 and 24 bit ... my favourite performance of the Beethoven Sonatas for Piano and Violin are by the David Oistrakh/Lev Oborin duo.
On the only available CD transfer, the sound, compared to the original LPs, is flat. Dead. Almost unlisteneable. And that has been true while trying first to listen with a great set of B & W speakers, and then via a set of the acclaimed Neat British speakers, with an English Quad pre and power amplifier combo.
I recently managed to gain a 24-96 set of the complete sonatas, derived from the original Philips LPs. Even though coming from the original vinyl and not master-tapes, this performance has space and depth and life. I can listen to them again. I know Bruce's long-held dictum, but I do trust my ears, and the experience gained as a professional classical music recordings reviewer for 40 years.
But I trust Bruce in so many other areas of his considerable expertise, that I'm prepared to disagree very happily in this one.

 

[haineshisway]

It's not really a question of disagreeing - I can hear the difference - but when a normal CD is properly mastered by people who understand what mastering is, the results can be extraordinary. Plus many CDs in the older days were taken from masters prepared specifically for LP and that's why those didn't sound good - nowadays they tend to use the original album masters, which are second generation or the original multi-tracks (in the case of the older stereo three-track recordings, where they're not really changing a mix). I love my SACD discs, some of which are absolutely breathtaking - Bill Evans Conversations with Myself, one of the greatest albums ever made, IMO, has never sounded good - not on LP, especially not on CD, but the SACD is like hearing an entirely different and brilliant recording. Believe me, I get it. But I did a release of Casino Royale using the damaged album master that Varese screwed up, but we worked on it for weeks, using as our guide the "audiophile" LP, which everyone LOVES. Ultimately, we got it to sound better than the LP and then for grins I included a flat transfer of a mint LP (I mean brand new), just so everyone could have that - well, our redo was considered better than the LP because we made sure the sound a) matched what everyone loved, but b) gave it all the air and oomph it needed. And that was a normal CD.

 

[Robert Harris]

It's not really a question of disagreeing - I can hear the difference - but when a normal CD is properly mastered by people who understand what mastering is, the results can be extraordinary. Plus many CDs in the older days were taken from masters prepared specifically for LP and that's why those didn't sound good - nowadays they tend to use the original album masters, which are second generation or the original multi-tracks (in the case of the older stereo three-track recordings, where they're not really changing a mix). I love my SACD discs, some of which are absolutely breathtaking - Bill Evans Conversations with Myself, one of the greatest albums ever made, IMO, has never sounded good - not on LP, especially not on CD, but the SACD is like hearing an entirely different and brilliant recording. Believe me, I get it. But I did a release of Casino Royale using the damaged album master that Varese screwed up, but we worked on it for weeks, using as our guide the "audiophile" LP, which everyone LOVES. Ultimately, we got it to sound better than the LP and then for grins I included a flat transfer of a mint LP (I mean brand new), just so everyone could have that - well, our redo was considered better than the LP because we made sure the sound a) matched what everyone loved, but b) gave it all the air and oomph it needed. And that was a normal CD.

The problem with “air” extends into composite film soundtracks, especially when a vendor feels the necessity to “clean” the analogue hiss, thereby removing the high end, and removing the life from a track.

When it comes to image, a similar situation in the way that some people handle black, and the big of air just beneath.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

It's not really a question of disagreeing - I can hear the difference - but when a normal CD is properly mastered by people who understand what mastering is, the results can be extraordinary. Plus many CDs in the older days were taken from masters prepared specifically for LP and that's why those didn't sound good - nowadays they tend to use the original album masters, which are second generation or the original multi-tracks (in the case of the older stereo three-track recordings, where they're not really changing a mix). I love my SACD discs, some of which are absolutely breathtaking - Bill Evans Conversations with Myself, one of the greatest albums ever made, IMO, has never sounded good - not on LP, especially not on CD, but the SACD is like hearing an entirely different and brilliant recording. Believe me, I get it. But I did a release of Casino Royale using the damaged album master that Varese screwed up, but we worked on it for weeks, using as our guide the "audiophile" LP, which everyone LOVES. Ultimately, we got it to sound better than the LP and then for grins I included a flat transfer of a mint LP (I mean brand new), just so everyone could have that - well, our redo was considered better than the LP because we made sure the sound a) matched what everyone loved, but b) gave it all the air and oomph it needed. And that was a normal CD.

And I agree .. when care is taken with mastering for CD, the result can be extraordinary. But the clear majority of my CDs are badly mastered! Look at the travesties of early CDs of The Stones and The Beatles .. although there were some great Stones CDs released by accident years ago in Germany using Mobile Fidelity transfers .. quickly taken off the market leaving only inferior Abko transfers in their place!
So we're not in disagreement at all .. I will keep chasing my 24-96 sources because they are the easiest way to get a substantial sonic improvement in most cases. Qobuz in France is a good source for many of these transfers.

 

[chrislong2]

A good 16-bit mix will always be better than a crappy 24-bit one. And sometimes the tighter feel of 16-bit is very advantageous, so I'm not in the 24-bit is always better camp. That's a general audio statement but regarding this specific movie, I just think given the incredible picture and big vista landscapes etc that having an audio track with a little more spaciousness to it as the 24-bit one on the old disc provided is my personal preference over the tighter feel of the new 16 one. But it's not a HUGE deal and certainly shouldn't be a reason for someone not to purchase the new disc. But I still echo my original comment on the matter which is that there was no pressing need for Kino to mess with the audio track and if they were going to, then at least they should have made sure they matched specs as good as the old disc. They didn't....And I don't think that's an invalid thing to point out.

 

[Jim*Tod]

I just watched the new disc and agree that both sound and picture quality are better than the old one (even though I did not think that one was so bad... I never could see the stretch problem). The only place where I did have a problem is some dark nighttime shots where I could see some banding across the image. I don't think it is my set or how it is calibrated. I didn't see anyone noting this in their comments. I have not had a chance to look at the old disc to see if it was present there. Did anyone notice the banding in the darker scenes in the second half of the film?

 

[Malcolm Bmoor]

I never could see the stretch problem).

I'm sorry but I find that astonishing. Please look at the closeup of Gregory Peck close to the start, when he goes towards Jean Simmons' house. His face is so definitely fat/elongated that I can't imagine anyone not seeing and being distressed by it.

This issue is, after all, why it's been re-issued by another company. Compared with this gross mistake in aspect ratio I think the bitrate of the sound is on a very distant horse in the race.

 

[dpippel]

Resurrecting this old thread because my wife and I sat down and watched The Big Country last night for the first time in over a year. Again I was struck by two things - what a truly great film this is, and how great the KL Blu-ray looks. Upscaled to 4K by my Panasonic DP-UB9000 and displayed on my 65" LG OLED panel, the detail apparent in this transfer is simply stupendous. There are a few soft spots here and there, due to the condition of the elements I'm sure, but DAMN, this is one fine looking presentation of one of the best westerns ever filmed. I really love this movie.

 

[OliverK]

Here is a pair of caps for people who may wonder how much of a stretch there actually was:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=12277&d2=6233&s1=121746&s2=58867&i=0&l=0

It does not look like this really is from a different master, Kino just chose to improve on what was the main criticism of the previous release (rightfully so) and they even gained some picture information on the left and on the right.

 

[Paul Rossen]

Here is a pair of caps for people who may wonder how much of a stretch there actually was:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=12277&d2=6233&s1=

It does not look like this really is from a different master, Kino just chose to improve on what was the main criticism of the previous release (rightfully so) and they even gained some picture information on the left and on the right.

Don’t know for sure but I believe that MGM struck a new transfer due to the complaints on the previous edition. The color on the new version is stronger while the music is weaker. That said when I want to listen to the Moross score I pull out one of the many cd versions in my collection.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Resurrecting this old thread because my wife and I sat down and watched The Big Country last night for the first time in over a year. Again I was struck by two things - what a truly great film this is, and how great the KL Blu-ray looks. Upscaled to 4K by my Panasonic DP-UB9000 and displayed on my 65" LG OLED panel, the detail apparent in this transfer is simply stupendous. There are a few soft spots here and there, due to the condition of the elements I'm sure, but DAMN, this is one fine looking presentation of one of the best westerns ever filmed. I really love this movie.

Great blu ray of a truly great film. I commented in The Tall Men thread that that was one of my top 5. The Big Country is another. The first western I watched on television as a boy and being allowed to stay up late to finish it.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Don’t know for sure but I believe that MGM struck a new transfer due to the complaints on the previous edition. The color on the new version is stronger while the music is weaker. That said when I want to listen to the Moross score I pull out one of the many cd versions in my collection.

I think its a different master because the old one had some shaking in certain scenes but the new one does not. And the new Kino version does have better color.

 

[OliverK]

Don’t know for sure but I believe that MGM struck a new transfer due to the complaints on the previous edition. The color on the new version is stronger while the music is weaker. That said when I want to listen to the Moross score I pull out one of the many cd versions in my collection.

Have you had a look at the caps? Color, contrast and textures are almost identical. No new master needed to fix some stability issues and the slightly overweight look of all involved

I have the option to stretch the old Blu-ray so I did not go for the Kino version that is supposed to have weaker sound and could not comment on that. Completely agree on the soundtrack - CD is where it's at.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Have you had a look at the caps? Color, contrast and textures are almost identical. No new master needed to fix some stability issues and the slightly overweight look of all involved

I have the option to stretch the old Blu-ray so I did not go for the Kino version that is supposed to have weaker sound and could not comment on that. Completely agree on the soundtrack - CD is where it's at.

That's why we don't use screen caps to judge picture quality. This is a perfect example. I have compared the two releases and the newer Kino version has much brighter and richer colors than the MGM release. If it is the same transfer they did a lot of work on the stability, stretching and color which seems unlikely to do that much work. Seems easier to just use a new transfer.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's why we don't use screen caps to judge picture quality. This is a perfect example. I have compared the two releases and the newer Kino version has much brighter and richer colors than the MGM release. If it is the same transfer they did a lot of work on the stability, stretching and color which seems unlikely to do that much work. Seems easier to just use a new transfer.

Kino has stated it was a new transfer.

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4598134/

 

[OliverK]

That's why we don't use screen caps to judge picture quality. This is a perfect example. I have compared the two releases and the newer Kino version has much brighter and richer colors than the MGM release. If it is the same transfer they did a lot of work on the stability, stretching and color which seems unlikely to do that much work. Seems easier to just use a new transfer.

Not sure what you mean by new transfer but they most probably used the grading that was done previously as a starting point, same with the digital files that were available.

This is not to downplay what Kino did as they certainly improved the video side of things. The MGM disc with its horizontal stretch should never have been released in the first place but then these things happen as the stretch was not big enough to be immediately noticable to everybody..

 

[Paul Rossen]

Not sure what you mean by new transfer but they most probably used the grading that was done previously as a starting point, same with the digital files that were available.

This is not to downplay what Kino did as they certainly improved the video side of things. The MGM disc with its horizontal stretch should never have been released in the first place but then these things happen as the stretch was not big enough to be immediately noticable to everybody..

The stretch is noticeable in the first release. There is a night and day difference in the two releases. Technically I don’t care what MGM or Kino did but I’m very pleased with the outcome.

 

[OliverK]

The stretch is noticeable in the first release. There is a night and day difference in the two releases. Technically I don’t care what MGM or Kino did but I’m very pleased with the outcome.

Yes it is noticable but not enough to have held up the release of the disc at MGM. I was wondering at the time how several people must have missed it in order for it to be released like that but then a number of reviews went online where the stretch was not mentioned either which is why I pointed out that it was not that noticable to everybody.