THE PRINCESS BRIDE: A Non-Geek's Take on the SE (and a bit about 5.1 vs 2-channel) (1 Viewer)

[John GB]

Michael,
I think my argument holds up just fine. When I watch a downconverted anamorphic DVD, my player is throwing away every 4th line. The picture is cleaned up and made to look normal by the player (using some method of extrapolation).
Some players do this much better than others. My Sony player tends to soften the picture a bit, but gives me few (if any) artifacts. Other players give you a sharp picture with lots of artifacts.
A non-anamorphic letterboxed DVD will have superior resolution on my 4 by 3 NTSC television period.
------------------

 

[Robert George]

Ken:
I understand your points about downmixing 5.1 soundtracks, but you should consider a couple of factors.
1) "Recomforming" a master, that is, mixing some of the low bass from the LFE to the mains to optimize downmixed audio, is rarely done. The reason is because it simply isn't necessary. Yes, there have been a couple of notable exceptions (Jurassic Park), but the vast majority of 5.1 mixes have plenty of low frequency information in the left/right/center channels so that no LFE is needed when using downmixed audio to a modest system. Most sound engineers use the LFE only for low frequency reinforcement/effects. Use of the LFE is intended for audio systems designed to actually handle it. Dolby chose to design the downmix chip to exclude the LFE because, in theory, most people that don't have 5.1 systems can't reproduce the LFE accurately to begin with.
Dolby recommends reconforming a mix only if the original mix places all the low frequency information in the LFE channel, which is usually not the case.
2) Even if a 5.1 mix has been reconformed, if one has their audio system configured properly, it makes no difference in how much bass is reproduced by the subwoofer. All the information is still in the audio track.
[Edited last by Robert George on September 06, 2001 at 11:45 AM]

 

[Alex Shk]

Quote:
Use of the LFE is intended for audio systems designed to actually handle it. Dolby chose to design the downmix chip to exclude the LFE because, in theory, most people that don't have 5.1 systems can't reproduce the LFE accurately to begin with.
______________________
I think it was an error to do this on their part (even though what you said was essentially true). Some people (myself included) came to home theater sound via high end audio, and already had subwoofers hooked up to their 2 channel systems. I had the equipment to produce those frequencies - but not to decode the 5.1 mix. I first noticed this while reading all the exclamations about U571 here, and being totally underwhelmed at home. Apparently - my sub wasn't getting the full "ooomph" from that soundtrack. I now have DD/DTS capability - I can honestly say - there is a world of difference.

 

[Clinton McClure]

Many of you, I know owned the LD or the previous bare bones DVD of this movie.

When was this re-released? I must have missed it.

------------------
Yes, but are they high-quality balloons? ~ David Letterman

 

[Michael Martin]

Clinton:
The Special Edition of The Princess Bride was released Tuesday.
------------------
"The more we think we know about, the greater the unknown."
--Rush, "Mystic Rhythms"

 

[Michael Reuben]

The big frustration I experienced watching Princess Bride in 5.1 (using a 2-channel stereo system) is that after particularly loud events, ALL of the sound was much softer and took a bit to get back to "normal" levels.

While I don't have much experience listening to 2-channel mixdowns from 5.1 sources, your description sounds like something other than a mixdown artifact. It sounds more like a listener's subjective reaction to a broad dynamic range, where sounds can be very loud or very soft. The solution is not to provide a 2.0 mix (which could easily create the same effect) but to limit the dynamic range of the soundtrack. Many newer receivers feature "dynamic range compression" for such things as late-night viewing, but I suspect yours does not. DRC has the advantage of being user-selectable; you don't have to cripple the recorded soundtrack in order to apply it.
You may have hit closer to the mark than you realized when you referred to "very high-end sound mixes". The fact is that DVD technology is capable of delivering a more detailed and elaborate sound experience than most people are used to hearing from their VHS systems. Should DVDs include a curtailed version of the soundtrack for people whose ears are used to a lesser experience? I can understand why someone might argue that they should, but I just don't think it's a worthwhile use of the "bit budget".
M.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Many DVD players also have built-in dynamic range compression features. My Pioneer combi-player has it for DVD, but not laserdiscs. Considering the potential dynamic range of a laserdisc's uncompressed 16-bit 44kHz PCM and the fact that DVD PCM tracks could be compressed, I thought this was odd, but it was probably because there was no practical way for the player to also do dynamic range compression on an RF-encoded dolby digital bitstream.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Michael Reuben]

but it was probably because there was no practical way for the player to also do dynamic range compression on an RF-encoded dolby digital bitstream.

I believe that's correct. As I understand it, DRC relies on metadata in the DD bitstream, and I assume your Pioneer doesn't have a built-in demodulator, so it never "sees" the bitstream.
M.