Warner Bros.: which titles "deserve" lossless audio? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

They are for most catalog titles.

At times, Warner for instance confuses me with MRSP on a title like Beetlejuice.

http://www.amazon.com/Beetlejuice-20...0664727&sr=1-2

Yet price a catalog title like L.A. Confidential at $28.99

http://www.amazon.com/L-Confidential...0665029&sr=1-2

 

[Jeff Adkins]

If they need to charge more to include lossless, then so be it. But every title should have a lossless track.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

How much more is it for a lossless track over a lossy track?
Thanks.

 

[CraigF]

^Can't be much. Some of the IMO lousiest and cheapest BDs out there have lossless. They're not from WB of course. I guess what rubs more is when it's known the lossless track already exists because it was used on a WB HD-DVD. I suspect there are "unknown circumstances" behind the use of lossy audio in these few cases, because I don't consider WB a "cheap" studio.

 

[Adam Barratt]

It doesn't cost any more in licensing fees to add a TrueHD soundtrack if you're already including Dolby Digital, and the additional engineer time is negligible. It's more a matter of priorities (i.e. supplemental extras vs. lossless audio/bit budget vs. BD50 cost vs. expected sales).

Adam

 

[Douglas Monce]

While this is quite true, probably 95% of people can have their eye sight corrected to 20/20. Hearing however cannot be corrected to hear the subtleties of the differences between a lossless track and a very high bitrate lossy track.

Having said that I see no reason why a BD50 shouldn't have a lossless audio track on it.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I guess this depends on what you mean by HD sound. Some would not consider CD quality sound 16bit 44khz to be HD, yet this is the quality of sound that most film soundtracks are made up of. Most sound effects libraries are recorded at and delivered on CD quality. Some sound effects still in use to day were recorded in the 1930s.

I understand the desire to have the highest quality reproduction possible, but when we are saying HD sound I'm not real sure what that means. Does that mean a True HD track at 24/96 that is simply reproducing CD quality, or worse, audio? Or is CD quality good enough to be considered "HD"?

Doug

 

[Michael Reuben]

The relevant part of that quote is "yada yada", since no one's really making those arguments here. They're just the usual strawmen that are routinely brought out in these threads.

As a general proposition, no one seriously disputes that lossless is preferable. The argument always comes when a disc arrives without lossless, and not everyone is willing to agree that the studio issuing it should be tarred and feathered.

M.

 

[CraigF]

^ Yeah, I'm not into the tarring and feathering. Perhaps when I was younger... Now I just don't buy, and move on.

 

[JediFonger]

i thought speed racer was the best movie of 2008, but i'm in the small minority =P. i have 100+ BD's and own several WB's without lossless.

yesh i agree lossless should be on every release BUT only if they remastered the soundtrack. lossless audio, just like 1080p24 video, are all useless unless the original film negative/masters are remastered. some older films, like those westerns, sound more/less the same with or without lossless. it can sound a tiny bit better... but u can't tell the diff. another example is the kubrick movies. i got them all on BD, lossless vs. lossy are practically speaking the same. but if they were remastered @the source level, i'm sure they would have sounded better either lossy or lossless with lossless giving u the most details.

specific titles other than speed racer:
-happy feet. i actually bought both superman returns and happy feet on BD ASSUMING truehd was ported from the HD DVD version. i was WRONG! i sold them both immediately. now that superman returns is receiving its lossless, i'm re-buying that one with the lossless. so hopefully happy feet gets its due.
-corpse bride. similar to nightmare before christmas but with NEW soundtrack, this musical should TOTALLY be lossless.