Why do Laser Discs sound consistently better than their DVD counterparts????? (1 Viewer)

[Shane Martin]

Give Vince a cookie. Big Kudos for his observations because he is plainly putting it out there in which I can't for the life of me type it onscreen in a post. That's what I was getting at RobertR
Then again Vince's theory completely shells my theory about Mixes

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?

Me and Vince are seeing eye to eye once again here. Although I did recieve an email from another forum member who had a friend in the business that knew that SPR had 3 different mixes. This could have been false though as I didn't know the guy and could only go on what I was told.
Add to the fact I've compared the DD LD of Matrix which has more 'Fidelity or depth' as Vince would put it then the DD Dvd and the LD came out 3-4 months Past the dvd.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

quote: Although I did recieve an email from another forum member who had a friend in the business that knew that SPR had 3 different mixes. This could have been false though as I didn't know the guy and could only go on what I was told.[/quote]
And I wouldn't necessarily doubt the three mix issue, but the important question isn't if, but rather WHY?
I mean, it would take extra time and effort to remix the entire film once, let alone 3 times. Why? I could see if they wanted to have a specific HOME THEATER nearfield mix- that makes perfect sense, but then why wouldn't all 3 home theater formats (DTS DVD, DD DVD, DD LD) have this mix? Why have a different one for each?
I wouldn't say it didn't hapen- but it would immediately flag me as to WHY it happened.
Again- I'm leaning towards prep issues and changing in that regard. Even remixing only explains some of the issues- as more recent LD should have the remix as well- but there is certainly a difference. Again- studios like Fox are claiming to encode direct from theatrical stems... so that throws out remixing.
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.
-Vince
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
AIM: VinceMaskeeper
Anyone wanna sell me their palm pilot?? Click here
[Edited last by Vince Maskeeper on October 14, 2001 at 08:56 PM]

 

[RobertR]

At the risk of opening up an unpleasant can of worms, and possibly offending some people, I think there’s another factor to at least think about: a subjective reaction not based on an objective difference in the sound. Anyone who’s ever perused rec.audio.high-end (it also happens on HTF and other forums) knows about ongoing raging debates about the “sound” of amplifiers, interconnects, speaker wire, etc. etc., and various tweaks. Many people on this forum are also well aware of the debates about DTS vs. DD. Differences are heard even though no one can come up with a technical difference that is accepted by independent audio engineers. In short, differences that become the subject of psychoacoustics, not engineering.
The fact that this sort of debate goes on tells me that psychoacoustics could very well be a part of the perceived differences. I’ve read some posts from Tom Nousaine where he cites some research he’s done showing that people will often hear differences between two “different” things even when it is known that they are in fact listening to the same thing.
I’m not necessarily saying that this is what’s happening, but I would like to see someone like Nousaine do research on it.
------------------

 

[Shane Martin]

RobertR,
ALthough you might be correct I would say that since nobody here has ever used an encoder before(big assumption but very valid) that we don't know the whole jist of the story.
I would lean towards Vince's theories before I would trust Physcoacoustics. Then again I hear differences in DD and DTS

and even some tweaks.

 

[IanS]

quote:
"The mix on the Japanese LD was done by Pioneer of Japan. The mix on the DVD was done by Lucasfilm itself. Given that fact, it does sound reasonable to think that the DVD is more faithful."
I thought Pioneer was just a LASERDISC pressing facility in Japan.
Wouldn't the mixing of the film be done at LUCASFILM?
Ian

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I thought Pioneer was just a LASERDISC pressing facility in Japan.
Wouldn't the mixing of the film be done at LUCASFILM?

I think that the terms "mixing", "mastering", and "encoding" are being used interchangeably by some posters to the point that I'm not quite sure what they mean. This may have been one of those cases, and I am glad that someone shares my confusion.
From a completely different angle, there are some mixes, particularly those that are highly reliant on the music score and not particularly active with sound effects, which simply sound better in well-mastered PCM pro-logic than they do in DD5.1, let alone DD 2.0.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

Folks, it's a digital bitstream being played through a digital processor. I get the feeling that some of the people here think that if one were to take the DD track from a DVD, 'cut and paste' it onto a Laserdisc, it would sound better all of the sudden.
It's either mix, or you've got a reciever such that the 14 hour tweaking marathon you did to the "LD" input doesn't apply to the "DVD" input.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Folks, it's a digital bitstream being played through a digital processor.

I assume this is a ref to playback? And you are correct- however, again, I am asking specifically about the preperation methods which are going into making the discs. I really think the issues I have persoanlly seen are too much to be coincidence- I really think something small has been changed, and the results have been slightly less quality.
-Vince
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
AIM: VinceMaskeeper
Anyone wanna sell me their palm pilot?? Click here

 

[Jeff Kleist]

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?

Given Spielburg's great interest (I believe both artistically and financially) in DTS, I have long suspected Dreamworks of crippling their DD mixes
Jeff Kleist

 

[Jay E]

I am completely naive when it comes to the technical aspects of audio. All I know is that when I play the same film on Laser & DVD, the Laser almost always sounds "fuller" and the DVD sounds more "tinny". This is a complete audio idiot's interpretation so please excuse the lack of specifics.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Vince you have an interesting theory here.
My experience is however is not so clear as yours,but then again I have maybe compared 5,6 discs,and that was 4 years ago.
There are 2 disc that stands out that didn't sound "better" then the DVD as a matter a fact,I've preferred the DVD quiet a bit.
Interestingly both title came from CTS.
They were the Fifth Element,and Air Force One.Both were 5.1 among the first and last from CTS,as they were sitting on the fence with DD 5.1 along with MCA/Universal as to release any title in DD5.1.
Anyhow both titles sounded more "expanded" on the DVD creating more of a 360 degree soundfield then the LD which sounded more front oriented.
Once again this "prove" nothing as this is only my opinion,however if we take this into consideration,the codec at least whar CTS uses isn't inferior to the one they use for the LD's.Maybe they even use the same?
As for the theatrical mix is better then a nearfield one.
First of all theaters don't have the acoustics nor the frequency response of the normal home theater room.
Most limitation come from the size of the auditorium,which makes really hard an impractical to reproduce deep bass below 40hz,the same goes for the highs of above 10khz or so,especially from the front speakers,behind the screen.
So, many film makers[not all] takes this into consideration,and trying to "correct" the situation at the mixing.This "correction" is not necessary at home hence the growing tendency to remix the soundtrack for home use.[The recent Se7en DVD is a prime example for a stellar nearfield mix,which arguably sounds better then any previous incarnation of this title.]
Now I don't know if that's the case here,between these formats.
I'm still more inclined to belive that it's the mix indeed that separates these formats.
------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

In the specific case of "Saving Private Ryan", is it possible that we are looking at a case where THX certified mastering actually meant something? I know the prevailing opinion is to pass it off as meaningless, and to a certain extent, I have a hard time disagreeing for video mastering.
It is one obvious difference between the laserdisc and DVD. The question then becomes whether or not the differences perceived by Vince could be a result of mastering or are they obviously more than that. I do not have the laserdisc, so I cannot say, personally. How or why this could be a factor when they were created more or less simulatneously does seem a bit hard to explain, though.
Discuss.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA