I have been reading how Laserdisc releases are much better sound quality than the equivalent DVD releases. ( or so some say ) People say DVD has more compression while the Laserdisc opens up the soundstage and sounds so much better.

Question i have is are Blu Ray discs with their lossless soundtracks now a step above what Laserdisc offered.....Would you say that even the 640kb/s or 1.5mbp/s lossy tracks are better than Laserdiscs sound ?

I know that you have to compare on a movie basis and you can't just say one sounds better than the other but i was wondering if the owners of Laserdiscs are now happy with the sound they get from Blu Ray ?

Of course it's also all in the mix and Laserdisc used to offer PCM 2 chanel soundtracks which you could decode into Pro Logic....Should Blu Ray offer the original 2 channel soundtrack in PCM form for older films as well as a remix ( i think so )

DVD AC3 vs LD PCM or LD AC3?

There were a lot of complaints about the dvd 5.1 mixes being weaker than their laserdisc counterparts, supposedly because of mixdown purposes. I guess that's not done anymore.

DVD AC3 vs LD PCM or LD AC3?

There were a lot of complaints about the dvd 5.1 mixes being weaker than their laserdisc counterparts, supposedly because of mixdown purposes. I guess that's not done anymore.

A textbook example is the AC-3 track of the "Space Jam" LaserDisc compared to the SE DVD. The DVD track is not even in the same league as the LD (I am comparing the 5.1 mixes), so much so that the anamorphic picture is not enough incentive for me to play the DVD vs the non-anamorphic picture of the LD.

It was a well known phenomena that laserdisc soundtracks often beat their dvd counterpart. There are various reasons for this of course. The Blu-ray audio tracks are in a different league all together, as most of them are the original master soundtrack in lossless form. I think it would have to take a disastrous remix job for the Blu-ray to lose to the laserdisc soundtrack.

It was a well known phenomena that laserdisc soundtracks often beat their dvd counterpart. There are various reasons for this of course. The Blu-ray audio tracks are in a different league all together, as most of them are the original master soundtrack in lossless form. I think it would have to take a disastrous remix job for the Blu-ray to lose to the laserdisc soundtrack.

Just working off memory, I believe that laserdiscs had 44.1KHz digital PCM tracks (whereas many Blu-Rays today have 48KHz). OTOH, if you compare it to Warner's many Blu-Ray 640K DD only lossy tracks, then on a pure fidelity basis laserdisc is better.

It is so pathetic that after 20 years, we still cannot make a definitive statement that today's best consumer format has better audio.

I guess a question would be - If you take the DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby Tru HD track and listen to it's core at 1.5mbp/s or 640kbp/s is this core as good as the old Laserdisc mixes as in has the compression that people didn't like about DVD ended with Blu Ray even on the core soundtracks ? I ask that because the core of these tracks is taken from the lossless version so surely should be a massive improvement. I admit my knowledge is limited on the sound aspect of Blu Ray and how it really works.

I ask that because at the moment my sound is restricted to core listening as i don't have HDMI in my current amp and the Playstation 3 doesn't offer analog out. I believe many will be listening to the core rather than the full uncompressed lossless track until they upgrade their amps.

At the moment studio's are giving us a remix but another question is should they give us the original unaltered 2 channel track as PCM stereo so we can listen to it as Dolby Pro Logic or Pro Logic II - Remixes don't always offer the best sound i have found although that's on a per movie basis.

What do others here think ?

I had a laserdisc player with pretty good equipment.
For example "Speed" or "Independence Day" on dvd never even got close to their Laserdisc counterparts. Now with Blu Ray and DTS HD sound that has changed.

I never thought that DD 5.1 on Laserdisc was superior to the same soundtrack on the DVD. They were mostly comparable. The difference in the debates I remember were the DTS laserdiscs vs. their DVD DTS counterparts, and of course the PCM 2 channel vs. the DD on DVD.

There was especially some hullabaloo over the Jurassic Park DTS DVD having weaker bass than it's LD equivalent. They even repressed the DVDs to add on the same soundtrack of the DVD, which some people claimed was cooked at the time to help sell DTS equipment. I personally never heard that much difference, and felt both soundtracks sounded incredible.

Now, PCM always has had better fidelity than anything DD put out. That was always the attraction to LD -- the standard stereo sountracks were much warmer than the 5.1 mixes on DVD. However, that warmth is apparent on the PCM 5.1 tracks on Blu-Ray, and in my opinion of the TruHD and DTS HD Masters. So, after some rambling, yes, I think Blu-Ray is superior to LD in the sound department.

I guess a question would be - If you take the DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby Tru HD track and listen to it's core at 1.5mbp/s or 640kbp/s is this core as good as the old Laserdisc mixes as in has the compression that people didn't like about DVD ended with Blu Ray even on the core soundtracks ? I ask that because the core of these tracks is taken from the lossless version so surely should be a massive improvement. I admit my knowledge is limited on the sound aspect of Blu Ray and how it really works.

I ask that because at the moment my sound is restricted to core listening as i don't have HDMI in my current amp and the Playstation 3 doesn't offer analog out. I believe many will be listening to the core rather than the full uncompressed lossless track until they upgrade their amps.

At the moment studio's are giving us a remix but another question is should they give us the original unaltered 2 channel track as PCM stereo so we can listen to it as Dolby Pro Logic or Pro Logic II - Remixes don't always offer the best sound i have found although that's on a per movie basis.

What do others here think ?


i think the answer is difficult and simple. If we are dealing with a lossless track (TrueHD, DTS-MA, then the answer is obvious as lossless would win.)

On the other hand...... From what I understand, LDs were not as "compressed" as DVD so it should offer better sound. Most bluray tracks even though they may seem the same as the SD are sometimes improved and offer a higher bitrate. On the other hand, some tracks are just carry overs from the HD. If this is the case, this may be a case where the LD sounds better if it was a bad encode.

By and large though, BD will usually sound better.

From what I understand, LDs were not as "compressed" as DVD so it should offer better sound.

If I recall correctly, ld used ac3 at 384 kbs, while dvd mostly uses 440 kbs. the only way ld were not as compressed is if they were 2 channel pcm...which in theory dvds could do as well, but most of the time, studios are too lazy...the release of the original original star wars, a direct laserdisc port, had 2 channel dd instead of pcm.

I don't believe anyone claimed that AC3 on laserdiscs sounded better than AC3 on DVDs (unless it was due to the use of different masters). However, it is evident that the fidelity of the laserdisc PCM tracks were an order of magnitude better than DVD DD. The sad part is that this quality difference would still exist if they put the exact same laserdisc PCM track on DVD.

One of the problems with DVD players is that due to the intrinsic nature of the player mechanisms, its jitter performance is about 1,000 worse than the worst CD player. It is this poor timing of the digital datastream that put the DVD audio resolution ceiling at 12 bits.

So irregardless of the quality of the DVD player DAC circuitry, or even if one used high-quality outboard DAC circuitry, it is the timing accuracy which clocks the music. Jitter in CD transports is measured in part of a picosecond, whereas in DVD transports it is measured in tens of thousands of picoseconds. So while in theory DVD players are capable of 16-20 bits of sonic resolution, in practice it is only capable of 12 bits. Some players (such as those by Faroudja) addressed this shortcoming, but these were few and far in between.

For me, a simple conclusion is that the best laserdisc audio was better than the best DVD audio, and that the typical laserdisc audio was also better than the typical DVD audio.

When it comes to Blu-Ray, we still have 640K DD-only discs. So the general statement that "BD has better audio fidelity than 20-year old laserdiscs" cannot be made. Also, does anyone know what the jitter performance on BD players are?

I don't believe anyone claimed that AC3 on laserdiscs sounded better than AC3 on DVDs (unless it was due to the use of different masters). However, it is evident that the fidelity of the laserdisc PCM tracks were an order of magnitude better than DVD DD. The sad part is that this quality difference would still exist if they put the exact same laserdisc PCM track on DVD.

One of the problems with DVD players is that due to the intrinsic nature of the player mechanisms, its jitter performance is about 1,000 worse than the worst CD player. It is this poor timing of the digital datastream that put the DVD audio resolution ceiling at 12 bits.

So irregardless of the quality of the DVD player DAC circuitry, or even if one used high-quality outboard DAC circuitry, it is the timing accuracy which clocks the music. Jitter in CD transports is measured in part of a picosecond, whereas in DVD transports it is measured in tens of thousands of picoseconds. So while in theory DVD players are capable of 16-20 bits of sonic resolution, in practice it is only capable of 12 bits. Some players (such as those by Faroudja) addressed this shortcoming, but these were few and far in between.

For me, a simple conclusion is that the best laserdisc audio was better than the best DVD audio, and that the typical laserdisc audio was also better than the typical DVD audio.

When it comes to Blu-Ray, we still have 640K DD-only discs. So the general statement that "BD has better audio fidelity than 20-year old laserdiscs" cannot be made. Also, does anyone know what the jitter performance on BD players are?

But what if BD has an advanced codec such as DD+, DTS=HD, DTS-MA or TrueHD?

But what if BD has an advanced codec such as DD+, DTS=HD, DTS-MA or TrueHD?

IMO the lossy codecs (DD+, DTS-HD, DTS core) do not belong in the same category as the lossless (PCM, DTS-HD/MA, TrueHd).

So the question is probably "are the BD lossless tracks sonically superior to the laserdisc PCM tracks"?

For that, we probably need to answer the question "what is the jitter performance of BD player mechanisms vs laserdiscs ones". While in theory the BD lossless audio that is physically on the disc has better specs, it is a different issue whether those better specs are taken advantage of in practical terms.

Unnecessary comments deleted.

Just working off memory, I believe that laserdiscs had 44.1KHz digital PCM tracks (whereas many Blu-Rays today have 48KHz). OTOH, if you compare it to Warner's many Blu-Ray 640K DD only lossy tracks, then on a pure fidelity basis laserdisc is better.As others have noted Laserdisc was only capable of 2 channel PCM audio so that is debatable since you are sometimes comparing 2 channel PCM audio with multi-channel lossy audio. Also I would mention that 2 channel PCM audio was added to Laserdisc after it was released and originally Laserdisc didn't support it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc).


It is so pathetic that after 20 years, we still cannot make a definitive statement that today's best consumer format has better audio.You can make the statement that Blu-ray can support better audio quality and that in the vast majority of cases is superior to what either DVD or Laserdisc offered. Also even with a better video format some definitive statements can't be made and for instance you can't make the definitive statement that "DVD has better video quality than VHS" since that isn't always true.


One of the problems with DVD players is that due to the intrinsic nature of the player mechanisms, its jitter performance is about 1,000 worse than the worst CD player. It is this poor timing of the digital datastream that put the DVD audio resolution ceiling at 12 bits.
According to Jim Taylor that was a myth (http://dvddemystified.com/myths.html) made by Widescreen Review.

As others have noted Laserdisc was only capable of 2 channel PCM audio so that is debatable since you are sometimes comparing 2 channel audio with multi-channel audio. Also I would mention that 2 channel PCM audio was added to Laserdisc after it was released and originally Laserdisc didn't support it.


You can make the statement that Blu-ray can support better audio quality and that in the vast majority of cases is superior to what either DVD or Laserdisc offered. Also even with a better video format some definitive statements can't be made and for instance you can't make the definitive statement that "DVD has better video quality than VHS" since that isn't always true.


That was a myth (http://dvddemystified.com/myths.html) made by Widescreen Review.

Yes...tests done in an UK mag showed jitter was not a problem in even modestly priced DVD players.

I believe Laserdisc got an upgrade though that allowed Digital 5.1 sound in both DTS and Dolby formats and DTS tracks were about 1200kbp/s ( not sure on exact figure )

It's the 2 channel PCM part which interests me with regards older films...I remember reading how Forrest Gumps 2 channel PMC track on Laserdisc sounded more immersive with more going on in the surrounds albeit in mono than the 5.1 track which according to the review at the time said the 5.1 track lacked surround information.

My point for bringing it up would be that i hope we can get older films from the eighties and early nineties the original 2 channel track as PCM ( as well as a remix ) on Blu Ray software.

What is this about 640 kbps soundtracks? Every studio outside of Warner is releasing lossless master soundtracks on their Blu-rays. Fox and Sony have never released anything but lossless audio on Blu-ray. Lionsgate stopped offering lossy only soundtracks after their initial wave of BDs. Even Starz has used PCM on all their releases. Apparently Universal will be releasing DTS-HD MA on every Blu-ray release and Paramount will be going forward with Dolby TrueHD on all new BDs. Blame Warner for continuing to issue substandard audio tracks.

What is this about 640 kbps soundtracks? Every studio outside of Warner is releasing lossless master soundtracks on their Blu-rays. Fox and Sony have never released anything but lossless audio on Blu-ray. Lionsgate stopped offering lossy only soundtracks after their initial wave of BDs. Even Starz has used PCM on all their releases. Apparently Universal will be releasing DTS-HD MA on every Blu-ray release and Paramount will be going forward with Dolby TrueHD on all new BDs. Blame Warner for continuing to issue substandard audio tracks.

The core track from Dolby True HD is usually 640kbp/s ( sometimes 448kbp/s ) its the minimum a person can get if they don't have an HDMI receiver or analog outputs on their player.

For DTS HD MA the minimum is usually 1.5mbp/s.

According to Jim Taylor that was a myth (http://dvddemystified.com/myths.html) made by Widescreen Review.
Jim knows a ton about DVD. But he doesn't have any expertise in high-performance audio. His description of jitter degradation is pretty wrong in that quote. The effect of jitter is precisely that: it reduces the effective resolution. *Measured* perforamance of many DVD players is no better than 12-14 bits. Even DVD-A players struggled to get above 16 bits when they came out.

The fact that there are many more clocks/circuits in a DVD player as compared to a CD player heavily impacts how feasible it is to get good performance from them.

Yes...tests done in an UK mag showed jitter was not a problem in even modestly priced DVD players.
That is pretty much at odds with tests in US magazines. I used to read the reviews religiously and many players fall way short of their specs. This was in high-end audio magazines that know what they are talking about.

Who had done the tests in UK and what was the nature of it?

I’m not practically keen on Bluray, so I’ve done a few compassions of (1996) academy award winner for best sound effects editing “The Ghost in the Darkness”.

ABC&D testing of the region 2 DVD and PAL laserdisc

First I switched the DRC dynamic range compressor to ON mode, on the Kenwood KRF-X9050D THX select and set the level where Kilmer’s character John Patterson says, “I’m going to sort it out” while firing of single round then reloading the rife then firing off a second shot in vengeful anger.

I set the SPL db level metre up and selected A weighting I wasn’t interested in C weighting, I set the level on the Kenwood for appropriate level to read a simple 70dbA in (dynamic range compression) mode.

Region 2 DVD
Six-track Dolby stereo digital
Dolby AC-3
Fader -8db
Rifle shots came in at 70dbA

The next setting was with DRC turned OFF and the fader level adjusted down by

Fader -12db
Rifle shots came in at 70dbA +- a few 0.0db nothing you’d really notice.

Dolby stereo 4:2:4
Analogue
Fader -5db
Rifle shots came in at 70dbA

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk279/SpectrumsubbassLFE13417/TheGhostintheDarknessLCRSDRCONandOF.jpg


Laserdisc PAL
PCM
Dolby stereo 4:2:4
Fader -11db


http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk279/SpectrumsubbassLFE13417/TheGhostintheDarknesslaserdiscPCMDo.jpg

As others have noted Laserdisc was only capable of 2 channel PCM audio so that is debatable since you are sometimes comparing 2 channel PCM audio with multi-channel lossy audio. [/URL].



Yes, that was why in my posts I explicitly said we are comparing fidelity, and I kept the number of channels out of it. With laserdiscs (PCM) we got matrixed surround audio with good fidelity. With DVD we got discrete surround audio with compromised fidelity. I will take the former any day.

IMO good surround effects is not a good measure of audio quality. Even 384K DD from satellite provides good surround effects. It is fidelity that is the issue.

You can make the statement that Blu-ray can support better audio quality and that in the vast majority of cases is superior to what either DVD or Laserdisc offered. Also even with a better video format some definitive statements can't be made and for instance you can't make the definitive statement that "DVD has better video quality than VHS" since that isn't always true.


I can make the claim that 99% of the time BD has better audio fidelity than DVD. For me that is close enough to 100%.

Unfortunately I cannot make that claim for laserdisc audio fidelity vs BD, because the number is probably closer to 80% (BD 640K or worse DD only discs). No matter how you justify it, 80% doesn't round to 100%. And I would still like to find out the jitter performance of BD players compared to laserdisc players.

That is pretty much at odds with tests in US magazines. I used to read the reviews religiously and many players fall way short of their specs. This was in high-end audio magazines that know what they are talking about.

Who had done the tests in UK and what was the nature of it?

What Video Magazine i believe used to do some extensive testing "on the bench" and i think you may be able to view their tests online although i stopped getting the mag many years ago but it was a respected magazine back then....That same mag tested amplifiers and checked the real RMS output which often conflicted with the rated one supplied by the manufacturers.

When i talk about low budget DVD players i mean one's costing $200 or more...Not talking the real cheap ones.

Here's a link to the magazines site...they changed their name since i used to buy it.

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/whatvideo/

Here's one example of their tests.

GUIDE PRICE £180
WHAT'S GOOD
Picture; sound; looks; connectivity
WHAT'S BAD
Lack of picture/sound tweaks
FEATURES
DVD/CD/VCD/MP3/CD-R/CD-RW/DVD+RW playback; Dolby Digital, DTS and virtual surround; frame by frame; slow-motion playback; resume playback; title playback; chapter playback; track playback; A-B repeat; memory playback; random playback; zoom; multiple search speed; multiple angle; 4:3 and 16:9 modes; E.P.M modes x 5; E.A.M modes x 3; subtitle; function customise
SOCKETS
One (RGB-capable) Scart; component video out; S-video out; composite video out; coaxial out; optical out; phono stereo audio out
DIMENSIONS
430(w) x 69(h) x 222(d)mm

Video jitter: 5ns (good)
Signal-to-noise ratio: -65.3dB (average)
Chroma AM/PM: -70.9dB/-63.9dB (excellent/good)
Chroma crosstalk: -54.4dB (average)
Frequency response (S-video) at 5.8MHz: -6.55dB (very good)
composite video at 5.8MHz: -6.77dB (very good)
Digital audio deviation: 373.5ps (average)
Another awesome entry-level player from Toshiba
PICTURE 9/10
SOUND 8/10
FEATURES 8/10
EASE OF USE 9/10
OVERALL 9/10


Regarding Jitter...I am sure i read that HDMI outputs can suffer from jitter extensively.....Perhaps Amirm you can shed more light on this ?

With regards Laserdisc sound and DVD...This site gives some interesting conclusions especially for those who thought The Phantom Menace on Laserdisc sounded better....This site concludes it's the same mix only the DVD was recorded at a lower volume...It's well known that volume changes can fool people into thinking something sounds better and god knows sometimes it's fooled me too.

http://www.videophile.info/Graphs/Page_01.htm - The site gives technical information and comparisons...Very useful.

With regards Laserdisc sound and DVD...This site gives some interesting conclusions especially for those who thought The Phantom Menace on Laserdisc sounded better....This site concludes it's the same mix only the DVD was recorded at a lower volume...It's well known that volume changes can fool people into thinking something sounds better and god knows sometimes it's fooled me too.


Actually it’s the (1999) theatrical realise of the film that isn’t on DVD. And it cost me, £115.00 £130.00 pounds if I can think back that far.

http://www.lddb.com/cover/ld/00001-00100/thumb/00046.jpg

Volume level on “Underworld” (2003) is a bit abrupt and I can apply dynamic EQ to LCR fronts if wanted to reduce the level while keeping the action flowing as its fairly bass sub bass and LFE.1 heavy.

The LD sound mix on Armageddon was 10 times better than the sound mix on any of the DVD versions including the Criterion edition.:(

The LD sound mix on Armageddon was 10 times better than the sound mix on any of the DVD versions including the Criterion edition.:(

Are you 100% percent positive because I’d like to put that version under the close scrutiny if, I had Dolby AC-3 laserdisc player, because of both region 2 versions the first and second edition that I believe was sourced from the Criterion laserdisc edition, the split-surrounds only the surrounds on the digital AC-3 have technical issues!

There is popping and cracking that sounds like it was botched in the lab I don’t give hoot where or which person was responsible for overseeing this, but clearly the sound guys weren’t there otherwise I wouldn’t be bringing the issue up.

This where the shuttles undock from the Russian space station while its burning up from the inside and bits and pieces start to breakaway and tumble towards, Freedom, you can clearly hear it on the surrounds it sticks out like sore thumb.

The LD sound mix on Armageddon was 10 times better than the sound mix on any of the DVD versions including the Criterion edition
Are you talking about the DTS LD of Armageddon?

I can make the claim that 99% of the time BD has better audio fidelity than DVD. For me that is close enough to 100%.

Unfortunately I cannot make that claim for laserdisc audio fidelity vs BD, because the number is probably closer to 80% (BD 640K or worse DD only discs). No matter how you justify it, 80% doesn't round to 100%. And I would still like to find out the jitter performance of BD players compared to laserdisc players.

Its easy to throw statistics around but what matter is what you actually watch. Most releases I will never watch let alone own.

Here are releases for april. I see 6 that I may own (in green) and 8 that I may just rent (red). Out of those on my list there are 8 with lossless audio (4 each red and green. So that would make 57% of my ownership for april. That really isn't bad. And while a few select titles may have a badly put together 640K DD track, they are not that much worse than an LD that may be better.

Seeing that this is a BD versus LD and not LD versus DVD, I would give the hat to BD. I can live with a slightly less rich sound on a DD/DTS track in order to get Lossless on the half of the ones that I will watch or own.

As I said earlier about the stats. Stats don't really tell the whole story because each movie is unique and will not benefit from better sound as much as another.

April 29, 2008
27 Dresses (Fox)
First Knight (Sony)
The Golden Compass (New Line)
Motley Crue: Carnival of Sins (Warner Music Group)
Mozart: Die Zauberflote (Opus Arte)
Ocean's Eleven (Warner)
Ocean's Twelve (Warner)
April 22, 2008
National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (National Geographic)
One Missed Call (Warner)
The Orphanage (New Line)
Six Degrees Could Change the World (Warner Brothers)
Sublime (Warner)
April 15, 2008
Alien vs. Predator/Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (Two-Pack) (Fox)
Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (Fox)
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (Image)
Commando (Fox)
Juno (Fox)
Mariah Carey: The Adventures of Mimi (Image)
A Passage to India (Sony)
Predator (Fox)
April 08, 2008
The 6th Day (Sony)
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (Sony)
Sharkwater (Warner)
Space Ace (Digital Leisure)
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (Sony)
The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep (Sony)
Yukikaze (Bandai Visual)
April 01, 2008
10.5 Apocalypse: The Complete Miniseries (Echo Bridge)
Alvin and the Chipmunks (2007) (Fox)
Artie Lange's Beer League (Echo Bridge)
Behind The Yellow Line (Celestial)
Blackbeard (2006) (Echo Bridge)
Category 7: The End of the World (Echo Bridge)
Coyote Ugly (Walt Disney)
The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb: The Complete Miniseries (Echo Bridge)
Hidalgo (Walt Disney)
Justin Timberlake: Live at Madison Square Garden (Sony BMG)
The Last Sentinel (Echo Bridge)
Unbreakable (Walt Disney)

Now I know this is just one month of releases, but I have found in my HDM collection which around 80 so far that about half do have lossless. The other thing that we need to consider is the technology playing these discs. Isn't todays hardware better than hardware from 5-10 years ago? Just as analog film can offer more video detail in the film itself but often fails compared to HDM in real world use, the digital mediun can only give you so much whether it is digital or not (it still has to be processed into analog sound for your ears). hdmi offers more bandwisth than optical and coaxial and is required for DTS-HD and DD+ which many do include instead of lossless, but are downconverted for sending through the legacy digital connections.

.... and I don't know about you, but I don't like flipping disks.

So DD+/DTS-HD, DTS-MA and TrueHD are not going to be able to put out via optical or coaxial. You can use HDMI, but unless you have a receiver that decode the latter two codecs, you will not get their full sound range. The only option really is to use the analog outs to the receiver if you don't have a relatively new receiver so it is really dependant on the player.

If you are playing BD via anything but HDMI to a onkyo 605 or something or using the analog outs with a player that can decode them( and even many players can't decode them) you are not getting BDs full sound.

My first HDM player was an HD-A3. I thought it sounded fine even though it downconverted to DD. I upgraded my HTPC to BD/HD DVD playback. The lossless tracks really blow away now as I am using a program that can decode them and send them out via analog to my receiver.

Well my LD player(s) don't require flipping discs... :)


I will say that some of the best sounding tracks on LD were / are the 2 channel PCM from like music concerts.. Man, they really hold up well to todays stuff. This audio was / is typically, effectively lossless you know. :)

Unfortunately I cannot make that claim for laserdisc audio fidelity vs BD, because the number is probably closer to 80% (BD 640K or worse DD only discs). No matter how you justify it, 80% doesn't round to 100%. And I would still like to find out the jitter performance of BD players compared to laserdisc players.Shouldn't you be doing a 1:1 comparison, or at least providing the percentage of LDs with high-fidelity PCM soundtracks? Plus, you mention the "fidelity vs surround" argument, but fail to take into account that (1) virtually all lossless soundtracks on BD are also surround, and (2) that despite your claim of "matrixing" PCM to surround, the fact is that few receivers can matrix PCM now, let alone 20 years ago. In fact, I can't think of any matrixing that didn't convert the signal to something else entirely outside of current HDMI receivers designed to handle multi-channel PCM tracks.

Well my LD player(s) don't require flipping discs... :)


I will say that some of the best sounding tracks on LD were / are the 2 channel PCM from like music concerts.. Man, they really hold up well to todays stuff. This audio was / is typically, effectively lossless you know. :)

I do agree the 1-2 channel tracks can sound better. Expecially on older stuff. Good example is Caddyshack the original track (I think it is mono or stereo) from the theater still sounds better than what they put together on the 5.1. It seems whenever they take a mono or stereo track and try to make it into "5.1", it makes the dialog seem so muted and drowns out the music in backgrounds.

as far as lossless, I agree on that, but many seems to be comparing the LD 5.1 on here which seems to end up either being DD ot DTS.

Isn't todays hardware better than hardware from 5-10 years ago?

I am not sure about that. DVD was newer technology than laserdisc, but yet the jitter on it was so bad that it limited the resolution to 12 bits. I imagine that the timing requirements on BD players would be even more demanding. That is the reason I am wondering what the jitter performance is like on BD players.

I am not sure about that. DVD was newer technology than laserdisc, but yet the jitter on it was so bad that it limited the resolution to 12 bits. I imagine that the timing requirements on BD players would be even more demanding. That is the reason I am wondering what the jitter performance is like on BD players.

I wouldn't know. I play BD on my HTPC which really handles it well. Bit of an overkill system though for playback.

You aren't actually suggesting that lossless is not better than DD/DTS, are you?

Yes about DVD, but DVD was at most equal to LD in the codecs with few exceptions. So a jitter would bring it below that level. Bluray includes DTS-HD, DD+, TrueHD and DTS-MA. I would think this would trump and jitter than may exist.

as far as lossless, I agree on that, but many seems to be comparing the LD 5.1 on here which seems to end up either being DD ot DTS.

I will be the first to admit that AC-3 on laserdiscs left much to be desired, and is probably inferior to even those on DVDs, and obviously to almost any BD audio format.

You aren't actually suggesting that lossless is not better than DD/DTS, are you?


If I said that lossy DD/DTS is better than lossless (at the same bit-depth and sampling rate), then I was either drunk or just woke up.


Bluray includes DTS-HD, DD+, TrueHD and DTS-MA. I would think this would trump and jitter than may exist.

I am hoping that individuals more knowledgeable than myself could provide insight into that.

I will be the first to admit that AC-3 on laserdiscs left much to be desired, and is probably inferior to even those on DVDs, and obviously to almost any BD audio format.

There is something else to consider in regards to jitter

As we know jitter is when there are unreadable blocks or erroneous blocks due to DVD smaller sized pits. Given the same tracks, LD would be better as it would not have as many jitters. the problem is that Bluray tracks are not the same and are better given a track with > DD/DTS. Which many more do than some will admit.

Even if you produce more jitter or equal jitter to DVD, the source that you are reading has far more depth to begin with which I would think would compensate for any jitter and then some. Does that make sense?

Also, I imagine LDs jittered as well. Perhaps not as much as DVD at the time as LD was antiquated technology at that point and was really well "cultured". Would an Oppo 98x do any worse now with an DVD compared to an LD in back to back as far as jitter?

We are just at the beginning with BD now. And we have a long way to go for improvement.

A better comparison of jitter would be to compare the first generations of LD to the same for DVD and BD.

Th reason that I say compared when players are produced is that my understanding is the laser quality has more to do with jitter than the quality of the medium itself.

A better comparison of jitter would be to compare the first generations of LD to the same for DVD and BD.

On that point we will have to disagree. For me, my LD listening experience was almost exclusively PCM (I generally avoided LDs without it), so it is my frame of reference.

When I got my first DVD player, I thought I hooked it up incorrectly because the audio was so awful. DVDs set audio fidelity back 20 years, and I am really hoping that BD will make up for that lost time. After that fisaco, Dolby lost all creditability in my eyes.

Dang.. Steve Burke is really harsh... Tell us what you really think. :)

I have never had an issue with an LD AC3 track. I consider DD in general, be it DVD or otherwise to be of theater quality.

DPLIIx has dramtically increased my enjoyment on most LD two channel PCM tracks, fidelity remains excellent when using it to derrive even a 7.1 sound stage.

On that point we will have to disagree. For me, my LD listening experience was almost exclusively PCM (I generally avoided LDs without it), so it is my frame of reference.

When I got my first DVD player, I thought I hooked it up incorrectly because the audio was so awful. DVDs set audio fidelity back 20 years, and I am really hoping that BD will make up for that lost time. After that fisaco, Dolby lost all creditability in my eyes.

I do know what you mean. I had a 2.0 system for sometime and finally upgraded to an onkyo surround system about 3 years ago. I expected alot more from DD, what you get in the theater. For lossy audio, I think DTS is much better by far as you hear the "little things" more. Definitely more crisp. A good example disc of why DTS sounds better is AVP. The DTS destroys the DD track.

When I went HDM, I must say that I thought that DD+ definitely sounds better than what is on DVD as I think most of them are 384K? Or maybe it was just placebo.... If course, until I listened to my first lossless track. It is amazing how much of a difference lossless makes even compared to DTS or DD+.

On the HD DVD side, you realize why people would go out of their way to pick up the HD-A35 and XA2 for the analog 5.1 out after you listen to the difference. I think most people don't really think there is much of a difference. Like when you think DVD still looks great until you watch enough HDM. DVD still looks good, but not as good as it once did.

First lossless that I tried via analog out on my HTPC (once I figured out how to get the advanced codecs working correctly) was top gun which actually has three english tracks with 3 different codecs.


Dolby TrueHD 5.1 Surround (48kHz/24-bit/3.5Mbps)
DTS-ES 6.1 Matrixed Surround (768kbps)
Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround (768kbps)


The TrueHD blew away the DD+. There just was no comparis. DTS-ES sounded really good... and actually pretty close, but in the end I think the TrueHD definitely had more of that "wow" factor.

Great test material in case anyone is looking one to test. You have music tracks, afterburners, direction movement from the jets crossing left and right and front to back. and a few quiet scenes every now and then. Not the best PQ but great AQ.

I had no clue about these technological things, however Once Upon a Time in America has a lot better overall feel on LD than DVD, must admit I prefer my 16:9 to 4:3 copy on LD, the DVD is just practical... but feels more plastic.

I would like to know how well HDMI outputs and inputs handle the jitter if anyone technically minded is around ( Amirm where are you )

Many are saying DVD sound was compromised and talking about jitter reducing the actual sound quality bits to 12 bit or 14 bit sound quality....As we know Blu Ray can handle 24 bit audio very well but i'm wondering about the optical output on players....Is it a lot better on Blu Ray players than on the old DVD players ?

Is the downmix from a lossless track such as a full DTS HD Master Audio track to lets say 1.5mbp/s dts - Is this downmix also reducing the overall bits when you feed it out using an optical cable to your receiver ? Would you say it's still better than DVD in that regard ?

To me it sounds great but my ears are getting older.

I would like to know how well HDMI outputs and inputs handle the jitter if anyone technically minded is around ( Amirm where are you )

Many are saying DVD sound was compromised and talking about jitter reducing the actual sound quality bits to 12 bit or 14 bit sound quality....As we know Blu Ray can handle 24 bit audio very well but i'm wondering about the optical output on players....Is it a lot better on Blu Ray players than on the old DVD players ?

Is the downmix from a lossless track such as a full DTS HD Master Audio track to lets say 1.5mbp/s dts - Is this downmix also reducing the overall bits when you feed it out using an optical cable to your receiver ? Would you say it's still better than DVD in that regard ?

To me it sounds great but my ears are getting older.

optical out is limited to DD and DTS. You can't pass the advanced codecs out them hence the reason for HDMI 1.2+. In order to get the advanced codecs without reducing them in the player, you need to use analog (assuming the player can decode them to analog) or bitstream via HDMI. Even if your receiver has hdmi in, very few can decode the lossless codecs anyway.

That is why many folks with receivers end up using analog out to the receiver to take advantage of what lossless offers.

You can't even get DD+ out of optical.

If you are using optical out, it is downmixing the audio or using the hidden DD track instead. HD DVDs were required to have DD+ as a codec so there are two seperate tracks on those that have lossless. When you get a BD with a lossless track only and you use optical, it will down mix on use a hidden codec to pass the sound out. It is a limitation of optical out.

And trust me, there is a reason that there was a thread on here of people complaining about two many discs without lossless. there truly is a big difference.

I don't think it would sound better unless it was a different source. You need to ask yourself this question and it should make sense. What will sound better? A track professionally made in the studio with professional encoding equipment for DD or a track that is downmixed on the fly in a sub $1000 machine? The same for DTS. Remember that the professional DD and DTS track are also encoded from lossless as well.



TOSLINK wikipage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK)

Audio signal Digital audio bitstream.
Originally limited to 48 kHz at 20 bits. Extended to support all modern formats, except Dolby Digital Plus, TrueHD and DTS HD audio streams.

First lossless that I tried via analog out on my HTPC (once I figured out how to get the advanced codecs working correctly) was top gun which actually has three english tracks with 3 different codecs.


My htpc is equiped to play both BD and HD-DVD, however it is not located in the same room as the projector, and I just never got around to running 6 RCA cables from the sound card to the AVR. There must be an easier way?

Right now I am just using the XA2 and the PS3, with HDMI for both audio & video.

My htpc is equiped to play both BD and HD-DVD, however it is not located in the same room as the projector, and I just never got around to running 6 RCA cables from the sound card to the AVR. There must be an easier way?

Right now I am just using the XA2 and the PS3, with HDMI for both audio & video.

Well, you could use something like this, but this would only give you 4 channels

http://www.onqlegrand.com/products/F2221

If you have the right sound card, you could also bitstream it to your receiver. via hdmi (I think the new ATI HD38xx can bitstream TrueHD and DTS-MA with a special DVI to HDMI adapter).

Depends on the length though. What I ended up doing is seperating my HTPC into two pieces when I upgraded to HD playback. I created a media server in the one room. and an HTPC client in my projector room. The client has an HDM drives, HD2600XT, TB montego via analog, AMD 5000+ ocd to 3.0.... but I only included a 200GB HDD. My media server currently is at 3TBs. I rip my HDM on the client and then use the network to load it onto the server and set it up. I usually strip the main feature and leave it in an EVO or M2TS file. I have no problems playing it off the media server remotely via my lan. Works great. I also thought about running cable throughout my house, but I found this much easier. Plus now I can play them throughout the house. So if someone want to watch an HD movie in another room, they can just stream it off the server. I load my DVDs in ISO form as I don't see a reason to compress them anymore.

PS: If there is an extra worth keeping, I will also rip that put it in a file that I keep all the extras to my HD in. Pretty handy.

then I wrap everything together with Xlobby 2.

One of the advantages of using a media server is that you can use all the measures you want to keep it cool without having to keep white noise levels under control. My HTPC is whisper quiet now.

I've got a LD player and about 500 discs and just had a couple questions...

Is the consensus that LD AC-3 is less than ideal? It seems to me that people are saying that they'd rather listen to LD PCM than AC-3. Do AC-3 lasers have PCM on them? Also, LD PCM is always two-channel, correct? And is PCM synonymous with Dolby Surround? I'm a little puzzled.

I've got a LD player and about 500 discs and just had a couple questions...

Is the consensus that LD AC-3 is less than ideal? It seems to me that people are saying that they'd rather listen to LD PCM than AC-3. Do AC-3 lasers have PCM on them? Also, LD PCM is always two-channel, correct? And is PCM synonymous with Dolby Surround? I'm a little puzzled.
PCM is encoded, but not compressed. AC-3 will be compressed. Some people prefer the sound of PCM.

PCM can go through Dolby Surround processing by a receiver. Results may be mixed based on whether it was encoded with Dolby Surround in mind.

No way.. The LD AC3 is just fine. Now there may be one or two titles, but in general, the AC3 LD's are just as good as most any DD SD-DVD.

win200? You do understand.. That if all you have is optical, you cannot get the AC3 off any of the discs right? You can get DTS, but not AC3. Otherwise you get 2 channel PCM, or I even have many discs still that only have analog tracks, no Digtial sound at all.

Is the consensus that LD AC-3 is less than ideal? It seems to me that people are saying that they'd rather listen to LD PCM than AC-3.

That is my feeling. I much prefer the LD PCM matrixed tracks (which are lossless), to LD AC-3 lossy tracks.


No way.. The LD AC3 is just fine. Now there may be one or two titles, but in general, the AC3 LD's are just as good as most any DD SD-DVD.


That's not difficult to do. IMO 448K DD on SD-DVDs sound awful.

IMO 448K DD on SD-DVDs sound awful.

live free or die hard sd dvd has a REALLY good dolby digital track....I doubt you could complain too much about it (not saying that the blu ray doesnt sound better)

Matrix revolutions also has a decent dolby digital track...when done right, dolby digital is good. all imo of course.

I've found a good article about digital/surround audio on DVD vs. Laserdiscs, for those of you who are interested in the numbers:

http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/dvd-format-video/2-7-How-does-DVD-compare-to-laserdisc.html

live free or die hard sd dvd has a REALLY good dolby digital track....I doubt you could complain too much about it (not saying that the blu ray doesnt sound better)

Matrix revolutions also has a decent dolby digital track...when done right, dolby digital is good. all imo of course.

If the criteria is surround effects, then DD does a good job. However if the criteria is sonic fidelity, than lossy 448K DD (on SD-DVDs) is awful in comparison to lossless 44.1 PCM (on laserdiscs). Personally I wish DD never existed - it set audio fidelity back 20 years.

If the criteria is surround effects, then DD does a good job. However if the criteria is sonic fidelity, than lossy 448K DD (on SD-DVDs) is awful in comparison to lossless 44.1 PCM (on laserdiscs).

I agree with you for most tracks...but I honestly cannot hear compression artifacts on those two dvds....I dont know how they did it while most other dvds fail miserably.

Is there a forum to discuss & possibly sell Laserdiscs? I can't find much out here on the subject other than this one thread. (This OK?):rolleyes:

Is there a forum to discuss & possibly sell Laserdiscs? I can't find much out here on the subject other than this one thread. (This OK?):rolleyes:
The alt.video.laserdisc and alt.video.laserdisc.marketplace groups are still active (e.g. via google groups: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=nhpsfg&hl=en&q=alt.video.laserdisc&qt_s=Search+for+a+group). Well, they are not as active as this very forum, but a number of enthusiastic Laserdisc fans read there, and will be nice with your questions as long as you don't ask where to buy a factory sealed HLD-X0 ;)
Beside that, I'm wondering as well whether there is any important forum left which has a Laserdisc section (I know only a german forum which does).

optical out is limited to DD and DTS. You can't pass the advanced codecs out them hence the reason for HDMI 1.2+. In order to get the advanced codecs without reducing them in the player, you need to use analog (assuming the player can decode them to analog) or bitstream via HDMI. Even if your receiver has hdmi in, very few can decode the lossless codecs anyway.

Lets keep things factual. You can get full lossless via PCM over hdmi.

It was always my understanding that the dynamic range in the final mixes of DVD were the critical failing points of the format. The soundtrack of the final mix of the movie was preserved on LD. DVD used re-recording mixers which limited the dynamic range of the mix for home use.

For a better explanation click on the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dekW5sArpLg&feature=related

LOL what a popinjay. There is no tone down or dynamic compression added as a typical way of mixing for DVD. I'm sure there are examples for that, but that would be title specific from a specific studio, and not a wide spread policy. DVD did introduced the "nearfield" mix which primary aim was to present a soundtrack that was mixed for a large auditorium, to be also presentable for a much smaller spaces like a typical HT. However some studios like Paramount for instance, don't do home mixes at all, so you get the same mix as in the theatre. Laserdiscs always got the theatrical mix, however if the original multichannel mix was down mixed to 2ch PCM you lost the LFE and the rest was matrixed into the remaining L-R channels, to be decoded with DPL. This of course will never give you the original mix back, and is far more altered then any DVD would have with "nearfield" mix. Universal and Disney was quiet slow to jump on the DD bandwagon with their LD releases, and just when the format died they embraced DTS [a little too late I'm afraid]. But that's a different story. BTW jitter is far less of an issue with packeted data like DD, DTS.

I love Blu-ray...but I will NEVER give up my DVL-91. The DTS LD of Ronin is fantastic!

Thehun:


If the near-field mix was introduced for DVD how is dynamic range not entirely different then a theatrical mix?

Thehun:


If the near-field mix was introduced for DVD how is dynamic range not entirely different then a theatrical mix? Because it has nothing to with dynamic range. There is only slight changes regarding the upper midrange energy, which was balanced for much larger auditoriums then the typical HT. THX's RE-Eq is aimed at that same issue. The mixer will also make sure that when bass management used there won't be any phase shifts. Other then that it's very much the same mix. If there is dynamic compression used like on the original Fellowship Of The Ring DVD it is usually because of some sort of intent by the filmmakers or the studio, but it is not wide spread at all and certainly the DVD format has no any such limitation to warrant it as a policy. The argument that guy makes that LD was marketed to video/audiophiles while makes since is just his opinion, and serves no real proof for why some DVD's sound different then it's LD counterparts.

Forgive me Hun,

But if one soundtrack is mixed in a very large theater with high db output and another is mixed in the near-field with smaller monitors how can there not be differences in the overall sonic presentation of the two mixes?

While I can appreciate that the person in the link might not know everything he has worked in the field of sound and post production.

I thought the digital tracks on LDs are lossless (LPCM)? Anyways, to my ears the LD LPCM tracks sound far better than DVD DD5.1 tracks. Of course it does not have the discrete surrounds, but there is no comparison in fidelity.

It is possible that different masters are used for LDs and DVDs - can anyone verify that? And if so, are the masters of a superior quality?

I still have my LD player because some of the movies haven't yet made it to Blu-Ray (such as Jurassic Park), and the DVD audio just don't cut it.

I (thanks to Laserdisc) will always go for PCM over anything, I kept my Casino Royal BRD after I got the second release due to the PCM audio

Forgive me Hun,

But if one soundtrack is mixed in a very large theater with high db output and another is mixed in the near-field with smaller monitors how can there not be differences in the overall sonic presentation of the two mixes?

While I can appreciate that the person in the link might not know everything he has worked in the field of sound and post production.

Right, I'm sure he is. ;)
Both are mixed on the same equipment and in the same mixing stage, however the mixer knows what to change. I didn't say there is nothing different about them, but the difference is rather small and it isn't the dynamics as your poster boy alludes to.

I thought the digital tracks on LDs are lossless (LPCM)? Anyways, to my ears the LD LPCM tracks sound far better than DVD DD5.1 tracks. Of course it does not have the discrete surrounds, but there is no comparison in fidelity.

It is possible that different masters are used for LDs and DVDs - can anyone verify that? And if so, are the masters of a superior quality?

I still have my LD player because some of the movies haven't yet made it to Blu-Ray (such as Jurassic Park), and the DVD audio just don't cut it.
The LD's PCM track is only 2 ch, so if the original mix was MCH discrete, the LD's 2ch mix is a serious compromise to the original. This practice was a carryover from VHS which had the same matrixed 2ch mix in analog also lossless. The lossy DD and DTS on LD or DVD gave us far closer presentation of the original mix, like it or not.

As for different masters being used for DVD and LD is among many myths that surrounds the 12" disc's existence. Unless there is some kind of restoration takes place or specific intent from the studio, there is no reason to create a new master for audio.

I thought the digital tracks on LDs are lossless (LPCM)? Anyways, to my ears the LD LPCM tracks sound far better than DVD DD5.1 tracks. Of course it does not have the discrete surrounds, but there is no comparison in fidelity.

It is possible that different masters are used for LDs and DVDs - can anyone verify that? And if so, are the masters of a superior quality?

I still have my LD player because some of the movies haven't yet made it to Blu-Ray (such as Jurassic Park), and the DVD audio just don't cut it.

Agreed 110%!!! Jurassic Park LD, especially the DTS version totally rips apart the DVD counterparts.

Same goes for Die Hard 1 (DTS) and Top Gun (AC3)... both of which have been now surpassed by their Blu-ray versions.

Agreed 110%!!! Jurassic Park LD, especially the DTS version totally rips apart the DVD counterparts.

Same goes for Die Hard 1 (DTS) and Top Gun (AC3)... both of which have been now surpassed by their Blu-ray versions.

Another example is Heat.

I find that in almost every case, to my ears the LD audio has better fidelity than the corresponding DVD. It is not a subtle difference - if it is a movie that I am familiar with, then I can usually tell in a blind test after about 5 seconds of listening. Hun has confirmed that it is not the mix, so there is something inherently inferior about DVD audio, whether it is by design or in implementation. My experience has always been that the move from LD to DVD was not all positive. We got lower prices, better PQ, and better surround effects, but lost out in the audio fidelity department.

so there is something inherently inferior about DVD audio, whether it is by design or in implementation. My experience has always been that the move from LD to DVD was not all positive. We got lower prices, better PQ, and better surround effects, but lost out in the audio fidelity department.

There is nothing inherently worse or even different about DVD's sound capability if the same mix and encodings were used. What we have here is personal preference there is absolutely no technical reason for any substantial difference unless were talking about LD's 2.0PCM vs DVD's lossy MCH. BTW DVD's DTS and DD both has higher bitrates, bit depth, and sampling rates, then it is available on LD, mostly because the early stages of development for both codecs offered lower rates at the time they were used on LD.
Nonetheless DVD has the edge there, despite what some people seem to prefer.

Most DTS on DVD is 756/768 while its always 1411 on LD (doubt you'll miss the 4KHZ) though.

Most DTS on DVD is 756/768 while its always 1411 on LD (doubt you'll miss the 4KHZ) though. Your numbers are off a bit, but in any case you don't cite that DD on LD was always 384 kbps, while on DVD it is mostly 448kbps, yet some people still claim that LD sounds better with higher compression rate which is measurably have less flat FR bandwidth among other things. But let's look at the real DTS figures.

DTS till 1999 used 16 bit 44.1 khz at 1235 kbps on both CD and LD, with DVD the specks were revised to 20/24 bits to 48/96khz and 754/1509 kbps [consumed data rates]. The fact that most studio elected the to use the "half bit rate" on DVD, has nothing to do with LD's superiority, which is not true obviously, nor it is relevant to that claim. ;)

I have never heard any of the lossy formats from LD - I never had the proper LD player or the special piece of equipment (modulator?) that is needed. However, without a doubt to my ears, the LD LPCM sounds better than DVD DD 5.1. But of course with matrixed surrounds instead of discrete. But I will take fidelity over discrete surrounds any day.

To this date, I blame Dolby for taking us a step backwards in audio quality.

I have never heard any of the lossy formats from LD - I never had the proper LD player or the special piece of equipment (modulator?) that is needed. However, without a doubt to my ears, the LD LPCM sounds better than DVD DD 5.1. But of course with matrixed surrounds instead of discrete. But I will take fidelity over discrete surrounds any day.

To this date, I blame Dolby for taking us a step backwards in audio quality.

DTS on LD was encoded just like CD, all one needed is the regular SPDIF digital connection to a DTS decoder[all current receiver and pre/pros] to hear it in it's full glory. :)

As for your blame of Dolby, how about fidelity to the original mix, does that count? It's not just the surrounds, but it's the center, and the LFE as well. While the center and surrounds been matrixed into the L-R, the LFE is simply removed if the mix had it, not all did.Many in the industry especially mixers were very happy to hear their work to be finally presented on a home format as they were intended,{commercial cinemas used lossy DD and DTS as well} and not butchered down into 2 ch be it analog (VHS) or digital (LD). So no I don't think that the majority especially in the industry would share your opinion this, but it's all good. ;)

DTS on LD was encoded just like CD, all one needed is the regular SPDIF digital connection to a DTS decoder[all current receiver and pre/pros] to hear it in it's full glory. :)
;)

I just checked on the back of my LD player. What spdif output? All I see is the left and right RCA audio outs.

As for your blame of Dolby, how about fidelity to the original mix, does that count? It's not just the surrounds, but it's the center, and the LFE as well. While the center and surrounds been matrixed into the L-R, the LFE is simply removed if the mix had it, not all did.Many in the industry especially mixers were very happy to hear their work to be finally presented on a home format as they were intended,{commercial cinemas used lossy DD and DTS as well} and not butchered down into 2 ch be it analog (VHS) or digital (LD). So no I don't think that the majority especially in the industry would share your opinion this, but it's all good. ;)

That was my point. DVD DD 5.1 offers the correct number of channels, but with reduced fidelity.

I am curious now, perhaps it is just ears. Does anyone here actually thinks that DVD DD 5.1 offers better fidelity than LD LPCM? For me, it doesn't, not even close.

I just checked on the back of my LD player. What spdif output? All I see is the left and right RCA audio outs. SPDIF = Sony Philips digital interface, the optical digital out that is widely available on most CD/DVD and many mid to high end LD players. Sounds like you don't have that on yours.

That was my point. DVD DD 5.1 offers the correct number of channels, but with reduced fidelity. You also compare two different mixes, having said that DD or DTS[lossy] can't rival with PCM as far as "fidelity" there is no question, but to me the 2ch downmix, is just too much of a compromise for me to ultimately prefer it to the correct mix even if it is lossy.

f there is dynamic compression used like on the original Fellowship Of The Ring DVD

there was dynamic compression? Which dvd? The theatrical or extended?

there was dynamic compression? Which dvd? The theatrical or extended?

The theatrical one. According to Mi Casa, it was about 5-6 db. I remember there was a lot of complaints on this forum and many others at the time, regarding how this title was "overcooked". Well they were right.

The theatrical one.

So the extended version is fine? Thats a relief.

I always thought the sound mix from ANY of the Indiana Jones (Original)Trilogy was superior to the DVD counterparts. Obviously, the video (on the DVD's) was superior. Having said that, it was a thrill watching them on LD, before the DVD's were available. They still looked pretty awesome on my old Zenith CRT projector. WOW, the blacks were pretty impressive on that 'cheap' rig!

-Mike