or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Laserdisc Sound vs Blu Ray sound - Differences ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Laserdisc Sound vs Blu Ray sound - Differences ? - Page 2

post #31 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Burke View Post

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.
post #32 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

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.
post #33 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

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.
post #34 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Burke View Post

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.
post #35 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

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.
post #36 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

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.
post #37 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Burke View Post

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.
post #38 of 112
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.
post #39 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

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.
post #40 of 112
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.
post #41 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Burke View Post

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.
post #42 of 112
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.
post #43 of 112
Thread Starter 
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.
post #44 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

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.

Quote:



TOSLINK wikipage

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.
post #45 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

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.
post #46 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Burke View Post

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.
post #47 of 112
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.
post #48 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by win200 View Post

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.
post #49 of 112
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.
post #50 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by win200 View Post

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

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.
post #51 of 112
Quote:


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.
post #52 of 112
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-form...laserdisc.html
post #53 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound dropouts View Post

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.
post #54 of 112
Quote:


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.
post #55 of 112
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?)
post #56 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottfox View Post

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?)

The alt.video.laserdisc and alt.video.laserdisc.marketplace groups are still active (e.g. via google groups: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...ch+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).
post #57 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

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.
post #58 of 112
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=dekW5...eature=related
post #59 of 112
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.
post #60 of 112
I love Blu-ray...but I will NEVER give up my DVL-91. The DTS LD of Ronin is fantastic!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Laserdisc Sound vs Blu Ray sound - Differences ?