AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Audio Format Comparison - In Practice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audio Format Comparison - In Practice

post #1 of 35
7/27/08 at 6:14pm
Thread Starter 
As requested here are some tests I've been running in a DTV thread lately. I'll keep this updated.


Intention:
To find out why there is a difference between Lossless tracks
(straying is encouraged )

Setup:
PS3 and XE1 connected via HDMI to 3808. PS3 multichannel PCM, XE1 Bitstreaming.
3808 settings; All speakers LARGE, Sub Xover 250Hz(basically 0 bass management), EQ off, DRC and Night mode off, Direct mode on. All speaker level connections removed.
3808 Pre-amp output connected to Laptop via Tascam US144 24bit USB interface(levels set using loudest track)
Laptop using Cubase 24 Track Audio Recorder and Sound Forge.

Peak Output: this is obtained by using the master VU Meters peak values in Cubase while the track is recording(these can only be used to compare the tracks and do not give a true indication of the actual mastering levels as recorded on the disc, to do so I will need to rip the tracks directly from the disc..........for another time)

Basically this is recording the pre-amp output from the 3808 in 24bit. Once levels are set they are not adjusted for any of the tracks so the comparison is actual.




----------------------------
Spiderman 3 BD(complete chapter 9), 5.1 PCM and 5.1 TrueHD, Peak Output:

Subwoofer PCM track: -5.9db
Subwoofer THD track: -5.9db

Left PCM: -12db
Left THD: -12db

Right PCM: -12.2db
Right THD: -12.2db

After the Peak Output results I didn't save the tracks as they looked virtually identical(although I didn't scrutinize them much)

Spiderman 3 TrueHD L


Spiderman 3 TrueHD R




----------------------
Top Gun HD DVD(tower buzz- timestamp 00:33:00-00:33:45), 6.1 TrueHD, 6.1 DD+, 6.1 DTS-ES(Yes I know it's not HDMA), Peak Output:

Subwoofer THD track: -15.1db
Subwoofer DD+ track: -16.0db
Subwoofer DTS track: -4.9db

Left THD: -17.2db
Left DD+: -17.3db
Left DTS: -14.6db

Right THD: -17.5db
Right DD+: -17.6db
Right DTS: -14.7db

Comparison pic


Top Gun TrueHD L


Top Gun DTS L


Top Gun TrueHD R


Top Gun DTS R


The TrueHD and DD+ tracks have an offset in the 3808 of -4db so if we take that into account(although it is more accurate to do this in the receiver before it is recorded, and looking at the L+R figures it it may be closer to -3 for the recorded signal, but I digress) for those figures, we get.....

Subwoofer THD track: -11.1db
Subwoofer DD+ track: -12.0db
Subwoofer DTS track: -4.9db

Left THD: -13.2db
Left DD+: -13.3db
Left DTS: -14.6db

Right THD: -13.5db
Right DD+: -13.6db
Right DTS: -14.7db



......but even still there is a major discrepancy with the DTS track which has some serous boost in the LFE channel compared to it's own mains let alone the other tracks.
Even if the DTS-ES track was taken straight from the DVD version there shouldn't be that much of a boost relative to the mains............question then becomes which is correct?...........so you tell me, are DTS up to their old tricks again?

As it stands,
if you try to compare the THD track to the DTS-ES track without adjusting the volume your sub output is 10.2db higher
if you try to compare the THD track to the DTS-ES track with adjusting the volume to match the mains, your sub output is still 7.4db higher
if you try to compare the THD track to the DTS-ES track with adjusting the volume based on the -4db offset, your sub output is still 6.2db higher

Any way you look at it, someone has fiddled with the tracks, so a comparison on QUALITY in this instant is impossible for most. The only way to compare realistically is to adjust both mains and sub individually...........and even then if you are using bass management your up the creek and cannot compare equally.




Here are some close ups of the TrueHD, DD+ and DTS-ES subwoofer tracks

1

2


3


As you can see the TrueHD and DD+ tracks are almost identical in waveform.
The DTS-ES track on the other hand has major differences, not only in amplitude but also in phase timing.
I probably should re-do the Spiderman 3 comparison so I can have a close up look


Now I need the BD version of Top Gun to see what they did with the TrueHD and DTS-HDMA tracks



----------------------
I just ran Top Gun TrueHD and DTS tracks through soundforge and they all seem to have similar frequency roll off, although that could be attributed to the AVR's crossover which was set to 250Hz for the tests.

THD


DTS


One other thing I noticed is they all seem to contain some info from the main channels ie voices(even the THD track) so I'm assuming that they didn't have a discrete LFE channel in the original mix and in this case had to create one for all the mixes, but this could be due to crosstalk from the AVR.

I might have a play with some more recent movies.




----------------------
More Tests

DVD:

War of the Worlds (laser scene just after the machine emerges)
DD -7.0db (DN -4db)
DTS -3.8db (DN -4db)


Monsters Inc (girl laughs 29:30)
DD -8.3db (DN -4db)
DTS -4.2db

Hulk (gamma radiation 28:30)
DD -7.8db (DN -4db)
DTS -3.7db


HD DVD:

Disterbia (car crash scene at the start)
DD+ -17.9db (DN -4db)
DTS -5.8db


Sahara (Cannon takes helicopter 151:20)
DD+ -18.5db (DN -4db)
DTS -18.5db (DN -4db)


You can see that the Sahara tracks are identical. Some are identical apart from amplitude, some others have much more variations.

Here are the Sonograms of Disturbia:
DD+


DTS


cheers
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 35
7/28/08 at 4:51am
Very interesting this.

I know Filmmixer has said he is going to do some testing with comparing lossless codecs with PCM-masters.

/Chuck
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 35
7/28/08 at 5:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck V View Post

Very interesting this.

I know Filmmixer has said he is going to do some testing with comparing lossless codecs with PCM-masters.

/Chuck

Yes, I'm looking forward to his results with a comparison to the masters.

I'm yet to pick up a Blu-ray with both TrueHD and DTS-HDMA tracks, from what I understand there are only 2 titles like this.......Close Encounters and Top Gun.

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 35
7/28/08 at 6:44am
Do you have any idea what the differences could be yourself?

I mean, those are som BIG diffrences, and will be 100% audible for everyone. Could it be some different settings in the player (PS3-XE1) or in the 3808 that make this happen?

/Chuck
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 35
7/28/08 at 7:18am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck V View Post

Do you have any idea what the differences could be yourself?

I mean, those are som BIG diffrences, and will be 100% audible for everyone. Could it be some different settings in the player (PS3-XE1) or in the 3808 that make this happen?

/Chuck

Those have all been ruled out, I have a thread about the XE1 and it's issues as it relates to HDMI, but they are bypassed when using HD Bitstreaming.

The only thing that has an effect is the Dialog Normalisation feature, which I have mentioned next to the readings. Note the readings are post normalisation since I am looking at real world differences.

FilmMaker has already confirmed that the Dolby and DTS encoders do not have a facility for user input of modifications(apart from Diag Norm and DRC) that could cause such variations in the signals.

There may be a few causes(and combination of) that pop into mind, with the most probable being the use of a different master completly or a modification of the master used for one of them.
They may have used different levels when performing the encode(if that is possible).
Or maybe there was a problem with the encoder or setting(again if that is possible)

What the tests have proved is that the different encoding formats can reproduce almost identically so it would seem that any difference in the output is not due specifically to the encoding format but to do with the mixing/mastering and/or post processing.

In other words when you hear a very noticeable difference between tracks it will not be due to the format used but due to either Pre or Post processing. Which by all means is not a new statement, it's been mentioned many times before, but this is the first time I have seen any form of proof that seems to confirm that statement.

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 35
7/28/08 at 7:36am
You should not do this with old films like Top Gun. The formats you are looking at were not around when that was mixed. Additional tracks for new output formats would get added to the discs as they become standardized on discs for the general public. There is absolutely no guarantee that the added tracks from newer formats were taken from the same master as the original tracks, that they were setup exactly the same in the transfer or even that they did it properly. Heck I've seen a transfer house take the digitized Dolby tracks off a disc, decode them and then re-encode them as DD or DTS. They get away with it half the time. Sometimes they are saving time, sometimes they don't have the original and the customer is an idiot and doesn't understand they need the masters so the transfer house just does the job and collects their money.

There is no guarantee Spidey is correct either, but chances are much better because it is likely they encoded all formats simultaneously on a new disc and from the same master.

Theres a hundred other variables that could invalidate this sort of testing, but that is a big one and you should at least reduce chances by not using old discs where the different formats were encoded years apart from one another.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 35
7/28/08 at 7:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrypt View Post

You should not do this with old films like Top Gun. The formats you are looking at were not around when that was mixed. Additional tracks for new output formats would get added to the discs as they become standardized on discs for the general public. There is absolutely no guarantee that the added tracks from newer formats were taken from the same master as the original tracks, that they were setup exactly the same in the transfer or even that they did it properly. Heck I've seen a transfer house take the digitized Dolby tracks off a disc, decode them and then re-encode them as DD or DTS. They get away with it half the time. Sometimes they are saving time, sometimes they don't have the original and the customer is an idiot and doesn't understand they need the masters so the transfer house just does the job and collects their money.

There is no guarantee Spidey is correct either, but chances are much better because it is likely they encoded all formats simultaneously on a new disc and from the same master.

Theres a hundred other variables that could invalidate this sort of testing, but that is a big one and you should at least reduce chances by not using old discs where the different formats were encoded years apart from one another.

All great points... and I am speaking to Paramount about that particular disc.

The DTS differential of 10db on some titles LFE can be due to some houses adding in the 10db gain to compensate for the recommended practices for music, which isn't the correct way to do it... while the gain numbers aren't always exactly 10db, they are close enough to usually support that number.

In regards to Sony... I've done a couple of films for them in the last 8 years, and they always have the mixers do the home theater masters.. they are more on top of it than all of the other studios.

They are very careful with their masters, and do all mastering in house. I would implicitly trust their encodes.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 35
7/28/08 at 7:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACCA350 View Post

In other words when you hear a very noticeable difference between tracks it will not be due to the format used but due to either Pre or Post processing. Which by all means is not a new statement, it's been mentioned many times before, but this is the first time I have seen any form of proof that seems to confirm that statement.

cheers

The story behind this is certanly interesting and I hope someone with more in depth knowledge about this could post about it.

Thanks for your posts, very informative.

/Chuck
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 35
7/28/08 at 7:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACCA350 View Post


There may be a few causes(and combination of) that pop into mind, with the most probable being the use of a different master completly or a modification of the master used for one of them.
They may have used different levels when performing the encode(if that is possible).
Or maybe there was a problem with the encoder or setting(again if that is possible)

What the tests have proved is that the different encoding formats can reproduce almost identically so it would seem that any difference in the output is not due specifically to the encoding format but to do with the mixing/mastering and/or post processing.

In other words when you hear a very noticeable difference between tracks it will not be due to the format used but due to either Pre or Post processing. Which by all means is not a new statement, it's been mentioned many times before, but this is the first time I have seen any form of proof that seems to confirm that statement.

cheers

Great post.

And as I've said in the past.. we don't mix for a codec. There isn't a Dolby master and a DTS master... there's no reason to do it.

It doesn't mean there aren't different masters around... until very recently, Paramount has used the theatrical masters for home video... they are looking into having near field mixes done in the future.

But some older titles have been redone, like Top Gun, and there are indeed some different masters around for that title.. But this is a very big exception, and not indicative of normal operating procedure.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 35
7/28/08 at 8:00am
Thread Starter 
Harrypt, all those things you mentioned are the exact things I am trying to visually show with these tests.

I mean someone says the DTS track of Top Gun is way better than the TrueHD track. Yes it is plainly audible, but why, with this test I can better understand whether it is simply a Diag Norm issue, a mastering level issue, a use of a vastly different masters, slight modifications, some or all of the above.

I have used some later releases, which some still have variations, and I intend to use more. The ones I want to test are the ones with tracks people have found vastly different.

Those dodgy practices you mentioned don't surprise me, although a little disappointing if it's happening on big budget films

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 35
7/28/08 at 8:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

All great points... and I am speaking to Paramount about that particular disc.

The DTS differential of 10db on some titles LFE can be due to some houses adding in the 10db gain to compensate for the recommended practices for music, which isn't the correct way to do it... while the gain numbers aren't always exactly 10db, they are close enough to usually support that number.

That sounds like a reasonable cause for some, how common do you think this error is? Will be interesting to hear from Paramount as my assumption is they used different master for the DTS track.

Quote:


In regards to Sony... I've done a couple of films for them in the last 8 years, and they always have the mixers do the home theater masters.. they are more on top of it than all of the other studios.

They are very careful with their masters, and do all mastering in house. I would implicitly trust their encodes.

I think the only Sony one I have done so far is Spiderman 3, which seem to be spot on.

Quote:


Great post.

And as I've said in the past.. we don't mix for a codec. There isn't a Dolby master and a DTS master... there's no reason to do it.

It doesn't mean there aren't different masters around... until very recently, Paramount has used the theatrical masters for home video... they are looking into having near field mixes done in the future.

But some older titles have been redone, like Top Gun, and there are indeed some different masters around for that title.. But this is a very big exception, and not indicative of normal operating procedure.

Will be interesting to see the trend as I test more titles, DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray.

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 35
7/28/08 at 10:31am
I'd be very interested in seeing some L/C/R full-range spectrum analysis between the formats, as well.....
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 35
7/28/08 at 10:34am
Quote:


It doesn't mean there aren't different masters around... until very recently, Paramount has used the theatrical masters for home video... they are looking into having near field mixes done in the future.

ARRRGGGGH! I hope they don't do that (yet). Geeze.
The objective in a room is to hear what the director heard in the final mix. The only way you can do that is to duplicate that environment. Obviously a challenge (speakers will vary if nothing else). However, since a very large percentage of movies are mixed in a standard reference environment (thanks AMPAS), we can at least come close by creating as similar an acoustic environment as is possible.

So here's the ruddy problem. The room and system is calibrated based upon the reference environment. Now, along comes a studio that decides to remix based upon a smaller room. What size of room? What are the acoustic characteristics of that room? What were the seating distances? etc. etc. You play LOTR theatrical release, sounds great. Play the remix...sounds like kraaap. (or vice versa depending on how the room was set up.)

So before these studios and directors get the proverbial hair up a dark place, let's first do two things:
1. Define the standard reference residential room; and,
2. Define a flag that can be used by the playback system to either:
(a) use the small room mix and change the playback settings; or,
(b) use the theatrical mix and not change the playback settings.

In the end, don't do us any favors without first finding out what favors we want.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 35
7/28/08 at 10:47am
The digital age has muddied this concept a bit because there is so little degredation when copies are made but there shouldn't be different "masters" around. A master is a master. It must be defined what you are using. Original stems, copy of stems, DM&E, analog copy, digital copy etc. all of which would be full bandwidth, but even those could be different from one another. If it has been encoded or compressed for any sort of release format, it CANNOT be called a master.

And second, I've never heard serious talk of second mixes for near field listening. The talk of that I've heard is that nobody will ever do it because there are playback standards in place already and therefore studios do not see the purpose in spending money for extra mixing days for this purpose.

I have been involved with many mixes however where, following surround mastering, a TV is rolled in and playback done in LR through the TV speakers to make sure it plays OK. If there was a problem however, it would be tweaked in the theatrical mix, not redone for TV viewing.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 35
7/28/08 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine View Post

ARRRGGGGH! I hope they don't do that (yet). Geeze.
The objective in a room is to hear what the director heard in the final mix. The only way you can do that is to duplicate that environment. Obviously a challenge (speakers will vary if nothing else). However, since a very large percentage of movies are mixed in a standard reference environment (thanks AMPAS), we can at least come close by creating as similar an acoustic environment as is possible.

So here's the ruddy problem. The room and system is calibrated based upon the reference environment. Now, along comes a studio that decides to remix based upon a smaller room. What size of room? What are the acoustic characteristics of that room? What were the seating distances? etc. etc. You play LOTR theatrical release, sounds great. Play the remix...sounds like kraaap. (or vice versa depending on how the room was set up.)

So before these studios and directors get the proverbial hair up a dark place, let's first do two things:
1. Define the standard reference residential room; and,
2. Define a flag that can be used by the playback system to either:
(a) use the small room mix and change the playback settings; or,
(b) use the theatrical mix and not change the playback settings.

In the end, don't do us any favors without first finding out what favors we want.

Dennis.. as you mentioned, the only problem with this is that in 99% of home theaters, the x-curve isn't the proper equalization curve for most modest or small rooms, the relationship between the mixing console and the speakers is different, and the SPL and reference levels are different than the industry cinema standard.. as you know when you lower the level, the equalization curve changes, and the LFE and surrounds are at a different relative level than the cinema...

Everybody gets up in arms about remastering, but I only make minor changes that accommodate the above differences.. most other mixers do the same. And most directors support these kind of changes.

There are of course examples of reworking a track, but they are the exception, and not the rule.

While I understand the want of the original mix, I also understand the importance of delivering what is right for 99% of home viewers... it's not an easy debate.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 35
7/28/08 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrypt View Post

The digital age has muddied this concept a bit because there is so little degredation when copies are made but there shouldn't be different "masters" around. A master is a master. It must be defined what you are using. Original stems, copy of stems, DM&E, analog copy, digital copy etc. all of which would be full bandwidth, but even those could be different from one another. If it has been encoded or compressed for any sort of release format, it CANNOT be called a master.

You are right.. but what about the theatrical printmaster and home theater master? Those are different, and one vendor may call for one and another for the other (i.e. overseas releases by a different studio.)

Or what happens when they do a 6.1 or 7.1 master at a later date, and the film makers decide to make other changes?

If there is mis-labeles or duplicate deliveries of masters which contain different content, that shouldn't happen... my company doesn't roll that way.

Quote:


And second, I've never heard serious talk of second mixes for near field listening. The talk of that I've heard is that nobody will ever do it because there are playback standards in place already and therefore studios do not see the purpose in spending money for extra mixing days for this purpose.

You're not talking to the right people..

Sony, Disney, New Line and LGF remaster all their titles.. Disney has their own deparment. Sony spends tons of money having the original mixers do the mastering... they've been doing it for at least 8 years.. New Line and LGF use a company called MiCasa for 90% of their films.

Universal has started doing it over the last 18 months.

Paramount is looking into starting to do it, but at this point is using theatrical for most releases.

Warner Brothers has their own department, as does Fox... both those companies, though, have been using theatricals for most titles...

Once again, there are playback standards in place for theaters and home video.. but the venues aren't the same, and have unique requirements.

Quote:


I have been involved with many mixes however where, following surround mastering, a TV is rolled in and playback done in LR through the TV speakers to make sure it plays OK. If there was a problem however, it would be tweaked in the theatrical mix, not redone for TV viewing.

You're talking about mixing tv shows, yes?

I've mixed over 100 films... I've never once done that for a feature..

I don't know of any theatrical mixers doing that, and it makes no sense since you aren't mixing for playback on a tv. Directors can't mix if what they hear isn't going to be what's coming out of the speakers in a theater... I'd get killed if I did that....

That is SOP for TV and MOW's, however. With the advent of 5.1 broadcasting, we usually leave the 5.1 alone and only compensate the LtRt... but if you are following broadcast specs for any given network, the LtRt usually falls in place regardless, and only phase issues need be compensated for.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 35
7/28/08 at 12:57pm
FM...you are, exactly right which becomes the core of the problem. We know the reference environment. Therefore we know exactly what needs to be done with the room, the speakers and the electronics to make it "right". So now, all of that gets changed for home distribution, thus rendering three days of calibration moot. The point is (and several share variations on this theme), set a standard, tell us what it is, and we can design and calibrate rooms to replicate that environment; but, if you go and change things, it helps no one.

While a residential space can be done to work well with two reference standards, we need to know to which standard the sound track was mixed.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 35
7/28/08 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine View Post

FM...you are, exactly right which becomes the core of the problem. We know the reference environment. Therefore we know exactly what needs to be done with the room, the speakers and the electronics to make it "right". So now, all of that gets changed for home distribution, thus rendering three days of calibration moot. The point is (and several share variations on this theme), set a standard, tell us what it is, and we can design and calibrate rooms to replicate that environment; but, if you go and change things, it helps no one.

While a residential space can be done to work well with two reference standards, we need to know to which standard the sound track was mixed.

Dennis.. the problem though is that one size doesn't fit all..

When I master a film, I know the venue it is going to be played back on, what the SPL reference is and the tuning.

We don't have a unified reference for home viewing, and it's unreasonable to only master for what is the least prevalent venue for home video.. a properly setup and calibrated theater. More people are going to watch movies on a stereo tv, and even 5.1 setups vary, and it is a rarity that people listen at reference.

We may not like it, but that's the reality.

But even more pertinent to this discussion is the reality of what we change when remastering for home video.. (and we're not talking about re-purposing a catalog title which may only be mono, stereo or LCRS, or going to 6.1 or 7.1, but the majority of home theater remasters on current titles).

We make minor changes at most, and they are to adjust for the reference standard of HT, and then to make sure when played on the absolute lowest common denominator (TV speakers) nothing is lost in translation (and this only refers to the LtRt, which is usually only used for broadcast by some, and there are almost no companies providing discrete stereo mixes on DVD).

For example, I have a film coming out tomorrow on BR in DTS-HD MA, "Never Back Down." I made a total of 3 changes in raising dialog in certain scenes because it was being lost in a couple of scenes, so I turned it up 1 - 1.5 db... Even with the differences in surround levels (home theater surrounds are 2 db hotter per side than theatrical) I left them at 0 because it sounded good and right. There were some places where I needed to roll off some high end on the dialog because I didn't hear it through the x-curve... that's it. We also have to check for bass management to make sure the LCR's aren't building up into the sub... on this title, there were no changes made for that.. on "Superbad" I had to pull the extra sub 40Hz low end down on 2 cues a total of 2 db.. not a big change, but a good compromise...

Did we change the integrity of the track? No, and the director approved the mix as representative of his vision..

It is a necessary thing to do. It's not a purist approach, but we have to compromise for home delivery because not everyone has the luxury of having a dedicated, properly tuned small to medium sized setup... which, in my eyes, should be 80db on all channels, 85db for the LFE and flat tuning out 20k..



All that being said, I agree with the fact that there should be a notation on media letting the consumer know what is what..

New Line buries it on most titles, but it's a start.. I'll start talking to some of my friends about it.. I've been having lots of conversations about this trend lately, and your request is a very good one..
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 35
7/28/08 at 6:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessisNevermore View Post

I'd be very interested in seeing some L/C/R full-range spectrum analysis between the formats, as well.....

Displayed as spectrum graph, sonogram or waveform?
I don't think sound forge can show more than a single point in time in a spectrum graph.

I have the information for Top Gun TrueHD/DTS L/R which is shown in waveform above and I also can do Spiderman 3 TrueHD L/R(since I downmixed the Cubase project to PCM). Here are the sonograms(I'll also add them to the op

Spiderman 3 TrueHD L


Spiderman 3 TrueHD R


Top Gun TrueHD L


Top Gun DTS L


Top Gun TrueHD R


Top Gun DTS R


cheers
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 35
7/28/08 at 7:32pm
Thread Starter 
Disney did two audio mixes for Aladdin platinum edition which was mentioned in the menu when making selection and also on the back cover.

clicky(hit the front cover download)
All-new 5.1 Disney Enhanced Home Theater Mix
Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound

I can't see a problem with that, as long as it is clearly marked, and we still get a theatrical mix........and it doesn't mean we lose the option of a lossless track(ie instead of 1 lossless track we get 2 lossy mixes)

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 35
7/28/08 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACCA350 View Post

Disney did two audio mixes for Aladdin platinum edition which was mentioned in the menu when making selection and also on the back cover.

clicky
All-new 5.1 Disney Enhanced Home Theater Mix
Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound

I can't see a problem with that, as long as it is clearly marked, and we still get a theatrical mix........and it doesn't mean we lose the option of a lossless track(ie instead of 1 lossless track we get 2 lossy mixes)

cheers

Link broken.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 35
7/28/08 at 9:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Link broken.

Sorry, direct link didn't work, try it now.

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 35
7/28/08 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACCA350 View Post

Sorry, direct link didn't work, try it now.

cheers

Nada...
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 35
7/28/08 at 9:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Nada...

Not even the yellow download button? worked for me, I'll see if I can find another site.

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 35
7/28/08 at 9:44pm


Here ya go.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 35
7/28/08 at 9:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post


Here ya go.

That'll do it

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 35
7/31/08 at 5:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post



Here ya go.

Very interesting...Is this another "lossy" (so to speak)mix? How does it sound and compare with the new "lossless" and PCM?

-MIP
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 35
7/31/08 at 6:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIP6697 View Post

Very interesting...Is this another "lossy" (so to speak)mix? How does it sound and compare with the new "lossless" and PCM?

-MIP

Aladdin has not been released on Blu-ray. This is the DVD version, from memory both tracks are encoded in Dolby Digital 5.1

The "All-new 5.1 Disney Enhanced Home Theatre Mix" is kind of a tweaked version.

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 35
7/31/08 at 6:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACCA350 View Post

Aladdin has not been released on Blu-ray. This is the DVD version, from memory both tracks are encoded in Dolby Digital 5.1

The "All-new 5.1 Disney Enhanced Home Theatre Mix" is kind of a tweaked version.

cheers

Understood...

-MIP
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 35
7/31/08 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine View Post

ARRRGGGGH! I hope they don't do that (yet). Geeze.
The objective in a room is to hear what the director heard in the final mix. The only way you can do that is to duplicate that environment. Obviously a challenge (speakers will vary if nothing else). However, since a very large percentage of movies are mixed in a standard reference environment (thanks AMPAS), we can at least come close by creating as similar an acoustic environment as is possible.

So here's the ruddy problem. The room and system is calibrated based upon the reference environment. Now, along comes a studio that decides to remix based upon a smaller room. What size of room? What are the acoustic characteristics of that room? What were the seating distances? etc. etc. You play LOTR theatrical release, sounds great. Play the remix...sounds like kraaap. (or vice versa depending on how the room was set up.)

So before these studios and directors get the proverbial hair up a dark place, let's first do two things:
1. Define the standard reference residential room; and,
2. Define a flag that can be used by the playback system to either:
(a) use the small room mix and change the playback settings; or,
(b) use the theatrical mix and not change the playback settings.

In the end, don't do us any favors without first finding out what favors we want.

Are you saying that

The Lord Of The Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy (Widescreen Edition) (2003)

sounds better than

The Lord of the Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy (Platinum Series Special Extended Edition) (2003)


Just curious...I like the extended editions...but if they don't sound as good...
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Audio Format Comparison - In Practice