Posts: 966
Threads: 189
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 240
Given 601 thank(s) in 299 post(s)
Country:
2026-03-23, 12:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 2026-03-23, 12:47 AM by bendermac.
Edit Reason: forgot to add ld 5.1
)
Posts: 1,710
Threads: 52
Joined: 2017 Aug
Thanks: 205
Given 715 thank(s) in 419 post(s)
Country:
This is what CiNEPHiLES had to say about it:
"This movie has two mixes Dolby Stereo SR digital and Stereo SR for other theatres not equipped for 5.1 surround. The mixes vary in some parts, so I decided to include both. For 5.1, Shout Factory still has good dynamic range for being lossless, while the previous Warner's blu-ray had less, with inept filtering on the center and lots of dithering (the TrueHD 5.1 is 16-bit, just has a 24-bit padding), so kept the shout one. For the stereo mix, the Shout seems to have the stereo mix but has limiting and some NR on mids and highs vs the USA LaserDisc, so synced the LaserDisc audio to the remux."
Posts: 966
Threads: 189
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 240
Given 601 thank(s) in 299 post(s)
Country:
Dang it... Cinephiles was already on it HAHAHA... I just finished syncing the LD
Posts: 2,748
Threads: 48
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 2197
Given 489 thank(s) in 402 post(s)
Country:
The LD upmixed to prologic Z well also, have some semblance of height with some scenes
Posts: 95
Threads: 1
Joined: 2016 Jul
Thanks: 27
Given 29 thank(s) in 20 post(s)
@ bendermac
Thanks for the comparison. Just stumbled over this thread, notoriously searching for comparison as one can never trust that a never release is better in all aspects.
A few remarks on the Cinephiles quote:
Quote:"For 5.1, Shout Factory still has good dynamic range for being lossless[...]
That part doesn't make sense to me. Not that lossy codecs (against the common myth) would reduce the dynamic range in any way (on the contrary, their floating point architecture often allows for higher ones even compared to 24-bit-PCM which is already insane), but why would a track "being lossless" not have good dynamic range when in doubt? Given commonly audibly transparent codecs, the quality is effectively determined by the content, not the messenger/container, also despite common misbeliefs.
Quote:"[...]with inept filtering on the center and lots of dithering (the TrueHD 5.1 is 16-bit, just has a 24-bit padding)[...]
Neither will proper dithering make any audible difference, unnecessarily padded to 24-bit or not.
Their approach to deliver to preserve different audio track sources is very nice though.
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: 2024 Sep
Thanks: 1
Given 2 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Country:
(2026-04-10, 09:13 PM)little-endian Wrote: A few remarks on the Cinephiles quote:
Quote:"For 5.1, Shout Factory still has good dynamic range for being lossless[...]
That part doesn't make sense to me. Not that lossy codecs (against the common myth) would reduce the dynamic range in any way (on the contrary, their floating point architecture often allows for higher ones even compared to 24-bit-PCM which is already insane), but why would a track "being lossless" not have good dynamic range when in doubt? Given commonly audibly transparent codecs, the quality is effectively determined by the content, not the messenger/container, also despite common misbeliefs.
I can't speak for them but from my experience in analyzing and comparing audio mixes, I've found that 9 times out of 10 the modern lossless version has been processed in some way or another, a lot of times actually degrading its dynamic range in favor of in-your-face loudness, like the old CD loudness wars. So for the most part, the whole HD lossless audio selling point for blu-rays and UHDs is a gimmick.
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: 2024 Sep
Thanks: 1
Given 2 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Country:
2026-04-12, 01:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 2026-04-12, 01:53 AM by commandrbond.)
I just did my own comparison of the LD AC3, DVD AC3, and UHD DTS-HD waveforms and spectrograms. Here are my findings:
-UHD has high frequency extension reaching from 20-23khz. LD and DVD have hard cutoffs at 18khz. (Usually this is not a big deal, IMO, as most people can't hear that high anyway)
-UHD has some evidence of peak-limiting and flat-topping but not a whole lot. LD and DVD have none.
-UHD LCR volume are pretty much balanced whereas the LD/DVD Center channels are about 1db louder than their mains.
-UHD LFE is about 3db louder in comparison to its front stage than the LD/DVD. UHD LFE has more a bit more dynamic range but that could be due to HF leakage extending past 1000hz, whereas the LD/DVD has leakage only up to about 500hz or so.
-UHD Surrounds are about 2db louder in comparison to its front stage than the LD/DVD, BUT have less dynamic range.
-On average, the UHD is 1.28db more dynamic than the LD and 1.5db more dynamic than the DVD. HOWEVER, the UHD does show signs of DNR; whether its audible is up to the listener.
-Overall, the DVD is the loudest and most compressed version but with less DNR than the UHD, no peak-limiting, and the more conservative soundstage balance of the LD.
The boosted LFE and Surrounds on the UHD may be evidence of "modern sweetening" or perhaps the LD/DVD were near-field mixes? Who knows.
Whether any of these differences are actually audible or important is up for the listener to decide.
Posts: 38
Threads: 9
Joined: 2026 Mar
Thanks: 47
Given 10 thank(s) in 8 post(s)
Country:
2026-04-12, 07:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 2026-04-12, 07:19 AM by Kameraposti.)
Hi
Thanks for the comparison. One difference that also comes to mind is the near field vs far field audio. Often the stereo track sounds wider and all the instruments, vocals and effects ”have their own place” vs newly remastered super duper audio near field ”everything sounds cramped”.
Posts: 2,748
Threads: 48
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 2197
Given 489 thank(s) in 402 post(s)
Country:
Has anyone synced the LD to the UHD?
Posts: 95
Threads: 1
Joined: 2016 Jul
Thanks: 27
Given 29 thank(s) in 20 post(s)
(2026-04-12, 01:25 AM)commandrbond Wrote: I just did my own comparison of the LD AC3, DVD AC3, and UHD DTS-HD waveforms and spectrograms. Here are my findings:
Thanks a lot for your elaborate and profound analysis! Would be interesting to know if you have done other comparisons as well. For instance, the movie "Gravity" is also an interesting case as the CinemaDTS mix is quite different from the retail home releases.
(2026-04-12, 12:00 AM)commandrbond Wrote: I can't speak for them but from my experience in analyzing and comparing audio mixes, I've found that 9 times out of 10 the modern lossless version has been processed in some way or another[...]
Ah yeah, as I thought their description is just a bit unclear as once again, it's about the message (mix/mastering) and not the messenger (codec/format).
(2026-04-12, 12:43 PM)dvdmike Wrote: Has anyone synced the LD to the UHD?
Well, apparently @ bendermac has synced it as he reported here and also the Cinephiles-release contains it which @ Beber was kind enough to share. So including me you should have some resources.
|