Posts: 2,000
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 156
Given 977 thank(s) in 586 post(s)
The commentary tracks are only on the Director's Cut laserdisc/DVD, I have neither.
I've just checked the track on the blu, I'd hardly call it brickwalled. It's probably the same mix as the Pioneer DVD give or take. It certainly had the feeling of being a near field but I've heard a lot worse. I have been truly spoiled by laserdiscs though.
In any case I should have the AC3 laserdisc sometime soon.
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
You're right, "brickwalled" was an exaggeration. It's not absolutely terrible. But, at least for my purposes, it's not very satisfying either.
Posts: 2,000
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 156
Given 977 thank(s) in 586 post(s)
Better start saving for the DTS Laserdisc then 
I've uploaded the DTS from the Pioneer Japanese DVD. I'll send the link to everyone in the thread, anyone else who's interested to see how it compares to other mixes PM me. As always active members only.
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
Thanks zoidberg again for the DTS track! I compared it with the Blu Ray and I actually like the Blu Ray more. The DVD DTS seems even more compressed, plus, the surround speakers are quieter/more compressed too.
So thanks to all for your support and participation, this was interesting.
Edit: One thing that may still be interesting would be the PCM track. Not necessarily as a direct comparison to the surround tracks, but to see what they did with it.
Posts: 1,186
Threads: 54
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 96
Given 98 thank(s) in 80 post(s)
Country: 
2017-11-14, 08:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 2017-11-14, 08:47 PM by Jetrell Fo.)
The PCM track can be made in to a DTSHD-MA track as well if it proves to be useful. I like the Criterion AC3 audio. Looking at the comparison zoidberg did it would seem the DVD DTS is a bit more beefy but it is possible that dynamic compression was used in finalizing it. Hard to say without knowing the actual studio details of it all.
That said, I don't think using headphones to discern the differences will be accurate with regards to this because it's not music. I would think that film audio is processed differently and you may get misleading results based on headphone usage. That is just my take on it anyways.
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
Absolutely could be made into DTSHD-MA. Although I personally don't see the point. Am a fan of FLAC. But to each their own, both is possible and ultimately it doesn't make a difference, both being lossless.
Posts: 7,153
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1461 thank(s) in 963 post(s)
Country: 
OK guys, I must confess *it seems* I have the DTS LD - at least, according to my list... still, haven't found it (yet)!
Would like to grab it, but I should wait for a new HDD - I think the Black Friday would be the best moment, right?
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
This is getting interesting! 
I'm not in a hurry personally. Got some preparations/syncing to do here anyway.
Posts: 1,186
Threads: 54
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 96
Given 98 thank(s) in 80 post(s)
Country:
(2017-11-14, 09:19 PM)TomArrow Wrote: Absolutely could be made into DTSHD-MA. Although I personally don't see the point. Am a fan of FLAC. But to each their own, both is possible and ultimately it doesn't make a difference, both being lossless.
May I ask why FLAC is the more important container? Is it because you know your hardware reads it or something?
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
(2017-11-15, 12:00 AM)Jetrell Fo Wrote: (2017-11-14, 09:19 PM)TomArrow Wrote: Absolutely could be made into DTSHD-MA. Although I personally don't see the point. Am a fan of FLAC. But to each their own, both is possible and ultimately it doesn't make a difference, both being lossless.
May I ask why FLAC is the more important container? Is it because you know your hardware reads it or something?
Not more important surely, but I prefer it for two reasons. Firstly, unlike DTS-HD MA, when you play it, you know 100% certain you are getting lossless audio, where DTS-HD MA often falls back to the DTS Core without notifying you when your software can't play it (hint: most PC players can't). Secondly and perhaps more importantly, I feel like DTS-HD MA is a giant scam and I don't feel like supporting it. It's both bigger than FLAC bitrate-wise (because of the embedded core in DTS-HD MA), less compatible when it comes to computer software, and ridiculously more expensive. Basically, they are taking money for ... nothing. Lossless audio is not a new invention, and their codec is nothing special. The only thing that makes it special is how expensive it is and how they keep it proprietary and basically put rocks in the way of everyone who wants to en- or decode it. Thousands of dollars to ... encode lossless audio in a bloated codec? Is this a joke?
The only reason to use DTS-HD MA in my opinion is compatibility, which is due to DTS's market share / wide-spread hardware, which is frankly inexplicable to me.
I have less issues with TrueHD. At least that one doesn't just quietly give you non-lossless audio and isn't as bloated bitrate-wise.
DTS:X may be another story, as I believe it has that object-based stuff, which admittedly is kinda cool, like Atmos. But DTS-HD MA is just lossless audio, so why not use FLAC?
|
