[Released] Terminator 2 CDS mix

[Stamper]

I'm not sure, the late Disclord had it broken down re- True Lies, I don't remember the exacts specs, but DTS and DD were not the same, one was a near field remix, the other the theatrical. The near field sound better at home, btw.

[borisanddoris]

My guess is that T2 was mixed for 5.1 (aka 6 channels) and CDS and 70mm were merely containers for the same mix. The 70mm had both Dolby A and SR prints like many 70mm prints of the period. I heard a Dolby A print and it was marvelous. Heard True Lies in 70mm Dolby SR and it’s the best cinema audio I’ve ever heard. The DTS laserdisc is a spot on match to my ears.

[Stamper]

Yeah, Disclord use to ring Lightstorm to ask the details, he was completely obsessive, so if I remember correctly the DTS is the theatrical, and the DD the near field (for True Lies).

[Kado_2020]

The True Lies cinema dts track might also be a 70mm 6-track stereo mix. I have both the ld ac3 5.1 and cinema dts copies.

The LD AC-3 for True Lies is a slight remix for home media. The Theatrical 5.1 mix was shared across DTS, Dolby Digital, and 70mm Six-Track. On home media it was used on the D-Theater (at full rate), US DVD (in AC-3), and DTS LD (also at full rate). IMO the D-Theater/DTS LD sounds the best as it's sourced from the original digital master with the least compression.

Sadly you can’t really do something like this for T2, I would assume they did the same for it but there's no way of knowing 100%

Agreed :-)

[zoidberg]

So could we extract the low pass info and re-direct it?

Yes I think so, in much the same way as the LFE is extracted from the surrounds with Cinema DTS. However I believe the subwoofer/baby boom does not contain any low frequency information for the surrounds so that would have to be replaced by the low frequencies in the incorrect LFE channel (which is just a low pass of the mono surround).
The real question is if the result will be any better than the AC-3 from any of the LDs.

So what we have been calling the CDS mix this whole time might be the 70mm 6-track instead? Would it be that different, though, if the 6-track in question had stereo surround channels as well? Both CDS and 6-track would be 5.1, so why would they bother making 2 mixes? I would rather think they're both the same mix, just delivered differently, one being digital, the other being magnetic.

I strongly suspect that there was one 5.1 mix which was used for both formats. Unless anyone can show otherwise the only information out there regarding the CDS track was from disclord's posts on the lddb forum, that the CDS was a separate mix from the ground up done entirely in digital. Yet interviews with Rydstrom about the Special Edition Laserdisc and Ultimate Edition DVD said the original mix was done on mag, along with the newly created mix for the Special Edition segments. When they created the 6.1 near-field everything was transferred to ProTools. 

Compared to 70mm mag CDS did have a wider frequency range and greater dynamic range, and they did have to create a separate Dolby printmaster for the 70mm mag prints with the surround/subwoofer crossover baked in. Whether it got tweaked to better fit the mag tracks I don't know. But there is absolutely no reason CDS would have used the 70mm master as it was a discrete 5.1 format.

Regarding True Lies and the AC-3 remix, it was generally the case back then that laserdisc near-field mixes were a lot better than what we get now and there was no downmix to take into consideration (as there was the PCM 2.0 track). Mission: Impossible is easily one of the greatest AC-3 tracks there ever was and that was a near-field.

[Beber]

My guess is that T2 was mixed for 5.1 (aka 6 channels) and CDS and 70mm were merely containers for the same mix. The 70mm had both Dolby A and SR prints like many 70mm prints of the period. I heard a Dolby A print and it was marvelous. Heard True Lies in 70mm Dolby SR and it’s the best cinema audio I’ve ever heard. The DTS laserdisc is a spot on match to my ears.

That's my assumption too. I don’t see Rydstrom doing the 5.1 work twice. He probably did it once, artistically speaking, and then some minor technical adjustments had to be made for both delivery systems that the general audience couldn’t differentiate. Which would be why we have a hard time labeling which is 6-track based and which is CDS based, 'cause to the ear they're the same being derived from the same original 5.1 mix. Now upon nerdy technical scrutiny, some differences can emerge, but basically, we hear the same thing, same spacialization and effects.

[Kado_2020]

So could we extract the low pass info and re-direct it?

Yes I think so, in much the same way as the LFE is extracted from the surrounds with Cinema DTS. However I believe the subwoofer/baby boom does not contain any low frequency information for the surrounds so that would have to be replaced by the low frequencies in the incorrect LFE channel (which is just a low pass of the mono surround).
The real question is if the result will be any better than the AC-3 from any of the LDs.

So what we have been calling the CDS mix this whole time might be the 70mm 6-track instead? Would it be that different, though, if the 6-track in question had stereo surround channels as well? Both CDS and 6-track would be 5.1, so why would they bother making 2 mixes? I would rather think they're both the same mix, just delivered differently, one being digital, the other being magnetic.

I strongly suspect that there was one 5.1 mix which was used for both formats. Unless anyone can show otherwise the only information out there regarding the CDS track was from disclord's posts on the lddb forum, that the CDS was a separate mix from the ground up done entirely in digital. Yet interviews with Rydstrom about the Special Edition Laserdisc and Ultimate Edition DVD said the original mix was done on mag, along with the newly created mix for the Special Edition segments. When they created the 6.1 near-field everything was transferred to ProTools. 

Compared to 70mm mag CDS did have a wider frequency range and greater dynamic range, and they did have to create a separate Dolby printmaster for the 70mm mag prints with the surround/subwoofer crossover baked in. Whether it got tweaked to better fit the mag tracks I don't know. But there is absolutely no reason CDS would have used the 70mm master as it was a discrete 5.1 format.

Regarding True Lies and the AC-3 remix, it was generally the case back then that laserdisc near-field mixes were a lot better than what we get now and there was no downmix to take into consideration (as there was the PCM 2.0 track). Mission: Impossible is easily one of the greatest AC-3 tracks there ever was and that was a near-field.

To extract lfe from back channels would it work extract the lfe channel from a dvd ac3 then convert the 5.0 audio to aud using foobar, and then generate a wav output 😁

[dvdmike]

Going against disclord's findings has never resulted in anything new

[zoidberg]

Going against disclord's findings has never resulted in anything new

Not sure what you're implying here, please elaborate

[Kado_2020]

i found the proof