2020-12-13, 10:22 AM
The end credits can tell you info but are often going to be misleading. The ultimate proof is seeing it actually on a print. I've found many different examples of films saying and having completely different things.
It didn't help that the naming wasn't locked down until several years in-AND that many kept mixing for 2.0 matrix or with matrix in mind well into the digital sound era. Plus most lower budgeted things wouldn't or couldn't spring for discrete. The 2.0 mixes are still important well into the 90's.
Usually the tracks were the same and the systems differed but there were instances where there were audio differences between presentations. I'm pretty sure the bass heavy Dolby mixes on Goldeneye we like on LD and DVD are the theatrical Dolby audio and the DTS LD is the theatrical DTS.
Dolby's logic was sound and the system works. It's the implementation that sucks. Whoever thought to put it between sprocket holes was a moron because that's the first thing to tear or get worn. When my local arthouse is open they wont't run digital sound at all for 35mm because they don't have readers anymore-and most rep prints have their DD tracks shot by damage or wear. The lowish bitrate works ok but DTS wipes the floor with SR-D across the board in tech specs and implementation.
But what I wouldn't give to hear a vintage digital sound wars era print run again in a good theater. Those were the days. When even the logos were heavenly.
For BR, I wish there was more info out there on the 5.1 process. The track itself is more discrete and has more sonic information than 89 but loses that big expansive old school feel-which like the score recording is because it was done in LA at Warner Bros and not in big old fashioned studios in London as had been the case on 89. I've done a lot of comparisons between 2.0 and 5.1 and saw a Fuji 2.0 SR print about five years ago. (which I wanted to take home with me!!!) The track is the same and you get the 2.0 SR experience on the LD which 90's ntsc issues aside is a nice version to watch. (if you have a clean rot free copy)
The 2.0 is not as 100% detailed as the ac3 discrete but you get the fun boominess of the subwoofer pulling stuff out of the mains and honestly it has a slightly warm vibe to it that isn't in the ac3. I think they were doing digital sound since Burton had just done Edward Scissorhands in CDS but the idea was probably to end up as Dolby SR prints and likely made the switch to SR-D ac3 at the last minute. From what I've read only LA, NYC and London had theaters with DD ac3 and I've only heard one person remember seeing it advertised and attending a screening. Warner was probably cost cutting anyways and didn't go for any DTS involvement for years.
I watch my LD copies of 89-Returns-Forever and B&R every year. I get more and more attached to them. 89 has the more organic sounding mix, Returns has the 2.0 SR, Forever has the better mixed 2.0, and B&R actually does have a 2.0 track that sounds a bit more intimate and warmer than the ac3. I don't know why but there's many Warner titles from this era where the 2.0 sounds slightly better than the discrete.
It didn't help that the naming wasn't locked down until several years in-AND that many kept mixing for 2.0 matrix or with matrix in mind well into the digital sound era. Plus most lower budgeted things wouldn't or couldn't spring for discrete. The 2.0 mixes are still important well into the 90's.
Usually the tracks were the same and the systems differed but there were instances where there were audio differences between presentations. I'm pretty sure the bass heavy Dolby mixes on Goldeneye we like on LD and DVD are the theatrical Dolby audio and the DTS LD is the theatrical DTS.
Dolby's logic was sound and the system works. It's the implementation that sucks. Whoever thought to put it between sprocket holes was a moron because that's the first thing to tear or get worn. When my local arthouse is open they wont't run digital sound at all for 35mm because they don't have readers anymore-and most rep prints have their DD tracks shot by damage or wear. The lowish bitrate works ok but DTS wipes the floor with SR-D across the board in tech specs and implementation.
But what I wouldn't give to hear a vintage digital sound wars era print run again in a good theater. Those were the days. When even the logos were heavenly.
For BR, I wish there was more info out there on the 5.1 process. The track itself is more discrete and has more sonic information than 89 but loses that big expansive old school feel-which like the score recording is because it was done in LA at Warner Bros and not in big old fashioned studios in London as had been the case on 89. I've done a lot of comparisons between 2.0 and 5.1 and saw a Fuji 2.0 SR print about five years ago. (which I wanted to take home with me!!!) The track is the same and you get the 2.0 SR experience on the LD which 90's ntsc issues aside is a nice version to watch. (if you have a clean rot free copy)
The 2.0 is not as 100% detailed as the ac3 discrete but you get the fun boominess of the subwoofer pulling stuff out of the mains and honestly it has a slightly warm vibe to it that isn't in the ac3. I think they were doing digital sound since Burton had just done Edward Scissorhands in CDS but the idea was probably to end up as Dolby SR prints and likely made the switch to SR-D ac3 at the last minute. From what I've read only LA, NYC and London had theaters with DD ac3 and I've only heard one person remember seeing it advertised and attending a screening. Warner was probably cost cutting anyways and didn't go for any DTS involvement for years.
I watch my LD copies of 89-Returns-Forever and B&R every year. I get more and more attached to them. 89 has the more organic sounding mix, Returns has the 2.0 SR, Forever has the better mixed 2.0, and B&R actually does have a 2.0 track that sounds a bit more intimate and warmer than the ac3. I don't know why but there's many Warner titles from this era where the 2.0 sounds slightly better than the discrete.
Damn Fool Idealistic Crusader
