Groundhog Day (1993) [52296] synced to 30th Anniversary UHD
|
Groundhog Day (1993) [52296] synced to 30th Anniversary UHD
|
Posts: 39
Threads: 12 Joined: 2022 May Thanks: 16
Given 96 thank(s) in 20 post(s) Country: 
(2023-09-06, 02:32 AM)wongfeihung Wrote: Based on that comparison I didn't think the UHD stereo was all that bad. (2023-09-06, 05:19 AM)axeyou Wrote: @wright96d or @dwalkerdon : I'd be really interested to know what stood out as almost MP3 like on the UHD track. Thank you in advance for any pointers! Pay close attention to the high end of the instruments. You should notice the sparkle of the instruments fall to nothing on the UHD, and come back on the LD. 
Posts: 10
Threads: 2 Joined: 2023 Aug Thanks: 27
Given 5 thank(s) in 4 post(s) Country: 
2023-09-06, 03:14 PM
(2023-09-06, 09:13 AM)alexpeden2000 Wrote:(2023-09-06, 01:24 AM)pauman Wrote: i have the original R2-DVD stereo which is very very good. IMHO the only lossless track that is worth listening (on the blurays and uhd editions) is the new 2.0 from the new 30th edition which, its a bit filtered but compared against the TrueHD 7.1 Atmos and the old truehd 5.1 its a gem! Still worse than the dvd r2 stereo. the dvd r2 stereo agains the LD which @wright96d kindly provided... its dificult, i have to test it on my main system this weekend, for now they are both on my movie file and probably will stay there! 
the man with no name!
Posts: 39
Threads: 12 Joined: 2022 May Thanks: 16
Given 96 thank(s) in 20 post(s) Country:
2023-09-06, 04:29 PM
(2023-09-06, 03:14 PM)pauman Wrote: IMHO the only lossless track that is worth listening (on the blurays and uhd editions) is the new 2.0 from the new 30th edition which, its a bit filtered but compared against the TrueHD 7.1 Atmos and the old truehd 5.1 its a gem! Personally I found the upmixes far better than the UHD 2.0, with the Atmos being slightly better than the 5.1. The weird high end roll off (and possibility of it being a lossy convert?) just isn't present on the upmixes. And obviously the LD sounds better than them all.
Posts: 10
Threads: 2 Joined: 2023 Aug Thanks: 27
Given 5 thank(s) in 4 post(s) Country:
2023-09-06, 10:55 PM
(2023-09-06, 04:29 PM)wright96d Wrote:(2023-09-06, 03:14 PM)pauman Wrote: IMHO the only lossless track that is worth listening (on the blurays and uhd editions) is the new 2.0 from the new 30th edition which, its a bit filtered but compared against the TrueHD 7.1 Atmos and the old truehd 5.1 its a gem! i agree with you on the truehd 5.1 vs atmos 7.1 but damn the atmos is soo loud i can't even consider it
the man with no name!
Posts: 759
Threads: 35 Joined: 2018 Feb Thanks: 651
Given 1071 thank(s) in 405 post(s) Country:
(2023-09-04, 05:39 PM)wright96d Wrote: NOTE: While exacting bit-perfect accuracy is typically preferred for LD syncs, I prefer to use speed adjustments to keep synchronization. I also insert BD audio to cover reel changes or side breaks when necessary. As well as minor filtering in the form of DC Offset correction, de-humming, and manual declicking (when necessary). 2.0 mono tracks are processed with Voxengo MSED to remove stereo information unless stated otherwise. Why are you messing with a perfectly good soundtrack? This is the same problem we have with the studios who just can't help themselves from turning knobs. Looks like you killed the low end with your tweaks judging by the spectrogram.
Posts: 39
Threads: 12 Joined: 2022 May Thanks: 16
Given 96 thank(s) in 20 post(s) Country:
(2023-09-07, 06:41 PM)bronan Wrote: Why are you messing with a perfectly good soundtrack? This is the same problem we have with the studios who just can't help themselves from turning knobs. I never mess with EQ or noise reduction, which are the actual killers of studio knob twisted transfers. A de-humming notch filter here or there does not a ruined sound track make. I had to do some de-clicking and de-clipping on my Heathers sync due to either source issues or capture issues, and quite frankly I think leaving that kind of stuff alone in some quest for 100% not touched whatsoever purity is insane. My filtering is akin to dust and scratch removal, not DNR or revisionist color grading. It’s part of my process, take it or leave it. (2023-09-07, 06:41 PM)bronan Wrote: Looks like you killed the low end with your tweaks from the spectrogram. See, this is why I don’t usually post comparisons. If you look at the isolated low end spectrogram, you’ll see that I very much didn’t. It’s the whole reason I included it. 
Posts: 39
Threads: 0 Joined: 2023 Jul Thanks: 1
Given 3 thank(s) in 3 post(s) Country: 
2023-09-07, 08:15 PM
Any of those tweaks can be done after exporting , less is more.
Posts: 759
Threads: 35 Joined: 2018 Feb Thanks: 651
Given 1071 thank(s) in 405 post(s) Country:
Why is it like this on the Bass picture then? The problem is you can easily make adjustments that you will not even notice damage parts of the audio. For instance, using a de-clicker or pop reduction can essentially do DNR on sections of audio with real noise like heavy rainfall. Unless you are willing to go through the whole thing with a fine toothed comb why mess with it? Anyone will agree spot fixing here and there is perfectly acceptable.
https://i.imgur.com/BTUSjfK.jpg 
Posts: 103
Threads: 17 Joined: 2022 Nov Thanks: 130
Given 73 thank(s) in 38 post(s) Country:
2023-09-07, 09:05 PM
That's a constant hum <5 Hz, right? Is it really meaningful?
Posts: 192
Threads: 9 Joined: 2022 Sep Thanks: 6
Given 114 thank(s) in 66 post(s) Country:
2023-09-07, 09:11 PM
(2023-09-07, 06:41 PM)bronan Wrote: Why are you messing with a perfectly good soundtrack? This is the same problem we have with the studios who just can't help themselves from turning knobs. Looks like you killed the low end with your tweaks judging by the spectrogram. You can't ever trust fully zoomed-out spectrograms. The software does a lot of stuff to shrink it to fit it in that small picture size. I've had files that sound the same look quite a bit different on zoomed-out spectrogram (enough that I would guess one would sound better). You can see in the ~240hz spectrogram, he only removed hums...and for someone who is planning for his theater to be flat to 5hz (or lower) in the near future, that low end hum would be no bueno. (2023-09-07, 06:58 PM)wright96d Wrote: See, this is why I don’t usually post comparisons. If you look at the isolated low end spectrogram, you’ll see that I very much didn’t. It’s the whole reason I included it. This is really why you should post comparisons since it backs you up. The UHD track sounds good, but you can see that the studio decided to leave the hum as is but completely filter out the bass. Lazy lazy lazy. I had a similar response to @axeyou at first though. I can hear a bit of difference between the example track in the high ends, but not much. The preview is also limited to music only which is often the parts of a track with DNR that I find harder to hear differences in. But it actually showcases how much better the LD sounds, at least in terms of bass. For anyone with a decent subwoofer, the bass being fully intact should be enough to want to grab this. Also, as a side note, if you have good speakers/headphones and are on the younger side (under 40), you can probably appreciate a less filtered track like this a lot more than someone who is older (40+) and has lost some of their high-end hearing. I bet a lot of the users on here can't hear this anymore due to age and or tinnitus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfl4jmvKb08 |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
