Posts: 168
Threads: 141
Joined: 2018 Jan
Thanks: 32
Given 440 thank(s) in 133 post(s)
Country:
Thanks given by: Stamper , wright96d , PDB , onlysleeping23 , xwmario , ActWatchBD , CSchmidlapp , galego100 , BlightedTomato , CineManiac , WontonNoodle
Posts: 40
Threads: 13
Joined: 2022 May
Thanks: 22
Given 117 thank(s) in 21 post(s)
Country:
I've since compared the DTS LD 5.1 to the BD 5.1(identical to the UHD 5.1) and the LD 2.0 mix. Here are my findings.
The DTS LD is indeed a true 5.1 mix, but only slightly. There's very little LFE usage, and the surrounds are largely mono save for a skosh of added reverb, or echo, or some other thing, and one or two moments of left/right discrete usage. (Without those couple moments of discrete usage, I'd probably just refer to it as a 4.0 track ported to 5.1)
🔍https://slow.pics/c/LAesb35D
Here's a visual comparison of the stereo separation in the surrounds between the DTS LD and the BD. Note the vectorscope, showing significantly more stereo separation on the BD, appearing nearly mono on the DTS LD. I've also included a mono-sum version of the DTS LD surrounds, to illustrate what it would look like if it was purely 100% mono.
🔍https://slow.pics/c/Fk55puHE
I still prefer the LD 2.0, for what it's worth, as the music and effects (the gunshots in particular) sound less muffled compared to the DTS LD. I would certainly consider the DTS LD an improvement over the BD as the dynamic range has been significantly neutered on the BD. While I do prefer the brighter sound of the 2.0 gunshots, they still have significant impact on the DTS LD that is all but gone on the BD. The foot massage discussion on the BD has also been subjected to quite a bit of noise reduction. The following talk of big kahuna burgers has also been altered, with overbearing room noise that makes the dialogue sound hollow. (there might also be some noise reduction) The BD has also been subjected to some sort of strange filtering, as evidenced by the bountiful lines running through the spectrogram, but I'm not sure what to make of it. If there weren't a handful of minutes with information above 20.4khz I'd be comfortable calling it a straight up lossy transcode.
I'm still curious what the Criterion LD AC3 sounds like, but as it notes "The AC-3 track was remastered from the original mixing stems", I'd almost wonder if it was the origin for the current 5.1 mix. I assume the DTS LD is theatrical.
Posts: 761
Threads: 54
Joined: 2021 Jul
Thanks: 627
Given 646 thank(s) in 302 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 168
Threads: 141
Joined: 2018 Jan
Thanks: 32
Given 440 thank(s) in 133 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 40
Threads: 13
Joined: 2022 May
Thanks: 22
Given 117 thank(s) in 21 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 39
Threads: 0
Joined: 2023 Jul
Thanks: 1
Given 3 thank(s) in 3 post(s)
Country:
i dont see any dd track on the film cells
Posts: 40
Threads: 13
Joined: 2022 May
Thanks: 22
Given 117 thank(s) in 21 post(s)
Country:
2024-01-29, 06:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 2024-01-29, 06:09 PM by wright96d.)
Posts: 700
Threads: 28
Joined: 2016 Feb
Thanks: 188
Given 253 thank(s) in 181 post(s)
Country:
2024-01-29, 06:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 2024-01-29, 06:24 PM by Bigrob.)
from the additional info box on LDDB
About the Transfer:
Pulp Fiction is presented in it's original theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35:1 and was digitally transferred under the supervision of director Quentin Tarantino from a super 35mm interpositive. The digital tracks were mastered from a Dolby SR print master. The AC-3 track was remastered from the original mixing stems.
I'm assuming that the theatrical prints were just Dolby SR and the 5.1 mix came later for the Laserdisc release
Posts: 50
Threads: 7
Joined: 2019 Nov
Thanks: 57
Given 47 thank(s) in 13 post(s)
Country:
A selection of films of the era were mixed in 5.1 and only released theatrically as a 2.0 surround mix. Offhand Dracula was one of them.
Posts: 40
Threads: 13
Joined: 2022 May
Thanks: 22
Given 117 thank(s) in 21 post(s)
Country:
Are we assuming the film-tech guy is wrong, then?
|