From: dundonald,belfast,co.antrim,northern ireland.
Registered: Jan 2006
posted April 10, 2006 10:55 AM
hello fellow members.is it me or is the sound tracks from the old laser disces better than their dvd counterparts.im only wondering because the soundtrack from t2 attackes you on ld,but on dvd its too laid back.i would love to know what other members think about this one.andy.
posted April 10, 2006 11:56 AM
I'm sure an expert with LD will respond, but I've allways thought there was something about anologue with LD. I do know that digital sound can be got out of DVDs. I do into a digital AV amp. which gives me as good as if not a lot better sound than the multi-plex cinema.
From: Manassas, VA. USA
Registered: Jun 2003
posted April 10, 2006 12:18 PM
Early laser discs had analog sound.....later on they had both analog and digital sound available on the same disc. A friend of mine who has a top notch properly calibrated video and sound system ran an experiment a while back and I watched and took part. He took the laser disc of Tomorrow Never Dies and the DVD put them at the same point in the film and , without telling me or a few others in the room which was which, he switched between the two sources..... and the surprising thing was that the Laser disc not only looked sharper and better, but sounded better to most of the ears in the room. The voting was unanimous on the picture quality....everyone said they thought what turned out to be the laser, was sharper and an overall better picture.
posted April 10, 2006 05:10 PM
I also collect LD's and have found the same to be true. I saw on a US site some figures which show that the LD format gave a larger bandwidth to the sound and didnt need the compression that DVD's have to endure for both sound and picture. I think it's this that your are hearing and of course the analogue picture information on LD is uncompressed.
-------------------- GS1200 Xenon with Elmo 1.0...great combo along with a 16-CL Xenon for that super bright white light.
posted April 11, 2006 03:27 AM
Certainly early on in the days of DVD it was surprising that laser disc sometimes gave superior picture quality but those putting out DVD's eventually got their act together and it became a rare sight that LD surpassed DVD. Sound is a different matter and will undoubtedly be for the reasons already given. However, there is one other argument to add into the mix and that is Dolby Stereo as opposed to Dolby Digital. PAL laser discs only ever came with Dolby Stereo and it was quite late in the day before DTS and AC3 encoded soundtracks appeared on NTSC discs. NTSC LD's had 3 soundracks available - stereo digital tracks, mono analogue track (previously used both analogue tracks to give stereo as per the original laser vision format) and the second mono analogue track for the AC3 bitstream; DTS encoded discs came as a separately released disc and contained the DTS information within the normal stereo digital tracks I believe.
It is surprising how good the Dolby Stereo tracks often are compared to their 5.1 counterparts. Perhaps the main reason behind this is the clarity and volume of the dialogue track. All too often when I'm running DD or DTS tracks I find myself reaching for the volume control; that doesn't tend to happen with good ol' Dolby Stereo. Perhaps all this also applies to well recorded Super 8 releases as the best that can currently be offered on Super 8 is Dolby Stereo.
NB: For those who may not entirely understand Dolby Stereo, this was re-named to Dolby ProLogic for the home market because Dolby feared prospective purchasers would incorrectly assume stereo merely translated to 2 channel sound rather than the 4 Dolby Stereo provided. Stereo had become synonymous with 2 channel systems so it's easy to see why this association was avoided. Shame really as Dolby Stereo sounds so much more professional than Dolby ProLogic.
-------------------- British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jul 2003
posted April 12, 2006 01:06 PM
In my opinion,Digital is an industry gimmick and was created to see just what the boffins can do.They have of course succeeeded.BUT,recently asked to play films in one of our screens in DolbySr (analogue)as an experiment as it were,the good old SR really came up with the goods.Clear,full bodies and without some of the harshness associated with digital. So who needs left and right rear? This analogy compares well with LD/DVD soundtracks and yes indeed,'compression' is the key factor here.
posted April 12, 2006 10:24 PM
Amen... Sometimes when I listen to an old reel-to-reel tape or a vinyl record (using quality equipment)... I'm blown away by how good it sounds. Rich, natural sound that puts CDs to shame. Digital compression is simply going too far these days... they say that with your average MP3 file, 96% of audio data is discarded (under the assumption that most people can't hear it) and the remaining 4% is then compressed. I might have the numbers slightly wrong, but it's in that ballpark for sure.
So, how long until we get mag-striped DVDs?
-------------------- Call me Phoenix. *dusts off the ashes*
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jul 2003
posted April 13, 2006 06:38 AM
Ideed.As anside to this thread,in the trade,DTS which uses a seperate uncompressed disc,the sound quality is better as a complete feature film generally takes two discs for it soundtrack.Whilst admittedly there is a certain amount of compression on DTS it is not as much as the market norm of Dolby Digital. Should we even go down the road of cd/vynil differences?....nah!