|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 6 Track Magnetic vs 6 Track Digital
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 01-06-2011 12:13 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The Criterion folks were more picky than most video outfits on how they produced their titles. They made an effort to use the best elements available. Their LDs and DVDs typically cost quite a bit more as well. Given the price premium I strongly doubt the company merely rubber stamped a DVD only from Laserdisc elements. They wouldn't do that unless they had no other choice.
There are lot of DVDs that were lifted straight from the LD. The reason why there is not 5.1 track on the DVD has nothing to so with the absence of a 6 track mag or rubber stamping anything. The LD Criterion of Robocop is director approved, the 35mm transfer/2 track mag/1.66.1 are all approved by Paul Vernhoven.
The Criterion DVD of Robocop is the extact same tranfer as used on THX approved laserdisc. This is fact!
There are hundreds of DVDs which have the laserdisc transfer.
quote: Bobby Henderson
If Robocop had a 6-track Dolby SR print master and/or multichannel stems archived I'm pretty sure that audio would have been used to make a Dolby Digital 5.1 track.
Six magnetic print and 5.1 mean nothing and assumption is wrong. The Criterion 2001: A Space Odyssey uses a 6 track magnestic source which is then matrixed into a Dolby Stereo mix, however they used the 35mm for the picture.
As for 70mm/Robocop. The first Robocop in fact had a 70mm/6 track mag print. They used the 6 track and remixed it into the 5.1 Dolby Digital track for the Blu-ray.
On to DTS
quote: Aaron Garman
DTS only Decoder
The legendary Millenium unit. I remember as a young but passionate collector back then just lusting over this thing: I wanted DTS so bad!
I kind of agree with Tom: DTS Lasers were a little bit more exclusive than Dolby, and it was easier at that time to find an A/V receiver with AC3. I would argue that more players, including pre-1995 models, had SPDIF for DTS but it was harder to come by a processor to take advantage of that. I remember Pioneer and Denon really pushing out a good selection of A/V pre/pros or receivers that were AC3 only at the time. I know when I got into those sexy big discs, I could only afford some cheap Sony outboard processor that was AC3 and PCM only. I would argue you did not really see DTS become accessible for more folks until it his DVD towards the end of the decade.
I think the only reason Dolby took off more on LaserDisc was that it was there first: DTS discs didn't start hitting the market until what, 1997? By then, DVDs were introduced and the rest was history. AC3 on LaserDiscs became available in 1995 I do believe.
Either way, both were awesome and still are: I love listening to some of those mixes, even if some of them were cooked a bit. I've always wanted to a/b a 5.1 LaserDisc mix to a theatrical print but I haven't really had the chance to ever do so.
AJG
While I am glad someone on here has some common sense and just doesn't make things up. Thanks for the post.
If anyone reads the link this is what is says
"As the only stand-alone DTS decoder on the market, this is the least expensive way to upgrade to this exciting new format, at a mere $699. Unless you are ready to ditch the digital processor or A/V preamp you currently own and spend thousands of dollars on a new high-end processor incorporating DTS, the Millennium 2.4.6 is your best upgrade choice."
$699 was the cheapest way to get into DTS laserdisc.
"While the company states this decoder can be integrated into just about any current multi-channel sound system, we discovered a huge exception. A/V receivers must have both preamp inputs and outputs to accommodate this piece. While top Denon and Yamaha A/V receivers are promising these inputs for 1998 units, this simple interface problem eliminates the Millennium for millions of people who own 5.1 systems driven by Dolby Pro Logic and or AC3 receivers"
quote:
I think the only reason Dolby took off more on LaserDisc was that it was there first:
That is exactly the reason, and most people who invested thousands into the receivers were not able to upgrade to DTS without upgrading their receivers at the time which would cost a minimum of $1300 for a Sherwood machine. Most 5.1 Dolby Digital/RF receivers at the time did not have 6 channel input, there was no reason for it, thus the $699 DTS decoder was useless.
quote: Joe Redifer
I disagree. The DTS tracks on many Disney-released DVDs (like Pirates of the Caribbean, for example) sound way too harsh and over-bright. The Dolby Digital sounds fine. I prefer the Dolby Digital track on said DVDs. It has nothing to do with the compression, it's all in the mix
When I say high quality, I am talking about the bit rates. DTS LDS were always the full bit rate, early DVDs were full bit rate as well while this eventually changed to 1/2 bit rates for DVDs. Dolby is all over the board on their bit rates for DVDS.
quote: Bobby Henderson
My DTS DVD of Dances With Wolves had pretty impressive 5.1 audio.
Your Dances With Wolves DTS is a full bit rate DVD, very rare to get one of those.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 01-06-2011 01:00 AM
DTS even screwed up their arrival on DVD by not launching until at least a year after the first players hit in 1997. At that time, DTS wasn't even officially part of the DVD spec, and no players could utilize it in 97. Arguably, for the purpose of DVD, it would have had a hard time ever coming out on top. With such limited space, Dolby really designed a pretty damn efficient codec. I wouldn't say DTS sucked, but it sure did suck up the disc space.
Like Joe mentioned, even some DTS mixes weren't as good as their Dolby counterparts. If DTS wanted more success on DVD, I think they should have just went balls out, done everything at the full bit rate and use the best mixes possible for their tracks. I know for sure that several Dolby mixes were just atrocious on DVD: Mission: Impossible, Twister. Of course, my only comparison were my AC3 Lasers, but to my ears, my Lasers sounded better. The full bitrate DTS was capable of may have helped it, but more importantly, a solid mix was necessary. Again, I'd love to see someone mix a soundtrack and then encode it for both AC3 448 and DTS 1509 to see if there is any sort of difference.
Now I am glad that DTS has seemed to prevail on Blu-ray because, like Dolby on DVD, it is the smarter choice: it has excellent backward compatibility with old processors so that those with older gear can still get excellent results. I'm also very happy to see some older films coming out in DTS-MA mono or 4.0 to preserve original mixes. This is light years ahead of DVD's shitty 192kbps mono/stereo nonsense.
AJG
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-06-2011 09:25 AM
Interestingly, I feel the opposite way about the various sound formats. I remember growing up in the early/mid 1980s when the better theatres always had "In Dolby Stereo" listed on their marquees. It was "new" and generally impressive in a period where most theatres were still mono-only.
At the time, the only home product that would have been associated with Dolby would have been type-B and type-C noise reduction for tape recorders. More often than not, though, cassettes sounded better without NR (which I now know is largely because the NR is level-dependent, and most cassette machines have no way to set NR levels for recording and playback).
Still today, I have been involved in film exhibition on a part-time basis for the last dozen years or so, and the majority of venues where I have worked have had Dolby equipment, from the CP50 through the CP650 (though I have never worked anywhere with a CP100). I have always found their equipment to be well made and reliable, and the company has extremely helpful on the few occasions when I have called them with questions. Their products still set the standard by which others are measured.
DTS (now Datasat) has also been helpful to me, and the 6D is (was) a very good product. I also respect the company for its interest in supporting digital sound for 70mm and 16mm prints. However, the reality is that many prints arrive without disks, making the entire system useless. If they had figured out a way to allow downloads of their ISO images (for both new and old films), I would have a more positive view of the system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 01-06-2011 12:53 PM
quote: Aaron Garman
I will say as far as branding goes, DTS still has my heart though: it was the first digital sound system I ever heard and the first to come to my hometown en masse. For me, seeing that logo or the old trailers brings back a lot of memories of that wonderful summer of 1993. I've always associated Dolby with sound at home, and while cool, it doesn't conjure up the same sentimentality that DTS does. Is that a bit geeky or what?
quote: Scott Norwood
Interestingly, I feel the opposite way about the various sound formats. I remember growing up in the early/mid 1980s when the better theatres always had "In Dolby Stereo" listed on their marquees. It was "new" and generally impressive in a period where most theatres were still mono-only.
I hear what both of you are saying. For me it was different. We had Cineplex Odeoon and Famous Players while growing up. Both chains would not get the same movies and both chains had a very different movie going experience.
Cineplex was Fox/UNI/Colombia/Alliance
Famous Players was Warner/Disney/MGM/Paramount.
Cineplex was mostly DTS (they had ties with Universal, partly owned) and a small number of SDDS, the only way to see early films in SDDS was at Cineplex as Cineplex only played Colombia films. . Famous on the other hand was mostly Dolby Digital.
So, I associated the sound with particular movie company. Another thing, Famous Players was the only chain in my area that promoted the use of THX. We had the Uptown, Eglinton and Sussex Centre, all three usually were Dolby Digital so I also associated THX and Dolby Digital together as that was pretty much the only sound that would play in a THX theatre.
I also remember 70MM DTS at the Cineplex Odeoon York for My Fair Lady, this way big-time promoted for the re-release
This all changed in the late 90's
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-06-2011 06:51 PM
quote: Tom Petrov
There are lot of DVDs that were lifted straight from the LD. The reason why there is not 5.1 track on the DVD has nothing to so with the absence of a 6 track mag or rubber stamping anything. The LD Criterion of Robocop is director approved, the 35mm transfer/2 track mag/1.66.1 are all approved by Paul Vernhoven.
If a 6-track mix was available in the movie's original release it would have been used on the 1998 Criterion DVD. Paul Verhoeven didn't limit the first DVD release of Total Recall in 1997 to 2 channel stereo. It was Dolby Digital 5.1. Same thing goes for the 1997 Artisan/Live DVD release of Basic Instinct. And Basic Instinct was a 35mm only theatrical release.
quote: Tom Petrov
As for 70mm/Robocop. The first Robocop in fact had a 70mm/6 track mag print. They used the 6 track and remixed it into the 5.1 Dolby Digital track for the Blu-ray.
I have searched on and off over the years for proof this mysterios 70mm print of Robocop even exists at all. The only thing that points to any proof at all is talk of a 70mm print being circulated in Japan (something Michael Coate told me). Dolby's site and IMDB credit the movie having had 70mm engagements, but the fact remains Robocop never did have 70mm prints during its original release here in the United States.
Additionally, just because a movie was blown up to 70mm doesn't necessarily mean it had a 6 channel mix.
Edward Scissorhands is a good example. Its 70mm CDS and 70mm Dolby mag prints were really 4.0, not 4.2 or 5.1. Likewise, the movie's DVD and Blu-ray releases have 4.0 tracks. The scenario of studios blowing up movies to 70mm that were only mixed for 4:2 stereo matrix presentation may have happened more often than we know. So this is another wrinkle that has me doubting further that Robocop had a 6-channel mix in its original production. The liner notes in the Criterion DVD cast doubt on that as well.
Criterion released Robocop twice on Laserdisc, CAV in May of 1995 and CLV in November of 1996. The DVD was released in Sept. of 1998 still bearing the audio from the "original 35mm 2-track Dolby Surround stereo magnetic master." If a 6-track master existed at all there was no reason for Criterion to avoid using it then, especially for the premium being charged for the DVD. The 2001 MGM/UA DVD sounds obviously like the 5.1 track was derived from a limited range 2.0 channel source, not a magnetic 6-track print master.
quote: Tom Petrov
While I am glad someone on here has some common sense and just doesn't make things up.
Somehow I get the feeling that comment is pointed in my direction. The Millenium unit was one of the first outboard decoders on the market that did DTS decoding, but it was not the only one. The Technics SH-AC500D DD/DTS decoder is not a figment of my imagination. It listed for $300 and was often sold for well under that.
quote: Tom Petrov
Your Dances With Wolves DTS is a full bit rate DVD, very rare to get one of those.
The 2-disc Dances With Wolves DTS DVD from Image Entertainment is definitely a collector's item. I'd like to sell off a lot of the DVDs in my collection, but that's one I plan to keep. BTW, I don't mind swapping out discs in the middle of the movie. It provides an opportunity for a bathroom break! Whenever that Lawrence of Arabia Blu-ray is finally released I'm actually hoping Sony spreads the movie across 2 discs and preserves the intermission. They'll be able to max out the video bit rate and make the Blu-ray look even better.
quote: Tom Petrov
IMO, I would like to see both, I like having the choice of choosing DTS/DD on DVD, most times I choose the DTS because not all dvds have them.
Given that both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are lossless, I see no reason to have both formats used for the primary track on a Blu-ray movie disc. It's a duplication of efforts. There was some tangible difference between lossy DTS and lossy Dolby Digital. There's little if any difference at all on results between the lossless codecs. The only reasoning I could see with including both formats is if two noticeably different movie mixes were used. Put together a sensibly balanced 5.1 mix and encode it in Dolby TrueHD. Then do a balls to the wall, head pounding 7.1 mix in DTS-HD. But really one could swap formats for the different purposes or just go with one audio format.
DTS-HD Master Audio seems to have a more vocal fan following. Some of the Sony people even took part in an informal poll at Blu-ray.com to decide which direction to take on Blu-ray audio codecs. They were doing uncompressed LPCM 5.1, then went Dolby TrueHD for awhile. By popular demand they started supporting DTS-HD Master Audio on their discs.
Out of movie studios getting on the DTS-HD bandwagon for Blu-ray discs, I'm most surprised by Warner Bros. going that route. WB has arguably been the biggest Dolby supporter. Every Warner Bros. theatrical release featuring 5.1 digital surround has used Dolby Digital either exclusively or alongside SDDS and/or DTS. I think all of the other major studios have had digital sounded releases that didn't use Dolby Digital.
quote: Aaron Garman
I will say as far as branding goes, DTS still has my heart though: it was the first digital sound system I ever heard and the first to come to my hometown en masse. For me, seeing that logo or the old trailers brings back a lot of memories of that wonderful summer of 1993.
Chances aren't good of it happening, but I hope Universal Studios will stick the original DTS flying disc trailer on the Blu-ray version of Jurassic Park whenever it is released. The movie and DTS both will be celebrating their 20th anniversary in a couple of years. That might be a good occaision to ressurect the flying disc thingie.
The first Dolby Stereo Digital "train" trailer was pretty impressive. But I saw it for the first time on the 1,000+ seat #1 THX screen at General Cinemas Northpark 1-2 theater in Dallas (same place I watched Jurassic Park for the first time). It doesn't get much better than that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 01-07-2011 12:50 AM
quote: Aaron Garman
I've since burned custom versions with "Digital Experience" instead. I also slapped on a THX Grand, which I believe was the de facto DTS THX trailer.
It makes that much of a difference to you?
quote: Bobby Henderson
If a 6-track mix was available in the movie's original release it would have been used on the 1998 Criterion DVD. Paul Verhoeven didn't limit the first DVD release of Total Recall in 1997 to 2 channel stereo. It was Dolby Digital 5.1. Same thing goes for the 1997 Artisan/Live DVD release of Basic Instinct. And Basic Instinct was a 35mm only theatrical release.
Woah! Let's hold on a second here, like I said earlier, it really makes no difference if there was a 6 track magnetic print, what is more important was what was the original source was and what the director wants. Criterion tries to preserve the original way the film was made, this is because it is directors approved.
For the Criterion release of Robocop, they used the original 2 track magnetic master. For the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey Criterion, they used the original 6 track magnetic master. for the Close Enounters of the Third Kind, they used the original 35 magnetic track. In contrast, Tarantino conceived the release of Pulp Fiction and the soundtrack was remastered from the original for specific use for home theatres, they used an original 5.1 source and modified it for home use. For the film Seven, the surround sound was remixed to become a new mix for home theatres which was supervised by the sound designer, it was 5.1. Criterion is all about what the director wants in most circumstances.
Basic Instinct, Totall Recall and even Starship Trooper really can't be compared because these are not Criterion films and they were not director supervised transfers.
You can however compare the Basic Inctinct Stereo laserdisc and the 6 track Dolby Digital Basic Instinct laserdisc released by the same company.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-07-2011 10:16 AM
quote: Aaron Garman
I was pissed that the DTS DVD of Jurassic Park had "Sonic Landscape" on it. I've since burned custom versions with "Digital Experience" instead. I also slapped on a THX Grand, which I believe was the de facto DTS THX trailer.
I was really annoyed by the boring piano DTS trailer being tossed onto the Jurassic Park DVD as well. The flying disc trailer should have been used. It would be nice to see it again on Blu-ray. Actually, a history of DTS short documentary might be an interesting feature to put on a Blu-ray of Jurassic Park. Then they could probably show the original version of the flying disc trailer that didn't have the "this theater is equipped with DTS" thing tacked onto it. The 1994 flying disc trailer worked better for DTS' marketing. However, I liked how the original sounded when the disc exploded. The disc explosion and wind just whooshed off into absolute quiet before the Universal logo hit the screen.
The THX "Grand" trailer was produced in time for the Jurassic Park release. That trailer packed a whallop at GCC Northpark #1 in Dallas. Still, "Cimarron" is my favorite THX trailer. There just never was a DTS mix of it. "Cimarron" was pretty good to see in 70mm!
quote: Tom Petrov
Let's hold on a second here, like I said earlier, it really makes no difference if there was a 6 track magnetic print, what is more important was what was the original source was and what the director wants.
I find it impossible to believe that if Robocop originally had a 6-track mix that Paul Verhoeven would only want a 2-channel presentation despsite the capability of DVD to deliver a 6-track result.
My own feeling, based on seeing lots of movies made intentionally for 70mm or 35mm digital presentation versus many others made only for 35mm stereo optical, is that Robocop was only originally produced for stereo optical release. I don't believe it ever had a 6-channel master (at least not until a faux 5.1 mix was created about 10 years ago). I think the 2 track master is the only source Criterion had available to them. The unimpressive nature of the 5.1 track on the MGM/UA DVD suggests it was derived from those 2 channel source tapes rather than real multichannel stems.
Movies that have been intentionally mixed for 70mm Dolby mag release or 35mm 5.1 digital all have 6-track stems (separate 6-track mixes for dialog, effects and music) as well as a 6-track 35mm mag full coat print masters or some other 6-track archival master. I think Robocop only had a stereo master. Even with some mysterious Japanese 70mm print floating around that still doesn't mean a six track mix was ever produced for theatrical release.
While it's true movie sound mixes from the 1980s don't have quite the level of pulse pounding dynamics as modern mixes today, certain movies from the 1980's did have pretty aggressive audio. Die Hard was released 1 year after Robocop and its audio on DVD and Blu-ray sounds great. IMHO, the "Fox Fanfare" thing has never sounded better than it did on Die Hard.
quote: Tom Petrov
Basic Instinct, Totall Recall and even Starship Trooper really can't be compared because these are not Criterion films and they were not director supervised transfers.
Criterion hypes "director approved" on its product packaging more than other studios. Nevertheless, filmmakers are often involved with DVD and Blu-ray releases whether the title is being distributed by Criterion or the home video arm of a major movie studio.
Basic Instinct was recorded and mixed in a manner where it would have been good on 70mm Dolby mag blow-up prints. I was surprised the movie didn't get 70mm blow up prints when it was originally released considering Verhoeven's previous movie, Total Recall got a good number of 70mm prints. Basic Instinct was even shot in 'scope, which made the lack of 70mm an even bigger surprise. On top of that, I remember all the media hype surrounding Basic Instinct over its strong sexual content and Sharon Stone showing her muff. With so much publicity surrounding it I figured the movie would have a few dozen 70mm prints in its inventory. But nope. Just 35mm.
quote: Tom Petrov
Tarantino conceived the release of Pulp Fiction and the soundtrack was remastered from the original for specific use for home theatres, they used an original 5.1 source and modified it for home use.
Pulp Fiction was originally produced and released only in 35mm 2-channel Dolby SR optical. Due to the movie's popularity some Dolby Digital prints showed up at some theaters in the Los Angeles area during the fall of 1994. I never saw any Dolby Digital engagements for Pulp Fiction advertised outside of LA.
Pulp Fiction is one of those examples of a movie where I suspect the sound mix being revisted again during various home video release cycles. You have the basic 35mm Dolby SR inventory being produced and then some Dolby Digital prints. When the DTS Laserdisc was released that opened a good opportunity to beef up the 5.1 track. The movie has been on DVD in Dolby Digital only and then DD/DTS in the 2-disc SE DVD. I wonder if the mix will be altered whenever the Blu-ray version is released.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic