IMAX Enhanced

[KMFDMvsEnya]

I have the corrected DTS DVD version.

Years ago a friend and I actually did direct comparisons of the LD DTS, DVD DTS, and the BR DTSMA on their calibrated system and we both were not impressed with the LD DTS mix.
The corrected DVD DTS version was the better version of the three.

If someone has the DTS CDs from the theatrical release to do a waveform and dynamic range stats comparison of the LD DTS that would be most illuminating and would put to rest the debate on the merits of the LD.

That said in my subjective opinion the LD DTS mix sounds like rubbish and the DVD DTS is the better version.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

I have the corrected DTS DVD version.

Years ago a friend and I actually did direct comparisons of the LD DTS, DVD DTS, and the BR DTSMA on their calibrated system and we both were not impressed with the LD DTS mix.
The corrected DVD DTS version was the better version of the three.

If someone has the DTS CDs from the theatrical release to do a waveform and dynamic range stats comparison of the LD DTS that would be most illuminating and would put to rest the debate on the merits of the LD.

That said in my subjective opinion the LD DTS mix sounds like rubbish and the DVD DTS is the better version.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I had the DTS LD of JP, the initial DTS DVD and the corrected DVD version. The LD sound was preferred, it was indeed louder and lessed compressed, I believe the DVD had an accompanying Dolby Digital soundtrack, so it required more compression.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

If someone has the DTS CDs from the theatrical release to do a waveform and dynamic range stats comparison of the LD DTS that would be most illuminating and would put to rest the debate on the merits of the LD.

Even then, it wouldn't work very well since theatrical DTS (lossy compressed) encoded the LFE to the surrounds (5.0) - so the surrounds on playback had all low-frequency information filtered off to the sub, so the surrounds on the home version from the discrete 5.1 master will be different no matter what.

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I had the DTS LD of JP, the initial DTS DVD and the corrected DVD version. The LD sound was preferred, it was indeed louder and lessed compressed, I believe the DVD had an accompanying Dolby Digital soundtrack, so it required more compression.

768kbps total DVD vs 240kbps per channel LD

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

I loved the theatrical mixes on DTS LD's. Remember, we were getting this in the home when the vast majority were watching analog VHS. Remember the DTS intro on the LD before the movie came started.

Actually that intro trailer was terrible - it was literally nails-on-the-chalkboard shrieking noises. The very thing vinyl enthusiasts complain about digital.
The later DTS piano intro was a million times better.

The first Dolby Stereo Digital intro was amazing, I first saw it with Under Siege (Batman Returns did not have the logo).

https://youtu.be/pWcc96o_Vck

The second logo, "City" wasn't so great. Loud and obnoxious in comparison to Train.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

10dB TOO HIGH in the LFE (100x power) and 3dB too high in the surrounds (10x power).

It's not "neutered". It's CORRECT on the BD.

Just a note, 10dBs requires 10x the power in output and 3dBs 2x the power

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Just a note, 10dBs requires 10x the power in output and 3dBs 2x the power

Yep, my old age with numbers for decibels, bitrates, noise floors, delays, high/low pass gets scrambled a "bit" so to speak.

Still, even 10 times the level it's supposed to be is a helluva lot.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Even then, it wouldn't work very well since theatrical DTS (lossy compressed) encoded the LFE to the surrounds (5.0) - so the surrounds on playback had all low-frequency information filtered off to the sub, so the surrounds on the home version from the discrete 5.1 master will be different no matter what.

768kbps total DVD vs 240kbps per channel LD

That's wrong sir. The LD DTS ran at a higher bit rate than it did on the DVD, with the exception of the DTS-only DVDs. DTS LD were around 1400Kbps. Most of the DVD were like 768 kbps. I still have few DVD's with DTS, they also have the Dolby Digital soundtrack.

You're missing the point, among the HT Enthusiasts, the DTS LD sound was preferred. All you have to do is Google DTS LD vs DVD DTS sound and you will find that the sound of the DTS LD's was preferred.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Actually that intro trailer was terrible - it was literally nails-on-the-chalkboard shrieking noises. The very thing vinyl enthusiasts complain about digital.
The later DTS piano intro was a million times better.

The first Dolby Stereo Digital intro was amazing, I first saw it with Under Siege (Batman Returns did not have the logo).

https://youtu.be/pWcc96o_Vck

The second logo, "City" wasn't so great. Loud and obnoxious in comparison to Train.

We can poll the enthusiast here, the DTS intro on the LD was more impactful than the Dolby intro.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

That's wrong sir. The LD DTS ran at a higher bit rate than it did on the DVD, with the exception of the DTS-only DVDs.

You need to read a "bit" more carefully - I quoted the total bitrate for DTS DVD versus the per channel bitrate of DTS LD.

You're missing the point, among the HT Enthusiasts, the DTS LD sound was preferred. All you have to do is Google DTS LD vs DVD DTS sound and you will find that the sound of the DTS LD's was preferred.

It was a niche of a niche. There was very little on DTS-LD compared to DTS DVD, even with its tepid studio support on DVD...such as Paramount and Sony/Columbia using it on their double dips of titles as a sales incentive.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yep, my old age with numbers for decibels, bitrates, noise floors, delays, high/low pass gets scrambled a "bit" so to speak.

Logarithms from Mentat mathematics and psychohistory courses. Everything in log, ISO, dBs, F-stops, octaves, resolution (example 1.125%x increase to see = 1.26x horizontal/vertical = "1dB")

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Still, even 10 times the level it's supposed to be is a helluva lot.

Double the loudness. If you were using 500 watts in the LFE normally, 5000 watts then for 10db more.

I think it was 20dB above reference (85 + 20 = 105) for the main channels and +10 for the LFE = 115dB. 10 more is 125dB for the LFE

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You need to read a "bit" more carefully - I quoted the total bitrate for DTS DVD versus the per channel bitrate of DTS LD.

It was a niche of a niche. There was very little on DTS-LD compared to DTS DVD, even with its tepid studio support on DVD...such as Paramount and Sony/Columbia using it on their double dips of titles as a sales incentive.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Here is a quote from a fellow member and enthusiast, Saprano:

Alot of people prefer LD because they used the theatrical mix for them. Jurassic Park on LD i've heard sounds way better than the bluray version. The bluray is a completely different mix. The LD has better dynamics too. This is coming from people who heard both. The scene with the lamb's body falling of top of car sounds weak on bluray compared to the LD.

I imagine this must be true for alot of bluray releases. We hardly get the original theatrical mix. It's a new altered mix.

I would to hear LD version of movies like

Casper
Alien
Titanic
DieHard series
Jurassic Park

And many more of the action movies from the 80's and 90's.

If you ask enthusiasts familiar with both mediums, DTS LD vs DVD, the DTS LD will be preferred over the DVD and sometimes the blu ray. Saprano post is a consensus among enthusiasts. As I said, all you have to do is Google it. Also, folks are educated on why they prefer the DTS because it was louder. Loudness is preferred, especially for big-budget action and sci-fi movies.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Also, folks are educated on why they prefer the DTS because it was louder. Loudness is preferred, especially for big-budget action and sci-fi movies.

"Because it's louder" is the exact opposite of an educated opinion.

It's a volume knob/level change.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Even then, it wouldn't work very well since theatrical DTS (lossy compressed) encoded the LFE to the surrounds (5.0) - so the surrounds on playback had all low-frequency information filtered off to the sub, so the surrounds on the home version from the discrete 5.1 master will be different no matter what.

768kbps total DVD vs 240kbps per channel LD

That is what I have been reading on the matter today.
The DTS CDs have the LFE mixed into the surrounds and the hardware decoder filtered the sub 80hz content into the LFE.

Whereas in certain cases supposedly the Dolby 5.1 had much of the bass content steered into the main channels and the rest for the LFE.

Reading some older threads in several forums I am not alone in observing issues with the levels in the LD DTS track. Opinions were divided even then though about preferences.

Even though the fan preservation, from years ago, of the DTS CDs seems to have been released with a 35mm fan scan I have not seen anyone provide any concrete evidence that the LD DTS version is similar or equal to the original theatrical DTS CDs.

If I found just the DTS CD and DTS LD tracks I would check them out in Audition. Although there will be difference because someone had converted the DTS 5.0 track into a 5.1 track.

So the LD DTS of JP could potentially be exactly the theatrical mix but thus far there is nothing that definitively proves that.

I am not disputing that some other DTS LD titles may have been the "original" theatrical DTS mix but there was evidence back in the day that some initial titles cooked the levels to sound "Better, Crisper, More Explodey!!!" to seem better than Dolby.

Cranking the levels trick happened with DVD as well, exact same mix used for both Dolby and DTS but the levels were increased on the DTS version to sound "better". Yet in reality the only difference was the track levels, the actual mix was the same and if the playback chain was level matched then there were was no longer much benefit with the DTS version. Especially if it was 768kbps version versus even the common 448kbps for Dolby.

///
LOUDER does not necessarily equate to better dynamic range, it can be quite the opposite. The hotter the mix the more dynamic range compression must be used otherwise it will lead to plenty of hard clipping digital distortion.

[Deciazulado]

Louder usually sounds "better" in initial perception, more bass more treble (because loudness compensation) if it doesn't hurt. Kind of brighter for TVs. More juice for the nerves to fire.

Loudness is tricky, I'm sure not everyone plays discs at references levels (speaker capabilities, watts, neighbors) (If I played "Voice" at theater levels, my neighbors might think God was calling). One useful thing in receivers back in the day was the "loudness" button, you could play the Stones, Led and Beatles at chamber music levels and still feel the bass. Having for example the LFE 10dbs louder can work like that even if your receiver didn't have loudness compensation. In theaters you would have the sound at reference levels (hopefully). (Every Timecop jumped, the almost 2 story high bass speaker behind the screen would blow a fuse and I would go and put a new one in before the next jump when we projected that.)

Many audiophiles and receivers play w/o the loudness compensation, but then the sound will be perceived different if it's not played at the same level it was mixed in.

[Canada]

IMAX Enhanced: IMAX comes home

IMAX, as most people experience it, is a high quality movie format used in specialized theaters worldwide. But its history, and development, is complicated. I'll provide only the Cliff Notes version here, as our primary subject is a relatively new home theater format that trades on the IMAX name.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

I usually reserve these for a specific title thread but perhaps it will be helpful for this particular discussion.

Jurassic Park Waveforms and Dynamic Range Stats from Audition of the following tracks:

2D BR DTSMA
3D BR DTSMA
4K UHD DTS:X
DVD DTS

https://imgur.com/a/BBvGmEr

Waveforms:

[Show spoiler]
Jurassic Park 2D Blu-ray DTSMA


Jurassic Park 3D Blu-ray DTSMA


Jurassic Park 4K UHD DTS:X


Jurassic Park DVD DTS

Dynamic Range Stats:

[Show spoiler]

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Louder usually sounds "better" in initial perception, more bass more treble (because loudness compensation) if it doesn't hurt. Kind of brighter for TVs. More juice for the nerves to fire.

Loudness is tricky, I'm sure not everyone plays discs at references levels (speaker capabilities, watts, neighbors) (If I played "Voice" at theater levels, my neighbors might think God was calling). One useful thing in receivers back in the day was the "loudness" button, you could play the Stones, Led and Beatles at chamber music levels and still feel the bass. Having for example the LFE 10dbs louder can work like that even if your receiver didn't have loudness compensation. In theaters you would have the sound at reference levels (hopefully). (Every Timecop jumped, the almost 2 story high bass speaker behind the screen would blow a fuse and I would go and put a new one in before the next jump when we projected that.)

Many audiophiles and receivers play w/o the loudness compensation, but then the sound will be perceived different if it's not played at the same level it was mixed in.

One thing recording studios and music producers learned is that loudness is perceived as better and is preferred. Damn, that's why the music is so loud today with all that compression.

[lgans316]

IMAX enhanced streams on D+ looks excellent even on my 77A80J. Reality creation is doing a bit of.magic to boost motion sharpness. This has now reached a point where there is no need to play the disc. Sucks to say but it's way too good. The immersion and HDR impact is even better on the 77 over my 65.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Actually that intro trailer was terrible - it was literally nails-on-the-chalkboard shrieking noises. The very thing vinyl enthusiasts complain about digital.
The later DTS piano intro was a million times better.

The first Dolby Stereo Digital intro was amazing, I first saw it with Under Siege (Batman Returns did not have the logo).

https://youtu.be/pWcc96o_Vck

The second logo, "City" wasn't so great. Loud and obnoxious in comparison to Train.

I have a CD that I've bought directly from The Dolby Store on their website years ago, that have all of their Dolby Digital trailers on it. I don't think they sell them anymore.

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by lgans316

IMAX enhanced streams on D+ looks excellent even on my 77A80J. Reality creation is doing a bit of.magic to boost motion sharpness. This has now reached a point where there is no need to play the disc. Sucks to say but it's way too good. The immersion and HDR impact is even better on the 77 over my 65.

I thought most people turn off image processing features on their TVs.