Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mark antony

Jeff, I'm not sure if this a phenomenon to Warner, but when they have a Dolby Stereo film that they have chosen not to remix for 5.1/elements unavailable etc they seem to be presenting it in 2.0.

This is all well and good but wouldn't the optimum presentation be 4.0 with them decoding the matrixed Dolby 2 channel into discreet 4.0/4.1 direct from the master elements, rather than the user at home doing it, if they even have the correct equipment to do so?

I noticed it on Falling Down and now Clash of the Titan's, I assume there are others, any idea's why they wouldn't go down the discrete 4.0 route?

M

As DaViD says, your equipment can do the job just as well as the studio can, and the masters are usually RtLt Dolby Stereo anyway. "Fake" 5.1 was from the early days of DVD where people would think it was a selling point, just as fake 7.1 is today.

PS: it's always discrete when talking about sound channels.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

But it's not really better to have the studio "process" a 2.0 mix for you with their equipment. That would be like a studio taking a 480 image and upscaling it to 1080p for you... better to use your own gear as you may actually have a better scaler than what they had in the studio at the time.

First of all... I'd like to say KUDOS to WB for providing "lossless" audio for titles with 2.0 audio. I remember a time when they'd ignore them because they were only 2.0. Kudos to Eagle Vision Media for apparently offering 2.0 "lossless" on the upcoming release of "Blood Ties: The Complete Series" as well. I'd rather have a 2.0 release than a fake surround mix as well, but I'm going to disagree with you about the picture.

While most all AVRs out there do a decent job of matrixing surround sound, but there are a lot of us out there with upconverting equipment far inferior than what the studios have. My PS3 is great and all, BUT I just don't see it matching what the studios can do.

~Alan

[Jeff Kleist]

If I want that feature, I'll typically put on S-Stereo, which dumps the FL channel into the left surround. Usually only use that for stereo PCM tracks on concerts though. otherwise, just leave it in the front

[Mr_Bester]

This shouldn't be a when is this available, but are movies like Being John Malkovich and In Bruges ever likely to get a blu release?

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

As DaViD says, your equipment can do the job just as well as the stuido can, and the masters are usually RtLt Dolby Stereo anyway. "Fake" 5.1 was from the early days of DVD where people would think it was a selling point, just as fake 7.1 is today.

PS: it's always discrete when talking about sound channels.

I'm surprised that studio mixing/mastering equipment is no better than even my Krell processor, but I guess it's horses for courses...there was a time when a 3.0 or 4.0 mix was seen as a cut above matrixed surround, but obv not any more.

As for the "discrete", i'm amazed you noticed, I didn't!

M

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by mark antony

I'm surprised that studio mixing/mastering equipment is no better than even my Krell processor, but I guess it's horses for courses...there was a time when a 3.0 or 4.0 mix was seen as a cut above matrixed surround, but obv not any more.

M

Basic ProLogic decoding is a very simple task: L - R = surrounds (what's 180 degress out of phase between the L/R), and L + R = center (what's mono). Your Krell is more than adequate although some audiophiles feel that the best sounding ProLogic decoder ever made was the Proceed model with performed the decoding entirely in the analog domain (just food for thought).

Where surround decoding from 2.0 matrixed signals gets fancy is with processors that add other types of steering logic like ProLogic II or all the various options on a Lexicon processor etc. to get stereo surround etc, but that's not necessarily the way that the tracks were intended to be decoded especially if they were mastered in the 80s so it wouldn't be "right" to pick one of those out of the pack and use it to process a multitrack soundtrack for the blu-ray. The other problem is that using the bare-bones ProLogic processing would then lock the listener into that simplistic soundscape and prevent them from having used a more sophisticated surround decoding strategy on their own if that had been their preference. Since there are many flavors of decoding options for 2.0 matrixed signals, it's best to leave the decoding in your hands and not the studio's as your opinion on the best sounding decoding strategy may differ.

BTW, no one is saying that a *source* 3.0 or 4.0 mix wouldn't be better than a 2.0 matrixed one... but that only has meaning when there exist the original L,C,R,Rear stems etc. so that can be provided from the original sound elements. If all that exists today is the 2.0 downmix master, then it's now just a decision of where the surround processing should take place... at the studio or in your listening room. Given that it's better to have more options to suit the listener's taste and since there's no real gain in quality to having the studio use their gear over yours, leaving it in your hands makes the most sense.

[Jeff Kleist]

This shouldn't be a when is this available, but are movies like Being John Malkovich and In Bruges ever likely to get a blu release?

These are a bit arthousey, Uni seems to be sticking mostly to meat and potatoes for the forseeable future. If they didn't put it out with Wild Things, then it's going to be awhile. I'd look for ar egion free European release to come far in advance

[NL197]

Jeff,

I just spent the last few weeks getting reacquainted with someone I never really appreciated until now - Buffy Summers. Having watched her offbeat adventures from beginning to end gave me a new appreciation and respect for her series.

Aside from the occasional comments here about the unlikelihood of a Blu-ray release and all that tech talk, I'm curious about one thing - how do you feel about the show now?

I ask this because you once had that "High Priest O' Joss" moniker, and I wondered if you still had such as strong connection to the show (both shows, really) now as you did then.

Not looking to go into a 5 page discussion (unless that's what people want to do) but I just wanted to know.

[Jeff Kleist]

Like every god, all of his works are perfect, some are just more perfect than others. Parts of Buffy haven't aged as well, overall Angel is probably the better show in that aspect because it's less locked into an era.

And once had? Do you know what I had to go through to get that and achieve my lord's blessing?

I have a photo of me with Joss, with my pope hat on. No, I won't post it here, but there are plenty of people who have seen it.

There's actually a producer that's done multiple $300 million+ domestic blockbusters who asked me how he could get his own High Priest We met because of our mutual love of Buffy and the real Battlestar.

[NL197]

Photo with the man himself. Very cool.

See, I had always resisted Buffy out of spite in a way, since I'd never hear or see the end of the constant comparisons of both shows, with Buffy always coming out on top simply because it came first, so ANGEL would always be less than. Since ANGEL was and is my all-time favorite, naturally I'd have resistance to that whole thing.

Watching it recently gave me a new appreciation for the slayer herself, ironically the one character I never actually cared for until now.

I don't really consider how well a show has aged, because to me that's a part of the appeal - capturing that timeframe and making me all nostalgic for it.

[Mr. Cinema]

Jeff,

I remember you had some multi-disc Elite cases that were broken several months ago. This ebay seller has quite a selection of cases. I just ordered a pack of 10 single disc Elite cases.

He does carry the Vortex brand that Sony and Disney use and has 4,5, and 6 disc cases. http://stores.ebay.com/Casetopia__W0QQ_fsubZ1550901015

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

We met because of our mutual love of Buffy and the real Battlestar.

Really?! I thought you hated the remake?!

Seriously though... you've made your feelings known about BSG... feelings I quite disagree with. You've made your feelings known about SGU... feelings I am mostly in agreement with.

HOWEVER, I'm once again appalled by your views on SG:A. Back when it was on side by side with SG1, I was always more excited by the prospect of SG:A than SG1.

~Alan

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Basic ProLogic decoding is a very simple task: L - R = surrounds (what's 180 degress out of phase between the L/R), and L + R = center (what's mono). Your Krell is more than adequate although some audiophiles feel that the best sounding ProLogic decoder ever made was the Proceed model with performed the decoding entirely in the analog domain (just food for thought).

Just a bit of additional info: the dialogue channel and surround channels are mixed -3dB down (lower level, about half the power) so that's a big reason why people complain in non Pro-Logic setups it's difficult to hear the dialogue. So it's always handy to listen to even the lowliest of Dolby Surround tracks with a center channel because the decoder boosts the center channel back to the proper level.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Just a bit of additional info: the dialogue channel and surround channels are mixed -3dB down (lower level, about half the power) so that's a big reason why people complain in non Pro-Logic setups it's difficult to hear the dialogue. So it's always handy to listen to even the lowliest of Dolby Surround tracks with a center channel because the decoder boosts the center channel back to the proper level.

But what do the "purists" have to say about that?!

~Alan

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

But what do the "purists" have to say about that?!

~Alan

Why would the "purists" have a problem with that, though? Dolby soundtracks were designed to be played back in surround sound. Yes, they are encoded as 2-channel, but are designed to be decoded to 4-channel in playback. I recall reading a review of the CREEPSHOW Blu-ray that said there was "no surround delineation" or something to that effect. Yes, if you play it back in 2-channel, but run it through a Pro-Logic decoder and there's some nice ambient surround sound there, as there always was and was always intended to be.

Vincent

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Just a bit of additional info: the dialogue channel and surround channels are mixed -3dB down (lower level, about half the power) so that's a big reason why people complain in non Pro-Logic setups it's difficult to hear the dialogue. So it's always handy to listen to even the lowliest of Dolby Surround tracks with a center channel because the decoder boosts the center channel back to the proper level.

I wondered about that sort of thing. I found the "Silly Song" on the Platinum DVD edition of Snow White to bring out the instruments much better than the new Blu-ray edition IMHO when I listen in (mere) stereo on my Snell B minors. I never had the cash to upgrade to 5.1, so I wondered if it was my failure to decode 5.1 or a new mix.

Thanks!

[Jeff Kleist]

I remember you had some multi-disc Elite cases that were broken several months ago. This ebay seller has quite a selection of cases. I just ordered a pack of 10 single disc Elite cases.

I found my own solution to the problem, but thanks for linking anyway

HOWEVER, I'm once again appalled by your views on SG:A. Back when it was on side by side with SG1, I was always more excited by the prospect of SG:A than SG1.

Typically when a Sci-Fi show is on iits last legs and dying they go for space vampires. SG:A had space vampires in the very first episode and assigned them the villain hotseat. Their cast was boring, Rodney was the only one that was ever developed, except the doctor, which they did begrudginly. Ronan was 7 of 9'd in as beefcake, but at least had a good backstory and occasional good episodes. Teyla was the one they should have axed, she was boring from the very first episode, you can just swap virtually any line she has with Teal'c with a few proper noun changes. I would rather see him in a dress delivering the lines any day over her. The big problem is that all their writers were burned out after 12 seasons. And a bunch of them are STILL burned out, even with a drastically different show to write for. Atlantis was simply milquetoast.

[NL197]

This is why I'm glad I ended my interest in StarGate with the 1994 film. No need to go beyond that "The End" card before the credits rolled.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

But what do the "purists" have to say about that?!

~Alan

They're meant to be boosted back up, it's the Dolby spec. Just as there is a rolloff @7kHz in the surround channels.

It continues to this day too in other formats: the .1 LFE channel in 5.1 mixes are recorded -10dB down.

[Jeff Kleist]

Video from Oprah of giving Roger Ebert his voice back

Warning-Due to his jaw removal, he looks...weird, but it's great to potentially get him back in the game recording some commentaries

http://videogum.com/148961/roger-ebe...oice-back/yay/