Why is only the "best" audio track reviewed?

[krylonman]

The reviews here are generally pretty nicely done, but one thing keeps irking me--only the most elaborate, highest-bitrate soundtrack on a BD release is ever evaluated and described. This makes sense if it's a newer film that has always been at least 5.1 channels, but if a movie was originally mixed in mono, stereo or surround, and the original track is included, it's ignored if there's also a 5.1 lossless/uncompressed remix on the BD.

From the new review of Akira:

The default Japanese language track is presented in Dolby TrueHD 5.1 surround sound. There are also Japanese tracks in Linear PCM 2.0 and Dolby Digital 5.1, but I only spent a brief time with these inferior tracks.

I can understand skipping over the Dolby Digital track, but what about the PCM? It's presumably the movie's original sound mix, and in an unusual move it's even uncompressed, but apparently it's not worth talking about. Same deal with the even newer review of Raging Bull: the movie's original Dolby Surround mix isn't even mentioned, just the 5.1 DTS-HD MA track. I haven't read every single review here, but I can't remember seeing one that did otherwise.

So...what's up with that?

[Sussudio]

my 2 cents: this site obviously reviews bluray movies, and the primary point of bluray's existence is its upgraded video and sound capabilities. therefore, what's going to be reviewed is the best quality sound available. you wouldn't expect new car model reviews to re-analyze features included in previous models but the improvements. if someone wanted a review of the dolby surround, mono, etc etc tracks, they can find it in a dvd review

[krylonman]

Newer and better forms of compression are one thing, but remixing the soundtrack is something else entirely. Whether or not a 5.1 remix of a mono movie is a better option is certainly up to debate, whether or not it has more impressive specs. It would be silly for this review to talk only about the colorized version, so why apply that standard to sound mixes?

You can probably tell by now I'm really into listening to the original mix instead of something that's revamped, whenever that's an option. What bugs me is that with all of the reviews here I've got no way of finding out if something's glitchy or otherwise horrible-sounding with the original soundtrack until I hear it myself.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by krylonman

Newer and better forms of compression are one thing, but remixing the soundtrack is something else entirely. Whether or not a 5.1 remix of a mono movie is a better option is certainly up to debate, whether or not it has more impressive specs. It would be silly for this review to talk only about the colorized version, so why apply that standard to sound mixes?

You can probably tell by now I'm really into listening to the original mix instead of something that's revamped, whenever that's an option. What bugs me is that with all of the reviews here I've got no way of finding out if something's glitchy or otherwise horrible-sounding with the original soundtrack until I hear it myself.

understandable, but as I'm sure you've noticed members here are very good about posting problems they encounter with their blu-rays. you can always search for a certain movie and see if someone has had an issue with it, or if you are concerned about a potential purchase you can post a thread about it and people will almost always respond. there are also a number of other websites that review blu-rays if you wanted to check elsewhere just to read about the audio. since the entire point of reviewing blu-rays is to relay their improvements, it wouldn't make as much sense to talk about something that has already been available and hasn't been improved, save for special features. i'm sure a reviewer will pop in to give a more definitive reason, since that's who your question was directed at in the first place

[krylonman]

Aha. You're right about problems being widely reported, and it does make sense, I suppose, if the only point of these reviews is to note what's new and different.

...But even then I can't help thinking it's an unnecessary omission, since even Dolby Digital "original mix" tracks are usually at a higher bitrate than ever before possible, and might be an improvement.

[jw]

I would let the review team provide an answer to this, each reviewer is different. no sense debating why. There's a common sense reason(because its the best track) but someone wants a better answer

[Ben]

Thanks, Jwbbud...

he's absolutely correct in that we all have differing styles and interests and that we all carry a different perspective on the films we review. In the case of original audio mixes, I would, personally, review that mix as well as a newer surround track, if for no other reason than to gauge the success achieved in creating a surround track from the mono source. AKIRA, on the other hand, features a groundbreaking soundtrack remixed at a ridiculous level of sonic fidelity; clearly that's of interest to BD fans. One would also argue that anyone who has seen AKIRA has probably already heard the original mono audio and would be curious about this new mix. Along those same lines, someone new to AKIRA would probably not be interested in the mono track given the exceptional quality of the new mix.

Naturally, one could also argue that ANY movie released on BD that was filmed prior to, say, 1992, completely omits the original soundtrack in favor of a remixed and more discreet, surround-biased lossless, uncompressed, whatever... but that would be silly.

I can't speak for Dustin, obviously, but I'm sure he had is own reasons as well. It's not a conspiracy or anything.

However, if conspiracy is your bag, be sure to check out JFK on BD.... good stuff. I heard a rumor that Warner removed subliminal backwards-masked audio that reveals the identity of Kennedy's killer from the film's soundtrack and replaced it with low volume recordings of Kelly Clarkson singing the Star Spangled Banner.

[krylonman]

Originally Posted by Ben

Thanks, Jwbbud...

he's absolutely correct in that we all have differing styles and interests and that we all carry a different perspective on the films we review. In the case of original audio mixes, I would, personally, review that mix as well as a newer surround track, if for no other reason than to gauge the success achieved in creating a surround track from the mono source.

Thanks! I couldn't figure out if it was up to the whims of the reviewer or some sort of weird site policy. (It seems to be a big Blu-ray.com thing, as opposed to other HD review sites.)

However, if conspiracy is your bag, be sure to check out JFK on BD.... good stuff. I heard a rumor that Warner removed subliminal backwards-masked audio that reveals the identity of Kennedy's killer from the film's soundtrack and replaced it with low volume recordings of Kelly Clarkson singing the Star Spangled Banner.

YOU HEARD IT TOO??????

[shaft4]

Originally Posted by krylonman

Newer and better forms of compression are one thing, but remixing the soundtrack is something else entirely. Whether or not a 5.1 remix of a mono movie is a better option is certainly up to debate, whether or not it has more impressive specs. It would be silly for this review to talk only about the colorized version, so why apply that standard to sound mixes?

You can probably tell by now I'm really into listening to the original mix instead of something that's revamped, whenever that's an option. What bugs me is that with all of the reviews here I've got no way of finding out if something's glitchy or otherwise horrible-sounding with the original soundtrack until I hear it myself.

I do apologize for not covering the 2 channel PCM mix on Akira in more detail. I did an A/B comparison approximately 10 times during the course of the film, and on my 7.1 setup, there was simply a jaw-dropping difference in the level of quality between the 2 channel mix and the TrueHD mix. I decided to focus on the lossless track because (IMO) it was superior in every way, and the majority of people with capable equipment will prefer the immersion that mix provides.

Having said that, I can appreciate differing tastes, and in many cases, there is something to be said for the original recording (I always at least dig the ability to hear the differences between the original and revamped tracks). In the future, I'll try to cover both tracks (when they are an option), but I also usually don't have the time to watch a film 4 times to test for glitches (some films would be difficult to sit through 4 times in a row to check the audio tracks). I appreciate the feedback on our reviews here, and hope you always feel free to let me know how my reviews could be better.