Blu Ray Audio ?

Hey guys. Can someone on here help a newbie out? I was at Best Buy today shopping for my first set of Blu-Ray titles, and I was curious about all of the different audio formats for the format. For example, DD5.1 and DTS were obviously different on DVD, and people had their favorites, with many people favoring a DTS soundtrack for it's more crisp and clear sound on many titles.

On Blu-Ray, I noticed Dolby True HD, Dolby Digital Plus, 5.1 Uncompressed, DTS-HD, and even basic DD5.1.

Which ones are regarded as the best, and what is the difference, if any, between any of them. I saw a lot fo Warner Bros. titles that just offered 5.1, with no Dolby True HD or DDPlus labels. Does this mean you get a hi-def pic with standard audio, or is it better since it's encoded on a Blul-Ray? I remember seeing it in on "The Last Samurai" specifically, as well as a few others.

Then, "Bullitt" only offered a 2.0 soundtrack on a Blu-Ray. Is it any good? I remember hearing some people write about the PQ and that it was sub-par or something, but my main questions revolve around all of the audio formats.

THANKS GUYS!!

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/tech_overview.html

http://www.dts.com/Technology/At_A_Glance.aspx

Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus (high-bit-rate Dolby Digital), and DTS are compressed audio codecs. They are missing select bits of information that supposedly the ear fills in. They are called "lossy" audio codecs.

Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio, and uncompressed PCM are lossless audio codecs, which are supposed reproduce a film's soundtrack exactly as it was originally recorded. In theory, the same soundtrack reproduced in each of these codecs should sound exactly the same (although you'll still get arguments here from adherents of each format).

If a movie's soundtrack was originally in monaural, that's the way studios usually reproduce it on a Blu-ray disc, although good mono could still require a lossless codec to do it justice.

Some films originally released in mono their studios have remixed for stereo or even multichannel playback, just as studios have remixed for 5.1 playback some films originally released in two-channel stereo. Whether this makes them better or not is up to the listener to determine.

John

---

[Post edited by John J. Puccio on Nov 28, 2008 - CST 7:17 PM]

Eddie and John...thanks for the websites and information. That basically cleared it up for me!

I'm assuming that even sone Blu Ray discs have plain old 5.1 Dolby Digital. Have you reviewed any Blu Ray discs with 5.1 DD, rather than say, Dolby True HD or DTS-HD MA?

Thanks again guys!

-Dave

Many of the Warner BDs, for example, feature soundtracks in regular DD 5.1, but mastered at a higher bit rate than what's on standard DVD, so the audio fidelity is improved, and are equivalent to HD DVD's DD Plus 5.1 soundtracks (as a comparison). The best audio is the "HD" codecs, such as DTS Master Audio, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM, but you need a very good surround sound amp and speaker set-up to take advantage of these superior audio soundtracks.

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

"...you need a very good surround sound amp and speaker set-up to take advantage of these superior audio soundtracks." --Joe

That is no doubt true, but only to an extent. My surround-sound system, though 7.1 and using an Onkyo 705 receiver, is pretty much mid-fi in terms of pricing. Yet even if I had only two mid-fi speakers and was listening in two-channel stereo, I think I could tell the difference between regular Dolby Digital and, say, TrueHD because in my experience the lossless formats usually have the smoother overall feel to them (less bright and edgy), with sometimes a touch more dynamic impact.

John

Warnsies is a bunch cheap yahoos!!! You will find that a lot of their stuff is like that. Given granted they do have one of the biggest libraries too. unfortunately not even some of their "so called Big titles" even recieve extra treatment in the sound column. I'm glad you mentioned "Bullit". I bough this on HD DVD, and it is the exact same presentation on Blu-Ray. The picture quality does improve drastically from the original VHS, or DVD copy that you are used too. However, with a 40 year old soundtrack it is however unlikely to create a 5.1 that works. Don't get me wrong the technology exists, but a what cost measure is it worth the Warner to actually spend money. You will also notice that FOX, doesn not do a lot of special things with Blu-Ray as well. Most of their stuff, you will not doubtly see on single layer BD's. They come in second with the cheap short comings on Blu. Fox and Warner are about the two that you have to keep an Eye on. The rest, are all pretty good or great. Paramount, Dreamworks(will), Universal have great features and great sound for all of their titles. They carried over the same mentality after HD DVD. Sony, MGM(similar to warner), Lionsgate, and Disney are on board with great features, and sound details as well. It is a buyer beware industry. Your best chances are all the newer titles will give what you want. For this a lot of my older titles still remain on DVD. My upscaled DVD's look as good as the new Blu/HD DVD version. Even Bullit. I should have stuck with DVD. That is only my opinion.

Hey Reaggie... well, as regards to Universal & Paramount, it's not "ALL" of their titles, as seen in the recent review by Dean of Universal's "Jarhead" on Blu-ray, which only has a fraction of the HD DVD's special features (something they've done now a few others times when releasing a BD of a title formerly on HD DVD).

Paramount... where are the Special Features for the BD releases of the "Jack Ryan" films? Not included (unlike the DVDs). At least they -did- release a full-featured BD of "Top Gun", whereas the HD-DVD didn't have bonus features.

Then there's the "hatchet job" that Paramount did with the Aug 5, 2008 release (1st time on DVD) of [release]23723[/release] ...which advertised itself as the rarely-seen "Director's Cut" long version of the film (but it's RE-EDITED!). I viewed this film many years ago on cable TV (uncensored), which included several nude/sex scenes with Rosanna Arquette. It was part of the longer version (135 minutes).

Well, Paramount has re-edited the movie without those scenes in their original form, as better described from a post on the IMDB - "This version is basically as near as dammit the same length as the European theatrical version of 137m, which of course featured several nude scenes from Rosanna Arquette. They actually shot two versions of the love scenes at the time, one with Arquette nude, the other with her wearing a blue nightdress. All they have done for this version is use the shorter Euro film version, but cut the nudity and replace with the TV censored versions of the offending scenes.

Certainly the publicity for the film tended to make people believe they were getting the Euro version, and the film isn't that. I think it's safe to say that version will never be seen on DVD now."

This is just one example, and all studios are guilty from time to time of not always providing the best version, audio (or well-known extras), to a new edition in comparison to those from previous releases of a film on VHS, LaserDisc, DVD etc.

P.S. You ought to read some of the viewer comments for "The Executioner's Song" (very angry!) - such as this one...

For many years, I'd been hoping to see "The Executioner's Song" released on DVD. But now that it's finally available, the result is extremely disappointing.

A "director's cut" usually indicates that a movie has had footage ADDED to it. But Lawrence Schiller has done the unimaginable and ripped 50 minutes from his three-hour film! I mean, WHY? Did Schiller actually believe that anyone would be happy to see nearly one-third of "Executioner's Song" hacked away?!

For anyone who is familiar with this movie (either from the VHS version or broadcast viewings), watching Schiller's "director's cut" is a very frustrating experience since none of the many deleted scenes were superfluous to the film!

In addition, the total lack of any extras on this DVD is another big disappointment. I'd have gladly paid more to see a "making of" documentary or interviews with the principal actors (who are all still living 26 years after the production of this movie).

"The Executioner's Song" was one of the very best made-for-TV films of the 1980s and deserved far better than the cheap, hack-job of a DVD release it's gotten. I would advise a search for the VHS version--and then enjoy "The Executioner's Song" as is was meant to be seen. -[END]-

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

---

[Post edited by Love Hendrix! on Nov 29, 2008 - CST 7:11 PM]