Laserdisc vs. DVD, 4U..wich sounds better?

[albacora14]

I notice that LD has a superior sound, I have a several titles in both formats, mostly LD have THX certified, same DVD's titles doesn't support it..
In fact the same titles DVD's with DTS and remastered, doesn't sound equal to a common LD title just with normal DD 5.1...

[N. Abstentia]

If I remember back correctly, laserdisc audio is uncompressed analong and they do sound quite good actually.

However arging about which one is 'better' is rather useless..it's kinda like the vinyl vs. CD argument. I still have about 50 laserdiscs left which I will be keeping because they are mainly cartoons and concerts that are not on DVD. I have since converted them to DVD and packed the laserdiscs away. They are too much of a pain to store and handle now.

[kexodusc]

Weird...I thought just the opposite. I don't know much about the format, but my LD's don't sound anywhere near as good as those same titles on DVD. DTS smokes them IMO...
Could be the studio work, not the format?
I've only got 11 laserdiscs, figure I'll keep those with my 8-tracks. Someday, some audio/video-phile will appreciate the humour in them.

[edtyct]

Laserdiscs bridged a couple of gaps. They started out as analog mono or stereo, ventured into analog matrixed or Dolby surround, and ended up at what was then called Dolby Digital Surround AC3 before their demise. The analog tracks could go from criminal to wonderful, but the matrixed surrounds always had definite limitations in the center and surround channels, which people were able to overlook because of the wonders of enveloping sound. When AC-3 entered the picture, with its digitally processed channels, it quickly became all the rage. The soundtracks were still in Dolby stereo surround, but they were clean like never before. (My original version of this post anachronistically erroneously implied that the original AC3 had five discrete channels.) Unlike the audio, however, laserdisc was always analog video.

I still have some LD titles in good condition. If anyone is still spinning them and wants some more, give me a holler. Those were the days, inevitably gone but still missed. LDs were not mass-market items. They were a medium for enthusiasts only. Without them, however, the idea of cramming extra content into every DVD, worthy or not, would never have happened.

Ed

[albacora14]

I think that the digital stereo tracks are far superior, but the problem was the post process sound using the receiver or AV processor with a matrixed steering logic sound, the quality was on the front channels, including the center (except for the crosstalking) and the poor mono 400hz-7khz freq. response on surround.

When the AC-3 or DD 5.1, comes in 1995, yes 20-20hz, the sound was compressed too, but was sonically superior to DVD's as mentioned. I think the sample rate was around 380 kb pers sec. on 5.1.

I have somes titles and compared in both formats like:
Top Gun DTS
Seven DTS
Hunt for red october DTS
Stargate DTS (what a deep deception on DVD)
Clear and present Danger DTS
Apocalypse now
Mission Impossible
True Lies
etc

But there is i too much trouble to store and handle those, like vinyl vs cd.
I hope that Blue ray Disc, will hold a better sound... or not?

Laserdiscs bridged a couple of gaps. They started out as analog mono or stereo, ventured into analog matrixed or Dolby surround, and ended up at what was then called Dolby Digital Surround AC3 before their demise. The analog tracks could go from criminal to wonderful, but the matrixed surrounds always had definite limitations in the center and surround channels, which people were able to overlook because of the wonders of enveloping sound. When AC-3 entered the picture, with its digitally processed channels, it quickly became all the rage. The soundtracks were still in Dolby stereo surround, but they were clean like never before. (My original version of this post anachronistically erroneously implied that the original AC3 had five discrete channels.) Unlike the audio, however, laserdisc was always analog video.

I still have some LD titles in good condition. If anyone is still spinning them and wants some more, give me a holler. Those were the days, inevitably gone but still missed. LDs were not mass-market items. They were a medium for enthusiasts only. Without them, however, the idea of cramming extra content into every DVD, worthy or not, would never have happened.

Ed

[edtyct]

That's pretty much the way it was. See the recent threads about the new formats that DD and DTS are offering to accompany hi def DVD. The audio future looks rosy.

Ed

[bfalls]

I've a had Pioneer DLV-700 LD/DVD/CD combiplayer for many yearsand had several AC3/DD titles which played through a Yamaha ADP-1 to my Yamaha RX-V2095 receiver. To me the sound depended on the title. One of my favorite titles "The Hunt for Red October" sounded great on LD, but was terrible on the first DVD version I purchased. They came out with a better version years later which sounded much better. In general I prefer DVD sound and feel DTS has improved substantially over the past five years.

[albacora14]

As you... a have 2 versions on LD of the Hunt for red October and 2 more on DVD, I preffer the DTS version too, but it's not superior from the LD AC3/THX/LBTX 2.35:1

Do you checked it the DTS ES ultimate version from Stargate on DVD, as I mentioned it was so a deception, make tha AB comparison. with the LD AC3/THX/LBTX 2.35:1, it's the movie only edition, but are far superior.

We finally come to the digital era where the audio quality is sacrifing to give to place to the functionality and practitioner media
Like the friends members said... maybe it's the studio release

Blue ray it's around the corner perhaps will carry... DTS 6.1 with 1.2Mbps/Sec...!!!!!

I've a had Pioneer DLV-700 LD/DVD/CD combiplayer for many yearsand had several AC3/DD titles which played through a Yamaha ADP-1 to my Yamaha RX-V2095 receiver. To me the sound depended on the title. One of my favorite titles "The Hunt for Red October" sounded great on LD, but was terrible on the first DVD version I purchased. They came out with a better version years later which sounded much better. In general I prefer DVD sound and feel DTS has improved substantially over the past five years.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think that the digital stereo tracks are far superior, but the problem was the post process sound using the receiver or AV processor with a matrixed steering logic sound, the quality was on the front channels, including the center (except for the crosstalking) and the poor mono 400hz-7khz freq. response on surround.

When the AC-3 or DD 5.1, comes in 1995, yes 20-20hz, the sound was compressed too, but was sonically superior to DVD's as mentioned. I think the sample rate was around 380 kb pers sec. on 5.1.

I have somes titles and compared in both formats like:
Top Gun DTS
Seven DTS
Hunt for red october DTS
Stargate DTS (what a deep deception on DVD)
Clear and present Danger DTS
Apocalypse now
Mission Impossible
True Lies
etc

But there is i too much trouble to store and handle those, like vinyl vs cd.
I hope that Blue ray Disc, will hold a better sound... or not?

It would be completely unfair to do any comparison between LD and Dts without ground notes on how they were mixed and encoded. All LD versions of Dts on LD are encoded at full bit rate. Mostly all DVD's are encoded at half bit rate, with sometimes a higher bit rate, and always a higher sample rate. Some titles like seven have been completely remixed on DVD to 6.1 discrete. You have some disc with the same mix encoded at different bitrates and sample rates. All Dts LD's have a 3db higher surround levels than Dts DVD surrounds. Almost all DD soundtracks on LD are encoded at 384kbps, while most on DVD are 448kbps(except Warners DVD;s)

Dts on LD is encoded at 1235kbps. Full bitrate on DVD is 1509kbps. The sample rate, and often the bit rate resolution is higher on DVD than LD. In high profile releases Dts DVD can pass 24bits, and DVD in general is sampled at 48khz. This give DVD the advantage of having a lower noise floor than LD, and slightly more high end extension in the treble(not muich though)

I think there are too many variables to do an accurate comparison unless these variables can be matched for both sources.

[albacora14]

Terrence, I only compared DTS-DVD against DD-LD (not DTS-LD), regardless the high bitrate, sample rate of a DTS DVD, a DD-LD sounds better, even with the 380 kbs.
In terms of DVD DTS how are mixed and encoded, they still have not the LD sonic quality.

Some DVD DD titles sounds too poor on the center channel, like the audio of a mpeg miniclip video. Although Dolby uses a several filters process to reduce the noise and distorsions on AC-3 laserdiscs, this poor dialogue channel it's not present, it sounds very good.

Perhaps, the audio engineers left the high EQ curve designed for the movie theaters, as well for the AC3 LD transfer without toching it.

I always waited for the DTS sound on both formats (and CD's) since 1996, and read all the critics to Gary Reber and David del Grosso in defense from that format, for that days. I knew that Digital Theater Systems format will hit later.

It would be completely unfair to do any comparison between LD and Dts without ground notes on how they were mixed and encoded. All LD versions of Dts on LD are encoded at full bit rate. Mostly all DVD's are encoded at half bit rate, with sometimes a higher bit rate, and always a higher sample rate. Some titles like seven have been completely remixed on DVD to 6.1 discrete. You have some disc with the same mix encoded at different bitrates and sample rates. All Dts LD's have a 3db higher surround levels than Dts DVD surrounds. Almost all DD soundtracks on LD are encoded at 384kbps, while most on DVD are 448kbps(except Warners DVD;s)

Dts on LD is encoded at 1235kbps. Full bitrate on DVD is 1509kbps. The sample rate, and often the bit rate resolution is higher on DVD than LD. In high profile releases Dts DVD can pass 24bits, and DVD in general is sampled at 48khz. This give DVD the advantage of having a lower noise floor than LD, and slightly more high end extension in the treble(not muich though)

I think there are too many variables to do an accurate comparison unless these variables can be matched for both sources.