blu-ray audio questions

[bills]

I have recently been using a program to extract eight WAV audio files from a
DTS Master Audio 7.1ch track on a Blu-ray disc. I also have the option to
extract a Dolby Digital track from the same disc, which I have also been
doing. However, I am running into something that I am wondering about:
fidelity. I'm not hearing any difference in fidelity between the files
extracted from the lossless DTS Master Audio track versus the single Dolby
Digital file. When I view the files before extraction in Nero, it reports
the DTS as "DTS, 2 channel 4000- 5000 kpbs (varies as movie is played) from
DTS Master Audio 8 channel stream" and the Dolby Digital channel as "Dolby
Digital, 2 channels, 192 kbps". Obviously, a big difference in bit rates,
yet when I switch the audio live from DTS to DD, I don't hear a fidelity
difference. Is there an explanation for this?

I am having another issue. I have a VHS original of the movie I am doing
the extraction from above and the fidelity on the higher end (treble) is far
superior on the VHS than the BD. I easily prove this by taking the wav
files from each medium into an audio editor and then seeing a big drop in
higher end frequencies of the tracks from the "lossless" DTS extraction. In
order to get the DTS track to approach the fidelity of the VHS, I have to
double stack two high pass filters of +20 db 10 Khz to even begin to meet
the VHS fidelity. Why is this? Is there some type of audio processing
occurring BEFORE DTS audio is laid down on BD from the original master
tapes? It certainly seems like it to me. Audio, overall, on the BD has
more "punch" than the VHS but seriously lacks higher end in many respects.
At least that's what I'm finding and trying to figure out why.

Thanks in advance for your commentary,
Bill S

[William Sommerwerck]

From one Bill S to another...

> I have recently been using a program to extract eight WAV audio files from
a
> DTS Master Audio 7.1ch track on a Blu-ray disc. I also have the option to
> extract a Dolby Digital track from the same disc, which I have also been
> doing. However, I am running into something that I am wondering about:
> fidelity. I'm not hearing any difference in fidelity between the files
> extracted from the lossless DTS Master Audio track versus the single Dolby
> Digital file. When I view the files before extraction in Nero, it reports
> the DTS as "DTS, 2 channel 4000- 5000 kpbs (varies as movie is played)
from
> DTS Master Audio 8 channel stream" and the Dolby Digital channel as "Dolby
> Digital, 2 channels, 192 kbps". Obviously, a big difference in bit rates,
> yet when I switch the audio live from DTS to DD, I don't hear a fidelity
> difference. Is there an explanation for this?

I'm not sure exactly what you're doing, but (as far as I know) there is no
way to "extract" an uncompressed WAV file from a Blu-ray disk.

DTS Master Audio has two components. One is the compressed DTS signal. The
other is the difference between the expanded compressed signal and the
original uncompressed signal.

To put it another way... DTS Master Audio does not have "a" uncompressed
track. Both the compressed track and the "delta" track must be combined to
recreate the original uncompressed signal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio


> I am having another issue. I have a VHS original of the movie I am doing
> the extraction from above and the fidelity on the higher end (treble) is
far
> superior on the VHS than the BD. I easily prove this by taking the wav
> files from each medium into an audio editor and then seeing a big drop in
> higher end frequencies of the tracks from the "lossless" DTS extraction.
In
> order to get the DTS track to approach the fidelity of the VHS, I have to
> double stack two high pass filters of +20 db 10 Khz to even begin to meet
> the VHS fidelity. Why is this? Is there some type of audio processing
> occurring BEFORE DTS audio is laid down on BD from the original master
> tapes? It certainly seems like it to me. Audio, overall, on the BD has
> more "punch" than the VHS but seriously lacks higher end in many respects.
> At least that's what I'm finding and trying to figure out why.

I don't see what the amount of energy in a given band has to do with the
"fidelity" of the signal -- unless you know what the energy was in the
original recording.

The VHS sound is presumably VHS HiFi. If VHS HiFi uses noise reduction (I
don't remember that it does), there will, at "normal" levels, be more HF
energy if you haven't run the signal through the NR expansion.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, bills > wrote:
>I have recently been using a program to extract eight WAV audio files from a
>DTS Master Audio 7.1ch track on a Blu-ray disc. I also have the option to
>extract a Dolby Digital track from the same disc, which I have also been
>doing. However, I am running into something that I am wondering about:
>fidelity. I'm not hearing any difference in fidelity between the files
>extracted from the lossless DTS Master Audio track versus the single Dolby
>Digital file. When I view the files before extraction in Nero, it reports
>the DTS as "DTS, 2 channel 4000- 5000 kpbs (varies as movie is played) from
>DTS Master Audio 8 channel stream" and the Dolby Digital channel as "Dolby
>Digital, 2 channels, 192 kbps". Obviously, a big difference in bit rates,
>yet when I switch the audio live from DTS to DD, I don't hear a fidelity
>difference. Is there an explanation for this?

Sure, the original track that was encoded didn't have particularly wonderful
fidelity either, so the compression artifacts aren't very noticeable. Or your
monitors aren't wonderful. Or maybe the DTS track had already gone through
an encode/decode cycle somewhere in the chain before encoded as lossless DTS.

I can make a very high quality reproduction of a photograph, or I can put it
in a xerox machine. If the original photo is smeary, one will look as good
as the other.

>I am having another issue. I have a VHS original of the movie I am doing
>the extraction from above and the fidelity on the higher end (treble) is far
>superior on the VHS than the BD. I easily prove this by taking the wav
>files from each medium into an audio editor and then seeing a big drop in
>higher end frequencies of the tracks from the "lossless" DTS extraction. In
>order to get the DTS track to approach the fidelity of the VHS, I have to
>double stack two high pass filters of +20 db 10 Khz to even begin to meet
>the VHS fidelity. Why is this? Is there some type of audio processing
>occurring BEFORE DTS audio is laid down on BD from the original master
>tapes? It certainly seems like it to me. Audio, overall, on the BD has
>more "punch" than the VHS but seriously lacks higher end in many respects.

What makes you think all that high end is accurate anyway? Just because there
is a lot of it doesn't mean it belongs there. It's possible the guy doing the
VHS mastering cranked the high end way up to compensate for people watching
on cheap TV sets.

>At least that's what I'm finding and trying to figure out why.
>
>Thanks in advance for your commentary,

It would be nice if you'd mention what the film is, and what your monitoring
system is like.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[bills]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, bills > wrote:
>>I have recently been using a program to extract eight WAV audio files from
>>a
>>DTS Master Audio 7.1ch track on a Blu-ray disc. I also have the option to
>>extract a Dolby Digital track from the same disc, which I have also been
>>doing. However, I am running into something that I am wondering about:
>>fidelity. I'm not hearing any difference in fidelity between the files
>>extracted from the lossless DTS Master Audio track versus the single Dolby
>>Digital file. When I view the files before extraction in Nero, it reports
>>the DTS as "DTS, 2 channel 4000- 5000 kpbs (varies as movie is played)
>>from
>>DTS Master Audio 8 channel stream" and the Dolby Digital channel as "Dolby
>>Digital, 2 channels, 192 kbps". Obviously, a big difference in bit rates,
>>yet when I switch the audio live from DTS to DD, I don't hear a fidelity
>>difference. Is there an explanation for this?
>
> Sure, the original track that was encoded didn't have particularly
> wonderful
> fidelity either, so the compression artifacts aren't very noticeable. Or
> your
> monitors aren't wonderful. Or maybe the DTS track had already gone
> through
> an encode/decode cycle somewhere in the chain before encoded as lossless
> DTS.

The last sentence you say here is what I suspect. I have listened to the
various audio tracks (DTS-MA original, DTS-MA core, and DD) both through
extraction and with WMP-Home Cinema (which has the capability to switch
between DTS-MA tracks and DD) on a decent set of headphones. Other than
hearing the surround sound of DTS-MA channels (which I can select
independently in WMP-HC), I don't hear any increase in fidelity between any
of these and the DD track sounds the same as the DTS-MA.

> I can make a very high quality reproduction of a photograph, or I can put
> it
> in a xerox machine. If the original photo is smeary, one will look as
> good
> as the other.

None of the BD soundtracks of this series (Star Trek: TOS) sound as good as
the original VHS. Also, in many cases, I am hearing what sounds like
musical or sound effect material one octave below blended in with the
original, making the result bad.

>>I am having another issue. I have a VHS original of the tv series I am
>>doing
>>the extraction from above and the fidelity on the higher end (treble) is
>>far
>>superior on the VHS than the BD. I easily prove this by taking the wav
>>files from each medium into an audio editor and then seeing a big drop in
>>higher end frequencies of the tracks from the "lossless" DTS extraction.
>>In
>>order to get the DTS track to approach the fidelity of the VHS, I have to
>>double stack two high pass filters of +20 db 10 Khz to even begin to meet
>>the VHS fidelity. Why is this? Is there some type of audio processing
>>occurring BEFORE DTS audio is laid down on BD from the original master
>>tapes? It certainly seems like it to me. Audio, overall, on the BD has
>>more "punch" than the VHS but seriously lacks higher end in many respects.
>
> What makes you think all that high end is accurate anyway? Just because
> there
> is a lot of it doesn't mean it belongs there. It's possible the guy doing
> the
> VHS mastering cranked the high end way up to compensate for people
> watching
> on cheap TV sets.

Take just about any Star Trek HiFi VHS audio and compare the same episode
with BD version. No matter what track is selected in BD (DTS-MA, core, or
DD), the result will sound poorer quality than the VHS equivalent. If there
is any doubt, take identical captured samples and compare in audio software.
You'll see an immediate drop in most HiFi ranges on the BD.

I'm wondering why this occurs if BD DTS-MA is supposed to be bit-for-bit
identical to the masters. It certainly isn't in this case.

>>At least that's what I'm finding and trying to figure out why.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for your commentary,
>
> It would be nice if you'd mention what the film is, and what your
> monitoring
> system is like.

Star Trek TOS on Blu Ray and VHS, all original. I have decent Sony MDR-V6
headphone monitoring, Audiophile 2496 and Samplitude sw. Take music from
any Trek episode on VHS and compare it to the same on BD. You'll see what I
mean about high end loss.

> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, bills > wrote:
>
>None of the BD soundtracks of this series (Star Trek: TOS) sound as good as
>the original VHS. Also, in many cases, I am hearing what sounds like
>musical or sound effect material one octave below blended in with the
>original, making the result bad.

That's because they are totally different mixes made by different people,
and they have added completely different effects that were not in the
original.

The originals were all mixed through multiple generations of 35mm mag to
a 35mm mono master. The VHS tapes were either cut from that master or
they were cut from an optical track made from that.

The remixes were all done using a combination of the original 35mm mag
tracks (when available) and later-generation mag stems, loaded into a
DAW and then with lots of new foley stuff and effects added.

You'll notice also they have done a lot of CGI work on the video too.
The transporter effect looks very different than in the original.

>Take just about any Star Trek HiFi VHS audio and compare the same episode
>with BD version. No matter what track is selected in BD (DTS-MA, core, or
>DD), the result will sound poorer quality than the VHS equivalent. If there
>is any doubt, take identical captured samples and compare in audio software.
>You'll see an immediate drop in most HiFi ranges on the BD.

You're comparing totally different mixes made fifty years apart by different
people with different technology, and they were intended for completely
different playback environments.

>> It would be nice if you'd mention what the film is, and what your
>> monitoring
>> system is like.
>
>Star Trek TOS on Blu Ray and VHS, all original. I have decent Sony MDR-V6
>headphone monitoring, Audiophile 2496 and Samplitude sw. Take music from
>any Trek episode on VHS and compare it to the same on BD. You'll see what I
>mean about high end loss.

Skip the headphones, try a proper speaker system. The 5.1 tracks are just
going to be bizarre on headphones and the dialogue will not sound right at
all.

You are comparing a 5.1 track that was automatically downmixed for stereo
listening (or even worse, wasn't downmixed so you're only hearing the left
and right channel and totally missing the center dialogue track) with a
mono mix that was equalized for 3" TV speakers fifty years ago.

It's no wonder they sound totally different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> master tapes? It certainly seems like it to me. Audio, overall, on
>> the BD has more "punch" than the VHS but seriously lacks higher end
>> in many respects.

> What makes you think all that high end is accurate anyway? Just ...

High end audio and lotsa treble are different concepts, something that is
not totally clearly distinguished in the original question.

> It would be nice if you'd mention what the film is, and what your
> monitoring system is like.

+1

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tom McCreadie]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:

>The VHS sound is presumably VHS HiFi. If VHS HiFi uses noise reduction (I
>don't remember that it does),

As I dimly recall, it uses compansion, somewhat akin to DBX, to give a
ca. 30dB improvement in S/N. The poor 50cB S/N of the untreated tape was
an inevitable consequence of the constraint that the rotating head is
for some part of its time not in contact with the tape,
--
Tom McCreadie

Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA

[bills]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, bills > wrote:
>>
>>None of the BD soundtracks of this series (Star Trek: TOS) sound as good
>>as
>>the original VHS. Also, in many cases, I am hearing what sounds like
>>musical or sound effect material one octave below blended in with the
>>original, making the result bad.
>
> That's because they are totally different mixes made by different people,
> and they have added completely different effects that were not in the
> original.

Yes, in many cases, that's true. However, some music and effects they left
alone and that's what I have been comparing. In fact, the BD's advertise
that the DD tracks are all mono original soundtracks. *Almost* nothing has
been altered from the originals (there are a few exceptions, but certainly
not as much altered as the DTS-MA mixes).

> The originals were all mixed through multiple generations of 35mm mag to
> a 35mm mono master. The VHS tapes were either cut from that master or
> they were cut from an optical track made from that.

I agree. And I think that's why the VHS's don't miss most of the
frequencies beyond 7 Khz.


> The remixes were all done using a combination of the original 35mm mag
> tracks (when available) and later-generation mag stems, loaded into a
> DAW and then with lots of new foley stuff and effects added.

And it appears that they also compromised the fidelity of the original
tracks, most unfortunate.

> You'll notice also they have done a lot of CGI work on the video too.
> The transporter effect looks very different than in the original.

I don't have a problem with the opticals, they look great and even the
original opticals are available on BD.

>>Take just about any Star Trek HiFi VHS audio and compare the same episode
>>with BD version. No matter what track is selected in BD (DTS-MA, core, or
>>DD), the result will sound poorer quality than the VHS equivalent. If
>>there
>>is any doubt, take identical captured samples and compare in audio
>>software.
>>You'll see an immediate drop in most HiFi ranges on the BD.
>
> You're comparing totally different mixes made fifty years apart by
> different
> people with different technology, and they were intended for completely
> different playback environments.
>
>>> It would be nice if you'd mention what the film is, and what your
>>> monitoring
>>> system is like.
>>
>>Star Trek TOS on Blu Ray and VHS, all original. I have decent Sony MDR-V6
>>headphone monitoring, Audiophile 2496 and Samplitude sw. Take music from
>>any Trek episode on VHS and compare it to the same on BD. You'll see what
>>I
>>mean about high end loss.
>
> Skip the headphones, try a proper speaker system. The 5.1 tracks are just
> going to be bizarre on headphones and the dialogue will not sound right at
> all.
>
> You are comparing a 5.1 track that was automatically downmixed for stereo
> listening (or even worse, wasn't downmixed so you're only hearing the left
> and right channel and totally missing the center dialogue track) with a
> mono mix that was equalized for 3" TV speakers fifty years ago.

No, the software I use takes the original DTS-MA 7.1 ch and extracts 8
channels from it into 24 bit, 48 Khz wave files. Most of the dialogue
appears on the "center" channel with effects and music on the "left" and
"right" channels. The other channels were either not used, or some effect
from the Star Trek Sound Effects CD was applied. I have also been able to
listen to each of the 8 channels with Windows Media Player- Home Cinema. I
can select channels independently or allow the downmixed to play through the
headphones.

>
> It's no wonder they sound totally different.

No matter which of the 8 DTS-MA channels I listen to, or any of the 6 DTS
"core" channels, or even the 2 channel DD track (and I have listened to them
all, both combined and separately), NONE of them sound as good as the VHS
originals, not even the mono DD track which is supposed to be an unaltered
original soundtrack. These tracks may sound cleaner and have more "punch",
but I have yet to hear them as they were on the VHS's. Also, if I take any
of the 8 channels and open them in Samplitude, Wavelab, etc, and look at
their spectrums, the VHS spectrum shows much more energy between 3-15 Khz
than any of these new digital tracks do, with the latter decreasing after 5
Khz in nearly every case.

Is it possible that Dolby Digital or some other noise filter was applied
BEFORE these became DTS-MA tracks and that's why they sound the way they do?
If they were remixed on DAW's as you say, then that certainly is a
possibility.

bill

> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[bills]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> master tapes? It certainly seems like it to me. Audio, overall, on
>>> the BD has more "punch" than the VHS but seriously lacks higher end
>>> in many respects.
>
>> What makes you think all that high end is accurate anyway? Just ...
>
> High end audio and lotsa treble are different concepts, something that is
> not totally clearly distinguished in the original question.


Ok, let me be clearer. Let's just say that I am finding far less useful
frequency energy between 5- 15 Khz on any of the tracks of the BD DTS-MA's
than I am within the same energy range of the audio tracks on equivalent VHS
tapes. If we don't want to call this, a lack of the "higher end" frequency
range of the music, then we can call it a serious compromise in "treble".

>> It would be nice if you'd mention what the film is, and what your
>> monitoring system is like.
>
> +1
>
>> --scott
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Tom McCreadie wrote:
> "William > wrote:
>
>> The VHS sound is presumably VHS HiFi. If VHS HiFi uses noise reduction (I
>> don't remember that it does),
>
> As I dimly recall, it uses compansion, somewhat akin to DBX, to give a
> ca. 30dB improvement in S/N. The poor 50cB S/N of the untreated tape was
> an inevitable consequence of the constraint that the rotating head is
> for some part of its time not in contact with the tape,


It may well use compansion ( there were similar-to-dbx artifacts ) but
the main thing is does is steal a line from the video and modulate
the higher-bandwidth audio in FM on that. This can result in
switching noise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS#Hi-Fi_audio_system

I know they mostly had AGCs, and I never really did figure out how to
gain stage the HiFi unit I had.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, bills > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
>Yes, in many cases, that's true. However, some music and effects they left
>alone and that's what I have been comparing. In fact, the BD's advertise
>that the DD tracks are all mono original soundtracks. *Almost* nothing has
>been altered from the originals (there are a few exceptions, but certainly
>not as much altered as the DTS-MA mixes).

When you listen to do them, are they in fact mono? I thought you had said
that the DD tracks didn't sound any different than the dts tracks?

>> The originals were all mixed through multiple generations of 35mm mag to
>> a 35mm mono master. The VHS tapes were either cut from that master or
>> they were cut from an optical track made from that.
>
>I agree. And I think that's why the VHS's don't miss most of the
>frequencies beyond 7 Khz.

Quite the opposite, the original mixes were wildly boosted about 7 KHz
to compensate for playing them back on a crappy 1960s television set.

>> The remixes were all done using a combination of the original 35mm mag
>> tracks (when available) and later-generation mag stems, loaded into a
>> DAW and then with lots of new foley stuff and effects added.
>
>And it appears that they also compromised the fidelity of the original
>tracks, most unfortunate.

The fidelity of the original tracks was pretty bad. They were very
shrieky. I have run the original 35mm network prints over modern
theatre sound systems and there were all kinds of oddities in them.

I have not done an A-B comparison with the new mixes, but seeing how
dramatically different the mixes are and that they are intended for
totally different playback, I would not be surprised.

>> You'll notice also they have done a lot of CGI work on the video too.
>> The transporter effect looks very different than in the original.
>
>I don't have a problem with the opticals, they look great and even the
>original opticals are available on BD.

They look godawful and they stand out like a sore thumb.

>> You are comparing a 5.1 track that was automatically downmixed for stereo
>> listening (or even worse, wasn't downmixed so you're only hearing the left
>> and right channel and totally missing the center dialogue track) with a
>> mono mix that was equalized for 3" TV speakers fifty years ago.
>
>No, the software I use takes the original DTS-MA 7.1 ch and extracts 8
>channels from it into 24 bit, 48 Khz wave files. Most of the dialogue
>appears on the "center" channel with effects and music on the "left" and
>"right" channels. The other channels were either not used, or some effect
>from the Star Trek Sound Effects CD was applied. I have also been able to
>listen to each of the 8 channels with Windows Media Player- Home Cinema. I
>can select channels independently or allow the downmixed to play through the
>headphones.

You need to listen to a surround mix on an actual surround playback system.
You cannot make anything approaching accurate judgements of tone character
by listening to individual channels or the cheesy fake stereo downmix
through headphones.

>No matter which of the 8 DTS-MA channels I listen to, or any of the 6 DTS
>"core" channels, or even the 2 channel DD track (and I have listened to them
>all, both combined and separately), NONE of them sound as good as the VHS
>originals, not even the mono DD track which is supposed to be an unaltered
>original soundtrack. These tracks may sound cleaner and have more "punch",
>but I have yet to hear them as they were on the VHS's. Also, if I take any
>of the 8 channels and open them in Samplitude, Wavelab, etc, and look at
>their spectrums, the VHS spectrum shows much more energy between 3-15 Khz
>than any of these new digital tracks do, with the latter decreasing after 5
>Khz in nearly every case.

If in fact what you want is the pumped-up presence boost that was on the
VHS tapes, then by all means use an EQ and get it.

>Is it possible that Dolby Digital or some other noise filter was applied
>BEFORE these became DTS-MA tracks and that's why they sound the way they do?
>If they were remixed on DAW's as you say, then that certainly is a
>possibility.

Dolby Digital is not a noise filter, it is an encoding system. It is
entirely possible that the tracks you are hearing have gone through some
sort of noise filtering, but who cares? They have been equalized in a
totally different way because they are totally different mixes intended
for playback on totally different systems. Therefore all bets are off.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[bills]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, bills > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>
>>Yes, in many cases, that's true. However, some music and effects they
>>left
>>alone and that's what I have been comparing. In fact, the BD's advertise
>>that the DD tracks are all mono original soundtracks. *Almost* nothing
>>has
>>been altered from the originals (there are a few exceptions, but certainly
>>not as much altered as the DTS-MA mixes).
>
> When you listen to do them, are they in fact mono? I thought you had said
> that the DD tracks didn't sound any different than the dts tracks?

When the tracks are separated, they are all mono, yes, unless I combine them
in the editor.

>>> The originals were all mixed through multiple generations of 35mm mag to
>>> a 35mm mono master. The VHS tapes were either cut from that master or
>>> they were cut from an optical track made from that.
>>
>>I agree. And I think that's why the VHS's don't miss most of the
>>frequencies beyond 7 Khz.
>
> Quite the opposite, the original mixes were wildly boosted about 7 KHz

Exactly, or whatever they did. That's what I'm saying and I don't feel it
compromised the sound, only made it better.

> to compensate for playing them back on a crappy 1960s television set.
>
>>> The remixes were all done using a combination of the original 35mm mag
>>> tracks (when available) and later-generation mag stems, loaded into a
>>> DAW and then with lots of new foley stuff and effects added.
>>
>>And it appears that they also compromised the fidelity of the original
>>tracks, most unfortunate.
>
> The fidelity of the original tracks was pretty bad. They were very
> shrieky. I have run the original 35mm network prints over modern
> theatre sound systems and there were all kinds of oddities in them.

> I have not done an A-B comparison with the new mixes, but seeing how
> dramatically different the mixes are and that they are intended for
> totally different playback, I would not be surprised.
>
>>> You'll notice also they have done a lot of CGI work on the video too.
>>> The transporter effect looks very different than in the original.
>>
>>I don't have a problem with the opticals, they look great and even the
>>original opticals are available on BD.
>
> They look godawful and they stand out like a sore thumb.

Which, the CGI or the color boost they gave to the original footage? If you
say CGI, I have to agree, not very well done in most cases, but I think the
enhancement they did to the regular video footage was great. Colors are
better and you can even see the make-up separation of Spock's ear.

>>> You are comparing a 5.1 track that was automatically downmixed for
>>> stereo
>>> listening (or even worse, wasn't downmixed so you're only hearing the
>>> left
>>> and right channel and totally missing the center dialogue track) with a
>>> mono mix that was equalized for 3" TV speakers fifty years ago.
>>
>>No, the software I use takes the original DTS-MA 7.1 ch and extracts 8
>>channels from it into 24 bit, 48 Khz wave files. Most of the dialogue
>>appears on the "center" channel with effects and music on the "left" and
>>"right" channels. The other channels were either not used, or some effect
>>from the Star Trek Sound Effects CD was applied. I have also been able to
>>listen to each of the 8 channels with Windows Media Player- Home Cinema.
>>I
>>can select channels independently or allow the downmixed to play through
>>the
>>headphones.
>
> You need to listen to a surround mix on an actual surround playback
> system.

I have, a Samsung I had not long ago. I returned the player thinking it was
defective because it was playing the audio with this same filtered sound.
It had all the channels available which I fed to separate speakers. A waste
of money. Oh, I know this wasn't the best, and I suppose someone will say I
should have used a discrete decoder instead, but it still demonstrated the
poorer sound quality in the higher frequency range.

> You cannot make anything approaching accurate judgements of tone character
> by listening to individual channels or the cheesy fake stereo downmix
> through headphones.

Ok, here's the software I used. It's free, so feel free to try it yourself.
It's called eac3to. Of course, you need to know it's command structure as
it works by command prompt, but with it you can take most BD's and separate
or extract the sound however you want and it uses Arcsoft or Nero decoders
by default (these of course need to be installed for extraction/ decoding to
take place). I don't see how you can say that it's a "downmix", it would be
if I were listening to a single wave with all of the channels embedded
within it, but this is not the case and eac3to makes it happen.

>>No matter which of the 8 DTS-MA channels I listen to, or any of the 6 DTS
>>"core" channels, or even the 2 channel DD track (and I have listened to
>>them
>>all, both combined and separately), NONE of them sound as good as the VHS
>>originals, not even the mono DD track which is supposed to be an unaltered
>>original soundtrack. These tracks may sound cleaner and have more
>>"punch",
>>but I have yet to hear them as they were on the VHS's. Also, if I take
>>any
>>of the 8 channels and open them in Samplitude, Wavelab, etc, and look at
>>their spectrums, the VHS spectrum shows much more energy between 3-15 Khz
>>than any of these new digital tracks do, with the latter decreasing after
>>5
>>Khz in nearly every case.
>
> If in fact what you want is the pumped-up presence boost that was on the
> VHS tapes, then by all means use an EQ and get it.

The challenge is this: trying to get that boost without digital artifacts.
The new so called lossless DTS masters still have artifacts if you boost
them too far with EQ at any range. It takes at least a 30-40 dB boost of
higher ranges (say 7 Khz + high pass) to even begin to get these new tracks
to sound like the VHS's. By the time you do that, you have to apply noise
reduction to eliminate hiss and artifacts. There is some loss in the mid
and low ranges as well on the DTS tracks, which also needs corrected, but
far easier once the initial boost is successful (and this is very
difficult).

>>Is it possible that Dolby Digital or some other noise filter was applied
>>BEFORE these became DTS-MA tracks and that's why they sound the way they
>>do?
>>If they were remixed on DAW's as you say, then that certainly is a
>>possibility.
>
> Dolby Digital is not a noise filter, it is an encoding system. It is
> entirely possible that the tracks you are hearing have gone through some
> sort of noise filtering, but who cares?

Well, I guess no one unless you're an audiophile like me. Hey, people don't
like the new CGI's and I don't have a problem with them really, nor the
other color enhancements. I, on the other hand, hate what Paramount has
done to the audio ever since the introduction of DVD's, where they did the
same "filtering" or whatever.

They have been equalized in a
> totally different way because they are totally different mixes intended
> for playback on totally different systems.

And I suppose most people won't have a problem, but to me it sounds crappy.

bill

Therefore all bets are off.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, bills > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, bills > wrote:
>>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>Yes, in many cases, that's true. However, some music and effects they
>>>left
>>>alone and that's what I have been comparing. In fact, the BD's advertise
>>>that the DD tracks are all mono original soundtracks. *Almost* nothing
>>>has
>>>been altered from the originals (there are a few exceptions, but certainly
>>>not as much altered as the DTS-MA mixes).
>>
>> When you listen to do them, are they in fact mono? I thought you had said
>> that the DD tracks didn't sound any different than the dts tracks?
>
>When the tracks are separated, they are all mono, yes, unless I combine them
>in the editor.

If it is mono, there is only one track. A mono signal will be mono, coming
from the center channel. If it is indeed the mono original soundtrack, this
is what you should have.

Some producers will spread the mono signal among the three front channels
for fear that people will complain but this in fact does not sound as good
as just using the proper center.

>>>> The originals were all mixed through multiple generations of 35mm mag to
>>>> a 35mm mono master. The VHS tapes were either cut from that master or
>>>> they were cut from an optical track made from that.
>>>
>>>I agree. And I think that's why the VHS's don't miss most of the
>>>frequencies beyond 7 Khz.
>>
>> Quite the opposite, the original mixes were wildly boosted about 7 KHz
>
>Exactly, or whatever they did. That's what I'm saying and I don't feel it
>compromised the sound, only made it better.

Well, then boost it yourself with an equalizer and be done with it.

>> They look godawful and they stand out like a sore thumb.
>
>Which, the CGI or the color boost they gave to the original footage? If you
>say CGI, I have to agree, not very well done in most cases, but I think the
>enhancement they did to the regular video footage was great. Colors are
>better and you can even see the make-up separation of Spock's ear.

The CGI.

I don't know about the enhancement, really... the 35mm prints I have seen
are all somewhat faded so it's hard to know what they originally looked
like on their first run. The basic intention here is to get the look of
the original film and I can't say how accurate that is having never seen
that in good condition.

>I have, a Samsung I had not long ago. I returned the player thinking it was
>defective because it was playing the audio with this same filtered sound.
>It had all the channels available which I fed to separate speakers. A waste
>of money. Oh, I know this wasn't the best, and I suppose someone will say I
>should have used a discrete decoder instead, but it still demonstrated the
>poorer sound quality in the higher frequency range.

Wait... I don't understand here. If it "has all the channels available"
then it has a discrete decoder. If it has a matrix decoder it does not
in fact produce all the original channels.

>> You cannot make anything approaching accurate judgements of tone character
>> by listening to individual channels or the cheesy fake stereo downmix
>> through headphones.
>
>Ok, here's the software I used. It's free, so feel free to try it yourself.
>It's called eac3to. Of course, you need to know it's command structure as
>it works by command prompt, but with it you can take most BD's and separate
>or extract the sound however you want and it uses Arcsoft or Nero decoders
>by default (these of course need to be installed for extraction/ decoding to
>take place). I don't see how you can say that it's a "downmix", it would be
>if I were listening to a single wave with all of the channels embedded
>within it, but this is not the case and eac3to makes it happen.

The software doesn't matter. What matters is that you have a track that
was mixed to be listened to one way, and you are listening to it in a
totally different way. So you cannot make valid judgements.

>The challenge is this: trying to get that boost without digital artifacts.
>The new so called lossless DTS masters still have artifacts if you boost
>them too far with EQ at any range. It takes at least a 30-40 dB boost of
>higher ranges (say 7 Khz + high pass) to even begin to get these new tracks
>to sound like the VHS's. By the time you do that, you have to apply noise
>reduction to eliminate hiss and artifacts. There is some loss in the mid
>and low ranges as well on the DTS tracks, which also needs corrected, but
>far easier once the initial boost is successful (and this is very
>difficult).

You have to be joking here. 30 dB of boost would be deafeningly screechy.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> >The VHS sound is presumably VHS HiFi. If VHS HiFi uses noise reduction (I
> >don't remember that it does),

> As I dimly recall, it uses compansion, somewhat akin to DBX, to give a
> ca. 30dB improvement in S/N. The poor 50cB S/N of the untreated tape was
> an inevitable consequence of the constraint that the rotating head is
> for some part of its time not in contact with the tape,

In theory, it produces little "blips" during the non-contact period.

I tried recording at extremely low levels on a Beta HiFi machine, and found
that no blips were audible, and the NR did not misbehave.

[Mark]

>
> >>>> The originals were all mixed through multiple generations of 35mm mag to
> >>>> a 35mm mono master. *The VHS tapes were either cut from that master or
> >>>> they were cut from an optical track made from that.
>
> >>>I agree. *And I think that's why the VHS's don't miss most of the
> >>>frequencies beyond 7 Khz.
>
> >> Quite the opposite, the original mixes were wildly boosted about 7 KHz
>
> >Exactly, or whatever they did. *That's what I'm saying and I don't feel it
> >compromised the sound, only made it better.
>
> Well, then boost it yourself with an equalizer and be done with it.
>

Is it possible that the OP has a DE-EMPHASIS issue.

Perhaps his VHS player is supposed apply de-emphasis and is not?

Perhaps his BD player (and/or ripper) is applying de-emphasis and
should not be?

OP, if you can record with these devices you may want to get a signal
generator and run a frequency response run and see what happens.

OP, do you see this problem only with these titles or with other
titles as well?

Mark

[bills]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, bills > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, bills > wrote:
>>>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>Yes, in many cases, that's true. However, some music and effects they
>>>>left
>>>>alone and that's what I have been comparing. In fact, the BD's
>>>>advertise
>>>>that the DD tracks are all mono original soundtracks. *Almost* nothing
>>>>has
>>>>been altered from the originals (there are a few exceptions, but
>>>>certainly
>>>>not as much altered as the DTS-MA mixes).
>>>
>>> When you listen to do them, are they in fact mono? I thought you had
>>> said
>>> that the DD tracks didn't sound any different than the dts tracks?
>>
>>When the tracks are separated, they are all mono, yes, unless I combine
>>them
>>in the editor.
>
> If it is mono, there is only one track. A mono signal will be mono,
> coming
> from the center channel. If it is indeed the mono original soundtrack,
> this
> is what you should have.
>
> Some producers will spread the mono signal among the three front channels
> for fear that people will complain but this in fact does not sound as good
> as just using the proper center.

"Trek" was originally recorded in mono. With the arrival of VHS Hi-Fi, I
think that was the first time they attempted stereo. DVD/ BD have
definitely been that way.

>>>>> The originals were all mixed through multiple generations of 35mm mag
>>>>> to
>>>>> a 35mm mono master. The VHS tapes were either cut from that master or
>>>>> they were cut from an optical track made from that.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. And I think that's why the VHS's don't miss most of the
>>>>frequencies beyond 7 Khz.
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite, the original mixes were wildly boosted about 7 KHz
>>
>>Exactly, or whatever they did. That's what I'm saying and I don't feel it
>>compromised the sound, only made it better.
>
> Well, then boost it yourself with an equalizer and be done with it.
>
>>> They look godawful and they stand out like a sore thumb.
>>
>>Which, the CGI or the color boost they gave to the original footage? If
>>you
>>say CGI, I have to agree, not very well done in most cases, but I think
>>the
>>enhancement they did to the regular video footage was great. Colors are
>>better and you can even see the make-up separation of Spock's ear.
>
> The CGI.
>
> I don't know about the enhancement, really... the 35mm prints I have seen
> are all somewhat faded so it's hard to know what they originally looked
> like on their first run. The basic intention here is to get the look of
> the original film and I can't say how accurate that is having never seen
> that in good condition.
>
>>I have, a Samsung I had not long ago. I returned the player thinking it
>>was
>>defective because it was playing the audio with this same filtered sound.
>>It had all the channels available which I fed to separate speakers. A
>>waste
>>of money. Oh, I know this wasn't the best, and I suppose someone will say
>>I
>>should have used a discrete decoder instead, but it still demonstrated the
>>poorer sound quality in the higher frequency range.
>
> Wait... I don't understand here. If it "has all the channels available"
> then it has a discrete decoder. If it has a matrix decoder it does not
> in fact produce all the original channels.

It had a 7.1 ch decoder built-in with all 8 channels available as outputs
that could be fed to speakers, which I did.

>>> You cannot make anything approaching accurate judgements of tone
>>> character
>>> by listening to individual channels or the cheesy fake stereo downmix
>>> through headphones.
>>
>>Ok, here's the software I used. It's free, so feel free to try it
>>yourself.
>>It's called eac3to. Of course, you need to know it's command structure as
>>it works by command prompt, but with it you can take most BD's and
>>separate
>>or extract the sound however you want and it uses Arcsoft or Nero decoders
>>by default (these of course need to be installed for extraction/ decoding
>>to
>>take place). I don't see how you can say that it's a "downmix", it would
>>be
>>if I were listening to a single wave with all of the channels embedded
>>within it, but this is not the case and eac3to makes it happen.
>
> The software doesn't matter. What matters is that you have a track that
> was mixed to be listened to one way, and you are listening to it in a
> totally different way. So you cannot make valid judgements.

There's only so many ways you can mix these, I've researched it. There's
all sorts of DTS formats and it took some time for me even to figure out the
layout of the new Trek BD. BTW, I did record the output channels from the
Samsung and ended up with the same lack of higher frequency response. So it
isn't a listening factor, unless you are speaking of a system above and
beyond the normal DTS decoders available.

>>The challenge is this: trying to get that boost without digital artifacts.
>>The new so called lossless DTS masters still have artifacts if you boost
>>them too far with EQ at any range. It takes at least a 30-40 dB boost of
>>higher ranges (say 7 Khz + high pass) to even begin to get these new
>>tracks
>>to sound like the VHS's. By the time you do that, you have to apply noise
>>reduction to eliminate hiss and artifacts. There is some loss in the mid
>>and low ranges as well on the DTS tracks, which also needs corrected, but
>>far easier once the initial boost is successful (and this is very
>>difficult).
>
> You have to be joking here. 30 dB of boost would be deafeningly screechy.

I'm not joking. Like I said before, it isn't just a boost. There have to
be other areas of the track adjusted to make it more sounding like the
original. Once I have a rough boost, I use a plug-in --??? Freefilter--- to
get the frequency responses better matched. This plug-in does a reasonable
job, but even it can't compensate for the losses by itself. I would post
samples of the original VHS track and BD track (any of them, even the
downmix) if not risking trouble from the producers.

bill

> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[bills]

"Mark" > wrote in message .

"Is it possible that the OP has a DE-EMPHASIS issue.

Perhaps his VHS player is supposed apply de-emphasis and is not?"

This I can't answer. I can say that I have multiple VHS players, some from
several years ago (10+) and a couple more recent (within the last 5 years),
and all play the Trek VHS Hi-Fi's with better frequency response than the
equivalent BD.

"Perhaps his BD player (and/or ripper) is applying de-emphasis and
should not be?

OP, if you can record with these devices you may want to get a signal
generator and run a frequency response run and see what happens."

I could check the VCR, but I'm not sure how to go about the BD player check
since it can't record, only play. One thing I might be able to do is try
something besides Trek and see if there's still a drop in the higher freq
ranges on BD versus VHS.

"OP, do you see this problem only with these titles or with other
titles as well?"

Ah, already answered this. I am going to try it and see.

bill

[William Sommerwerck]

> This I can't answer. I can say that I have multiple VHS players,
> some from several years ago (10+) and a couple more recent
> (within the last 5 years), and all play the Trek VHS Hi-Fi's with
> better frequency response than the equivalent BD.

WRONG! You mean they have more HF output. That has nothing to do with
frequency response (the transfer ratio given a known source).


> I could check the VCR, but I'm not sure how to go about the BD
> player check since it can't record, only play. One thing I might
> be able to do is try something besides Trek and see if there's
> still a drop in the higher freq ranges on BD versus VHS.

You should have done that before posting here.

I've seen this dozens of times. People don't do their homework, then ask
questions that provoke a lot of needless discussion.

[bills]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> This I can't answer. I can say that I have multiple VHS players,
>> some from several years ago (10+) and a couple more recent
>> (within the last 5 years), and all play the Trek VHS Hi-Fi's with
>> better frequency response than the equivalent BD.
>
> WRONG! You mean they have more HF output. That has nothing to do with
> frequency response (the transfer ratio given a known source).

Ok, so my technical jargon is in error here, BIG DEAL. But, you still got
the picture, didn't ya.
>
>> I could check the VCR, but I'm not sure how to go about the BD
>> player check since it can't record, only play. One thing I might
>> be able to do is try something besides Trek and see if there's
>> still a drop in the higher freq ranges on BD versus VHS.
>
> You should have done that before posting here.
>
> I've seen this dozens of times. People don't do their homework, then ask
> questions that provoke a lot of needless discussion.
>
You'd be surprised what "homework" I've done over the years. Just because I
may be a bit deficient in one category shouldn't automatically exclude me
from all other categories. Is that what you are trying to imply here? BTW,
I can almost *guarantee* I'll have the same results with other shows/
movies. I just need some time. I'm not a big BD fan to begin with, in part
due to the deficiencies in audio that I've mentioned, so I don't own a lot
of BD's outside of the Trek range. But, this sounds like a challenge that I
won't refuse. One wonders why some of the long time "gurus" here don't take
up the challenge themselves. Surely they have the equipment, abilities, and
software to test. Not trying to offend, just curious.

bills

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> This I can't answer. I can say that I have multiple VHS players,
>>> some from several years ago (10+) and a couple more recent
>>> (within the last 5 years), and all play the Trek VHS Hi-Fi's with
>>> better frequency response than the equivalent BD.

>> WRONG! You mean they have more HF output. That has nothing to
>> do with frequency response (the transfer ratio given a known source).

> Ok, so my technical jargon is in error here, BIG DEAL. But, you still got
> the picture, didn't ya.

It's not just a matter of jargon. It's how one perceives the issue of
"fidelity". You might look at the letter I posted in the April
"Stereophile" -- which got a lot of positive response.


>>> I could check the VCR, but I'm not sure how to go about the BD
>>> player check since it can't record, only play. One thing I might
>>> be able to do is try something besides Trek and see if there's
>>> still a drop in the higher freq ranges on BD versus VHS.

>> You should have done that before posting here.
>> I've seen this dozens of times. People don't do their homework,
>> then ask questions that provoke a lot of needless discussion.

> You'd be surprised what "homework" I've done over the years.
> Just because I may be a bit deficient in one category shouldn't
> automatically exclude me from all other categories. Is that what
> you are trying to imply here?

No, but I think you're drawing conclusions based on limited data.


> I can almost *guarantee* I'll have the same results with other
> shows/movies.

I can pretty much guarantee you won't. See below.


> I just need some time. I'm not a big BD fan to begin with, in part
> due to the deficiencies in audio that I've mentioned, so I don't own
> a lot of BDs outside the Trek range. But, this sounds like a challenge
> that I won't refuse. One wonders why some of the long time "gurus"
> here don't take up the challenge themselves. Surely they have the
> equipment, abilities, and software to test. Not trying to offend, just
> curious.

No offense taken. I don't have the time.

I find it hard to believe that there's something fundamentally deficient
with BD, especially as I have audio-only BDs (from 2L and Naxos) with
absolutely superb sound -- DTS Master, in some cases (eg, "Circus Maximus").

Listen, for example, to the BD of "North by Northwest". The sound is
spectacular, absolutely state of the art for 52 years ago -- which means
it's exceptionally good even by modern standards. (We're talking LS/MLP
quality.) I used to do live recording of orchestra and chamber groups, so I
have a pretty good idea of what comprises "good" sound reproduction.

I agree with Scott -- the problem is not with BD, but with the way
particular recordings are mastered. I think you accidentally stumbled on
transfers of the same material that represent mastering extremes.

Scott was correct in criticizing your monitoring equipment. Sony 'phones, in
particular, are dark and bass-heavy. (A friend at Sony told me this was what
customers wanted.) I listen with Apogee planar speakers and John Curl
electronics, so I'm reasonably certain I'm hearing an accurate rendition of
the recording.

[hank alrich]

bills > wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> This I can't answer. I can say that I have multiple VHS players,
> >> some from several years ago (10+) and a couple more recent
> >> (within the last 5 years), and all play the Trek VHS Hi-Fi's with
> >> better frequency response than the equivalent BD.
> >
> > WRONG! You mean they have more HF output. That has nothing to do with
> > frequency response (the transfer ratio given a known source).
>
> Ok, so my technical jargon is in error here, BIG DEAL. But, you still got
> the picture, didn't ya.
> >
> >> I could check the VCR, but I'm not sure how to go about the BD
> >> player check since it can't record, only play. One thing I might
> >> be able to do is try something besides Trek and see if there's
> >> still a drop in the higher freq ranges on BD versus VHS.
> >
> > You should have done that before posting here.
> >
> > I've seen this dozens of times. People don't do their homework, then ask
> > questions that provoke a lot of needless discussion.
> >
> You'd be surprised what "homework" I've done over the years. Just because I
> may be a bit deficient in one category shouldn't automatically exclude me
> from all other categories. Is that what you are trying to imply here? BTW,
> I can almost *guarantee* I'll have the same results with other shows/
> movies. I just need some time. I'm not a big BD fan to begin with, in part
> due to the deficiencies in audio that I've mentioned, so I don't own a lot
> of BD's outside of the Trek range. But, this sounds like a challenge that I
> won't refuse. One wonders why some of the long time "gurus" here don't take
> up the challenge themselves. Surely they have the equipment, abilities, and
> software to test. Not trying to offend, just curious.
>
> bills

Maybe because we're busy with stuff that matters _to us_. I don't want
old TV shows, for starters, don't listen to music in surround, etc.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[William Sommerwerck]

I pulled out "North by Northwest". The sound -- which uses the uncompressed
Dolby format -- is first-rate. The best modern recordings would be even
better, but most don't come close.

Not only is the orchestral sound very "live" and realistic, but voices are
natural.

There's nothing wrong with the sound of this film, and by implication,
nothing inherently wrong with BD sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, bills > wrote:
>
>You'd be surprised what "homework" I've done over the years. Just because I
>may be a bit deficient in one category shouldn't automatically exclude me
>from all other categories. Is that what you are trying to imply here? BTW,
>I can almost *guarantee* I'll have the same results with other shows/
>movies. I just need some time. I'm not a big BD fan to begin with, in part
>due to the deficiencies in audio that I've mentioned, so I don't own a lot
>of BD's outside of the Trek range. But, this sounds like a challenge that I
>won't refuse. One wonders why some of the long time "gurus" here don't take
>up the challenge themselves. Surely they have the equipment, abilities, and
>software to test. Not trying to offend, just curious.

I haven't heard the Blu-Ray although I have heard the DVD of the remade
version, through a decent but not amazing system. It sounded fine.

Can you compare the Blu-Ray with the DVD?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

I think it's very likely the problem is that the VHS tapes were
recorded with massive HF boost as part of the compansion system, and
for some reason this pre-emphasis isn't being de-emphasized in
playback. What you're hearing on the Blu-Ray is probably a lot closer
to the original audio than what you're hearing from the VHS, because
it doesn't have the HF-boost artifact.

Want more HF? Use an EQ.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler > wrote:
>I think it's very likely the problem is that the VHS tapes were
>recorded with massive HF boost as part of the compansion system, and
>for some reason this pre-emphasis isn't being de-emphasized in
>playback. What you're hearing on the Blu-Ray is probably a lot closer
>to the original audio than what you're hearing from the VHS, because
>it doesn't have the HF-boost artifact.
>
>Want more HF? Use an EQ.

He's claiming he needs 30dB of boost in order to get the same effect,
which is what becomes so puzzling.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

> Ok, let me be clearer. Let's just say that I am finding far less
> useful frequency energy between 5- 15 Khz on any of the tracks of the
> BD DTS-MA's than I am within the same energy range of the audio
> tracks on equivalent VHS tapes. If we don't want to call this, a
> lack of the "higher end" frequency range of the music, then we can
> call it a serious compromise in "treble".

It is an excellent idea to use the word treble for treble. Would you please
be so kind as to google the phrase "high end audio" once and for all, thank
you very much, you have obviously gotten quite a few misleading follow ups
because of having used a misleading wording.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

> It is an excellent idea to use the word treble for treble.

HF is also appropriate.

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage > wrote:
>
>I did some of the mastering on the original STAR TREK shows in the 1980s, and
>there were issues in some transfers (not mine) where the normal Academy
>X-Curve was not applied to the 3-track 35mm DM&E mag masters. Those would be
>quite a bit too bright.
>
>I think in this case, the o.p. is just noticing that someone made decisions
>for the later 5.1 remixes that he doesn't agree with, which is what Scott
>correctly said. The problem with trying to EQ it after the fact is that this
>will also affect dialog and effects.

For your amusement value, here are a few seconds of one of the original
syndication prints:

http://www.panix.com/~kludge/st.wav

Noise is somewhat higher than it should be due to poor print condition, but
the excessive limiting and extreme presence peak were present when the things
were first shown. Notice the boom op is having a little trouble following
Shatner also. The low frequency trash was original too.

>Me personally, I think the 5.1 remixes are marred by balance problems where
>the music is too *loud* compared to dialog, but that's just my opinion. Most
>other Blu-rays I listen to aren't that bad; these remixes are about +3 or
>+4dB hot in terms of music balance. I think it was a deliberate creative
>choice just to make the dynamic range more extreme. I didn't notice anything
>terrible with the overall EQ, but there was some noise-reduction applied here
>and there, and we didn't do any of that in the 1980s.

I just don't like attempts to go back and change things that were fine the
way they were and turn them into something new and different.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."