1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LOTR R1 Vs R2

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by Jeff, Aug 13, 2002.

  1. Jeff

    Jeff
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,489
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Basingstoke
    Ratings:
    +256
    I was able to do a quick comparison between LOTR R1 and the UK R2 version. The picture quality of both versions is very good, lots of detail, some scenes show some noise/compression artifacts if contrast is set a bit high. The R1 and R2 version look remarkably similar, hard to tell apart. If anything I found the R2 version more pleasing, but this may have had more to do with me running it at 50 Hz versus 72Hz. Sound, the R2 version is about 8dbs lower in volume, I also suspect that the US version has had the dynamic range compressed. With the volumes roughly the same I still leaned towards the R1 version, the R2 version still sounded very good and dialogue was fine. The main difference between the 2 version for me is lip sync, the R1 version has poor lip sync, sometimes it is so far out that it looks like a poorly dubbed martial arts movie. The R2 version has perfect lip sync.

    Jeff

    Test equipment:
    Barco 1209s 9" CRT projector
    HTPC/SDI DVD player
    Denon AVC-A1SE
    Celestion C Series speakers (7.1)
     
  2. kevb

    kevb
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,099
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    About
    Ratings:
    +3
    Well no one can say Jeff has a rubbish set-up for comparing the two disks.

    Nice one Jeff.:)
     
  3. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,040
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,111
    No lipsynch issues for me Jeff on the region1: also using an HTPC into a projector ( theatertek latest patch , m-audio audiophile 2496 with latency at default setting)
     
  4. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Great! That means that it's worth me putting up with player-generated subtitles on R2 :)
     
  5. Jeff

    Jeff
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,489
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Basingstoke
    Ratings:
    +256
    Keith,

    I wonder if your HTPC is delaying the sound a tad so to help you the lip sync, Roland also comented on a lip sync problem with LOTR in the CRT forum.
     
  6. kevb

    kevb
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,099
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    About
    Ratings:
    +3
    I have always thought the R2 was ok. I had to turn my amp up a 2db louder than normal but no problems other than that. Bass was very strong but not booming, room and floor where shaking at times, no lip sync problems I noticed. Picture quality was excellent, some grain as Jeff said, no compression artifacts issues.

    The 4 disk set should, with luck offer more space so less compression of the soundtrack should be required.

    Has anyone thought that the R1 disk was too loud so newline/EIV may have tried to compensate any reduce the volume on the R2 disk.

    Toshiba 510e.
    Marantz SR5200.
    Mordaunt short speakers and sub 5x302/1x304/1x306.
    Panny 32PK03.
     
  7. Adam Barratt

    Adam Barratt
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2000
    Messages:
    170
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Ratings:
    +0
    The box-set's Dolby Digital soundtrack won't be any less compressed than the current disc's soundtrack (Dolby Digital isn't a variable bit-rate system, so audio compression and data consumption will remain the same throughout a programme regardless of the number of discs or data capacity available).

    Adam
     
  8. kevb

    kevb
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,099
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    About
    Ratings:
    +3
    This is a quote from a thread on the AVS forum from someone who spoke to a sound engineer at Mia casa who did the sound for the R1 DVD tell them.

    I took it the soundtrack was compressed because of space.

    :rolleyes: I was under the impression that DVD's have the DD sound track encoded at either 448kbps or 384kbps obviously the bit rate is constant.

    The extended film is spread over two disks; this should mean more space surely for the DTS track to be included.

    The 4-disk release contains 30mins of footage not contained in the original release. That means 30mins extra sound, dialog, music and effects that has to be created. I would have thought then that the soundtrack would have to be re-recorded or edited, which would mean the chance to correct mistakes in the mastering of the DD track, such as the compression.

    Also someone said that the film did not have a DTS-ES discrete track on its cinematic release. This would also have to be created.
     
  9. sweetmate

    sweetmate
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    694
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +46
    I wouldnt say created, I would say mastered.

    The original film mix would be a 6.1 master, and the DTS-ES soundtrack would be mastered and encoded from this. And seeing that all DTS soundtracks on DVDs have to be mastered from an original (as the home and cinema DTS systems are totally different) the process will be the same as any DTS soundtrack on a dvd.

    My point is, that the sound will not have to be remixed as a 6.1 master has already been done, whereas on some dvds, ES or EX tracks have been created especially for the dvd (Castaway and Se7en spring to mind)
     
  10. Jeff

    Jeff
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,489
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Basingstoke
    Ratings:
    +256
    Dynamic range compression doesn't have anything to do with data compression. It just means that the difference between the highs and lows of the soundtrack is lowered. If done properly it shouldn't affect the quality of the sound.

    Jeff
     
  11. Adam Barratt

    Adam Barratt
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2000
    Messages:
    170
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Ratings:
    +0
    No. Dynamic range compression has no effect on space consumed by the soundtrack.

    Yes, but neither it nor the Dolby Digital soundtrack present will be any less compressed than those found on a single-disc equivalent (754kbps DTS and 448kbps Dolby Digital for New Line releases.)

    Perhaps, although I imagine MiCasa created the DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 soundtrack at the same time as the current disc's Dolby Digital soundtrack. I don't imagine they have the time (or the inclination) to re-work these soundtracks.

    DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 does not exist as a theatrical audio format.

    Also, I think it should be pointed out that Dialog Normalization is an attenuation system, and does not boost volume, only reduce it. The use of a neutral dialnorm value, such as that found on FOTR, simply means the soundtrack was not attenuated. If MiCasa increased the volume of the soundtrack by 6dB, the combination of this increase and a neutral dialnorm value would result in an increase of 6dB, not 10dB. The volume would be 10dB higher than many Dolby Digital soundtracks, but only because these have been attenuated by 4dB in most cases.

    Adam
     
  12. sraper

    sraper
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    476
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Watford, UK
    Ratings:
    +58
    Ahhh were talking different sorts of compression here I think. You are thinking of digital compression (to save space). Whereas I think the guy from Mia casa is talking frequency compression. The original film soundtrack would have had a large frequncey range (I dont know the technical specs for film soundtracks but its probably in the range of 10Hz to 22kHz). However must consumer equipment (the 22" mono tv in the corner of the living room!) can't reproduce all these frequencies, they just get lost. However by compressing you can "lift" the bass frequncies a bit and lower the trebles a bit. Of course doing that means your bass in not quite so "bassy" but will be heard better on cheaper equimpent.

    Of course I may be talking complete gibberish :)

    Hmmm, after
    looking here i may well be talking b*****s.
     
  13. Adam Barratt

    Adam Barratt
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2000
    Messages:
    170
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Ratings:
    +0
    Dynamic range compression doesn't compress high and low frequencies, it simply reduces the available range between the quietest and loudest elements of a recording.

    Or, as Jeff put it:

    In terms of volume (dB) rather than frequency (Hz).

    Adam
     

Share This Page

Loading...