THE CRAZIES (2010; DVD; Anchor Bay)

[jeffsg4mac]

No, I'm not a gamer -- and as I said, I nornally cannot stand remakes. I usually detest the notion of them, understanding the true, natural essence of the much-better originals...in the case of Dawn of the Dead, however, I didn't find this to be true. Most people I have spoken to either online or in person tend to agree with the fact that Snyder's Dawn remake was amongst the best -- if not the best -- of the horror remakes. That's not taking anything away from the original -- just saying the remake was good for what it was. I felt the same about the Hills Have Eyes original/remake; I didn't really care for Craven's original, but liked the Alex Aja remake.

My Wife hated the Hills remakes, but she loves the craven ones. However, I never saw them so I can't say. I pretty much hate any movie that is shot to look like a video game. Speed Racer is the only exception I can think of and that is only because they really loved the source material and put in many things from the original cartoons.

 

[GlocksRock]

Just watched the DVD, the sound was really good even in standard dolby digital, I'm definitely going to watch this again on blu ray with it's 5.1 PCM track. The movie itself wasn't bad, but wasn't great either. Definitely worth a rent for anyone who's considering seeing this one.

 

[j_garcia]

I watched it this weekend also on BD and really liked it. I am a big fan of Romero, though I really did not like Land of the Dead at all. Even though it was a new director, Romero was the PRODUCER of this one. I am a horror movie fan so I enjoyed this, but it is a horror movie and there is much of the same horror formula here, in terms of story and progression. For what it is, it was well done though.

I'd have to say this one worked very well as remakes go. It was better than expected actually. The uncompressed PCM track was very good, though tons of LFE isn't a huge part of this track. The way they did the makeup on this one was great. The progression from more or less normal looking to sickly to crazy was well done and they maintained the look so you know these are real people not zombies. In the extras they talked about how they took special care in this respect and that the look of the crazies was all based on actual illnesses such as rabies and tetanus. Worth a rental for horror flick fans for sure.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Was it just me or what?

But I thought the PCM sounded just like the DD track.

 

[j_garcia]

I didn't listen to the DD track, so I couldn't tell you. If the DD track was 640K, then it may have been a good sounding DD track

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Thanks for all the replies on The Crazies, gentlemen. As for the PCM track, I didn't review the Blu-ray, so I couldn't say if it sounded like the Dolby Digital mix (from the DVD), but there are a couple of things worth mentioning here: First, because they're encoded at a higher bitrate, "lossy" legacy Dolby Digital tracks often sound "better" on a Blu-ray when there's one available than on the DVD counterpart, and I have demoed this phenomenon countless times to confirm it -- sometimes, the Dolby mix sounds the same between the DVD and the BD counterpart, but most of the time, the track just sounds "hotter" and more forceful on the BD. Also, I have found, like Acu did, that most of the time, so-called "uncompressed" PCM audio tracks on Blu-rays are either of the same quality as a Dolby track on the same disc, or actually inferior depending on source equipment -- case in point: On the Pirates of the Caribbean Blu-rays, Disney equipped them with Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks and Uncompressed PCM tracks, yet to my ears and on my systems, the Dolby tracks bitstreamed from my source players to the AVR always come across with more tactile slam than the PCM tracks. I don't know what it is, but the Uncompressed PCM mixes just don't sound all that "wall rattling" to me as the marketing folks at the Blu-ray Association would lead you to believe.

 

[j_garcia]

I was surprised to see the uncompressed track on there as a matter of fact, and I ALWAYS check to see what is available. Fewer studios have been including them, presumably because the DD and DTS-HD tracks are already so good. On BD these days, especially with newer films, it is tough to come by a really bad sounding track compared to the days of DVDs, IMO.

There are a number of excellent PCM tracks out there though. House of Flying Daggers is a good example of what an uncompressed track is capable of. Easily better than the previous dd or dts tracks.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Also, I have found, like Acu did, that most of the time, so-called "uncompressed" PCM audio tracks on Blu-rays are...actually inferior...

Thank you!

What a relief!

And I thought I had lost it.

I have experienced the same thing with some PCM sounding inferior to DD or DTS!

And I thought I was the ONLY one!

Wait, could it be that some PCM sound levels are just LOWER than the DD or DTS sound levels?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Red Cliff 1 & 2 have all 3 HD soundtracks on the same discs: TrueHD, DTS-HD, & PCM.

All 3 soundtracks were great.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I was surprised to see the uncompressed track on there as a matter of fact, and I ALWAYS check to see what is available. Fewer studios have been including them, presumably because the DD and DTS-HD tracks are already so good. On BD these days, especially with newer films, it is tough to come by a really bad sounding track compared to the days of DVDs, IMO.

A few things here: Yes, you are seeing less and less uncompressed tracks as opposed to any others, notably DTS-HD Master Audio variants, as there was some kind of conclusion reached by the studios regarding their storage capacities and effectiveness of engulfing and resulting soundstage -- in my opinion, the PCM tracks never really sounded all that mind-blowingly great on the titles I own or have rented. In the case of Spider-Man 3, Sony actually put an Uncompressed PCM and Dolby TrueHD mix on the disc, making for a difficult choice by the end user on which to pick as they are for the most part aurally identical -- however, under close scrutiny, I believe the TrueHD mix edges it out as bitstreamed from my OPPO player to my AVR. While no slouch, the PCM track just had something "missing" from it...

That said, what I am finding interesting is the fact that nearly all new releases are not being encoded with a Dolby TrueHD track anymore -- just about every title I have seen in the recent past have had Master Audio tracks on them, and even releases from studios that aren't as big as Warner or Columbia/Sony. Warner has seemingly switched from a Dolby/Dolby TrueHD supporting studio to strictly Master Audio on their new releases, and many studios are following suit. I wonder what is going on at Dolby Labs that we don't know about...is the codec due to become extinct? Is it going to go the way of the Do-Do bird and Dolby Digital Plus?

Now, with that said and with regard to your final paragraph, while many BD soundtracks do sound superior to many DVD counterparts, I am finding that this "lossless" surround audio isn't quite what the Blu-ray Disc Association originally wanted us to believe...that it's "ridiculously superior" to DVD's lossy codecs and such; I just don't hear it. Granted, I do not have a mega-buck system that retails for the cost of a Lake Tahoe mansion, and maybe the people wealthy enough to own a system like that can hear definite improvements, but in my opinion, the lossless brigade wasn't what it was cracked up to be. It's definitely not a night-and-day difference from the legacy DVD tracks -- even Geoffrey Morrison, ex-video editor for Home Theater, made a comment about this when the HD DVD and Blu-ray formats first arrived, regarding how these new lossless codecs aren't night-and-day improvements over the lossy DVD tracks. He confirmed this sentiment when he became editor of Home Entertainment after leaving HT.

Also -- one of the most disturbing things I have found in this entire fiasco has been the loss of difference between the DTS-HD Master Audio full lossless mixes and the core DTS stream extracted from them -- my first generation BD player didn't have MA support at all, so I was listening to the bitstreamed core DTS signals stripped from the MA tracks and sent bitstreamed to my AVR. Then, when I got the OPPO BDP-83 and was able to experience the full, bitstreamed MA lossless versions of the same titles, the difference was not noticeable. Many claim the difference between the core DTS stream and the MA lossless extensions are staggering -- but I simply do not hear any, at all.

There are a number of excellent PCM tracks out there though. House of Flying Daggers is a good example of what an uncompressed track is capable of. Easily better than the previous dd or dts tracks.

I don't have much experience with this title, but I can recall the DTS track on the Superbit version being no slouch -- some claim the PCM track on Black Hawk Down sounds superior to even the DTS track on the Superbit version but I find that hard to believe, as the Superbit DTS mix encapsulates everything about that film (I own the Superbit, and have owned the standard bare-bones DVD release before selling it for the Superbit).

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Thank you!

What a relief!

And I thought I had lost it.

I have experienced the same thing with some PCM sounding inferior to DD or DTS!

And I thought I was the ONLY one!

Wait, could it be that some PCM sound levels are just LOWER than the DD or DTS sound levels?

It's possible the levels aren't as "hot" as the Dolby/DTS variants -- but I have found much more; let's take the aforementioned "Pirates" films on BD for example...I have switched back and forth, on the fly, between the Dolby Digital mix and PCM mix on the same disc for these films, and when the Dolby track is engaged, the whole soundstage just jumps to life -- in the second film, where Johnny Depp is shooting his way out of the floating coffin, you can hear the waves gently lapping in the surrounds on the uncompressed track, but when I switched to the Dolby Digital track (still on the Blu-ray), the lapping of the water became much more forceful with a punchy presence. You would this this would be the other way around, but that's not what I experienced...

 

[j_garcia]

What I notice with the uncompressed PCM tracks that are good is a finer detail. Louder doesn't = better, but that is often how it is percieved. The reason why I mention HofD is because the well known scene in it "Echo Game" has both elements that are very loud and forceful while also having very quiet and subtle moments, and I IMMEDIATELY noticed this with the Oppo. I have seen and heard this film in many formats, and though the video isn't good on the BD, the audio is excellent, and it has always been a favorite demo title. A more accurate representation of what was recorded may simply not be as "punchy" While "punchy" may be a personal preference, that doesn't mean it is a "superior" track I have come across a few titles where I have experienced the same thing as well.

I agree completely that the new codecs aren't night and day over the previous ones, especially when comparing good quality mixes. In general, I can hear that there is improvement there for sure, but I have a feeling most of that is lost on the average consumer since not everyone has a multi-thousand dollar system nor do most seem to desire a "big" system either. Everyone thinks a theater-like system is fun, but the actual number of people out there who are willing to spend top dollar to get a high quality system aren't the majority.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

What I notice with the uncompressed PCM tracks that are good is a finer detail. Louder doesn't = better, but that is often how it is percieved. The reason why I mention HofD is because the well known scene in it "Echo Game" has both elements that are very loud and forceful while also having very quiet and subtle moments, and I IMMEDIATELY noticed this with the Oppo. I have seen and heard this film in many formats, and though the video isn't good on the BD, the audio is excellent, and it has always been a favorite demo title. A more accurate representation of what was recorded may simply not be as "punchy" While "punchy" may be a personal preference, that doesn't mean it is a "superior" track I have come across a few titles where I have experienced the same thing as well.

I agree completely that the new codecs aren't night and day over the previous ones, especially when comparing good quality mixes. In general, I can hear that there is improvement there for sure, but I have a feeling most of that is lost on the average consumer since not everyone has a multi-thousand dollar system nor do most seem to desire a "big" system either. Everyone thinks a theater-like system is fun, but the actual number of people out there who are willing to spend top dollar to get a high quality system aren't the majority.

With regard to your second paragraph, I find it so disturbing that we "need" to spend thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars for truly top-shelf stuff in order to reap the benefits of the new surround formats and such; take my case as an example: I purchased the Onkyo 605 at the time of its launch specifically because it offered an extremely affordable price point and allowed me to get into the new formats via onboard TrueHD/Master Audio/DTS-HD High Resolution/Dolby Digital Plus decoding (which is the reason I suspect most of the 605 owners bought theirs) and it came from a manufacturer I trusted and respected based on previous purchases -- now, the 605 promised stellar decoding of the new formats via a bitstreamed signal from a source deck, but alas, when all cards were on the table, it was discovered that the processing chip in this AVR wasn't powerful enough to actually apply Audyssey algorithms to the high resolution codecs due to its limited processing power. So, when TrueHD and Master Audio bitstreams are being processed and played, the Audyssey implementation settings aren't being applied (from what I have read). Couple that with the fact that somehow, someway, people who have bought gear at the 605's price level simply aren't experiencing the new codecs the way they're really meant to be (presumably) because of the limited DACs, etc. in these units, and you really start to get frustrated over the fact that you can't buy anything affordable and simultaneously acquire effective quality.

Now, with regard to your first paragraph, sure, it can be argued that louder isn't necessarily better, but it's definitely perceived by most as such -- and what I was describing as "punchy" with regard to the Pirates soundtracks was really more than that, and it's difficult to explain; I understand what you are saying about more detail being there with the lossless/uncompressed audio -- even in subtle sequences -- but when I switched between the Dolby Digital track and the PCM track on the Pirates discs, on the fly, I was able to discern a clearly audible jump in tactile response, even in the surround channels where the lapping of the waves, as I said, were just more "real" and "there" in Dolby Digital. This is really a head scratcher, because it should be the other way around...

 

[j_garcia]

I wasn't suggesting that there is a "requirement" exactly, to have a $10K system to benefit from the new sound formats, but since the difference isn't as big, you will likely notice it more on a better system to some extent. That doesn't mean on a "normal" system, there isn't a benefit.

LFE and separation are the areas I notice the improvements. Even with DVD, it was obvious with full bitrate DTS tracks, that a higher bitrate already made a difference. With current tracks, it really depends on the mix and the master. If they were done well, then even at a lower bitrate, you can end up with a great sounding mix. I have some DVDs that still sound amazing.

At first, I wasn't sure 1080p was really a big improvement either, but after watching enough HD DVD and BD movies and then watching a SD DVD, I could really tell where the benefits were. Since they are smaller with the audio in most cases, they are likely even harder to differentiate. There is no doubt in my mind that the new codecs are better, but what I was getting at is, is that small benefit really worth it?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I wasn't suggesting that there is a "requirement" exactly, to have a $10K system to benefit from the new sound formats, but since the difference isn't as big, you will likely notice it more on a better system to some extent. That doesn't mean on a "normal" system, there isn't a benefit.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting, with my comment of "with regard to your paragraph..." that you were implying something -- I was just kind of commenting in that fashion; still, I don't really hear much, if any, difference between a well mastered DVD soundtrack and, say, a Dolby TrueHD/DTS-HD Master Audio variant. Does The Dark Knight sound good in Dolby TrueHD? Absolutely, will wallops of wall-rattling LFE my Polk sub can't even take...but, I have demoed the default (when you start the disc) Dolby Digital track on the Blu-ray, and to me, it sounds every bit as involving, wall-shaking and aggressive as the TrueHD mix. Maybe it's just me and my ears, but I have been reporting on this phenomenon ever since I began reviewing the high definition titles.

What really gets me, though, is the fact that I hear no discernable difference between the lossless Master Audio tracks and their core DTS counterparts -- a good example is the remake of Taking of Pelham 1,2,3...I was running this Blu-ray's Master Audio track as a stripped core DTS mix before I got the OPPO. When I got the OPPO, and was exposed to the full lossless Master Audio track, bitstreamed for my 605 to process and decode, I heard absolutely NO difference between it and the core DTS stream.

Now, perhaps there isn't much difference there -- some say it's just the lossless "extension" that adds some elements into the mix to make it more engaging, but I simply do not experience it on my system.

LFE and separation are the areas I notice the improvements. Even with DVD, it was obvious with full bitrate DTS tracks, that a higher bitrate already made a difference.

If you mean like comparing a DVD soundtrack from a Superbit disc, with higher bitrate audio and video compression schemes, with a non-Superbit title, then yes, I have heard improvements there as well -- but again I don't feel it's tremendously better. And I have a LOT of titles I replaced on Superbit so I was able to compare their non-Superbit versions with the DTS tracks on the Superbits...

An example: In my opinion, the DTS mix on the Spider-Man Superbit didn't sound much better, or any different, to me than the Dolby Digital track of the original standard DVD release.

With current tracks, it really depends on the mix and the master. If they were done well, then even at a lower bitrate, you can end up with a great sounding mix. I have some DVDs that still sound amazing.

True -- Cloverfield on DVD comes to mind here, which I own, and it contains a wall-breaking Dolby Digital 5.1 mix. Also, the DVD release of Casino Royale sounded EVERY BIT as good in Dolby Digital as the Blu-ray's TrueHD track in my opinion...perhaps even a tad bit louder with more LFE.

At first, I wasn't sure 1080p was really a big improvement either, but after watching enough HD DVD and BD movies and then watching a SD DVD, I could really tell where the benefits were. Since they are smaller with the audio in most cases, they are likely even harder to differentiate. There is no doubt in my mind that the new codecs are better, but what I was getting at is, is that small benefit really worth it?

This is a very good question you pose at the end -- but with regard to your 1080p observations, that's something I have been trying to make people understand...that the visual sense is always going to discern something much more quickly and obviously than the aural sense. Or, to put it better, audible improvements are much more subtle.

But don't get me started on the whole 1080p being better thing -- I have my own feelings on that one. Many titles I replaced on Blu from DVD didn't look any better to my eye than the DVD, notably Independence Day which to me looked like the DVD transfer with added film grain. Of course, there are all kinds of explanations from the studios regarding this; supposedly, Fox used old masters when encoding the BD transfers for films from this era, including ID4 and Fight Club, so the BDs didn't look all that great.