Monday 27 November 2023

Mean Streets (1973)

1991 Warner LaserDisc [12241]: I wasn't expecting to find much of a difference between this LaserDisc and the later tracks, but it does have more detail. There is marginally more hiss, but the later tracks' reduced detail above 8 kHz (see 12) looks to me as if an attempt was made to filter away distortion. However, there's not much distortion on the LD to begin with (select music sequences aside), so detail has been removed. 

1999 R1 Warner DVD: This sounds decent, for the most part, but the final third of the film has significant bass reduction. 12/4/2023: Having given this a closer look, there is definite hiss reduction throughout, though not a terrible amount. There's also a constant faintly audible distortion in the high frequencies (visible in the spectrals above 12 kHz) not present on any of the non-Warner releases here.

2002 R2 E-M-S DVD: This disc, released in Germany, sounds ostensibly the same as the Warner DVD, but the Be My Baby sequence has its top end attenuated significantly. (It's worth noting that many of the songs in the soundtrack sound like they were sourced from trashed 45s, and this song and the final one are the worst offenders.) Most of the track is pitch-corrected (i.e. not pitched +0.7 semitones due to PAL speed-up) except the segment spanning from the opening to the end of the Ronettes song.

2011 Carlotta Films Blu-ray: Most of the film sounds similar to the Warner track but with more noise reduction. The last third has less bass reduction. Be My Baby has its high end shorn off, though it is pitched correctly. The final song at the end (~1:48:00) is similarly muted, but the sequence also looks like it's been dropped in from another source and is mixed differently - the traffic sound effects are louder relative to the music. There is significant limiting throughout. I had previously believed that this track was sourced from inferior elements, but now I'm not sure if this is the case... Most of it probably isn't, anyway. 

2012 Infopictures Blu-ray: Identical to the Carlotta track.

2012 Warner Blu-ray: The same as the Warner DVD. This is a lossy transcode.

2015 Icon Productions Blu-ray: This sounds okay - mostly like the Warner DVD/blu-ray, but with no bass reduction, and it's actually lossless. There is some limiting affecting only the loudest scenes. 12/4/2023: There is some hiss reduction relative to the LD, but less than the Warner DVD/BD. 

2023 Criterion UHD Blu-ray: Similar to the Icon track, but with different EQ throughout - more bass, and the high frequencies are emphasised more/less varyingly from scene to scene. 12/4/2023: There is a similar (or even the same? I wonder if both come from the same already-mastered progenitor) level of hiss reduction here as on the Icon and I am able to make segments from either disc sound like the other with EQ. 

All in all, the differences aren't huge. The LaserDisc certainly sounds the best, but I doubt most people would notice without A/Bing. 







12/4/2023: Added the Warner LaserDisc

7 comments:

  1. But the dweebs on the bluray forum have already declared the audio on the Criterion to be bad!

    ReplyDelete
  2. BD.com is full of misinformation and ridiculous hot takes. It's impossible to visit that echo chamber now and not witness signs of posters with severe psychological issues raging over stuff that isn't true or is nowhere near as bad as they say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The biggest issue that I have with that site (as well as on Criterionforum) is the amount of people on their who think that they are tech experts just because they repeat buzzwords like "encode" and "filtering" but don't even know what those words even mean. Also irritating is how they blindly worship and have a circlejerk over David M./FiM and act like everything they do is perfect, even though I have seen plenty of encodes done by them that contain macroblocking, poor grain structure, chroma noise, etc...

      Delete
    2. Completely agree, especially re. FiM - one of the reasons their encodes appear more detailed is simply because they slap on AI sharpening.

      Delete
    3. It's shocking to hear that FiM are using AI sharpening. Not that I doubt you but do you recall where you heard that from?

      Delete
    4. I’d long suspected it by how unnaturally pin-sharp many of their encodes are, but eventually it was confirmed to me.

      Delete
  3. They don't AI sharpen anything. Y'all are hilarious lmao

    ReplyDelete