Would you rather have an LT or an LA?

[SignOfZeta]

The problem with AC-3 these days is that nobody has manufactured an AV receiver that will accept the raw signal in probably a decade or so. Therefore, most people need an RF demodulator or something similar to convert it to what is now considered a "standard" Dolby Digital signal. I use a Harmon Kardon box that converts AC-3 to six line level inputs which then go into my reciever.

The upgrade is huge, btw. The difference between Dolby Digital and Dolby Surround is VERY significant, even if the number of DD titles isn't.

[Deletion]

I voted LaserActive because I remember it from back in the day; I'm not sure I was even aware of the LT when it was out originally. The combination of a LaserDisc player and a game console was crazy and awesome. And I was awed when I came across it at Lechmere (Does anyone remember that chain?).

[SignOfZeta]

The LA and LT have one thing in common: they are both examples of extremely high end shit the likes of which current generation games have no understanding of whatsoever.

[Ji-L87]

The problem with AC-3 these days is that nobody has manufactured an AV receiver that will accept the raw signal in probably a decade or so. Therefore, most people need an RF demodulator or something similar to convert it to what is now considered a "standard" Dolby Digital signal. I use a Harmon Kardon box that converts AC-3 to six line level inputs which then go into my reciever.

The upgrade is huge, btw. The difference between Dolby Digital and Dolby Surround is VERY significant, even if the number of DD titles isn't.

And here I am listening to the normal digital stereo audio track I don't suppose it's such a big upgrade if I don't have a surround speaker setup? (Tho' toslink out sounds nice).

[SignOfZeta]

If you don't have a multi-channel speaker setup then AC-3 is basically unusable. It's sole purpose is to give you 5.1 Dolby Digital. If you will only be listening to it in stereo/mono then the normal stereo audio you get from the PCM track will give you much better results. The AC-3 track *can* be mixed down to stereo but it's going to suck because it wasn't designed to do that. Volume levels will sound inconsistent, dialog will be drown out by rear surround effects, etc.

One of the big advantages or AC-3 LDs is that the mix isn't comprimised by making it compatible with downmixing like DVD tracks are. The separation and dynamic range is huge. Like I said though, this makes it a terrible track for mono/stereo purposes.

[esteban]

If you don't have a multi-channel speaker setup then AC-3 is basically unusable. It's sole purpose is to give you 5.1 Dolby Digital. If you will only be listening to it in stereo/mono then the normal stereo audio you get from the PCM track will give you much better results. The AC-3 track *can* be mixed down to stereo but it's going to suck because it wasn't designed to do that. Volume levels will sound inconsistent, dialog will be drown out by rear surround effects, etc.

One of the big advantages or AC-3 LDs is that the mix isn't comprimised by making it compatible with downmixing like DVD tracks are. The separation and dynamic range is huge. Like I said though, this makes it a terrible track for mono/stereo purposes.

Zeta, I love learning about this stuff. I had never really understood the technical issues until reading your post.