For a period of time I thought Dolby Digital was a waste of time and over-rated on laserdisc. I've been far from thinking that for many years. Investing in a quality (preferably Pioneer) RF Dolby equipped receiver changes everything. Next and equal is the brand of speakers and location. Dolby Digital can rock and have some very distinct separation.

PCM more often sounds awesome too. There will be always be lesser and greater audio mastering.

I shelled out the $$ for an RF demodulator back in the day and it just made LPCM lossy and defeated the point of buying the LD over the DVD (kind of like listening to a CD when you have the vinyl...).
I am not trying to be an a**, I guess everyone just likes what they like so I can't fault you for that.
Now give me a DTS Laserdisc and we are cooking with gas!

Anyway I guess we have sort of strayed from the subject of the thread.
Stay well.

I DON'T HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE WITH STAND ALONE RF MODULATORS. Several built in RF modulator receivers have always done the job for me. Enjoy.

1) You mean RF DEmodulator.
2) You love 384kbs Dolby Digital.

I get it and am happy for you.
Live and let live.

Yeah your right, my slip up, guess I had some old school brain regression. I think RF modulators had to do with conversion of vcrs to older crts sets. Could be wrong.

A Christmas Story on LD is in 2 channel stereo while the much later DVD release is in mono. I have to brag on that one. Waiting on BD to see what's on there, hopefully updated audio tracks. Personally I'm not sure it's worth going with 5.1 on LD, especially when you can go with DVD cheaper and easier. I mostly like LD for case, price and getting an original release format, preDVD, whilst still being collectable and quality for the long term.

When it comes down to LD's 1441kbps matrix Dolby surround track vs the 384kbps Dolby Digital track, it really comes down to the mix. I can remember in some issues of Widescreen Review, when making their DVD vs LD comparison reviews, they were actually rating the LD better for sound because the matrix soundtrack sounded better than the DVD or LD Dolby Digital track.

They stopped saying anything favorably about LD once they joined the DVD Forum though, saying that the DVD and LD Dolby Digital track for the same movies sounded exactly the same when that absolutely wasn't the case, and saying the matrix track "sounded fine."

But I feel for some effects driven movies, the Dolby Digital works better because of the more discrete separations and dedicated bass channel, despite the loss of bit rate.

Especially when you consider that theatrical Dolby Digital is only 320kbps.

(then again, my favorite theatrical sound system is SDDS, but that seems to be going the way of Kodak's CDS)

I used to subscribe to widescreen review and remember when they sold Laserdisc out and started treating her like a cheap wh**e.
End rant...

After watching Fight Club on BluRay it's hard to go back to any format. It doesn't sound like a good lossless track, it sounds like you've been transported into the actual movie. I've heard some spectacular discs but nothing compares to the best Blus.

I am inclinded to agree with you but I must again bring up the point of the sound mix. Check out "Freddy Vs. Jason" on Blu-ray then listen to the R3 DVD DTS track. The DVD wins hands down; the BD soundtrack mix sounds like it is full of holes while the R3 DVD is 360 degrees and you are totally enveloped.
I still say it is the human element that makes the difference and each film must be taken on a case by case basis no matter if it is Laserdisc, DVD or Blu-ray; this is why I collect all three as do many others.
Stay well.

Update on Christmas Story, received the Blu-ray in today and it has two tracks of DD 1/0 mono, at 192 kbs each. The Laserdisc wins with the only stereo release (not sure about vhs).

Edit: I think I misunderstood how mono works on LD. It's been awhile since I've played anything from composite source. My player said it was stereo, but it does appear to be the same mono track in both channels and that would make since because I don't know how else mono would work on two channel. There weren't any center channels then.

The DVD has it the same way with mono into left/right channels. The BD has it in center only mono which is the way most of my mono dvd's are, you have to manually change it on your receiver to split it two left/right channels. I would say the BD is better in its 'center only' mono track at 192kbs. It's much louder and crisper. Comparing using two channel method with all three I'd say they're all about the same, even the BD drops quality when split.

I think this movie was recorded in mono and if it had been stereo the BD would have used it.