Replacing mono soundtracks with multichannel revisions - Time to take a stand! - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 11:11 AM
Senior Member
 
bonham2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgatie View Post

Non-CGI effects are dead; it was good for 20 years ago. All non-CGI films should be remixed in CGI.

Academy Ratio films are dead, it was good for 60 years ago. All 4:3 films should be recropped to widescreen.

Black and White is dead; it was good for 70 years ago. All B&W films should be remixed in color.

Silent films are dead; it was good for 80 years ago. All silent films should be remixed to include sound.

Etc., etc., etc.

How do you make a clapping icon, because that would be perfect here.

Why is it that people will flip out about something changed in a picture, but they don't care about the audio? God forbid a movie should be released in 1.85:1 instead of it's original aspect ratio of 1.78:1. There will be 20 threads demanding re-issues, but The Terminator bd, with enough empty space for 20 audio tracks is released minus the ORIGINAL AUDIO TRACK and some people couldn't care less.

It's been said before on this thread, and it really should just be the final answer...Give us the advanced audio codecs in addition to the original theatrical audio. In most cases, the original audio isn't going to take up much room on a 50gb disc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgatie View Post

The "it was a technical limitation at the time" argument is a very slippery slope and I'm afraid it is anathema to anyone who appreciates film. Taken to a not too far extreme, you can use that argument to justify anything - Greedo shoots first, full CGI shark all throughout the first hour of Jaws, cops holding walkie-talkies like shotguns in E.T., the list goes on and on. Better to just say you don't like mono and wish for a remix to be included with the original, than to use an argument which justifies all sorts of film butchery; some of which you may not like or agree with.

Did this happen? I know about Greedo and E.T., but what is this about a CGI shark in Jaws??? My DVD does not have CGI sharks, thank you...
bonham2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jgatie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonham2 View Post

How do you make a clapping icon, because that would be perfect here.

Why is it that people will flip out about something changed in a picture, but they don't care about the audio? God forbid a movie should be released in 1.85:1 instead of it's original aspect ratio of 1.78:1. There will be 20 threads demanding re-issues, but The Terminator bd, with enough empty space for 20 audio tracks is released minus the ORIGINAL AUDIO TRACK and some people couldn't care less.

It's been said before on this thread, and it really should just be the final answer...Give us the advanced audio codecs in addition to the original theatrical audio. In most cases, the original audio isn't going to take up much room on a 50gb disc.



Did this happen? I know about Greedo and E.T., but what is this about a CGI shark in Jaws??? My DVD does not have CGI sharks, thank you...

Sorry, I was hanging out in one of the "I hate grain" threads and a poster was calling for these types of enhancements "so them old boring films can attract us young gamer type people!!" I guess the nightmare is following me. Rest assured, Bruce is safe and sound; perfectly ensconced in the latter third of the movie (and just as fake looking as ever when he jumps on the boat!).
Jgatie is offline  
post #93 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 12:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:


Mono soundtracks were not designed to be heard through just one speaker. They certainly didn't play that way in theaters at the time.

Of course they were! And they did! As a matter of fact untill the advent of CinemaScope with 4 track mag sound, theaters only had one speaker and one amplifier (well, actually 2 amplifiers, but the second was was a backup in case the primary failed. Of course, that one channel did consist of a woofer and a mid/high frequeny driver (crossover 500HZ).

Even after the CinemaScope revolution, over half the theaters were just too cheap to install 4 track installations and continued with the single channel of amplification through a single speaker.

It was not till the emergence of Dolby Stereo that the vast majority of theaters converted to multichannel audio.

Quote:


When I saw these at the theater, I believe the sound was coming out of all the speakers.

Nope, the standard for reproducing optical sound tracks was a single (center) channel even if the theater had a multichannl installation.

Vern
Vern Dias is offline  
post #94 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 12:37 PM
Member
 
mrbmarco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So when I saw The Godfather in 1972 at Edward's Cinema in Newport Beach, all the sound was coming out of just one speaker???
mrbmarco is offline  
post #95 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 01:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SirDrexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 4,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am guessing that the effect of outputting mono in all speakers would be to pull the sound towards the middle of the room, which would probably sound odd. This is called "full mono" on Onkyos.

A mode I think would work better, would be where there is a low amount of sound directed to the other speakers for ambiance. This is called "mono movie" on Onkyos.

Onkyos also have a mode simply called "mono" that directs sound to the left and right front speakers instead of the center channel.

So, with these receivers you have 3 alternatives to playing through the center speaker to try out.
SirDrexl is offline  
post #96 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:


So when I saw The Godfather in 1972 at Edward's Cinema in Newport Beach, all the sound was coming out of just one speaker???

Yep. That is the SMPTE standard configuration for a mono optical sound track. Since Dolby Stereo became popular in 1975, it's unlikely the theater even had more than one speaker behind the screen. Not only that, but it's likely frequency range was probably flat from 70 Hz to 5 KHz due to equalization applied in the theater sound system to comply with something called the Academy curve.

Vern
Vern Dias is offline  
post #97 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 03:31 PM
Senior Member
 
jpb123's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post


Here is a problematic case: Gone with the Wind. GWTW has been remixed several times in stereo (I remember hearing it in 4track magnetic in 1961 and in 6track in 1968 for example). I am not sure what the correct solution for this film is.

My basic point: it depends.

I'm surprised no ones asked yet. So i guess I'll have to.

How on earth can anyone remember how many audio tracks a movie had when watching a movie at a theater 47 years ago???

Really. This is not a put down and I don't doubt the fact but I would like to know. I have a problem remembering which movies I watched last week.
jpb123 is offline  
post #98 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 03:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpb123 View Post

I'm surprised no ones asked yet. So i guess I'll have to.

How on earth can anyone remember how many audio tracks a movie had when watching a movie at a theater 47 years ago???

Not so hard, you will in 47 years talk about the old Dolby digital tracks you heard.

Quote:


Really. This is not a put down and I don't doubt the fact but I would like to know. I have a problem remembering which movies I watched last week.

Then you watch to many movies...
MovieSwede is offline  
post #99 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 04:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Rutgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpb123 View Post

How on earth can anyone remember how many audio tracks a movie had when watching a movie at a theater 47 years ago???

This is one of the most pragmatic responses I've seen in this thread. I could no more tell how many tracks a movie had when I saw it in the theater, than I could jump over my house. And I'd be willing to bet that most here couldn't tell either. At least not without cheating. Had I not read it in this thread, there is no way I would have ever known that The Terminator soundtrack on the BD was different than the one I heard in the theater 25 years ago. I did note that the BD sounded really good though.

Rutgar is offline  
post #100 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:


How on earth can anyone remember how many audio tracks a movie had when watching a movie at a theater 47 years ago???

They don't, it's only an "affectation". The funny thing is while they looked up the info on IMDB, they forgot to look up the history of cinema sound reproduction in theaters, thanks to Vern Dias that has been cleared up as well.

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #101 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 05:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,223
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 412 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

Of course they were! And they did! As a matter of fact untill the advent of CinemaScope with 4 track mag sound, theaters only had one speaker and one amplifier (well, actually 2 amplifiers, but the second was was a backup in case the primary failed. Of course, that one channel did consist of a woofer and a mid/high frequeny driver (crossover 500HZ).

I stand corrected. Thanks, Vern.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #102 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 05:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,223
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 412 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar View Post

I could no more tell how many tracks a movie had when I saw it in the theater, than I could jump over my house.

Perhaps not by listening, but if you had gone out of your way to see the movie in a theater advertised to have a brand spankin' new audio system installed, you might remember it then.

I very clearly remember going to the next town to see Jurassic Park in a theater with DTS. The theaters in my own town hadn't upgraded yet, and that was the first movie released with DTS audio.

As for how it sounded, well I remember it being really loud.

Quote:


Had I not read it in this thread, there is no way I would have ever known that The Terminator soundtrack on the BD was different than the one I heard in the theater 25 years ago.

I can't disagree with that more. Certain scenes in The Terminator (like the opening) sound good, but overall it sounds very artificial. Obviously mono ambient elements bounce distractingly from speaker to speaker. The new sound effects are much clearer and louder than most of the older sound effects that weren't replaced (switchblades, etc.), making them seem very out of place. And of course, some of the new effects are just wrong. Whether you're familiar with the movie or not, when Arnie pulls out a giant friggin' hand cannon and it makes a silenced thwip thwip thwip sound, you know that ain't right.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #103 of 111 Old 06-19-2008, 06:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Ignorance is bliss. Sometimes it's nice just being able to enjoy the movie without worrying about crap like this that you don't know about and can do nothing about.
Doctor is offline  
post #104 of 111 Old 06-20-2008, 04:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rutgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Perhaps not by listening, but if you had gone out of your way to see the movie in a theater advertised to have a brand spankin' new audio system installed, you might remember it then.

I very clearly remember going to the next town to see Jurassic Park in a theater with DTS. The theaters in my own town hadn't upgraded yet, and that was the first movie released with DTS audio.

As for how it sounded, well I remember it being really loud.

Well, I remember seeing a movie called 'Earthquake' that used huge subwoofers placed in every corner of the theater to rattle the place when the earthquake hit. I believe it was called 'Senssurround'. But that's the ONLY time I remember anything about a sound track in a theater. And I would never expect a DVD to try and replicate THAT. If for no other reason than it was gimmicky and sounded like crap.


Quote:


I can't disagree with that more.

There's nothing for you to disagree with. It's a fact that I couldn't tell the difference.

Rutgar is offline  
post #105 of 111 Old 06-20-2008, 08:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 410
Quote:


Ignorance is bliss. Sometimes it's nice just being able to enjoy the movie without worrying about crap like this that you don't know about

It's that attitude that brings us pan and scan, colorization, EE, DNR/grain removal, and all the other stupid butchery of the original film.
RobertR is online now  
post #106 of 111 Old 06-20-2008, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rutgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

It's that attitude that brings us pan and scan, colorization, EE, DNR/grain removal, and all the other stupid butchery of the original film.

Well, no. Not exactly. Pan and Scan was brought about due to NTSC TV being 4:3, with an average screen size of 14" to 24". Colorization was a numb-nut idea by a numb-nut person for his 'old movie channel'. EE and DNR are tools. And like any tool, they can be overused, and abused. So I don't think it was any sort of 'attitude' that brought these things about.

Pan and scan was product of its time. Just like Mono. Frankly, I think you have to take each film on a case by case basis, as far as their original mono soundtracks go. Some films will benifit from being re-vamped. Some won't. And as long as the end result compliments the final product in my HT, then that's what I care about, and not some misplaced nostalgia about something 99.9999% of people would never know the difference in the first place.

Rutgar is offline  
post #107 of 111 Old 06-20-2008, 09:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 410
Quote:


Well, no. Not exactly. Pan and Scan was brought about due to NTSC TV being 4:3, with an average screen size of 14" to 24". Colorization was a numb-nut idea by a numb-nut person for his 'old movie channel'. EE and DNR are tools. And like any tool, they can be overused, and abused. So I don't think it was any sort of 'attitude' that brought these things about.

No, that IS it exactly. The people who do Pan and Scan get away with it because so many people watching movies on TV let them get away with it--in other words, because they are "blissfully" IGNORANT about the issue. The same goes for the "numb-nut" you refer to. He wanted colorization because it would appeal to those who are IGNORANT about the issue of preserving a film's original look, and want films to look more "modern". In fact, colorization comes from the SAME attitude as that regarding DNR/grain removal". "Ugh, I hate that old film look/sound! Make it look/sound like shiny new HD!"
RobertR is online now  
post #108 of 111 Old 06-30-2008, 11:27 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Consumers looking forward to buying the upcoming restored version of the Godfather trilogy on BR can rest easy with regards to the soundtracks for each film: Unlike the recent DVD 'special editions' which offered multichannel revisions and nothing else, the BR box-set will include the original mono sound for parts I and II.

NB. Part III was issued in 70mm for certain venues, featuring a 6-track Dolby Stereo SR soundtrack, so the multi-channel BR version will generally approximate the original theatrical experience.

Excellent news all round.
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #109 of 111 Old 06-30-2008, 11:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rdclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Philadelphia Vicinity
Posts: 4,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar View Post

Pan and scan was product of its time. Just like Mono. Frankly, I think you have to take each film on a case by case basis, as far as their original mono soundtracks go.

I agree that pan and scan came about during a time when letterboxing would simply have not worked, with the overwhelming majority of the audience using small screens with marginal resolution.

The problem is that the practice created a perception of normalcy, a habitual way of looking at video, which became so hard to dislodge that even in today's large-screen HD video world we still find significant numbers of people who won't accept black bars, even when the picture in the frame is huge and perfect.

People look at the package and not the content.

They do that with audio as well. Even though sound mixing in mono is and was a highly developed art that produced many masterpieces, there are people who won't listen to them just because they're mono. They've become habituated to the presence of positional information in audio tracks (even if it's fake), and are listening for what's not there and not what is.

When a mixer had only one channel to work with, creating atmospheric, immersive, intelligible, dramatic sound tracks was an entirely different art than it became when spacial cues and surround effects could be used for those purposes. That art is worth something, and shouldn't be thrown away just because it isn't modern.

Whether it's Casablanca or the Beatles, the original mono mixes are invaluable and irreplaceable. I have no problem with listening to a contemporary attempt to update the sound of any movie as long as they don't throw away the original or remove it from circulation.

Wide Awake

on the Edge

of the World

 

rdclark is offline  
post #110 of 111 Old 06-30-2008, 05:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
GregK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Whether it's Casablanca or the Beatles, the original mono mixes are invaluable and irreplaceable. I have no problem with listening to a contemporary attempt to update the sound of any movie as long as they don't throw away the original or remove it from circulation

And that, is an excellent summery of what this thread is all about.

So go ahead... Take that soundtrack, ... add new effects, remove some old ones, kill some dialog ...change the music, make it 7.1 ..whatever floats the focus group's boat, or is the craze of the day.

AS LONG AS the the original mix (you know.. the one the director originally approved, the one that may have won awards, the one that was originaly heard in theaters, and the one you may prefer) is also included. The thread title specifies mono, but for that matter, this is also just as much of a problem with many older multi-track and Dolby Surround titles. Someone decides the original Dolby Surround or multi-channel mix needs an "upgrade". And good luck (outside of FOX) finding the original multi-track mix on a DVD or BluRay if there's been a remix.
GregK is offline  
post #111 of 111 Old 06-30-2008, 06:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 560 Post(s)
Liked: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

I agree that pan and scan came about during a time when letterboxing would simply have not worked, with the overwhelming majority of the audience using small screens with marginal resolution.

The problem is that the practice created a perception of normalcy, a habitual way of looking at video, which became so hard to dislodge that even in today's large-screen HD video world we still find significant numbers of people who won't accept black bars, even when the picture in the frame is huge and perfect.

People look at the package and not the content.

They do that with audio as well. Even though sound mixing in mono is and was a highly developed art that produced many masterpieces, there are people who won't listen to them just because they're mono. They've become habituated to the presence of positional information in audio tracks (even if it's fake), and are listening for what's not there and not what is.

When a mixer had only one channel to work with, creating atmospheric, immersive, intelligible, dramatic sound tracks was an entirely different art than it became when spacial cues and surround effects could be used for those purposes. That art is worth something, and shouldn't be thrown away just because it isn't modern.

Whether it's Casablanca or the Beatles, the original mono mixes are invaluable and irreplaceable. I have no problem with listening to a contemporary attempt to update the sound of any movie as long as they don't throw away the original or remove it from circulation.

+1.

Very nice post to read.
FilmMixer is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off