Mono DVD's: What were they thinking? (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

BTW - it's not that simple to go into the original mono masters and just extract a 5.1 mix out of it. Chances are to do the job right, you'd have to go to the separate masters before they were mixed down into the mono master - that would involve finding just the orchestral master if it exists, and who knows if that is in mono or stereo or what? And then assuming you can find said master, you would have to do a 5.1 encoding of it by using probably gimmicky techniques. It might be easier to simply rescore it using a current orchestra! The most I think it's fair to ask for of these older movies is to clean up and restore the original soundtrack to the highest quality possible, bringing us as close as possible to the original theatrical experience. 5.1 remixes are generally unnecessary and often times not possible. Even then the results are hit-and-miss.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Watching a movie with robust scores such as the ones for Conan or Jaws 2 buried into a single audio track along with dialogue and sound effects, bites.

If you saw it in a theatre, that's the way it would be too. There's more to enjoying a soundtrack than just filling up your speakers.

 

[MarkHastings]

"Phantom" adds no processing to the sound

But it takes a digital signal and has to convert it into 2 separate analog signals, thus the signal is weaker and you have to turn your amp up louder (introducing more hiss).

 

[Edwin-S]

I've never understood why altering the image was seen as bad, but an alteration to sound is "only sound".
------------------------------------------------------------

Because a lot of the time remixing the soundtrack for multichannel makes for a more immersive sonic field; however, the original mix should be included for those who want it.

 

[Gary->dee]

So Williams and Basil arranged their scores in mono for the movie and in stereo for the soundtracks?

 

[Michael Reuben]

thus the signal is weaker and you have to turn your amp up louder (introducing more hiss)

That may be the outcome on your particular receiver, but it's not an inherent part of the process. I have a Lexicon processor that can put a mono signal into 7 speakers with no audible signal loss or increase in hiss.

M.

 

[Thomas T]

It's increasingly clear that home video has split into two camps. Those film lovers who wish to collect pristine prints of films they love in an accurate representation of the theatrical experience (OAR, uncut, original sound etc.) and those for whom home video is a giant toy and want the experience of their speakers to rattle and shake with loud sonic blasts of surround music, explosions on the right speakers, screams on the left speakers and gunfire on the rear speakers and if the original soundtracks weren't created that way, then they damn well better be souped up at any cost - artifically or any way necessary to "immerse" themselves in the experience.

Is Casablanca any the less of an experience because we don't hear the chattering of voices in Rick's cafe in multi channel surround sound or Max Steiner's score in 5.1 sound?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did movies (like Terminator) only have 1 speaker in the front of the theater? Mono doesn't mean 1 speaker.

Yes, you're wrong . Mono presentations in theaters use the center speaker stack only, unless the theater is doing something non-standard with their audio.

 

[Chris Farmer]

This may be sacrilege to say this, but I personally don't have any personal attachment to a theatrical version of a movie. The Extended Edition of Fellowship of the Ring is a good example of why this is, theatrical viewing is totally different from home viewing. I believe in OAR because of a preservation of artistic integrity, seeing everything that was meant to be seen (as opposed to having the sides chopped off) and not seeing things you're not supposed to (John Cleese's pants in A Fish Called Wanda). I don't go for colorization because it's not at all accuracte of what those movies would have looked like had they been in color, you're guessing at what colors clothing was, and the colorization process looks like crap anyway.

Sound is fuzzier. A top notch 5.1 remix will go the original source tapes and re-channel everything. Lesser ones take the original mix and simply redistribute it. The end result though in both cases, is when done properly nothing is added or subtracted, with an emphasis on when done properly. Obviously this can be screwed up, take the sharpening knife in Terminator for a good example. To take Jaws as an obvious example of what a remix can add, remixing so some of the sound effects of the water and the shark swimming gets transferred to the surround speakers (but not creation or elimination of effects) can add atmosphere, making you feel more like you're present as Bruce goes by. Movies like Casablanca are different, because the surround wouldn't add much anyway. Hell, quite a few modern movies don't make much use of surround, and they were filmed in it, because it doesn't fir the subject matter. But if a 5.1 mix can make the experience more immersive, then I'm fine with it. It's not about "filling up my speakers," it heightening the experience of being in the middle of things rather then having them presented to you. Of course, I think the original should be preserved, but if a remix is appropriate, I think it should be there. I mean, look what 5.1 has added to ST:TNG DVD season sets, with the sumble of the hsip constantly in the subwoofer, the terrific fly-by effects in the opening credits, all stuff that was lackign in the original stereo version.

A good 5.1 remix in my mind is analogous to what Pixar does with their DVDs. the orginal widescreen version is there, but for people who want full-frame, they go frame by frame through the movie and recompose the entire thing to preserve artistic integrity. I watch widescreen becaues I prefer widescreen in general, but I wouldn't feel the least bit guilty watching the full screen movie what it's been recomposed like that.

And I won't go into the impossibility of recreating the theatrical experience, so I'll jsut ask the question, which theatrical experience? What was the theater like when Citizen Kane was first shown? Which theater? The Oriental in Hollywood? The AMC megaplex downtown? The local theater down the street? My concern is less for a meticulous recreation of the exact theatrical experience and more for a fulfilling experience in general. But that's just me, and the glory of a forum like this is we can all have our own opinions, and are free to disagree, and express ourselves without ridicule.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

This is a very tricky area for me personally. I usually take this issue on a film by film basis, I like what was done to the audio on Superman John Williams opening score is simply to die for on the new disc, The Terminator and Jaws, however, I do prefer that the original tracks be included for those that want it.

This may seem like the ultimate oxymoron from this forums self proclaimed OAR Snob, but i'll fight to the death to get films presented in their OAR's, but i'm a little more flexable when it comes to audio formats.

 

[Douglas R]

So Williams and Basil arranged their scores in mono for the movie and in stereo for the soundtracks?

In another thread someone said that John Milius, who directed CONAN, wanted it to be theatrically released in stereo but the producers wouldn't put up the money. So where does this place the purist argument?

 

[TedD]

Before Dolby Stereo was introduced, it was also pretty common for studios to release a few prints for exibition in LA and NYC in 4 track mag stereo, but release all other prints in mono optical.

This was done because the 4 track mag striping and recording process added significantly to the cost of a print.

After the print was exposed and processed, then it had to be run through 2 additional steps, one to add the iron oxide stripes to each reel of the print, and another to actually record the sound on the stripes.

Many theaters were too cheap to replace the magnectic sounds heads, which wore out relatively rapidly, compared to the optical reproducer which theoretically would last forever.

This combination resulted in most of the world seeing the mono optical print, even though the 4 track stero mix was created.

Less common was to use an interlock process with the stereo sound tracks recorded on a separate film synced to a normal optical print.

Ted

 

[Carlo_M]

A good 5.1 remix in my mind is analogous to what Pixar does with their DVDs. the orginal widescreen version is there, but for people who want full-frame, they go frame by frame through the movie and recompose the entire thing to preserve artistic integrity.

Actually this is incorrect as well. A Bug's Life has many shots where they could not recomposite everything and so some characters were omitted.

And to draw your analogy out further, in order to recompose a 5.1 track from a mono (as I pointed out in Post #41) you'd have to not just go to the final mono master (where everything: dialogue, music, etc. already was mixed down) to the original master recordings of the orchestra (if they still exist) and THOSE might be in mono since that was the predominant recording format at the time. Then you'd have to artificially split a mono soundtrack into 5.1 to do it justice, and even that is very hit or miss. If you want a 5.1 from an old mono track you're probably just as well off asking your receiver to do it with the DSPs they offer. What you ask, a true discrete high fidelity 5.1 soundtrack cannot truly be gotten from an old mono track without using some sort of gimmicry or re-recording of music by a modern orchestra with modern techniques. You cannot draw blood from a stone.

 

[Carlo_M]

I will add one last thing:

I am not against 5.1 remixes as long as the original is still available somehow.

Again: I am not against 5.1 remixes.

But: I don't think studios deserve any sort of criticism for not putting one out. If they remaster and clean up the original track, be it mono, stereo whatever, that is as far as they should be required to go. But to say "mono sountracks what were they thinking?" the answer is quite clear: they are presenting the movie, as close as possible to its original release, as they could. Period. Now if the talent and crew get together and re-record a new score, or the director wants new footage, fine. I'm not against that at all (although the results can be disastrous in the case of one beloved trilogy). But I doubt that Orson Welles is rolling in his grave that Citizen Kane doesn't have a 5.1 track. And the 5.1 track for Wizard of Oz is gimmicky at best, proving that they probably should have left well enough alone.

 

[StephenL]

Mono is best from the center speaker. Left/Right speaker mono is a terrible thing to do to anyone who's not in the center seat.

 

[MarkHastings]

Left/Right speaker mono is a terrible thing to do to anyone who's not in the center seat.

What's the difference? A mono sound coming out of the left and right speakers will sound like it's coming from the center. So not only does this not affect the person in the center seat (which really doesn't make much of a difference in most peoples homes), but the people to the sides actually hear things better because of the L & R speakers.

 

[TedD]

A mono sound coming out of the left and right speakers will sound like it's coming from the center

Only if you are sitting in EXACTLY the same distance from both speakers.

Ted

 

[jonathan_little]

I find 2.0 "mono" to be annoying, since I have to use Prologic decoding on it to get the sound to be in its proper spot: the center channel.

For the scores of Jaws and Conan (or any film), I think the mono vs. stereo (vs. surround) sound design comes more from the scoring mixer and final sound mixer and not the composer themselves. Sure, John and Basil were undoubtedly in the mixing room at times to listen to things, but I think that they usually must trust the sound people to capture things right. Conan was originally recorded [poorly] in multi-track form since the CD releases are in stereo, but for the film we have a mono mix for whatever reason. The original Jaws soundtrack release was actually a stereo re-recording done in 1975. I doubt you'll find any composer complaining that their old score has been expanded from mono to stereo or surround from multi-track sources. As mentioned earlier, I doubt any of them composed their music imagining that it was stuffed into a single speaker.

An orchestra is about 100 'speakers' -- I'm just glad we now have 5.1 sound to enjoy modern score recordings more naturally. If people find acceptable multi-track masters of old scores, I usually find the 5.1 remix to be quite pleasing. I just wish that studios would also include the original mono mix to satisfy everybody.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

"In another thread someone said that John Milius, who directed CONAN, wanted it to be theatrically released in stereo but the producers wouldn't put up the money. So where does this place the purist argument?"

It's still relevant to how the movie was finally released. For a long time simply not all movies were released in stereo. The Terminator was released in mono too because it just cost too much to do stereo at the time. However, cheaper films like Last American Virgin were released in stereo.

 

[Carlo_M]

In another thread someone said that John Milius, who directed CONAN, wanted it to be theatrically released in stereo but the producers wouldn't put up the money. So where does this place the purist argument?

This thread has somehow become a "purist" vs. "5.1 fanatic" argument, which it is should not be!

The thread header says "Mono DVD's: What were they thinking?" and bemoans the fact that not all mono DVDs are made into 5.1 mixes. That is, IMO, wrong-headed thinking. If the mono master is all there is (and how it was presented originally) and that's what they put on the DVD, that is good enough. If the talent (be it director or the person who did the score, whatever) wants to go back and remix the sound, fine! But the studios should not be vilified for putting out the original soundtrack and blamed for not "going the extra mile and making a 5.1 remix."

This thread isn't a purist vs. non-purist thread. It's a thread questioning whether studios are in the wrong for only putting out the original mono mix and not remixing in 5.1. I maintain that the studios are not in the wrong if they do that.