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

[MarkHastings]

I understand why a mono movie (where only 1 speaker was being used in the theater) would be DD 1.0 on a DVD, but can't we also argue that comparing the center speaker in a lot of home theaters is NOTHING compared to the center speaker of a movie theater?

The reason why I was saying it would have been nice to have a DD 2.0 option for Citizen Kane is so I can get more bass from my main speakers (My center just doesn't cut it). I hardly doubt that many HT center speakers can replicate the original "Theatrical" experience.

I guess you can argue that I don't have a proper center speaker, but is it fair to say that every consumer must get a HUGE center that can process bass as well as the mains?

 

[Geoff_D]

It's true that many people won't budge over the OAR issue but are more flexible when it comes to the audio - and I'm one of 'em. While I find most 5.1 remixes (from mono soundtracks) to be gimmicky at best, I still like to have the 5.1 option. I'm extremely grateful that some remixes i.e. the Kubrick remasters have been put on to dvd. And when they are done as subtly as these (using nothing but original sound elements) you can appease both the purists and the multi-channel hungry hordes.

Others, like Terminator, ain't so good. This is probably the most cringe-inducing example of a 5.1 remix that I have in my entire collection, and even the mono track on the disc isn't really up to scratch. The remix is very passable as a 21st century 5.1 EX mix on it's own, but it's so different it's like watching another movie! The blood-and-thunder Terminator soundtrack that I grew up on simply doesn't exist in that 5.1 form. I'm glad I kept my THX laserdisc version!

Sometimes an old LD (or God forbid VHS) version of a movie is closer to the theatrical intent than a brand-spanking dvd version, and this leads to the dichotomy which seems to trouble so many people. Do you go for the dvd, which will give you glorious picture quality but possibly altered sound? Or an LD or VHS version that has the original soundmix still in place but with a non-anamorphic analogue picture full of noise etc. that deflates the modern notion of home cinema? Ah, the cruel home cinema gods; with one hand they giveth, and with the other they taketh away...

 

[Patrick McCart]

The problem with using 2.0 for mono is that it makes the entire front into the soundstage. Sure, it's "wider" but the sound isn't focused anywhere. With a center speaker, it's right above your monitor.

Besides all that, disc space is saved a little. This way, the video gets a few more bits.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

[Citizen Kane] was restored because the original negative(s) were deteriorating. The restoration was to try and make the negative (or interpositive or whatever they restored) try to look as close to the original release as possible. So restoring a film in no way violates the "preserve the original theatrical presentation" tenet.

It does if your clever digital restoration accidentally removes most of the falling rain from a scene.

 

[Edwin-S]

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

The thread should not turn into a "purist/5.1" debate; however, when comments like the one quoted below show up, it is quite easy to see why a thread can become polarized.
------------------------------------------------------------

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.....
------------------------------------------------------------

This comment (not posted by you) implies that a person is a "filmlover" only if the "original" theatrical release is recreated. Anyone who likes a remixed 5.1 soundtrack is suddenly a philistine playing with their "toy" and wanting "only to have their speakers filled up". Statements like that seem to ignore the fact that many older films were originally recorded using multi-track equipment and then downmixed to mono for distribution because most theatres did not have, or did not want to aquire, the equipment for playing back the original multi-channel mixes. The original mono presentation may not have been the only way to sonically present the film. Lots of older films may have been shown using a "mono" track purely for economic reasons, not technical ones.

In order to be real "filmlovers" people should not be expecting pristine transfers of films onto DVD, either. To really get the original theatrical "feel", people should be happy with transfers that have dirt specks, film scratches, film burns, misaligned framing, and frame jitter because all of those elements are also part of the theatrical presentation. People should also throw popcorn on the floor, spill their drinks, and let the stuff dry to a sticky mess that bonds their shoes to the floor of their home theatres. Only then will they have reached the "purity" of the theatrical presentation.

If the elements exist to make a proper multi-channel remix, then I see nothing wrong with providing one, as long as the original mix is available for those "who only want to fill up one speaker". I do agree that if the film was recorded using only mono, then it makes no sense to try and create a 5.1 remix because the elements do not exist to do the job properly. Any remix of a mono only track would sound contrived.

 

[MarkHastings]

Good post Edwin

While I prefer OAR, I'm definitely one who would rather have a dust/scratch free presentation and (at least) a stereo soundtrack on my DVD's. If this is to say that I'm only in love with the technology, then good for me...this would explain why I have hundreds of DVD's and less than a dozen VHS (the DVD experience is sometimes MORE enjoyable than the movie itself).

The OAR is the only thing I want to be exactly the same as the theatrical release, I've never been a fan of theaters and think the original theatrical experience of a movie pretty much sucks! Annoying kids crying, people laughing and you can't hear the next line, people's phones ringing, people getting up and walking in front of you, crappy sound systems in lower budget theaters, crappy projectors that make the movie image jump up and down.

I saw The 6th Sense and Me, Myself & Irene in this theater that had such a blown out sound system that it was Hideous and the film kept flickering and jumping. I hardly think anyone would want that experience on their DVD's

p.s. This whole argument sounds very similar to the old guys I used to work with who used to say that computers aren't better than the traditional ways of creating art. I guess I just prefer my technology and like it to be used to its fullest potential. But that's just me.

 

[Gary->dee]

It's not unusual for soundtrack scores to be recorded in stereo but then mixed to mono for a final film mix.

It's during the mixing process that their music is 'dumbed down' to mono. And as the soundtracks of these movies prove, a stereo score does exist. But I don't doubt that to make a stereo or 5.1 version of a movie in which they're using a mono print to make the DVD would be difficult.

This whole argument of how a movie was originally presented is comical because as someone mentioned, how was the movie presented in the particular theater you saw it at? Would you determine that that is the true way it should be represented on future DVD releases? Back in the day movies were presented in a few limited sound formats depending on the theater's ability to present the movie. So to say that a movie should be presented on DVD as it was in the theater is like saying what came first, the chicken or the egg. How was the movie made to be seen despite the capibility of the theaters it played in- mono or stereo? And with the variety of sound options available in theaters today- SDDS, DTS, THX, and more, what should it sound like when it goes to DVD?

If some people are bitter about a DVD that features a bad 5.1 mix then I don't think they should discard the whole notion of remxing movies to 5.1. It's a bit like saying, "I slept with a blonde chick and she gave me the clap" so you automatically have something against blondes.


Edwin-S: YES!

 

[Edwin-S]

I saw The 6th Sense and Me, Myself & Irene in this theater that had such a blown out sound system that it was Hideous and the film kept flickering and jumping. I hardly think anyone would want that experience on their DVD's.
------------------------------------------------------------


Your story reminds me of the time I went to a local theatre to watch Titan AE. The theatre had reached the end of the road and closed shortly after. The film was shunted off into one of the smaller theatres which did not have a surround system. The movie was mixed for surround but I had to listen to it in stereo. At least one of the speakers was blown so any low frequency sound caused the speaker to just rattle and buzz. All in all, a quite unsatisfactory presentation, but I guess according to "purists" since I experienced the film theatrically in that manner, I should have the same experience recreated on DVD. I guess when I watch Titan AE at home, I will have to boot my speakers in so I can have the theatrical "experience".

 

[Gary->dee]

You speak the truth, my friend.

I understand the ethical standpoint of DVD purists who wish to own what was presented in theaters. But the presentation was based on the ability of the individual theaters. Besides that, people should make a clearer distinction between watching a movie in a movie theater and at home. They're two different animals. One is untamed and uncontrolled by the moviegoer while the other is entirely the opposite. If you have a crappy experience at a movie theater because of a bad print or the limitations of the theater's equipment and want the same from the DVD in order to preserve the integrity of the filmmaker's vision or your viewing experience, then the point of the DVD format escapes you. And maybe it escapes me too because I want the best presentation, not the original presentation.

 

[Patrick McCart]

It does if your clever digital restoration accidentally removes most of the falling rain from a scene.

So, the whole thing is bad because of that one shot? LDI's restoration software is more than petty DVNR.

 

[Edwin-S]

And maybe it escapes me too because I want the best presentation, not the original presentation.
------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that sums it up quite nicely.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Films such as Being There, It Happened One Night, and 8 1/2 are fine in their original mono form. Why would a 5.1 track be needed for these films?

Because a surround mix of Being There, would be more like 'being there'!
We naturally hear surround, and the added atmosphere of a multi-channel mix would put the view 'in the scene' more.

Check out As Good As It Gets, for a dialog driven movie that benefits greatly from a well produced multi-channel soundtrack.

This however is not how the movie was 'created'. So, I will 'stick' with the original mono soundtrack.
But, this does not mean this film or others would not 'benefit' from a soundtrack that put the viewer in a sonic atmosphere, that matches the visuals of the film.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Your story reminds me of the time I went to a local theatre to watch Titan AE. The theatre had reached the end of the road and closed shortly after. The film was shunted off into one of the smaller theatres which did not have a surround system. The movie was mixed for surround but I had to listen to it in stereo. At least one of the speakers was blown so any low frequency sound caused the speaker to just rattle and buzz. All in all, a quite unsatisfactory presentation, but I guess according to "purists" since I experienced the film theatrically in that manner, I should have the same experience recreated on DVD. I guess when I watch Titan AE at home, I will have to boot my speakers in so I can have the theatrical "experience".

Yeah, and EdwinS, don't forget to throw popcorn on the floor & put gum on your seat!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

In other words, playing a 1.0 DD mono soundtrack in "phantom" mode on your receiver

DaViD Boulet,
What receivers have a "phantom" mode?

 

[MarkHastings]

And for a lot of the older movies, you need to add the reflection of the theater doors letting in light every time they are opened when someone goes to the bathroom. LOL

Imagine having something like that overlayed onto your DVD or a silhoutette (like Mystery Science Theater 3000) of someones head, blocking the lower part of the screen.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Cell phones going off & babies crying!

 

[Edwin-S]

Yeah, and EdwinS, don't forget to throw popcorn on the floor & put gum on your seat!
------------------------------------------------------------

For Titan AE there were so few of us that the floor never got dirty; therefore, dirtying the floor at home would not be recreating the "theatrical experience".

I will, however, have to keep the idea of creating that kind of ambience in mind if I ever decide to torture myself with another viewing of "Die Another Day". The gum idea sounds good, butI may add a few ringing cell phones.

 

[Stephen PI]

MarkHastings :
I understand why a mono movie (where only 1 speaker was being used in the theater) would be DD 1.0 on a DVD, but can't we also argue that comparing the center speaker in a lot of home theaters is NOTHING compared to the center speaker of a movie theater?

I fully agree with you. The basic complete 5.1 systems that you purchase in stores, the standard of quality of the center channel doesn't usually come close to the performance of the L/R speakers, as they are basically frequency limited for dialog reproduction, and should not be heard on their own. Even a full range center speaker that is designed to match the L/R speakers is also dependant on correct room acoustics and usually needs to be matched to the L/R using an equalizer with pink noise and then balanced with same. Then you would be able to confidently listen to a 1/0 center channel mono source, until that time comes I would recommend listening to phantom mono through the L/R speakers.

 

[Brendan Brown]

wow, I guess theatre experiances are much better up here in Alberta, the only two bad film experiances I had these last few years were a sticky floor for Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (on opening day no less) and a slightly mis-framed image for 'Adaptation'

 

[Steve Christou]

I have Conan the Barbarian on DVD in 5.1 stereo, region 4, and its so good I never want to hear it in its 'original' mono again, ever, Poledouris fantastic score sounds richer, fuller and more powerful than the feeble mono version I had before on dvd, so I'm all for certain films getting the full surround re-mix treatment, adds a new dimension to your home theater experience... gaah I sound like an ad blurb.