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

[Michael Reuben]

where going from mono to DD5.1, is in no way losing any part of the sound

People in this thread have cited numerous examples where the conversion from mono to DD 5.1 has indeed resulted in "losing" part of the sound -- because it was replaced by new sounds. Noted examples include Superman, The Terminator and Jaws.

If you don't like the P&S analogy, consider the other one that's been offered: colorization. Adding color to Citizen Kane would in no way "delete" any part of the image -- but it would sure as hell change the film into something else.

M.

 

[MarkHastings]

Michael,

I totally agree that colorization affects the film. The examples that were given where the sound is lost in a 5.1 upgrade have more to do with BAD editing. There are plenty of mono to stereo conversions that don't lose a thing, and considering it's virtually impossible to create a pan & scan DVD without losing picture, I still think the original statement is incorrect (If the upgrade is done correctly).

i.e.
-Pan & Scan fills the screen, but doesn't give you all of the original picture
-DD 5.1 fills the speakers, but does give you all of the original sound (if done correctly)

Again, I take offense to someone who takes my wanting to have a lot of sound, and compares it to someone who wants less picture, because that's what you're comparing when you say P&S is the same as a 5.1 upgrade. I just want the most out of my system, that's all.

 

[Michael Reuben]

-Pan & Scan fills the screen, but doesn't give you all of the original picture

Sorry, but that statement isn't entirely accurate. Depending on the original filming process, it is entirely possible that a so-called P&S transfer will give you all of the original picture, and then some (a famous example is Pee-Wee's Big Adventure). What it can't give you is the original framing.

While these debates sometimes become a bit heated rhetorically, I see nothing in this thread worth getting offended about. Consider it a learning opportunity.

M.

 

[James Reader]

OK Mark, what about open matte transfers? They don't loose any of the picture and give you more of the image? Are they OK?

[Edit: I see Michael beat me to it]

 

[MarkHastings]

OK Mark, what about open matte transfers? They don't loose any of the picture and give you more of the image? Are they OK?

Open Mattes aren't the same as Pan & Scan. Open mattes don't give you any more of the original image. An Open Matte would be like comparing a soundtrack where you heard the director and crew talking off stage. It's just extra stuff that wasn't intended to be there in the first place. i.e. A 5.1 mix doesn't (or at least shouldn't) add any extra instruments or dialogue to the soundtrack. If this was to happen in a 5.1 upgrade, then I'd be upset, but (if done correctly) it shouldn't, so no, Open Mattes aren't the same and aren't ok.


I just had a funny thought (hopefully to lighten the thread up a bit).

What if we compared 5.1 audio to breast implants...Ok, don't crap all over me just yet, hear me out because it seems to make some sense (at least to me).

Now most guys like girls with implants as a form of entertainment...this is how certain DVD's are viewed. A lot of movies I have are watched for pure entertainment value and I don't mind if enhancements (such as a 5.1 soundtrack)are made to expand my senses and provide even more enjoyment (like enhancing the size of a breast). But at the end of the day, the movie is just entertainment and that's all it is.

Now those same guys probably don't want a girlfriend/wife with implants because they "Love" them for who they are and how God originally created them (at least I hope they do)...and this is how other DVD's are viewed. A lot of the movies that I "LOVE" shouldn't be altered from the original way in which they were created. I love these movies the way they are.

This statement hopefully sums up that we'll never agree which is better because of the different ways in which we view movies. I have a "Love" for Star Wars and wouldn't want it any other way then the way it was originally created (but someone else, who doesn't have the same 'love', might want a DTS soundtrack), whereas Terminator is just a movie that entertains me and any sort of enhanced audio just helps my guilty pleasure (whereas someone who 'loves' the movie might not want a 5.1 remix of the audio).

p.s. In the same sense, we can say that a 'bad' 5.1 upgrade is kind of like a botched boob job.

 

[Steve Christou]

Than again it is quite possible some films released in mono in the past 25 years were because of 1)costcutting 2)the director not having a clue about stereo sound and not bothering, or 3)couldn't give a monkeys if his movie was in mono or stereo (like some posters here), which is entirely possible. Not every mono film benefits from having a remixed track ofcourse, but some films can be enhanced by it. And I agree that the mono track be retained for the 'purists', but like I said once you heard Conan in 5.1 there ain't no going back baby.

 

[Stephen PI]

quote :

".....This is probably a stupid question but have any of the 70mm versions of films been released on DVD or have all the releases been only 35mm prints? There is, apparently, a 70mm version of "Zulu" which has a six track stereo soundtrack, but the version that MGM is releasing is a 35mm print with a mono track. Why not put the 70mm version out on disc?"

No, not a stupid question. If I understand you correctly, when preparing a master for a dvd, 'prints'- referring to material that gets sent to theaters - and their sound are not normally utilised, but only in cases when master material is no longer available and that situation is common. In the case of "Zulu", MGM never released this film originally (Paramount/Embassy '64) they only accquired rights in the last couple of years. The film opened in 35mm mono and a 70mm presentation did not happen until Feb' 72 (UK). The question is does an original stereo track and prints survive. If the stereo audio on a release print is all that survives, it can be transferred and utilised provided it is in good enough condition. When films change ownership, film and/or sound elements can go astray.

 

[Cees Alons]

Mark,

I just want the most out of my system, that's all.

Thanks for being so candid. To be frank: I already guessed that.
But can't you see some people want more? And something different? Like the film they love for instance?

Cees

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Carlo Medina said:

I guess I missed the rule somewhere along the way that you have to either a) like directors cuts, or b) dislike directors' cuts. I make my personal judgments on a case by case basis. People here end up arguing at length insisting that people choose a side (i.e. you either like the original mono and absolutely no multitrack remix, or you want everything remixed into multichannel) and absolutely adhere to that side. I refuse to adhere to some principal like it's dogma. I will judge changes based on the result. Make a great sounding 5.1 mix out of original mono tracks? I am for it. Screw up a mono track by using cheap gimmicky effects simply for directionality (especially when not appropriate like the instruments coming from behind me in the DTS mix of The Eagles Hell Freezes Over) and I won't like it.

This pretty much sums up my feelings. While I do find some 5.1 remixes to be quite well done and do not drastically alter the intent of the original soundtrack, I still would prefer to also have the original mix as an option. This is especially the case when the new mix turns out dreadfully, such as with A Hard Day's Night. I know that I will not be watching my DVD copy of this fine film much, since the new 5.1 mix really disturbs me. If Miramax had simply also included the original mono soundtrack, I would have been perfectly happy to ignore their 5.1 butchery.

As for "director's cuts", there are some that I think add value to the film (e.g. Fellowship of the Ring), and others that I do not care for (e.g. Apocalypse Now Redux). I prefer to judge on a case by case basis.

As for colorization or pan & scan, I cannot think of anything that would make me accept either.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Coming back to this thread a little late.

Gary,

Mono does a great injustice to movie music and music in general. In my humble opinion, of course.

Some folks who would disagree with you:

• George Martin & The Beatles
• Brian Wilson (Beach Boys)
• Phil Spector
• veteran Motown producers

These folks did virtually ALL of their classic work (up until '68 or so) in mono. The stereo mixes of these records were generally mixed by hired hands as an afterthought, in order to accommodate the new gimick "stereo".

Please don't fall for the brainwashing that monophonic sound is somehow inferior to stereo or surround!

 

[Chris Farmer]

[Music Nazi]Monophonic actually refers to instrumentation, mono meaning one, and phony meaning sound. Monophonic music is when all parts are playing the same thing at the same time (think Gregorian chant). This was replaced around the time of the Renaissance by polyphonic music, which often had different instruments/voices doing different things at the same time. Early polyphony was countrapuntal, with each voice having its own melody line, with the different parts often going counter to each other. Later, in the Classical period, counterpoint gave way to the homophonic texture, which involves one central melody line with the other voices providing less obtrusive backing. A mono mix is not monophonic.[/music Nazi]

 

[MarkHastings]

Chris, It is true that Monophonic relates (musically) to a single melodic line (where all the instruments play the same notes), but Monophonic (in electronic terms) can also be used to describe a mono mix.

Monophonic: Relating to a system of transmitting, recording, or reproducing sound in which one or more sources are connected to a single channel; monaural.

 

[Gary->dee]

Please don't fall for the brainwashing that monophonic sound is somehow inferior to stereo or surround!

It's too late, Rob. In this day and age I expect stereo sound at the very least and to hear anything in mono is akin to using a typewriting to write my script when I have a computer. Although that might not be the best example. I totally respect and admire all the artists you named who frequently recorded in mono such as The Beatles, The Beach Boys, and more but I simply cannot tolerate listening to mono if there is a stereo version available. Which is why I'll soon get rid of my mono Pet Sounds CD to get the version that also has the tracks in stereo. For me it's all about the way music is performed not recorded. Once you record music you're bound by the rules and limitations of the recording device. Further down the road, there could be limitations of how that recording is presented. I'm all about the source not the outcome from trying to capture the source to distribute it. I want to hear how it might sound if I were there with John Williams and the London Symphony Orchesta or with The Beatles in Abbey Road Studios. And the closest way of doing that is to hear their music in stereo.

Hopefully if a 5.1 mix of Conan becomes available for R1 I'll happily get rid of the mono "Collector's Edition"(what a joke) to hear the full range of sound and score. Some people say that they don't watch their 5.1 discs as often because of errors in the mix, well I don't watch my mono discs as often because I despise mono.

When I first started this thread, my question of "what were they thinking" came from the position of not fully understanding how important it is to a lot of people that the DVD should be as close to the original theatrical release as possible. To me it seems like a waste to put a movie on DVD in mono because it doesn't take advantage of the capibilities of the format. So my attitude was and for the most part still is: WTF? It's a digital medium and dammit I want to hear Jaws 2 or Conan in at least 2.0 stereo since I know it can be done. It's not impossible. But I understand the logic of the purists. But there's too many grey areas for me to fully accept their opinion as my own. Issues of exactly what the original theatrical was like or more precisely intended to be, regardless of the ability of the invidiual theaters to make that intention a reality. It's also a matter being able to let go of the original way something was presented to accept the DVD version since a home is still not a theater.

I understand the issues now as they have been clearly pointed out by so many people here. I'm glad that people here have helped me realize both sides of a situation I wasn't completely aware of.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

If I was paying many millions of MY dollars for a painting by Dali or Picasso damn right I'd want a say in how it is presented

Uh-oh, now you've done it!


"Paging Mr. Knapp, is there a Mr. Knapp in the building??"

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Which is why I'll soon get rid of my mono Pet Sounds CD to get the version that also has the tracks in stereo.

You could have done that 3 years ago...are you SURE you are a big Beach Boys fan?

 

[Rob Gardiner]

To me it seems like a waste to put a movie on DVD in mono because it doesn't take advantage of the capibilities of the format.

The DVD format is capable of presenting a color, widescreen image with surround sound. Is the Seven Samurai DVD a "waste" because it includes none of these things?

How is your attitude any different from the individual who, while flipping channels on his TV, automatically changes the channel when something B&W comes on, therefore encouraging colorization? How is this attitude any different from the push to "tilt-and-scan" Academy material to 16:9 in order to accommodate widescreen TVs?

The HTF rules state that this is a pro-AOR forum; therefore pro-P&S discussion is prohibited. Sometimes I wish the same respect for artistic integrity expressed by this forum was extended to the soundtracks as well.

(edit for typo)

 

[Gary->dee]

Michael, I swear I didn't know see the mono/stereo version of the Pet Sounds CD until recently! I was under the impression that the stereo version was only available in the Pet Sounds boxed set, which I wasn't prepared to buy. I admit I'm not the biggest Beach Boys fan around, but now that I know a stereo version of that great CD exists I'll sell my mono version for a few bucks credit and upgrade to stereo.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Thankfully, the "Pet Sounds" reissue CD contains both the original album and the stereo remixes.

And it's disappointing to see people care more about their equipment than what they're playing on it. The tail truly is wagging the dog in many parts these days.

We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended.

This is a mission of which some have apparently lost sight.

DJ

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Thanks Damin, for pointing that out. However, our own Mr. Ron Epstein himself has given a "pass" to remixed DVDs - A HARD DAY'S NIGHT comes to mind. I, like everyone else, appreciate the tremendous effort that Ron puts into his reviews but I felt slightly betrayed that this particular review did not contain sufficient warning, in my opinion, on the audio issue.

 

[Gary->dee]

Rob, personally I don't care who mixes an album in stereo as long as the music is for the most part, what it was when it was first performed. I don't hold any special allegiance to George Martin or Brian Wilson. "Some shmuck" better do their job right and make the music sound good, that's my only concern, not whose name is attached. Although Martin and Wilson's names do add a significant amount of the 'respect factor'.

Perhaps I incorrectly phrased my comment about a movie being wasted on DVD if it's only in mono. Specifically I'm referring to Jaws 2 and Conan. I do realize that a plethora of older titles will for the most part never be presented in anything by mono and/or full screen. But I approach and accept every title individualy based on when they were released, which is why in my opinion a movie released in 1978(Jaws 2) and 1982(Conan) should at least appear on DVD in stereo.

We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended.

Intended: that's a very important word. The way a movie is intended to be seen and how it is distributed can sometimes be two different things. If I make a movie with the intention of it being heard in 5.1, that might not be the case in every theater where my movie is shown.