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

[TedD]

For films recorded in Dolby Surround, i.e. with a matrixed mono surround channel and matrixed centre

Films aren't recorded this way, they are recorded with many discrete channels and then mixed to a 4 channel master that is then processed by the Dolby encoder into the Dolby Stereo two channel release format.

So, I agree that retrieving the 4 channel master and releasing the DVD in discrete 4 channel format is a good thing, and in no way invalidates the integrity of the movie.

Ted

 

[Michael Reuben]

Anyhow, Stargate had multi-track sound since it was released. It had a Dolby Stereo SR track and a DTS track theatrically, but the DTS track may have been DTS Stereo (matrixed surround).

I can assure you that the DTS track of the original Stargate release was 5.1 (or at least 5.0). It was one of my earliest experiences of a well-presented multi-channel track in a theatrical venue, and it was thrilling.

M.

 

[MarkHastings]

How come no one's commented on my Breast Implant analogy


Anywho, DVD's should really make the 'artistic' fans and the 'technology' fans both happy. Considering the trouble these studios go through to make a Pan & Scan version along with a Widescreen version, there should be no reason to create a mono version and a stereo version as well.

p.s. Mixing technology and art is a bad combination to begin with which makes both sides of the argument pretty futile.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Okay, Mark, your analogy is very offensive.

I'm all for 5.1 remixes if done properly for movies where it's appropriate, but I don't see the problem with including a mono track if the movie was originally done in mono.

 

[MarkHastings]

Okay, Mark, your analogy is very offensive.

Of course it is.

 

[BrianV]

Just wanted to post a quick note.

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.

Anyone who thinks the stereo version of this album sounds better than the mono one is *crazy*. The stereo version is really just a curiosity. Nice to have, I suppose, but hardly a replacement for the original.

Brian

 

[MarkHastings]

EDIT: Double Post

 

[MarkHastings]

Anyone who thinks the stereo version of this album sounds better than the mono one is *crazy*.

Crazy? Why do you say that?

I'll agree that it's not the 'original intent', but to like something that wasn't the original intent doesn't make you "crazy" :rolleyes. It also doesn't make them any less appreciative. Appreciation of an art form means that you respect it's quality. I appreciate mono soundtracks, but I don't necessarily have to like it.

Take offense to comments that say a mono soundtrack "sucks" because that is not appreciation, but understand that someone who prefers stereo to mono can have just as much appreciation for the medium as anyone else.

Shunning the mono to stereo process is just as unappreciative to the technology as anyone elses comments.

p.s. CD's can't truly be mono anyways. The best they can do is produce a Left and Right track of the exact same soundtrack, but that's getting nit-picky

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Oh yes I can, and I will. I have been a projectionist for over 40 years now, and the center speaker (in some cases the ONLY speaker) in a movie theater is the only one used for mono (means one the last time I checked ) sound tracks.

In the days before CinemaScope, the center channel was the only channel. In the days after CinemaScope mono otical tracks continued to use only the center channel.

But does a single channel always equate with a single speaker, or do they use arrays, particularly in larger theaters. That's my point, really, depending on the size of your home theater, even a good center channel may not be able to provide a full sound when used all by itself.

 

[Gary->dee]

Well, BrianV, I'll make the comparison when I get the Pet Sounds CD. Luckily they included both mono and stereo version on the same disc. For all I know I might prefer the mono mix.

I have too believe your just young

You're right, Ed St. Clair. I am young. I'll be 33 in April. :p)

 

[Stephen PI]

quote:

"Films aren't recorded this way, they are recorded with many discrete channels and then mixed to a 4 channel master that is then processed by the Dolby encoder into the Dolby Stereo two channel release format.

So, I agree that retrieving the 4 channel master and releasing the DVD in discrete 4 channel format is a good thing, and in no way invalidates the integrity of the movie."


It is policy in some studios that the four-channel mix master - intended only for the Dolby Stereo two-channel format - should not be utilised as a discrete mix, due to the way it was mixed and monitored thru the Dolby encoder.

The many pre-Dolby four-track discrete mixes made in the fifties, sixties and early seventies are commonly turned into Dolby encoded two-track mixes, sometimes with difficulty as they were intended to be played discrete and are not two-channel stereo and/or mono compatible.

 

[Carlo_M]

For the sake of argument and because Universal was the original distributor of Jaws 2 I think it's safe to say they do possess whatever it takes to boost it up to at least stereo(while also providing the mono track of course). Whereas MGM wasn't the original distributor of Mad Max and yet they were still able to make a great DVD version.

See that's a dangerous argument to make, because:

1) at the late 70's early 80's film preservation (as far as the studios were concerned) was at an all-time low, even some movies in the 40s and 50s were in better shape than some movies in the 70s-80s,

2) Jaws 2 may not have had the "anticipation" behind it because Spielberg & Dreyfuss was not involved so even though the studio was hoping to cash in on the success of Jaws, I think even the suits knew this movie wouldn't hold up and become a "classic" as the first one did,

3) Mad Max was created by George Miller and from what I've heard the man cares about the films his company makes and thus it is more likely I think to find original multitrack masters from his vaults then from a huge entity like Universal who was cranking out movie after movie.

Now could Universal have done a multitrack remaster? Who knows, we sure don't. But also think about whether they would want to invest the money for something like Jaws 2. I don't have the DVD sales figures on this one, but I'd be willing to bet it isn't worth their investment to go to great lengths to do one.

And as has been said, multitrack remasters/remixes are fine as long as the original track is included, but we shouldn't necessarily be assuming that every mono track has surviving multitrack masters to make surround mixes from.

 

[Gary->dee]

Carlo I think, as often is the case, that's what it all boils down to: money. Like much in this world, money determines a great many things. Universal likely didn't think Jaws 2 was worthy of includng an additional stereo track. It's a shame really and I probably wouldn't be concerned with the matter if John Williams didn't score the sequel.

 

[Ed Bishop]

In a perfect world, everybody could be made happy: first, by offering those who want the original monaural--or basic stereophonic--soundtrack that option. Since DVD's allow this, why not? The sound elements are already there(or should be), so that leaves room for a 5.1 remix--provided, that is, it's a real 5.1 remix and not the 'fake 5.1' kind ala A HARD DAY'S NIGHT. That one still rankles me: the songs aren't stereo--just fake stereo, made louder to make them stand out more:rolleyes. That would have been easy to live with had the original mono soundtrack been offered as an alternate track; again, everybody happy(well, sort of).

Hey, I can think of many films with mono-only soundtracks I'd like to have at least a stereo for; quite a few, well into the 1980's. I also understand the monetary aspect, and the possibliity the director might not want any changes made. But it's only fair we be told in advance what's going on.

ED

 

[TedD]

But does a single channel always equate with a single speaker, or do they use arrays, particularly in larger theaters

Altec Voice of the Theatre systems use from 1 to 4 15" woofers housed in a folded horn enclosure. The speakers are mounted as close to one another as their dimensions allow.

The HF horn, really a misnomer since the crossover is 500 Hz, may have a single driver or 2 drivers coupled with a Y to a multicell horn array that ranges from a 1x3 to a 4x5. In very large theatres, 2 arrays may be used for increased horizontal or vertical coverage, but they are mounted as a single vertical line source behind the screen.

At any more than 10 feet from the screen, it's a single point source to the audience.

No different from my HT which uses a 2 way center channel, except the theater is a little larger with a few more cubic feet of space to fill.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/T...22/vot/vot.htm

http://www.audioheritage.org/images/...xtracts/a4.jpg

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/53stereo.htm

Ted

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Ted is, of course, correct regarding the center speaker stack in a theater. It's the same as your home center speaker but just a *bit* larger...