Alterations to the film's original sound (merged w/"OSR: what about new sound mixes" (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

Edwin-S gets an award (which unfortunately is a big fat nothing) for being the first person to bring up my strongest argument for multichannel remixes being much different and more acceptable than MAR'ed films. The reason... directors made "acadamy ratio" (or any other ratio) films because they were mimicing whatever was a popular format at the time. Aspect ratio was not limited by budget or technology after about the 1940s or 50s IMO. Sound was. You cannot compare the two. Mono was used because that was all they realisitcallyhad, not because thats the way the directer wanted it.

great. so who gets to tell us what long-dead directors "really" wanted on their soundtracks? you? and what about special effects? certainly those were all made subject to the technological limitations of the time period and do not represent what the director "really" wanted. right? so do we go back and add CGI to Murnau's Nosferatu? and who makes these desires known from beyond the grave?
as long as it's just a giant guessing game, the technological limitation rationale is just another way of saying "i like having all my speakers filled up." you're not doing any filmmaker of the past a service by modifying his works in ways you think he would've or should've used in the first place. i'll trust their technologically-limited judgments anyday over future technologically-advanced modifiers who are in no position to make decisions about someone else's film.
DJ

 

[Edwin-S]

Hmmmm... and if Mozart had synthesizers, or better yet - developed a fondness for reggae - the 40th symphony might be the best jammin groove evah, mon!
------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that's right, mon. Do you think Mozart, being musically creative, would have ignored new musical instruments or new musical modalities, had he had access to them? I would like to think that he would have had the creative genius, which he obviously had, to realize the potential that such instruments or modes would have.
Would he have changed the 40th symphony? Probably not but on the other hand who knows what ways he might have incorporated such instruments or musical influences into his compositions. I don't think he would have ignored a synthesizer or new musical styles just because it wasn't an oboe or a musical pattern that he wasn't familiar with.
Getting back to the topic at hand. All I was saying with my hypothetical argument was that there is no way to determine if a mono track is what a director INTENDED....it was what he was LIMITED to by available technology. The only way you can determine if there was intent is if the director had different sound formats to choose from and deliberately chose to use mono anyway. In that case, the director's intent would be known and should be honored by reproducing it without changes....including "cleaning" it since all that analog noise is part of the original recording due to limitations of the original equipment. If you take out the noise then you are altering the soundtrack.....right? I mean....after all the director must have intended for it to sound that way.
The availability of colour film is a perfect example of what I was saying in the above paragraph. Directors had access to colour film and yet chose to film in B&W, therefore their intent was clear. There is no way that you would colorize such a film.
I guess it is a moot point because in all my posts on the subject I have stated that the original soundtrack should be provided, however, I don't think that a re-mixed soundtrack should automatically be excluded either. There are quite a few people who think that their preferences should be the only ones available and that anyone who differs is some kind of philistine who is desecrating the "purity" of the art by thinking that new technology can actually be used to improve a presentation.
Non-elitist philistine that I was, I actually, horror of horrors, used to watch P&S'd versions of movies....now I don't, however, I'm not sure I have the right to tell someone else that they cannot watch P&S'd movies if that is the way they like them. I just don't want them dictating to me that that is the way I should watch them too.
I like good quality audio, so please excuse my philistinistic belief in not wanting to hear something that sounds like it is playing on a "Victrola". I do support your right to have access to "Victrola" quality sound....if that is what you want.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The availability of colour film is a perfect example of what I was saying in the above paragraph. Directors had access to colour film and yet chose to film in B&W, therefore their intent was clear. There is no way that you would colorize such a film.

so colorization of pre-color B&W films is A-OK?

DJ

 

[paul o'donnell]

Mozart may have totally composed pieces using all electronics for all we know, indeed.

He MIGHT have, there is no way to tell. So the only way to be true to what he intended is to present the original.

Orson may have wanted Citizen Kane in colour, 5.1. He was creative (a given) and liked exploring new things. Thing is, colour was mainly reserved for Gone With the Wind type-films at that time.

A film, like most other creations, is a product of its time and the efforts of its creators, and as such should be left as they are for preservational purposes.

How many people scream bloody murder if shots are screwed up in a restoration? A disgrace to the cinematographer?

Why does this not apply to everyone involved in the sound recording and mixing when a remix is done? They're not as important?

 

[Iain Lambert]

What Paul Said.

As I've said just about every time the topic has come up, I want Mono Jaws with that lovely DVD picture quality! If you've ever tried synching up the mono laserdisc with the DVD in an attempt to get the best of both you'll know its blimmin' hard.

 

[paul o'donnell]

If you've ever tried synching up the mono laserdisc with the DVD in an attempt to get the best of both you'll know its blimmin' hard.

I wish I still had my LD player just to attempt that. No doubt there would be some colourful language as a result

 

[Mike Broadman]

Edwin, I don't think anyone's objecting to having both soundtracks on a DVD. At least I'm not. What got me starting this thread in the first place is that I've seen DVDs that have only the new soundtrack, and it surprised me that it never irked anyone here. It seems I was wrong: apparently, it does irk. Lots of irking.

 

[Edwin-S]

-----so colorization of pre-color B&W films is A-OK?------
No. If you gained that impression from my comment then I apologize. By saying the preceding and by extrapolation....I have to concede.....your point becomes clearer.
-----Edwin, I don't think anyone's objecting to having both soundtracks on a DVD.------
I'm not getting that impression from some of the posts I have seen. I get the impression, from some posts, that if it was originally recorded in mono, stereo, Dolby Surround, etc., that any re-mix is verboten. The only choice should be the originally recorded soundtrack, in their opinion.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Edwin,

The prevailing opinion is that the original soundtrack should always be included - not that remixing should be outlawed.

Here is an example of one interesting grey area I suggested earlier that skates on the edge of the "technological imperative" argument:

Wendy Carlos mentioned when she re-released her recordings for the Clockwork Orange soundtrack that the original soundtrack album had been created from the masters that were used to mix the movie soundtrack which were compressed because they were to be used to create optical mono mixes.

If an optical mono track had not been a limitation, then the full range tracks would have been used. In order to create a "full-range" mono track, one would have to remix using the better music tracks along with the original dialog and effects tracks. What should be done for modern presentations? Keep the band limited optical mono tracks? Remix for mono using the original mix as a reference? Remix for stereo (since the source music was recorded in stereo) using the original mix as a reference?

Regards,

 

[Edwin-S]

If an optical mono track had not been a limitation, then the full range tracks would have been used. In order to create a "full-range" mono track, one would have to remix using the better music tracks along with the original dialog and effects tracks. What should be done for modern presentations? Keep the band limited optical mono tracks? Remix for mono using the original mix as a reference? Remix for stereo (since the source music was recorded in stereo) using the original mix as a reference?

------------------------------------------------------------

This is where my need for "original presentation" wavers. In this case I do not believe that it was ever the filmmakers intent that the presentation be in limited band mono, it was forced on them by technical limitation. If the technology had been available to produce a stereo soundtrack for the movie then they would have used the tracks as originally recorded, otherwise why not just record your masters in mono in the first place and save the cost of a stereo master?

Playback technology for movies advanced to the point where the originally recorded stereo tracks can now be presented, so why not do so? The band limited mono should also be on the disc as well, though.

Sometimes I get the feeling with DVD authoring as it stands right now, that the order of importance is this:

extras, extras, extras. Even extras that do absolutely nothing to enhance a person's insight into the film.

The MOVIE

The priority, IMO should be:

The Movie

The aspect ratio

The picture quality

The audio broken down into a subsection

The original theatrical Soundtrack for posterity, ALWAYS

A remixed soundtrack if a credible job can be done (ie. if a stereo master originally was created and then reduced to another format because of technical limitations)

If a multi-channel mix (like Dolby surround) can be improved with a carefully done re-mix....then I do not see any harm in doing so.

After all of the above is done, then focus on extras.

The most attention should be paid to the quality of presentation first.

 

[Ryan L B]

Out of curiosity, why does everybody hate 5.1 remixes that are relesed when everybody has a surround sound system

 

[paul o'donnell]

Out of curiosity, why does everybody hate 5.1 remixes that are relesed when everybody has a surround sound system

I have a colour TV too, but I still watch black and white films on it.

 

[David Lambert]

Paul, that was the perfect answer!
My son's upset, though. No more Transformers logos in your sig?

 

[Ryan L B]

How does The Shining sound on a Sony Home Theater in a box since I rented it this afternoon as well as Joy Ride.

 

[paul o'donnell]

David,
I figured my commitment as informer of "The Return" was fulfilled. The new sig is for St. Patrick's Day, I figured I'd do some Joycean news spreading (I'll most likely keep it) A little further along the spectrum from TF, but you can still come to me for all your 'heroic autobot' needs. hehe

 

[Thomas T]

Pardon me if this subject has been discussed before but .....
It seems 99.9% of the HTF members are strict original aspect ratio advocates. Which is a good thing, of course. Yet I've noticed some members are more lax on the alterations of the original sound mix.
I noticed on another thead a poster hoping for a 5.1 remix on the upcoming The Day The Earth Stood Still a 1951 film in mono sound.
Which begs the question why members are fanatics about original aspect ratio but more lenient about changing the original sound mix? True, hopefully any DVD alterations would include the original mono mix for purists as ideally any P&S film would also include the wide screen version but whereas I doubt any member would ever watch the P&S version I suspect many would listen to the remixed 5.1 sound.
Am I way off base or on target?

 

[Brian Kidd]

You're right on target. For some strange reason, a great many Forum members have no problem with altered sound mixes. I suppose the reasoning is that creating a multi-channel mix where there wasn't one before doesn't actually detract from the original film like cropping a picture does. I've heard really good remixes and really bad ones. I don't have too much a of a problem with new mixes as long as they are done well and the original mix is also included on the disc. There have been times when the remixes are actually quite inferior to the original mixes. For example the HOLY GRAIL mix uses newly-recorded narration. SUPERMAN has new and at times inappropriate sound effects. In the case of HOLY GRAIL, Columbia at least included the mono track. No luck with SUPERMAN.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

You can count Superman as a result of Warner's standard practices at the time, which pretty much continues today where there is 1 soundtrack for each language

The Pythons made the Holy Grail DVD, and the re-recorded narration was required because the tapes were damaged.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

In the theatrical case of mono or stereo movies, Its easy enough to make a 1 or 2 channel DD track for a dvd (or a laserdisk).

How do surround movies work? Are DD and DTS Theatrical filmss encoded in 5 channels? are they made for thirty channels then downmixed for DVD? I always assumed theatrical surround sound films had man, many channels (at least 10), and then had to be downmixed to 5.1 or 6.1. And therefore purists didn't mind, because theatrical sound system were available.

Could somebody correct nme on this?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It'll be more complicated than my simple answer, Garrett, but this should clear it up a little.

No, modern stereo surround mixes in theaters (Dolby Digital, DTS) are 5-channel mixes (6 if they use the back center). These are then converted (by mixing dedicated bass to the .1 LFE channel for home use) to 5.1 mixes for the home. Mono films are played through the center speaker only in theaters.

You may be confusing the amount of speakers you see in the theater with the amount of channels. Think of it this way - in the standard configuration, a theater has three speakers behind the screen (left-center-right), and two channels of surround sound (also left and right). But because a theater auditorium is so large, they use multiple sets of loudspeakers for the surround channels to ensure even coverage for the entire audience. So you may see five speakers on the left and five on the right, but they are only being fed the two channels of surround sound.

There are some exceptions to this (Sony SDDS, 70mm), but the basics are the same.