Ever decide not to watch a DVD because it was only DD 2.0? (1 Viewer)

[Tommy Ceez]

I can't figure out why so many people insist upon the correct aspect ratio while also insisting on a modified soundtrack.

With older films some sound technology was not yet available but might have been used. Modified aspect ratios are taking films that had film options available, used them, and then had them altered by a third party afterward. A completly different situation.

 

[Yoshi Sugawara]

No, I used to think like that when 5.1 surround was new to me, but ultimately, it's the content that pulls you in, not the sound - because I've seen bad movies with great sound, and it's not that good of an experience.

 

[Bryan X]

A film being in mono or 2.0 won't keep me from watching it, but in each case I always wish I had a remastered/remixed DD or DTS 5.1 option.

I refuse to buy Pan&Scan, but for some reason a remixed soundtrack doesn't bother me in the least. A good example is Superman: The Movie. I absolutely love the 5.1 remix and added sound effects. I'm sure that's blasphemy to some.

I do wholeheartily believe though, that if a DVD is going to include an audio remix, they should also include the original audio mix.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Tommy,

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make (emphasis mine):

. A completly different situation.

When an old movie is remixed into 5.1, the soundtrack is "altered by a third party afterward" 99% of the time. And even those rare cases where the film's original director is responsible for the remix, such as Richard Donner's SUPERMAN, (not to mention Lucas & Spielberg) fans of the original won't necessarily accept the changes.

 

[Jeff_HR]

NO.

 

[Sebastien David]

I think Tommy's point was clear: whereas the original film was shot in a certain aspect ratio that was a conscious choice by the filmmakers, since they caould shoot it in any aspect ratio, the technology or budget was simply not there to create a 5.1 mix. I'm sure that if the filmmakers were given the choice between using a mono or stereo mix, or a 5.1 and up mix, they would choose the surround sound option! However, they just didn't have that choice.

Also, I'd like to add that I find widescreen to be a heck of a lot more aesthetically pleasing, and a much more natural aspect ratio, better adapted to how I see. That is one of the main reasons I avoid Pan and Scan when I can. I also find that a 5.1 or more mix is almost always more pleasing than a mono or stereo mix, regardless of the original mix.

I love movies, but sticking to the original concpet by the filmmakers is only one of my concerns. Having fun surpasses it, and mono, and even stereo to a certain extent, isn't fun most of the time, for movies.

I have never avoided watching a movie that was in less than 5.1, however. What I have done is the equivalent of avoiding Pan and Scan. I have avoided buying several movies (among which Taxi and Taxi 2) because we in Canada only received a butchered, extra-less, stereo version of the amazing European DTS 5.1 discs full of extras. I'm sorry, but I will not support a dumbed down version of something that could be so much better. I did rent the films, however.

 

[Geoff_D]

Going by Jim's rationale I would've passed on the original Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas dvd, but I'm so glad I watched it as it's a top film. And not wanting to annoy the neighbours at night, I often watch movies in 2.0 (decoded using DPL2) rather than the dd/dts 5.1 options. It helps that New Line are now mixing many 2.0 tracks in Logic 7, which has benefits even for 'humble' DPL2 users. I leave the 5.1 tracks for when my neighbours are out during the day!

But if you mean you don't watch older movies just because they're 2.0, then that's something I'd never do. If you can't bear to watch the movie with it's original soundtrack then you shouldn't really own that movie at all!

 

[Chad R]

Wanna put some money down on that?

In fact, there have been many filmmakers whho chose mono over Stereo Surround. Most famously Woody Allen refuses to use stereo on his movies, even today.

 

[Patrick McCart]

How The West Was Won is one of the titles originally released by MGM on DVD, then WB did later pressings in their own packaging.

It's been said that it's possible to adapt the 3-panel images to "smilebox" which removes the distortion caused by showing the film on a non-curved screen. This results in sort of a "wide angle" look, but it makes it look so much better. It's actually possible to use "smilebox" to create a 16x9 anamorphic master for DVD. You get a surprising amount of resolution back by putting smilebox in a 16x9 format.

 

[Terry St]

Whether you prefer listening to remixes or original audio tracks is largely a matter of taste. Still, I think most can agree that the origional audio track should be available on all DVD releases even if a remix is also included.

Interestingly enough, many 5.1 remixes of stereo or mono material make little or no use of surrounds. Often they don't even separate dialogue, score, and effects and you just get a mish-mash of all three in the center channel. 5.1 mono? Why bother? I suppose it helps boost sales with those who are predisposed to 5.1 material, such as the thread starter. I suppose it might also, in an ironic way, help the presentation stay truer to the origional by preventing the application of DPL2 or L7. :p

Personally, the one thing I would appreciate most would be if they'd start releasing more mono/stereo titles with PCM tracks. Why replace compressed DD2.0 with compressed DD5.1 that's still basically mono/stereo when you could actually *improve* things with an uncompressed track? I bet the same people who look for 5.1 on old black and white films would be just as likely to pick up a title with "Glorious State-of-the-Art Pulse Code Modulation Sound!" in big shiny letters on it instead of "Dolby Digital 5.1". Heck. They could probably get away with charging $5 extra while they're at it if they wrapped the suckers in tin foil!

 

[Jim Williams]

I appreciate all of the comments that have so far been posted. Like I said, I feel silly for not watching a movie just because it is not in DD or DTS 5.1. I think what is going on in my case is that I am still like a kid with a new toy. I am a relative HT newbie who has had his HT setup only since November and I am still in awe of it's capabilities. I actively seek out movies that will give me the most "wow" effect simply because surround sound is so cool. I love the scene in LOTR when Gandolph in trying to convince Bilbo to leave the ring behind. The sound swells and fills the room from side to side and top to bottom. There is the same kind of effect in Spiderman when the Green Goblin's voice is speaking to Norman Osborn.

Eventually the gee-whiz factor will wear off and I will once again appreciate a movie for it's own sake and not just for the "wow" factor.

I now have a 16:9 RPTV that is only 6 weeks old and, at least for the time being, I am loathe to watch anything that is 4:3.

 

[DeeF]

I'll take what I can get.

One of my more recent purchases is Giant. Apparently, there was a stereo mix of Giant which survives on a number of prints, which are in private hands. The sound on the DVD is 2.0, but it really sounds pretty monophonic. The music sounds hollow and tinny, most of it coming right out of the center channel with the dialogue. I'd love to hear this music (by Tiomkin) fill the soundstage with those brights horns and voluminous choruses.

So, I would advocate a new sound mix, to make the most of our technology.

But, to answer the actual question, I won't NOT watch a movie because of its lack of expansive soundtrack.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I theoretically might not buy a movie whose DVD release was significantly downmixed from theaters, btu that doesn't happen often. If the movie was 2-channels to begin with, the same presentation on DVD doesn't bother me.

 

[Kevin M]

My sound system serves the films and/or music I feed into it, the films and/or music do not serve my sound system.

To me a sound system should accurately convey (with some panache mind you) what was originally meant to be heard by the artists.

 

[Dan Kaplan]

There's another side to the issue that I don't see mentioned anywhere above. My old Pioneer Dolby Digital receiver was horrible at decoding 2.0 tracks. I tried every setting I could think of, and I never managed to get dialog more than barely audible. Very flat, muddled sound. I was new to DVD at the time and was horrified to think that stereo soundtracks could be labled as Dolby Digital... As a result, I avoided anything that was listed as 2.0. When I later upgraded to a good preamp, I was shocked to discover that a 2.0 track can sound nearly as good as a 5.1 track (not the latest and greatest reference material, of course).

Wouldn't surprise me if there are other processors out there that do a similarly bad job decoding 2.0...

Dan

 

[Lew Crippen]

As to the original question, I’ve never decided not to watch a movie because it has only mono or 2-channel sound. However as to some of the other points raised in this thread I have some views.

·Mostly I prefer that older soundtracks not be remixed, as I feel that the artistic intent of the film might be compromised.
·Specifically, no one would make a case for a 5.1 soundtrack on Hitchcock’s Psycho. There is a clear case where knowing where the sound comes from won’t work. And if there were surround effects for the whole film, but not for the crucial scene, it would be a cheat.
·But some films such as Das Boot have had very successful remixes in 5.1 that enhance the director’s original intent, in making the film feel even more intense than it does otherwise. IIRC, Wolfgang Petersen, the director made this point in the DVD commentary.
·I sometimes fervently wish that almost anything would be done to the sound on Alexander Nevsky. One of the most brilliant and exciting scores ever written for film (Sergei Prokofiev) and one of the most anemic soundtracks ever.
·Sometimes I like hearing a whole new score. For example, Philip Glass wrote a new score for the 1931 Dracula, which had before various pieces of music from classical composers, but nothing much that was written for the film. I think that the Glass score is a vast improvement, but I’d not buy a DVD that did not have the original score.
·I have some opera DVDs that have both 5.1 and 2-channel, PCM audio. I always choose 2-channel in these cases.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I think I understand what Jim is saying. There are times when you want to enjoy the film and other times when you need to enjoy the hobby.

 

[Eugene Esterly]

NEVER!

I watch all of my DVD's regardless of the amount of audio channels. By not watching DVD's which don't have 5.1 audio, you are missing out on a lot of movies.

For example, I have a good amount of DVD's which are DD 1.0, DD 2.0+ such as movies from Troma (Yes, I am a fan of Troma), Firestarter, Universal Classic Monster Collection, Young Frakenstein, Legend of Hell House (DD 4.0), TV shows, etc.

By refusing to not watch a DVD which doesn't use DD, 5.1 audio (DD & DTS), you are missing out on a good amount of DVD's. Watch the DVD, don't worry about what audio the DVD uses.

 

[Dmitry]

Only when I am choosing demo material to show off the sound system will I pass up a DVD based on the number of audio channels

 

[Julian Lalor]

I'm sure that if the filmmakers were given the choice between using a mono or stereo mix, or a 5.1 and up mix, they would choose the surround sound option! However, they just didn't have that choice.

No, but that is not a justification for turning mono films into stereo ones. Widescreen wasn't available in 1939, but that doesn't mean we should turn around and crop Gone With the Wind to a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (as was actually done to that film in the '50's, to great long term damage for its preservation).