The Terminator: SE 5.1 Audio Track -- Thumbs Down! (1 Viewer)

[Jerry Gracia]

(RE: THE TERMINATOR)
Well...I am extremely supportive of OAR, but when it comes to the sound...its a different animal to me.
I look at the 5.1 remix the same way as the new anamorphic transfer...stunning!
That's all I'm going to say.
I also own the original IMAGE DVD release.
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Michael Reuben]

quote: Anyway, the big question is - why do they feel the need to change?
Answer: $$$[/quote] Certainly that's one motivation, but in the case of The Terminator, there are others. If you listen to all of Brad Fiedel's hidden interview segments, it's clear that he was deeply frustrated by the limitations imposed on his score by a mono mix. He notes that synthesized sound needs at least a stereo mix to create any sense of acoustic "space".
Personally I found the new 5.1 mix to be exceptionally restrained and tasteful, opening up a space in which the sounds could be better heard without dramatically changing their original character. And the improved fidelity of Fiedel's score makes the film more effective, not less, IMO.
The comparison to altering a film by panning and scanning may be legitimate for some audio remixes, but not for this one. P&S is almost always a compromise imposed on the filmmakers; here, it was the mono mix that was the compromise imposed upon them. I don't think it's any accident that the disc includes interview segments with the producer, the writer/director and the composer talking about the unfortunate limitations of the original mono mix. The disc's producers are savvy and experienced at this game, and I think they were anticipating precisely the sorts of arguments being raised here.
I'm not suggesting that people can't prefer the mono mix if their taste is so inclined; that's why it's included. But it's hard to attack the remix as some sort of "violation" of the original when the filmmakers themselves support it.
M.
[Edited last by Michael Reuben on October 03, 2001 at 03:04 PM]

 

[Troy LaMont]

Ditto what Mike_G said.
I truly love the movie, but I use Mono Movie logic when watching it because I couldn't stomach the mono soundtrack. I also think the 5.1 sound mix gives this movie the depth that I feel it was lacking.
It sounds great.
Troy
------------------

quote::My teacher tells me beauty is on the inside.
:That's just something ugly people say.

[Edited last by Troy LaMont on October 03, 2001 at 09:42 AM]

 

[Matt_Stevens]

Well, I sat down to watch it last night and I HATED the 5.1 mix. Not only did they replace the gunshots with wimpy foley that sounds nothing, and I mean NOTHING like they did before, but pieces of music are missing! Right from the start in first future sequence, that Da da da du da DA DA da da music piece is gone. It's not there. Switch to the mono track and you will see. Leaving music out, especially a theme so universally recognizeable, defies logic.
I switched back & forth numerous times, comparing scenes (you have to go into the menu, as switching on the fly is not allowed) and I always preferred the mono, as it is what I have heard countless times and the changes to the structure of the sound in the 5.1 was so jarring, it was like watching a remake of the film. I hated it.
I have no problem with remixes that use the original sound stems, or that replace sounds with foley that sounds just like the original (Vertigo did a good job of this). But this is the worst example of remix tampering I have ever seen. It makes SUSPIRIA and SUPERMAN look like perfection.
worst of all: The mono soundtrack is encoded at 192k and sounds very compressed compared to my VHS tape! I was unable to turn the volume up to the levels I can get out of the VHS's soundtrack, because of distortion. The mono track should have been encoded at 384k. Had they done that simple little thing, then I would be as happy as a pig in shite.
I am getting downright pissed off at this remix crap. PARAMOUNT & WARNER remix films all the time and they always sound like the original, only in surround (not counting Superman). DEATH WISH, DIRTY HARRY, OUTLAW JOESY WHALES ad many more sound superb.
Even Anchor Bay, who mucked up SUSPIRIA, did a superb job with TENBRAE and DEEP RED, films that sound sensational now, but with the exact same feel and tone of the original soundtracks. But now they too have gone overboard and are changing mixes, leaving out sounds & dialogue by mistake and NOT including the original soundtracks.

[Edited last by Matt_Stevens on October 03, 2001 at 10:05 AM]

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Sorry Scott - I misphrased that portion of my note. It should have stated the some prefer the original mix because it sounds better to them.
Rob quoting your message:
----------------------------------------------------------
"I know why I prefer it. Because it sounds better. I don't mean in terms of fidelity or whoop-ass split surround effects, but purely in terms of coherence with the image onscreen.
As I said earlier, I find many of these 'remixes' to sound too 'new' compared to what I'm seeing with my eyes. Perhaps it's because the psychological link between the image and sound in a familiar movie has been changed to the point where I just can't get used to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I find that interesting. I'm watching on a 100" screen using front projection. Using the mono soundtrack, the audio just doesn't match up to the video. The 5.1 track does.
[Edited last by Lou Sytsma on October 03, 2001 at 10:57 AM]

 

[Jason Pugh]

Well, this is my first post here and I couldn't think of a better thing to post about than the Terminator: SE DVD.
I have to say that I'm very surprised at so many negative things said about the 5.1 soundtrack. I marveled at the excellent job that was done with this DVD in both picture and sound. The 5.1 has much more depth than most mono to 5.1 remixes and I think was done well. I totally agree with people that want the original on there and the good thing is that it IS there! Everyone should be happy with this DVD.
Anyway, I'm thrilled with the new DVD and wouldn't even buy the old version due to the mono soundtrack. Maybe I'm not a purist but I think it is rediculous in today's time not to have a 5.1 track on a DVD of a movie of this type when so many other (CHEAPER) films are doing it. As long as they provide the original material as well then I'm all for getting the BEST sound and picture as possible.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I'm watching on a 100" screen using front projection. Using the mono soundtrack, the audio just doesn't match up to the video. The 5.1 track does.

Well I've only got a 32" 16:9 CRT, so that probably explains it.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Regarding the mono bitrate. I think Roger Dressler (of Dolby) mentioned here some months back, that 192kbps is more than enough for a mono soundtrack. If it sounds weak, then it's more than likely down to the source materials or how it's been prepped.

 

[Matt_Stevens]

Regarding the mono bitrate. I think Roger Dressler (of Dolby) mentioned here some months back, that 192kbps is more than enough for a mono soundtrack. If it sounds weak, then it's more than likely down to the source materials or how it's been prepped.

The prior Terminator DVD, the laserdisc and the VHS all sound superior to the new DVD's mono soundtrack. There is a clear difference, especially in regards to bass. So something went wrong.
And I have talked with DVD engineers who say that mono will lose image and depth of comprssed to 192k. They recommend 384k.
------------------
www.deceptions.net/superman

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Oops! Duplicate.
[Edited last by Aaron Silverman on October 03, 2001 at 02:21 PM]

 

[Aaron Silverman]

How exactly does a mono mix lose image???

 

[Nelson Au]

Maybe someone can start a petition to have the DVD replaced with a better mono track like Universal did for the DTS Jurassic Park DVD. Now I am just joking here, so take it as an attempt to lighten the thread up. : )
Jason, welcome to the forum, well said.
[Edited last by Nelson Au on October 03, 2001 at 02:30 PM]

 

[Brett G]

Even after reading all three pages (so far) of this topic, I am still not clear on how adding a 5.1 remix (when supervised and approved by the director, such as Terminator) differs from a director's cut. I mean, a director's cut is when the director is able to change the film to make the version he originally wanted, but wasn't able to do, due to any of a number of reasons (budget, studio pressure, etc.). People cheer the fact that the director is able to bring his 'orginal vision' to us. How does remixing sound differ from this?
I never read people complaining about true director's cuts. If anything they are more desirable to many collectors. How many people refused to buy the new MGM Robocop DVD because it wasn't the unrated director's cut?
I guess I just don't understand why people outright dismiss any remixing, especially when it's quite obvious the director would have used a multi-track soundtrack if he had the money (or the technology). If you don't like the new remix, I can understand that and will support you. But saying that any remixing violates art is IMO just ludicrous.
-Brett
------------------
Link Removed
My DVD's

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I've given the new disc another spin this evening, still not in it's entirety (that will have to wait 'till the weekend), but more than last week.
While there are still some moments where I'm thinking "Too new!", overall I quite like the new soundtrack. Putting aside arguments of purism aside for a moment, the steering and ambience works quite nicely IMO. Some of the foley doesn't sound quite right, but then the original mono track was hardly the last bastion of high fidelity recording. Fidel's score in particular really does sound pretty decent (though I still don't like the music itself). I also noticed the change to the music in the opening scene and again I have to wonder why these decisions are made. A similar change was made to the last release of Terminator 2, where the pounding 'heartbeat' effect doesn't come in until much later.
The mono track does indeed sound thin, though I still think it has the edge when it comes to 'gelling' with the onscreen images. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending which way you look at it) I sold off the LD some months ago so I can't do a comparison. If memory serves, Matt's appreciation of the LD track sounding richer is probably correct, though that hardly comes as a surprise.
If nothing else, it just gives me an excuse to watch the movie twice.
------------------
"We shall never surrender"
Winston Churchill.

 

[Mike_G]

My last thought on this:
1) Since I'm NEVER going to watch the mono soundtrack again, it's irrelevant to me.
2) Since the audio remix was done by people that were involved in the film, or very close to the original production crew rather than a bunch of ya-ya's with a surround mixer and a 6-pack of Jolt, I think the new mix should be respected as what COULD HAVE been.
Mike
------------------
Listen to my radio station - Starman's Neverland
Link Removed

 

[cafink]

Yes, I KNOW that 'The Terminator' is mono originaly, I believe you, but the pan n scan argument doesn't hold up. Changing a films original aspect ratio can only do harm to the film, BUT the audio CAN be improved on, added to, changed around to provide a much better presentation of the film.

Who says that changing a film's aspect ratio can only do harm? The only reason that pan and scan exists today is because the vast majority of consumers DO feel that a pan and scan version IS an IMPROVEMENT over a widescreen version. It's their personal opinion, and they are entitled to it in EXACTLY the same way that you are entitled to think that a 5.1 remix is an improvement over the mono version. What makes your opinion on sound better than theirs on video?

 

[David Ebbert]

Here's a novel idea:
Why don't all the folks who like the original mono soundtrack go out and buy the earlier editions of this movie?
Quit raining on the parade of the people that like the newer mix.
I, for one, would never listen to the mono mix given the inclusion of this superior 5.1 remix. The mono version IS there for you if you don't like this mix.
As I see it the complaint is the bitrate......had it not been the bitrate it MOST CERTAINLY would have been something else. The fact of the matter is ther is just no pleasing everyone.
If James Cameron or any of his people are looking at this...I love the new remix.
Thanks!!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Carl, I was not speaking for the vast majority in that statement, I was speaking to US, the hometheater crowd who do think that changing the OAR of a film is doing harm. I think it's fairly obvious what I meant.
------------------
God bless the USA and the men and woman of our military and their families!

 

[TheBat]

in one of the easters eggs on the new terminator dvd. Cameron is stated that the studio didn;t want to pay for a stero sound. The studio didn;t have much faith in the movie. They thought the movie was only going to last a couple of weeks or so..
Gale Ann Hurd stated that no one really complained about the mono sound.
JACOB
------------------
The #1 Unoffcial Site Of Sarah Douglas
www.angelfire.com/ca4/sarahdouglas
Please vote for the uncut version of Conan The Destroyer on dvd
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/002724.html

 

[Greg_Y]

Why don't all the folks who like the original mono soundtrack go out and buy the earlier editions of this movie?

Because it's not anamorphic? Because there's no supplemental material on there?
And for those that keep saying "You got the mono on there too, be happy" I ask "Why put a 5.1 mix on there at all?" Why is it necessary? If Cameron wanted a stereo track, why isn't there a stereo track on there? I'm sorry but the purists don't have the "burden of proof" to show that the mono soundtrack is necessary.