Mono DVD Soundtracks

[John Beresford]

Yes.

Q

I wish I could tell you that this analysis made things easier to understand for me, but it didn't! LOL. But thank you for your help. I think I give up trying to understand this 2.0 mono issue; Im not really getting it, and I simply will accept the packaging on these discs for what they are and leave it be.

[kelsci]

John; Sir Terrence is an audio engineer. His explanation of this matter is as close as a non-technical, technical answer that you could have possibly received. I knew there was some phasing angle involved in this but I could not explain it since I do not quite possess his knowledge on the degrees of phasing. In fact, in the past I needed to ask him a question or two on phasing on other audio subjects.

I think it is best for you the choice you have made instead of chasing your "tail" to try to understand what is going on here. I think if you were personally shown a HANDS ON demonstration by somebody knowledgeable you would end up throwing a hat up into the air and end up saying; was this all that this really was? I have thrown the hat up a number of times in my life depending on the subject. I sat in an accounting class in high school in the 1960s for one year absofochlylutely wondering what was going on. Two years later, I went to night school for my mother heard there was a good teacher there teaching bookeeping. Well the first class was two or so hours long but when it was over, I could have have gotten an A 2 years earlier.

Take a rest from this mono concept for awhile. Sometimes you wake up one day and understanding of concepts hit you like a brick wall. This mono situation in not a life or death situation in your life. KELSCI.

[John Beresford]

John; Sir Terrence is an audio engineer. His explanation of this matter is as close as a non-technical, technical answer that you could have possibly received. I knew there was some phasing angle involved in this but I could not explain it since I do not quite possess his knowledge on the degrees of phasing. In fact, in the past I needed to ask him a question or two on phasing on other audio subjects.

I think it is best for you the choice you have made instead of chasing your "tail" to try to understand what is going on here. I think if you were personally shown a HANDS ON demonstration by somebody knowledgeable you would end up throwing a hat up into the air and end up saying; was this all that this really was? I have thrown the hat up a number of times in my life depending on the subject. I sat in an accounting class in high school in the 1960s for one year absofochlylutely wondering what was going on. Two years later, I went to night school for my mother heard there was a good teacher there teaching bookeeping. Well the first class was two or so hours long but when it was over, I could have have gotten an A 2 years earlier.

Take a rest from this mono concept for awhile. Sometimes you wake up one day and understanding of concepts hit you like a brick wall. This mono situation in not a life or death situation in your life. KELSCI.

Thanks Kel,

Simply put, I just wanted to know why certain films (and as I said, one DVD in my collection comes to mind here, as funny as it may seem, Universal's re-release of "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" with a "2.0 mono soundtrack) have the designation of being mono yet say "2.0 channels" and others, more logically, say "1.0 mono"----yet both play just from the center speaker. Seemed a simple enough inquiry until I realized there were technical ramifications to it, as Terrence tried to explain.

[kelsci]

John; that is a good way of putting it and as such you are on the road to understanding.

[Tarheel_]

come one guys, can't you see the same type questions, answers, confusion, more questions, more confusion and on and on...

[John Beresford]

come one guys, can't you see the same type questions, answers, confusion, more questions, more confusion and on and on...

Come on guys, can't you see....blah blah blah...wah wah wah....the post is coming to a close Tarheel, because we all agree that mono soundtrack labeling is confusing and we're just going to leave it be.

[Quagmire]

You said: "...but I do not understand why the marketing of the disc reads 2.0 channel mono to begin with; why mix on two channels if the result is mono? Then why not mix two channel stereo at that point?"

First of all, I think you're right to just accept the packaging as is. It really isn't something worth getting all that worked up over. I actually get more upset when studios release fairly recent movies with only DPL soundtracks instead of remixing for true 5.1 surround; especially when they later release a "special edition" version of the movie with a remixed 5.1 soundtrack. Bill Murray's, "Ground Hog Day" is one such example, and although the movie isn't exactly a rollercoaster ride of sound effects, I would prefer to have the 5.1 mix. It's like penalizing those who like a particular movie and buy it early.

As far as your question regarding, "why not mix for stereo at that point?", as I said in an earlier post, the original soundtrack IS MONO and would require reworking of the soundtrack to make it stereo. Just placing the mono track in the two front channels does not require any rework of the original soundtrack. As for the earlier part of your question, "why mix on two channels if the result is mono?", I'm sure this is just a judgement call and besides, as I've said already, this really isn't a remix of the original soundtrack. Some may just feel that the track sounds better reproduced through the two front speakers and that for those with DPL systems, the sound will collapse to the center channel speaker anyway.

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You said: "...but I do not understand why the marketing of the disc reads 2.0 channel mono to begin with; why mix on two channels if the result is mono? Then why not mix two channel stereo at that point?"

First of all, I think you're right to just accept the packaging as is. It really isn't something worth getting all that worked up over. I actually get more upset when studios release fairly recent movies with only DPL soundtracks instead of remixing for true 5.1 surround; especially when they later release a "special edition" version of the movie with a remixed 5.1 soundtrack. Bill Murray's, "Ground Hog Day" is one such example, and although the movie isn't exactly a rollercoaster ride of sound effects, I would prefer to have the 5.1 mix. It's like penalizing those who like a particular movie and buy it early.

As far as your question regarding, "why not mix for stereo at that point?", as I said in an earlier post, the original soundtrack IS MONO and would require reworking of the soundtrack to make it stereo. Just placing the mono track in the two front channels does not require any rework of the original soundtrack. As for the earlier part of your question, "why mix on two channels if the result is mono?", I'm sure this is just a judgement call and besides, as I've said already, this really isn't a remix of the original soundtrack. Some may just feel that the track sounds better reproduced through the two front speakers and that for those with DPL systems, the sound will collapse to the center channel speaker anyway.

Q

Q and John,

I think each studio's sound department makes the decision on whether a mono soundtrack sounds better decoded through a DPL processor, or through the discrete center channel sans DPL processing. Thats the key to as why there are some titles that are 1.0 and big fat mono 2.0.

As far as making repurposing mono soundtracks to stereo, that would be title dependent, and based on whether the movie made money for the studio during its theatrical release. Doing this means going back to the original music,effects and dialog stems and completely redirecting the effects, and panning of the music. Not cheap or easy.

[John Beresford]

You said: "...but I do not understand why the marketing of the disc reads 2.0 channel mono to begin with; why mix on two channels if the result is mono? Then why not mix two channel stereo at that point?"

First of all, I think you're right to just accept the packaging as is. It really isn't something worth getting all that worked up over. I actually get more upset when studios release fairly recent movies with only DPL soundtracks instead of remixing for true 5.1 surround; especially when they later release a "special edition" version of the movie with a remixed 5.1 soundtrack. Bill Murray's, "Ground Hog Day" is one such example, and although the movie isn't exactly a rollercoaster ride of sound effects, I would prefer to have the 5.1 mix. It's like penalizing those who like a particular movie and buy it early.

As far as your question regarding, "why not mix for stereo at that point?", as I said in an earlier post, the original soundtrack IS MONO and would require reworking of the soundtrack to make it stereo. Just placing the mono track in the two front channels does not require any rework of the original soundtrack. As for the earlier part of your question, "why mix on two channels if the result is mono?", I'm sure this is just a judgement call and besides, as I've said already, this really isn't a remix of the original soundtrack. Some may just feel that the track sounds better reproduced through the two front speakers and that for those with DPL systems, the sound will collapse to the center channel speaker anyway.

Q

Your Q-Ship,

Thank you, and happy thanksgiving to all....

You're right; I do get more upset when a film I REALLY like isn't remixed for 5.1 surround and we only get a Stereo Surround mix; this has happened for me with DVDs like "Halloween II" (Universal; 2.0 Stereo Surround), "John Carpenter's Christine" (Columbia/TriStar; 2.0 Stereo Surround), "Falling Down" (Warner Bros; 2.0 Stereo Surround), "Boyz N The Hood" (Columbia/TriStar; 2.0 Stereo Surround)....this list can get longer.

I am always upset when they dont remix a certain film for 5.1; they can do it for old classics like "Halloween" and "The Fog" but they cant do it on others!?