5.1 mix gone wrong. Did the "pros" do a poor job?

[takearushfan]

Hi there,

I won't name the film, but I dissected and analyzed the 5.1 remaster of a film. I felt compelled to check out what the individual channels are like, due to the fact that (from what I can hear) it's not even really in Stereo, let alone Surround. My findings really surprised me.

Please answer whichever of the following questions you can. Please note that there are many questions. I'll attach a self-extracting RAR, containing pics of the original mix's waveforms, compared to some boosted waveforms. Thanks in advance:

1. Why is there absolutely no LFE? There are a few spots in this chapter where there definitely should be, IMHO.
2. Why do both Front channels look virtually the same? (see the pics)
3. Why do both Surround channels look virtually the same? (see the pics)
4. Why do both the Front and Surround channels sound virtually the same?
5. The vocals in the Fronts sound a bit masked, while the vocals in the Surrounds sound clearer. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
6. Doesn't it appear that the Fronts are far too low? (see the pics)
7. Doesn't it appear that the Surrounds are relatively too low? (see the pics)
8. What are the ideal decibels for each channel?

I know this is a lot of questioning/comments/info., etc. So, I really appreciate whatever help you can provide.

Thanks again,

Justin

pics.rar

[guns1inger]

Without knowing the film, and the version of the film, it is hard to give specifics. I can give you some general info which may answer some of your questions.

First, LFE. A lot of movies that have a 5.1 audio track have very little to nothing in the LFE channel. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is that only audio belowa certain frequency gets into the LFE, and not all movies have audio in that range. The second reason is that most consumer amps don't require anything in the LFE in order to push sound to the subwoofer, as they will also take frequencies from the front L and Rs if they fall into the configured cutover range.

You also said this is a remaster. Depending on the source, there simply might not have been much to work with. Unless the studio was prepared to take all the original elements (if available) and rebuild the audio from the ground up. If all they had was a stereo source, or worse, a mono source, all they may have done is some basic EQing to get the vocals to the centre, and some extra processing to get some enhanced separation effects. All the same stuff anyone with a mind to can do with a decent audio editor at home.

Bottom line is that there a lot of movies to do, and only a limited amount of time and money to do them in. Unless it is truly worth the studios time or the film has a special level of significance, this is all the effort they will put into it. They know that 99.999999999999999999% of people are not going to look at the way it has been mixed, and most of these will be playing back through either their TV speakers or a cheap surround system. In either case, putting the effort into a good mix wont be heard or appreciated.

And FWIW, even when the time is spent doing a new ground up mix, the effort isn't always worth it. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was stripped down and rebuilt from the original mono audio track into a full 6 channel DTS track. This included recording new dialogue from Clint, Eli and a Lee Van Cleef impersonator (is that really a job description ?) for material that had never been dubbed into English. The results are really that much better than if they had simply spent the time presenting a clean, restored mono audio track. Trying to create a new 5.1 mix from old stereo or mono elements often produces a very hollow, artificial experience.

[takearushfan]

Without knowing the film, and the version of the film, it is hard to give specifics. I can give you some general info which may answer some of your questions.

First, LFE. A lot of movies that have a 5.1 audio track have very little to nothing in the LFE channel. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is that only audio belowa certain frequency gets into the LFE, and not all movies have audio in that range. The second reason is that most consumer amps don't require anything in the LFE in order to push sound to the subwoofer, as they will also take frequencies from the front L and Rs if they fall into the configured cutover range.

You also said this is a remaster. Depending on the source, there simply might not have been much to work with. Unless the studio was prepared to take all the original elements (if available) and rebuild the audio from the ground up. If all they had was a stereo source, or worse, a mono source, all they may have done is some basic EQing to get the vocals to the centre, and some extra processing to get some enhanced separation effects. All the same stuff anyone with a mind to can do with a decent audio editor at home.

Bottom line is that there a lot of movies to do, and only a limited amount of time and money to do them in. Unless it is truly worth the studios time or the film has a special level of significance, this is all the effort they will put into it. They know that 99.999999999999999999% of people are not going to look at the way it has been mixed, and most of these will be playing back through either their TV speakers or a cheap surround system. In either case, putting the effort into a good mix wont be heard or appreciated.

And FWIW, even when the time is spent doing a new ground up mix, the effort isn't always worth it. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was stripped down and rebuilt from the original mono audio track into a full 6 channel DTS track. This included recording new dialogue from Clint, Eli and a Lee Van Cleef impersonator (is that really a job description ?) for material that had never been dubbed into English. The results are really that much better than if they had simply spent the time presenting a clean, restored mono audio track. Trying to create a new 5.1 mix from old stereo or mono elements often produces a very hollow, artificial experience.

Before I go any further, I'll begin by thanking you for answering

I still prefer not to name the film. I apologize, as I know that by not revealing its name, it makes it more difficult to assist me. However, I'm just trying to cover my behind.

So, with the LFE, how do I know when to apply it? Up to this point, I simply add it whenever I personally feel that the center channel justifies it. I find it interesting that you said it's common not to have the LFE, whereas I've found the contrary. I've dissected the 5.1 mixes of literally every DVD I own, due to how much this "field" interests me. With the exception of just a couple, they all have at least some LFE. Hence, my assumption that there should almost always be something there. There are some that have an enormous amount, then those that appear to have a more "reasonable" level. I understand that if nothing is occurring, other than a conversation, you shouldn't really have anything there. However, there have been times when I'd think there should be at least a little, but there's nothing. Though, I do understand your point in that sometimes you only need the front channels in order to utilize the sub-woofer.

Regarding how much they had to work with, I don't know how many of the original elements were available. Though, I do know that the remastering job was pretty low-budget. Therefore, even if all the elements were there, they might not've wanted to go through the trouble of obtaining them. My guess is that they only used the mono source ... what I don't understand is how I managed to create a "better" (IMHO) mix than they did. Despite the limited resources, there is enough to do far more than they bothered to. I just find it a bit baffling. I suppose it's just as you said... they figure most people won't care/notice. They apparently don't care that there are some people out there that will be annoyed by an inferior mix

Yep, shallow and artificial are the perfect words in this case.

If you feel you can still tolerate me, I could privately give you more information on the film/mix, which might benefit us both.

In any case, thanks again for your reply 8)

[jman98]

I still prefer not to name the film. I apologize, as I know that by not revealing its name, it makes it more difficult to assist me. However, I'm just trying to cover my behind.

Your choice, but that does make it more difficult to help you. I can tell you that from listening to some 5.1 mixes on Shaw Brothers remasters available in region 3 that sometimes the 5.1 is really more theoretical than anything else. These films are typically from the 60s through the 80s with only a few outside of that range. Some have 5.1 audio that's really 2.0 mono. Others are 95% 2.0 with only about 5% of the time having a small amount of sound in the back channels for foley effects. Some are true 5.1 mixes from mono with re-done music and/or foley effects enabling them to turn mono into passable 5.1. There has been much talk on Asian DVD forums about the Shaw remasters and the vast majority of those on the forums are unhappy with the sound (original mono is often not an option). I suppose your mystery DVD is not part of the Shaw Brothers series, but I thought I'd pass this on as an example of what can happen. I thought of one more interesting (to me at least) example of this kind of thing. The Andrei Tarkvosky film "Stalker" caused a lot of controversy when the official Russian DVD remaster came out on Ruscico a few years ago. The first release contained only a redone (new foley) 5.1 AC3 soundtrack and that really pissed off a lot of Tarkovsky fans. See the original film was released in mono and Tarkvosky spent a lot of time working with his composers and sound guys on the sound on his films, so there is a lot of interest in the original soundtracks as they were Tarkovsky approved. So Ruscico was forced to re-release it with an added option to have the "original" mono soundtrack, but the original soundtrack is missing a gunshot sound in a very obvious point of the film and no explanation has ever been offered for this. The fans are still pissed off.

[takearushfan]

I still prefer not to name the film. I apologize, as I know that by not revealing its name, it makes it more difficult to assist me. However, I'm just trying to cover my behind.

Your choice, but that does make it more difficult to help you. Some have 5.1 audio that's really 2.0 mono. Others are 95% 2.0 with only about 5% of the time having a small amount of sound in the back channels for foley effects.

Okay. You pretty much hit the nail on the head with what I bolded. The surrounds aren't foley effects, but it's music that seems to be there just for the sake of filling enough channels to call it 5.1.

The film is Black Christmas, from '74.

[jman98]

The film is Black Christmas, from '74.

Dare I ask why on earth you would be secretive about THAT? It's legally available in the USA on DVD and although I haven't seen it, I have the understanding that it's a bit of a cult film. Trust me, no need for secrecy here. Plus, since it's available in the USA you now have the chance that someone else who owns may be able to comment directly on your questions.

[guns1inger]

Great film, but originally released with a mono sound track. I suspect that the music was all they had as separate elements form the main track, and so they tried to use these to spread the audio a bit.

Personally, I would be happy just to have a nice clean print, even if it was in mono.

[aedipuss]

i've got the Black Christmas (1974) Critical Mass Collector's Edition with ac-3 2.0 audio that sounds fine for a 70's flick. if your version has that included i'd use it rather than the fake 5.1 while watching.

[takearushfan]

The film is Black Christmas, from '74.

Dare I ask why on earth you would be secretive about THAT? It's legally available in the USA on DVD and although I haven't seen it, I have the understanding that it's a bit of a cult film. Trust me, no need for secrecy here. Plus, since it's available in the USA you now have the chance that someone else who owns may be able to comment directly on your questions.

Well, I never know if the guy that owns the rights might be lurking, ready to cause trouble if I attempt to criticize. I know that he frequents the IMDB's forums, always replying to anything to do with the film, so he might search anywhere. Though, these recent discussions have brought me to wonder if he even has a 5.1 setup. He told me that yes, Critical Mass owns the rights, but essentially he is sort of "in charge" and it's actually him that owns the rights, handing them down to Critical Mass when/if necessary.

[takearushfan]

Great film, but originally released with a mono sound track. I suspect that the music was all they had as separate elements form the main track, and so they tried to use these to spread the audio a bit.

Personally, I would be happy just to have a nice clean print, even if it was in mono.

By "clean", do you mean just the audio, or video as well? Personally, I think the video is a pretty bad transfer. From what the owner told me, I expected it to be high quality, but no. It's one of the grainiest, pixelated prints I've ever seen.

The mono track could use a very slight touch of restoration, but all in all it's very good.

There are a couple things in the 5.1 mix that weren't even in the mono track. When Margot Kidder is killed, the 5.1 mix adds a "squishy" sound as she's being stabbed. It does not exist in the original track. There are also some sounds that have obviously had EQ applied. Contrary to what the engineers might have thought, I do not prefer this. IMHO, you shouldn't add elements that weren't originally there, nor should you drastically alter the mono's effects. After all, you're already altering the film enough as it is by making it surround sound!

[guns1inger]

All I have is an old VHS version. It looks like a local distributor has picked up the rights to the second Critical Mass release, although apparently the third attempt from CM might actually get it right as far as it is an anamorphic 1.85 transfer originally transferred to HD. From what I have been reading, the last transfer was a grainy 1.77 release (which is, I think, what we are getting)

[takearushfan]

i've got the Black Christmas (1974) Critical Mass Collector's Edition with ac-3 2.0 audio that sounds fine for a 70's flick. if your version has that included i'd use it rather than the fake 5.1 while watching.

I'm pretty sure we have the same copy: Mostly white cover, with Margot Kidder's face wrapped in the plastic. (which doesn't make sense. It's not her character that happens to)...

Yeah, it contains both the mono and 5.1 mixes. I think I will choose the original track from now on.

If anyone is willing to provide some constructive criticism, I'd like to share a short chapter from the film, demonstrating the contrast between their idea of a 5.1 mix, compared to my own.

Again, in any case, thank you all for replying. I could use all the help I can get

[takearushfan]

All I have is an old VHS version. It looks like a local distributor has picked up the rights to the second Critical Mass release, although apparently the third attempt from CM might actually get it right as far as it is an anamorphic 1.85 transfer originally transferred to HD. From what I have been reading, the last transfer was a grainy 1.77 release (which is, I think, what we are getting)

Yep. I think I was replying at the same time as you.

[aedipuss]

the version i have is the collector's edition, not the special edition. black and red cover, no 5.1 audio. 1.66/1 aspect ratio, not quite widescreen. the old style telecine jumpiness at the start but it smooths out and it's not grainy at all, and the color is quite good.

[jman98]

Well, I never know if the guy that owns the rights might be lurking, ready to cause trouble if I attempt to criticize. I know that he frequents the IMDB's forums, always replying to anything to do with the film, so he might search anywhere. Though, these recent discussions have brought me to wonder if he even has a 5.1 setup. He told me that yes, Critical Mass owns the rights, but essentially he is sort of "in charge" and it's actually him that owns the rights, handing them down to Critical Mass when/if necessary.

Ah, don't worry about that stuff. We're not IMDB. I don't personally know of a time when a rights holder has actually participated here. Unlike IMDB, this website is not owned and operated by Americans in America and not dependent on Hollywood's cooperation to survive, so criticize all you want. If the mix is crap, it's fair to say so.

I like IMDB and find it useful, but it's not without its flaws. Perhaps the biggest piece of crap movie I've ever seen in my life is "The Thin Red Line". If you look at IMDB, you'd get the impression that it's one of the greatest films ever made. It's not. About 90% of the people who watched it think it sucked. The problem is that the 10% who loved it really really loved it and they are the ones who post all the reviews at Amazon, IMDB, etc. The 90% who think it sucked really really think it sucked, but they don't care enough to post reviews/warnings about the film. The few brave who do are subjected to harsh criticism for "not getting it".
Yet if you grab 10 random people and put them in a room and get them to watch it, I guarantee you that 9 of them will say it sucked. Films that aren't even released yet are often rated at 8.0 or better on IMDB and there are allegations of the ratings being rigged prior to release by people associated with the film. It's only after release that most of the ratings begin to reflect reality.

5.1 audio is one of those things in movies where sometimes it is done half heartedly simply because there is a thought that the marketplace demands it. I guarantee you that Joe Consumer has little to no understanding of what it really means, but if he sees 5.1 surround on a DVD box then it meets some requirement in his mind that this DVD is modern and of good quality and there's no concern about whether or not the audio is changed from the original. The Shaw Brothers remasters that I talked about earlier did this early on in the series and there was much complaining from the fans about non-original music and foley being added to turn original mono into 5.1. The owners backed away a little and some of the subsequent DVDs did contain what was said to be the original mono soundtrack, but only the bigger, more important films did that. If you go to any Asian DVD forum like on the Invision website there is constant complaining about how "original mono" soundtracks on various re-issue DVDs may be mono, but they are definitely not original and are nothing more than mono -> 5.1 -> mono conversions. No joke.

[takearushfan]

the version i have is the collector's edition, not the special edition. black and red cover, no 5.1 audio. 1.66/1 aspect ratio, not quite widescreen. the old style telecine jumpiness at the start but it smooths out and it's not grainy at all, and the color is quite good.

Is it this one:

[takearushfan]

Interesting. Right out of Wikipedia: "Many of these DVDs have come under controversy, however, for remixing audio and not including the original mono soundtracks." < (Shaw Brothers)

Mono > 5.1 > mono?! Wow... that's really sad :/

[aedipuss]

yes that looks like what it have. it has ac-3 2.0(dual mono) and also the ac-3 1.0 mono track.

[jman98]

Interesting. Right out of Wikipedia: "Many of these DVDs have come under controversy, however, for remixing audio and not including the original mono soundtracks." < (Shaw Brothers)

Mono > 5.1 > mono?! Wow... that's really sad :/

Want to know something even sadder than that? The firm that was paid to re-master the original films did an excellent job and turned over crystal clear 24 fps masters to the owners. Know what the owners did with those 24 fps masters for the region 3 DVD releases? I'm not talking about some of the region 3 releases, I'm talking EVERY SINGLE ONE of the region 3 DVD releases, something like 700-800 DVDs in all. Every one of them was converted as follows: 24 fps master -> 25 fps PAL -> 29.97 interlaced NTSC. Care to guess why? Because nobody outside of the people who actually authored the DVDs has any idea why this was considered a great idea to do. Unfortunately this is not isolated and plenty of foreign companies do similar conversions for all of their DVDs.

[guns1inger]

the version i have is the collector's edition, not the special edition. black and red cover, no 5.1 audio. 1.66/1 aspect ratio, not quite widescreen. the old style telecine jumpiness at the start but it smooths out and it's not grainy at all, and the color is quite good.

That's the version that is getting Australian release. Very disappointing when the third (!) attempt is finally 1.85 anamorphic (as it should be). The 1.66 open matte release is not how Bob Clarke intended the film to be seen when he shot it.

[mazinz]

the version i have is the collector's edition, not the special edition. black and red cover, no 5.1 audio. 1.66/1 aspect ratio, not quite widescreen. the old style telecine jumpiness at the start but it smooths out and it's not grainy at all, and the color is quite good.

That's the version that is getting Australian release. Very disappointing when the third (!) attempt is finally 1.85 anamorphic (as it should be). The 1.66 open matte release is not how Bob Clarke intended the film to be seen when he shot it.

Are you positive about this? I do recall reading that the film was shot and released in theaters as full frame, however Bob Clark approved of the 1:75/77:1 ratio used on the second Criticial mass dvd. I know the last release has it in 1:85:1 which appears very over matted. The older Warner Bros laserdisc had the 1:85:1 matting as well

you should try and get the first release from Critical mass, the dvd looked nice (the one below)




and to add to the subject:
One dvd I have for an indie film called Planet fall has a wrongly done 5.1 mix. The music was so loud in the 2.0 down conversion (dvd player) that I did a dissect to see if it was my player or the audio track. It turns out they really screwed up the rear channels which were way too high in volume

and lastly while on Black Christmas, the UK 5.1 mix gave use the infamous rear channel soundtrack and if you loved the score/music cues, this is the only way to get it and it is virtually sound effect free

[takearushfan]

yes that looks like what it have. it has ac-3 2.0(dual mono) and also the ac-3 1.0 mono track.

Geesh. You're all providing a lot of info to absorb and I greatly appreciate it. After all, my belief (as lame as it sounds) is that knowledge is power. However, the obvious downside is that this particular knowledge has to do with how terribly so many of these jobs have been performed!

Question: isn't dual mono (2.0) and 1.0 mono essentially the same thing? I mean, regardless of if its been encoded using one channel or two, it's still identical data, so it doesn't really matter if you're listening to the playback on one speaker or 200... right? Or am I missing something?

[takearushfan]

Interesting. Right out of Wikipedia: "Many of these DVDs have come under controversy, however, for remixing audio and not including the original mono soundtracks." < (Shaw Brothers)

Mono > 5.1 > mono?! Wow... that's really sad :/

Want to know something even sadder than that? The firm that was paid to re-master the original films did an excellent job and turned over crystal clear 24 fps masters to the owners. Know what the owners did with those 24 fps masters for the region 3 DVD releases? I'm not talking about some of the region 3 releases, I'm talking EVERY SINGLE ONE of the region 3 DVD releases, something like 700-800 DVDs in all. Every one of them was converted as follows: 24 fps master -> 25 fps PAL -> 29.97 interlaced NTSC. Care to guess why? Because nobody outside of the people who actually authored the DVDs has any idea why this was considered a great idea to do. Unfortunately this is not isolated and plenty of foreign companies do similar conversions for all of their DVDs.

Good grief! That conversion is disgusting... a total mess, not to mention a great insult to everyone involved in the actual production. I sincerely doubt that any writers, directors, etc. would be too pleased with such a disaster

[takearushfan]

the version i have is the collector's edition, not the special edition. black and red cover, no 5.1 audio. 1.66/1 aspect ratio, not quite widescreen. the old style telecine jumpiness at the start but it smooths out and it's not grainy at all, and the color is quite good.

That's the version that is getting Australian release. Very disappointing when the third (!) attempt is finally 1.85 anamorphic (as it should be). The 1.66 open matte release is not how Bob Clarke intended the film to be seen when he shot it.

I don't recall much of the details, but I do remember reading that yes, they did have to try three times before getting it "right". Since Bob has now passed, nobody can be certain of what he'd consider the "right" version to be. I think one version was altered due to a boom mic being visible. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

[aedipuss]

yes the dual mono/mono is almost the same, on a surround sound system the dual mono is played out the left/right/center and the mono is only played out the center channel. but they both sound the same.

[takearushfan]

the version i have is the collector's edition, not the special edition. black and red cover, no 5.1 audio. 1.66/1 aspect ratio, not quite widescreen. the old style telecine jumpiness at the start but it smooths out and it's not grainy at all, and the color is quite good.

That's the version that is getting Australian release. Very disappointing when the third (!) attempt is finally 1.85 anamorphic (as it should be). The 1.66 open matte release is not how Bob Clarke intended the film to be seen when he shot it.

Are you positive about this? I do recall reading that the film was shot and released in theaters as full frame, however Bob Clark approved of the 1:75/77:1 ratio used on the second Criticial mass dvd. I know the last release has it in 1:85:1 which appears very over matted. The older Warner Bros laserdisc had the 1:85:1 matting as well

you should try and get the first release from Critical mass, the dvd looked nice (the one below)




and to add to the subject:
One dvd I have for an indie film called Planet fall has a wrongly done 5.1 mix. The music was so loud in the 2.0 down conversion (dvd player) that I did a dissect to see if it was my player or the audio track. It turns out they really screwed up the rear channels which were way too high in volume

and lastly while on Black Christmas, the UK 5.1 mix gave use the infamous rear channel soundtrack and if you loved the score/music cues, this is the only way to get it and it is virtually sound effect free

Ugh. This is making me dizzy

So, the version I have is the most recent (and hopefully last) version? I'm not in the industry, so I'm not sure how it works, but doesn't that mean that the version I have has been transferred (or copied, really) three (or would it be two) times? I think that's what "generation" means, right? ... or something along those lines... how many times its been transferred/copied? For instance, a copy of a copy of a copy, rather than a direct transfer from the original master negative?

Mazinz, when you say that the DVD looks nice, do you mean the print quality or the DVD packaging? All I know is that the version I have leaves much to be desired. Like I mentioned earlier, it's grainy and contains artifacts, etc. It's almost comparable to a 16mm college film. Well, maybe not that bad, but you get my point

About that indie film, that must've been pretty disappointing. I mean, even I know to be careful when dealing with the volume of the rear channels. Was it so bad that it was clipping/distorting?

Regarding the UK 5.1 version of Black Christmas, I'm not sure what you mean about the rear channels. Do you mean that they're somehow superior to the pathetic release that I (and so many others) are dealing with? I forget the region codes. Is the UK region 2?

[takearushfan]

yes the dual mono/mono is almost the same, on a surround sound system the dual mono is played out the left/right/center and the mono is only played out the center channel. but they both sound the same.

Thanks. That's exactly what I thought. I've dissected a 2.0 mono before and noticed that the data was only in the FL and FR channels. I've never dissected a 1.0, but like you said, I'm sure it'd only contain data in the center channel.

[takearushfan]

SO, I guess one main point one could make out of all this is that unless a film is extremely popular/in demand AND the studios are willing to shell out the cash to remaster the video/audio, you're out of luck.

I have some films where it's very obvious that they truly cared about providing a great product. Ie., The Exorcist and The Terminator are both extremely impressive. Not only do they work on restoring the audio, removing hiss/tape noise, etc., but they sometimes even work on the picture! IMHO, that's going the extra mile and is admirable...

THEN, there are the Black Christmas' and When A Stranger Calls, etc. Don't even get me started on WaSC... it looks (and sounds) like it was pulled out of someone's closet.

[mazinz]

the version i have is the collector's edition, not the special edition. black and red cover, no 5.1 audio. 1.66/1 aspect ratio, not quite widescreen. the old style telecine jumpiness at the start but it smooths out and it's not grainy at all, and the color is quite good.

That's the version that is getting Australian release. Very disappointing when the third (!) attempt is finally 1.85 anamorphic (as it should be). The 1.66 open matte release is not how Bob Clarke intended the film to be seen when he shot it.

Are you positive about this? I do recall reading that the film was shot and released in theaters as full frame, however Bob Clark approved of the 1:75/77:1 ratio used on the second Criticial mass dvd. I know the last release has it in 1:85:1 which appears very over matted. The older Warner Bros laserdisc had the 1:85:1 matting as well

you should try and get the first release from Critical mass, the dvd looked nice (the one below)




and to add to the subject:
One dvd I have for an indie film called Planet fall has a wrongly done 5.1 mix. The music was so loud in the 2.0 down conversion (dvd player) that I did a dissect to see if it was my player or the audio track. It turns out they really screwed up the rear channels which were way too high in volume

and lastly while on Black Christmas, the UK 5.1 mix gave use the infamous rear channel soundtrack and if you loved the score/music cues, this is the only way to get it and it is virtually sound effect free

Ugh. This is making me dizzy

So, the version I have is the most recent (and hopefully last) version? I'm not in the industry, so I'm not sure how it works, but doesn't that mean that the version I have has been transferred (or copied, really) three (or would it be two) times? I think that's what "generation" means, right? ... or something along those lines... how many times its been transferred/copied? For instance, a copy of a copy of a copy, rather than a direct transfer from the original master negative?

Mazinz, when you say that the DVD looks nice, do you mean the print quality or the DVD packaging? All I know is that the version I have leaves much to be desired. Like I mentioned earlier, it's grainy and contains artifacts, etc. It's almost comparable to a 16mm college film. Well, maybe not that bad, but you get my point

About that indie film, that must've been pretty disappointing. I mean, even I know to be careful when dealing with the volume of the rear channels. Was it so bad that it was clipping/distorting?

Regarding the UK 5.1 version of Black Christmas, I'm not sure what you mean about the rear channels. Do you mean that they're somehow superior to the pathetic release that I (and so many others) are dealing with? I forget the region codes. Is the UK region 2?

the first release is very barebones with only the trailer and a short cast bios (one I listed above). The problem is that critical mass released two versions in Canada and another company released two versions in the US. I also thought that the film was re-released again when the remake came out and that had the 1:85:1 ratio which in my view looks over matted.

Either way the version I listed above the video looked fine. I am using a regular analog tv for this (25") and not a newer HD set. I do not like how many of the new sets display an analog picture making it look worse than it really is. Though I have not watched the disc in a few years, I thought the pic looked fine, nothing mind blowing however. Everything is lost in the post, which version do you own?

The indie film Planet fall had the back channels so loud that it was drowning out any of the dialogue spoken by the actors so you could not hear what they were saying. It had a 2.0 track, but the 5.1 really had me curious

soundtrack enthusiast when they would want certain score music from a film that never had a score music release discovered that on some 5.1 mixes, the soundtrack/score to the film would be on just the rear channels (and in some cases with NO effects or dialogue). This then became known as "rear channel ripping". In the case of the 5.1 track for the UK black christmas this was true as well. Of what I was able to create, only like 2 tracks had a minor special effect mixed in, other than that I was finally able to get true score music for this great film

[takearushfan]

I own the latest edition. They refer to it as the "Special Edition". It's the 2006 release. If you follow:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071222/dvd

It's the first one displayed.

I see that there's also a distribution by Eclectic and another by Pid.

The guy that owns the rights suggested that I buy the version that I did, which would make sense. Obviously he'd suggest the one he "owns", the Critical Mass one.
I've only watched the film on a regular analog TV once. Honestly, I can't recall my opinion of the quality, as it wasn't my main focus. I think it looked fine though. However, on my monitor (what I'm using as I type, the picture is pretty bad.

Is Planetfall the one from 2005? If so, it has 2.0 Stereo and a 5.1. I don't know why I typed that, as it's the same as what you just told me < dunce moment
It's pretty severe that the rears would drown out the dialogue. I mean, it must've really been cranked...?

You had me confused, but I think I know what you mean now. You're saying that those that wanted the score to a film, such as you'd buy on a CD at a store, would sometimes find that a particular film didn't have an official release. So, as an alternative, they'd rely on ripping the film's score from the rear channels of a 5.1 mix...? As I said, I *think* that's what you mean, but I could be wrong.
If I DO understand you correctly, are you saying that only the UK 5.1 mix is done in a manner where the rears can be effectively used in such a way?