"Clue" on Blu; sound question...

[takearushfan]

Hey all,
Yeah, I know... I'm a bit obsessive on this particular topic, but I recently watched/listened to my new copy of Clue, from '85. Now, it's not just me, even other reviewers aren't thrilled that the mix is Mono.
My question: How the heck did such a release happen? DVD; whatever, but on Blu-ray? The picture is awesome but what, production-wise, would result in a Mono release? This film is ripe with a million opportunities for awesome surround work.
All I can think of was that after putting the money/time/effort into creating a great picture quality, then thought "Eh, Mono is fine; no more wasting money". Yes, it's possible, but hard for me to believe. The only other thing I can think of is that, somehow, every imaginable sound stem was destroyed.
Do you all think it was the former or the latter?
- Justin

[manono]

The picture is awesome but what, production-wise, would result in a Mono release?

Maybe the fact that it was mono during its theatrical run. Maybe the fact that the only source available is mono. Surely you wouldn't want them to create a 'fake' surround track?

[jman98]

It's impossible for us to give you a reason as this was hardly a cult movie or an all time blockbuster. I am willing to make a guess based on what I know about the industry, but it's just a guess.

The director was mostly a BBC TV writer who directed some TV shows but this was the only theatrical film he directed. It was 1985 so while mono soundtracks weren't the norm, they also were still done sometimes, particularly on foreign films. It could just be that the director felt most comfortable working in mono since that's how TV worked at the time.

manono - Just about everybody in the USA prefers fake surround sound over mono. I don't get it, but that's how it is.

[manono]

manono - Just about everybody in the USA prefers fake surround sound over mono. I don't get it, but that's how it is.

Yes, you're right, and having two tracks, a mono and another surround track made from the mono, would solve the 'problem' and maybe even make takearushfan happy. But he seemed to be saying in his first post that there was more available to work with than just a single mono track (The only other thing I can think of is that, somehow, every imaginable sound stem was destroyed.). But as near as I can determine after reading nine different reviews of the Blu-Ray version and checking elsewhere, nothing ever existed but the mono track.

He seems to imply it was some sort of colossal screw-up (How the heck did such a release happen?), when it makes perfect sense to have only a mono track when that's what you got in the theater more than 25 years ago and that's all there ever was.

[jman98]

I guess mono was more prevalent in American films at the time than I realized. IMDB says that 1982's Fast Times At Ridgemont High was in mono.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083929/

I think you're right, manono, that for whatever reason, and it may not have necessarily been a director's choice (I was just guessing), they just decided to do this film in mono.

[takearushfan]

For some reason I wasn't notified that this thread was replied to; weird.

What do you guys mean by "fake surround"? I'm guessing you're referring to adding effects that weren't in the original track, foley effects, altered sounds, replaced, removed, etc...? I noticed this done with The Terminator and read that it was done with Halloween, though I don't know it well enough to recognize what's different from the original track. You might also mean the "pseudo-surround" technique, like with Black Christmas. In any case, if those are the kinds of things you mean by "fake", then no, I don't like that at all! I like when nothing is used, other than what was originally there.

Going back to Clue, I guess my assumption (which I now realize was idiotic) was that during the recording process, various stems were planned/organized/"vaulted", etc... on different tracks. I think what you're saying is that they didn't even take that step...? In other words, it wasn't just released in Mono, but recorded as well. That's the big difference that'd make perfect sense. Like I said, I had assumed (falsely) that various stems were recorded individually, which caused confusion as to why a surround mix wasn't available. It didn't occur to me that they didn't use such a recording method, and that at the time they simply put it all down on "the same piece of paper", if you will.

Isn't such an approach a bit rare though? I thought they usually do record a boatload of effects and keep them, not just now but "then" too. How are there so many surround mixes to the classics if this isn't the case? Yes, there's the fake surround thing, but aren't there a lot of nice (authentic) mixes that aren't faked yet are from the Mono ages? Though I'll be crushed if true, are you saying there's a good chance that the majority of my collection contain fake mixes?

[robjv1]

Somewhat on topic, but I saw something similar happen once with the Bill Cosby stand-up act release of "Himself" on DVD. Actually, the quality of the audio on the VHS hi-fi 1980s release far surpasses the audio on the DVD release. The DVD seems to have a very poor frequency response as well as a good deal of noise in the track. I noticed this when I went to compare the opening songs on each version -- The VHS used "It Was A Good Idea At The Time", while the DVD used the song used in the theatrical run.

[manono]

What do you guys mean by "fake surround"?

Creating a surround track when mono is all you have to work with. This often involves pushing certain frequencies to the different channels. Or adding delays or subtle pitch shifts to the sound for different channels

Isn't such an approach a bit rare though?

Creating just a single mono track? No. Not in the past.

How are there so many surround mixes to the classics if this isn't the case?

Surround? How far back do you want to go? Disney's Fantasia in 1940 was the first major film with stereo sound and, apparently parts of it had true surround sound. Over the next 10 years stereo became more and more common, but still wasn't often used. It wasn't until after about 1975 that stereo sound in the movies became the norm in the US. 1978's Apocalypse Now was the first theatrical release with 3 channels in the front and 2 more in the rear. It was stereo surround. 1982's Blade Runner had the same. The first 5.1 surround sound dates from 1987. All of this is easy to dig up.

Plenty of DVDs start with mono or stereo sound and create some sort of a surround mix, usually for one track, in case people might want to listen to it the way it was originally created on a different track. It's easy enough for most films to look up what was first shown in the movie theater. And I own many many DVDs which claim to be DD 5.1, but all the channels are exactly the same.

[takearushfan]

What do you guys mean by "fake surround"?

Creating a surround track when mono is all you have to work with. This often involves pushing certain frequencies to the different channels. Or adding delays or subtle pitch shifts to the sound for different channels

Isn't such an approach a bit rare though?

Creating just a single mono track? No. Not in the past.

How are there so many surround mixes to the classics if this isn't the case?

Surround? How far back do you want to go? Disney's Fantasia in 1940 was the first major film with stereo sound and, apparently parts of it had true surround sound. Over the next 10 years stereo became more and more common, but still wasn't often used. It wasn't until after about 1975 that stereo sound in the movies became the norm in the US. 1978's Apocalypse Now was the first theatrical release with 3 channels in the front and 2 more in the rear. It was stereo surround. 1982's Blade Runner had the same. The first 5.1 surround sound dates from 1987. All of this is easy to dig up.

Plenty of DVDs start with mono or stereo sound and create some sort of a surround mix, usually for one track, in case people might want to listen to it the way it was originally created on a different track. It's easy enough for most films to look up what was first shown in the movie theater. And I own many many DVDs which claim to be DD 5.1, but all the channels are exactly the same.

Yep, Cornucopia (?) told me about Fantasia and when I looked it up on Wikipedia (?) I was floored by how much it has been through.

Yeah, when I referred to Black Christmas, the channels being (essentially) the same is the pseudo technique I meant. The LFE is virtually non-existent, even Stereo panning is hard to notice and the Surrounds are just the Center with an echo-ish sound applied. It's awful.

The Evil Dead is another pseudo mix, though not as bad as Black Christmas. At least they put the music in the Surrounds and attempted some panning.

Here are some that I think actually are "real" mixes (if wrong, please correct me):

DVDs:

Poltergeist ('82)
The Money Pit ('86)
The Mothman Prophecies ('02) ... probably recent enough to have no need to fake it
The Omen ('76)
The Exorcist ('73) ... the original 5.1 release sounds "real"; the "extended" (2000) version, not so much

BDs:

A Nightmare On Elm Street ('84) ... sadly, I mention this to point out another occasionally fake mix
Twilight Zone The Movie ('83)
Urban Legend ('98) ... possibly recent enough to be real
Wargames ('83)

What about the stuff I've posted here in the past? Would you consider those real or fake? I use nothing but the lossless OST for the Surrounds, LFE as (I feel) is appropriate, the Center untouched and the Fronts panned when I feel appropriate.