|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Woody Allen Mono???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-19-2006 03:58 AM
So what exactly are these tracks? are they traditional mono tracks, or Dolby SR, or 'A' type, where both trcks contain identical modulation? How should they be played, Academy filter in or out, Dolby NR on or off, centre caannel only, with decoder in, so there is some leakage of signal into L and R, or same signal sent to all three channels? Does this apply to all of his films? Are there instructions provided with the print as to how it should be played? If not, I think a lot of cinemas would get it wrong. I don't think I've ever actually projected one of his films.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 08-19-2006 07:20 PM
quote: Stephen Furley
So what exactly are these tracks? are they traditional mono tracks, or Dolby SR, or 'A' type, where both trcks contain identical modulation? How should they be played, Academy filter in or out, Dolby NR on or off, centre caannel only, with decoder in, so there is some leakage of signal into L and R, or same signal sent to all three channels? Does this apply to all of his films?
quote: Mathew Molloy
Woody Allen's films are mono - but are to be played with appropriate Dolby noise reduction when applicable.
It depends on the title. Woody's films from the '70s & '80s were "Academy" mono. I believe the first of his films to use Dolby for noise reduction was "Alice" (1990). I think "Everyone Says I Love You" (1996) was the first to use a digital format but with the mix still in mono, and a few since then have included all three digital formats.
Now having stated all of that, I swear I heard a phone ring sound effect come from one of the side channels during "Manhattan Murder Mystery." Phase error?
quote: Mathew Molloy
Don't forget that at one time Lucas (that crazy ol' coot) felt the Mono mix of the original release of Star Wars was the superior mix.
Folks get this one wrong all the time! The context of Lucas' claim of preferring mono was in regard to the content of the original film's mono mix, not in terms of a sonic experience. In other words, the mono mix of "Star Wars," having been performed last in a series of mixes, contained more sound effects, improved ADR, and a different "balance" between the various audio elements.
Here's a passage from one of my favorite articles that should clarify the matter:
quote:
Variations in the soundtrack presentations of “Star Wars” can be traced to the multiple mixes that were prepared to accommodate the different formats in which the movie would be released:
1) 35mm stereo (optical, two-track/four-channel)
2) 35mm stereo (magnetic, four-track)
3) 70mm stereo (magnetic, six-track)
4) 35mm mono (optical)
The sound editing and re-recording team began by preparing a four-track master mix (Left-Center-Right-Surround) which would serve as the basis for both the 35mm and 70mm stereo versions. First, the master mix was dubbed to a matrix-encoded two-track Lt-Rt (Left total-Right total) printmaster for use in creating the 35mm Dolby Stereo prints. Then, the same four-track master, with some enhancements added, was used to create the six-track version. In comparison to the 35mm Dolby Stereo version, the Six-Track Dolby Stereo version during playback offered discrete channels, greater clarity, superior dynamic range, and two extra channels for special low-frequency enhancement, in what the Dolby folks affectionately called “baby boom.” After completing the multichannel versions, the soundtrack crew created another English-language mix: a monaural mix. This would be included on prints destined for theatres not equipped with a stereophonic sound system and for versions prepared for ancillary markets. The mono prints were put into circulation upon the wide national break in June 1977.
Although the 35mm Dolby Stereo process is mono-compatible, at the time those involved with the new technology were, for both technical and aesthetic reasons, concerned about the effectiveness of mono playback from a stereo-encoded print. For similar reasons, a decision was made not to create the mono master by means of dubbing the stereo master and folding the multiple tracks into one. Instead, a new dedicated mono mix was created.
With each subsequent mix, the filmmakers seized opportunities to revise and enhance selected portions of the soundtrack where they had felt rushed or shortchanged creatively. Sound Designer Ben Burtt recalls: “Because we were always trying to make the film better and better and fix things that were not right, there were some sweetener tracks added; things like different C-3PO or Stormtrooper lines [‘Close the blast doors’], additional sound effects, or some different ADR [the dialogue of Aunt Beru].” Knowing that multiple mixes were made containing subtle yet detectable differences help explain conflicting memories of moviegoers who remember hearing a certain sound effect or line of dialogue in one presentation but not in another.
It may be difficult to comprehend today as most major film releases on DVD sport a 5.1-channel digital soundtrack, but at the time, not knowing what the future would hold in terms of widespread adoption of multichannel sound in movie theatres and in homes, some members of the production felt the mono mix represented the definitive soundtrack of “Star Wars.” They felt that the stereo version was a novelty that selected audiences would be treated to only during a brief theatrical run. “George put a lot of effort in that mono mix,” Burtt remembers. “And he even said several times, ‘Well, this is the real mix. This is the definitive mix of the film.’ He paid more attention to it because he felt it was more important archivally.”
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-21-2006 02:00 AM
Back in 1977 there certainly was reason to make a true mono mix since so many theatres were still playing Academy mono on existing equipment. Many titles that were released in Dolby Stereo (A at the time) had dual inventories. And dual inventories were hated by the studios. I was always very skeptical of how only a short time after Dolby Stereo came onto the scene, Dolby started to claim that the bilateral stereo prints were mono "compatible" and could be used on old, mono Academy playback systems. Wha?
Mono compatible maybe, i.e., both Lt and Rt being folded together by virtue of the single pickup cell, but certainly not NR encoded compatible, in that they could be played on equipment with no compensating A decoding. At the time I was working in a recording studio and let me tell you, playing back a tape with recorded with Dolby A encoded NR without the corresponding NR decoding, well, even to a partially deaf person, it is anything but compatable. So I don't know how Dolby could claim that the studios no longer needed double inventory prints, other than the politics of knowing that if they insisted on two types of prints, Dolby Stereo might be dead in the water before it got off the ground.
Anyone hazard a guess how it is possible (as Dolby claimed) that there could be a print with a NR A-encoded stereo track which can be played without NR and it not sound like compressed hissy-shit?
As for Woody feels mono sounds better than stereo, he isn't the only one. The legendary Arturo Toscanini, as brilliant as he was as a conductor, he was an ass in that the didn't want any of his recordings to be recorded in that new fangled stereophonic system. He said he hated the way stereo sounded....what the hell did he think he was hearing standing in front of the orchestra?! We can all thank the engineers in RCA's studio 8H because they secretly recorded all the performances in 2trk stereo, ignoring the old coot's admonition to record only mono. Some times artists don't really know what they want, or, as in Allen's case as Brad says, he is just crazy. All kinds of preconditioned notions impact perception, especially of sound....it is extremely subjective. Mono might sound good to him, but to the majority of people, if his films were mixed in stereo by any decent sound/mixing engineers, they would sound fine dispite his weird perception.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-21-2006 02:41 AM
quote: Frank Angel
Mono compatible maybe, i.e., both Lt and Rt being folded together by virtue of the single pickup cell, but certainly not NR encoded compatible, in that they could be played on equipment with no compensating A decoding. At the time I was working in a recording studio and let me tell you, playing back a tape with recorded with Dolby A encoded NR without the corresponding NR decoding, well, even to a partially deaf person, it is anything but compatable.
Quite a few cinemas installed Dolby 364/E2 mono systems at one time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic