- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I've done a fairly comprehensive comparison of the 5.1 AC3 from the first DVD release (thanks to everyone who PM'd me about that) with the remixed Surround EX version found on subsequent releases. I have absolutely no doubt that this in fact the original CDS mix, as disclord had indicated.
Gary Rydstrom's description of the differences between the two in the Widescreen Review article linked to above is accurate. The remix has a lot more noticeable usage of the surround channels, and the amount of LFE bass (or 'boom', as they like to call it) is amped up considerably. I only have a standard 5.1 setup since there's no room for additional surround speakers, but there was some interesting stuff going straight back that is certainly intended to appear in the EX channel. Plenty of side to side panning in the rears as well, and the boom track made everything satisfyingly powerful without going overboard. There's a lot to like about the remix, for sure.
In comparison, the original version may come across as being slightly disappointing in some ways. There isn't as much bass in the explosions or gunfire, and the surround usage is more limited. That's not to dismiss or impune it in any way, however, because it is a very good mix in its own right, and everything about the sound design that works in the remix sounds as good as it does because they 'got it right' originally.
As Rydstrom indicated, there are no changes in content between the two versions whatsoever. None. All of the sound effects are exactly the same, including the gunshots. The balance between the various elements can be a bit different at times, but not hugely so: sometimes elements that were panned to the surrounds in the remix are emphasized with greater level than they were before, but never so much as to become overpowering. The overall dynamic range is about the same in both, with a lot of transient power.
The original mix is definitely a real 5.1, not 4.1. There is distinct usage of the stereo surrounds in certain scenes: more subtle and less frequent than the remix, but definitely there. Note that this stereo panning only applies to sound effects and not to the music, which is heard as mono in the rears throughout.
From the way the bass is used, it is clear that this mix was intended to be used on 70mm prints, because it uses the same techniques that were employed on the boom tracks for other films before the advent of Dolby Digital. Rather than containing only isolated instances of bass derived entirely from the sound effects, as is now customary, the boom channel contains a sum of all the bass from the entire mix, low-pass filtered at 125 Hz, and plays continuously throughout the entire movie. Specific bass effects also appear for parts that warrant additional reinforcement, though not with the sort of levels heard in the newer version. Because the boom track plays continuously, many scenes have a sort of 'rumbling undertone' to them, which gives an interesting effect that is a somewhat different than the remix. The percussive nature of the score benefits from this. (A similar, though less noticeable, undertone can be heard in the 1993 mixes of the Star Wars films, which the other versions do not have).
On the whole, the CDS mix is about what I expected it would be, but actually hearing it for the first time was very interesting. I can see why Rydstrom wanted to remix it (and I think he did a very good job in doing so), but the original stands on its own merit as an example of excellence in the history of film sound. Certainly it is worth preserving, and even considering the only copies released on home video are in AC3 at 384 kbps, the sound quality is surprisingly good.
(If it is to be used with any fan projects, I recommend using a method of synching to video that does not involve transcoding the AC3 through a second round of lossy compression, in order not to degrade it any more).
I think it's safe to say that some of the talk of differences between versions has been exaggerated. I haven't heard the Dolby Stereo mix, but I'd very confidently wager that it would sound quite similar to the CDS overall. That's all for now . . . but if there are any further questions about this, I'll be glad to answer them.
