• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

5.1 vs 2.0 Audio and fanedit reviews

LastSurvivor

LastSurvivor

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
429
Trophy Points
113
I've noticed a growing trend recently when reading some fanedit reviews, that people are starting to drop points from the Audio/Video Quality score if the edit only has a 2.0 stereo mix and no 5.1 mix. Now, many of you may well know that I only edit in 2.0, but that I'm very fussy about audio editing and how good it should be. The thing which concerns me with dropping points simply because there is no 5.1 mix may lead some people to think that the sound quality is actually pretty rubbish, when there is no reason for this to be the case with a 2.0 mix.

I just wanted to hear what other people think about this. I mean, by all means make comments about it in the review, but does it really constitute a drop in score for "quality"? Personally, I think it's very harsh and somewhat undeserved.

LS
 
I said this in the video quality thread and I think the same applies here. Base your review on how far it strays from the source and how that affects enjoyment. Not all movies benefit from a 5.1 mix. For example, if I'm watching an edit of The Dark Knight, which has a fantastic 5.1 mix, presented as a 2.0 edit, then yeah, I'd dock a few points on audio quality. But if I'm watching an edit of say, Leaving Las Vegas, a 5.1 mix is pretty much useless and 2.0 will do just fine.
 
I think I've only docked points for it once or twice, don't remember which ones. I've come to not care at all about stuff like 5.1 vs 2.0 audio in edits, but that's because I watch in 2.0. What I care more about is if the audio track sounds good and balanced or if it's a POS. Do I think it's fair to knock points off for a 2.0 track? Probably not.

In re specifically Havoks review of Prometheus Giftbearer I can see his point for the score. You'd expect an HD edit to have a 5.1 track.

I'd say don't worry about the scores and whatnot. If someone gives you a 7 for A/V quality because of it, so be it. Everybody has their own way of reviewing and scoring.
 
LastSurvivor said:
Personally, I think it's very harsh and somewhat undeserved.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, but ultimately Neg is right: people will continue to rate and score however they wish and there's not much that can be done about it.
 
I didn't weigh in on the HD vs SD discussion, so I'll quickly just say I lean towards it shouldn't matter because not everyone has a powerful enough system to edit in HD. That said, I think 5.1 vs 2.1 is a bit different primarily because regardless if your system can edit HD or not, if you are editing it can edit 5.1. At this point, for me, it's a matter of if the editor wants to put the extra effort into it. That's not to say if an editor doesn't do it their lazy, but I will give an editor an extra point for that effort.
 
5.1 isn't the biggest deal but the .1 is. If you make 2.0 edits, I would love it if you started making 2.1 edits instead. The LFE channel is so important to many movies.
 
Interesting thoughts guys. I totally get the idea that a 5.1 mix takes more work, of course, so I suppose it kind of makes sense in a way to deduct a point if you look at it that way. However, I still think that for people who literally only have a 2.0 set up (i.e. no 5.1 system to play back their edit to test how good/bad it sounds before releasing the edit) it is a little unfair - but hey, I can live with it - I think.. ;) lol.

Just wanted to get your thoughts and it appears opinions may well be split down the middle.
 
Do you have a subwoofer on your computer? Even without one you should still be able to sync up the .1 track fairly easily with regular speakers.

The other reason I don't like 2.0 is because it isn't future proofed. If you decide to spring for speakers in ten years you might regret not having put in the extra work.
 
Nope, no subwoofer on my computer at all... Just a good old fashioned stereo sound. As for future proof sound, I'm not sure about this... I mean, are you telling me that stereo sound is going to disappear altogether? I hope not, as I do not want to be forced to play music as surround sound for example. For music, stereo sound is perfect.
 
My feelings are pretty similar to Neg`s.

At the end of the day, I could not care less if an fan edit is 5.1 or 2.0 or HD or DVD.
My primary focus is does the edited story work and does it entertain?
If it does, then after that, everything else is pure gravy. :D
 
If you have a 5.1 setup, there are some movies that are really enhanced by the experience. I love UA's T3 edit, but the fact that it isn't in true 5.1 is disappointing.

The fact that I just found out Giftbearer isn't in 5.1 is also disappointing.

If the original is 5.1 and the edit isn't (or is faked), I don't think it's unfair to take a point or two off audio editing.
 
TV's Frink said:
If you have a 5.1 setup, there are some movies that are really enhanced by the experience. I love UA's T3 edit, but the fact that it isn't in true 5.1 is disappointing.

The fact that I just found out Giftbearer isn't in 5.1 is also disappointing.

If the original is 5.1 and the edit isn't (or is faked), I don't think it's unfair to take a point or two off audio editing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If a dumbass like me could make a 5.1 edit in womble 5 years ago, almost anyone could, if they so desired. In Vegas I actually find it much easier to make audio edits in 5.1
 
Neg's view is kind of in sync with mine but more so-- if all you have is 2.0 stereo track to work with and you create a 5.1 from that, then (to me) it is just wasted disc space with a bullshit sound setup giving you no additional benefit and lowering quality that could have went back to video. I never really detract points for audio unless something is wrong with the mix or levels

HOWEVER if you do a 5.1 but truly create a TRUE 5.1 track that comes out rather well and plays balanced on a 2.0 setup, then I would actually give a higher rating in the audio section

really though it also depends on what sources and what programs the editor has to work with

I do not think it is fair at all to deduct points if no 5.1 is offered. Just because you might hear the audio fine in 2.0 does not mean that through whatever was edited and altered you would not hear that error/noise from editing say in one of the other tracks of the 5.1 and perhaps that may be why whatever editor choose 2.0
 
TV's Frink said:
If you have a 5.1 setup, there are some movies that are really enhanced by the experience. I love UA's T3 edit, but the fact that it isn't in true 5.1 is disappointing.

The fact that I just found out Giftbearer isn't in 5.1 is also disappointing.

If the original is 5.1 and the edit isn't (or is faked), I don't think it's unfair to take a point or two off audio editing.
Click to expand...

Ironic given that you and Reave were arguing the opposite in my recent HD video thread.
 
I don't remember arguing anything in that thread.
 
I've always edited in 2.0. I have a professional background in audio production so I'm very fussy with sound.

Now that I have a new PC with loads more grunt and I'm running Adobe CS6 and better apps, I have the capacity to more easily do 5.1 mixes, but I still have my doubts as to the value vs. effort (loads of extra fiddly shit).

So my future edits still may be in stereo 2.0. If viewers mark it down for that, so be it. I don't dislike listening to 5.1 movie mixes myself but, really, applying Dolby Pro Logic II to a stereo input through my AV receiver makes the sound immersive enough for my tastes.
 
spicediver said:
I've always edited in 2.0. I have a professional background in audio production so I'm very fussy with sound.

Now that I have a new PC with loads more grunt and I'm running Adobe CS6 and better apps, I have the capacity to more easily do 5.1 mixes, but I still have my doubts as to the value vs. effort (loads of extra fiddly shit).

So my future edits still may be in stereo 2.0. If viewers mark it down for that, so be it. I don't dislike listening to 5.1 movie mixes myself but, really, applying Dolby Pro Logic II to a stereo input through my AV receiver makes the sound immersive enough for my tastes.
Click to expand...

amen, brother.
 
spicediver said:
I have the capacity to more easily do 5.1 mixes, but I still have my doubts as to the value vs. effort (loads of extra fiddly shit).
Click to expand...

A good 5.1 source gives you a lot of flexibility.
 
geminigod said:
Ironic given that you and Reave were arguing the opposite in my recent HD video thread.
Click to expand...

Ok, I assume this is what you are referring to:

TV's Frink said:
I agree with Neg, in that we know going in that HD will be higher quality than DVD (unless there is a tech problem). I think it should be understood that if I give a DVD a 10/10 for video quality, that's in relation to other DVDs, not to HD.
Click to expand...

Contrasted with:

TV's Frink said:
If you have a 5.1 setup, there are some movies that are really enhanced by the experience. I love UA's T3 edit, but the fact that it isn't in true 5.1 is disappointing.

The fact that I just found out Giftbearer isn't in 5.1 is also disappointing.

If the original is 5.1 and the edit isn't (or is faked), I don't think it's unfair to take a point or two off audio editing.
Click to expand...

With emphasis on "If the original is 5.1," show me the irony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom