• 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

TV's Frink said:
A good 5.1 source gives you a lot of flexibility.
Click to expand...
Agree.

My actual sources are nearly always 5.1, but what I actually work with are 1) a stereo mixdown of that 5.1 source; and 2) 6 mono channels extracted from the source to be used as needed. But I still edit and export in 2.0.

So yes, a 5.1 source is brilliant for the options it gives you for editing and reconstructing your audio, even if you author the fanedit's audio track in stereo as I do.
 
http://www.fanedit.org/forums/showthread.php?9171-Should-formal-reviews-reflect-an-HD-bias

Sorry, Reave, upon re-reading you didn't actually weigh in one way or another.

I really don't have a strong opinion one way or the other regarding SD vs HD or 2.0 vs 5.1 as a factor in rating. It is interesting to me though that we have parallel threads going and some people seem to be weighing in on different sides depending on whether we are talking about video or audio.
 
Still waiting...
 
TV's Frink said:
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...

You pointed out your own quote from the video thread. You have stated that you don't support taking off points for only an SD release, whereas you do support taking off points for only stereo release.

You are welcome to your own opinions and values. This is a totally subjective discussion, but IMO these statements are somewhat at odds with each other. Unless we are talking about an edit of an older movie, an HD source with 5.1 audio exists. The only question is whether the editor chooses to obtain it and has the technology, the skills, and motivation to use it. By "motivation," I mean how much one values the HD or 5.1 relative to the amount of time involved.

I can totally respect that [MENTION=5815]spicediver[/MENTION] places low value on 5.1 and has made a personal choice to not edit in 5.1, but I can also respect that reviewers may want to take off points if they place a higher value on 5.1.

I guess what I have come to as my personal opinion on both related subjects is that it is ok to take off a bit from video and audio quality ratings in these instances. I remember being excited when the first HD star wars edits started being released last year, and it has really changed the playing field for me about what Star Wars edits I would consider recommending to others. Based on that, HD and 5.1 have a clear value for me.

It doesn't make or break a good edit for me. I care way more about good editing technique, narrative, and creativity. There are amazing editors like [MENTION=8731]Gatos[/MENTION] doing awesome SD work, and I would never want to discourage anybody from editing just because they don't meet HD 5.1 standards, but nevertheless it is a standard, and it does affect some people's overall enjoyment/appreciation of the work. All other things being equal, I am going to choose an HD 5.1 edit every time, and I don't think that is unfair to be reflected in the review/ratings.
 
The difference is that some people can't edit in HD. Anyone can edit in 5.1 with a little effort. While I respect Spice's opinion of 5.1, I don't agree with it and see no problem deducting a little if he chooses not to use 5.1 because he finds it not worth the effort.
 
If deviation from the source is grounds for deducting points, one might conceivably deduct points if an edit does not use an older film's original mono soundtrack. While it might seem as if I must be joking, I am in fact making a serious point. I don't like the value judgment that 5.1 is in some way inherently superior to 2.0 or mono: it's thinking like that that leads to so many films being released on Blu-ray with rushed and poorly-executed 5.1 remixes, just so the disc can have multi-channel lossless audio, while the film's original audio mix is relegated to a lossy track or, more often than not, left off the disc altogether. Some films (such as Star Wars) had stereo or mono audio mixes that differed in content and feel from their multi-channel mixes, and an editor might (like me) not like 5.1 audio at all or choose to present their edit in 2.0 either to create an effect or out of a genuine preference for it.
 
Captain Khajiit said:
If deviation from the source is grounds for deducting points, one might conceivably deduct points if an edit does not use an older film's original mono soundtrack.
Click to expand...

Older films are definitely a different can of worms. The original source format most certainly has to be considered, and couldn't agree more on crappy rushed BD releases of old movies. (I have given up buying BD for old movies except in cases where I have read about how they restored it.)

But that is something different than the faneditor choosing to use something less than the best commercially available version of the original source (i.e. newish movies).

I would love to see more fanedits that include 5.1 and 2.0 audio tracks. Which way I watch depends on the genre, my mood, how disruptive I will be to other people in the house, and how much I care about the movie.
 
Neglify said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks Neg, exactly my point for that review, and a big SciFi and quite recent movie like Prometheus that features a very complex audio mix and effects really deserves to be watched in at least DD 5.1.

For a mostly dialogue based fanedit tho? 2.0 would do just fine. As geminigod points out, older movies that their original track is mono or stereo should stay that way.
 
geminigod said:
But that is something different than the faneditor choosing to use something less than the best commercially available version of the original source (i.e. newish movies).
Click to expand...

I am not sure that it is, and I am not sure that you have understood my point. I mentioned old films to show that deviation from the source is not good grounds for marking an edit down, and to broach the issue of whether one channel configuration is inherently superior to another. What do you mean by "choosing to use less than the best"? If you mean using the highest-quality elements, one can use a lossless multi-channel mix from a recent film and downmix it to mono. If you mean using it as a source and keeping it multi-channel because multi-channel is better, then this involves the kind of thinking to which I was objecting.
 
Personally I think one should stick to the original audio configuration where possible. The Terminator should be edited in mono while T2 should be done in 5.1. Again, I really don't see what all the fuss is about with editing in 5.1 as it's really quite easy.

Want to make a fanedit that has a mono audio track for some artistic reason? I'm all behind that. But to mix a 5.1 down to 2.0 for the sake of easier editing makes no sense to me.

That said, I've enjoyed plenty of fanedits that (in my mind) should have been 5.1. Story trumped sound in those cases.
 
For Prometheus: Giftbearer there were several reasons why I went with 2.0 instead of 5.1:

1) All of the deleted, alternate and supplemental footage for Prometheus is in 2.0 (unless MakeMKV is lying to me when it examines the Blu-ray - it does show multi-channel audio for the theatrical-feature and for the menus, but only a stereo track for all the other footage). Now, there might be a good way to "fake" 5.1 from 2.0, or it might simply be acceptable to blend 2.0 (from the extra footage) with 5.1 (from the original), but...

2) This was my first experiment editing a large project, and first time editing HD at all, and I didn't even know if I was going to be able to handle editing and rendering in HD, so I left learning about/dealing with 5.1 (or 2.0-to-5.1-tactics) out of the equation.

3) I don't have a 5.1 setup (just wouldn't work in my apt. living room), so even if I did a 5.1 soundtrack I wouldn't be able to test out if it sounded right or not.

All that being said, I can understand someone deducting points in their review if they expected a 5.1 soundtrack and didn't get it (but maybe I can get some slack for the 2.0 deleted/alternate source footage? :wink:). It sounds like (from spicediver's comments for instance) that it's useful to have the multiple audio channels even if you are rendering to a 2.0 product in the end (I can imagine several audio edits that were very tricky to do in Prometheus might have been easier with separated audio elements), so I will definitely look into 5.1 for any future edits. I would still worry about trying to provide a 5.1 release without a way of testing it throughout the process myself, though.
 
No need to "fake" the 5.1 if deleted scenes are 2.0. Multiple times I've added 2.0 deleted scenes to a 5.1 edit. I put the 2.0 track in the center and maybe add music to the front channels. Nobody has complained about that so far.
 
Neglify said:
No need to "fake" the 5.1 if deleted scenes are 2.0. Multiple times I've added 2.0 deleted scenes to a 5.1 edit. I put the 2.0 track in the center and maybe add music to the front channels. Nobody has complained about that so far.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok - good to know!

Do you think having a 5.1 set-up is crucial to testing your own 5.1 edit?
 
Severian said:
Ah, ok - good to know!

Do you think having a 5.1 set-up is crucial to testing your own 5.1 edit?
Click to expand...

It's pretty important, but not absolutely essential. It would be especially helpful in building a 5.1 from scratch. If you don't have one you can always have someone who does test your work.

In the case of Prometheus deleted scenes, if they are indeed only in 2.0, one could be forgiven for making the whole edit in 2.0. However, as neglify pointed out, it's not too hard to blend 2.0 into a 5.1. If you listen to the individual tracks in a lot of surround mixes, the rear and LFE channels are not always on. Using some duplication of channels I've convincingly created 5.1 from a 2.0 source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom