Posts: 192
Threads: 9
Joined: 2022 Sep
Thanks: 6
Given 115 thank(s) in 67 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 2,810
Threads: 50
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1882
Given 1012 thank(s) in 650 post(s)
I myself think it's great because if an LD mono is just duplicated, then fine, one can delete a channel.
However in many cases, the LD mono is a straight 2.0 capture, and deleting one channel put the sound in the middle, and brings all kinds of nosy problems to it.
So IMHO, if the check is that they are both the same, fine. If the check reveals they have some differences and they widen the soundstage.
Keep it as is.
Posts: 794
Threads: 36
Joined: 2018 Feb
Thanks: 672
Given 1118 thank(s) in 419 post(s)
Country:
2023-05-04, 10:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 2023-05-05, 03:11 AM by bronan.)
I can understand keeping a dual mono since the noise will be different on each channel with an analog capture. The test is primarily just meant to detect if its actually stereo content, or just duped - analog or digital.
On further thought, I think the one thing that would still mess it up is if one channel is recorded significantly louder than the other. This could possibly be fixed by taking RMS for both channels, normalizing channel 2 to channel 1's level, subtract the normalized channel 2 from 1, and finally taking the RMS of that. If the RMS is in the audible range then there is definitely something going on there!
Posts: 2,810
Threads: 50
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1882
Given 1012 thank(s) in 650 post(s)
To me the problem is that one channel reduce the audio dead center and thus the sounfield.
If you have a mono 2.0 track, the stage can often be wider than dead center.
That's because the difference of levels, but also of EQ, might have been used to make the mono sound bigger than nosy (ie dead center).
We have no clue what source was used when some of these tracks are found to be 2.0 on many VHS and LDs and discs.
If an optical track 1 channel is the source, then OK. But what if the sources are the DME elements, that were folded one way for left channel, (with some EQ and volume adjustments), and another for the right channel?
It could be cool if we could sort out differences on mono stuff.
Posts: 2,127
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 164
Given 1058 thank(s) in 645 post(s)
Posts: 2,810
Threads: 50
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1882
Given 1012 thank(s) in 650 post(s)
Yes, exactly. I think the point is that we always go for bit-perfect versions of old home video releases, but for some reasons when it comes to mono, sometimes we drop one channel thus tinkering with them.
When they are both identical and already duplicated (as proven by the flatline), I see no problem.
But when they aren't, for me it's messing with the original presentation. That's not the original LD or VHS presentation preserved, but a re-edit.
I don't mind re-edits if the original is offered beside it.
Also, 1 channel = exact center sound.
2 channel mono = bigger soundstage.
So in essence, if one delete a channel (unless of course it's rotted of have other problems), you mess up the soundstage and you reduce it.
That's why I would prefer if dropping one channel would be just an option offered with the original.
Posts: 794
Threads: 36
Joined: 2018 Feb
Thanks: 672
Given 1118 thank(s) in 419 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 762
Threads: 54
Joined: 2021 Jul
Thanks: 627
Given 646 thank(s) in 302 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 794
Threads: 36
Joined: 2018 Feb
Thanks: 672
Given 1118 thank(s) in 419 post(s)
Country:
2023-05-14, 02:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 2023-05-14, 02:44 AM by bronan.)
Posts: 794
Threads: 36
Joined: 2018 Feb
Thanks: 672
Given 1118 thank(s) in 419 post(s)
Country:
2023-05-14, 03:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 2023-05-14, 03:28 PM by bronan.)
|