35mm VS 70mm Mixes (And where to find them?)

[dvdmike]

Die Hard and Alien 4k are the 70mm mixes, The Thing Arrow Bd is also

[CSchmidlapp]

(and in fact, the T2 remix has officially replaced the original mix everywhere except for fan preservations)

DCP screenings do not use the remix, it's almost certainly the CDS mix although the bass levels are off

I also noticed that the 2D DCP did not carry the 'known' remix.
I say 'known' because I thought it was perhaps a new mix for the re-release.
It certainly was more akin to the CDS mix, as when the T-800 endoskeletons fired the plasma riffles toward the screen in the opening, it was front heavy.
The score was also much higher in the mix.

I'm from the UK also.

[Stamper]

Weird that it didn't transfer to the Blu-ray? They might have doctored it again.

[CSchmidlapp]

Weird that it didn't transfer to the Blu-ray? They might have doctored it again.

Yes it is, I just assumed it had!
I didnt bother picking up the remaster on home video.
So the Bluray / UHD has the same old Rydstrom remix?
Weird.

[Stamper]

I think so. I haven't rewatched it since it came out. If it's a third mix, we should review it and list it as new.

[captainsolo]

The problem is without documentation or identification of sources all we have are guesses or supposition.
For years I thought the superior 2.0 matrixed mix on the Superman LD was possibly from the 70mm mix. Now that it is available as lossy 5.1 on the UHD with the same specific mixing choices I can rest assured my hunch was right.

The Raiders dvd audio is supposed to be from the 70mm dolby mix and was also used on the “restoration” print of the BD source I saw a few months before the BD was released. What interests me most besides the 70mm and mono is the abandoned VistaSonic mix that Disclord clued me onto. I often wonder if that is the source of the unique 1991 letterbox ld matrix audio that has become my favorite mix.

Indeed most 70mm mixes were without split surrounds and would mostly be discrete 4.0 tracks with the benefit of magnetic audio over optical. Most source film mixes were only completed in LCRS 4.0 for either Dolby stereo or Dolby 70mm. Star Wars did this and essentially set the template for the era. Where all the LFL titles from Star Wars up to Raiders differed was in the making of custom mixes for different formats with their own quirks. By the time of ROTJ they still made custom 70mm/35mm/mono mixes but just for ensuring compatibility and thus they do not have differences.

Die Hard seems to be 35mm Dolby stereo on the first LD and the 2.0 of the UHD. The 5.1 first appeared on the thx LD and is so much more bombastic that it follows the story of the film getting a beefed up 70mm sonic presentation. Thankfully this 5.1 carried over onto all successive releases without changes.

But DH2 follows a similar pattern: first LD has a nice Dolby surround track that is outshone by the later more bombastic 5.1.

Batman is 4.0 in its source. The LD 2.0 and 97 dvd 5.1 are the same track source and have that wonderful low end that isn’t on the 2005 dvd 5.1 that carried over to the BD. However Warner had a history of just upmixing LD tracks to 5.1 in the early days of dvd. Also the 5.1 of the se dvd/bd has maybe a touch more clarity in the high end but at the expense of all the ambience and low end. The current remix with new effects is atrocious and to be avoided.
My guess is that the LD was from a 35mm print master and the 97 dvd was either an upmix or new transfer made discrete. In 2005 they probably transferred a master element but applied modern EQ flourishes.

I’ve seen this happen in other instances. You then have two good sounding releases but the later hd version just doesn’t have the atmosphere or warmth of the older version. Case in point: Mask of the Phantasm. Warner archive produced a beautiful Blu-ray but the audio is from a master element. The clarity is such that you can hear the sibilant phrases in dialogue. Yet when compared to the LD 2.0 matrix the LD audio is richer, warmer, has a more atmospheric low end and the dialog is more natural without that harshness. I think the bd is from a master source and the LD from the audio printmaster from the short lived theatrical run.

[zoidberg]

I would be surprised if the remastered T2 blu had a new mix, it's not inconceivable but highly unlikely. When I first watched the 3D blu it was definitely the Rydstrom near-field remix, it took some getting used to having almost exclusively heard the LD tracks for a long time prior.
With regards to the LD 5.1 track I was recently gifted a cap of the remastered THX LD's AC-3 track and briefly comparing it to the Live DVD's AC-3 shows they are distinctly different, whereas the JP DTS DVD closely tracks with the Live DVD. Which muddies things further

[spoRv]

A question about 4-tracks magnetic master channel map: was it LCRS or LRCS?

[LucasGodzilla]

regarding Dune, i saw the 70mm twice. the opening dialogue is very deep and quite bassy compared to how it sounds on home video.

There is a late LD release of Dune with AC-3, it might be closer to the 70mm than later releases.

the same mix is probably on the R1 DVD release from 1998.

Possible I suppose, although Bigrob did say that none of the blus/DVDs he knew of had the same level of bass

So I was randomly digging around online and stumbled across some old review from 2006 on the extended edition metal DVD release and fascinatingly there's a mentioning of there being two different sounding 5.1 surround mixes: With the DTS sounding very weak and the AC-3 being loud and bassy.

The Dolby 5.1 track must be the loudest Dolby track I've ever heard. Right from the off the all speakers are assaulted with an aggressive sound, mix score and special effects are given full reign. So much so that the poor old centre speaker, which contains all the dialogue, struggles to keep up at times, luckily, though, it is never actually drowned out. As a mix there is good separation, plenty of action though lacking in actual effects, it sounding rather thick than discreet, helped plenty by the resoundingly heavy bass. It is anything but subtle, not one to show off your system's nuances but one to keep the neighbours up.

By contrast the DTS mix is extremely weak, one of the quietest I've heard, but also lacking in any decent bass. This has the effect of giving a thin sound that is considerably less inspiring.

The Dolby surround mix is also a very good option, it containing the same rich bass as its 5.1 brother, again with plenty of rear action.

I don't suppose anyone in here has any idea what's going on with that AC-3 mix and the possibility of it stemming from 6-track elements?

I'm presuming Bigrob is aware of this release and has already gave it a whirl, but I wanted to double-check since the note of there being an audio discrepancy is fascinating (unless there's some sort of Dolby format weirdness going on that I'm not aware of).

[Bigrob]

I *might* have that Australian edition in the collection. Will check when I'm in storage