Posts: 229
Threads: 12
Joined: 2021 Oct
Thanks: 27
Given 37 thank(s) in 32 post(s)
Country:
Is the UHD's stereo not original? Downmix?
Posts: 851
Threads: 5
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 175
Given 209 thank(s) in 143 post(s)
Country:
2024-02-02, 11:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 2024-02-02, 11:56 AM by X5gb.)
Confirmed downmix of the included 5.1 which is also boosted.
Posts: 229
Threads: 12
Joined: 2021 Oct
Thanks: 27
Given 37 thank(s) in 32 post(s)
Country:
How do we know that the 2.0 is a downmix (of a remix) rather than the 5.1 being a remix of an original 2.0?
Someone who appeared to be associated with Kino implied as much.
I was hoping to get more info but they disappeared.
Posts: 699
Threads: 109
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 255
Given 671 thank(s) in 279 post(s)
Country:
There's no way to be sure unless there identifiable changes in the remix.
You can downmix the 5.1 to DPL and compare. But sometimes a 5.1 track can be a discrete rendering of the original Stereo 4.0 so the matrixed DPL downmix could still be considered original.
Posts: 229
Threads: 12
Joined: 2021 Oct
Thanks: 27
Given 37 thank(s) in 32 post(s)
Country:
I recall the poster on blurray.com (who seemed to be an unidentified insider of sorts) saying that the Kino titles that previously didn't have 5.1 mixes on BD or DVD took the 2.0 stereo mixes they got from Universal and upmixed them to 5.1... if that makes sense?
I'm paraphrasing a bit, so correct me if I'm wrong.
But that would explain why the 5.1 and 2.0 tracks were basically the same.
Some posters on that forum claimed that the 2.0 mix sounded fine, but that the 5.1 introduced some issues, which could have been a result of Kino's upmixing.
Posts: 699
Threads: 109
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 255
Given 671 thank(s) in 279 post(s)
Country:
That's interesting. Do you have a link to that user's comments?
![[Image: 03409.jpg]](https://www.lddb.com/cover/ld/03401-03500/03409.jpg)
