Posts: 237
Threads: 13
Joined: 2021 Oct
Thanks: 29
Given 41 thank(s) in 36 post(s)
Country:
Is the UHD's stereo not original? Downmix?
Posts: 870
Threads: 6
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 188
Given 219 thank(s) in 146 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: 237
Threads: 13
Joined: 2021 Oct
Thanks: 29
Given 41 thank(s) in 36 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: 722
Threads: 114
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 265
Given 732 thank(s) in 299 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: 237
Threads: 13
Joined: 2021 Oct
Thanks: 29
Given 41 thank(s) in 36 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: 722
Threads: 114
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 265
Given 732 thank(s) in 299 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)
