Psycho (1960) (60th Anniversary Edition) (Uncut)

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

You see it a lot on forums like this. I remember it as far back as the original Back to the Future DVDs came out with the framing issue on the sequels. It’s very easy to understand, you don’t need to be Sigmund Freud. You have people with these discs in-hand and they want to be satisfied with what they currently possess, so again, you get into the mental gymnastics. This guy clearly understands what the problem is but he wrote paragraph after paragraph trying to will the problem into insignificant status.

That happens, but I really don't think that's the case here. The post by latheofheaven read as honestly inquisitive to me.

[GuruAskew]

Agree to disagree. To me it was as confirmatio-biasy as confirmation bias gets. It could go in the confirmation bias exhibit in the Smithsonian.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

You see it a lot on forums like this. I remember it as far back as the original Back to the Future DVDs came out with the framing issue on the sequels. It’s very easy to understand, you don’t need to be Sigmund Freud. You have people with these discs in-hand and they want to be satisfied with what they currently possess, so again, you get into the mental gymnastics. This guy clearly understands what the problem is but he wrote paragraph after paragraph trying to will the problem into insignificant status.

But it’s not insignificant. It’s missing things. It has things that were added decades after most of the people who worked on the movie died. Including the original audio was an advertised feature. Not including it is an error, and you simply don’t have the original Psycho if you don’t have it. You have something with sound effects that were recorded after The Dark Knight and Avatar were released. You have something where people who weren’t even born when Psycho was released made mistakes and omitted things by mistake.

I don’t even have my Best Buy steelbook yet, I just ordered it over the weekend so when I open that package I’m going to have discs that are destined to end up in the trash. And who knows how many weeks we’ll be waiting for replacement discs. That sucks. But bending over backwards to make it so you’re happy with a defective disc and insulting people, including the people who made the film, sucks a lot worse.

Listen, I want the mono track, so you're preaching to the choir. I was being facetious and assume that people know what confirmation bias is.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by BNex99

The re-recording by Joel McNeely with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra is a pretty good substitute. The tempo is usually spot on, and the sound quality is excellent.

I’ve listened to the McNeely recording a couple times. I do like it but it’s kind of echoey. I’ve also listened to the re-recording conducted by Herrmann and it sounds very good but is too slow in some places, especially the prologue and murder theme. I also listened to a rip of the original mono and I think the performance is better than the other two. I just wish it would be released as a stereo version.

[litemakr]

Originally Posted by BNex99

The re-recording by Joel McNeely with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra is a pretty good substitute. The tempo is usually spot on, and the sound quality is excellent.

I like that one. The 1998 recording conducted by Danny Elfman is mostly really good in terms of tempo and accuracy. The re-recorded version conducted by Herrmann himself in the 70s is painfully slow. I wonder why he did it that way.

None of these recordings get the shower scene shrieking violins quite right, there is always some alteration.

[litemakr]

Incidentally, I have already heard back from Universal about the replacement. They requested contact info and address, plus copy of receipt or photos of the disc and packaging.

[Full Effect Ed]

Has anyone had issues redeeming their digital copies?

[jess1581]

I filled that thing out for replacement, and all it did was email the answers i gave to the questionaire i filled out... nothing else. What the hell am i supposed to do with that?

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by litemakr

I like that one. The 1998 recording conducted by Danny Elfman is mostly really good in terms of tempo and accuracy. The re-recorded version conducted by Herrmann himself in the 70s is painfully slow. I wonder why he did it that way.

None of these recordings get the shower scene shrieking violins quite right, there is always some alteration.

I love the 1998 recording, but it's actually conducted (and also orchestrated) by Steve Bartek, who has worked with Elfman many times. Bartek shares "Adaptation" credit with Elfman, though I'm not sure how much they really adapted, since it's pretty faithful. They both share producing credit too.

All this talk about it got me to pull out my CD and listen to it right now.

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

It's not a terrible remix, but I really hate how the shower sounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjSu...ture=emb_title

Ah, okay... so, in this case, the actual sound is worse in the remix. Sure, that is all I needed to know at least for this case. Perhaps that is why I keep hearing in almost every case where people want the original mono track. Maybe in a lot of cases when they try to create a new multi-track they just don't do a good job.

THAT I can understand, thanks Bro

[Bolty]

Originally Posted by jess1581

I filled that thing out for replacement, and all it did was email the answers i gave to the questionaire i filled out... nothing else. What the hell am i supposed to do with that?

Me too. Same thing.

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by BNex99

It's not all that different from wanting the picture to look as close as possible to the filmmakers' original intentions.

I can only speak for myself, but I can usually live with a respectful remix that takes what was already there and slightly adjusts it for a different audio configuration. But that's not the case with Psycho (despite what the sound people claim in the "Psycho Sound" featurette). The remix is quite revisionist, with multiple new Foley effects that sound completely out of place in a movie from 1960. Also, the balance between the music and effects is now very different.

On top of all that, the audio menu on the disc specifically says "Original Audio" for the mono track that's there, when it's actually a mono fold-down of the remix, something I imagine no one wants or needs. It was obviously an error, so it's good that it will be corrected to provide both the remix and the original soundtrack.

Hope that helps!

Excellent! I totally understand that and agree

Thank you kindly for the nice explanation.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by jess1581

I filled that thing out for replacement, and all it did was email the answers i gave to the questionaire i filled out... nothing else. What the hell am i supposed to do with that?

I received a similar email after completing the online form, I assume it's only a confirmation email. I hope that Universal will follow up with a request for further information to move the replacement process forward.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Latheofheaven

Ah, okay... so, in this case, the actual sound is worse in the remix. Sure, that is all I needed to know at least for this case. Perhaps that is why I keep hearing in almost every case where people want the original mono track. Maybe in a lot of cases when they try to create a new multi-track they just don't do a good job.

THAT I can understand, thanks Bro

Yep, same thing happened with the early James Bond movies when they were redone. These remixes they do today often sound NOTHING like the originals. They try to make them "sexy" and "hip" for young audiences, and add effects that were never there and worst of all they often bury the music, because the modern taste is for score to be almost unnoticeable.

I always make a point of listening to original mixes.

There was a funny moment with the restored Roman Holiday that comes out today. The announcement video has the Paramount lady saying sadly that they couldn't find the original separate audio elements, so they couldn't remix it. I was practically jumping out of my chair cheering when I heard her say that, knowing that they would be unable to ruin the original mix.

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by litemakr

The issue in this case is not the difference between mono and stereo sound. It's a matter of changing the sound effects throughout the entire soundtrack. Some remixes are just that, remixes. They take the original tracks and create a new mix with stereo or multichannel sound but using the original music and sounds. This is what is done with most movies and most people don't complain because it sounds like a stereo version of the familiar soundtrack

In the case of Psycho, the original recordings no longer exist. All that remains are monophonic stems of music, sound effects and dialogue. For the new mix they used computer wizardry to convert the monophonic music to pseudo stereo and it actually sounds pretty good. But then they decided to toss out almost all of the original sound effects and re-record them. Many of them sound very different and much too modern and out of place. On top of that, the balance between music and effects is very different.

So for long time fans of Psycho who are used to seeing and hearing Psycho with it's original soundtrack for the past 60 years, the soundtrack is radically changed and sounds wrong for the duration of the film. Even worse is that Hitchcock paid very careful attention to sound design and the soundtrack to Psycho is one of the most famous in movie history. The movie should be watched with the original soundtrack, not a rather generic sounding revision. It's the sonic equivalent of colorizing black and white movies.

Hopefully that clears up why people are upset. Universal messed up, but they are doing the right thing in fixing it and issuing corrected discs.

Okay, NOW I can see very clearly what's going on. Heh, TBH, now I'm actually terrified of seeing the the remaster because it honestly seems like it is gonna sound bloody AWFUL!

I really appreciate the thorough and clear explanation. And yes, of course I can see how people would be quite upset, especially with such a vintage absolutely Classic film. Yeah, it really sounds like they totally did screw up. I'm very glad to hear, then, that the company is indeed 'fixing' it.

So, what are they going to do now? A fellow above mentioned that the original elements no longer exist...???

Thanks again Bro, that is why I ask things like that. Hoping for a good honest and educational answer. I get that on the Steve Hoffman Forums most of the time, but here it is a little different. Sometimes people seem to be EXTREMELY quick to slam you no matter how respectfully or politely you ask, rather than just simply answer you. And yours was perfect.

Really appreciate it mate!

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by BNex99

I have the vinyl release from a few years ago, which is likely taken straight from the music stem. The quality is likely as good as it can be, but audio dips (if they're present) aren't all that apparent. Even though they're supposed to, audio stems don't always exactly reflect their volume in the final mix, especially those from the analog era.

Incidentally, the music cues for the peephole and Arbogast scenes correspond to the shorter version, which is another reason I'm skeptical that those extra bits of footage were in the "official" release version in 1960, even though some countries may have gotten the longer cut.

What are audio stems, please...?

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by happydood

I'd love to have the original mono in a non-mucked up version.

Also... thank all that is holy that somebody on blu-ray.com could explain to everybody what confirmation bias is.

Good point mate! On the SHF we discuss that phenomenon all the time, whether it is audio equipment or a particular vinyl pressing. The same would be true here...

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Latheofheaven

So, what are they going to do now? A fellow above mentioned that the original elements no longer exist...???

The original elements no longer existing means the individual, isolated audio tracks - dialogue, individual effects, atmospheric sounds, music, etc - were not saved. When they mixed the film in 1960 each element would have existed on its own, individual audio recording.

Back then, after they mixed them together into a mono master track, they would often junk the individual elements.

The final mixed mono master survives, it's what has always been used with the film, until this technical mistake.

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by crissrudd4554

In a nutshell the remastered track has revisions. The purpose of having the ORIGINAL mono as opposed to a downmix, which this release currently has but is about to be rectified, is to allow viewers the option to hear the film with the mix the film had theatrically. It’s not just “being able to hear it in mono”. If the remastered track didn’t revise the sound effects so much I doubt many people would care. But given that revisions were made, providing a mono track which retains those revisions is absolutely pointless. Having the ORIGINAL mono provides the film with its theatrical presentation, without the revisions made for the remix. Its as simple as that.

Oh yeah, I can see that. And now that I understand why, I do fully agree!

Thanks!

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by BNex99

That happens, but I really don't think that's the case here. The post by latheofheaven read as honestly inquisitive to me.

Heh, I will 2nd that, thanks!

He wasn't talking about me, was he...??? I couldn't possibly have been more respectful and clear in the way I asked. I think he musta been talking about someone above who had commented that they liked the new audio and somehow disparaged the many who did not.

If so though, that just confirms how the vibe here can be so much more critical rather than helpful. Although, in this case, I really very much DO appreciate all the excellent and truly helpful and thoughtful ones, they really helped me to understand what the deal was...