Superman: The Movie 4K UHD (1978)

[KC-Technerd]

After listening to the original theatrical 2.0 track from theatrical BD of "Superman" included in the US 4k package, and then listening to the 2.0 track from Arrow's "The Last Starfighter" BD, I'm wondering if it's possible that the "Superman" OT 2.0 track might have somehow missed proper Dolby A decoding. I'm finding it somewhat bright and shrill, and lacking in bass, while the 2.0 from "The Last Starfighter" sounds great. It might also explain why some remember the 2.0 from one or both of the "Superman" Laserdisc releases sounding great (or at least better), assuming it/they had the proper Dolby A decoding applied. I'm not really sure what a Dolby A encoded recording would sound like without the decoding though. Just some guessing and speculation on my part.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

and there's no matrix involved.

Actually, in 1990, the birthing matrix was still canon to the Superman comics, having been introduced by John Byrne in The Man of Steel miniseries in 1986 and was still being frequently referenced in storylines throughout the 1990s. In this telling, Kal-el was gestated in the matrix, an artificial womb of sorts, which was launched to Earth and he was thus "born" when the Kents removed him, technically making him an American citizen.

It was only in 2003 when Mark Waid revised Superman's origins in the miniseries Birthright, removing the matrix concept and returning to the Golden/Silver age version where Kal-El was born the old-fashioned way on Krypton and sent to Earth as a baby rather than a fetus.
...

Wait, that's not the matrix you meant?

[Dr. T]

Nerd.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

After listening to the original theatrical 2.0 track from theatrical BD of "Superman" included in the US 4k package, and then listening to the 2.0 track from Arrow's "The Last Starfighter" BD, I'm wondering if it's possible that the "Superman" OT 2.0 track might have somehow missed proper Dolby A decoding. I'm finding it somewhat bright and shrill, and lacking in bass, while the 2.0 from "The Last Starfighter" sounds great. It might also explain why some remember the 2.0 from one or both of the "Superman" Laserdisc releases sounding great (or at least better), assuming it/they had the proper Dolby A decoding applied. I'm not really sure what a Dolby A encoded recording would sound like without the decoding though. Just some guessing and speculation on my part.

According to Geoff, the Dolby Stereo mix for Superman was made in a hurry and the elements were copied multiple times as changes were made, degrading it, which is why it sounds so much thinner than the 70mm mix. I have no idea what the laserdiscs were sourced from, but the 35mm mix has always sounded weak as far as I know.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

According to Geoff, the Dolby Stereo mix for Superman was made in a hurry and the elements were copied multiple times as changes were made, degrading it, which is why it sounds so much thinner than the 70mm mix. I have no idea what the laserdiscs were sourced from, but the 35mm mix has always sounded weak as far as I know.

You have to remember though that if WB wanted to they could easily take the 70mm mix and encode it in Dolby Surround 2.0 for a 2.0 track - so that's not a particularly great explanation for why they used a lower quality source track.

[HonestJohn]

Originally Posted by RalphoR

The new Superman casting in the DCU, naturally.

Attachment 288224

That's not Superman, that's Beppo ...

Beppo the Super-Monkey is a monkey with Kryptonian super-powers, involved with Superman and the Superman Family. Originally one of Jor-El's testing animals for experiments on the planet Krypton, Beppo stowed away on young Kal-El's rocket-ship to Earth. He is a member of the Legion of Super-Pets.

[david_blu]

Originally Posted by HonestJohn

That's not Superman, that's Beppo ...

I thought it was Toto?

Apparently this chimp made it big!

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

According to Geoff, the Dolby Stereo mix for Superman was made in a hurry and the elements were copied multiple times as changes were made, degrading it, which is why it sounds so much thinner than the 70mm mix. I have no idea what the laserdiscs were sourced from, but the 35mm mix has always sounded weak as far as I know.

I believe what Geoff wrote was pretty much quoted directly from Michael Thau's comments in 2001, which I think are highly questionable. If "copied multiple times" means several generations removed from the source, it typically would remove definition and detail, but I'm not sure it would result in it sounding brighter and harsher with less bass. Thau also seemed to be claiming that the 6-track for the 70mm was no better than the sound mix for the 35mm anyway, hence the justification for his new 5.1 mix. I experienced Superman from a 35mm print in 1978, but honestly have no memory now of how good or bad it sounded.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

I believe what Geoff wrote was pretty much quoted directly from Michael Thau's comments in 2001, which I think are highly questionable. If "copied multiple times" means several generations removed from the source, it typically would remove definition and detail, but I'm not sure it would result in it sounding brighter and harsher with less bass. Thau also seemed to be claiming that the 6-track for the 70mm was no better than the sound mix for the 35mm anyway, hence the justification for his new 5.1 mix. I experienced Superman from a 35mm print in 1978, but honestly have no memory now of how good or bad it sounded.

Yep. Thau also dislikes the directional dialogue of the OG so clearly has some questionable things but when he says that the mix was a generational disaster zone then I believe him as it’s always sounded terrible to me. But part of the reason for the remix was that it didn’t do what Donner thought it did, they were shocked by how sedate the mix was and as the stems were only mono (again, if we believe Thau) they had to create new multichannel effects.

[LexInHD]

I distinctly remember reading an interview with Donner - made after the millennium remastering of Superman for DVD - that had him display ignorance and then disdain about the "new 5.1 mix" and the interviewer put it in front of him that people were complaining/commenting about how rambunctious/bombastic the new sound was in comparison to the original and how new effects were added. I believe the phrase "tornado in a tea pot" or some variation thereof was used by the interviewer.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

After listening to the original theatrical 2.0 track from theatrical BD of "Superman" included in the US 4k package, and then listening to the 2.0 track from Arrow's "The Last Starfighter" BD, I'm wondering if it's possible that the "Superman" OT 2.0 track might have somehow missed proper Dolby A decoding. I'm finding it somewhat bright and shrill, and lacking in bass, while the 2.0 from "The Last Starfighter" sounds great. It might also explain why some remember the 2.0 from one or both of the "Superman" Laserdisc releases sounding great (or at least better), assuming it/they had the proper Dolby A decoding applied. I'm not really sure what a Dolby A encoded recording would sound like without the decoding though. Just some guessing and speculation on my part.

This is what I've been saying for some time. I'm not sure how the stereo tracks would have "lost" the Dolby matrixing, as that info should be embedded in the tracks themselves, and even if it weren't, most modern decoders do a pretty good job of extracting the dialogue to the center at least. There shouldn't be that much bleed into the surrounds. I wonder if it's similar to what happened on the box set versions of Ghostbusters 1 & 2: i.e. some kind of phasing problem.

I saw Superman in 35mm a few years ago in a theater with a decent Dolby (or possibly off-brand) Stereo setup, and though the sound wasn't great, there was some genuine surround activity there.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BNex99

This is what I've been saying for some time. I'm not sure how the stereo tracks would have "lost" the Dolby matrixing, as that info should be embedded in the tracks themselves, and even if it weren't, most modern decoders do a pretty good job of extracting the dialogue to the center at least. There shouldn't be that much bleed into the surrounds. I wonder if it's similar to what happened on the box set versions of Ghostbusters 1 & 2: i.e. some kind of phasing problem.

I saw Superman in 35mm a few years ago in a theater with a decent Dolby (or possibly off-brand) Stereo setup, and though the sound wasn't great, there was some genuine surround activity there.

I think the Dolby A he's referring to is noise reduction, not matrixing? The Supes 2.0 still has the matrixing, it just sounds like shit.

[Ruined]

I don't see how the 2.0 condition ultimately matters, simply because if WB wanted to they could use the 6 track master, downmix part of the LFE into the mains if appropriate, and then DPL encode the remaining 4 channels to create a new 2.0 mix that would also be reflective of the theatrical mix. That is assuming said multichannel mix used for the last release actually was a theatrical mix, of course.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I don't see how the 2.0 condition ultimately matters, simply because if WB wanted to they could use the 6 track master, downmix part of the LFE into the mains if appropriate, and then DPL encode the remaining 4 channels to create a new 2.0 mix that would also be reflective of the theatrical mix. That is assuming said multichannel mix used for the last release actually was a theatrical mix, of course.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the Dolby A he's referring to is noise reduction, not matrixing? The Supes 2.0 still has the matrixing, it just sounds like shit.

Could be; I may have misread.

But whatever the problem was, it does indeed sound like shit.

[nickg]

Originally Posted by BNex99

This is what I've been saying for some time. I'm not sure how the stereo tracks would have "lost" the Dolby matrixing, as that info should be embedded in the tracks themselves, and even if it weren't, most modern decoders do a pretty good job of extracting the dialogue to the center at least. There shouldn't be that much bleed into the surrounds. I wonder if it's similar to what happened on the box set versions of Ghostbusters 1 & 2: i.e. some kind of phasing problem.

I saw Superman in 35mm a few years ago in a theater with a decent Dolby (or possibly off-brand) Stereo setup, and though the sound wasn't great, there was some genuine surround activity there.

the matrixing cant really be lost, without heavily editing the track. which it doesnt seem like they have. it still behaves the way my old laserdisc copy did when run through my avr.

[Matt89]

So I never realized that the US/Can UHD came with a theatrical cut BD. I've only ever owned the UK UHD and that came with a BD copy of the special edition. So weird, but I guess WB gonna WB.

Anyway, I had a client meeting this afternoon and their office was near my local shop so I popped in there on my way home and grabbed the Warner Archive BD of Supes with the extended TV cut and that ALSO comes with a second disc that features the SE. LOL. Now I kinda want that theatrical cut BD because there's different extras on it compared to the SE. Is there anywhere to get just the theatrical cut BD or is that exclusive to the anthology set from years back? I don't think Warner ever put out a standalone theatrical BD.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by nickg

the matrixing cant really be lost, without heavily editing the track. which it doesnt seem like they have. it still behaves the way my old laserdisc copy did when run through my avr.

Which laserdisc do you have? I have the 1990 LD, and it sounds noticeably different from the 2.0 on the BD in terms of matrixing (run through the same receiver).

It's not night and day, but there is very little dialogue bleed into the surrounds on the LD, and it sounds much more like a properly decoded Dolby Stereo track, albeit a dated one of course. It also sounds much less compressed, which it most likely is. (For all we know, that BD 2.0 might just be the compressed Dolby Digital track from the old DVD put in a lossless container.)

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep. Thau also dislikes the directional dialogue of the OG so clearly has some questionable things but when he says that the mix was a generational disaster zone then I believe him as it’s always sounded terrible to me. But part of the reason for the remix was that it didn’t do what Donner thought it did, they were shocked by how sedate the mix was and as the stems were only mono (again, if we believe Thau) they had to create new multichannel effects.

My understanding is that the stems (in general) isolate the music, dialog, and effects. Even if used for directional dialog, a mono dialog stem should be usable to recreate that, as the source dialog was not recorded in stereo anyway. Any steering, ambient reverb, etc. is added after the fact (except back in the 1950s, as I detailed earlier.) There definitely was a stereo/multi-channel source available for the music. That only leaves the effects. I'm not sure why a mono stem of isolated effects couldn't be treated the same as the dialog, with stereo effect added, and I'm doubting that in 1978 that effects were typically recorded in stereo from the source. I think it more likely that they were mono recorded, and then any steering and stereo effect was added afterwards. Also, I rightly or wrongly remember reading or otherwise seeing back 22+ years ago, and not from Thau, that the reason the effects had to be recreated is that there was no isolated stem with the effects. As I recall the effects and music were combined on the same (probably mono) stem. That would definitely be problematic for using the original effects in a new mix. However I'm not sure why a stem would be recorded like that, as it seems like it wouldn't be usable for much.

Originally Posted by BNex99

This is what I've been saying for some time. I'm not sure how the stereo tracks would have "lost" the Dolby matrixing, as that info should be embedded in the tracks themselves, and even if it weren't, most modern decoders do a pretty good job of extracting the dialogue to the center at least. There shouldn't be that much bleed into the surrounds.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the Dolby A he's referring to is noise reduction, not matrixing? The Supes 2.0 still has the matrixing, it just sounds like shit.

Originally Posted by BNex99

I have the 1990 LD, and it sounds noticeably different from the 2.0 on the BD in terms of matrixing (run through the same receiver).

It's not night and day, but there is very little dialogue bleed into the surrounds on the LD, and it sounds much more like a properly decoded Dolby Stereo track, albeit a dated one of course. It also sounds much less compressed, which it most likely is.

Yes, I'm speaking of Dolby A noise reduction. I believe that all Dolby 6-track (70mm) and Dolby Stereo SVA (35mm) tracks were Dolby A encoded. In fact the use of Dolby A noise reduction for film sound both 35 & 70mm slightly predates Dolby's use of matrixing and baby-boom LFE. As I understand the encoding process, the original audio is separated into 4 frequency bands, which then receive varying amounts of compression and pre-emphasis. The decoding reverses this to restore the original dynamic range and EQ. From what I remember of the early days of stereo sound on home video (VHS, Betamax, and LaserDisc), failure to apply Dolby A decoding occasionally occurred in home video transfers. I don't think failure to perform Dolby A decoding would account for excessive dialog bleed into the dematrixed surround channel, but I think it could account for brightness/harshness (bad EQ) and poor dynamic range. My understanding is that Dolby did consider their 35mm Dolby Stereo SVA optical tracks (Dolby A encoded) compatible with mono optical playback, and no Dobly A decoding (but presumably Academy Curve EQ) applied (implying acceptable, but not optimal playback).

I do believe that a quality Dolby Surround 2.0 track likely could be created from the 4 main channels of the 6-track master (discarding the split-surrounds and LFE on tracks 2 & 4), and I'm sure it would sound superior to the OT 2.0 surround track that's on the theatrical BD. I doubt WB would ever go to this trouble though. I rarely find 2.0 audio included with movies unless it's an existing mix for the original theatrical presentations, and even then usually only if it's the only format available, or from one of the labels like Arrow or Criterion that tries to preserve the OT formats.

Edit: I was forgetting about the directional dialog in the above paragraph. It could be problematic for a 2.0 matrix.

[Ruined]

Dialogue bleed in dolby 2.0 should occur when the two mono channels of dialogue are partially out of phase with each other. I wouldn't see any other reason for bleed