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

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Great news about the replacement program! The link wouldn't work for me for some reason so I had to use the email option.

[Latheofheaven]

I know I'm gonna get pummeled for this one, but sincerely, can someone please explain why all the orgasmic excitement about the 'original' mono track? I honestly don't understand that, I've seen people give a LOT of importance to this in past releases too. I truly don't get it... Is there something specifically 'different' in the soundtrack, like I THINK maybe someone may have commented on them 'changing or redoing the effects' or something like that. Is that why everyone is clamoring for the 'original' mono track? I really do not mean to be disrespectful of all these ones who are stressing this, but just in general why is this so important? To me it kind sounds like, 'Oh good I'm gonna watch this new release on my old 15" Black & White like it originally showed.

I mean, mono technology is a VERY old method used long ago, and I am actually more of an Audiophile than I am a Videophile. Why wouldn't people want the technology updated for the soundtrack? Is it just the fact that they repurpose it for multi-channel and just because it wasn't that way originally? I mean, why wouldn't a person want to have the technology updated? I can understand of course why you wouldn't want anyone really screwing with the video, with excessive DNR or radically changing the colour-timing, or the AR or something like that. I can understand that. But, preferring a very archaic, obsolete MONO technology of all things when we have all this nice multi-track home theatre gear now, I genuinely don't understand why people get SO dang upset if the 'original mono' is not included with a new release.

Now, with for example the Beatles in Audio I understand that some of the very early recording/mixing was actually primarily done for mono, so many Audiophiles prefer the originally intended mono pressings as opposed to what many feel are the quickly monkeyed with stereo pressings that came out afterward. That I get... It is a direct quality issue. But, in this case I wouldn't think that people are clamoring for the original mono track because of fidelity issues, would they...? Unless of course I guess if say they REALLY did a bad job re-channeling it and it sounded awful. Is that the case here? Is it just a 'Purist' issue because that is the way it came out...?

I would really appreciate someone helping me to understand this.

Thanks!

[koberulz]

Would you also prefer them to completely re-do the movie with new CGI effects, and colorise it?

[GuruAskew]

You seem to be looking for someone to tell you that your defective discs aren’t really defective after all. It seems to happen every time one of these recall programs is released. People play mental gymnastics to convince themselves that what they own and/or can more-easily and quickly acquire is fine. It’s called conformation bias, you should look it up.

It’s not hard to understand. You obviously understand what the problem is. It’s not alright to include a new mono mix that seemingly only exists because of a lazy and ignorant audio technician when the true mono mix exists and has been released before. It’s a 60th anniversary of a film that includes new elements and has other elements missing and those changes were made within the last decade. This is easy to understand, but you choose to be insulting to people just because you don’t want to wait a couple weeks for replacement discs.

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Would you also prefer them to completely re-do the movie with new CGI effects, and colorise it?

Now see... there you go... I was very careful and very specific and I even mentioned those things about the PICTURE. May I ask you, how does your smug and sarcastic answer in ANY way help me to understand what I am clearly and respectfully asking about. THAT kind of arrogant answer does not help me at all.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Latheofheaven

I would really appreciate someone helping me to understand this.

Thanks!

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjSu4w4jci8&feature=emb_title

[jdw89]

Is this 4K steelbook affected by this?

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Latheofheaven

I mean, mono technology is a VERY old method used long ago, and I am actually more of an Audiophile than I am a Videophile. Why wouldn't people want the technology updated for the soundtrack? Is it just the fact that they repurpose it for multi-channel and just because it wasn't that way originally? I mean, why wouldn't a person want to have the technology updated? I can understand of course why you wouldn't want anyone really screwing with the video, with excessive DNR or radically changing the colour-timing, or the AR or something like that. I can understand that. But, preferring a very archaic, obsolete MONO technology of all things when we have all this nice multi-track home theatre gear now, I genuinely don't understand why people get SO dang upset if the 'original mono' is not included with a new release.

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!

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by jdw89

Is this 4K steelbook affected by this?

Yes.

[drush9999]

I want the film as close to how it was originally presented as possible.

[litemakr]

Originally Posted by Latheofheaven

I know I'm gonna get pummeled for this one, but sincerely, can someone please explain why all the orgasmic excitement about the 'original' mono track? I honestly don't understand that, I've seen people give a LOT of importance to this in past releases too. I truly don't get it... Is there something specifically 'different' in the soundtrack, like I THINK maybe someone may have commented on them 'changing or redoing the effects' or something like that. Is that why everyone is clamoring for the 'original' mono track? I really do not mean to be disrespectful of all these ones who are stressing this, but just in general why is this so important? To me it kind sounds like, 'Oh good I'm gonna watch this new release on my old 15" Black & White like it originally showed.

I mean, mono technology is a VERY old method used long ago, and I am actually more of an Audiophile than I am a Videophile. Why wouldn't people want the technology updated for the soundtrack? Is it just the fact that they repurpose it for multi-channel and just because it wasn't that way originally? I mean, why wouldn't a person want to have the technology updated? I can understand of course why you wouldn't want anyone really screwing with the video, with excessive DNR or radically changing the colour-timing, or the AR or something like that. I can understand that. But, preferring a very archaic, obsolete MONO technology of all things when we have all this nice multi-track home theatre gear now, I genuinely don't understand why people get SO dang upset if the 'original mono' is not included with a new release.

Now, with for example the Beatles in Audio I understand that some of the very early recording/mixing was actually primarily done for mono, so many Audiophiles prefer the originally intended mono pressings as opposed to what many feel are the quickly monkeyed with stereo pressings that came out afterward. That I get... It is a direct quality issue. But, in this case I wouldn't think that people are clamoring for the original mono track because of fidelity issues, would they...? Unless of course I guess if say they REALLY did a bad job re-channeling it and it sounded awful. Is that the case here? Is it just a 'Purist' issue because that is the way it came out...?

I would really appreciate someone helping me to understand this.

Thanks!

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.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by litemakr

For the new mix they used computer wizardry to convert the monophonic music to pseudo stereo and it actually sounds pretty good.

I hope this new stereo version of Herrmann’s score will be released on CD. It would be nice to have a double-CD release along with the mono version.

[BluCollector13]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

I hope this new stereo version of Herrmann’s score will be released on CD. It would be nice to have a double-CD release along with the mono version.

I'm hopeful/thinking La La Land Records does/will do a release for the 60th anniversary given all the work they're doing with Universal and their Classics Collection now (i.e. the complete "Bride of Frankenstein" score, "Child's Play 2", "Two Mules for Sister Sara", "Casper", etc.).

* as much as it would be "heresy", what would be really cool is a three disc set with the first two discs being everything they can find for the Herrmann score (original mono recordings and the jazzed up stereo upgrade) and the third disc being the complete Elfman/Bartek orchestrations for the Van Sant remake.

[litemakr]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

I hope this new stereo version of Herrmann’s score will be released on CD. It would be nice to have a double-CD release along with the mono version.

The problem with the score is that the original tracks are lost, they only have the music stem from the actual mix. So the score varies in volume in response to the dialogue and sound effects, which makes for an odd listening experience. You can hear this on the isolated score track on the LD or the Turbine release. However, it seems like they could probably use some digital tricks to even that out so it sounds consistent.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by litemakr

The problem with the score is that the original tracks are lost, they only have the music stem from the actual mix. So the score varies in volume in response to the dialogue and sound effects, which makes for an odd listening experience. You can hear this on the isolated score track on the LD or the Turbine release. However, it seems like they could probably use some digital tricks to even that out so it sounds consistent.

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.

[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.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

I hope this new stereo version of Herrmann’s score will be released on CD. It would be nice to have a double-CD release along with the mono version.

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.

[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.

[BluPat]

Watching that YouTube video irked me. Just something as simple as hearing the doorknob open and the door close when Norman yells "...blood blood!" and runs out of the house is significant especially when it's gone.

[GuruAskew]

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.

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.