| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Quoting Katatonia:
Quote:
Whether Mono is encoded as 1 or 2 channels on a DVD makes no difference here in the program right now, it is still Mono.
Of course, mono is mono, as there is only one signal. But the sound effect is different if it is 1.0 or 2.0 that better "fills" the room. When I make a critic of a DVD, the note is generally higher for a 2.0 mono than a 1.0 mono.
In fact there are two different type of data :
- Number of signals : mono=1, stereo=2, ...
- Nature of the encoding : 1.0, 2.0,... 5.1, 6.1
For example, stereo may be encoded 4.0
I agree with ninehours that the system doesn't allow to be sufficiently precise. If we get into that kind of thing, then we'll need to also start adding the audio stream's bit rates in the program. You know, 192, 224, 448 ...  | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Katatonia: Quote:
If we get into that kind of thing, then we'll need to also start adding the audio stream's bit rates in the program. You know, 192, 224, 448 ... I think you agree that widescreen is not sufficient, and it is good to precise 1.85 or 2.35 : that can be seen when you watch the movie. Mono is neither sufficient. It is good to precise 1.0 or 2.0 : that can be heard when you watch the movie.  | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've got to agree, there is a difference between mono 1.0 and mono 2.0
If I remember rightly, doesn't mono 1.0 come out the centre speaker and mono 2.0 sends identical streams to the left & right speaker instead? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 17 |
| | Posted: | | | | Simply put, mono 2.0 is a wider dispersal of the original sound. As a lot of my collection is mono, I think it would be nice to have the specifics. |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
If I remember rightly, doesn't mono 1.0 come out the centre speaker and mono 2.0 sends identical streams to the left & right speaker instead? By default this is exactly what happens on my system. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
  | Kevin | | Registered March 22, 2001 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 609 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lithurge: Quote:
It may be slightly selfish but you can copy the scan and paste it into Profiler and then vote no on the profile. If data is incorrect it really should be a no vote anyway. Heh, I never said the data was incorrect, just that I didn't like it. But since it apparently followed the rules, I couldn't really vote no on it. So a "neutral" was my vote. Just like if someone contributes stuff with the stupid (I think) common name nonsense, but has a great cover. I like the cover, but refuse to vote on anything about common names. |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,998 |
| | Posted: | | | | Just got Rollercoaster the sound on the cover says Mono 1.1 this is reporter by my DVD player as being Dolby D 1/0.1 ch 48k. never new a mono track could have a .1 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
Just got Rollercoaster the sound on the cover says Mono 1.1 this is reporter by my DVD player as being Dolby D 1/0.1 ch 48k. never new a mono track could have a .1 That's the Sensurround process that Universal used back in the 70's, recreated on DVD. It's just a subwoofer low-frequency track basically. | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | BTW just an aside for ninehours. I try as FEW thoughts as possible...it hurts too much.  Couldn't resist any longer. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,998 |
| |