Why is yellow submarine better than hard days night?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Walter Traprock, Nov 22, 2005.

  1. Well, maybe it isn't, maybe it is. What is undeniable is that
    the DVD for Yellow Submarine is much better than the DVDs/VHS for
    Hard Days Night in that it provides the valuable MONO soundtrack
    to enjoy rather than the Hard days night video which ONLY includes
    either album stereo substitutions for the MPI DVD/VHS, or rechannelled
    to multi-channel like the only current version.

    Compare the MONO Only A Northern Song on the Yellow Subamrine
    track with the godawful rechanneled version that the "standard"
    version plays.

    MONO because it sounds better, stereo is a form of distortion
     
    Walter Traprock, Nov 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Walter Traprock

    IBen Getiner Guest

    Walter Traprock wrote:
    > Well, maybe it isn't, maybe it is. What is undeniable is that
    > the DVD for Yellow Submarine is much better than the DVDs/VHS for
    > Hard Days Night in that it provides the valuable MONO soundtrack
    > to enjoy rather than the Hard days night video which ONLY includes
    > either album stereo substitutions for the MPI DVD/VHS, or rechannelled
    > to multi-channel like the only current version.
    >
    > Compare the MONO Only A Northern Song on the Yellow Subamrine
    > track with the godawful rechanneled version that the "standard"
    > version plays.
    >
    > MONO because it sounds better, stereo is a form of distortion


    No, Walt... You got it all wrong. The reason that Submarine is better
    that AHDN is because the cover was so much cooler to look at while
    tripping. That jacket Ringo's wearing almost looked like velvet, and
    John's looked like it was going to jump right off the page, if my few
    remaining brain cells serve me correctly..


    IBen
     
    IBen Getiner, Nov 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Walter Traprock wrote:

    > Well, maybe it isn't, maybe it is.


    And maybe it's Walter's third attempt in a week to start World's Most
    Generic Cross-Troll Threads.

    Derek Janssen (oo, quick, Walt, maybe you can start a Kirk vs. Picard
    thread on the Star Trek groups, they've never done that one before!)
     
    Derek Janssen, Nov 22, 2005
    #3
  4. Walter Traprock

    BB Leanie Guest

    "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well, maybe it isn't, maybe it is. What is undeniable is that
    > the DVD for Yellow Submarine is much better than the DVDs/VHS for
    > Hard Days Night in that it provides the valuable MONO soundtrack
    > to enjoy rather than the Hard days night video which ONLY includes
    > either album stereo substitutions for the MPI DVD/VHS, or rechannelled
    > to multi-channel like the only current version.
    >
    > Compare the MONO Only A Northern Song on the Yellow Subamrine
    > track with the godawful rechanneled version that the "standard"
    > version plays.
    >
    > MONO because it sounds better, stereo is a form of distortion


    Whatever. You've been at the koolaid too long.

    Try thinking about something that might actually *matter*.
     
    BB Leanie, Nov 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Walter Traprock

    Clark Guest

    "Mono because it sounds better, stereo is a form of distortion."

    What? You have two ears right? You have directional hearing, right? If so,
    you hear everything in your own natural environment in stereo.

    Mono recordings may sound more pleasing to you, but stereo is not
    distortion -- unless, of course, it's the sort of fake "stereo" that's
    created by EQ, which is what they did with the current DVD of AHDN and
    that's why it sounds so horrible.

    But the DVD of "Yellow Submarine" has a multi-channel mix created from the
    actual multi-channel session tapes at EMI. There is no rechanneling involved
    in the "Yellow Submarine" DVD, no "duophonic," no added distortion. The
    separation you hear in the 5 channels should make that obvious.



    "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well, maybe it isn't, maybe it is. What is undeniable is that
    > the DVD for Yellow Submarine is much better than the DVDs/VHS for
    > Hard Days Night in that it provides the valuable MONO soundtrack
    > to enjoy rather than the Hard days night video which ONLY includes
    > either album stereo substitutions for the MPI DVD/VHS, or rechannelled
    > to multi-channel like the only current version.
    >
    > Compare the MONO Only A Northern Song on the Yellow Subamrine
    > track with the godawful rechanneled version that the "standard"
    > version plays.
    >
    > MONO because it sounds better, stereo is a form of distortion
     
    Clark, Nov 22, 2005
    #5
  6. Walter Traprock

    Runnnerr Guest

    Clark wrote:
    > "Mono because it sounds better, stereo is a form of distortion."
    >
    > What? You have two ears right? You have directional hearing, right? If so,
    > you hear everything in your own natural environment in stereo.
    >
    > Mono recordings may sound more pleasing to you, but stereo is not
    > distortion -- unless, of course, it's the sort of fake "stereo" that's
    > created by EQ, which is what they did with the current DVD of AHDN and
    > that's why it sounds so horrible.
    >
    > But the DVD of "Yellow Submarine" has a multi-channel mix created from the
    > actual multi-channel session tapes at EMI. There is no rechanneling involved
    > in the "Yellow Submarine" DVD, no "duophonic," no added distortion. The
    > separation you hear in the 5 channels should make that obvious.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Well, maybe it isn't, maybe it is. What is undeniable is that
    > > the DVD for Yellow Submarine is much better than the DVDs/VHS for
    > > Hard Days Night in that it provides the valuable MONO soundtrack
    > > to enjoy rather than the Hard days night video which ONLY includes
    > > either album stereo substitutions for the MPI DVD/VHS, or rechannelled
    > > to multi-channel like the only current version.
    > >
    > > Compare the MONO Only A Northern Song on the Yellow Subamrine
    > > track with the godawful rechanneled version that the "standard"
    > > version plays.
    > >
    > > MONO because it sounds better, stereo is a form of distortion


    I agree with you about mono/stereo. I prefer mono myself, but your post
    made me think about all of the fans of the American albums who were
    having orgrams all over themselves last year when they were finally
    released. Ugh! They still sound like shit. I can't understand why
    anyone would listen to them in lieu of the British albums.
     
    Runnnerr, Nov 22, 2005
    #6
  7. Runnnerr wrote:

    > I agree with you about mono/stereo. I prefer mono myself, but your post
    > made me think about all of the fans of the American albums who were
    > having orgrams all over themselves last year when they were finally
    > released. Ugh! They still sound like shit. I can't understand why
    > anyone would listen to them in lieu of the British albums.


    Why not both? Take them for what they are. The American" versions were
    what "Americans" were given to listen to during those awesome days of
    Beatlemania. Maybe we like them because that's what we heard way back
    when. Mono has it's place as well, but you can't honestly say the
    stereo versions are any less exciting to hear than the mono. My first
    brush with Beatle music came from a mono AM radio, and that was all
    just dandy in those days, but the stereo version added a new dimension
    to the equation, so I say both are equally as important.

    DWOB
     
    Dr. Winston O'Boogie, Nov 23, 2005
    #7
  8. Walter Traprock

    Runnnerr Guest

    Dr. Winston O'Boogie wrote:
    > Runnnerr wrote:
    >
    > > I agree with you about mono/stereo. I prefer mono myself, but your post
    > > made me think about all of the fans of the American albums who were
    > > having orgrams all over themselves last year when they were finally
    > > released. Ugh! They still sound like shit. I can't understand why
    > > anyone would listen to them in lieu of the British albums.

    >
    > Why not both? Take them for what they are. The American" versions were
    > what "Americans" were given to listen to during those awesome days of
    > Beatlemania. Maybe we like them because that's what we heard way back
    > when. Mono has it's place as well, but you can't honestly say the
    > stereo versions are any less exciting to hear than the mono. My first
    > brush with Beatle music came from a mono AM radio, and that was all
    > just dandy in those days, but the stereo version added a new dimension
    > to the equation, so I say both are equally as important.
    >
    > DWOB


    There's nothing wrong with stereo per se. I happen to enjoy music from
    that era in mono though. Mono was pretty much the standard until the
    late 1960s. If you read Mark Lewisohn's book, you'll see that a lot
    more time was put into the mono mixes.

    Fake stereo on the other hand, which was how the early American Beatles
    albums were presented, just sucks. It's fake and it sounds like crap.
    It's too bad that so many fans HAVE to have these crappy sounding
    recordings as the British ones, both mono and stereo are far superior.
     
    Runnnerr, Nov 23, 2005
    #8
  9. Runnnerr wrote:


    > There's nothing wrong with stereo per se. I happen to enjoy music from
    > that era in mono though. Mono was pretty much the standard until the
    > late 1960s. If you read Mark Lewisohn's book, you'll see that a lot
    > more time was put into the mono mixes.
    >
    > Fake stereo on the other hand, which was how the early American Beatles
    > albums were presented, just sucks. It's fake and it sounds like crap.
    > It's too bad that so many fans HAVE to have these crappy sounding
    > recordings as the British ones, both mono and stereo are far superior.


    You're right.

    My preference to the stereo releases comes from listening to these
    albums with headphones, and hearing things that you wouldn't normally
    hear otherwise. Sometimes there's a little chatter in the background or
    a missed hit on the drum or tambourine, that doesn't show up when you
    hear them through speakers..

    It's all good to me!
    DWOB
     
    Dr. Winston O'Boogie, Nov 23, 2005
    #9
  10. "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <<Well, maybe it isn't, maybe it is. What is undeniable is that the DVD for
    Yellow Submarine is much better than the DVDs/VHS for Hard Days Night in
    that it provides the valuable MONO soundtrack to enjoy rather than the Hard
    days night video which ONLY includes either album stereo substitutions for
    the MPI DVD/VHS, or rechannelled to multi-channel like the only current
    version.>>

    <<Compare the MONO Only A Northern Song on the Yellow Subamrine track with
    the godawful rechanneled version that the "standard" version plays.>>

    <<MONO because it sounds better, stereo is a form of distortion.>>


    I personally feel that the _Yellow Submarine_ DVD is a disgrace. The _Yellow
    Submarine_ DVD may have a great soundtrack, but the video is another story.
    I have a feeling from watching the DVD that they took the full screen
    version of the movie, and just matted the picture with a 1.66:1 ratio right
    over the full screen version. I get that feeling because often people's feet
    get cut off, as do the tops of some people's heads. And I would think the
    bottom of the picture would be the "ground" for where people's feet would
    go, and to have them get cut off at their ankles or a little higher seems
    strange.

    The artwork was drawn in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio and presented as such on
    LaserDisc. Apparently, _Yellow Submarine_ was originally matted for
    theatrical exhibition and this cropped theatrical version became the
    "definitive" and "authentic" version. There are many on this newsgroup who
    will argue that since the original theatrical presentation chopped off heads
    and feet, the DVD should do the same. I strongly disagree.

    The introductory Pepperland sequences show characters with the tops of their
    hats and heads cut off (when compared with the LaserDisc) and this
    culminates with the top of a tower cut off at 10min. 50sec. into the disk.
    During the Eleanor Rigby sequence at 11min. 34sec., there is a tombstone
    which says, "Here Lie Buried." The LaserDisc also says "Here Lie Buried",
    but under that it adds "William McMillen", which is totally matted out at
    the bottom of the DVD.

    It is understandable that you would want to see what is hidden under the top
    and bottom mattes. Did the original artists go to all of the trouble of
    drawing these parts of the picture only to have them matted out? I can't
    imagine that this was the original plan. Since this is a cartoon, it is
    obvious that someone later decided to mask off parts of the original
    animation cells. A true restoration would present the entire animation
    cell - - top, bottom and sides. Disney didn't make a widescreen DVD version
    of the 1940 version of _Fantasia_. Apparently the key difference is that
    _Fantasia_ was not originally presented as a widescreen theatrical release.

    This top and bottom matting of _Yellow Submarine_ continues to obscure
    heads, hats, ceilings, feet, dorsal fins on fish, the tops and bottoms of
    doors and so on. Chop, chop, chop! I realize the DVD box says that this
    widescreen version is done in the original theatrical release format. But,
    so what? This is a home video edition. The artists who created _Yellow
    Submarine_ painstakingly drew this animated masterpiece and now some of
    their highly-detailed work is blotted out.

    It may well be that _Yellow Submarine_ was originally intended to be shown
    only on TV. This could explain why it has a 1.37:1 negative. The
    "Collectible Booklet" from the DVD says: "The film and its creation were,
    indeed, miraculous. Directed by George Dunning, and written by Lee Minof, Al
    Brodax, Jack Mendelsohn and Erich Segal, Yellow Submarine began its voyage
    to the screen when Brodax, who had previously produced nearly 40 episodes of
    ABC's animated Beatles TV series, approached Beatles' manager Brian Epstein,
    with a unique vision for a full-length animated feature."

    This might explain how _Yellow Submarine_ came to be made in a 1.37:1 aspect
    ratio. I think that this animated wonder should always retain its original
    aspect ratio. MGM/Warner should never have masked off 20% of this marvelous
    film so that it would have a widescreen look on DVD. This artificial
    widescreen appearance was achieved at the expense of having the top and
    bottom of each frame cut off. The _Yellow Submarine_ DVD is an insult to
    those who love the movie.

    The DVD gives, but it also takes away: I miss Paul shouting "Beatles to
    battle" and seeing the Blue Meanies weapons spouting flowers as bizarre,
    jazzy music blares on the soundtrack as the Meanies retreat. This entire
    sequence is on the LaserDisc version. There is the jazzy background music
    playing as the Blue Meanies fire bouquets of flowers from their cannons and
    handguns. Then the Beatles dance across the hillside as pop-up signs saying
    "YES" and "OK" spring from the ground. It is at this point that the DVD
    inserts the Hey Bulldog sequence (which the LaserDisc omits) and after this
    the LaserDisc and DVD come back together again at the point where Ringo
    says, "Jeremy, can it be you?"

    The bottom line is that if you have _Yellow Submarine_ on DVD, you are stuck
    with a matted, semi-edited version. It's a real shame. The audio may be
    good, but the video is a travesty.
     
    One-Shot Scot, Nov 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Walter Traprock

    Bratboy Guest

    Blue Meanie
     
    Bratboy, Nov 23, 2005
    #11
  12. On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, One-Shot Scot wrote:

    > I personally feel that the _Yellow Submarine_ DVD is a disgrace. The _Yellow
    > Submarine_ DVD may have a great soundtrack, but the video is another story.
    > I have a feeling from watching the DVD that they took the full screen
    > version of the movie, and just matted the picture with a 1.66:1 ratio right
    > over the full screen version.


    This is why I kept my laserdisc copy. I've even watched the laser with the
    DVD audio playing (although an adjustment is required when Hey Bulldog
    starts up). For years I used to make friends copies of Yellow Submarine
    off laserdisc with the Hey Bulldog sequence edited in from a bootleg tape
    copy I had (and I kept "Beatles to battle!").

    This is one of the rare instances where I wish fullscreen had been
    included.

    swac
    Saw Fantasia in its reissue with the top and bottom cropped...dreadful.
     
    Stephen Cooke, Nov 23, 2005
    #12
  13. On 22 Nov 2005 16:58:42 -0800, "Dr. Winston O'Boogie" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Runnnerr wrote:
    >
    >> I agree with you about mono/stereo. I prefer mono myself, but your post
    >> made me think about all of the fans of the American albums who were
    >> having orgrams all over themselves last year when they were finally
    >> released. Ugh! They still sound like shit. I can't understand why
    >> anyone would listen to them in lieu of the British albums.

    >
    >Why not both? Take them for what they are. The American" versions were
    >what "Americans" were given to listen to during those awesome days of
    >Beatlemania. Maybe we like them because that's what we heard way back
    >when. Mono has it's place as well, but you can't honestly say the
    >stereo versions are any less exciting to hear than the mono. My first
    >brush with Beatle music came from a mono AM radio, and that was all
    >just dandy in those days, but the stereo version added a new dimension
    >to the equation, so I say both are equally as important.
    >
    >DWOB


    I agreee, George!
    _________________________________________________________________
    Peace,
    Franke Carlino
     
    Franke Carlino, Nov 24, 2005
    #13
  14. Franke Carlino wrote:
    > On 22 Nov 2005 16:58:42 -0800, "Dr. Winston O'Boogie" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Runnnerr wrote:
    > >
    > >> I agree with you about mono/stereo. I prefer mono myself, but your post
    > >> made me think about all of the fans of the American albums who were
    > >> having orgrams all over themselves last year when they were finally
    > >> released. Ugh! They still sound like shit. I can't understand why
    > >> anyone would listen to them in lieu of the British albums.

    > >
    > >Why not both? Take them for what they are. The American" versions were
    > >what "Americans" were given to listen to during those awesome days of
    > >Beatlemania. Maybe we like them because that's what we heard way back
    > >when. Mono has it's place as well, but you can't honestly say the
    > >stereo versions are any less exciting to hear than the mono. My first
    > >brush with Beatle music came from a mono AM radio, and that was all
    > >just dandy in those days, but the stereo version added a new dimension
    > >to the equation, so I say both are equally as important.
    > >
    > >DWOB

    >
    > I agreee, George!
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Peace,
    > Franke Carlino


    Good to see you Franke, Happy Thanksgiving!!

    DWOB
     
    Dr. Winston O'Boogie, Nov 24, 2005
    #14
  15. On 24 Nov 2005 09:11:06 -0800, "Dr. Winston O'Boogie" <>
    wrote:

    >Good to see you Franke, Happy Thanksgiving!!


    Ditto!
    _________________________________________________________________
    Peace,
    Franke Carlino
     
    Franke Carlino, Nov 24, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Scientific Cabby

    Submarine space ship on target!

    Scientific Cabby, Feb 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    517
    Brian Sharrock
    Feb 17, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    930
  3. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    456
    Serge IZOARD
    Nov 1, 2004
  4. Gavin Tunney

    What Really Happened to the Submarine Kursk

    Gavin Tunney, Mar 18, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    869
    shannon
    Mar 24, 2006
  5. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    501
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page