Originally Posted by RMK!
Ahh my dear Bosso, still tilting at windmills I see ... Good point though. Hollywood should ping you and tap into the vast experiential knowledge base ... or is it bass (
You need to read and try to comprehend the post below as it pertains to you.
Yes, I appreciate the kind and fatherly advice, as always, but it's my reading and comprehension skills that have resulted in the cleanest, widest bandwidth system I'm aware of.
FM says that it's obvious that he could build full bandwidth monitoring. He also mentioned that there are literally hundreds of choices in that regard. I'm sorry, but that's either condescension or naivete, but it's far from the reality.
He then mentions a standard that's in place. Apparently, he's never graphed any of the movies listed in this thread. They're literally all over the map in levels and bandwidth. And, as both he and I experienced, the theaters we viewed the end product of Avengers at had the subs shut off. Some standard.
He says that "we as an industry are working on redefining our standards, measuring techniques...". Excellent news. Apparently, sadly, that doesn't include proper monitoring capabilities.
He and Max both mention "better reproduction systems". That's where he has missed my point in this discussion. I haven't ever advocated full bandwidth reproduction in theaters. Heck, they barely cover to 30 Hz now, and shut the damned subs of at that. What I'm saying is that they should be able to monitor the sound effects they're mixing.
FM says he mixes by ear, meters be damned. He says most mixers do likewise. When it comes to the subject of this thread, does that sound reasonable to anyone here? Is that the sort of insight everyone craves? Am I truly the only person who's left to tilt at that windmill?
The venue for him includes the AMC theater that shuts off the subs. The venue in this thread is Home Theater, in which every participant gets response to at least an octave below what he can monitor. Seriously, does anyone imagine my response being "Oh, OK then, never mind and thanks for the insight."?
I've put a lot of hours into this and many threads like it. Just set up and fine tune SpecLab and go through a hundred or so movies graphing a couple dozen scenes from each, capping the pertinent ones, uploading them to a hosting site, posting them here and then filing the scenes in folders on your hard drive. Spend a few hundred hours running loopback measurements to compare components and try to unravel the analog I/O vs digital, where the blocking caps are, what the differences, if any, are and how that translates to what we see in the graphs.
There have been countless threads over the years. One I recall was titled something like "Does anything below 18 Hz matter?" It was replete with "quotes from an industry insider" that purported to settle the matter once and for all that the answer was NO. How about the Geddes thread in which he declared "I'm not including you bass freaks" because "below 20 Hz doesn't matter".
I've been referred to as a bass 'freak', called a 'frequency response Nazi', chided for being on a 'quest for 3 Hz Nirvana', talking 'tweako-fast-bass', and one of my favorites came from you: "Bosso is missing the point that his vaunted objective measurements are really just subjectives of a different color guised as true science.".
We've been told that it's inaudible, a mistake, sloppy mixing, noise, distortion, artifact, we've been inundated with lectures about the Equal Loudness Curves, Perceptual Masking, Auditory Masking, Transmission Loss, Displacement, and many other really cool-sounding phenomena types, all aimed at helping us to see the error of our ways.
Yet, folks still bluster at my responses to some of this crapola. Good thing we tilted against those windmills, IMO. Long live Randy Thom!
I haven't seen Underworld yet. Is anyone gonna post graphs? lfeman, you still out there?