Originally Posted by bossobass
Thanks for letting me know what I've always done.
You questioned Dave's assertion that his HT audio system is better than a cinema:
Of course, those of us who've followed Dave's build know that he's correct with no debate required. He has more bandwidth, more headroom and can listen at far greater levels with extremely low non-linearities at his seat than in any theater you can name, bar none.
You obviously did not know that but took his simple statement of fact in a defensive manner and called him out in what I feel was a condescending fashion. You've always taken the position that us enthusiasts are a bunch of incompetents who don't know how to build rooms, don't understand acoustics, don't have a clue about pro sound systems or pretty much anything, especially anyone who questions anything you post.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion as well, but I also believe you are far off base, as Dave proved in his own case.
Dave.. please don't tell me that I was condescending to JD.. he didn't take it that way, and I appreciated his response, and the effort (both financially and enthusiastically) that he put into his room... he certainly didn't take offense that I know of..
You can't compare his room to a commercial cinema because of it's size... you know as well as I do that large room low frequency reproduction is a much different animal than a 22 x 15 foot room. He understood the distinction I was making, and I really was curious about what he had in his room...
After looking at it, it certainly rivals the best screening rooms, and some studios, I've been in (and that's what I would compare it to...) I would certainly hope so as he spent as much as most of those places have..
Again, your tone gives off an air of superiority about the way things should be that I don't happen to agree with,or find that appealing at all...
Every time I post, you reply in a contrary manner.... in the end, I get paid to do what I do, and have been able to make a 26 year career out of it. There is a reason for it, regardless of my gaps in knowledge in certain areas...
I get it.... as a sound community, we don't measure properly, we don't monitor properly, we're all over the map, etc....
It's amazing any film comes out that sounds decent at all..
As I stated earlier, I'm much more concerned with how a soundtrack helps tell the story, and use my ears and experience rather relying on plots, graphs and charts to tell me what sounds good...
"Riddick" doesn't have any ULF... however, I think I did pretty good with the other 20,000 frequencies at my disposal.
I know, I know.. this is the bass thread... and again, as I said earlier, I'm not overly concerned with ULF... I have a bigger picture in mind.
Staying on your point, you said that every audiophile should strive to hear what you heard on your sound stage. I'll ask again, how may any of us possibly know what you heard on the sound stage
You know what our specs are for film production, and can strive to match that...
We mix a film, and then take it out into the world to be shared.... while you can't of course change certain things in any given venue (RT, wall surfaces, sub capability, rake, etc) we have found that in a vast majority of cases, a vast majority of the time, we get close enough so that everyone is happy that what we are hearing is representative of what we did on the dub stage.
After almost 120 films as a mixer, I can tell you that in hearing my work in many different environments. translation isn't as big of an issue as you make it out to be...
Best to you.. no more from me.