or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › The New Master List of BASS in Movies with Frequency Charts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The New Master List of BASS in Movies with Frequency Charts - Page 398

post #11911 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfraso View Post


Does anyone know why that is?


Lol.......you act like us OCD bassheads are the norm, we are not. Right or wrong, the reality is more people will relate to a mainstream reviewers opinion vs ours because most people don't take this particular aspect to the degree we do. Expecting every reviewer and viewer for that matter to look at bass like we do is extremely unrealistic. These reviewers don't look at graphs, and most of them don't have single digit capability sub systems, so they judge the bass totally subjectively which means there are going to be times when those opinions don't actually match up with the objective data. Would I love to see more of these reviewers consider the objective data? Yes, but sitting here doing what you are doing to Ralph in particular is again flat out cheap. Why don't you go at least express your opinion in his thread like I have about my disappointment with the bass in this mix, or The Hobbit, Avengers, etc...........? Sitting here preaching to the choir will do no good, and continually putting down a very well respected member of this forum who provides a very valuable service to the vast majority of members here in at least one way or another (just because you cant relate to Ralph on bass in particular, certainly you could find some other area of his reviews to hold value? confused.gif ) is flat out low class Nfraso.

Let's not also forget just how many things there are to judge and look at in a review from ALL the various aspects of not only AQ, but PQ, the film itself, extras, etc.............is it really some great mystery to you in light of ALL this that a reviewers subjective opinion on one particular aspect of just one area of sound (bass) might not always line up with the objective data?
post #11912 of 16121
That would be a valid argument if Ralph didn't evaluate bass in his review.

In fact, not only does he evaluate bass, he specifically rates the one aspect of bass that most of us in this thread like to discuss the most- low frequency extension.

Furthermore, he specifically rates the low frequency extension in direct comparison to the other films he has reviewed.

There are zero excuses here, but I'm sure you will continue to try. rolleyes.gif
post #11913 of 16121
What I find funny is that many low budget movies have much better bass than these high budget ones. I guess they could not afford to pay the designer or whom ever to put in some magical filters wink.gif I guess some have learned if the movie is just OK we will wow them with the audio!

BTW, I really like MOS as a movie as I never followed any comic books.
post #11914 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfraso View Post

That would be a valid argument if Ralph didn't evaluate bass in his review.

In fact, not only does he evaluate bass, he specifically rates the one aspect of bass that most of us in this thread like to discuss the most- low frequency extension.

Furthermore, he specifically rates the low frequency extension in direct comparison to the other films he has reviewed.

There are zero excuses here, but I'm sure you will continue to try. rolleyes.gif


HE IS DOING IT SUBJECTIVELY THOUGH with his equipment, in his room, with his frequency response, to the best of his knowledge, going off memory, etc..........I am not saying it is objectively right, I am saying in light of how the review is done, there is bound to be things that don't end up correlating with the objective data. So yeah, I would say there is an excuse in light of all this and everything a reviewer has to focus on of which ULF is just one of MANY aspects. Those that care to the degree about bass and ULF like we do will seek out more detailed work and descriptions which is where data-bass and this thread (and the like come into play) come into play.


The bottom line here though is YOU can go express your concerns in his thread if you don't agree with him. I have done this not only on this particular track, but The Hobbit, The Avengers and a few others. Sitting here disrespecting the guy behind his back accomplishes nothing except alienating yourself from some of us who happen to like and respect Ralph not only as a reviewer, but in general.
post #11915 of 16121
Yes, you're listing off reasons for why this type of "reviewing" is pointless and again, why we should not be using it as a source of useful information.

Which was my entire argument to begin with. tongue.gif
post #11916 of 16121
He compares movies and it seems that he says movies have better bass because he likes the movie better overall. He is better off just rating the overall audio and video. How good it looks and how clear and surround effects are. Does it have bass, yes, loud, or not, that is about it. The problem I can see is that one might buy a movie based on that review and then get mad over the bass because he said it was perfect. I mean there are still people arguing over the rating system because they feel the movie has better bass where they have measured and compared to show the opposite. They say they don't care because they like it better. That is like saying my minivan is faster than a new 5.0 mustang because I like the minivan better and I don't care what the numbers say. Now if one says I love midbass and can give two cents about the ULF then at least we know why. It still does not mean the bass is better on the digital recording.
post #11917 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfraso View Post

Yes, you're listing off reasons for why this type of "reviewing" is pointless and again, why we should not be using it as a source of useful information.

Which was my entire argument to begin with. tongue.gif



And once again your reading comprehension sucks or is purposely selective if that is what you came away with from everything I said. wink.gif
post #11918 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

He compares movies and it seems that he says movies have better bass because he likes the movie better overall. He is better off just rating the overall audio and video. How good it looks and how clear and surround effects are. Does it have bass, yes, loud, or not, that is about it. The problem I can see is that one might buy a movie based on that review and then get mad over the bass because he said it was perfect. I mean there are still people arguing over the rating system because they feel the movie has better bass where they have measured and compared to show the opposite. They say they don't care because they like it better. That is like saying my minivan is faster than a new 5.0 mustang because I like the minivan better and I don't care what the numbers say. Now if one says I love midbass and can give two cents about the ULF then at least we know why. It still does not mean the bass is better on the digital recording.


Anyone who solely bases their purchase on ANY review whether it be Ralph, somebody here, etc.....and gets burned deserves it. I have NEVER found one person who I agree with 100% of the time as far as the technical aspects of these discs go whether it be PQ or AQ which is why I take EVERY review with a grain of salt and why I usually rent first and decide for myself.

Taking MoS for example, there seems to be a strong division on the PQ and some people enjoy this heavily gritty, arguably noisy type style and would call it "reference" while others like myself don't find this visual style pleasing in general and I would never throw this in to demo my calibrated projector. If your in this hobby long enough, you learn to take every review and subjective opinion with a grain of salt until you can hear it (or view it) for yourself and in your setup to decide.
post #11919 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfraso View Post

That would be a valid argument if Ralph didn't evaluate bass in his review.

In fact, not only does he evaluate bass, he specifically rates the one aspect of bass that most of us in this thread like to discuss the most- low frequency extension.

Furthermore, he specifically rates the low frequency extension in direct comparison to the other films he has reviewed.

There are zero excuses here, but I'm sure you will continue to try. rolleyes.gif
So essentially you are giving Ralph a hard time because his Bass category is incorrectly named. Like any mainstream reviewer, he is obviously not analyzing the bass extension. He is subjectively rating how well the bass effects work to support the film. His category really should be named Low Frequency Effects. So let's just pretend that is the category name and move on.
post #11920 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

And once again your reading comprehension sucks or is purposely selective if that is what you came away with from everything I said. wink.gif

OK, let's try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

HE IS DOING IT SUBJECTIVELY THOUGH with his equipment, in his room, with his frequency response, to the best of his knowledge, going off memory, etc..........I am not saying it is objectively right, I am saying in light of how the review is done, there is bound to be things that don't end up correlating with the objective data. So yeah, I would say there is an excuse in light of all this and everything a reviewer has to focus on of which ULF is just one of MANY aspects. Those that care to the degree about bass and ULF like we do will seek out more detailed work and descriptions which is where data-bass and this thread (and the like come into play) come into play.

Yep, it's the same this go around too.

Reasons why Ralph has an "excuse" for giving us inaccurate information- as if that makes the fact that it's inaccurate better. He has an excuse, so it's all cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfraso View Post

Yes, you're listing off reasons for why this type of "reviewing" is pointless and again, why we should not be using it as a source of useful information.

Which was my entire argument to begin with. tongue.gif

Yep, covered that... so, what did I not respond to?

Oh, right:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

The bottom line here though is YOU can go express your concerns in his thread if you don't agree with him. I have done this not only on this particular track, but The Hobbit, The Avengers and a few others. Sitting here disrespecting the guy behind his back accomplishes nothing except alienating yourself from some of us who happen to like and respect Ralph not only as a reviewer, but in general.

How's that working out for you? Again, I don't need to "express my concerns" since I "don't agree with him". That's not the issue.

The facts on their own don't agree with him.

Man of Steel does not have better low frequency extension than Percy Jackson, for example. That's a fact- and it disagrees with Ralph.

Facts can only disagree with you for so long without people taking notice...
post #11921 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Anyone who solely bases their purchase on ANY review whether it be Ralph, somebody here, etc.....and gets burned deserves it. I have NEVER found one person who I agree with 100% of the time as far as the technical aspects of these discs go whether it be PQ or AQ which is why I take EVERY review with a grain of salt and why I usually rent first and decide for myself.

Taking MoS for example, there seems to be a strong division on the PQ and some people enjoy this heavily gritty, arguably noisy type style and would call it "reference" while others like myself don't find this visual style pleasing in general and I would never throw this in to demo my calibrated projector. If your in this hobby long enough, you learn to take every review and subjective opinion with a grain of salt until you can hear it (or view it) for yourself and in your setup to decide.

I agree except there are many people who would and then blame someone else, it happens all the time. I finally watched PR and thought the video was excellent, the bass was just like the Avengers in quality but more of it. There were two scenes that seemed to dig deeper a little(that measured 20hz). I could not watch it with the bass at 5 dBs over reference because I was told I will wake up the 2 year old. Reference and flat was fine though. I already read all the opinions and this could have been the all time champ if they just removed that filter! Just trying to catch up here.
Edited by MKtheater - 11/14/13 at 9:30am
post #11922 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

So essentially you are giving Ralph a hard time because his Bass category is incorrectly named. Like any mainstream reviewer, he is obviously not analyzing the bass extension. He is subjectively rating how well the bass effects work to support the film. His category really should be named Low Frequency Effects. So let's just pretend that is the category name and move on.

Now you're telling me Ralph is using words he doesn't understand the meaning of? And somehow I'm the one being too hard on him? tongue.gif
post #11923 of 16121
Personally, I don't think any poster is beyond criticism, regardless of the thread. Could Nfraso be a little more diplomatic in his criticisms? Probably? But that's a personal choice. Do Ralph's reviews provide valuable info about the PQ, overall mix, etc? Absolutely.

But whether he has the ability to plumb the ULF depths like some of us on this thread do doesn't negate the fact that even using the capabilities of his system, his ratings of the bass-aspect of movies is wildly off. He's not running Bose bass modules here! His system should be capable of revealing the difference between a "5 star" MOS and a "4.5 star" something else. I think what Nfraso is getting at in 1 point of his arguments is that there is no way of rating bass that would lead a person with normal hearing to rate MOS higher than some other, clearly superior films.

That's just my 2 pence. Carry on.
post #11924 of 16121
Circles again Nfraso and we are simply not on the same page with this. Bottom line is you are a classless poster in my book (not that you care about my opinion of you). I'm done wasting my time with you on this particular topic. Throw out all the cheap garbage you need to in this thread behind Ralph's back, I am done responding to it as I have expressed my opinion on it. You have the option to express yourself in his thread and be a decent person if you choose to do it instead of talking trash behind his back here to the choir.
post #11925 of 16121
I saw one person in the MOS review thread say they purchased the movie specifically because of the 5 star LF Extension rating

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1498336/man-of-steel-3d-2d-blu-ray-official-avsforum-review/60#post_23943439
post #11926 of 16121
*sigh*

I love that we all argue about bass.

tongue.gif
post #11927 of 16121
FWIW; I look forward to and appreciate Ralph's work.
I also agree his LFE star ratings are more mainstream, than what is expected here.

Perhaps if that star rating were renamed something like; "Practical LFE extension", or "audible LFE extension", or ....
Perhaps then - these debates and "jabs" would stop?
post #11928 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by wth718 View Post

Personally, I don't think any poster is beyond criticism, regardless of the thread. Could Nfraso be a little more diplomatic in his criticisms? Probably? But that's a personal choice. Do Ralph's reviews provide valuable info about the PQ, overall mix, etc? Absolutely.

But whether he has the ability to plumb the ULF depths like some of us on this thread do doesn't negate the fact that even using the capabilities of his system, his ratings of the bass-aspect of movies is wildly off. He's not running Bose bass modules here! His system should be capable of revealing the difference between a "5 star" MOS and a "4.5 star" something else. I think what Nfraso is getting at in 1 point of his arguments is that there is no way of rating bass that would lead a person with normal hearing to rate MOS higher than some other, clearly superior films.

That's just my 2 pence. Carry on.

Which is why I give Ralph the respect of commenting in his thread in a respectful manner when I dont agree with him like MoS which is the ONLY way of anything good coming from it. If enough people do comment on it, maybe it will help Ralph become a better listener in this respect just as he has helped many become better listeners and viewers in other areas. What Nfraso is doing here though has no chance of being constructive since he is preaching to a relatively VERY small choir and it's cheap IMO.
post #11929 of 16121
Just picked up MoS. Gonna notch up the subs, let it roll and see how it goes!
post #11930 of 16121
the reviewers at bluray.com also gave it a 5 for audio.

this is very common...if you want to know about true extension(and thats all you care about) then come here or even better DB

but to slam these reviewers is not the correct thing to do.
post #11931 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuzed2 View Post

FWIW; I look forward to and appreciate Ralph's work.
I also agree his LFE star ratings are more mainstream, than what is expected here.

Perhaps if that star rating were renamed something like; "Practical LFE extension", or "audible LFE extension", or ....
Perhaps then - these debates and "jabs" would stop?


True, but if you understand how he does his reviews which again are from a completely subjective standpoint with all the variables involved (his room, sub, frequency response, etc........) I don't even see a need to label it any different since it should go without saying that his extension category is not an objective measurement, but a subjective impression. So he could rename his extension category "subjective LFE extension", but what is the point since I would assume most readers are aware enough to know he is throwing out his subjective opinion which may or may not line up with the objective data.

Ralph is reviewing and grading these discs as 99% of the population would which is throw it on, sit back and take it in and make judgment, and even though this is not the most accurate way to do things obviously, the reality is the vast majority of people will relate much more to this type of evaluation since the vast majority don't know or care about ULF, what their subs frequency response is, how much output they have at 15hz, etc.................It should go without saying that Ralph's low end reviews are not catered to the hard core ULF guys, but that does not mean they serve no purpose and it does not mean they are a "disservice" or a "sham" as Nfraso so eloquently put it since most normal folk will relate to it even if we don't. Again, this is where the specialized sites come into play like data-bass and even this crazy thread as we obviously dissect this particular area to a MUCH, MUCH finer degree than your typical reviewer. Both have purpose IMHO and to slam one or the other, especially cheaply when those complains could just as easily be logged in that reviewers thread is weak and useless.

I am done with my ranting though as I have more than expressed my opinion at this point on the matter and whomever agrees or disagrees with me, so be it. If you don't agree with Ralph on this though, I would hope you would at least respectfully comment in his thread as it may cause him to look at this more closely in future reviews, and if nothing else you can chat with a classy nice guy.
post #11932 of 16121
From now on if you don't like the bass we'll call it Wreck it Ralph! Back on topic.
post #11933 of 16121
Yes, we don't even know if Ralph's bass system is flat in his room, maybe he has a peak at a certain frequency where MOS hits the most and so it has more bass and he thinks it is deep? I am reaching here. I know that FOTP plane roll scene feels deep and will make anyone crap their pants but it is 32hz. The foot stomps during WOTW are around 25hz. They feel about the same. The low stuff adds a sense of weight and heft to the mix and why movies like WOTW and TIH bass just feels more involving. That sense of on coming doom is the low stuff. PR is a bass fest as amount is concerned but it never gives that feeling of weight, doom, whatever.
post #11934 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Fineberg View Post

the reviewers at bluray.com also gave it a 5 for audio.

this is very common...if you want to know about true extension(and thats all you care about) then come here or even better DB

but to slam these reviewers is not the correct thing to do.

5 star for "audio" in general and 5 star for something specific like "low frequency extension" are two different things. You know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

True, but if you understand how he does his reviews which again are from a completely subjective standpoint with all the variables involved (his room, sub, frequency response, etc........) I don't even see a need to label it any different since it should go without saying that his extension category is not an objective measurement, but a subjective impression. So he could rename his extension category "subjective LFE extension", but what is the point since I would assume most readers are aware enough to know he is throwing out his subjective opinion which may or may not line up with the objective data.

Ralph is reviewing and grading these discs as 99% of the population would which is throw it on, sit back and take it in and make judgment, and even though this is not the most accurate way to do things obviously, the reality is the vast majority of people will relate much more to this type of evaluation since the vast majority don't know or care about ULF, what their subs frequency response is, how much output they have at 15hz, etc.................It should go without saying that Ralph's low end reviews are not catered to the hard core ULF guys, but that does not mean they serve no purpose and it does not mean they are a "disservice" or a "sham" as Nfraso so eloquently put it since most normal folk will relate to it even if we don't. Again, this is where the specialized sites come into play like data-bass and even this crazy thread as we obviously dissect this particular area to a MUCH, MUCH finer degree than your typical reviewer. Both have purpose IMHO and to slam one or the other, especially cheaply when those complains could just as easily be logged in that reviewers thread is weak and useless.

This is just wrong, sorry. If this was just average joe giving a movie review for other average joes it wouldn't be featured on AV "Science" Forum. C'mon. rolleyes.gif

This is an expert reviewing discs on his system similar to many if not most members of this forum. This is not for the 99% of the population:

"The DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio soundtrack is technically proficient and in a word, terrific. This is a supremely articulated and commanding presentation that will reward those with systems capable of thoroughly reproducing its elements."

Implying one, that he has a capable system, and two, that at least part of his target audience (if not most) is people with capable systems.

"Low frequency effects are applied authoritatively and effectively underscore the bombastic and dramatic aspects of the audio. This mix delivers bass response that can be room shaking as it extends down to lower frequencies that on occasion approach skin tingling regions."

Room shaking, lower frequencies approaching skin tingling regions? Yeah, this is not targeted to the 99% in any way shape or form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I am done with my ranting though as I have more than expressed my opinion at this point on the matter and whomever agrees or disagrees with me, so be it. If you don't agree with Ralph on this though, I would hope you would at least respectfully comment in his thread as it may cause him to look at this more closely in future reviews, and if nothing else you can chat with a classy nice guy.

No, you're not. tongue.gif
post #11935 of 16121
Thanks to the poster (sorry, cant remember who this was) who gave the heads up on Frankenstein's Army being $10 at Amazon as I am going to pick it up for that price as it is a great LFE ride I thought. Just need to find a few more to add to get free shipping.
post #11936 of 16121
I actually agree that Ralph is not measuring what he thinks he's measuring, and should change the category name to "LFE Effects" as was suggested. This would much more accurately his rating as a subjective review of how the LFE supported the movie, in general. Then, if he said all that other flowery stuff about aplomb and plumbing depths and visceral quality and tour de force, we'd actually take it for what it's worth - essentially nothing more than any other's opinion.

I haven't yet seen the movie, only measured it. I may watch it this weekend if I can bang out this 30pg article.
post #11937 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

I actually agree that Ralph is not measuring what he thinks he's measuring, and should change the category name to "LFE Effects" as was suggested. This would much more accurately his rating as a subjective review of how the LFE supported the movie, in general. Then, if he said all that other flowery stuff about aplomb and plumbing depths and visceral quality and tour de force, we'd actually take it for what it's worth - essentially nothing more than any other's opinion.

Exactly.
post #11938 of 16121
Awesome, we get to rant. biggrin.gif

What the he!! is "mainstream"?

I for one am so weary of being called NOT mainstream, Basshead, Bass Nut, Single Digit Freak, Frequency Response Nazi, etc. and being told that all we care about is ULF, blah, blah.

So a company invests a quarter billion dollars and makes 1/2 a billion in gross profit, partially from us, and we can't bark about crap work in the sound department because some reviewer invents a category (so-called mainstream) along with a unique rating system for that invented category?

Just so I have it straight, the deal is; anyone who isn't him or one of his fans should just cram a sock in his mouth and hide in some closet with the actual data that exposes these reviews as the farce that they are?

Yeah, that's gonna work. :roll eyes:

This thread focusses on the subwoofer channel consisting of all satellite channels bass redirected and summed with the LFE channels bass. We've discussed in detail all of the top 20 grossing films of all time and many, many more. We're the only people who provide pictures and numbers of what you actually should expect to experience and how it stacks up against the competition.

When a disturbing trend appears or a terrible mix surfaces, we howl and jump up and down and throw stuff at the keyboard. When a stellar performance emerges, we BUY the discs (Laser Disc, DVD, BluRay and 3D BluRay, as well as any other future version that will come down the road).

And, if some reviewer indirectly says in his/her review that we are full of hot air, well then, feel free to buy the poor sap a flame suit.
post #11939 of 16121
For those who have watched MoS and have not commented yet, what did you think about the execution besides the already well discussed crappy extension? IMO, the other areas of execution were just as big of an issue arguably as the lacking extension as there were a number of moments where either the sound design or mix just got lazy and did not hit in the low end like you would expect. I know me and another poster or two have brought this up here who have watched it, but for anyone else who has seen it, what did you think about MoS from this aspect?
post #11940 of 16121
Watching tonight.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › The New Master List of BASS in Movies with Frequency Charts