The New Master List of BASS in Movies with Frequency Charts - Page 189

just finished batman (dark knight return part 1) animated. my new ref bass movie. 5 star bass. good movie btw. sorry but no graph to back it up.

Your ULF's are not crippled, just not flat. You have two high excursion 18's sealed for your ULF's so you still experience them. You notice them more and more when they are flat, that is all. IMHO, for you to even want a sealed system you would need quad CapS2's. Why? Because until you equal the 20hz and above any bass system will be lacking. You have to get what you are used to to begin with with the flat response to 5hz. So quad S2's will equal what you have now 20hz and above but then you will have 12 dBs more output below 20hz! I bet you will notice that difference!

I might ... but I'm just not convinced that the introduction of another EQ to bring down the 20-70Hz and boost the <20Hz is worth the effort. If I ever hear a system that knocks my socks off with ULF then that may get me moving in that direction. For now, I'm concentrating on the actual 20-20Khz and getting that the best it can be. You know, the 99 percent stuff ...

I understand, just think though what 12 dBs of output would do. I really believe people don't give it a fair shake and don't compare apples to apples. The only way it would wow you is to try quad capS2's. You are used to awesome output above 20hz so no matter what you need to keep that the same.

Im right down the street. Just say when.
Edited by edoggrc51 - 10/5/12 at 10:59am

3 of my favorite plane crashes:

Flight of the Phoenix
Knowing
The Grey

Don't forget the one in Cast Away is pretty good as is the one from Fight Club.

If I were ever to make a move in that direction, it would probably be an IB setup. My HT's front wall has an attic space directly behind and it would be easy to build. As I said, if I ever have a chance to hear a balanced system with copious 5-20Khz output like your's, I'b be interested. Bass heavy systems that don't address the 99% are of no interest to me.

The credits are rolling on The Cabin in the Woods and I'm still looking for any possible structural damage in my Home Theater....so far, everything looks intact!

I've seen most of the 5 Star movies and this one competes very well with them, with several scenes (I suspect) below 20 Hz. The last scene (perhaps lasting a good 10 minutes) had some of the best wall/floor-shaking bass I've heard in a quite awhile. I turned it up to near reference volume (my wife is gone ); it was a good workout for my SVS PC-12. This should come in at at least 4.5 Stars, if not 5.

Let's not deflect by pointing out another members graphs, shall we?

First, yeah, I don't like your graphs and never look at them, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. It's nothing personal, it's just that this is a Movies With Bass thread and your graphs have just about totally useless data in the 0-120 Hz range.

As I said before, in order to get data on your graph to 24,000 Hz, you have to use settings that end up turning the 1st 2 octaves into a single, unreadable blob and not much worth seeing above that until the content reaches 30 Hz or so.

This is evident in your graphs, which, like the one cited below, are usually of "random movies".



Instead of your usual contentious and condescending posts, why don't YOU try to be more like Max and post some data that pertains to this thread with a usable degree of accuracy?


To repeat for those who aren't aware, I'm the only person who posts mic'd SpecLab caps. The only reason I do is because my measurement system is flat to 2 Hz and SL rolls off around 3 Hz for everyone, regardless of the method used to make the graphs. More important, as shown above, is the resolution of the settings and sound card used. The accuracy of the graphs I post is specific to 0-120 Hz with resolution to a fraction of an octave to 4 Hz. If there was a marked difference between the direct feed vs the mic'd playback, I would use the more accurate method. The reason I don't bother to run the feed off the player is that it's a PITA that requires reconfiguring my interface and cabling back and forth from its real purpose, which is to measure FR in my room, not to make spectrograms.


Virtually every person who follows this thread uses the single, summed SW output which contains bass from all channels, redirected to the AVR processors summing block where it's level matched and summed with the .1 channels bass.

Most every AVR and Preamp I'm aware of keeps the .1 channel intact to 120 Hz regardless of the LPF chosen for redirected bass. If you take the feed from your AVR SW out, use 120 Hz as the RB LPF. Setting it any higher will yield virtually zero difference in the graphs.

Calibration is irrelevant. All of this talk about setting the 0dBFS value accurately is a waste of time.

From SpecLab: To realize absolute voltage readings, level readings in dBuV, etc, the program needs to know the relation between input voltage and A/D converter value.
This requires an accurate oscilloscope and a procedure for Amplitude Calibration to be followed as instructed. But there are many other settings that affect accuracy to a much more relevant degree than amplitude.

Contrary to JPC's derailing comments about the offset feature, that's exactly what the feature is for. If, for example, you use a different color scale that's more coarse, a much lower resolution FFT setting, a scroll speed that doesn't suit your settings, etc., it will be much harder or impossible to see any accuracy that was aimed for in other settings like amplitude.

Just as in Ilkka's, AVTalk's and Josh's ground plane measurements, what is most important is the relative comparison amongst each body of work, not that they are all absolutely of the same accuracy, which is impossible to achieve.

Everyone who post SL graphs should be using the same settings. This has been attempted many times in the past, but each member who graphs believes he has the best settings, so it never happened. Even though I tried to host SL and my settings, which are easily uploaded into SL, I received questions from members who were already changing some of the settings before they ever posted a graph. Short of a universal settings file, the quest for amplitude accuracy is not anywhere near at the top of the list.

Most soundtracks have peaks at center frequencies that don't exceed -3 to -5dBFS, which is simple to see by matching your color scale with your results, using the offset function.

Yup, Cabin in the Woods at the 51 min mark the bass exposed rattles I never heard before... good stuff. That scene and the tail end of the movie had the only bass I noticed.

This post is spot on. And, your description of the scene in FOTP matches the SL caps done by Weezer (who is one of the guys who got me interested in making a SL library of scenes from movies I own and others might be interested in seeing) back when the DVD was released. This post shows your progression of system changes and upgrades as well, including measurement capability, IMO.

Whodathunk that it would ever get to the point in this forum that striving for accurate reproduction would be chided as, not only a waste of time, but a nauseatingly bad thing to do.

Can you point to some posts that say that?

I don't guess I'll ever forget the first time I saw Fight Club (the plane scene) at home. Totally unexpected. I still don't know where that pair of underwear is.

Can't believe that after all this time I still haven't seen FOTP (other than on tv, which is probably why I never bothered to rent it for the home theater).

It is worth a rent Stephen even if you only check out the Plane crash. Like many here, it is my favorite of the plane crash demo caliber scenes from various films.

Yeah, I know. I'm just lazy. I may make that a goal of mine once one of my sub amps gets back from the doctor. Not going to listen to a top rated LFE track with one sub. That's just crazy.

I dont blame you one bit. I went through the same thing this time last year as you know.

The above was the original question that you chose not answer. I guess you have a hard time reading charts without having the name of a movie for a reference. I guess that moves you directly into the subjective camp!

I also notice that you mention this one time use of a random movie in your posting below. Can you name the movie?

The graph below my graph probably shows an error message in the SL program (AKA scoll speed to fast). The waterfall is a smeared mess which indicates too fast a scroll speed for the resolution that is being used. Take a look at Flages setup. No smears there.

In addition, the red colors (red and dark red) cover what about 20 dB of range. That +/- 10 dB range does not tell you very much at all.

The resolution that you use (.73 Hz per bin) for SL is 1 step "better" than the resolution that I use (1.47 Hz per bin). However, that .73 Hz resolution has a very slow response time.. No matter how you look at it a 1.5 Hz resolution is still pretty darn good when balanced against speed. Your FFT overlap is pretty high.

64000 frequency bins as compared with 32000 frequency bins.
Resolution of .73 Hz as compared with 1.47 Hz.
Time to calculate one FFT is 1.37 seconds compared with .683 seconds.
Overlap between lines 89.7% as compared with 79.5%.

I get a warning if I use that .73 Hz resolution. The warning can be seen in the Memory tab.



In addition you should always show the upper spectrogram, the amplitude graph as well as the color scale when you post a waterfall. I find that a chart is almost useless without those minor details being shown.




As a further note, for some reason my waterfalls do not show up as clear as they used to be on AVS. Not sure of the reason for that.
Edited by J_Palmer_Cass - 10/5/12 at 4:39pm

No one who has posted on this thread has suggested calibrating the dB scale as a voltage reading. You are the sole person who has made that connection. I did post a chart on why the -20 dB FS point is defined as "reference level".

You said:

"Calibration is irrelevant. All of this talk about setting the 0dBFS value accurately is a waste of time."

and

"Most soundtracks have peaks at center frequencies that don't exceed -3 to -5dBFS, which is simple to see by matching your color scale with your results, using the offset function."



Could you elaborate on that a bit. I don't know what you mean so I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Not positive what you mean by matching colors to dB FS levels via the OFFSET function.

A picture is worth a thousand words!

I thought that I was giving Bosso a hard time. I guess not if you say so!

After Maxmercy had the meltdown over rating of The Avengers in the bass in movies thread, Maxmercy decided to run away. After all, the owner of this thread has no right to give an official 4.5 star rating to the Avengers when Max says otherwise.

Maybe you missed the message.

Boosobass is great - recording "live" from his system... Thumbs up!!!

I am only recording what is on the disc, BUT I am having a lot of fun - with ability to experience all the ULF there is...in my system


When finally our "survivor(s)" meets director...
Cabin in the Woods - Chapter 14

Edited by Flageborg - 10/6/12 at 2:52am

Too much bickering. I'm unsubscribing too.

You have resolution confused. You're guessing my settings incorrectly as well. My scroll speed reflects capturing a scene of LFE in high resolution. Flageborg's scroll speed captures an entire chapter on one graph. Far too compressed to see details or to even pick a scene out of the graph. We're not graphing radio signals from space.

People ask for graphs of content at very specific time stamps, not entire chapters of the soundtrack.

Since you haven't paid much attention to the graphs I've posted in the past, here's an analysis of your graph blown up from 3-10 Hz vs one of mine blown up in the same range, ignoring that you use a log scale vs the typical (and much easier to read) linear scale:



As you cans see, my color scale is higher resolution than the one you prefer and the low end resolution is magnitudes higher. This is simply because you spread your bins across 24,000 Hz and I concentrate on the subject frequencies of this thread. Movies With Bass, not; Movies With Dog Whistles.

Your graphs have no relevance to this thread, no one can read them because they're unreadable and you should give the whole "my SL is better than yours" mantra because they aren't, not in any way, shape or form. Still, other than someone occasionally just coming out and saying they can't read your graphs as they pertain to Movies With Bass, no one has treated you like the child you treat others here regularly as.

You can concentrate SL on many different things and it has many applications. I chose to go with the threads original posters' settings and improve them for mic'ing at the LP in my theater and others' theaters because there is no better tool for seeing what your system is doing with what it's being fed. FR, harmonic distortion and other anomalies are easily spotted using actual source in real life vs sine waves and sine sweeps or, worse yet, "holy cow, it flaps my pants". It's a shame we have people like you who have only ever criticized others efforts in this thread (wrongly in most cases) for no apparent reason. It's a bigger shame that people like RMK claim that they couldn't give a rodents butt about accurate reproduction and tools to reveal it (which is obviously untrue) and use that to derail this thread. It's a shame that guys like GaryJ regularly pop in for years with nothing but a snide one-liner barb to contribute.

I used to share the graphs here, but recently it's just an effort that pays less than it costs. Yes, I'll be taking my ball and going home. Good luck to everyone else.

I've been working my way through breaking bad on netflix on my roku and I cam across one of those oh-**** moments where I had to turn the volume down (it was late at night on a week night)

check out episode 25 (S3:E5)
I don't know how much sub 20Hz content was in that first scene but I definitely felt like I was right there in the scene.

All of the bickering over Avengers got me thinking. There really are a lot of of factors that affect ratings, and I don’t think anyone can totally avoid them. Avengers is one of the most enjoyable and entertaining movies on the list, and it does have a lot of bass impact. But with almost no ULF, it obviously does not belong at the top of the list, but possibly higher than other movies with an equal amount of ULF because of these additional hard to quantify factors.

Adding some categories might help with this, but then at the end of the day, this is the “Bass Movies with Frequency Charts” thread. This the place where the ULF lovers hang. I love that, and I don’t want it to change. Adding things about the entertainment value, or impact, or anything of that nature would just further degrade this thread in my opinion. The posts I most enjoy reading are from the guys with flat response to single digits, and FilmMixer because of his insights into the process that goes into the content creation.

It saddens me to see some of the best contributors being run off by trolls and overly enthusiastic people that really don’t have much to contribute.

So my proposal is not to add categories, I propose that LFE Man simply put a little more stock in the ratings coming from the guys with known good systems, and maybe bring in some actual AVS moderators to warn/kick the people that had rather argue and post off-topic comments than contribute ratings and/or charts.

I want to say a special thanks to LFE Man for this thread, and for the work that has gone into the first post. I am afraid to mention names as I’ll leave out some good ones, but also thanks to all of you that have phenomenal home systems that are willing to share your insights and experiences. I dream of someday having a home system like that. Mine is pretty good, but nothing like some here. I only get a taste of the upper end of ULF (16Hz or so) with my HSU VTF-3 MK3, but even with that, I’ve found a lot of enjoyable bass movies/scenes through this thread I would have otherwise overlooked.

Cabin in the Woods - Chapter 15
(all recordings from "Cabin in the Woods" are done at the same level as Prometheus... )


Long version




Short version - the Hand

Bosso, the following wil explain what I mean regarding "resolution and speed". Charts were made the way that you prefer. All settings / levels were identical except as noted.



These settings should be similar to your settings. Slow update speed and smeared detail.

FFT 32768

FFT Divisor 8

Offset = +5









These setting are the settings that I would use. Faster update speed and no smeared detail.

FFT 32768

FFT Divisor 2

Offset = 0








Full range, Log scale, same resolution as above. Note that the definition of bass does not stop at frequencies in the 100 -120 hz area.








Wideband noise speed / detail test.

Identical signal for all.

Generator turned on for 4 different time periods:

First - a 1000 and 1 count.

Second - a 1000 and 1, 1000 and 2 count.

Third - a 1000 and 1 count, 1000 and 2 count and a 1000 and 3 count.

Forth - a 1000 and 1 count, 1000 and 2 count, a 1000 and 3 count, and a 1000 and 4 count.


As you can easily see, the finer resolution frequency responses (lower 4 on chart) look different for each individual signal on time period.

The lower resolution and faster response FFTs (upper 4) look identical for each individual signal on time period.




Edited by J_Palmer_Cass - 10/6/12 at 4:48am

We're watching "Once Upon a Time" as a family on Netflix streaming through the PS3, and there have been many sub 20hz moments. It's very promising for the future of streaming. A year ago, I thought we may be 5-8 years away from streaming competing with bluray. But it's already very close for my requirements.

As usual, incredibly meaningful post. It will help many improve the performance of their AV systems.