Originally Posted by Chu Gai
Is there enough room under the tent for both POV's?
I'm not even sure what is meant by "both POV's." The way I see it, there are actually four POV's here.
Let's call them "JPC," "DS," "Penn," and "Pretty Much Everyone Else" (PMEE).
JPC is basically arguing (unless I misunderstand and we're in the same camp), that ULF isn't important, period.
PMEE start from the premise that the goal in system design is high fidelity to the source material. They argue that lots of movies have ULF, intentionally or otherwise, so we should try to reproduce it.
DS is basically arguing (and I don't misunderstand, for what should be fairly obvious reasons!) that PMEE are mostly right if one assumes that the goal in system design is high fidelity to the source material, and does not discuss system designed for other purposes one way or another due to lack of experience with and lack of interest in systems designed for other purposes.
But there is, first, a threshold question: does program material the system owner enjoys actually contain this content intentionally? While conceding that recent releases may (I'll address that more, infra), this question has been asked but simply not answered.
It has simply been assumed to be the general case, when in fact it is not at all general question. It is an individualized
question. Everyone's answer will be different, based on the program material that individual enjoys and thus expects to reproduce in high fidelity.
Still, let's assume arguendo
the threshold question has been affirmatively answered. Then comes the balancing question. That is to say, what weight to accord ULF? IF a choice must be made - and often, due to various reasons, it must - is it worth sacrificing fidelity of other parts of the spectrum to achieve ULF? Say, using an I-B array of very high inductance subs with small mains placed so as to maximize diffraction? If one's goal is high fidelity to the source material, the answer is an obvious "no." If one has a design goal other than high fidelity to the source material, the answer may be "yes" depending on the individual's goal. (As an aside, if someone posts a picture to use as an example to support one's own POV, use of that picture by others to support their POV contrary to the author's is fair game as well.)
Penn's position is basically just postmodernism as applied to ULF. I'd write more, but apparently that's infraction-worthy.
Originally Posted by bossobass
Check out that sloppy guy, Randy Thom. Dude has no clue what the spectra is of any of the effects he designs.
I have no idea who he is. An argument from authority is unpersuasive.
You also did not list the ULF content of all those movies.
And you may note that I have repeatedly conceded that current home movie releases have ULF content. I even mentioned the most likely reason for that: to get a sales bump by appearing in "best bass" lists. (Can we all at least accept that profit-minded cynicism, not any higher calling to art, is what dominates Hollywood?) My argument is simply to ask what the relevance of ULF reproduction is for people uninterested in special effects plotless wonders.
But that brings us to the question, "what is high fidelity to a movie?" Given that the actual event is synthesized anyway, wouldn't "high fidelity" be "recreating the event the directors intended one to experience?" That is to say, the experience of viewing a movie in a cinema. Given that even the biggest IMAXes (to my knowledge) use vented subwoofers that cannot go as low at the SPL many of our home systems can, the answer to "do even special effects plotless wonders need ULF reproduction" depends on one's answer to the fidelity question.
Originally Posted by bossobass
Here's a recent film: HTTYD
That's an awful name for a film. I haven't even heard of it. Or is it an abbreviation for the actual name?
Originally Posted by penngray
Im not sure how any of that matters when answering the OPs question. He asked why does < 20Hz matter and the simple fact is that there is content below 20hz even content below 10Hz. "Content" is defined simply as content, it does not matter if someone thinks its crap content or not, its simply content.
So, your position is that it's irrelevant whether a system will actually see
such content, so long as it exists somewhere?
IOW, if someone listens to music basically constantly but uses the screen in his home theater to watch nothing but weekly Fareed Zakaria GPS podcasts and occasionally Daily Show over his AppleTV (honestly, a very
close approximation of my TV watching in the NFL offseason), then a system designed without ULF in mind is inadequately spec'ed?
Originally Posted by ReneV
For the people that do do ULF: how about the *flat* part of the question in the subject line?
I don't know where you'd put me, but yes, flat if the goal is high fidelity. The content creator can decide what actual level to put the content, relative to 0dBFS.