or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 2195

post #65821 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRSS View Post

The question I was wondering about and did not see anything in the FAQ section about is "my HTPC is hooked up to the AVR with HDMI, in windows sound settings does setting the speaker size either large or small in there make any difference to the output with Audyssey?
My thought would be no since the AVR does all the work, but will the sound change if I set the windows setting to large compared to small, once a file is played through the HTPC to the AVR?
Let your AVR handle speaker configurations (size, distance, levels). Don't dial any of those things in your HTPC (e.g., all channels should be set to large/full range).
post #65822 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

Even without DEQ the surrounds were too loud when running The Hobbit. Even though it was a neat effect to have the music stretching along the side walls and around the rear, I kept asking myself, "Why isn't the orchestra in front of me?" There was very little there except for dialog and sound effects. During the big, dramatic orchestral effects that reinforced what was happening in the image, I really needed the orchestra to be in the vicinity of the screen. I temporarily turned down the surrounds by 4 dB, and that put most of the orchestra behind the screen where it belongs, and still preserved a great, spatial display to the sides and back. Was The Hobbit mixed for small home viewing rooms?

Hi Gary,

With all the above that you have just now described I'm getting the feeling that when some people complain about the dreaded "surround boost" of DEQ for movies it is something like you'd like to have with the orchestra in front of you. Could it have something to do with the convention of not being used to the original intent of the sound engineers when the imaging is stretched thoroughout the room? Of course, I u'stand that turning down the surrounds by 4 dB may help the sound stage collapse to up-front, but isn't that what we would call preference? Interesting indeed, especially that I have read a lot about surround boost complaints, yet never thought of it as a preference thing. I may be wrong here, I admit! smile.gif
Quote:
That;s the very kind of thing that makes me want to use the bass tone control (or DEQ, if I liked it). With films like that, I turn up orchestral mid-bass with the bass control, and the below 80 Hz orchestral sound, as well as LFE bass, with the sub trim.

Why not just simply up the sub trim by a few dBs and call it a day (well spent in Preference Land)? smile.gif
post #65823 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

This is all way too complicated.  I run an Audyssey calibration.  I accept the trims Audyssey sets, including the sub channel.  I turn DEQ on and leave it on for everything.  With this approach, some recordings sound better than others.  I attribute the differences to how the recording was engineered, and don't try to compensate for a bad recording by tweaking trims, adjusting RLO, toggling DEQ, or invoking tone controls.  If it is an unusually bad recording, I don't listen to it ever again.

Using this approach I have managed to arrive at my sixties and avoid a lot of gray hair.  For many audio things, I am obsessive.  But I can't understand why so many people are obsessed with doing so many tweaks to try and turn poor content into something it isn't.  Rant over.... 

My hair is mostly gray, but it was worth it! I'm content to let most rental movies just run at our standard settings, but we really want some of the old classics, and the few new ones destined to be classics, to sound right. So we futz around. The most common problem is a lack bass, especially mid bass, from the orchestra, rather than from the effects.
post #65824 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

Was The Hobbit mixed for small home viewing rooms?.

The short answer is IDK what standard that one was mixed to. For the long answer we can talk offline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

I did have to up my subwoofer channel by a few db's to make me feel like the bass was back, but apparently ironman3 has not much bass in it, so could be the movie.
That's the very kind of thing that makes me want to use the bass tone control (or DEQ, if I liked it). With films like that, I turn up orchestral mid-bass with the bass control, and the below 80 Hz orchestral sound, as well as LFE bass, with the sub trim.

Ahah - now that sounds like a practical use of the controls. I imagine that would also be a scenario where just THX standard bookshelves could prove inferior to towers. I'll give that a go next time I notice it feeling light.
post #65825 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Hi Gary,

With all the above that you have just now described I'm getting the feeling that when some people complain about the dreaded "surround boost" of DEQ for movies it is something like you'd like to have with the orchestra in front of you. Could it have something to do with the convention of not being used to the original intent of the sound engineers when the imaging is stretched thoroughout the room? Of course, I u'stand that turning down the surrounds by 4 dB may help the sound stage collapse to up-front, but isn't that what we would call preference? Interesting indeed, especially that I have read a lot about surround boost complaints, yet never thought of it as a preference thing. I may be wrong here, I admit! smile.gif
Why not just simply up the sub trim by a few dBs and call it a day (well spent in Preference Land)? smile.gif

Yes, it's probably preference, but I wonder if the home, BD, version was remixed for nearfield home listening. I still don't know all of the changes that such a mix entails. I wish I had seen The Hobbit in the theater, to see if the surrounds were emphasized there. If there is a difference, I'd rather hear the sound the way the original filmmakers intended it, rather than the way the remix engineers thought it should sound at home.

Turning up a sub that crosses over at 80 Hz doesn't help restore the mid bass (not much, anyway).
post #65826 of 70900
For the times I use it, I love Dynamic Volume and the way it compresses the sound so effectively. Dynamic EQ I used just all the time till recently. I like both effects and love that I have the option to turn them On or Off and that they've generally worked pretty well for me over the years. If they remix the disc to something other than the movie standard (to no particular standard even) then those features start to lose their effectiveness (its not saying the mix is bad even) and you end up with a crap shoot.
post #65827 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

Yes, it's probably preference, but I wonder if the home, BD, version was remixed for nearfield home listening. I still don't know all of the changes that such a mix entails. I wish I had seen The Hobbit in the theater, to see if the surrounds were emphasized there. If there is a difference, I'd rather hear the sound the way the original filmmakers intended it, rather than the way the remix engineers thought it should sound at home.

Actually, I don't know who started this "remixed for nearfield home listening" scandal spreading here on AVS like a tsunami, but I feel a kinda "urban legend" thing behind. tongue.gif IMHO, it has no other purpose than to make people become uncertain of the well-functioning of their HT systems. eek.gifbiggrin.gifmad.gif

Tell me if I'm wrong, please!
post #65828 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post


Actually, I don't know who started this "remixed for nearfield home listening" scandal spreading here on AVS like a tsunami, but I feel a kinda "urban legend" thing behind. tongue.gif IMHO, it has no other purpose than to make people become uncertain of the well-functioning of their HT systems. eek.gifbiggrin.gifmad.gif

Tell me if I'm wrong, please!

It has come up many times in this thread.  I know Disney re-masters all of their videos for the home and someone else here listed other studios that typically do it.  It would be nice to have the option of the two different tracks to compare.

post #65829 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

It has come up many times in this thread.  I know Disney re-masters all of their videos for the home and someone else here listed other studios that typically do it.  It would be nice to have the option of the two different tracks to compare.

Agree with you, especially it would be important to know what "re-master for home" really means in details. Until then we are just out in the dark, eh?mad.gifsmile.gif
post #65830 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Let your AVR handle speaker configurations (size, distance, levels). Don't dial any of those things in your HTPC (e.g., all channels should be set to large/full range).

Thank you. I just never knew which to use in windows large or small speaker setting. I have set all my speakers in windows to large now, seems to sound better.
post #65831 of 70900

Hi -

 

I'm afraid this is a very basic question that I haven't been able to find an answer to in this (in the meantime, massive) thread.

 

Question: I have a Denon 3313 and have run the Audyssey setup. Does that setup have any effect whatsoever if the Audyssey indicator is not on, or MultEQ is not being used?

 

Context: I use a Sonos system and cannot afford to have the delays caused by modes that use extra processing. If I want everything in sync, I need to use Direct or Pure Direct mode.

 

Many thanks!

post #65832 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Since he specifically mentioned surround channels, my assumption is that these are titles which (assuming the recent discussins are accurate) were "remixed for nearfield home use" and already incorproate some level increase in the surrounds, which when coupled with the native surround boost in DEQ end up OVER boosting the surrounds. But that's just an (educated) guess.

Presumably, adjusting the RLO for DEQ would restore the proper balance if my theory is correct.

 

Since so many new movies (all of them?) are re-mixed for the Bluray reversion, I suspect you are right. I notice this surround overboost with DEQ, but because I usually listen at relatively high levels (-6dB is typical here) the boost isn't all that aggressive (because the impact of DEQ has tapered off so much) and I just leave it as it is. If I listened at much lower levels, I suspect I would find the boost too aggressive. Your suggestion of using RLO is worth trying, but remember it will also affect the bass boost, which he may like.

 

The real answer is one you have alluded to in the past, but which we will never see now that Audyssey seem to have ceased development of MultEQ: separate controls for DEQ for bass and surrounds. Being able to turn DEQ OFF for the surround channels, while leaving it intact for the bass boost, would be perfect. 

post #65833 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

DEQ is starting to sound wrong in the surround channels on the newer releases. Anything in my library not from the last few years though sounds perfect with it on.

Can you give some examples with tiltles, old ones and new releases as well. BTW, what exactly do you mean by "sounding wrong"?

Sounding wrong means imbalanced and significantly louder than the front sound stage.

Here's two good recent examples.

Ironman 3 - sounds better with it off in the surrounds - they are too loud when it is on.

Hunt for red october - surrounds sound right when it is on.

 

Yeah - it sounds as if batpig was right on the money. From reading Pro film threads it seems that nowadays virtually all movies get a nearfield mix for home theatre release on Bluray. This, plus the overboost of the surround channels when DEQ is engaged, is probably the reason for the effect you are hearing.  HFRO being a much older movie, originally released on DVD (and probably VHS!) probably never had a nearfield mix so it sounds 'right'. 

 

DEQ has never been right for the surround channels simply because Audyssey failed to take into account during their experiments that the surround channels were already mixed 3dB lower than the front channels. So of course they 'tailed off' faster than the fronts when the MV was turned down. You might care to turn down the trims for the surround channels a little when using DEQ - but this is just another kludge of course. Or you could try different RLO settings (but this will also affect the bass boost, which you probably like).

 

Or, of course, you could listen at Reference - then the problem would go away - LOL!

post #65834 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 

This is all way too complicated.  I run an Audyssey calibration.  I accept the trims Audyssey sets, including the sub channel.  I turn DEQ on and leave it on for everything.  With this approach, some recordings sound better than others.  I attribute the differences to how the recording was engineered, and don't try to compensate for a bad recording by tweaking trims, adjusting RLO, toggling DEQ, or invoking tone controls.  If it is an unusually bad recording, I don't listen to it ever again.

 

Using this approach I have managed to arrive at my sixties and avoid a lot of gray hair.  For many audio things, I am obsessive.  But I can't understand why so many people are obsessed with doing so many tweaks to try and turn poor content into something it isn't.  Rant over.... 

 

I agree with the sentiment of your post Jerry.  But I don't agree that these are 'bad recordings' in this context. The problem Mo is getting is possibly or probably caused by the imperfect way DEQ was conceived, not by the quality of the recording. When you hear some recordings sounding better than others, this could indeed be because some recordings ARE better than others, or it could be that older recordings have not already had their soundtrack re-mixed for home use. In the latter case, DEQ will have a less aggressive impact on the surrounds than it will with recordings made more recently, and remixed specifically for home use. A Pro mixer whose thread I was recently reading said that these days EVERY contract he is given specifically asks for a near field mix to be completed right after the theatrical mix has been signed off. I think that all the informed opinion here agrees that DEQ overboosts the surround channels because of the flawed premise it was designed around - it's just that it isn't as noticeable on older mixes.  The real problem is that we want DEQ for the good things it does in the LF region, but we don't want it for the bad things it does in the surrounds - but we have no way of separating the two.

 

I agree with you that recordings can and do vary in quality and we have to take them as they are and endless fiddling is usually unproductive - your general point.

post #65835 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRSS View Post

I am just getting into this whole audio wormhole and have a few questions.
I have an older Onyko with 2EQ that will soon be replaced with the to be decided yet AVR.
The question I was wondering about and did not see anything in the FAQ section about is "my HTPC is hooked up to the AVR with HDMI, in windows sound settings does setting the speaker size either large or small in there make any difference to the output with Audyssey?
My thought would be no since the AVR does all the work, but will the sound change if I set the windows setting to large compared to small, once a file is played through the HTPC to the AVR?

Thank you

 

All the settings in equipment before the AVR are best left in their 'neutral' positions. This goes for BD players, HTPCs etc. Let the AVR do the work.

post #65836 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Hi Gary,

With all the above that you have just now described I'm getting the feeling that when some people complain about the dreaded "surround boost" of DEQ for movies it is something like you'd like to have with the orchestra in front of you. Could it have something to do with the convention of not being used to the original intent of the sound engineers when the imaging is stretched thoroughout the room? Of course, I u'stand that turning down the surrounds by 4 dB may help the sound stage collapse to up-front, but isn't that what we would call preference? Interesting indeed, especially that I have read a lot about surround boost complaints, yet never thought of it as a preference thing. I may be wrong here, I admit! smile.gif
Why not just simply up the sub trim by a few dBs and call it a day (well spent in Preference Land)? smile.gif

Yes, it's probably preference, but I wonder if the home, BD, version was remixed for nearfield home listening. I still don't know all of the changes that such a mix entails. I wish I had seen The Hobbit in the theater, to see if the surrounds were emphasized there.

Turning up a sub that crosses over at 80 Hz doesn't help restore the mid bass (not much, anyway).

 

The surround boost applied by DEQ  isn’t a user-preference thing. It is an Audyssey-preference thing!  They just simply got it wrong and the surround channels are overboosted by DEQ. Ti hear the real Reference track, one would need to be able to turn DEQ off for the surrounds while leaving it On for the LF, which we can't do unfortunately.

 

The history of this has been well-documented in this thread, but as the thread is enormous it is difficult to find with the Search engine. Briefly, how Audyssey arrived at the way they wanted DEQ to work is they sat in with a load of Pro mixers and asked them to turn the master volume down progressively and then asked them to compensate for what they were hearing as the MV diminished. The mixers then used their faders to bring the sound back perceptually to the reference level sound they had previously mixed. What Audyssey apparently didn't realise is that, while the mains were being mixed at 85dB, the surrounds were being mixed at 82dB, a full 3dB less. So it is obvious that the sounds from the rear would diminish more quickly than the sounds from the front - they were quieter to start with!

 

Audyssey came to the conclusion that, in human beings, 'sounds from the rear appear to diminish more rapidly than sounds from the front'. But this is incorrect. What they were hearing was a result of the sounds from the rear already being diminished compared with sounds from the front. This flawed premise then became incorporated into DEQ and the result is the surround overboost that almost everyone complains about.  I’d say it was probably the single most complained-about aspect of Audyssey in this entire thread. You can verify this at home if you have a SPL meter - play something at different levels and observe the SPLs with DEQ on and off.

 

Quote:
 If there is a difference, I'd rather hear the sound the way the original filmmakers intended it, rather than the way the remix engineers thought it should sound at home.

 

???  You ARE hearing it the way the original film makers intended it to be heard. The 'way it is intended to be heard' is a function of the mixer. The same mixer (almost always) supervises the now almost universal nearfield mix as supervised the theatrical mix. His aim is to give you a better experience at home, in the very different circumstances than those which pertain in a cinema.  They even move the speakers and/or listening position to a nearfield distance more typical of the home listener.  You may not agree with his creative decisions of course, but that will also apply to those he made for the theatrical mix.  The problem we have is that our AVRs, with all their different technologies, can apply processing to the sound to compensate for the differences between a home environment and a cinema environment - eg RE-EQ or the Audyssey Movie curve - but if those compensations have already been made in the mix, then we are 'double compensating'. But this is different from the DEQ surround overboost, which is just a design flaw in DEQ.

 

If you are interested in learning more about how mixers work and how they approach home cinema mixes, this thread is a good starting point. The pro mixer handles some very aggressive "I want the theatrical mix at home" stuff very well IMO. If you think about it, why would we want, at home, in a small room, with a 5.1 speaker system, sitting 9-12 feet from a screen 50-130 inches diagonal, the same mix as was made for a huge space, with a diffuse side surround speaker array, sitting dozens of feet from a huge screen and dozens of feet from the speakers?

post #65837 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

Yes, it's probably preference, but I wonder if the home, BD, version was remixed for nearfield home listening. I still don't know all of the changes that such a mix entails. I wish I had seen The Hobbit in the theater, to see if the surrounds were emphasized there. If there is a difference, I'd rather hear the sound the way the original filmmakers intended it, rather than the way the remix engineers thought it should sound at home.

Actually, I don't know who started this "remixed for nearfield home listening" scandal spreading here on AVS like a tsunami, but I feel a kinda "urban legend" thing behind. tongue.gif IMHO, it has no other purpose than to make people become uncertain of the well-functioning of their HT systems. eek.gifbiggrin.gifmad.gif

Tell me if I'm wrong, please!

 

You are wrong. I'd suggest you go to some of the Pro film sites and read about nearfield mixing for Bluray releases before you comment. If you do as I suggest, you will read stuff like this, from F. Hudson Miller a respected movie sound Pro with years of experience:

 

"The big three engineering issues that I am aware of (all handled by the engineering department) are using near field monitors in a small room setup and a lower SPL. After monitoring has been pinked, the mixer re-records the three stems (D,M,E) into a new Near Field master. Our goal is to reproduce the theatrical mix as accurately as possible. This is a much art as it is science. The goal is to reproduce the mix so that the home audience can have a successful film experience in a huge variety of playback situations. 

The studio and/or distributor has a list of deliverables (various versions) that we are required to provide at the end of each film, the near field is one of them. "  (My bolding)

 

You will note, that far from being an "urban legend", the nearfield mix is on the list of deliverables required for each movie. 

 

There are numerous similar comments on numerous similar sites  - this one was to hand as I have just linked to the thread above.

 

 


EDIT:  For those who are genuinely interested in the subject, I was just looking in my collection for other discs with a nearfield and a theatrical mix on them and I came across 'The Game', the excellent 1997 David Fincher movie starring Michael Douglas and Sean Penn. The disc comes with this note:

 

 

"The original theatrical 5.1 soundtrack was transferred from the 35mm magnetic X-copy master. The track is very dynamic and designed to be played in large rooms at high volume. The near field soundtrack was transferred from Sony Dash 3348 digital tapes. This mix was created in 1997 by sound designer Ren Klyce and sound rerecording mixer David Parker for the Criterion Collection's laserdisc release. The near field mix features a lower dynamic range and is optimized for playing in smaller rooms at lower volume. Both tracks were remastered at 24-bit using Pro Tools HD.

Soundtrack Master Supervision: Ren Klyce. Soundtrack Mastering: Skywalker Sound, San Rafael, CA."

 

 

This is the comment on the two tracks from the Bluray.com review by Dr. Svet Atanasov, August 31, 2012:

 

"I viewed the film in its entirety with the new Near Field 5.1 Mix, which has been supervised by sound designer Ren Klyce and director David Fincher, and then did various comparisons with the Theatrical 5.1 Mix. There are some quite obvious differences between the two. On the Near Field 5.1 Mix clearly dynamic levels have been elevated and surround movement enhanced. As far as I am concerned, mid-range frequencies also appear better balanced, which is why the interactions between the piano and heavy strings from Howard Shore's score are slightly more prominent. Generally speaking, the dialog seems equally clear, stable, and clean on both tracks. There are no pops, dropouts, or audio distortions to report in this review."

 


Showing that near field mixes are taken very seriously, below is an excerpt from Chace Audio's website. Chace is an established post=production facility in Burbank, CA and for about 30 years its clients have included all of the major movie studios.

 

Mixing Theatrical To Near-Field

 

Our primary mix stage, the Rick Chace Theatre, is THX® certified with an AVID ICON D-Control ES mixing surface, JBL monitoring, a full array of outboard dynamics and effects processing, and Pro Tools® HD Accel systems. The theater is housed in an 850 square foot room with an 18’ x 10’ screen and Barco DP2K-12C Digital Cinema Projector - ideally suited for dialog pre-dubs, first-run mixing and print master sessions.

 

Our secondary mix stage, Studio R, is specifically designed for home entertainment or smaller theatrical mixes. The room features an AVID ICON D-Command, Pro Tools HD Accel, TC Electronics system 6000 reverbs, Apogee and JBL monitoring, and a 10’ x 6’ screen.

 

Near field mixing also takes place in Studios E, G and H; all feature 7.1 monitoring for Blu-ray Disc® mixes. These studios were designed with a “living room” feel to replicate the home environment. All three have Pro Tools HD Accel systems, HD plasma displays, and Dynaudio and JBL monitoring. Studios G and H feature 96-channel Yamaha DM2000 consoles, while Studio E features a 56-channel Yamaha 02R96.

 


Whether one would prefer, at home, the theatrical mix or the near field mix is a separate issue of course and (other than in its context wrt to the DEQ surround overboost, which is where we started), it would be best taken elsewhere for more detailed analysis. But the point is, nearfield mixing is far from being an "urban legend" and its existence as SOP is highly relevant to the problem DEQ exhibits wrt to boosting the surrounds.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 10/17/13 at 7:48am
post #65838 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRSS View Post

I am just getting into this whole audio wormhole and have a few questions.
I have an older Onyko with 2EQ that will soon be replaced with the to be decided yet AVR.
The question I was wondering about and did not see anything in the FAQ section about is "my HTPC is hooked up to the AVR with HDMI, in windows sound settings does setting the speaker size either large or small in there make any difference to the output with Audyssey?
My thought would be no since the AVR does all the work, but will the sound change if I set the windows setting to large compared to small, once a file is played through the HTPC to the AVR?

Thank you

If you want the receiver to do all the EQing, you need to configure Windows so that it doesn't modify the audio streams. In other words, tell the computer that all of your speakers are "Full range" (i.e. disable bass management in the computer) and make sure the "enhancements" are disabled. The receiver can do the bass management and apply Audyssey.

An annoyance is that many of the media player software packages (e.g. VLC) don't automatically reconfigure the number of audio output channels to match the number provided in the recording. e.g. when you've configured the HDMI output as 7.1 and play a stereo soundtrack, they'll leave the output as 7.1 with audio in only the front left and right channels. As a result, the center and surround speakers are silent: the receiver's ProLogic and Neo enhancements won't be enabled.
post #65839 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

For the times I use it, I love Dynamic Volume and the way it compresses the sound so effectively. Dynamic EQ I used just all the time till recently. I like both effects and love that I have the option to turn them On or Off and that they've generally worked pretty well for me over the years. If they remix the disc to something other than the movie standard (to no particular standard even) then those features start to lose their effectiveness (its not saying the mix is bad even) and you end up with a crap shoot.

 

They don't. Not for movies which all comply with agreed standards. Music is he crap shoot, with no standards at all.

post #65840 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post


Actually, I don't know who started this "remixed for nearfield home listening" scandal spreading here on AVS like a tsunami, but I feel a kinda "urban legend" thing behind. tongue.gif IMHO, it has no other purpose than to make people become uncertain of the well-functioning of their HT systems. eek.gifbiggrin.gifmad.gif

Tell me if I'm wrong, please!

It has come up many times in this thread.  I know Disney re-masters all of their videos for the home and someone else here listed other studios that typically do it.  It would be nice to have the option of the two different tracks to compare.

 

Bourne Legacy, to name just one I can think of offhand, gives you the choice.

post #65841 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

It has come up many times in this thread.  I know Disney re-masters all of their videos for the home and someone else here listed other studios that typically do it.  It would be nice to have the option of the two different tracks to compare.

Agree with you, especially it would be important to know what "re-master for home" really means in details. Until then we are just out in the dark, eh?mad.gifsmile.gif

 

No, Feri, you are out in the dark. The information is readily available. I'd suggest www.google.com as a good starting point.

post #65842 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWesleyH View Post
 

Hi -

 

I'm afraid this is a very basic question that I haven't been able to find an answer to in this (in the meantime, massive) thread.

 

Question: I have a Denon 3313 and have run the Audyssey setup. Does that setup have any effect whatsoever if the Audyssey indicator is not on, or MultEQ is not being used?

 

Context: I use a Sonos system and cannot afford to have the delays caused by modes that use extra processing. If I want everything in sync, I need to use Direct or Pure Direct mode.

 

Many thanks!

 

If the Audyssey light is not on, then you have bypassed Audyssey room correction and are listening to the un-equalised sound. Pure and Direct modes bypass Audyssey.

post #65843 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

Actually, I have found the tone controls on the Marantz -- which also affect only FL and FR, not C, surr. or sub -- to be quite useful, particularly the bass control. If the soundtrack orchestra sounds thin, or over-bright, as on Lawrence of Arabia, boosting bass on just FL & FR helps restore the balance. On Lawrence, by making the drums more prominent with bass boost, the overall volume can be turned down a tad, making the brightness less irritating, while retaining the excitement. Keeping the bass boost out of the center also keeps the dialog crisp. The problems with poorly balanced soundtracks, IMO, usually have to do with orchestral balance (not dialog, surround, or LFE), and correcting 2 out of 3 front channels usually does the trick.

Hmmm, never thought of that, I'll give it a try smile.gif
post #65844 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I agree with the sentiment of your post Jerry.  But I don't agree that these are 'bad recordings' in this context. The problem Mo is getting is possibly or probably caused by the imperfect way DEQ was conceived, not by the quality of the recording. When you hear some recordings sounding better than others, this could indeed be because some recordings ARE better than others, or it could be that older recordings have not already had their soundtrack re-mixed for home use. In the latter case, DEQ will have a less aggressive impact on the surrounds than it will with recordings made more recently, and remixed specifically for home use. A Pro mixer whose thread I was recently reading said that these days EVERY contract he is given specifically asks for a near field mix to be completed right after the theatrical mix has been signed off. I think that all the informed opinion here agrees that DEQ overboosts the surround channels because of the flawed premise it was designed around - it's just that it isn't as noticeable on older mixes.  The real problem is that we want DEQ for the good things it does in the LF region, but we don't want it for the bad things it does in the surrounds - but we have no way of separating the two.

I agree with you that recordings can and do vary in quality and we have to take them as they are and endless fiddling is usually unproductive - your general point.

Agreed, and much more eloquently stated, Keith, thanks.
post #65845 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
 
I wish I had seen The Hobbit in the theater, to see if the surrounds were emphasized there. If there is a difference, I'd rather hear the sound the way the original filmmakers intended it, rather than the way the remix engineers thought it should sound at home.

 

I forgot to comment on this part of your post.

 

I saw The Hobbit twice (don't ask!) - once in an IMAX and once in a high quality regular cinema and the sound was excellent but quite different in both. IMAX use a different speaker arrangement to normal cinemas, which may account for it. In both it was a very immersive mix. I think this shows that even the theatrical presentations can vary widely, let alone the home versions. I am fairly sure the problem you are hearing is the DEQ overboosted surround phenomenon so often mentioned in this thread. If you play the movie at or near Reference with DEQ turned off, I am sure you will perceive the surrounds differently. 

 

I have the Hobbit on Bluray disc and my impression was that the sound was very immersive, as it was in both movie theatres. I don't especially remember hearing boosted surrounds but I listen at -6dB typically and DEQ isn’t doing all that much at that level on the MV. I do recall that the surround channels were extensively used in the movie and it was one of the best soundtracks in this regard that I have heard for some time.

post #65846 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Or, of course, you could listen at Reference - then the problem would go away - LOL!

lol, yup. No more hearing issues after I do that for a few weeks biggrin.gif
post #65847 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

For the times I use it, I love Dynamic Volume and the way it compresses the sound so effectively. Dynamic EQ I used just all the time till recently. I like both effects and love that I have the option to turn them On or Off and that they've generally worked pretty well for me over the years. If they remix the disc to something other than the movie standard (to no particular standard even) then those features start to lose their effectiveness (its not saying the mix is bad even) and you end up with a crap shoot.

They don't. Not for movies which all comply with agreed standards. Music is he crap shoot, with no standards at all.

Keith, I will rephrase that a bit since you are right as worded. They are inconsistent about which standard they are going to mix to for the home mix (which causes different dynamic ranges from one mixer to the next) making it a crapshoot for any algorithm coming along to adjust levels afterwards
post #65848 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Bourne Legacy, to name just one I can think of offhand, gives you the choice.
Keith,

Thanks for the excellent and informative posts above! I certainly hope the trend is towards a choice since I personally don't want to see them neuter the dynamics of the soundtracks for the consumer mixes. I just upgraded my entire system to handle true reference level dynamics on the level of Imax(no small feat btw smile.gif), only to come over here and read they're reducing dynamics to accommodate lesser systems, lol.
post #65849 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

For the times I use it, I love Dynamic Volume and the way it compresses the sound so effectively. Dynamic EQ I used just all the time till recently. I like both effects and love that I have the option to turn them On or Off and that they've generally worked pretty well for me over the years. If they remix the disc to something other than the movie standard (to no particular standard even) then those features start to lose their effectiveness (its not saying the mix is bad even) and you end up with a crap shoot.

They don't. Not for movies which all comply with agreed standards. Music is he crap shoot, with no standards at all.

Keith, I will rephrase that a bit since you are right as worded. They are inconsistent about which standard they are going to mix to for the home mix (which causes different dynamic ranges from one mixer to the next) making it a crapshoot for any algorithm coming along to adjust levels afterwards

 

If the movie has been remixed for the home then no algorithms should be needed for home playback, other than some compensation for perceived diminished bass as volume moves away from 0dB - the 'good' bit of DEQ.  I am starting to wonder if the other, similar, technologies to DEQ (Dolby Volume, THX Loudness Plus) might be a better solution for near field mixes.

 

I am not sure what you mean by 'inconsistent standards' for the home mix. What happens is that the movie is first mixed to Reference standards. Once this has been signed off by the Director, the near field mix is undertaken with the aim of providing the exact same movie experience as the theatre mix, but for the home. If you trust the mixers to get it right for the theatre, then I can't see why you would not trust the exact same people to get it right for the near field mix.

post #65850 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Bourne Legacy, to name just one I can think of offhand, gives you the choice.
Keith,

Thanks for the excellent and informative posts above! I certainly hope the trend is towards a choice since I personally don't want to see them neuter the dynamics of the soundtracks for the consumer mixes. I just upgraded my entire system to handle true reference level dynamics on the level of Imax(no small feat btw smile.gif), only to come over here and read they're reducing dynamics to accommodate lesser systems, lol.

Yes, I tend to agree. But having read the comments of several mixers with regard to this, they differences they seem to be making are subtle. In fact, subtle is a word they often use to describe their work on the near field mix. I don't think they are emasculating the sound track when they do the near field. HST, I too would like a choice if there is sufficient room on the disc to provide both tracks.

 

Incidentally, I have listened to both the near field 7.1 mix for Bourne Legacy and also to the 5.1 theatrical mix. I prefer the latter ;)

 

I agree that those of us who have spent considerable time and money on systems than can play to reference levels and accommodate all the dynamic range of the theatrical mix, will feel shortchanged if our soundtracks are restricted in any way.

 

HST, we have been listening, unaware, to BD discs now for some time, not realising we were listening to a near field mix (to judge by some of the comments on here), and nobody has been complaining that their soundtracks like dynamism. I, for example, am totally happy with probably 90% of all the movie soundtracks on recently made films which I have heard. The other 10% have issues that are nothing to do with the near field mix. So it could well be that when the mixers say the differences are 'subtle' they are right. Knowing what a professional bunch of people these Mixers are, I'd be surprised if they wanted anything less than stunning SQ on the BD discs of their movies.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)