The Sorry State of Cinema Sound - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 28Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 59 Old 10-25-2014, 09:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,698
Mentioned: 181 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3713 Post(s)
Liked: 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
@Gooddoc ,


I have not been a fan 'typically' of any auto room EQ processor I've used, until recently with the Audyssey Platinum XT32 on my Denon 4520CI. It is the first version of room correction that I actually leave enabled after I run it, and think my speakers sound better with it, than without.






We are going to be blind testing some various autoeq systems on Nov 2 in g2g. We'll include a control setup with no eq. It'll be interesting to see how the enthusiasts blind vote in the lineup.


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-rec...nsas-city.html
Yes, I've been following the thread. Thanks for putting that together!

But I'm going to throw something out here as something to chew on. And it relates to the circle of confusion that was discussed early in the interview. The question to be answered, IMO, is whether the SQ of a speaker designed using measurements that can be reasonably correlated to in-room SQ is improved with the use of EQ to achieve a specified target curve. If the parameters of the speaker are unknown or below standard, then you will be trapped in the circle of confusion and unable to answer the question.

So I have concerns regarding the speaker that is to be used for the evaluation. Unfortunately, the speaker being evaluated could very well end up sounding better with EQ due to design deficiencies. But because of the circle of confusion that result will not answer the question and would not be a result that could be applied to anything but that speaker. It's the reason he discussed the Harman work and speaker measurement standards. Because without a standard or known performance of the speakers with measurements correlated to in-room SQ, you cannot break out of that circle of confusion.
Gooddoc is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 59 Old 10-25-2014, 10:20 PM
Senior Member
 
See The Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 408
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 85
In the 70's I attended many rock concerts that were very loud. My solution was to put a wadded clump of tissue in each ear.


I will not and do not expect to have to do that when I visit a movie theater !


About the time they introduced the new stadium movie theater seating, the sound got too loud, just because they could, with the powerful speakers arrays that were part of that "upgrade".


I do NOT go to the movie theater for some kind of "theme park" sonic experience. But, apparently that is exactly who is being catered to. Don't mind of the story has a poor plot, and all of the characters are one-dimensional.... it's got great CGI, and boy, those seat-rocking explosions are something else !!!


The ONLY time in the 70's that a movie was played with ear-damaging volume, was the "special" presentation of "Tommy", with the large speakers placed in the back of the theater.


I hardly grace the door of a movie theater...there's just too much that can go "wrong". Home theater is the way to go. Let the huddled masses have their fodder.

Cable Channel Choice is the only choice I want to make !!
See The Light is online now  
post #33 of 59 Old 10-25-2014, 11:01 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 11,081
Mentioned: 612 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3795 Post(s)
Liked: 3576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
Yes, I've been following the thread. Thanks for putting that together!

But I'm going to throw something out here as something to chew on. And it relates to the circle of confusion that was discussed early in the interview. The question to be answered, IMO, is whether the SQ of a speaker designed using measurements that can be reasonably correlated to in-room SQ is improved with the use of EQ to achieve a specified target curve. If the parameters of the speaker are unknown or below standard, then you will be trapped in the circle of confusion and unable to answer the question.

So I have concerns regarding the speaker that is to be used for the evaluation. Unfortunately, the speaker being evaluated could very well end up sounding better with EQ due to design deficiencies. But because of the circle of confusion that result will not answer the question and would not be a result that could be applied to anything but that speaker. It's the reason he discussed the Harman work and speaker measurement standards. Because without a standard or known performance of the speakers with measurements correlated to in-room SQ, you cannot break out of that circle of confusion.
Point understood. I think. However, if I were to take your M2 speaker and place it in my baffle wall, it almost certainly would not retain the ruler flat frequency response it was designed for. My baffle wall would give it a big boost at around 100Hz. My room would also do other random wicked things to the speaker's native flat fr, as measured from the mlp. If you go without eq, then the m2 speakers are not accurate in any seat in my room at that point. Not in the prime seat, not in any secondary seat. Thus a super accurate speaker is still completely dependant on the room. If you applied audyssey multi eq xt, it would counter that 100 Hz baffle wall gain, making the primary listening position more accurate again. The speaker itself would no longer be accurate, if measured close Mic, but who cares (except those outside the primary listening position).


Ultimately, room auto eq is designed and implemented, because we don't have perfect speakers, and we don't have perfect rooms, but we are trying to get closer to perfection from a single seat, or perhaps small group of seats - at the acknowledged accuracy detriment to the seats outside our mlp. ( where changes made to optomize the mlp, will likely be in disagreement to changes that should have been needed at other areas outside of the mlp)
mark haflich likes this.

Archaea's 9.8.4 Home Theater Room
(13) JBL CBT 70j-1 | Denon x7200wa | Sherbourn PA 7-350 amplifier | (8) Ultimax 18" sealed subwoofers | (4) iNuke DSP 6000 amplifiers | (4) MB Quart 12" subwoofers mounted direct mounted to Berkline theater chairs BOSS style | Epson 5040UB Projector | Jamestown 144" acoustic transparent 2.35:1 screen w/ Seymour XD fabric

Last edited by Archaea; 10-25-2014 at 11:04 PM.
Archaea is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 07:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,889
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 592 Post(s)
Liked: 744
I had to laugh at the poster who chimed in the if theaters are too loud, you are too old. I would opine that if you don't appreciate that theaters are too loud (especially IMAX), you are too how shall I put it "young"? I agree that wetted tissue paper works but I now bring ear plugs to the theater. Also, real butter on popcorn, what a concept!
JWhip is offline  
post #35 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 08:53 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 11,081
Mentioned: 612 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3795 Post(s)
Liked: 3576
@Gooddoc ,

post 30 and 31 of this thread might be of interest to you in relation to the upcoming room auto eq G2G.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...l#post28545098

Archaea's 9.8.4 Home Theater Room
(13) JBL CBT 70j-1 | Denon x7200wa | Sherbourn PA 7-350 amplifier | (8) Ultimax 18" sealed subwoofers | (4) iNuke DSP 6000 amplifiers | (4) MB Quart 12" subwoofers mounted direct mounted to Berkline theater chairs BOSS style | Epson 5040UB Projector | Jamestown 144" acoustic transparent 2.35:1 screen w/ Seymour XD fabric
Archaea is offline  
post #36 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 09:05 AM
Senior Member
 
WayneJoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 105
I personally think the worst problem in cinema audio these days is using the 20dB of headroom for normal program material. That is why people are complaining that movies are too loud.


I also think that the decreasing percentages of THX certified theaters is a big issue in the inconsistencies between theaters.
prm1138 and Okv like this.
WayneJoy is offline  
post #37 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 09:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,698
Mentioned: 181 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3713 Post(s)
Liked: 3317
@Archaea

I get your point but don't theaters and dubbing rooms have the same exact acoustic issues with baffle walls? Or just about any other acoustic problem you can think of? They didn't say that the EQ made the center measured area or the few dubbing seats better but made the other seats so bad that they don't recommend using it. They said it categorically sounded better without the EQ - in the EQ'd sweetspot. In fact, they didn't even measure outside the smpte measurement guidelines because of time restraints. So the evaluated SQ was only the directly EQ'd listening positions.

I dont think you're saying there is something unique to a theater or dubbing room that would make it impossible for EQ to make even a portion of the theater sound better?

As to performance measurement of speaker design and it's impact on in-room SQ, they didn't answer that question in the report, but it was discussed in the podcast as a problem that needed to be addressed if consistency of SQ would ever be accomplished across rooms. I have come to have a much greater appreciation for speaker design and it's impact on in-room SQ after my last several speaker purchases. The fact that measurements can be correlated to actual in-room SQ still seems to be poorly accepted, whereas the viewpoint that design doesn't matter much since the room is what determines the sound and you can just EQ the room to achieve whatever FR you want seems to prevail. It's my belief that the thrust of the podcast was that the speaker matters much more than EQ of the room, and I think that's where you mostly disagree.

While I'm not suggesting acoustic problems are identical in our home theaters, it seems there is enough correlation and debunking of prior assumptions to make these findings generally applicable to our theaters. But it seems you've come away thinking this is just a theater or dubbing room issue and that our own spaces follow different rules or have entirely different problems that are solvable with EQ whereas the theater or dubbing room is inherently not EQ'able at all. I cannot say you are wrong in that belief, but just that with the information at hand we just disagree on the applicability to our own rooms.

My opinion is not set in stone on this and I'm just going to roll with my best interpretation of the evidence out there and how that correlates with my limited personal experience. The thing they didnt address was different EQ systems or methodology. So it's entirely possible that a particular EQ may be able to fix just the right things and that is a question you'll be able to get more data on in your upcoming GTG. It wouldn't be the first time that I have changed my opinion on a topic based on conversations like this, so I appreciate the discussion.
GLBright likes this.

Last edited by Gooddoc; 10-26-2014 at 09:35 AM.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #38 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 09:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,698
Mentioned: 181 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3713 Post(s)
Liked: 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
@Gooddoc ,

post 30 and 31 of this thread might be of interest to you in relation to the upcoming room auto eq G2G.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...l#post28545098
Awesome! I really greatly respect your constant approach to no bs evaluations. I'm looking forward to your results from the SSP blind gtg.

I admit that at times I may not be placing enough emphasis on the room as to its impact on SQ. I don't dismiss it in any way, but I just think that speaker design can overcome many of the problems that may result in the need for EQ in-room. I think your Mackie experiment with the stuffing speaks to that a little. But believe me, your counter arguments keep my feet on the ground and helps to balance my view of things. Thanks!
Gooddoc is offline  
post #39 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 03:15 PM
Senior Member
 
awblackmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boise, Id. U.S.A.
Posts: 442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 85
I was impressed with the comments of the THX licensed theaters. I had heard that these theaters were all supposed to sound alike due to the THX certification processes being implemented in the theaters. My personal experience with a THX cinema was I thought the sound was a bit to bright. The high end was just not right and seemed distorted somehow. This was an ongoing situation with me as I went to more and more films at this theater. Now all these years later the THX process is being challenged as not the solution to better cinema sound. I guess at the time it was a good idea, but my experience with it wasn't that positive.

I hope this research does improve cinema sound. For now I am staying home for the most part. I would love to go out to more movies but my home theater does sound better than the local cinemas. Actually they sound pretty good for the most part. I just think that mine at home sounds better. I personally think sound in a small room can be made to sound better much more easily. So it isn't the state of sound in local cinemas that keeps me home.

What does keep me home is the dancing lights of phones before the start of a movie. Then there is the person who thinks they are exempt because for some reason the text coming in is so darn important. Then right as the final scene fades to black OUT COMES ALL THE PHONES! Really people you can't wait to get to the parking lot? So when I have guests over I do tell them there are no texts permitted until they leave this room. I am trying to train my grand children to be a bit more aware of other people watching the movie.

Back though to the sound improvements. I wonder what we may be changing in our home systems to bring our home sound in line with the SMPTE findings? This is going to be fun to watch.

Video Mitsubishi 3800 onto 108 inch DIY AT screen.
Processor Marantz 5502A
7.4.4 with front wides and no rear surrounds.
awblackmon is offline  
post #40 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 03:27 PM
Senior Member
 
awblackmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boise, Id. U.S.A.
Posts: 442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Another note on THX. I do like the idea of the baffle wall. I have built a version of the baffle wall behind my AT screen. (hey it was good to hear fabric makes for better sound for AT screens.) Due to the speakers I am using the baffle wall made a big improvement in bass. from my choice of speakers. Small speakers like the Minimus 7 that I use the bass boost worked out very well. The Audsudessy XT32 calibration has the low end of these speakers at 70 hz. I am good with that. My IB sub system does the rest of the work. If I put in the Minimus 77 behind the screen the baffle wall and Audessy XT 32 calibration has them come in with a low end of 60 hz. Either speaker for me is a win situation.

Video Mitsubishi 3800 onto 108 inch DIY AT screen.
Processor Marantz 5502A
7.4.4 with front wides and no rear surrounds.
awblackmon is offline  
post #41 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 04:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
Billy Boden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lexington Ky
Posts: 778
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 352 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
I hope you don't mind me chiming in here . Having worked in professional audio as a FOH engineer for Broadway musicals, general plays, country/rock concerts, as well as recording work. I may be of some help since I have a slightly different POV than most here.
(My responses are using the assumption the speakers are well designed to cover their usable range +/- 3db.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
I get your point but don't theaters and dubbing rooms have the same exact acoustic issues with baffle walls? Or just about any other acoustic problem you can think of? They didn't say that the EQ made the center measured area or the few dubbing seats better but made the other seats so bad that they don't recommend using it. They said it categorically sounded better without the EQ - in the EQ'd sweetspot. In fact, they didn't even measure outside the smpte measurement guidelines because of time restraints. So the evaluated SQ was only the directly EQ'd listening positions.

I dont think you're saying there is something unique to a theater or dubbing room that would make it impossible for EQ to make even a portion of the theater sound better?
EQ is only used to cut never to boost. If you need to boost because of bad speaker design get better speakers. If you are trying to boost the high end to make up for air attenuation you are doing it wrong, get more speakers to cover the far seats and set delay to match the mains (zone technique) Or use wave guides on the upper horns to match the dispersion pattern you need at long distances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
As to performance measurement of speaker design and it's impact on in-room SQ, they didn't answer that question in the report, but it was discussed in the podcast as a problem that needed to be addressed if consistency of SQ would ever be accomplished across rooms.
No two rooms will sound the same, that's just reality. Unless they are built to the same specs, have the exact same seats, have the same number of people in them, Same sound equipment etc.

As for eliminating seat to seat differences, not possible. If it was you wouldn't have cheap seats at concerts. Believe me the venue would love to sell all seats with the same SQ. When rooms are over zoned to make the SQ look the same at all seats to a microphone they sound muffled and unnatural. Very voice of god, the sound comes from nowhere and everywhere, it's creepy.
The human brain wants the sound to come from the front and can tolerate rather large frequency amplitude differences with ease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
I have come to have a much greater appreciation for speaker design and it's impact on in-room SQ after my last several speaker purchases. The fact that measurements can be correlated to actual in-room SQ still seems to be poorly accepted,
Anechoic or outdoor ground measurements are usable, anything else is too tainted to mean much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
whereas the viewpoint that design doesn't matter much since the room is what determines the sound and you can just EQ the room to achieve whatever FR you want seems to prevail. It's my belief that the thrust of the podcast was that the speaker matters much more than EQ of the room, ....
(I agree with you)
You cannot EQ a whole room. You can EQ for one spot in a room. Unfortunately microphones only have one sensor, we have two that are constantly moving. A computer program that EQ's for one spot will only make problems for the rest of the room worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
While I'm not suggesting acoustic problems are identical in our home theaters, it seems there is enough correlation and debunking of prior assumptions to make these findings generally applicable to our theaters. But it seems you've come away thinking this is just a theater or dubbing room issue and that our own spaces follow different rules or have entirely different problems that are solvable with EQ whereas the theater or dubbing room is inherently not EQ'able at all. I cannot say you are wrong in that belief, but just that with the information at hand we just disagree on the applicability to our own rooms.
A room is a room. Each may have slightly different low frequency issues depending on the size but the basic issues are the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
My opinion is not set in stone on this and I'm just going to roll with my best interpretation of the evidence out there and how that correlates with my limited personal experience. The thing they didnt address was different EQ systems or methodology. So it's entirely possible that a particular EQ may be able to fix just the right things and that is a question you'll be able to get more data on in your upcoming GTG. It wouldn't be the first time that I have changed my opinion on a topic based on conversations like this, so I appreciate the discussion.
EQ should only be used to cut low frequency constructive interference. That being a last resort in a crap room, moving or shaping the LF energy using arrays is much more affective.

A speaker that is basically flat Quasi-anechoic in its usable range will sound basically flat to people in a room, while it will look like crap to a microphone/computer. Ears and microphones do not work the same way at all. The amount of processing power your ears have attached to them is phenomenal. Your brain uses sample rates and complex gating and active filtering that a super computer could not approach.

If it were possible to replace a FOH engineer with an array of microphones (which Sony has tried to do, the failure was epic BTW) It would have been done years ago.

One slightly related note. Setting sub-woofers in the back of rooms in theaters is done for "spooky" effects. It is disorienting for LF sound to come from behind and the brain does not like it. Much like the "Voice Of God" I refereed to above. It makes computer graphs look nice but that's about it.
mark haflich likes this.

Last edited by Billy Boden; 10-26-2014 at 05:05 PM. Reason: spelling
Billy Boden is offline  
post #42 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 06:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
xvfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Boden View Post
One slightly related note. Setting sub-woofers in the back of rooms in theaters is done for "spooky" effects. It is disorienting for LF sound to come from behind and the brain does not like it. Much like the "Voice Of God" I refereed to above. It makes computer graphs look nice but that's about it.
Heh! This was good.
xvfx is offline  
post #43 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 06:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
OzHDHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Antipodes aka Oz
Posts: 3,246
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1226 Post(s)
Liked: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
@Gooddoc,


I have not been a fan 'typically' of any auto room EQ processor I've used, until recently with the Audyssey Platinum XT32 on my Denon 4520CI. It is the first version of room correction that I actually leave enabled after I run it, and think my speakers sound better with it, than without.


We are going to be blind testing some various autoeq systems on Nov 2 in Kansas City g2g. We'll include a control setup with no eq among the blind auditions. It'll be interesting to see how the enthusiasts blind vote in the lineup.


Our testing will include:
YAPO
MCACC
Audyssey
DIRAC
Trinnov
AccuEQ


(then we are going to play with an Atmos AVR as well.)

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-rec...nsas-city.html
You left RoomPerfect off the list. I moved from the 4520ci with XT32 on to a secondhand MX150 with RoomPerfect and just as a few other members who quite frequently evaluate AVR's and AVP's for room correction and EQ abilities also found, RoomPerfect left XT32 in the dust with it's RC and EQ'ing. I now have RP in a newer media room install, that's not McIntosh based and it too is remarkably good. With that said it is almost certain I'll be moving the MX150 on for a Marantz 8802 with ATMOS and back to Audyssey early next year. Hopefully I won't miss RP too much in that system.
OzHDHT is online now  
post #44 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 07:19 PM
Member
 
Flatnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Watched this earlier today. Long time lurker and I watch the netcast regularly. But man this was a good one. Just wanted to say "keep up the good work." This kind of stuff is why I tune in.
GLBright likes this.
Flatnate is offline  
post #45 of 59 Old 10-26-2014, 07:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 3,258
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1881 Post(s)
Liked: 4905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatnate View Post
Watched this earlier today. Long time lurker and I watch the netcast regularly. But man this was a good one. Just wanted to say "keep up the good work." This kind of stuff is why I tune in.
Thanks so much for your kind words!
mark haflich likes this.
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
post #46 of 59 Old 10-27-2014, 11:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
javanpohl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,254
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 848 Post(s)
Liked: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by UofAZ1 View Post
Here in Phoenix we have both IMAX and a theater called the Cinema Capri built and designed by Dan Harkins of Harkins theaters. His theater has a screen bigger than IMAX, has 140 speakers and is Dolby Atmos. He has his sound system calibrated to be the best several times a year and it shows. I find IMAX to be way to loud but the Cinema Capri has just mind blowing sound and the subs are calibrated to be hit in the chest tight and well controlled and with that enormous theater to be filled with that much bass is quite an achievement. I have 12 subs in my main home theater. Ten mid bass subs and two deep bass subs all calibrated to be very tight and well controlled and can honestly say I am always all smiles at the cinema Capri. Now I only go to a theater during movies like the Avengers and such but it's always the Capri. I belong to another HT forum group and when I had a gtg at my home I had a couple buddies who travelled from Canada and California and I took them to see IronMan 2 at the Capri and they were blown away at just how powerful and great the audio was.

Best thing is the ticket price is only 1.00 more than regular ticket price of the other twelve theaters in the same complex. They are out there but for the most part yeah theaters suck.
Nothing like finding a theater that has really good sound.
javanpohl is offline  
post #47 of 59 Old 10-27-2014, 12:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Daniel Chaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: LA (Valley Village)
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 614 Post(s)
Liked: 484
Yeah I do hate when dialog is low compared to the rest of the audio track, like Transformers 4, there is many scenes that the audio is so low that you want to raise the volume but then next thing you know some explosion or gun shot or something goes off and now your ears are bleeding lol... I know there is like night time viewing settings and so on but I really dont like the idea of having to alter the original audio just to have a more stable volume level, most of the time this is mostly an attempt to not upset the neighbors up stairs lol...

So just so I understand, he wants to shift from calibrating a room, to calibrating speakers directly correct? I can see how calibrating a theater room would be next to impossible because the room is always changing and that changing factor is the amount of bodies in the theater and where they all cluster or spread out so that would effect the sound right?

I dont know overall sound hasnt been much of an issue when I have gone to a theater but to be fair I have only gone to a handful of theater on a regular basis, AMC Burbank 16, Cinemark 18 & XD, Americana Theater (cant remember which chain is that one), and a really run down Rigel and Cinemark that is near by now those two yeah I can hear an audio difference but when your spending so little on a ticket I wasnt expecting to much from them lol... but overall the sound seemed consistent but I wasnt exactly watching the same movie over and over at each theater.

As for my home "theater" I have tuned that to speaker specs and to my own ear which seemed to sound better than when I used the built in room calibrator.

Projector: BenQ w1500 + ES Sable 135" 16:9 Screen AVR: Marantz SR6011 ATMOS/DTSX + Unity 2ch Amp + Darbee 5000s Speakers: Polk Audio TSX550t (FL/FR), CS2 Series II (C), FXiA6 (SL/SR), Monitor40 Series II (RL/RR), TSx110B (Ceiling FL/FR RL/RR) LFE: (2) JL Audio 12" Subs + (2) Dayton 15" Subs + (2) ButtKicker LFE Arrangement: 7.1.4 Source: OPPO UDP-203 4k Bluray Player, Roku 4, HTPC, 2017 nVidia Shield, Hauppauge OTA DVR
Daniel Chaves is offline  
post #48 of 59 Old 10-27-2014, 01:11 PM
Member
 
Wolfy701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 65
I stopped going to the Met Opera HD live streaming at local theaters after the novelty had worned off. The over-EQ'ed, over-loud 'movie sound' just became unbearable for serious classical music. I get much better sound at home listening to the same broadcasts via Sirius or HD Radio with my modest 5.1 or 2-channel setup.

This affirms my long-held belief that music speakers and systems are great for movies, but movie systems, soundbars, etc are lousy for music.

Source: Thinkpad running iTunes/JRMC upsampling to 24/192
DAC/SACD: Oppo 105D
Amps: Pathos Aurium, Chord Mojo, LG V20 (quad-dac)
AVR: Yamaha Aventage RX-A3010
Headphones: AKG K812, AKG K3003
Wolfy701 is offline  
post #49 of 59 Old 10-27-2014, 02:02 PM
Member
 
barleyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
This is an excellent episode.
I like the Brian McCarty completely wipes the notion of room calibration.
I always thought/heard that EQ'ing the room using measurement mic makes the speakers sound like ****.
I've been curious about this ever since I started visiting this site. I come from a music recording background. In those circles, using graphic EQ to "flatten" the speakers to a room is mostly considered a failed theory, and most studios quit doing it a couple of decades ago. It's done in live sound, partly because a mix engineer is trying to mix in a room he may have never been in before, but often it's only used to get the levels between the drivers correct on a system with active crossovers. And even when graphic EQ is used, it's generally a starting point, tuned by ear afterwards.

Specifically, if you EQ at 1/3 octave and afterwards measure at 1/6 octave, everything will look like crap. It's a rabbit hole that never ends. And as Brian pointed out, EQing using an RTA and then measuring with FFT will again make things look like crap. And as he said, measuring with an RTA and moving the mic 6 inches to the left will, again, make things look like crap. That's not to mention all the phase damage that graphic equalizers do. Their fundamental operation is through phase cancellation.

So in short, I mostly consider "EQing a room" to be a failed theory, as many recording studio people have for years.
barleyguy is offline  
post #50 of 59 Old 10-27-2014, 08:50 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,129
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2756 Post(s)
Liked: 2675
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post
I had to laugh at the poster who chimed in the if theaters are too loud, you are too old. I would opine that if you don't appreciate that theaters are too loud (especially IMAX), you are too how shall I put it "young"? I agree that wetted tissue paper works but I now bring ear plugs to the theater. Also, real butter on popcorn, what a concept!
Yup. That comment was just one more ludicrous declaration. I was going to respond myself, but then I saw who made the comment and...never-mind...
R Harkness is offline  
post #51 of 59 Old 10-28-2014, 06:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,117
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 657 Post(s)
Liked: 434
I went to see Fury opening weekend here at a movie theater in Pittsburgh called the South Side Works Cinema. Its a newer theater but I've never been totally wow'd by the quality. I go because I can walk there after work and theres a lot of great places to go nearby for happy hour.

Well, the presentation of Fury looked as good as I've ever seen a film. Very vibrant picture and extremely immersive but not overbearing sound.

Turns out Will Smith was in the house that night - he's in town filming a movie. So I can only imagine the cinema had their top projectionist/technical people come in and tune the auditorium up for the film

My basement media room and bar
Epson 2030, Onkyo TX-NR626, and Kodi based system

Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is offline  
post #52 of 59 Old 10-28-2014, 01:16 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 14,441
Mentioned: 397 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5538 Post(s)
Liked: 5367
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
This is an excellent episode.
I like the Brian McCarty completely wipes the notion of room calibration.
I always thought/heard that EQ'ing the room using measurement mic makes the speakers sound like ****.
Agreed for the most part. Check my avatar I have nary the experience that others around here do with different EQ systems, but all of the audyssey offerings top to bottom have just made me cringe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dargo View Post
One thing that I cringed at was the statement that Transformers was for Children, really I don't think so Michael F'ing Bay does not make children's movies. What I would like to know Scott are we chasing that same x curve in our home theaters by using Audyssey in our AVR's what is a proper way of calibrating sound for a home theater? and Theaters are too loud? must be a LA thing here in Michigan they are rather low sometimes don't even drown out the sound of crunching popcorn.
No, you aren't. Audyssey's target curve is flat with a "slight" sloping response starting around 8khz up. The audyssey flat is flat all the way up to your speaker's basic capability. The x-curve has a more pronounced upper end rolloff:


European Models do not accept banana plugs
Belly of the Beast: Bass Bunker Theater
beastaudio is offline  
post #53 of 59 Old 10-31-2014, 11:01 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,694
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3832 Post(s)
Liked: 6530
My main issue with Audyssey is it tries to correct so far up the frequency response where the room is dominating more than the speaker. Plus it completely negates all the voicing done by the speaker manufacturer to make them sound the same. Harmon's speaker whirl is a great idea but I question the fact that it is a single channel measurement and doesn't take into account how stereo speakers interact with each other. There are known issues in the frequency band that cause issues with stereo playback that are not an issue with mono.

This is one of the main reasons I'm a fan of ARC. It allows you to set the highest frequency you're EQ'ing so you can concentrate on issues that should be EQ'ed and leave the rest. It isn't a perfect system, but it doesn't try to make every speaker the same speaker, and it doesn't try to fix a room that is unfixable if you don't want it to. That's what room treatments are for.
GLBright likes this.

My Home Theater UPDATED DEC 2017
Technical Editor/Writer Sound and Vision Magazine
Deep Dive AV - Calibration, Consulting and Education
Kris Deering is offline  
post #54 of 59 Old 11-02-2014, 08:58 AM
Member
 
prm1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
My main issue with Audyssey is it tries to correct so far up the frequency response where the room is dominating more than the speaker.
Kris,

Could you clarify this? My understanding is that one moves up in frequency, the room dominates less and the direct sound from the speaker moves to the fore. Generally room effects begin with modal issues at low frequencies, boundary response issues higher up, with the loudspeaker's power response affecting tonal perception in the upper frequencies.

I, too, believe that one should be able to set the upper limit in Audyssy correction.
prm1138 is offline  
post #55 of 59 Old 11-02-2014, 10:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,694
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3832 Post(s)
Liked: 6530
Quote:
Originally Posted by prm1138 View Post
Kris,

Could you clarify this? My understanding is that one moves up in frequency, the room dominates less and the direct sound from the speaker moves to the fore. Generally room effects begin with modal issues at low frequencies, boundary response issues higher up, with the loudspeaker's power response affecting tonal perception in the upper frequencies.

I, too, believe that one should be able to set the upper limit in Audyssy correction.
To an extent, but that is mainly with your ears, not with a mic. It is seeing the scatter in your room more. Room modes are what dominate the lower end. And Audyssey goes for a mainly flat response with a slow roll off. Most speaker manufacturers have some type of voicing done to their speakers that isn't going to match that curve (except maybe some Harmon stuff and PSB). Defeating that pretty much defeats the speaker manufacturers intent.

My Home Theater UPDATED DEC 2017
Technical Editor/Writer Sound and Vision Magazine
Deep Dive AV - Calibration, Consulting and Education
Kris Deering is offline  
post #56 of 59 Old 11-02-2014, 03:05 PM
Member
 
prm1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 20
The effect of the "scatter" of sound in a room on a measurement can be mitigated by the time window used by the software evaluating the signal's return. With a stochastic signal (pink noise for example, it is impossible to determine what is direct and what is reflected or reverberant sound. Test signals using tracking filters do a pretty good job of rejecting reverberant sound at higher frequencies (SysID, MLSSA, TEF, etc). I believe that Audyssey uses a similar system.

That said, I agree with you that EQ at frequencies where the direct sound from a speaker is dominant is room dependent and ill advised when using a well designed speaker.
prm1138 is offline  
post #57 of 59 Old 11-02-2014, 07:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
maxmercy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by See The Light View Post
I hardly grace the door of a movie theater...there's just too much that can go "wrong". Home theater is the way to go. Let the huddled masses have their fodder.
Agreed, But lately, some of the 'home mixes' available on BluRay are clipped and compressed messes, catering to the masses with HTIBs and TV speakers...with no theatrical mix audio option in most cases.

JSS
maxmercy is offline  
post #58 of 59 Old 11-03-2014, 01:36 PM
Member
 
prm1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
Point understood. I think. However, if I were to take your M2 speaker and place it in my baffle wall, it almost certainly would not retain the ruler flat frequency response it was designed for. My baffle wall would give it a big boost at around 100Hz. My room would also do other random wicked things to the speaker's native flat fr, as measured from the mlp.
The point of the baffle wall is sometimes misunderstood. The 2pi steradian mounting of a speaker in a bafflewall does provide a low frequency boundary gain. However this is much easier to deal with than the multiple mid and LF reflections which would come from the back wall of a theater, behind the screen. Those reflections would cause constructive and destructive interference which would vary depending on seating location. The 2pi boost would be across all seating locations and could be dealt with through a gentle high pass filter.

The baffle wall is also usually treated with absorption, which minimizes the comb filtering caused by screen reflections. Baffle walls are good and I have used them to good effect with M2s in small cinema environments. Remember, one is trying to achieve a consistent sound experience across a wide audience area.
prm1138 is offline  
post #59 of 59 Old 10-09-2016, 07:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 34
The comment on the movie NOAH topping 120/130 dB is completely unbelievable, because only a single frequency at a time can reach 103 dB per channel; everything else must be absolute noise floor, otherwise there's severe clipping.
The actual maximum level with broad spectrum is about -11 dBFS, or 92 dB per channel (max SPL is 103 because Dolby noise is -18).
Now, if the theater was calibrated correctly and if Atmos is truly 9.1 bed channels, then the maximum SPL with all channels at full can only be 92*10 = ca. 102 + 103 (LFE broad spectrum max is -10 dBFS) = 106 dB.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply AVS Forum® Podcasts

Tags
frontpage , Home Theater Geeks

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off