Originally Posted by m. zillch
That's not always easy to tell, but that doesn't mean arbitrarily monkeying around with an EQ is achieving accuracy, it is only achieving personal preference, which is not my goal. YMMV. [ I guess I'm the only one here who doesn't seek preference; I seek high fidelity.] If the master is unavailable to compare to the copy this doesn't mean everything is up for grabs, it just means we don't know the answer and restoration can only be a guess. I personally choose not to guess, especially when I have good reason to believe there are many and common false sources for infrasonic content which are actually mistakes/noise. YMMV.
Again, I totally respect your desire for high fidelity, as far as reproducing what was heard in the mixing room.
But I guess I also take a step back and ask myself if I want what I hear to be "accurate" according to what was heard in the mixing room, or to use First Man as an example, more "accurate" as far as how the Saturn V rocket actually sounded. Now, of course, one could certainly argue that the mixer intended to filter the bass out "for effect", and there are certainly times where there are filters/modifications applied to sound effects "for effect". Is the launch in First Man one of those? Maybe, but that would seem like a very strange choice. If you watched that demo clip on your system having never seen the movie or knowing what the stock mix is like, with and without BEQ, even with modest subs, the perceivable difference between the two would be like someone is simply turning your subs on and off. It won't be over the top with BEQ, it will be balanced and feel normal. It actually feels abnormal with BEQ off, you're expecting some
bass given what's happening on-screen, and there's just...nothing.
So I think we're all just left wondering if the mixer really intended for that entire mix of First Man to sound that weak, and if so, why? Is it because they think microphones in 1969 weren't capable of recording infrasonics? Is it because there's no ULF on the moon? Is it because Neil Armstrong's grandson has a soundbar?
Obviously I'm kidding with that stuff, but it's just such an unusual mix in that respect, with essentially zero bass throughout the entire film, that it makes us wonder what is intentional and what is not? What is accurate and what is not? I think it totally depends on the context, and the circle of confusion means the type of absolute "accurate to what the mixer heard" standard you're chasing is out the window anyway. That doesn't mean you shouldn't chase it, but I guess we don't feel that standard is the "end all, be all" like you do.
So I think that sort of wonder and questioning of what is intentional is what spurred the initial discussion in here, knowing
posts in here, and wanting to get his take on this stuff. His opinion is just one opinion, but it offers a special insight and is valuable to know. The discussion has obviously at this point shifted and derailed this thread as it has turned into a debate on the merits of BEQ. But I don't think that was anyone's intention from the beginning (here we go trying to determine intent again), and didn't want it to offend anyone in here. At this point, it feels to me a lot like a political discussion, or sealed vs. ported, where I cringe when I see those discussions happening as they always seem to incite passion and make emotions run high. And like I said in my first post weighing in on this stuff, I don't really care where the various lines actually fall, because my goal is to maximize enjoyment above all else. If nothing else, I think it's tough to argue with that as a goal for a man living a short life on this Earth.