AVS Forum banner

4201 - 4220 of 4251 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I think your English is perfectly fine :) the only issue is that Youtube doesn't support anything other than plain 2.0 stereo, so are you 100% sure that that video even contains DTS:X? It's plain 2.0 stereo here.
Perhaps I have mis-read, because you use the word emulation, so you know that it's just a 2.0 soundtrack and it's relying solely on the AVR's DTS Neural:X up-mixer.
Thanks for replying. I'm sorry I forgot to mention that I downloaded that video from this website. It has DTS:X audio and my AVR had no trouble playing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
I just read this article/interview on CEPro.com (https://www.cepro.com/audio-video/interview-geir-skaaden-dts/)

(Edit: This discussion on film-tech.com REALLY goes at it : http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f16/t001428/p1.html

Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks near field mixes and dynamic range crushing changes are a miserable, misguided strategy to making sound bar friendly mixes instead of bringing the actual cinema experience home as close to the real thing as possible.

What is going to separate IMAX Enhanced releases from normal studio ones, people wonder and/or make fun of Imax Enhanced as a do nothing money grab through licensing, but I figured just getting the full IMAX picture on titles that left out the scenes entirely would be an improvement even if the DTS:X sound mixes were straight conversions from the Atmos mix, but clearly the goal is to bring the TRUE theater mix home and not make special "home mixes" that are often robbed of their theatrical qualities.

Hearing the original DTS Cinema soundtrack for The Matrix (converted from a cinema DTS APT disc) as it is and comparing it to both the old TrueHD/DD 5.1 tracks and the new Atmos track and finding it far superior to both in dynamics, I must say this is great news indeed. I'm tired of cinema tracks being scaled down to sound good on TV speakers and sound bars. AVRs already have near field settings (treble reduction) and dynamic range compression settings. They can adjust a cinema track to sound better in smaller rooms with garbage speakers but you cannot bring a home track back to cinema standards once modified for EQ and dynamic range.

Anyone who has heard real cinema tracks at home can tell you how superior they are on a good system in a larger room (e.g. Laserdisc DTS original Jurassic Park soundtrack-- most DTS laserdiscs were little changed from the cinema mixes). I'm sure it keeps someone in a job, though.

TrueHD and DTS Master HD promised the original lossless unaltered studio tracks at home, but that was clearly a lie. They've been altering the tracks at some studios since the early 21st Century and it's only been getting worse with studio pre-altered bass trimmed tracks and lowered dynamic range relative to dialog despite digital controls being able to do that for you at the push of a button.

There's a great discussion about this subject at www.film-tech.com/ubb/f12/t001084.html

As you'll see, "near field" mixing really means some guy and his own hearing biases remixing the cinema soundtrack to sound "better to him" at a mixing console with speakers closer than a theater, much closer than even a home theater. Personally, I think with all the space available on UHD discs and hard drive space on streaming servers that we deserve to have the OPTION to hear the actual cinema soundtracks (often more than one even like the 70mm mixes, mono, etc.).

Le roi est mort, vive le roi!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
Le roi est mort, viva le roi!

That should be "Le roi est mort, vive le roi!" (IOW "que le roi vive.")

Just because we Americans butcher the subjunctive mood in our native language is no excuse for doing it to the French!:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
That should be "Le roi est mort, vive le roi!" (IOW "que le roi vive.")

Just because we Americans butcher the subjunctive mood in our native language is no excuse for doing it to the French!:D
My god... The Grammar police are on here too?!? It was on a smart phone for god's sake. I make a thousand typos a second on that horrible touch screen interface with my fat fingers and then it "spell corrects" French words on top of that (had to retype the entire thing twice), let alone try to remember French grammar from high school 26 years ago (I was thinking of the Enigma album of the same name, but probably thought of the Elvis song Viva Las Vegas mixed in). Hell, I'm lucky I didn't spell every word wrong. :p

My German from college is much better, but still grammatically terrible (never could remember three sets of arbitrary genders for words and which my nit-picking professor always took deducted points) plus I rarely get to use it (recent trip to Europe notwithstanding three years ago when I was in both Germany and Belgium. At least I got a waffle when I ordered it in Belgium and not something else. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
My god... The Grammar police are on here too?!? It was on a smart phone for god's sake. I make a thousand typos a second on that horrible touch screen interface with my fat fingers and then it "spell corrects" French words on top of that (had to retype the entire thing twice), let alone try to remember French grammar from high school 26 years ago (I was thinking of the Enigma album of the same name, but probably thought of the Elvis song Viva Las Vegas mixed in). Hell, I'm lucky I didn't spell every word wrong. :p

My German from college is much better, but still grammatically terrible (never could remember three sets of arbitrary genders for words and which my nit-picking professor always took deducted points) plus I rarely get to use it (recent trip to Europe notwithstanding three years ago when I was in both Germany and Belgium. At least I got a waffle when I ordered it in Belgium and not something else. :D




Or, as my father used to exclaim to me: "Dumm geboren und nichts dazu gelernt . . . bleibst dumm!":)
 
  • Like
Reactions: smurraybhm

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
Off topic and improper reply to poster's behavior removed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
Really? You don't say! My dad used to like to say this when he heard things like that: "Besser dumm als ein Arschloch!" ;)

Or "Ich hab' eins, aber du bist eins!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
Off topic and improper reply to poster's behavior removed

For the record, I did not take it that way. It's all in fun.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
For the record, I did not take it that way. It's all in fun.:D
I removed it myself before the moderators got to it as it was getting out of hand. This thread is about DTS:X and related movie surround sound and I'd prefer to keep it that way than trade Confucius sayings or my daddy said....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,537 Posts
Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks near field mixes and dynamic range crushing changes are a miserable, misguided strategy to making sound bar friendly mixes instead of bringing the actual cinema experience home as close to the real thing as possible.
Near-field mixing and dynamic range compression are two separate things. Not all near-field mixing compresses dynamic range.

Anyone who has heard real cinema tracks at home can tell you how superior they are on a good system in a larger room (e.g. Laserdisc DTS original Jurassic Park soundtrack-- most DTS laserdiscs were little changed from the cinema mixes).
The Jurassic Park DTS Laserdisc had its bass goosed up beyond theatrical levels. It was not a "real cinema track."

As you'll see, "near field" mixing really means some guy and his own hearing biases remixing the cinema soundtrack to sound "better to him" at a mixing console with speakers closer than a theater, much closer than even a home theater.
If I'm not mistaken, most near-field and mid-field mixes are performed by the original mixer as a de rigueur step in creating the soundtrack deliverables, not some random dude fiddling with the mix later.

The worst offender for dynamic range compression (and poor Atmos usage in general) by far is Disney. Their theatrical mixes sound just as poor as their home mixes. Whatever is happening at that studio is endemic to the whole soundtrack creation process, and can't just be blamed on the home theater near-field mixes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
Near-field mixing and dynamic range compression are two separate things. Not all near-field mixing compresses dynamic range.
Maybe you should actually READ those threads before you go spouting off. Those are theater owners and people who work in the industry discussing it.
The Jurassic Park DTS Laserdisc had its bass goosed up beyond theatrical levels. It was not a "real cinema track."
Sorry, but that is not what I read from actual cinema owners that also own the home systems. They have access to both soundtracks in many many cases we do not. That Jurassic Park laserdisc was a straight conversion of the cinema soundtrack as apparently (according to the threads) were nearly *ALL* DTS and AC-3 laserdiscs made before 1999/2000. The industry did NOT start using "near field mixes" until 1999/2000 for digital soundtracks according to that thread featuring a guy that is an editor in the industry. Anyone who has heard early DTS and AC-3 laserdiscs knows how big the differences are (not just DTS ones).

Similarly, there are often huge differences between DVD and BD releases and oddly, the DVD releases were often better according to numerous reports in that thread. The studios are hiring people to go back and alter the soundtracks for sound bars and are garbage systems. THAT is the reason they suck.

"Near Field" is supposed to mean they adjust the soundtrack to sound good with speakers closer to the mixing console (~8 feet according to the thread), but it ALSO means they adjust it (BY EAR alone) to sound "better" for the home environment. THAT means, according to that thread anything the sound guys or studio wants it to mean. The most common things that are adjusted are reduced treble for "near field" (something that THX RE-EQ and similar settings in modern AVRs are supposed to compensate for using the X-curve, not adjusting the master mix) and dynamic range reduction and level compensation for the notion that most people listen at very low levels in the home environment, typically on TV speakers and sound bars and even larger systems at far lower levels than the cinema. AVRs have circuitry to compensate, TVs and cheap sound bars often do not. The industry feels catering to the lowest common denominator should take preference as that is the majority of their sales (despite the fact such people wouldn't notice anything but having to turn up the volume to hear dialog).

If I'm not mistaken, most near-field and mid-field mixes are performed by the original mixer as a de rigueur step in creating the soundtrack deliverables, not some random dude fiddling with the mix later.
That only applies to newer soundtracks (but even then, the editing guy on there admits they typically lower dynamic range and levels and turn up the center channel for home mixes due to most homes having basic/crap systems. When they go back and get ready to release a Blu-Ray remaster, the original team is often not involved (with exceptions). Supposedly, this is why the 5.1 soundtrack on Back to the Future apparently sucks compared to the DVD mix (I think I need to compare them now). They altered it extensively far beyond any "near field" concept, but rather to their own personal taste or idea what they think it should sound like at home. The notion argued on those forums is precisely that you CANNOT pre-mix soundtracks to sound good in the home because every home playback system and environment is different. It would be FAR BETTER to release the Cinematic soundtrack and let the playback equipment (AVR/TV) apply the most common changes made (X-Curve/"RE-EQ"/compensation/whatever the AVR wants to call treble reduction), dynamic range compensation and dialog normalization rather than than someone presetting these things on the soundtrack itself, which varies how much and what is done by every single studio and sound crew since it's typically all done SUBJECTIVELY BY EAR.

You wonder why some soundtracks just plain suck? It's because the editing or mixing guys have tin ears or some notion about to whom they're selling the soundtrack (should sound good on a flat screen TV!). Would it be acceptable to modify the Mona Lisa for display in a home with incandescent lighting by altering the paint colors used and repaint it rather than adjust the home lighting? That is exactly what they are doing. They CANNOT know if your home playback environment is 8x12 or 40x20. They cannot know if your MLP is 8 feet from the speakers or 20 feet from them. Yet that is exactly the assumptions they make. They don't do this for the cinema environment. They set one standard and let the cinema set up and/or adjust their EQ to match. Even then according to this thread, many cinemas do not and have no played at the levels they're supposed to be playing it at, which affects the EQ curve results. Have you heard consistent sound in cinemas? Probably not. That was what THX was supposed to be about until they sold out the licenses to every exception and lower standard imaginable such as the exception for historical theaters (so they can stick the THX logo on them anyway despite the fact they don't come close to the THX standards).

The worst offender for dynamic range compression (and poor Atmos usage in general) by far is Disney. Their theatrical mixes sound just as poor as their home mixes. Whatever is happening at that studio is endemic to the whole soundtrack creation process, and can't just be blamed on the home theater near-field mixes.
You're getting hung up on "near field" as if it's some magical process. Read those links. It's not. It's the "code word" for HOME MIX which is more than just the speaker distance these days. It's ultimately done by ear in a subjective fashion and the goal is a home mix, not a "near field mix" even though they call it that. Yes, newer movies are often mixed the next day (according to the industry editing guy) the next day after the cinematic version is done by the same team. But that does not apply to older re-releases "remastered".

Near field in the music industry often means speakers 3 feet away (at least at the studios in question in the thread, it was 8 feet). Who listens to their stereo at 3 feet other than desktop systems? Some of those mixing setups don't have proper bass playback either if they are not employing subwoofers to compensate for tiny monitors (you'd apparently be surprised how many do not use subs). How do they adjust their bass with tiny monitors if they don't use subwoofers? Well, in many cases in the past that's why bass was so inconsistent on CD releases. You cannot adjust what you cannot hear. When I mixed my own album myself, I checked it on about 5 different systems from a high-end 2-channel system to a home theater to computer speakers to a car playback system to headphones and adjust things so they sounded pretty good on all of them. But that took time and I wasn't being paid by the hour for my own mixing and mastering. I just bought "Wicked Game" by Chris Isaak off iTunes and it was from the "Greatest Hits" album. It was CLIPPING like mad in some places. It was about 8dB LOUDER (due to normalization and over compensation in dynamic range reduction) than the original track which I bought next to compare. That track does NOT CLIP AT ALL. So, like many "remasters" these days, the GOAL is to make them AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE and sadly, despite all kinds of digital tools to ensure clipping does not occur, IT HAPPENS ANYWAY. The original version sounds fantastic. The remaster is clipping garbage. It's sad as one day the original mixes will all probably disappear and be replaced by this LOUDNESS WAR "remastered" garbage.

Mind you, all of these things (save the bit about Wicked Game) are extrapolated from what I read, not my personal opinions (other than that I'd prefer they give us the cinema soundtrack and let us match it rather than try to match a non-existent standard). Again, they can't know if a home system has seating 8 feet or 28 feet away. I have three rows. Near field works for the front row. I only have to look at my REW results to see that the middle and back row could use "flat" response instead of "Reference" in terms of treble as it falls off quickly the further you get away. A seat at 20 feet does not hear the same result as 8 feet. Room correction can only correct one small area (typically 3x3 I think).

Disney is recent. That thread dates back to 2013 before Disney crapped all over everything. They STILL had huge complaints about numerous soundtracks. I think the worst studio then was supposedly 20th Century Fox. I'd have to read it again to be sure. I believe they brought up the Indiana Jones films as being pretty close to the previous releases and I can confirm that I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark (THX Blu-Ray) at 0dB reference and sounded GREAT at theater levels. Why? They didn't screw with the original soundtrack. Paramount supposedly does straight conversions, not near-field.

The point of the thread originally (and why I put it in this thread) is that Imax Enhanced titles using DTS:X will NOT be using Near Field mixes according to that interview, at least. They will be using the cinematic mixes at high quality and full dynamic range, not "made for home" crap that is on MOST Blu-Rays out there these days. Like I said, you think Disney is the worst, but when I compared THE MATRIX in Cinema DTS (converted from the APT cinema discs) and compared it to even the Atmos mix (which generally got rave reviews), the dynamic range isn't even CLOSE. It's about 8dB louder during big scenes for sound effects max volume compared to the Atmos track with dialog levels MATCHED. That's nearly twice as loud to the ear. That's not a small difference and that is a title that virtually NO ONE complained about. Now imagine how bad Disney titles are that people actually NOTICED.

Supposedly, they've even dumbed down cinema mixes. The old Dolby Digital "Train" trailer was supposedly so loud that it blew speakers at some theaters so after awhile, Dolby reduced the dynamic range and levels on the trailers. There was nothing wrong with the original (it sounds better on a good system) except that many theaters had crap gear and they couldn't handle those levels (amps clipped and bam, there goes the the speakers). It's all in those threads. Supposedly, it was so scary sounding in a proper theater that the one guy said during, (I believe) The Lion King, kids were crying the train demo scared them so badly. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,537 Posts
That Jurassic Park laserdisc was a straight conversion of the cinema soundtrack as apparently (according to the threads) were nearly *ALL* DTS and AC-3 laserdiscs made before 1999/2000. The industry did NOT start using "near field mixes" until 1999/2000 for digital soundtracks according to that thread featuring a guy that is an editor in the industry. Anyone who has heard early DTS and AC-3 laserdiscs knows how big the differences are (not just DTS ones).
If both the DTS and AC-3 Laserdiscs were taken from the original cinema mix, then those two discs should sound the same (or at least largely similar) to one another. Yet they don't. At all. DTS Laserdiscs were famous/notorious for goosing the bass, because at that time DTS did its own proprietary remixing to all soundtracks and wanted to distinguish itself from Dolby with a so-called "signature sound." The fact that a lot of listeners enjoyed the super-bassy version more doesn't make it more accurate to the original mix.

I recently rewatched portions of the GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies DTS Laserdiscs, and the bass in them was comically exaggerated so much that even the smallest of sound effects will shake your walls. That's fun for a minute or two, but it also grows fatiguing very quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfa973

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
If both the DTS and AC-3 Laserdiscs were taken from the original cinema mix, then why don't those two discs sound the same as one another? DTS Laserdiscs were famous/notorious for goosing the bass, because at that time DTS did its own proprietary remixing to all soundtracks and wanted to distinguish itself from Dolby with a so-called "signature sound.". The fact that a lot of listeners enjoyed the super-bassy version more doesn't make it more accurate to the original mix.

I recently rewatched portions of the GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies DTS Laserdiscs, and the bass in them was comically exaggerated so much that even the smallest of sound effects will shake your walls. That's fun for a minute or two, but it also grows fatiguing very quickly.
Did you have the AC-3 laserdisc or are you assuming that's the ONLY difference? Did you compare the Cinema DTS version too? It was THE original 5.1 version and is what made DTS famous so the DTS version IS the standard for Jurassic Park, "goosed" (by your opinion) or not. Universal RE-RELEASED the DVDs with more bass because both had terrible bass. I don't believe the differences stopped there, either. The DVDs were STILL before the "near field" era and so the overall presentation would not be the same as newer releases regardless of the bass content. The newer Blu-Rays were supposedly returned to awfulness and the new DTS:X Blu-Rays have reduced bass below 30Hz (only). Reducing sub-sonic bass is becoming common practice on many Blu-Rays/home mixes REGARDLESS of "near field" or not. The trend towards lower and lower quality sound (to not blow up sound bar and tv speakers presumably) is getting out of hand. We get an ultra-high quality 4K picture now, but often with sub-standard audio compared to the theatrical mixes. The amount of bass is not a near-field issue. Bass does not behave that way near-field. That is a treble only issue. But the treble issue can be solved with the "reference" (or RE-EQ on THX) setting on the AVR/processor. The comments also suggest they often bump up the center channel output (you can do this yourself if you wanted it that way) AND reduce the stereo width to better match SMALL TVs (55" or less). That will affect playback on larger 90-250" screens.

The gist of the argument is some of us would like the original theatrical experience at home. The industry making assumptions that I have a tiny TV with crappy speakers is not giving me the cinematic experience at home. They should either let the hardware do the adjustments for the home or they should include the cinematic track as a secondary track instead of all those foreign language tracks. Streaming versions should make that even simpler to select an alternate track. They think that high-end playback is such a small number of people, why bother? Let them eat cake!

Imax Enhanced is supposedly going to be for higher-end playback systems and hence using the cinematic soundtrack. THAT I think is worth considering even if the picture is no different. We should have high-end movies available rather than compromised ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,537 Posts
Did you have the AC-3 laserdisc or are you assuming that's the ONLY difference? Did you compare the Cinema DTS version too?
I had both the AC-3 and DTS Laserdiscs, and I saw the movie opening weekend in both Dolby and DTS formats. Bass on the DTS Laserdisc was cranked up to 11 and bloated. As it was on all DTS Laserdiscs.

Universal RE-RELEASED the DVDs with more bass because both had terrible bass.
Universal re-released the DVD due to pressure from DTS fanboys who demanded "MOAR BASS MOAR BASS MOAR BASS!!!!!!"

Reducing sub-sonic bass is becoming common practice on many Blu-Rays/home mixes REGARDLESS of "near field" or not.
Key words: "regardless of near field or not." You are quick to blame the concept of near-field mixing with everything you perceive to be wrong with home theater audio today. In fact, the trend toward reduced dynamic range at certain studios starts with their theatrical mixes and carries through to all subsequent media.

Imax Enhanced is supposedly going to be for higher-end playback systems and hence using the cinematic soundtrack.
Supposedly. IMAX makes many promises that may not get followed through.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,997 Posts
DTS Laserdiscs were famous/notorious for goosing the bass, because at that time DTS did its own proprietary remixing to all soundtracks and wanted to distinguish itself from Dolby with a so-called "signature sound."
Shenanigans continued into the early DVD era. Their CAE-4 encoder was tested by Warner Home Video on 5 titles and found to add a .6 dB level boost, just enough to not be perceived as a level difference but instead sound like a difference in sound quality (old audio sales trick). Weird part is that the level boost didn't show up with the internal test tones that were used for level matching to other encoders, only in the program material. Clever. Warners was able to catch this for the three 'Lethal Weapon' DVDs, so the included Dolby and DTS tracks ended up being encoded at the same level. But it was too late for 'Interview With a Vampire' and 'Twister' DVDs, both of which had already shipped with the DTS level boost intact (can still be measured against the Dolby track).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
I had both the AC-3 and DTS Laserdiscs, and I saw the movie opening weekend in both Dolby and DTS formats. Bass on the DTS Laserdisc was cranked up to 11 and bloated. As it was on all DTS Laserdiscs.
I saw the movie at the theater and still have the DTS Laserdisc. The DVDs (I had both DTS and DD AC-3) were terrible. They had NO bass whatsoever. You either have your sub cranked up to 16 (whatever that is supposed to be) or you hate bass. If it were just a 3dB difference, it wouldn't have been a big deal. The DVDs were NEUTERED. A T-REXX, IMO *SHOULD* shake the ground when it stomps. It's not a horse stomping its foot.... Early DTS home releases were like 3-4dB hotter in bass. That's a kick, but it's not +11.

That also has nothing to do with whether they used the cinema mix or some separate "near field" mix for the home release. Near field mixes didn't exist when Jurassic Park came out. I think the first near-field mix was around 2000 ("Seven" on DVD was supposedly the first "near-field mix" according to that discussion you clearly didn't read. (http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f16/t001428/p6.html)

Universal re-released the DVD due to pressure from DTS fanboys who demanded "MOAR BASS MOAR BASS MOAR BASS!!!!!!"
I can't really take you seriously anymore with that attitude. A few dB is hardly +11. Look at Disney's Mandalorian show now. It's not just bass that's low. The whole damn thing is low! I had to turn Audyssey off on the second episode to get sufficient levels it was so low (Audyssey on stops at +1 here; With it OFF, it goes to +18).

There's an entire thread on these forums that measures the Blu-Ray audio releases and then compares the new UHD Atmos/DTS:X versions to see if they made the bass worse and offers adjustment data to Re-equalize it back to the proper levels. Many releases seem to drop bass down at a huge rate below 30Hz. Sub-sonic bass output is almost non-existent on many new rereleases (e.g. Hellboy II: The Golden Army has vastly better deep bass on the original 7.1 release than the new DTS:X version. It's average is flat below 30Hz to below 20Hz on the original BD. The DTS:X one clearly applies a high pass filter around 30Hz to cut out the bass below that point a a steadily increasing rate. Why? To not blow your TV speakers up (a real possibility in some cases; e.g. I keep my old Plasma TV speakers with the bass turned down as far as it can go so it doesn't accidentally get blown up if the system is switched to the TV speakers instead of the home theater speakers).

NO, those are not "near field" issues, but the POINT is that the "Near Field Soundtrack" is the HOME SOUNDTRACK (they are one and the same thing) and that's where ALL these issues are applied. IF they were going to just turn down the treble to compensate for closer speakers, they could let the AVR do it! (Again Home THX's "RE-EQ" was for this purpose!) No, the studios want "home friendly" soundtracks and that means people not complaining their TV speakers blew up watching a movie on them!

Does TRON: Legacy have too much bass? Does Harry Potter? They sound pretty damn good here to me. Now try Black Panther. It's awful.


As for the +0.6dB trick in later discs, what did Sony do with SACD on their dual-format discs? (the ones that had SACD on one side and a CD version on the other and I mean stereo discs in this case, not multi-channel that has other differences to hear) They were mixed so the SACD side was +3dB louder than the CD side. That made people think it sounded BETTER in SACD at the same levels when it was just a volume increase. To this day, people think SACD and 24/96 type stuff is BETTER SOUNDING than 16/44 and it's based on VOODOO not actual audio science. So yeah, DTS was pushing for an advantage in some cases, but that's not what I'm referring to.

If you actually read that thread, some of these people run actual small theaters. They have access to both soundtracks in the same theater (a real theater, not home theater), but they have capability to run BDs too as they say sometimes that's the only thing they have access to for a given movie. Now when they tell me that a given movie like Back To the Future has been modified heavily (and not in a good way), I tend to believe them. If you read the thread, you might believe them too rather than just responding in some emotional manner with your mind closed already.

Key words: "regardless of near field or not." You are quick to blame the concept of near-field mixing with everything you perceive to be wrong with home theater audio today. In fact, the trend toward reduced dynamic range at certain studios starts with their theatrical mixes and carries through to all subsequent media.
I'd like to know where you get this "IN FACT" bit from because I don't see any facts presented, just conjecture based off the top of your head. Other than Disney, what other studios have DECREASED dynamic range at the theater now with Atmos available?

The complaints I've read AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN is that Dolby Atmos theaters are TOO LOUD PERIOD (I can dig up some threads if you like). Now if they think they're too loud, how the hell does THAT translate into TOO QUIET sound effect Blu-Rays??? So as far as I'm concerned, it does NOT apparently start with the theatrical mixes (save possibly Disney as I've not seen a Disney move since The Last Jedi at the theater).


TRON: Legacy used to be THE new home standard for Disney (also referenced in that thread that you STILL HAVE NOT READ as the home version was even better than the theater mix according to Skywalker sound themselves) and now look at Disney. Even old people can't get excited by their Blu-Ray releases. Whomever remixed the Star Wars movies for Disney+ (god bless them), they did a competent job unlike The Mandalorian that is so damn quiet I had to turn off Audyssey in order to raise the volume past +1 because it wasn't at a decent level until +9 (half Apple's fault for low voltage output to begin with and half Disney's fault for thinking their stuff should only be played on TV speakers). Frankly, I don't get why you want to defend sub-standard releases or assume some subjective changes to for "near field" edits are always going to be good.


F. Hudson Miller revealed how it really works. They adjust the mix by listening to it with near-field monitors and they can then literally change ANYTHING THEY WANT in the mix with ProTools. He listed some things that are typically changed. These included:

-Treble is reduced for near-field listening (they assume 8' distance from speakers. If your home theater seating is further away then it's wrong). This the ONLY thing that has anything to do with "near field" rather than "let's assume what your home listening habits are!". This could be corrected with RE-EQ/Reference Audyssey settings. Hard baking it into the mix isn't needed.

-Dynamic Range is reduced (to make dialog closer to sound effect levels because they assume you won't listen anywhere NEAR cinematic levels. Ironically, by doing this they make it almost impossible to listen at 0dB reference because the dialog is then crazy loud by the time the sound effects are up to par). This is the real reason you cannot watch most movies at Cinema Reference levels despite the entire point of Audyssey calibrating your volume dial to 0dB is to give you a cinema reference point.

-In tandem with Dynamic Range changes, overall levels are reduced while doing the mix. The dialog center channel levels are often increased on the assumption you will never want to hear cinematic levels at home (and if you do, too bad).

-Stereo Imaging Width is sometimes reduced for L/C/R sound stage on assumption of tiny screens with speakers to the sides or out from the tiny TV screen. Never mind if you have speakers below, above or behind the screen at home. You cannot fix this once it's baked in. Ironically, people want "front wides" for a WIDER soundstage. Well, if they weren't purposely making it smaller, perhaps you wouldn't feel that urge quite so much?


Everything Home THX came up with when it first came out was to make REAL THEATRICAL SOUNDTRACKS sound at home like they do at the theater but with typical home settings. That was the purpose of RE-EQ and dynamic range compression and standardizing levels and speaker standards. THX eventually fell out of favor when they got too greedy and their licensing standards which had a legitimate purpose when it first came out became a JOKE as everything anybody was willing to pay a fee to have "certified" got certified. THX boom boxes?) and so because of that, now the studios should all go back to just releasing whatever crap they feel like releasing? That's what I'm seeing. The standards from disc to disc and movie to movie seem utterly different now. DVDs at least seemed to try a bit harder to be at the same overall level (bass notwithstanding).

What's the point of running Audyssey to set reference levels, etc. if there is no longer going to be a "reference" ??? 0dB doesn't mean 75 (or THX 85dB)/105dB peaks anymore. It means NOTHING. Disney soundtracks are sure as hell not at reference levels at 0dB on SOME of their discs (ironic since older releases like TRON: Legacy were) and now streaming Star Wars is in a whole different league (better) than the Blu-Ray releases with actual Atmos objects being used while The Mandalorian sounds like it was meant for AM radio or something.


Supposedly. IMAX makes many promises that may not get followed through.
I'd like to see/hear a release comparison before judging it to be crap as you seem to want to do.

Your position seems to basically come down to, 'Everything is great. These people know what they're doing!' And the reality is they're dumbing down the soundtracks for cheap speakers and someone from the industry has admitted as such. They assume small TVs, cheap sound bars or TV speakers and don't want the soundtrack to sound bad on this stuff. They decrease dynamic range so people aren't constantly reaching for the remote volume control to turn up the dialog scenes and turn down the sound effects ones. The problem is in their systems and levels. And that's why almost ALL digital equipment has compression controls baked in so it can do it FOR them. The problem is like most things, the average person has NO IDEA how to work their electronic gadgets (this harkens back to the blinking clock on a VCR thing). Thus, many cable boxes, etc. come with dynamic compression turned ON (and to high) by default so if the person clearly does not know what they're doing, it will probably work for them as a GOOD SETUP would be by someone that knows what they're doing and could adjust the setting anyway (i.e. experienced home theater people or the kind you hire to do it for you).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,537 Posts
Your position seems to basically come down to, 'Everything is great. These people know what they're doing!'
That is not my position at all. I'm just as frustrated by the poor dynamic range of some modern soundtracks as you are. My only position is that you are placing the blame for that on the wrong things.

Also, more bass doesn't always mean better and certainly doesn't always mean more accurate. Those old DTS Laserdiscs had ridiculously overcooked bass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
That is not my position at all. I'm just as frustrated by the poor dynamic range of some modern soundtracks as you are. My only position is that you are placing the blame for that on the wrong things.

Also, more bass doesn't always mean better and certainly doesn't always mean more accurate. Those old DTS Laserdiscs had ridiculously overcooked bass.
OK. I decided to actually find out once and for all if the old DTS Laserdisc is "overcooked" with bass as you say. As I said earlier, I still own the DTS Laserdisc and my laserdisc player is connected to my system and all of them can be watched at any time. The picture quality isn't the greatest at 92" 8' away (MLP), but not unwatchable, especially from the 2nd/3rd rows (~15' and ~20' away). I also own the new UHD Blu-Ray DTS:X versions of ALL the Jurassic Park movies ever made. I have the DVDs with the weak bass sitting around somewhere too (well the DD is at my brother's house; I gave it to him for Christmas when I got the DTS version so we could compare). I think I have the digital dump of at least one of them on my old media hard drive (the disc might be packed away as I rid my collection of SD quality discs).

In any case, I set it up to compare the DTS Laserdisc and the UHD Blu-Ray for overall levels including dialog examples and bass examples. I used regular DTS decoding for the laserdisc instead of Neural X and let the DTS:X run in DTS:X and measured some key vocal moments (e.g. "Loading team, step away!") with A-weighting (take bass largely out of the equation) to compare dialog levels and C-weighting (full range) to measure those giant earthquake thumps at the beginning and that musical bass line at the start for comparison purposes.

I hate to tell you this (OK, I really really don't, ;)), but the two were far FAR closer in levels than I would have ever imagined after all these years. Clearly, the team that did the conversion went back to the original master and didn't screw with the levels so much as moving the imaging around. Both dialog AND deep bass were both within less than 2dB of each other for those key sounds at the exact same volume levels on my AVR (and since both are digital and DTS, it's perfectly valid). That means the dynamic range is probably the same (more or less same bass, same dialog levels). They certainly sounded the same to my ears for those bits as they were in the same speakers (center channel and subwoofer). Some of the surround effects were coming from different places in the room and measured differently, but the music and dialog seemed very close. Bass thwacks sounded pretty much the same to me at those moments.

I can't guarantee they didn't change some things around later on what with DTS:X using 7.1.4 instead of 5.1, but overall levels seem pretty much the same. So, if the bass is "ridiculously overcooked" on the Laserdisc then it's "ridiculously overcooked" on the DTS:X UHD Blu-Ray too as they are more or less the same overall level. I didn't use REW on my notebook (not set up at the moment) to compare deep bass frequency EXTENSION (i.e. it's possible
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
I just ordered Angry Birds 2 on sale on UHD Blu-Ray. It's an Imax Enhanced title with DTS:X sound, but comes with a digital code that gives you the iTunes 4K version with Dolby Atmos sound (one of only two titles I know of that are in both DTS:X and Dolby Atmos for the home market (the other being Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom).
 
4201 - 4220 of 4251 Posts
Top