# Has Surround Sound Been Forgotten?



## Prof.

Just of late I've been rather disappointed with the sort of surround sound we get on most blu-rays..and I am getting more and more critical in my old age! lddude:
It's not just the blu-ray system itself that's the problem, it's the production and post production of the movie..

It struck me the other night when watching a blu-ray movie, that the surround sound that was produced for this movie was not really realistic..Sure you could hear good surround effects like a lot of movies have, but it lacked something..
You could hear the surround effects alright and the sound moved up and down the room like a lot of movies, but when it came to ambient sounds, they were either not there at all, or sort of pushed off to the side walls just a little forward of the screen, or were right at the back side walls..
At no point did they fill the entire room, from front to back and from side to side..

Even in many crowd scenes, you quite often feel more like an outside observer rather than a participator in what's happening..

For example..I watched Casino Royale the other night, as it's one of the movies I use for testing audio and acoustic tweaks..
In the scene where Bond is typing his resignation on the yacht, you can hear the water lapping at the back of the boat, (behind you in the room) but there is virtually no ambient sounds..
In a scene like that the whole water area should have given a feeling of what it sounds like to be in a boat on open water, plus the city ahead would be alive with sounds..

If surround sound technology had advanced as much as other production and post production techniques have, we should not only be hearing ambient sounds completely through out our rooms, but it should seem like the ambient surrounds sounds extend beyond our room confines!
I have heard many individual sounds (like birds and crickets or that sort of thing) that appear to be beyond my walls,,but rarely if ever, ambient sounds..

It seems to me that we just don't get that real open air feeling from our surrounds, and in this highly developed technological field..I think they've forgotten surround sound!
What do you guys think?


----------



## atledreier

I completely agree.

Some movies still do this pretty good, but overall, ambience is not what it used to.


----------



## Cory Phoenix

hey prof., 
can you provide some examples of movies that succeed in the surround sound ambiance department? maybe also suggest a couple recent movies that drop the ball? obviously just based on your opinion, but, some examples of titles on both sides of the fence to compare so we can get a better idea of where you're coming from?
thanks!


----------



## eugovector

I'll be listening to this more carefully in the future. At this point I tend to agree. I feel like I've been getting a lot of descrete effects like a door slam, gun shot, or someone yelling, but those border on gimmicky in my opinion. I want to hear someone taking the time to make the subtle reverb of a parking garage, wind whistling on the beach, or road noise during a conversation on a car. I want realism, I want to "be there".


----------



## torceador

Here's hopefully a little explanation.....

If the actors delivered their lines in a scene faultlessly without breaks and cameras could switch from face to face without being detected, THEN ambient microphones could catch all the detail that could re-create a soundscape that was immersed in the action.

All too often, the audio recorded during the shoot, once edited, merely becomes the framework for voice-overs to add dialog back in. They can't use the scratch audio with the original dialog due to its non-linear cuts, so it's wiped, and someone is tasked with recreating the ambient sounds after voice-over.

If you were really ambitious, and some are, you could record a few hours of non-dialog ambient sounds and try to match it up with the finished edit. Otherwise, it's just look for the essential sound effects and poke them in. That, I feel, is what you are expressing.

All this, of course, usually is attempted after the shooting, as budget is in its sunset. So, if there is a pinch, this process can short-cut. (read:cheesy) It can also be muddled up with the conversion from film to consumer media.

Vote with dollars and reviews to keep this a priority with studios.

torceador


----------



## eugovector

Well put.


----------



## Cory Phoenix

torceador said:


> Here's hopefully a little explanation.....
> 
> If the actors delivered their lines in a scene faultlessly without breaks and cameras could switch from face to face without being detected, THEN ambient microphones could catch all the detail that could re-create a soundscape that was immersed in the action.
> 
> All too often, the audio recorded during the shoot, once edited, merely becomes the framework for voice-overs to add dialog back in. They can't use the scratch audio with the original dialog due to its non-linear cuts, so it's wiped, and someone is tasked with recreating the ambient sounds after voice-over.
> 
> If you were really ambitious, and some are, you could record a few hours of non-dialog ambient sounds and try to match it up with the finished edit. Otherwise, it's just look for the essential sound effects and poke them in. That, I feel, is what you are expressing.
> 
> All this, of course, usually is attempted after the shooting, as budget is in its sunset. So, if there is a pinch, this process can short-cut. (read:cheesy) It can also be muddled up with the conversion from film to consumer media.
> 
> Vote with dollars and reviews to keep this a priority with studios.
> 
> torceador


this is very interesting to me. so, what's your take on animated films since practically all the audio mix has to be layered? do you think think that for the most part they make use of more time/effort/skill/budget due to this fact?


----------



## GranteedEV

codog said:


> this is very interesting to me. so, what's your take on animated films since practically all the audio mix has to be layered? do you think think that for the most part they make use of more time/effort/skill/budget due to this fact?


One of the most impressive surround mixes I've heard was the (Japanese track) second Gurren Lagann movie.


----------



## torceador

Animated films do rely even heavier on Foley artists to generate an audio atmosphere to go along with their story. Like the media itself, it is not limited to any yardstick of 'reality'. Just for an opinion (mine), Pixar's 'Up' impressed me as tasteful and realistic and helped me be immersed in the story. 'Battle for Terra' on the other hand, seemed a little on the garish side. 'Star Wars' has had several remixes with succesive media formats, and experienced hits and misses each time. Kudos especially to game developers who seem to use surround techniques on the fly based on gameplay.

torceador


----------



## taoggniklat

codog said:


> hey prof.,
> can you provide some examples of movies that succeed in the surround sound ambiance department? maybe also suggest a couple recent movies that drop the ball? obviously just based on your opinion, but, some examples of titles on both sides of the fence to compare so we can get a better idea of where you're coming from?
> thanks!


I don't watch a lot of movies, but I personally thought Master and Commander was one of the best I have heard with regards to making it sound as if I was there.


----------



## Cory Phoenix

taoggniklat said:


> I don't watch a lot of movies, but I personally thought Master and Commander was one of the best I have heard with regards to making it sound as if I was there.


I can definitely agree with you here. One of my favs as well. I use it all the time as an exhibition piece. Everything from the sounds of wind and waves, to the sounds of people stomping around above you on wood-plank decking, to the splintering of wood as cannonballs rip through the ship hulls. All with dialogue that seems genuine to its surroundings and blends with the environment as opposed to feeling dubbed over all the action audio. Truly masterful.


----------



## Sir Terrence

torceador said:


> Here's hopefully a little explanation.....
> 
> If the actors delivered their lines in a scene faultlessly without breaks and cameras could switch from face to face without being detected, THEN ambient microphones could catch all the detail that could re-create a soundscape that was immersed in the action.


Actually this is not the reason we don't use the live track when mixing. It is mostly due to the ambient noise on a live set. If the movie is a period piece, then a airplane flying overhead would be a problem. ADR is used when the set is just too noisy to use the recorded dialog. 



> All too often, the audio recorded during the shoot, once edited, merely becomes the framework for voice-overs to add dialog back in. They can't use the scratch audio with the original dialog due to its non-linear cuts, so it's wiped, and someone is tasked with recreating the ambient sounds after voice-over.


The ambient sound is created BEFORE the dialog is done in ADR. We usually go to the location and record the ambience during production. We then edit and message the stems and integrate the dialog stem within the track, along with the music stems. 



> If you were really ambitious, and some are, you could record a few hours of non-dialog ambient sounds and try to match it up with the finished edit.


You don't really need a few hours. , You can just loop 20 minutes of ambience and easily integrate dialog and music to it. Nobody would know the difference if you did that. 



> Otherwise, it's just look for the essential sound effects and poke them in. That, I feel, is what you are expressing.


If this is occuring, it is because of budgetary issues. IF you don't have the money to create an all immersive all the time soundtrack, then it isn't going to happen. Also (after all of this time) some directors pay far more attention to the visuals than they do to the sound. 





> All this, of course, usually is attempted after the shooting, as budget is in its sunset. So, if there is a pinch, this process can short-cut. (read:cheesy) It can also be muddled up with the conversion from film to consumer media.
> 
> Vote with dollars and reviews to keep this a priority with studios.
> 
> torceador


The budget for the sound is established BEFORE production, and usually during pre-production. So you already know what you have to work with before they start the camera. 

A finely crafted soundtrack is enormously expensive. With studios looking at lower revenue as a result of slowing DVD sales(which bankrolled movie production), it gets harder and harder to budget big bucks to create a well done soundtrack. It does not have anything to do with the mixer or sound design person, it has everything to do with the budget they are alloted.


----------



## torceador

Sir Terrence,

You have provided a good set of valid responses to my comments. I think both of us have not directed anything towards the actual sound artists. Most are creative and skilled and we would love to spend a day watching them at their console. It really does condense down to time and budget. The soundtrack can even be budgeted well, but if production has been delayed at some previous stage there is always the temptation to rush to meet a promised release date.

Torceador


----------



## Prof.

Thanks everyone for your input..

It seems that the bottom line as to why why we don't get good ambient sound quality in our movies is MONEY!!
I guess the other side to this is that 90% of Joe public, watches these movies on their TV's in their Living rooms, so why would a studio spend a lot of money to get a realistic ambient surround effect, for a small minority of Home Theatre enthusiast's!

On another note of ambient surround sounds, I've noticed that there are inconsistencies in ambient sounds in the same movie...Like one scene will have a nice spread of ambient sounds and then in another scene where you would expect there to be ambient sounds..there's nothing!..Almost like they forgot to include this effect at this point of the movie!

Codog..I can't think of any movies off hand where I was totally satisfied with ambient sounds..There may be one or two, but I would have to play them again to say definitely..
Master and Commander was good, but with a lot of obvious surround effects, like the running on the deck overhead and many more scenes and some good ambient sounds, but from memory, not consistent..

It would be interesting if perhaps we started a list of movies that we thought had good, consistent ambient surround sounds ( not effects) to get an idea of how many of these movies do exist..
It would have to be evaluated on a recent viewing and not from past memory..Just add a movie to the list after viewing that movie a day or so before..


----------



## Prof.

eugovector said:


> I'll be listening to this more carefully in the future. At this point I tend to agree. I feel like I've been getting a lot of descrete effects like a door slam, gun shot, or someone yelling, but those border on gimmicky in my opinion. I want to hear someone taking the time to make the subtle reverb of a parking garage, wind whistling on the beach, or road noise during a conversation on a car. I want realism, I want to "be there".


Yes Marshall..That's exactly my point..I want to feel like I'm in the movie I'm watching and not just an outside observer!


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> Just of late I've been rather disappointed with the sort of surround sound we get on most blu-rays..and I am getting more and more critical in my old age! lddude:
> It's not just the blu-ray system itself that's the problem, it's the production and post production of the movie..
> 
> It struck me the other night when watching a blu-ray movie, that the surround sound that was produced for this movie was not really realistic..Sure you could hear good surround effects like a lot of movies have, but it lacked something..
> You could hear the surround effects alright and the sound moved up and down the room like a lot of movies, but when it came to ambient sounds, they were either not there at all, or sort of pushed off to the side walls just a little forward of the screen, or were right at the back side walls..
> At no point did they fill the entire room, from front to back and from side to side..


Filling the room with loud ambience is A) really distracting, B) Will force you to raise dialog levels and C) would have to be mixed in a room similar to your home theater. At Disney, we already do C, and A and B is not appealing to any movie patron. 



> Even in many crowd scenes, you quite often feel more like an outside observer rather than a participator in what's happening..


Ever been in a large loud crowd and try and hold a discussion? We should be listening to the dialog, not being swamped in a sea of walla effects. 



> For example..I watched Casino Royale the other night, as it's one of the movies I use for testing audio and acoustic tweaks..
> In the scene where Bond is typing his resignation on the yacht, you can hear the water lapping at the back of the boat, (behind you in the room) but there is virtually no ambient sounds..
> In a scene like that the whole water area should have given a feeling of what it sounds like to be in a boat on open water, plus the city ahead would be alive with sounds..


Just because you can see the city, does not necessarily mean you can hear it as well. If one demands more realism in their soundtrack, then the sound designer would have to pay attention to traffic patterns that are occurring while live production is occurring. We don't have that much time. I can sit in Lake Merritt just outside of Downtown Oakland, and not hear anything going on in downtown. I can sit in a boat in the bay, and not hear San Francisco. I recorded the ambient sounds of the bay on Alcatraz Island, and I could not hear any traffic noise coming from the city just 2 miles away. If I used that four channel recording as is(with waves lapping the shore from every direction) it would have been very annoying to listeners. 



> If surround sound technology had advanced as much as other production and post production techniques have, we should not only be hearing ambient sounds completely through out our rooms, but it should seem like the ambient surrounds sounds extend beyond our room confines!
> I have heard many individual sounds (like birds and crickets or that sort of thing) that appear to be beyond my walls,,but rarely if ever, ambient sounds..


Ambient sound on film soundtracks is very low in level. In a theater we sit so far from the speakers, ambient sound emanating from the surrounds is often lost in the acoustics of the theater. In our homes, the ambient room sounds coming from all over the house can mask ambiance recorded in the soundtrack. Ambiance is not created to be noticeable - in fact it is not supposed to be noticed at all. If the refrigerator or a car passing by is louder that the low level ambiance, you lose it. I have heard people complain about the lack of ambiance coming from soundtracks only to find their listening rooms have a very high ambient level. You are not going to hear low level sounds in that kind of room. 



> It seems to me that we just don't get that real open air feeling from our surrounds, and in this highly developed technological field..I think they've forgotten surround sound!
> What do you guys think?


Some of that could be a lack in the speakers themselves. If your speakers do not have the necessary extension(flat to 20khz and beyond) then you won't get an airy sound from them, even if it is on the soundtrack. Most speakers have a roll off at 20khz, so they will never sound "airy". 

If you really heard what you propose and demand from soundtracks, you would be really distracted by it. Gary Reber of Widescreen Review used to complain consistently about this issue, so we arrange a demo for him to hear what it truly sounds like. He does not complain that much any more


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> Filling the room with loud ambience is A) really distracting, B) Will force you to raise dialog levels and C) would have to be mixed in a room similar to your home theater. At Disney, we already do C, and A and B is not appealing to any movie patron.


I'm not suggesting the ambience should be loud..quite the contrary..I'm suggesting it should be subtly and consistently there..
In the real world, we hear ambience constantly where ever we are.. 




> I can sit in a boat in the bay, and not hear San Francisco. I recorded the ambient sounds of the bay on Alcatraz Island, and I could not hear any traffic noise coming from the city just 2 miles away. If I used that four channel recording as is(with waves lapping the shore from every direction) it would have been very annoying to listeners.


I live in the country and my nearest neighbor is about 2 miles away..There is no traffic and no other sounds to hear..and yet I hear ambient sounds all around me all the time...Just very subtly but they are still there..
It's those very types of sounds that I would like to hear in a surround field and at low level they would not distract from the main dialogue.. 





> I have heard people complain about the lack of ambiance coming from soundtracks only to find their listening rooms have a very high ambient level. You are not going to hear low level sounds in that kind of room.


And I agree..but I'm talking for the dedicated home theatre owner who has an acoustically dampened room, that has the ability of hearing a pin drop (so to speak) in a movie.. 





> Some of that could be a lack in the speakers themselves. If your speakers do not have the necessary extension(flat to 20khz and beyond) then you won't get an airy sound from them, even if it is on the soundtrack. Most speakers have a roll off at 20khz, so they will never sound "airy"


Most of us with dedicated theatre's are using good quality speakers all round, that have the ability to reproduce low to very high frequencies and quite capable of producing subtle ambient sounds
I don't think of "airyness"as representing the lower registers so much as the mid to high frequencies would..Whenever I've heard ambiance in a soundtrack that has some airyiness to it, I can't say that it's a lower frequency I'm hearing..


----------



## mdrake

taoggniklat said:


> I don't watch a lot of movies, but I personally thought Master and Commander was one of the best I have heard with regards to making it sound as if I was there.


+1 Funny I was thing the same thing.


----------



## TypeA

Fascinating read, excellent thread. So we have Master and Commander, any others that acoustically 'put you there' and are filled with subtle ambiance?


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> I'm not suggesting the ambience should be loud..quite the contrary..I'm suggesting it should be subtly and consistently there..
> In the real world, we hear ambience constantly where ever we are..


Once again, budgetary issues usually prevent us from including ambience non stop. Even if we could, it would not translate well to every room out there. What would be audible in one room (because of controlled background noise in the room itself) would not be in another(too much background noise in the room). NC levels would have to be standardized and adopted by end users(we already have them for the dubbing stages and movie theaters) or we would just be wasting our time. What point is it to include it when most listeners won't hear it in the first place? Dubbing stages and movie theaters(THX, IMAX, HPS-4000 ones especially) have NC-20 levels, the typical home upwards of NC-55+. When you parse that by frequency spectrum, most background noises are most prominent between 300-1khz, right in the area where walla most ambient effects would lie. 



> I live in the country and my nearest neighbor is about 2 miles away..There is no traffic and no other sounds to hear..and yet I hear ambient sounds all around me all the time...Just very subtly but they are still there..
> It's those very types of sounds that I would like to hear in a surround field and at low level they would not distract from the main dialogue..


Once again, this would not translate well to every room. I used to live in a tall high rise in Manhattan. Even being 20+ stories above street level, my room ratings were NC-45db at mid frequencies, and NC-55db at bass frequencies. In that environment, ambience would be swamped by background noise levels in my apartment. I now live in subs, and the NC level in one of my small theaters is 35db at mid frequencies, and 43db at bass frequencies during the day, and quite a bit lower early in the morning. The saving grace in this theater is that I sit 5'5" from all of my seven speakers and subwoofer, so low level detail translates well in this room. The big theater in the back of the house is quite a bit more quiet, but I sit way further away from the speakers. When we sit down to watch movies in the evening, that is when background levels are the highest. Unless every home theater has a consistently low background level, it does not make much sense to craft a soundtrack with that much low level detail. A studio cannot afford a mix that serves less than 1% of the population, hence why you don't hear mixes with continual low level ambiance. Mixes have to translate well in many types of environments, or the added effort becomes a waste of time and resources. 




> And I agree..but I'm talking for the dedicated home theatre owner who has an acoustically dampened room, that has the ability of hearing a pin drop (so to speak) in a movie..


Very few of those room exist. Some people that think they have those kinds of rooms, and are surprised when you bring in a SPL meter and RTA and actually measure the NC levels in their rooms. Not quite a quiet as they think it is. Why spend a quarter of a million dollars to create this kind of soundtrack that can only be played back by a minuscule segment of the market? Does not make much sense to me. 



> Most of us with dedicated theatre's are using good quality speakers all round, that have the ability to reproduce low to very high frequencies and quite capable of producing subtle ambient sounds
> I don't think of "airyness"as representing the lower registers so much as the mid to high frequencies would..Whenever I've heard ambiance in a soundtrack that has some airyiness to it, I can't say that it's a lower frequency I'm hearing..


20khz is not in the bass, it is in the highest treble, and at the top of a young person's hearing(you lose frequencies as you age). Airiness is a quality of the highest frequencies we can hear - between 8-20khz. There is no musical information up there, it is all just well air. Most speakers are not flat to 20khz, they begin to roll off sooner than that. Look at the measurements of the typical mass market speaker, and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## robbo266317

/rant mode=on/
So, Sir Terrence, what you are saying is that DVD's/BlueRays are simply a mass market product :spend: and not worth spending the money on to do properly because you believe there are no room/speaker combinations in the general public that would do them justice.
I guess what we all should be doing is renting any disc we are thining of purchasing first to see if we are happy with the quality and if it doesn't meet our expectations then we should simply not purchase it. :devil:

/rant mode=off/

There are so many good movies I have seen at the cinema that could, with a _little_ effort, meet our expectations. I know that none of us has perfect setups and I have also been appalled at the quality at some of our local cinemas. I now drive further to watch movies at a theatre where they take the time to set it up properly.


----------



## Sir Terrence

robbo266317 said:


> /rant mode=on/
> So, Sir Terrence, what you are saying is that DVD's/BlueRays are simply a mass market product :spend: and not worth spending the money on to do properly because you believe there are no room/speaker combinations in the general public that would do them justice.
> I guess what we all should be doing is renting any disc we are thining of purchasing first to see if we are happy with the quality and if it doesn't meet our expectations then we should simply not purchase it. :devil:
> 
> /rant mode=off/
> 
> There are so many good movies I have seen at the cinema that could, with a _little_ effort, meet our expectations. I know that none of us has perfect setups and I have also been appalled at the quality at some of our local cinemas. I now drive further to watch movies at a theatre where they take the time to set it up properly.


Ahhhh no! The point I am trying to make is that it would cost considerably more to make a soundtrack that had continuous ambiance at all times, and that reflected every environment in the movie. This extra cost would have to be transferred to either the movie goer, or the DVD/Bluray purchaser. 

My question to you would be this; would you be willing to pay $50 for a Bluray that was completely mixed for home theaters?


----------



## atledreier

'Das Boot' is also one of those movies where the ambiance is just right.

And yes, I'd pay a premium for a premium product. Easily.


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> My question to you would be this; would you be willing to pay $50 for a Bluray that was completely mixed for home theaters?


Most definitely!!
I remember back in my record playing days that you could buy master cut albums for about double the price of a pressed album..and they were worth every cent..
It would be very nice if we could have the choice of a fully engineered soundtrack, complete with realistic ambience included, or just the run of the mill, mass produced blu-ray movie!


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> Once again, budgetary issues usually prevent us from including ambience non stop. Even if we could, it would not translate well to every room out there.


So are you saying that it's not possible at this time to generate a constant ambiance effect on a soundtrack? 



> What would be audible in one room (because of controlled background noise in the room itself) would not be in another(too much background noise in the room).


Yes I agree, but we're talking enthusiasts here who have very well controlled room ambience in their dedicated theatre's, with specialised soundproofing construction and sound deadening treatments..
In my own theatre, the ambient level is 26dB..and that's just the fan in the projector!

One question..Is it actually technically possible to reproduce a realistic ambient soundtrack with todays technology and expertise in the Industry, regardless of the listening environment!?


----------



## Prof.

atledreier said:


> 'Das Boot' is also one of those movies where the ambiance is just right.


U571! Yes that does have good ambient sound, but it is in an enclosed area within the confines of the boat..similar to Master and Commander..and there are many more like that..but certainly worthy of being included in the list of movies..
It's more the external environment ambient soundtracks that I'm looking for to include in the list..
If we get enough movie titles that fit this description, I'll start a sticky..

I watched War of the Worlds again last night, which I thought might fit this category and there were some good ambient sounds, but again inconsistent..
One of the worst parts for me was when they arrive in the van at that spot near the river where all the bodies come floating down..There is a long shot of the van as it arrives and you can hear the van alright, but the rest of the environment ( from the camera location to the van) is dead..no ambient sounds..


----------



## robbo266317

Prof. said:


> Most definitely!!
> I remember back in my record playing days that you could buy master cut albums for about double the price of a pressed album..and they were worth every cent..
> It would be very nice if we could have the choice of a fully engineered soundtrack, complete with realistic ambience included, or just the run of the mill, mass produced blu-ray movie!


I would definately pay more for a premium product, e.g. SACD were quite expensive when they first came out.


----------



## Trick McKaha

By my memory, Snow Falling on Cedars DVD had a good surround mix with a lot of realistic ambient effects.


----------



## Prof.

I came across one myself last night which was a bit of a surprise..It had fairly constant ambience and some good surround effects..StarTrek "The Undiscovered Country"..
Particularly good was the ambience in the underground penal colony..

I seem to remember that a lot of the earlier movies (some of which have now been transferred to blu-ray) used to have good ambience..


----------



## Prof.

Trick McKaha said:


> By my memory, Snow Falling on Cedars DVD had a good surround mix with a lot of realistic ambient effects.


If you get a chance to watch it again, let us know if you can confirm that and I'll add it to the list..


----------



## nholmes1

Great discussion, however I have to say people are over-estimating the understanding of or the desire of even dedicated theater owners to have a reference playback room.

I have installed / calibrated / programmed many dedicated theaters, in all the theaters I have worked in/on I would say less than 5% of those customers cared about really accurate reproduction. Most just want a big screen and loud system, or they were more interested in having something to show off to friends.

The one customer I remember who really cared about having an optimum setup had a 1Mil+ room build out by Theo K and spent well in excess of 500K on equipment, installation, setup and calibration. Most of the Time HVAC alone will bring the noise floor up so high it would mask out any real ambiance.

While yes people here will be willing to pay a premium for a superior product, we are an even smaller subset of an already small percentage of the population and as said the number crunchers just realize there isn't a high enough ROI to spend the money on producing such a product.


----------



## Sir Terrence

nholmes1 said:


> Great discussion, however I have to say people are over-estimating the understanding of or the desire of even dedicated theater owners to have a reference playback room.
> 
> I have installed / calibrated / programmed many dedicated theaters, in all the theaters I have worked in/on I would say less than 5% of those customers cared about really accurate reproduction. Most just want a big screen and loud system, or they were more interested in having something to show off to friends.
> 
> The one customer I remember who really cared about having an optimum setup had a 1Mil+ room build out by Theo K and spent well in excess of 500K on equipment, installation, setup and calibration. Most of the Time HVAC alone will bring the noise floor up so high it would mask out any real ambiance.
> 
> While yes people here will be willing to pay a premium for a superior product, we are an even smaller subset of an already small percentage of the population and as said the number crunchers just realize there isn't a high enough ROI to spend the money on producing such a product.


Thank you for making this point more gracefully than I attempted to do.


----------



## Prof.

nholmes1 said:


> I have installed / calibrated / programmed many dedicated theaters, in all the theaters I have worked in/on I would say less than 5% of those customers cared about really accurate reproduction. Most just want a big screen and loud system, or they were more interested in having something to show off to friends.


I am absolutely staggered at that statement!! :unbelievable: 
To go to the trouble and expense of building a dedicated theatre, and then have the additional expense of your services with calibration and programming..and then not be concerned about the quality of reproduction!.Absolutely unbelievable!!:yikes:
There must be a lot of people out there with more money than sense if they've only built it to impress their friends!!.. 



> Most of the Time HVAC alone will bring the noise floor up so high it would mask out any real ambiance.


I agree that HVAC noise can offset subtle ambient sound, but then not everyone has that and in the right weather conditions, you may not have to use the HVAC system anyway..
I know if I had an HVAC system and I wanted to hear a very good sountrack with some real ambience..I'd switch it off!



> While yes people here will be willing to pay a premium for a superior product, we are an even smaller subset of an already small percentage of the population and as said the number crunchers just realize there isn't a high enough ROI to spend the money on producing such a product.


As Sir Terence mentioned, I still think it comes down to cut backs and monetary issues, rather than a limited market.but of course that still plays it's part.
As I remembered recently that when the studios were swimming along with a massive market for DVD's, We did get some very good ambient soundtracks..Maybe when Blu-ray picks up (if ever) we might get some better quality audio aspects!


----------



## TypeA

Sir Terrence said:


> Thank you for making this point more gracefully than I attempted to do.



I think you did a great job explaining and it makes perfect sense.


----------



## GranteedEV

Hey guys sorry to ask a dumb question but what's an HVAC? I'm guessing it's some sort of AC based on the last two letters but what do the first two stand for?

Up here in Kanadia, i've never heard the term, but AV websites mention it 24/7


----------



## nholmes1

Heat Ventilation Air Condition = HVAC

And sorry to burst your bubble Prof but we are the extreme minority. Why do you think Pan and Scan and Vertical stretch modes are around? People don't really want quality or even OAR most of the time. Its sad but true. 

This is also why if you read forums you would think every piece of electronics equipment made was faulty as all the fanatics that we are come and rave about failures or problems with units but so few actually praise good equipment.

For the majority of people who can afford quality dedicated screening rooms it is about keeping up with the jones'. Unless they are in some way involved in the industry it's not about the quality.


----------



## nholmes1

Oh and here in Florida, its almost impossible to turn off the HVAC but there are ways to reduce HVAC's influence on the room.


----------



## lcaillo

nholmes1 said:


> Heat Ventilation Air Condition = HVAC
> 
> And sorry to burst your bubble Prof but we are the extreme minority. Why do you think Pan and Scan and Vertical stretch modes are around? People don't really want quality or even OAR most of the time. Its sad but true.
> 
> This is also why if you read forums you would think every piece of electronics equipment made was faulty as all the fanatics that we are come and rave about failures or problems with units but so few actually praise good equipment.
> 
> For the majority of people who can afford quality dedicated screening rooms it is about keeping up with the jones'. Unless they are in some way involved in the industry it's not about the quality.


A bit jaded from decades of dealing with joe public, Nick? :rubeyes:

Actually, prof, he is really correct. The vast majority of "high end" installations are not about performance at all but about consumption and status. Many of my calibration clients don't have a clue about why they need it done, but have heard that they should. I tell them that they really don't need the service and they want it anyway just to feel that they have done all that they can to have the "best."

The fact is that while we (hobbyists and professionals who value getting the most performance out of a system that we can) cannot really understand that mentality it is what drives the industry. As much as we criticize the marketing hype and snake oil in the consumer electronics industry, we have to realize that there is not much difference between joe six pack and the owner of most expensive home theaters in knowledge nor caring about performance. The industry is driven by consumerism and image. We are the fringe, though that fringe also has an impact on the products we get. For all of the hype and nonsense and marketing, there have been many advancements driven by hobbyists like us. Much of the video quality that we have today can be traced to the work of quality evangalists like Joe Kane and Joel Silver, and much of the audio quality to guys like Thom Holman. Without the AV enthusiasts like us none of them would have had much impact. Still, most people buy for reasons that have nothing to do with performance.

A complex business we chose, eh Nick? In many ways I am glad to be moving out of it.


----------



## nholmes1

I choose to call it realism versus skeptical or jaded. And you are right I should have acknowledged that the enthusiast are a motivating factor even when we aren't the prime demographic. Enthusiast are very vocal about products especially when they are not working.

I much prefer this industry to the IT industry in which I was previously employed. And its only been a decade! Don't make me older than I am!


----------



## lcaillo

Just kidding about being jaded. I'm the one who wears the capital J. The service business is even more brutal than the sales, consulting, and installation parts of the business.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> So are you saying that it's not possible at this time to generate a constant ambiance effect on a soundtrack?


Its technically possible but not financially feasible. 




> Yes I agree, but we're talking enthusiasts here who have very well controlled room ambience in their dedicated theatre's, with specialised soundproofing construction and sound deadening treatments..
> In my own theatre, the ambient level is 26dB..and that's just the fan in the projector!


The amount of people who have what you state is so small, it would not return even a small investment to the studios. You have far more folks with televisions and HTIB in living rooms than you do with specialized home theaters. 

So your ambient level is 0db with the projector turned off? I know of no where on this planet where the ambient level is 0db



> One question..Is it actually technically possible to reproduce a realistic ambient soundtrack with todays technology and expertise in the Industry, regardless of the listening environment!?


Yes it is. It is not a technical issue, it is a financial one.


----------



## Prof.

lcaillo said:


> Actually, prof, he is really correct. The vast majority of "high end" installations are not about performance at all but about consumption and status. Many of my calibration clients don't have a clue about why they need it done, but have heard that they should. I tell them that they really don't need the service and they want it anyway just to feel that they have done all that they can to have the "best."
> 
> The fact is that while we (hobbyists and professionals who value getting the most performance out of a system that we can) cannot really understand that mentality it is what drives the industry. As much as we criticize the marketing hype and snake oil in the consumer electronics industry, we have to realize that there is not much difference between joe six pack and the owner of most expensive home theaters in knowledge nor caring about performance. The industry is driven by consumerism and image.


Yes I'm beginning to see that now..
I've always been under the impression that there was Joe public who has a HTIB and a Plasma on the wall and he calls it a home theatre!..and then there are those who have spent tens of thousands on all the latest gear and built a dedicated theatre etc. who really appreciate the subtleties of that real theatre experience..
Obviously, this is not the case..I think forums like HTS where most people seem to be in the dedicated camp when it comes to getting the best they can from what they've got, tends to give the impression that this how all owners of HT would be!
We are obviously a ridiculously small percentage of so called HT owners...


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> So your ambient level is 0db with the projector turned off? I know of no where on this planet where the ambient level is 0db


Admittedly I'm only using an SPL meter on the lowest setting, but if I turn every thing off in the room, the needle doesn't move!..
Obviously my location is quite unique compared to the general population...and if you ever come to Australia and go to the outback..you'll know what absolute silence is!!


----------



## eugovector

And craft beer drinkers are a small percentage of beer drinkers, but while macrobrew sales are down, micros are up almost double digits. If we continue to educate the public, they'll wise up.


----------



## Prof.

Something else I don't understand that you Pro guys might be able to throw some light on..
Last night I watched U-571 on blu-ray..This movie was never a big box office movie or a big budget movie, as far as I know..and yet it has excellent ambient sound that fills the room with very subtle sounds, along with great surround sound effects (one of the best I've heard) that is very realistic! and bass levels that will shake the room..and there are other virtual non box office movies that also have excellent ambient surround effects..
How is it they can provide quality like this on relatively low budget movies and not on all movies if it's a budget issue!?

Edit..The other thing of course is why would they go to all the trouble and expense of making an excellent surround sound track if Joe public isn't even going to appreciate it!?


----------



## Prof.

eugovector said:


> And craft beer drinkers are a small percentage of beer drinkers, but while macrobrew sales are down, micros are up almost double digits. If we continue to educate the public, they'll wise up.


I hate to say it, but I don't think that will ever happen!
I've had friends watching a movie in my theatre..and you get the oooh's and aaah's and wow's, and how great they thought it was..
One or two of those friends who could afford to build a decent theatre, have said (when I've said to them, why don't you set up your own theatre?) no I'm quite happy with my 42" Plasma on the wall and I'm guessing that's how most people feel


----------



## TypeA

Prof. said:


> One or two of those friends who could afford to build a decent theatre, have said (when I've said to them, why don't you set up your own theatre?) no I'm quite happy with my 42" Plasma on the wall and I'm guessing that's how most people feel


There is far more to home theater than money. Time, motivation, waf, and a suitable room are all considerations. I personally have friends that have happily spent $25,000 on a Harley Davidson motorcycle and yet theyre ALSO proud owners of a walmart RCA htib surround sound system in their livingroom.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> Something else I don't understand that you Pro guys might be able to throw some light on..
> Last night I watched U-571 on blu-ray..This movie was never a big box office movie or a big budget movie, as far as I know..and yet it has excellent ambient sound that fills the room with very subtle sounds, along with great surround sound effects (one of the best I've heard) that is very realistic! and bass levels that will shake the room..and there are other virtual non box office movies that also have excellent ambient surround effects..
> How is it they can provide quality like this on relatively low budget movies and not on all movies if it's a budget issue!?
> 
> Edit..The other thing of course is why would they go to all the trouble and expense of making an excellent surround sound track if Joe public isn't even going to appreciate it!?


The answer to your first question boils down to this. You have small post production facilities like mine who can do great mixes on a shoestring budget. We don't have union salaries, union rules, and we don't have facilities with high overhead. Then you have the typical Hollywood post production facilities with union rules, salaries, high insurance, administrative salaries, and facilities that run 24/7 which means higher heating and air conditioning costs and overhead in general. Most of my business comes from ad agencies, indy film makers, specialized stereo to multichannel conversion, documentaries, and television programming. My post production studio is 100% family run, so no high union salaries(though I do pay my sons well), and our costs are pretty well contained. 

Movies don't sell to the general public for the quality of their soundtrack, its the entertainment factor. Since all movies are shown in the theater first(where the environment is better controlled) that is the place we create the soundtracks for, not the home. Since it is easy to carry the theatrical soundtrack over to DVD or Bluray, we do. I work at Disney studios, and we are the only studio that does all of our DVD's and Bluray's with made for home theater mixes. We do this because we want our customers to get 100% of what a soundtrack can deliver based on the system you have. So we not only re-eq our mixes, and do minor adjustments to them, but we monitor even the fold down from 5.1 to 2.0, and we listen to our results on a variety of playback systems to ensure we are getting good results. No matter what type of system you have, you will get excellent results from a Disney film's soundtrack.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> Admittedly I'm only using an SPL meter on the lowest setting, but if I turn every thing off in the room, the needle doesn't move!..
> Obviously my location is quite unique compared to the general population...and if you ever come to Australia and go to the outback..you'll know what absolute silence is!!


Okay now you have explained everything. I have been all over the world recording background ambience and sound effects for films I have worked on, and for my studio's own sound effects library. I have been to Australia, and I have been to the outback, and you are right, it is dead silent there except for the sound of the wind.

You really are quite lucky!


----------



## Prof.

TypeA said:


> There is far more to home theater than money. Time, motivation, waf, and a suitable room are all considerations. I personally have friends that have happily spent $25,000 on a Harley Davidson motorcycle and yet theyre ALSO proud owners of a walmart RCA htib surround sound system in their livingroom.


I think it comes down to, you're either into home theatre or your not..Even those who have built very expensive theatres just to keep up with the "Jones"..are not into home theatre..

As has been stated..It's the enthusiasts like us that drive the Industry towards advances in design and technology..not the general public..
That's why I now think that the public's conception of home theatre and the marketers behind that will remain fairly stagnant..
Go into a store that sells HT and they'll push you every time to buy a big TV and an HTIB!


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> The answer to your first question boils down to this. You have small post production facilities like mine who can do great mixes on a shoestring budget. We don't have union salaries, union rules, and we don't have facilities with high overhead. Then you have the typical Hollywood post production facilities with union rules, salaries, high insurance, administrative salaries, and facilities that run 24/7 which means higher heating and air conditioning costs and overhead in general. Most of my business comes from ad agencies, indy film makers, specialized stereo to multichannel conversion, documentaries, and television programming. My post production studio is 100% family run, so no high union salaries(though I do pay my sons well), and our costs are pretty well contained.
> 
> Movies don't sell to the general public for the quality of their soundtrack, its the entertainment factor. Since all movies are shown in the theater first(where the environment is better controlled) that is the place we create the soundtracks for, not the home. Since it is easy to carry the theatrical soundtrack over to DVD or Bluray, we do. I work at Disney studios, and we are the only studio that does all of our DVD's and Bluray's with made for home theater mixes. We do this because we want our customers to get 100% of what a soundtrack can deliver based on the system you have. So we not only re-eq our mixes, and do minor adjustments to them, but we monitor even the fold down from 5.1 to 2.0, and we listen to our results on a variety of playback systems to ensure we are getting good results. No matter what type of system you have, you will get excellent results from a Disney film's soundtrack.


So it comes down to individual choices between major studios and smaller post production groups, such as your own..
From the sounds of it (no pun intended) we might get more quality soundtracks on our DVD's and Blu-rays if this was all done by the smaller outside post production organisations!
Disney soundtracks do seem to be consistent in their sound quality and every one I have are a joy to play..Image quality is generally very good as well..
Keep up the good work! :T


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> Okay now you have explained everything. I have been all over the world recording background ambience and sound effects for films I have worked on, and for my studio's own sound effects library. I have been to Australia, and I have been to the outback, and you are right, it is dead silent there except for the sound of the wind.
> 
> You really are quite lucky!


I don't actually live in the outback..I just used that as an example..
I live in the South of the Country, but in an isolated area..The only difference is that I have trees and green grass and a river on the property (unlike the outback which is basically barren) with virtually no neighbors or traffic!
I am very lucky! :T


----------



## MatrixDweller

Unless the movie is shot in a sound studio the sound recorded sound is not going to be that spectacular. If shot outdoors or in a non-ideal room it would just sound dirty. You also couldn't separate the dialog from the background noise so if you couldn't dub over it perfectly then it would just sound horrible. And then if it is shot indoors in a studio you don't have the background noise anyway. And then you have the score to add mood which would compete heavily in the background or just get muddied and forgotten. Putting in too much noise is going to detract from the dialog also. 

And then consider that 95% percent of movie goers don't care so why make the extra effort. Just put in the minimum to make the scene appear real and be done with it. The movie is typically in your face and not behind you. That's where they want your focus.

The gimmick these days is 3D anyway. That brings people into the theater. Surround sound was the gimmick in the 80's/90's. Rarely do you hear movie critics boasting about the quality of the surround sound.

I do have to admit that I would like to hear more in the surrounds and more fantastic sounds coming from any speaker. A good movie is a work of art. Most movies however have to appeal to the masses and are dumbed down and are just flashy. 

It has changed a bit though and there are some excellent directors out there now. I absolutely love Christopher Nolan's work and can't wait for Inception to come out on Bluray.


----------



## Prof.

MatrixDweller said:


> Unless the movie is shot in a sound studio the sound recorded sound is not going to be that spectacular. If shot outdoors or in a non-ideal room it would just sound dirty. You also couldn't separate the dialog from the background noise so if you couldn't dub over it perfectly then it would just sound horrible. And then if it is shot indoors in a studio you don't have the background noise anyway. And then you have the score to add mood which would compete heavily in the background or just get muddied and forgotten. Putting in too much noise is going to detract from the dialog also.


Muddied dialogue is generally caused by front stage effects IMO..Too loud a music score and or sound effects combined produces an in balance in the whole front stage, resulting in unclear dialogue..

Surround sound on the other hand (and within reason) and particularly ambient sounds, is not as disruptive to dialogue as the front sound..
It obviously takes a lot of skill and time to get all these things in balance and some of the movies that are produced just don't get this time and money spent on them..



> And then consider that 95% percent of movie goers don't care so why make the extra effort. Just put in the minimum to make the scene appear real and be done with it. The movie is typically in your face and not behind you. That's where they want your focus


And that's why we finish up a lot of the time with very average soundtracks on disc's...



> The gimmick these days is 3D anyway. That brings people into the theater. Surround sound was the gimmick in the 80's/90's. Rarely do you hear movie critics boasting about the quality of the surround sound.


Well I don't know about movie critics but you do find a lot of reviewers commenting on the quality or otherwise of the surround track..



> It has changed a bit though and there are some excellent directors out there now. I absolutely love Christopher Nolan's work and can't wait for Inception to come out on Bluray.


Yes..There are a number of Producers and Directors these days who are insisting on top quality for both image and sound...Good on them! :T


----------



## Drudge

This is a great thread,especially when there is input from someone in the post production world.It discusses several factors of why soundtracks can sound the way they sound in the home environment.

One thing that I've noticed over the years is that as my system improves I've become more and more disappointed with the action genre soundtracks.The surround activity and level in some of these latest Blu-Ray releases almost overwhelms the front soundstage and they can be obnoxiously loud and fatiguing to listen too.They also sound more artificially processed,which being action films is probably expected. I notice more and more use of compression to keep the peaks down and raising of the dialog and lower level sounds compared to some older DVDs that I own.Overall loudness seems to be king these days in both the movie and music industry these days.

I find that the dialog driven movies such as well made dramas tend to sound very realistic and ambient with a more natural envelopment when compared to most action flicks and I have an average noise criteria level of around 40dBA in my room at night when I watch any movie.



Sir Terrence,
I use Re-EQ function on my pre-pro with an Audyssey Pro calibration set to a flat curve.Since you have indicated that the majority of Disney discs are "re-mixed"(if that is the correct term)for a small room standard,would it be advisable turn off Re-EQ?

I've heard some DVD/Blu-ray discs from other studios that were specifically mixed for HT's and they sound worse than a normally mixed soundtrack.


----------



## Prof.

Drudge said:


> I notice more and more use of compression to keep the peaks down and raising of the dialog and lower level sounds compared to some older DVDs that I own.


I've noticed this myself..On some Blu-rays the sound is just generally loud with minimal peaks in the overall level..This is most noticeable when you've owned a particular DVD and then bought the Blu-ray version..



> I find that the dialog driven movies such as well made dramas tend to sound very realistic and ambient with a more natural envelopment when compared to most action flicks and I have an average noise criteria level of around 40dBA in my room at night when I watch any movie.


Lets face it..Most action flicks are directed towards the younger generation who just like lots of noise!


----------



## TypeA

Drudge said:


> This is a great thread,especially when there is input from someone in the post production world.It discusses several factors of why soundtracks can sound the way they sound in the home environment.


I agree, Ive learned lots from Sir. I didnt start this thread (it was started by a mod with my post), but you might find this one a learning experience also:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...5460-dts-hd-master-audio-vs-dolby-truehd.html



> One thing that I've noticed over the years is that as my system improves I've become more and more disappointed with the action genre soundtracks.The surround activity and level in some of these latest Blu-Ray releases almost overwhelms the front soundstage and they can be obnoxiously loud and fatiguing to listen too.They also sound more artificially processed,which being action films is probably expected. I notice more and more use of compression to keep the peaks down and raising of the dialog and lower level sounds compared to some older DVDs that I own.Overall loudness seems to be king these days in both the movie and music industry these days.
> 
> I find that the dialog driven movies such as well made dramas tend to sound very realistic and ambient with a more natural envelopment when compared to most action flicks and I have an average noise criteria level of around 40dBA in my room at night when I watch any movie.


I agree, blu ray seems more of a challenge to keep the volume high enough for dialog but low enough to keep the pictures on the walls, owning good subs can be chore


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> Muddied dialogue is generally caused by front stage effects IMO..Too loud a music score and or sound effects combined produces an in balance in the whole front stage, resulting in unclear dialogue..


I have heard this reasoning over and over but this is not the real problem. If this was the problem, we would hear it on the dubbing stage, and be able to correct it right away. The problem is not with the soundtrack, but with the widespread use of dissimilar speakers across the front sound stage. A horizontally placed center speaker(sitting on a television) will exhibit a different frequency response than a vertical standing speaker in virtually free space. The center speaker will interact with the floor and ceiling more efficiently than the side wall based on the width of its dispersion pattern. If positioned on the television, it will get a boundary reinforcement the L/R speaker don't get. While the center can be voice matched(in free space, but not on boundaries) it is not always frequency matched. By necessity, all of my system have either three full range speakers vertically placed, or stand mounted bookshelves that are all identical across the front. I have never had dialog intelligibility problems on any of my systems. When my systems are calibrated, all of the front speaker exhibit the same frequency response across the frontal sound stage, so prioritization issues never crop up. 



> Surround sound on the other hand (and within reason) and particularly ambient sounds, is not as disruptive to dialogue as the front sound..
> It obviously takes a lot of skill and time to get all these things in balance and some of the movies that are produced just don't get this time and money spent on them..


Actually effects in the surrounds are actually MORE annoying and disruptive to dialog than the front speakers are. The surrounds are placed to the sides of the listening area, and therefore have a more direct path to the ear canal. The front L/R shade the head at more of an angle, quite a bit less than the surrounds do. Based on the fact that most folks calibrate for identical volume from all speakers(I calibrate for 3db less for the surrounds than the fronts), this can make the surrounds(when combined) a bit louder than the fronts. Two surround speakers calibrated at 75db will be 78db when their output is combined. Quite a bit of surround information is mono in nature, so that makes the surrounds potentially louder than the fronts when outputting mono signals. That direct pathway to the ear canal does not help that one bit. I calibrate all of my surrounds at 72db, so when their output is combined, it peaks at 75db - the same as each of the fronts. The rear surrounds I do the same with, but since they shade the head behind the pinna, there is a small loss of output at certain frequencies at that position. 




> And that's why we finish up a lot of the time with very average soundtracks on disc's...


Soundtracks are mixed with the highest quality in mind. No sound designer or re-recording mixer sets out to do mediocre soundtracks. However budgetary issues(and directors that don't put a high priority on sound) are more the reason we get average soundtracks, not any technical issue. Another thing to consider, is one man's average is another's exemplary. The quality of a soundtrack is highly subjective in nature. While everyone in the world seem to like the soundtrack of Transformers, but I hated it. No subtleties, just pure bombast, too much compression, and way too dense a mix for my taste. 




> Well I don't know about movie critics but you do find a lot of reviewers commenting on the quality or otherwise of the surround track..


That rich dude in Marin county says it is 50 percent of the movie. 




> Yes..There are a number of Producers and Directors these days who are insisting on top quality for both image and sound...Good on them! :T


Personally, I wish there were more.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> One thing that I've noticed over the years is that as my system improves I've become more and more disappointed with the action genre soundtracks.The surround activity and level in some of these latest Blu-Ray releases almost overwhelms the front soundstage and they can be obnoxiously loud and fatiguing to listen too.They also sound more artificially processed,which being action films is probably expected. I notice more and more use of compression to keep the peaks down and raising of the dialog and lower level sounds compared to some older DVDs that I own.Overall loudness seems to be king these days in both the movie and music industry these days.


Your last statement is very true, and also a big bother to me as well. We do use far too much compression which does create an artificialness to the sound. We are however constrained by the wishes of the director in many cases, and do not get to determine the levels we think things should be. 



> I find that the dialog driven movies such as well made dramas tend to sound very realistic and ambient with a more natural envelopment when compared to most action flicks and I have an average noise criteria level of around 40dBA in my room at night when I watch any movie.


These kinds of movies use far less sound effects, hence less compression and a more natural sound. 





> Sir Terrence,
> I use Re-EQ function on my pre-pro with an Audyssey Pro calibration set to a flat curve.Since you have indicated that the majority of Disney discs are "re-mixed"(if that is the correct term)for a small room standard,would it be advisable turn off Re-EQ?


You don't need it for our home theater mixes. They are tweaked, EQ'd and balanced for smaller rooms, not large theaters. Our made for home theater mixes would not sound very balanced in a large theater, and large theater mixes do not sound very balanced in smaller rooms - hence the use of Re-eq to restore some of the balance. 



> I've heard some DVD/Blu-ray discs from other studios that were specifically mixed for HT's and they sound worse than a normally mixed soundtrack.


Can you name any? I have never found that to be the case, but then again, I have not watched every movie either LOL.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> I've noticed this myself..On some Blu-rays the sound is just generally loud with minimal peaks in the overall level..This is most noticeable when you've owned a particular DVD and then bought the Blu-ray version..


Keep in mind, the same master that created the DVD might not be the same master used on the Bluray. Also the dialog norm levels may be different, mastering levels may be different, and one uses a lossy codec, the other lossless codec. Comparisons are not always apple to apples in this case. 




> Lets face it..Most action flicks are directed towards the younger generation who just like lots of noise!


LOL


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> I have heard this reasoning over and over but this is not the real problem. If this was the problem, we would hear it on the dubbing stage, and be able to correct it right away. The problem is not with the soundtrack, but with the widespread use of dissimilar speakers across the front sound stage. A horizontally placed center speaker(sitting on a television) will exhibit a different frequency response than a vertical standing speaker in virtually free space. The center speaker will interact with the floor and ceiling more efficiently than the side wall based on the width of its dispersion pattern. If positioned on the television, it will get a boundary reinforcement the L/R speaker don't get. While the center can be voice matched(in free space, but not on boundaries) it is not always frequency matched. By necessity, all of my system have either three full range speakers vertically placed, or stand mounted bookshelves that are all identical across the front. I have never had dialog intelligibility problems on any of my systems. When my systems are calibrated, all of the front speaker exhibit the same frequency response across the frontal sound stage, so prioritization issues never crop up.


I have to agree with you on the speaker orientation problem..and the ideal is all three front speakers vertically orientated..
But the other argument is that if you can hear clear dialogue (regardless of speaker orientation) on some movies..all the way through and not others, then there are variations in the recording or post productions qualities, due to monetary reasons or other reasons..

I watched a Disney movie last night.."Race to Witch Mountain"..I've seen this movie a few times but last night I payed particular attention to the clarity or otherwise of the dialogue..
It came through with flying colours!! From the quietest whisper to full on conversation with loud explosions and music happening at the same time..you could clearly hear every word!..and I have a horizontally mounted centre speaker!



> Actually effects in the surrounds are actually MORE annoying and disruptive to dialog than the front speakers are. The surrounds are placed to the sides of the listening area, and therefore have a more direct path to the ear canal.


I would agree, that could be the case with monopole surrounds, but what about dipole surrounds? They have a null at the listeners ears..I've never noticed any problems with front dialogue when surround sounds are present, unless a jet screams overhead when someone is talking!

There's another aspect that controls the overall clarity of the dialogue which hasn't been mentioned..The Actor!!..It seems that some actors just tend to mumble their words or can't speak clearly when speaking softly..I guess no matter how much time and money is put into post production, there's not much you can do about that!!


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> Keep in mind, the same master that created the DVD might not be the same master used on the Bluray. Also the dialog norm levels may be different, mastering levels may be different, and one uses a lossy codec, the other lossless codec. Comparisons are not always apple to apples in this case.


So in a nutshell..If the DVD had a very good dynamic soundtrack, it's not necessarily going to have the same dynamics and at the same points in the movie in the Blu-ray version!?..

I had an instance of this recently..I bought a blu-ray version of an older DVD that had some nice dynamics in it..
When a particular part in the movie came up, I was waiting for this loud explosion that I was very familiar with, that had a real "crack" to it and it just wasn't there..Just a muffled "boom"..and yet other parts in the movie sounded better than the DVD version..
I've been under the impression that lossless would be an improvement over lossy in every aspect of the sound reproduction..This is obviously not the case!


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> Your last statement is very true, and also a big bother to me as well. We do use far too much compression which does create an artificialness to the sound. We are however constrained by the wishes of the director in many cases, and do not get to determine the levels we think things should be.


Yeah,I've heard some stories about directors getting over zealous with the levels to sell and compete with other films,even in one case pushing the dubbing stage to it's limits and still not being satisfied with the levels!:yikes:




> Can you name any? I have never found that to be the case, but then again, I have not watched every movie either LOL.


I don't remember the specific titles,but I know that the studio(I think it was NEW Line Cinema)had a message in the audio menu saying that the particular DVD was mixed for the home and to turn off any Re-EQ function.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> I have to agree with you on the speaker orientation problem..and the ideal is all three front speakers vertically orientated..
> But the other argument is that if you can hear clear dialogue (regardless of speaker orientation) on some movies..all the way through and not others, then there are variations in the recording or post productions qualities, due to monetary reasons or other reasons..


I don't think it is the soundtrack at all. Keep in mind, all of the screen speakers in a theater or dubbing stage have identical frequency responses. That cannot be said for the typical front speaker setup of the HT enthusiast. The center channel is usually smaller, less dynamically capable(in some cases) than the L/R mains, and its horizontal dispersion is different from the L/R mains. So imagine one speaker strongly interacting with the floor and ceiling, and the other two speakers with the side walls. Ceiling and floor reflections are much more distructive than sidewall reflection. Those reflection can really reduce the clarity of the dialog, and especially when all of the front channels are going full bore. I have never experienced any dialog intelligibility issues, even on the movies that reviewers have stated that it is a issue. 



> I watched a Disney movie last night.."Race to Witch Mountain"..I've seen this movie a few times but last night I payed particular attention to the clarity or otherwise of the dialogue..
> It came through with flying colours!! From the quietest whisper to full on conversation with loud explosions and music happening at the same time..you could clearly hear every word!..and I have a horizontally mounted centre speaker!


That soundtrack is a optimized for HT mix. You are not going to find prioritizing issues on that soundtrack regardless of speaker orientation. 




> I would agree, that could be the case with monopole surrounds, but what about dipole surrounds? They have a null at the listeners ears..I've never noticed any problems with front dialogue when surround sounds are present, unless a jet screams overhead when someone is talking!


Dipoles are a different animal altogether. The issue I have with dipoles is that they make everything in the rear hemisphere broad and huge, even when I want small and intimate. I prefer an array of monopoles over dipoles personally. Not to knock dipoles, I think they are much better than a pair of monopoles(which can call too much attention to themselves) to the sides. 



> There's another aspect that controls the overall clarity of the dialogue which hasn't been mentioned..The Actor!!..It seems that some actors just tend to mumble their words or can't speak clearly when speaking softly..I guess no matter how much time and money is put into post production, there's not much you can do about that!!


ADR can compensate for mumblers. You just make them do the line over and over until they get it clearly. LOL
ADR can be a wonderful thing!


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> So in a nutshell..If the DVD had a very good dynamic soundtrack, it's not necessarily going to have the same dynamics and at the same points in the movie in the Blu-ray version!?..


If a different master is used for the encoding, that is a possibliity. 



> I had an instance of this recently..I bought a blu-ray version of an older DVD that had some nice dynamics in it..
> When a particular part in the movie came up, I was waiting for this loud explosion that I was very familiar with, that had a real "crack" to it and it just wasn't there..Just a muffled "boom"..and yet other parts in the movie sounded better than the DVD version..
> I've been under the impression that lossless would be an improvement over lossy in every aspect of the sound reproduction..This is obviously not the case!


This is a probability. Perhaps somebody at the studio thought the DVD explosion was a little over the top, and it was decided to tone it down for the Bluray release. I make these kinds of decisions all the time when doing made for HT soundtracks. Sometimes something sounds too big for the smaller room, and it must be reined in when presented in a smaller room. Sometimes an effect seems a little wide, and you have to pull it in towards the center to properly scale it for a smaller screen.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> Actually effects in the surrounds are actually MORE annoying and disruptive to dialog than the front speakers are. The surrounds are placed to the sides of the listening area, and therefore have a more direct path to the ear canal. The front L/R shade the head at more of an angle, quite a bit less than the surrounds do. Based on the fact that most folks calibrate for identical volume from all speakers(I calibrate for 3db less for the surrounds than the fronts), this can make the surrounds(when combined) a bit louder than the fronts. Two surround speakers calibrated at 75db will be 78db when their output is combined. Quite a bit of surround information is mono in nature, so that makes the surrounds potentially louder than the fronts when outputting mono signals. That direct pathway to the ear canal does not help that one bit. I calibrate all of my surrounds at 72db, so when their output is combined, it peaks at 75db - the same as each of the fronts. The rear surrounds I do the same with, but since they shade the head behind the pinna, there is a small loss of output at certain frequencies at that position.


I've always read that in the home theater environment that the surrounds should be set to 75db individually as with the mains and that the 2-3dB reduction in the surround levels was only appropriate for post production.The reasoning being that the reduction was already taken care of in post and that in the home environment with the levels all correctly set to 75dB C-weighted the surrounds would be set at their correctly intended combined level,otherwise they would be 2-3dB lower in level and not correctly set.

Is this not the case?What your saying does seem to make a good case for reducing the surrounds by a couple dB,but most experts claim that it is not needed and was already taken care of when the releases are mixed for the home.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> I've always read that in the home theater environment that the surrounds should be set to 75db individually as with the mains and that the 2-3dB reduction in the surround levels was only appropriate for post production.The reasoning being that the reduction was already taken care of in post and that in the home environment with the levels all correctly set to 75dB C-weighted the surrounds would be set at their correctly intended combined level,otherwise they would be 2-3dB lower in level and not correctly set.


I run my systems in 7.1 all of the time, even with 5.1 soundtracks. So while we do calibrate the surround arrays 2-3db's lower in the dubbing stage, you are only doing it for the left and right surrounds, not a couple of rear back speakers as well. So even with the reduction, when you add in the two additional speakers, the balance is off once again. We don't account for the rear center speakers in our calibration - hence why I reduce all of my setups. Those rear center speakers(when using PL IIx) is mostly random decorrolated signals(pseudo stereo), so they have a very strong relationship with the left/right surrounds.




> Is this not the case?What your saying does seem to make a good case for reducing the surrounds by a couple dB,but most experts claim that it is not needed and was already taken care of when the releases are mixed for the home.


There are only two studios that do home theater mixes, Disney, and on rare occasion MGM. All of the other studios just transfer their theatrical mixes directly to DVD or Bluray. So they don't do anything to compensate for a mix that was done in a large dubbing stage to the home, only Disney does. Most Disney mixes are 5.1 mixes, with the occasional 7.1(not true discrete 7.1 though). So when I run my 5.1 soundtrack through a 7.1 system, if you don't compensate for the extra speakers, the 4 surround speakers as a whole ultimately will be too loud. Most of the time they are sharing the same information.


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> . Sometimes something sounds too big for the smaller room, and it must be reined in when presented in a smaller room. Sometimes an effect seems a little wide, and you have to pull it in towards the center to properly scale it for a smaller screen.


Which brings up another point...
Even though I have a relatively small theatre, It is acoustically dampened and loud explosions on a soundtrack are not a problem..The equipment can handle it as well as the room..
So when you say that the soundtracks are engineered for HT, I'm guessing this is more for the mass market/living room type HT's..Not so much for the dedicated home theatre's..


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> There are only two studios that do home theater mixes, Disney, and on rare occasion MGM. All of the other studios just transfer their theatrical mixes directly to DVD or Bluray. So they don't do anything to compensate for a mix that was done in a large dubbing stage to the home,.


Wow!..that is surprising..So the big studios like Fox, Universal and Paramount just don't cater for the HT crowd!
I'll have to see if my movie choices are available on Disney! :T


----------



## TypeA

Sir Terrence said:


> There are only two studios that do home theater mixes, Disney, and on rare occasion MGM. All of the other studios just transfer their theatrical mixes directly to DVD or Bluray. So they don't do anything to compensate for a mix that was done in a large dubbing stage to the home, only Disney does. Most Disney mixes are 5.1 mixes, with the occasional 7.1(not true discrete 7.1 though). So when I run my 5.1 soundtrack through a 7.1 system, if you don't compensate for the extra speakers, the 4 surround speakers as a whole ultimately will be too loud. Most of the time they are sharing the same information.


Wouldnt remixing to a home theater application also benefit two-channel tv speaker users, not just full blown home theater rigs? Is it really that much more expensive to remix for home theater applications?


----------



## gdstupak

Prof. said:


> There's another aspect that controls the overall clarity of the dialogue which hasn't been mentioned..The Actor!!..It seems that some actors just tend to mumble their words or can't speak clearly when speaking softly..I guess no matter how much time and money is put into post production, there's not much you can do about that!!


Example movie: ...... "The Expendables" ..... with
.....Sly Stallone
.....Jet Li
.....Dolph Lundgren
.....Mickey Rourke

...the sound engineer did a great job with what he had to work with.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> Which brings up another point...
> Even though I have a relatively small theatre, It is acoustically dampened and loud explosions on a soundtrack are not a problem..The equipment can handle it as well as the room..
> So when you say that the soundtracks are engineered for HT, I'm guessing this is more for the mass market/living room type HT's..Not so much for the dedicated home theatre's..


It is for all home theater rooms, including dedicated ones. Once of the biggest complaints I have heard on HT forums is that the dialog is too soft, and the sound effects and music are too loud. That complaint was voiced right here as well. The reason that is has to do with mixing a soundtrack in a huge very quiet room, with speakers that are far larger than the ones we have at home(I would say a single 4 way screen speaker is larger than all of most folks HT speakers combined). The mixing position is a lot farther away from the speakers than we currently sit from ours. A theater dump(or transfer) transfer all of the dynamic range of that soundtrack directly into your home, which has a higher ambient level(which causes you to raise the volume overall), and you sit closer to your speakers. To optimize the mix for HT, some of the loudest peaks have to be reduced, or you will be running for your remote - riding it like a gain knob on a mixing desk(that last part was a joke).


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> Wow!..that is surprising..So the big studios like Fox, Universal and Paramount just don't cater for the HT crowd!
> I'll have to see if my movie choices are available on Disney! :T


LOL


----------



## Sir Terrence

TypeA said:


> Wouldnt remixing to a home theater application also benefit two-channel tv speaker users, not just full blown home theater rigs? Is it really that much more expensive to remix for home theater applications?


We do absolutely nothing to optimize for television speakers, I assure you. The answer to the second question is yes. Its not hugely expensive, but in a time where margins are thin, and everyone wants to control expenses, only one studio really wants to take up that expense, and that is Disney. We also do not release as many movies as say Warner or Sony does, so that could be the reason they have not adopted the process. 

New Line used to do made for HT mixes through Mi Casa studios, but when Warner essentially dissolved NL to cut expenses, that came to an end.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> I run my systems in 7.1 all of the time, even with 5.1 soundtracks. So while we do calibrate the surround arrays 2-3db's lower in the dubbing stage, you are only doing it for the left and right surrounds, not a couple of rear back speakers as well. So even with the reduction, when you add in the two additional speakers, the balance is off once again. We don't account for the rear center speakers in our calibration - hence why I reduce all of my setups. Those rear center speakers(when using PL IIx) is mostly random decorrolated signals(pseudo stereo), so they have a very strong relationship with the left/right surrounds.


Thanks Sir Terrence,

I have a 5.1 system so I should not have to do the 2-3dB reduction on my set-up,since I don't have the added SPL of two additional back surround speakers.






> There are only two studios that do home theater mixes, Disney, and on rare occasion MGM. All of the other studios just transfer their theatrical mixes directly to DVD or Bluray. So they don't do anything to compensate for a mix that was done in a large dubbing stage to the home, only Disney does. Most Disney mixes are 5.1 mixes, with the occasional 7.1(not true discrete 7.1 though). So when I run my 5.1 soundtrack through a 7.1 system, if you don't compensate for the extra speakers, the 4 surround speakers as a whole ultimately will be too loud. Most of the time they are sharing the same information.


You also bring up a valid point for still using Re-EQ on most other studio titles,unless they use Disney's and MGM's services to re-mix for the HT.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence,

Do you think wide channels(such as Audyssey's DSX)if they were used in soundtracks would be more beneficial sonically than additional surround channels(as in a 7.1 soundtrack)as Audyssey and Tomlinson Holman have indicated?

By the way,what is a H-PAS subwoofer.I tried doing a Google search,but couldn't find anything except posts linked to you LOL!


----------



## koyaan

I've also had a continuing problem with dialoge, particularly on disc produced in the UK( a problem because my wife and I love mysteries).On most domestic disc, all is well. I use dapole side surrounds with every thing balanced to the best of my abilities.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> Sir Terrence,
> 
> Do you think wide channels(such as Audyssey's DSX)if they were used in soundtracks would be more beneficial sonically than additional surround channels(as in a 7.1 soundtrack)as Audyssey and Tomlinson Holman have indicated?


I am kind of prejudiced here, Professor Tomlinson was one of my teachers in film school, and I highly respect him. I was also one of the first people to hear hiss 10.2 system in its earliest development, and it sounded spooky good, and pretty realistic. Tomlinson helped start Audyssey, so in this role he is a salesman for DSX, and you have to keep that in mind when he talks about Audyssey's products. Another thing to keep in mind is nobody is going to adopt DSX as a standard, so nobody will exclusively mix for it, no matter how good the technology is. The current 7.1 layout is adaptable for both professional theaters, and home theaters. It is already in widespread use EVERYWHERE. Aside from adding a height channel, it does an extremely good job of translating spatial information in all directions. 

I don't think that DSX will be used in theaters either, because if theaters really want enhanced spatiality, they could go with Iosono 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-3dsound-20101012,0,388434.story

It is a of a lot more immersive that Holmanns 10.2 system, and you can place a sound effect anywhere in the room with dead point on accuracy. Disney's Tron will debut the system at Mann Chinese theater in Hollwood on December 17. From first hand(or ear) experience, this system smokes Holmann's. The Disney production staff in going to check Tron out on the system Wednedsay of next week. I am looking forward to this big time!




> By the way,what is a H-PAS subwoofer.I tried doing a Google search,but couldn't find anything except posts linked to you LOL!


You are not going to find anything on the H-PAS subwoofer, as this is the first subwoofer to have this kind of technology, and it is an ongoing experiment of the technology as applied to subwoofers. However, Atlantic Technology has the first full range speaker which uses the technology, and it sounds very good.

http://www.atlantictechnology.com/default.asp?IsDev=True&NodeId=158

My sub has some twists on the technology, but uses the basic premise. Instead of a port, my friend uses slot loading. Instead of two smaller drivers, he used on larger driver. The rest is basically covered by AT's demo.


----------



## Prof.

> I don't think that DSX will be used in theaters either, because if theaters really want enhanced spatiality, they could go with Iosono
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-3dsound-20101012,0,388434.story


I want one! 



> You are not going to find anything on the H-PAS subwoofer, as this is the first subwoofer to have this kind of technology, and it is an ongoing experiment of the technology as applied to subwoofers. However, Atlantic Technology has the first full range speaker which uses the technology, and it sounds very good.
> 
> http://www.atlantictechnology.com/default.asp?IsDev=True&NodeId=158


Very interesting..It almost looks like a Transmission Line system with section 4 added to attenuate bass harmonics..But the path length doesn't look long enough for a TL..


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> I want one!


I said the same thing!!!




> Very interesting..It almost looks like a Transmission Line system with section 4 added to attenuate bass harmonics..But the path length doesn't look long enough for a TL..


It is a cascade of horn, TL, acoustic suspension, and slot loading technology(bass reflex in the case of AT's speakers). It does not rely solely on one of the technologies, but utilizes them all in a way that pressurizes the sound as it travels through the labyrinth. This is the only subwoofer system I have owned where the bass got louder the lower in frequency you go until you reach the tuning point of the entire system which is 22hz. From that frequencies down it rolls off with a typical acoustical suspension characteristic. These suckers play louder at 25hz than they do at 80hz, and I have never seen that characteristic from any subwoofer I have previously owned.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> I am kind of prejudiced here, Professor Tomlinson was one of my teachers in film school, and I highly respect him. I was also one of the first people to hear hiss 10.2 system in its earliest development, and it sounded spooky good, and pretty realistic. Tomlinson helped start Audyssey, so in this role he is a salesman for DSX, and you have to keep that in mind when he talks about Audyssey's products. Another thing to keep in mind is nobody is going to adopt DSX as a standard, so nobody will exclusively mix for it, no matter how good the technology is. The current 7.1 layout is adaptable for both professional theaters, and home theaters. It is already in widespread use EVERYWHERE. Aside from adding a height channel, it does an extremely good job of translating spatial information in all directions.
> 
> I don't think that DSX will be used in theaters either, because if theaters really want enhanced spatiality, they could go with Iosono
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-3dsound-20101012,0,388434.story
> 
> It is a of a lot more immersive that Holmanns 10.2 system, and you can place a sound effect anywhere in the room with dead point on accuracy. Disney's Tron will debut the system at Mann Chinese theater in Hollwood on December 17. From first hand(or ear) experience, this system smokes Holmann's. The Disney production staff in going to check Tron out on the system Wednedsay of next week. I am looking forward to this big time!


You're comments on the DSX system are exactly why I like to ask people in the field on their opinions vs. the developers and the consumers,you get a more informative look at whether or not these technologies are really going to change the nature of surround production.

Please give us a report back on you're impressions of the Iosono system!

It's also interesting that Dolby is coming out with a new format as well.Will we start seeing 14 channels in the homeonder:


----------



## Prof.

That is most unusual..combining several speaker technologies in the one cabinet! and what a bonus to get increasing decibels as the frequency lowers!..Well done :T


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> It is a cascade of horn, TL, acoustic suspension, and slot loading technology(bass reflex in the case of AT's speakers). It does not rely solely on one of the technologies, but utilizes them all in a way that pressurizes the sound as it travels through the labyrinth. This is the only subwoofer system I have owned where the bass got louder the lower in frequency you go until you reach the tuning point of the entire system which is 22hz. From that frequencies down it rolls off with a typical acoustical suspension characteristic. These suckers play louder at 25hz than they do at 80hz, and I have never seen that characteristic from any subwoofer I have previously owned.


Now that I think about it,I believe I heard something about the H-PAS technology about 2 yrs.ago from a CEDIA or CES report and people were pretty amazed that they pulled it off. 

You have four of those and they are servo controlled as well:yikes:.That must be some incredibly deep,tactile accurate low frequency playback:devil:.


----------



## Drudge

Prof. said:


> That is most unusual..combining several speaker technologies in the one cabinet! and what a bonus to get increasing decibels as the frequency lowers!..Well done :T


Indeed!:clap:


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> You're comments on the DSX system are exactly why I like to ask people in the field on their opinions vs. the developers and the consumers,you get a more informative look at whether or not these technologies are really going to change the nature of surround production.


Here is the interesting(and ingenious) twist. Audyssey did not create DSX to exclusively be used to mix directly on. They designed a steering matrix(much like PL IIz) that works(with varying degree) with all sources already in use. That way they don't lose a thing if nobody wants to mix directly to the format. Besides, DSX is a variation of what Yamaha already did back in the early 90's with their sound field DSP's. 



> Please give us a report back on you're impressions of the Iosono system!


I have already heard it once, and was hugely impressed. I just could not believe what I was hearing. They could place a sound effect right in your ear, or seemingly three football fields away. The could swirl it around the room with incredible consistency and accuracy, it was quite startling to say the least. They could float it over your head, and make it pass right threw you. It was like being out doors with events happening in real time. I am looking forward to seeing this technology used with our film...this should really be interesting!



> It's also interesting that Dolby is coming out with a new format as well.Will we start seeing 14 channels in the homeonder:


Both DTS and Dolby are trying very hard to stay relevent in the theatrical environment. With sound moving towards PCM, their theatrical codecs are being used less and less. Digital Cinema already allows more than 14 channels of digital audio, so it will be interesting to see how they piggyback their technology into this technology.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> Now that I think about it,I believe I heard something about the H-PAS technology about 2 yrs.ago from a CEDIA or CES report and people were pretty amazed that they pulled it off.


Bingo! However my friend is one of the first to license the technology to apply on sub woofers exclusively. It is a work in progress. 



> You have four of those and they are servo controlled as well:yikes:.That must be some incredibly deep,tactile accurate low frequency playback:devil:.


Deep, tactile, deadly accurate, and flat down to 20hz with only 3% distortion at maximum level(I don't really know what that is, but in my system, it is mighty mighty loud). They cannot be overloaded(they just stop getting louder), or driven beyond what the driver can deliver cleanly. I don't believe that I have thrown anything at them that really challenged them all that much. They can take much more power than I am currently feeding them.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> Both DTS and Dolby are trying very hard to stay relevent in the theatrical environment. With sound moving towards PCM, their theatrical codecs are being used less and less. Digital Cinema already allows more than 14 channels of digital audio, so it will be interesting to see how they piggyback their technology into this technology.


I would rather everything stay PCM instead of a third party codec encode then decode to PCM anyway on Blu-ray,but the more space for all those special features is what the studios want and the Dolby True-HD(almost non-existent anymore)and dts master audio lossless compression schemes give them that.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> I would rather everything stay PCM instead of a third party codec encode then decode to PCM anyway on Blu-ray,but the more space for all those special features is what the studios want and the Dolby True-HD(almost non-existent anymore)and dts master audio lossless compression schemes give them that.


I also like straight PCM. There is something about just recording the audio, having it pass through the digital chain untouched until it hits the DAC's in the receiver of pre-pro. The whole thing is just cleaner and more graceful this way. In the early days of Bluray, the PCM tracks sounded stunning to these ears. Not that DTS HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD do not sound good in their own right, they just seem overly complex in an effort to be bit for bit to the master.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> I also like straight PCM. There is something about just recording the audio, having it pass through the digital chain untouched until it hits the DAC's in the receiver of pre-pro. The whole thing is just cleaner and more graceful this way. In the early days of Bluray, the PCM tracks sounded stunning to these ears. Not that DTS HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD do not sound good in their own right, they just seem overly complex in an effort to be bit for bit to the master.


My thoughts as well:T.


----------



## eugovector

Yeah, I think Dolby's running a little scared in the optical media space, but they could do us all a favor by giving us that fight and pushing Dolby Digital Plus for Netflix, Hulu, and the like. Would love a DD+ soundtrack on my streaming Netflix.


----------



## Andre

This is all well and good but like me the Prof could be just going deaf. Throw out the decible meter, recalibrate with a mitten over the mic, then tweak until you hear something that doesn't sound like your wife calling you again since you have learned to ignore that sound by now... Enjoy


----------



## Prof.

Ay!! what did you say sony!! lddude: There's still a good few years in me yet!!


----------



## jedispork

I've never been a big fan of surround sound. After a movie or so I start to find it distracting. However I have heard people say that 5.1 is much better on games. In my living room sometimes we have people sitting all over and the sound is more balanced for them having it come from the front. 

I think 2.1 or 3.1 is great for a living room. I have nice towers and a svs sub. Hopefully this still means I'm more of a enthusiast than the htib crowd. Maybe I will change my mind when the projector room is done and I can setup 5.1 properly. I have watched a few movies with nice headphones and think its a unique experience. I feel in the middle of everything.


----------



## Zeitgeist

I just saw the new Wall Street movie, and surround sound was on my mind........ and I was really disappointed. So, granted most of the movie was dialogue, but there were a couple scenes where some surround (any!) would have really helped make the scene feel more immersive. I mean, one was in a crowded room surrounded by people at tables and there was no surround..... whatsoever.

The only surround content that I caught was during the credits!

I understand those that say it can be distracting if overused.... but really? not used at all? Curious if budget or something else became a factor because it seems like most movies have at least a little bit.


----------



## Prof.

Zeitgeist said:


> I just saw the new Wall Street movie, and surround sound was on my mind........ and I was really disappointed. So, granted most of the movie was dialogue, but there were a couple scenes where some surround (any!) would have really helped make the scene feel more immersive. I mean, one was in a crowded room surrounded by people at tables and there was no surround..... whatsoever.


Yes and there are many more movies like that..Some even have good ambient sounds and surround effects in parts of the movie and not in others..
Just when you expect there to be surround sound..there's nothing..just as you said..
It's like..Oops!! we forgot to put in surround sound at that point!! :R

On a positive note, some of the later movies are putting in more realistic surround effects that do help to give a bit more of an expansive field..It certainly raises the level immersiveness and enjoyment.:T.


----------



## fractile

I wonder what the general percentage of installed surround sound systems is, compared with the built in TV speaker and 'stereo system' sound? And what is the rate of adoption in surround? Does it compare with internet use after 1996, or DSL over dial-up?

Whatever it is, I think the movie and gaming industry will be who saves the quality of music production, since the mix quality I seem to see is being geared more toward the small sound capability of portable systems.

As the market develops I imagine the quality standards will also improve. And now we have the developments in 3-D media that will probably have a good influence on true 3-D sound. I think surround has the potential to be the new stereo. Now, if the quality of content can keep pace with the technology


----------



## Drudge

After watching a couple of Blu-ray movies(Death Race 2008,The incredible Hulk 2008)and being disappointed with the overly loud general volume of these movies and the feeling of the surrounds being right in my ears during most time,the Hulk being more tolerable,I decided to throw in my DVD copy of Castaway.I've only watched it once about 8 yrs. ago and wanted to see if maybe my system was partly to blame for my disappointment of many recent Blu-ray titles I've watched and figured this one would be a great test for surround ambiance.

Well,all I can say is this movie sounds absolutely fantastic!The atmosphere and ambiance just sound so realistic and make you feel like your in the movie and not just being bombarded with overly loud sounds from the surrounds just to sell the effect.The dialog sounds natural,the plane crash had great dynamics and the surrounds just envelope you with all the Island sounds.I wish all movies sounded as good as this one.It had better sound than any of the Blu-ray titles I've watched so far,although I've only watched about 15 Blu-ray's,I'm way behind on my Netflix Que:laugh:.


----------



## Prof.

This seems to be be the general run of things at the moment..
There are some good Blu-rays..a few excellent ones and a lot of mediocre to really bad ones!..The bad ones are of the type you've described, where the surround sound is treated with indifference ranging from virtually none, to over the top sound that is totally out of context to the images on the screen..

I have to agree that some DVD's have a much better quality of surround sound compared to some Blu-rays..
I've been gradually replacing some of my DVD's with Blu-rays, and I have to say that some of the Blu-rays just aren't worth keeping..
For the most part image quality is better..although with a few, I can't see any improvement, but the audio in some instances is totally different!
Sir Terence explained this previously, explaining the original master is not always used to produce the Blu-ray version..and or the post production engineer alters the sound to what he or they think is best!


----------



## Zeitgeist

I'm really curious how "Unstoppable" is going to sound on Bluray.

In theater, it is one of the loudest movies I've seen.... with *heavy* low frequency content and some rather immersive scenes. Plenty of wide shots and too much blabbering from the media... but a few scenes stuck out with a big "cool" factor.

Big, heavy, loud trains lend themselves to enveloping you with noise!

I just remember hearing the eerie sound of the engine in the rear surrounds..


----------



## Drudge

Prof. said:


> This seems to be be the general run of things at the moment..
> There are some good Blu-rays..a few excellent ones and a lot of mediocre to really bad ones!..The bad ones are of the type you've described, where the surround sound is treated with indifference ranging from virtually none, to over the top sound that is totally out of context to the images on the screen..
> 
> I have to agree that some DVD's have a much better quality of surround sound compared to some Blu-rays..
> I've been gradually replacing some of my DVD's with Blu-rays, and I have to say that some of the Blu-rays just aren't worth keeping..
> For the most part image quality is better..although with a few, I can't see any improvement, but the audio in some instances is totally different!
> Sir Terence explained this previously, explaining the original master is not always used to produce the Blu-ray version..and or the post production engineer alters the sound to what he or they think is best!


The Hulk and Death race are considered "reference quality" according to many online reviews that's why I chose to rent them to see how they would showcase the Blu-ray format capabilities,but I agree with you that they seem to be bad examples rather than "reference".


----------



## Drudge

Zeitgeist said:


> I'm really curious how "Unstoppable" is going to sound on Bluray.
> 
> In theater, it is one of the loudest movies I've seen.... with *heavy* low frequency content and some rather immersive scenes. Plenty of wide shots and too much blabbering from the media... but a few scenes stuck out with a big "cool" factor.
> 
> Big, heavy, loud trains lend themselves to enveloping you with noise!
> 
> I just remember hearing the eerie sound of the engine in the rear surrounds..


That movie could have some great potential if they don't over pump it for Blu-ray release.


----------



## Drudge

I watched Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull(Blu-ray) and then Windtalkers(DVD) this weekend.

Indiana Jones had better sound than some of the previous Blu-rays that I had watched,but it had a flat somewhat lifeless quality to a lot of parts of the film,as what has been previously mentioned about many of these new films not having much ambiance.When it seemed that there should be some highly dynamic parts it just didn't have any kick to the sound.The bass also seemed to be subdued.The only parts that it really had any power were the third waterfall drop and the end when the alien ship departs.

Windtalkers to compare,had fantastic sound.The dynamics were realistic and impressive and the ambiance was everywhere with some serious percussive and deep bass attacks!

To me it's not the lossy vs.lossless vs.bits etc...that makes the difference,but the sound design,mixing and mastering that are the factors and most of these recent Blu-ray and DVD releases(although I don't rent any DVDs anymore to compare to the same Blu-ray title)are not very good to say the least:rolleyesno:.


----------



## Prof.

Yes I agree with you on the Indiana Jones movie..
The other part of that film that I found disappointing was the Atom bomb explosion..It should have shook me in my seat with a deep thunderous roar..it just wasn't there!
Some of these Blu-rays do leave a lot to be desired!
I often wonder just how much scrutiny goes into some of these movies before they're released..

One of my other pet peeves is continuity errors..where simple things like a guy wearing a blue shirt in one scene, and in the next scene he's wearing a green shirt!!.and they seem to pop up more and more..
Does anybody ever check these things!!?


----------



## Zeitgeist

Is anyone motivated enough to create a "Movies with great surround" thread?

There have been a couple great bass movie threads over at AVS forum, but I think it would be cool to have a thread to keep track of movies that have outstanding surround.

I've seen some "reference movie" type threads too -but not all reference movies have great surround and not all great surround movies are reference.

I'll probably create a thread if nobody else does...


----------



## Zeitgeist

Drudge said:


> That movie (Unstopptable) could have some great potential if they don't over pump it for Blu-ray release.


I have some concern about how it'll be on Blu-ray - because some movies on DVD/Bluray have an LFE track that is so hot - that you end up having to dial down the LFE to keep it from getting excessive.. And then it's hard to ever achieve a good balance. Of course, it's hard to ever tell how it's intended to sound because I've heard movies in different theaters and they rarely sound the same across multiple theaters. Either by changing the overall volume, or lowering/raising subwoofer content.


----------



## Dale Rasco

I agree on a lot of points throughout this thread, especially the atomic bomb in Indiana Jones Professor.

I do however think that the problem is not that surround sound has been forgotten, but more of a matter of what we think we should hear. In other words, some would argue, and in some cases that would be me, that analog recording catches a certain amount of emotion in recorded music that isn't there in digital recordings. Most of the time that argument is made by those that grew up in the time of analog recordings vs digital. It goes right in with those that say; "today's music just has no soul". It's all subjective.


----------



## Dale Rasco

Zeitgeist said:


> Is anyone motivated enough to create a "Movies with great surround" thread?
> 
> There have been a couple great bass movie threads over at AVS forum, but I think it would be cool to have a thread to keep track of movies that have outstanding surround.
> 
> I've seen some "reference movie" type threads too -but not all reference movies have great surround and not all great surround movies are reference.
> 
> I'll probably create a thread if nobody else does...


We have one started already in the general movie section. :T


----------



## Prof.

Dale Rasco said:


> I agree on a lot of points throughout this thread, especially the atomic bomb in Indiana Jones Professor.
> 
> I do however think that the problem is not that surround sound has been forgotten, but more of a matter of what we think we should hear. In other words, some would argue, and in some cases that would be me, that analog recording catches a certain amount of emotion in recorded music that isn't there in digital recordings. Most of the time that argument is made by those that grew up in the time of analog recordings vs digital. It goes right in with those that say; "today's music just has no soul". It's all subjective.


So,so true..:T I remember the first time I ever heard a CD..and to me it sounded hard, cold and metallic,compared to LP's..It just didn't have any soul!..Never did get used to it! 

Movies on the other hand..particularly some of the earlier DVD's, had some nice natural surround sound..Whereas now it's become a bit more gimmicky with a lot of it feeling like it's been more of an added after thought..


----------



## Zeitgeist

Dale Rasco said:


> We have one started already in the general movie section. :T


I'm asleep at the keyboard apparently.... Sorry!


----------



## Sir Terrence

Dale Rasco said:


> I agree on a lot of points throughout this thread, especially the atomic bomb in Indiana Jones Professor.
> 
> I do however think that the problem is not that surround sound has been forgotten, but more of a matter of what we think we should hear. In other words, some would argue, and in some cases that would be me, that analog recording catches a certain amount of emotion in recorded music that isn't there in digital recordings. Most of the time that argument is made by those that grew up in the time of analog recordings vs digital. It goes right in with those that say; "today's music just has no soul". It's all subjective.


Dale, you are onto something here. 10 years ago I went round robin with Gary Reber of Widescreen Review about the state of surround sound in movies. He thought that we should be constantly embedded in ambiance throughout the entire movie, and I said it should be where it is appropriate. 

I got my degree in film, but my minor was in psychology and acoustics. One thing I learned and applied to my mixing was the understanding that when the ear/brain mechanism is focused on a particular thing, it will mask out anything else. So while you may be sitting in a field full of birds chirping, if you started reading a book, the sound of the birds will fade into the background. When you stop reading the book, then the sounds will become dominate to your ears again. It is a very subtle interaction, but if you pay attention, you will notice it. 

Sound tracks are designed much the same way. When the director wants you to focus on the events on the screen, you want to reduce the amount of ambiance in the mix so as not to distract from what is going there. I cannot tell you how many mixes I have heard that had so much coming from the surrounds, that I could not focus on the screen. 

We buy all of these speakers, and we want to get our money's worth. So when a sound track does not use them all of the time, we are disappointed. That is not the right reason for having ambiance constantly chattering in our ears. 

Lastly, I have said this before. There is more going on in a sound track than many realize. Sometimes the ambiance is so low in level, it is masked by the background noise in the room. You would have to put your ears up to the speakers to know it was playing something. In a very quiet room, this would not be lost. But in living rooms and den's that are utilized as viewing areas, appliances whirring in the background, noises in the street would prevent any of this from being heard. 

In the end, you are totally right....it completely subjective. 

Analog usually has second order harmonics present, and Digital usually has third order harmonics. Second order harmonics are pleasing to the ear(euphonic), third order harmonics are like a finger nail on a chalkboard. While analog has more distortion than digital, it is distortion that is pleasing to the ear.


----------



## Dale Rasco

Sir Terrence said:


> Lastly, I have said this before. There is more going on in a sound track than many realize. Sometimes the ambiance is so low in level, it is masked by the background noise in the room. You would have to put your ears up to the speakers to know it was playing something. In a very quiet room, this would not be lost. But in living rooms and den's that are utilized as viewing areas, appliances whirring in the background, noises in the street would prevent any of this from being heard.


The only other thing I would add is that I think it depends on whether or not the system is running at reference level or not. I distinctly remember when I started listening at reference level and it was like the sound completely opened up for me. I could hear tons of detail that I just couldn't hear before because the volume was to low.


----------



## Zeitgeist

Dale Rasco said:


> The only other thing I would add is that I think it depends on whether or not the system is running at reference level or not. I distinctly remember when I started listening at reference level and it was like the sound completely opened up for me. I could hear tons of detail that I just couldn't hear before because the volume was to low.


At least for surrounds- that might explain why some people like to run their surrounds hot...

If they're not listening at reference, the surround audio is just not loud enough to be apparent...

That's an excellent statement, regardless.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Zeitgeist said:


> At least for surrounds- that might explain why some people like to run their surrounds hot...
> 
> If they're not listening at reference, the surround audio is just not loud enough to be apparent...
> 
> That's an excellent statement, regardless.


This is another mistake many make with their surround speakers. The surrounds should not be apparent until they are called upon to be so, much like a well calibrated subwoofer. The surrounds should mostly be very subtle for the most part, and should never be adjusted to a level that makes them apparent. 

Dale does make an important point. The louder you listen to a sound track, the more it masks the background noise of the listening space itself. In the home, that is particularly important - much more so than in a quiet theater.


----------



## Zeitgeist

I think I used a poor word choice. Rather than apparent, perhaps I should have said audible.

I fight the battle against background noise, because my HT room is adjacent to our HVAC. The HVAC isn't bad - thanks to the drywall and insulation - but the background noise doesn't help with the more subtle effects from surrounds.

It took a little effort, but I've fought the urge to run my surrounds hot... I keep them calibrated now - and I'm quite happy.


----------



## Drudge

Dale Rasco said:


> The only other thing I would add is that I think it depends on whether or not the system is running at reference level or not. I distinctly remember when I started listening at reference level and it was like the sound completely opened up for me. I could hear tons of detail that I just couldn't hear before because the volume was to low.


I don't listen at reference.I listen at -13dB below and I use the loudness contour on my MC-12.It doesn't however affect the surrounds it only applies the compensation to the main LCR and sub,so it doesn't work as well as the new THX loudness Plus and Audyssey Dynamic EQ methods that apply appropriate level compensation for the surrounds at lower volume levels.

It does help bring back the impact to the movie with it on and my room has a noise floor of less than 40dBA,which is normal and not low enough compared to studio 15dBA requirements,and I watch late at night.

I also agree that ambiance does not need to be obvious all the time,but some of these movies are have dead anechoic quality to certain scenes.


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> This is another mistake many make with their surround speakers. The surrounds should not be apparent until they are called upon to be so, much like a well calibrated subwoofer. The surrounds should mostly be very subtle for the most part, and should never be adjusted to a level that makes them apparent.


Whilst I agree that surround sound levels should not be apparent for ambiance and subtle surround sound effects ..things like jet planes screaming overhead should at the same time just about blow your eardrums, to be realistic..and they don't!..To achieve that, the level needs to be increased..

It seems to me that we don't get the same dynamic range in the surrounds that we get from the fronts..
Now whether that's the AVR that's the limitation or the type of surround speakers used, or some form of compression in the recording, I don't know..but for me to get realistic surround sound with sounds that should be loud, I have to increase the levels above the reference level of the fronts..


----------



## Dale Rasco

Drudge said:


> but some of these movies are have dead anechoic quality to certain scenes.


Drudge, Could you expand on that a little? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say with that statement.




Prof. said:


> Whilst I agree that surround sound levels should not be apparent for ambiance and subtle surround sound effects ..things like jet planes screaming overhead should at the same time just about blow your eardrums, to be realistic..and they don't!..To achieve that, the level needs to be increased..


That's a good point Professor. There are some movies that are able to achieve that kind of impact, but it definitely feels a little lopsided and lacking a good amount of the time. It also seems as if I feel the impact of the sub more than the surrounds. When a jet flies off screen I expect it to get more faint, but as you said, when one is coming from behind it seems like it should be louder. Of course, I am going by memory and will now have to spend part of my evening testing this out..... :rolleyesno:


----------



## Prof.

Dale Rasco said:


> That's a good point Professor. There are some movies that are able to achieve that kind of impact, but it definitely feels a little lopsided and lacking a good amount of the time. It also seems as if I feel the impact of the sub more than the surrounds. When a jet flies off screen I expect it to get more faint, but as you said, when one is coming from behind it seems like it should be louder. Of course, I am going by memory and will now have to spend part of my evening testing this out..... :rolleyesno:


One good example of this is in Indiana Jones Kingdom of the Crystal Skull..if you have it..The scene at the airfield when a jet is coming towards you and fly's overhead, towards the back of the room..It should absolutely roar overhead, but doesn't..even with my surround levels up by 3dB. from the fronts!


----------



## Dale Rasco

Well that one in particular doesn't surprise me because I don't think the sound on that one is all it should have been. Unfortunately I loaned mine to a friend of mine and haven't gotten it back yet. Any other suggestions? I am checking out the new Resident Evil because it has some good plane scenes in the 29-30 minute mark. It all seems fairly proportionate to me on this particular one. I was thinking of checking Transformers because it has some good jet scenes with Starscream.


----------



## Prof.

I can't think of any other movies with low level jets flying overhead that don't sound loud enough..at the moment.
One movie that does have good sound level on overhead jets is War of the Worlds..When they are walking across the field and the jets come screaming overhead towards the machines..
The first time I heard that, I nearly jumped out of my chair!!..It's a pity more films are not like that..

One good movie that I watched again last night was Sherlock Holmes..It had some excellent realistic surround sound with good dynamics..
I would rate it right up there with Master and Commander!


----------



## Drudge

Dale Rasco said:


> Drudge, Could you expand on that a little? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say with that statement.


I meant that in some of these movies there are scenes when the ambiance just sounds like a dead space when in reality it wouldn't sound that lifeless,for example some indoor and dialog driven scenes have a black hole of ambiance sound to them,it just doesn't sound right.


----------



## Drudge

Prof. said:


> I can't think of any other movies with low level jets flying overhead that don't sound loud enough..at the moment.
> One movie that does have good sound level on overhead jets is War of the Worlds..When they are walking across the field and the jets come screaming overhead towards the machines..
> The first time I heard that, I nearly jumped out of my chair!!..It's a pity more films are not like that..
> 
> One good movie that I watched again last night was Sherlock Holmes..It had some excellent realistic surround sound with good dynamics..
> I would rate it right up there with Master and Commander!


Just watch Air Force One if you want to hear jet flyovers that sound fairly realistic:T


----------



## Dale Rasco

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. The earlier post just read funny to me for some reason.


----------



## Drudge

Dale Rasco said:


> Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. The earlier post just read funny to me for some reason.



Yeah,I was typing fast and mixed up some words without checking.


----------



## gdstupak

Here's a great one, although it's an arrow not a plane.

The very last minute of the latest Robin Hood (w/ Russell Crowe). There's an arrow that is shot from rear right and hits a tree at front left center.
Even though my surround speakers are 10' up in the ceiling, it sounds like the arrow whizzes past just inches above my right ear. My wife jumped a foot in the air when it happened!



Here's one that shows very bad inconsistency.

The latest Predators, near the end, when the ship was taking off, there was a little sub rumbling as you saw the ship, but then the camera cuts to a close up of the ground which was visibly shaking and shaking ammo brass could be heard, but the rumbling from the subs actually stopped, so I could see the ground shaking but couldn't feel it.


----------



## Drudge

gdstupak said:


> Here's a great one, although it's an arrow not a plane.
> 
> The very last minute of the latest Robin Hood (w/ Russell Crowe). There's an arrow that is shot from rear right and hits a tree at front left center.
> Even though my surround speakers are 10' up in the ceiling, it sounds like the arrow whizzes past just inches above my right ear. My wife jumped a foot in the air when it happened!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that shows very bad inconsistency.
> 
> The latest Predators, near the end, when the ship was taking off, there was a little sub rumbling as you saw the ship, but then the camera cuts to a close up of the ground which was visibly shaking and shaking ammo brass could be heard, but the rumbling from the subs actually stopped, so I could see the ground shaking but couldn't feel it.


Those sound like perfect examples of good vs.bad sound design:thumb:.


----------



## STMY

Prof. said:


> Whilst I agree that surround sound levels should not be apparent for ambiance and subtle surround sound effects ..things like jet planes screaming overhead should at the same time just about blow your eardrums, to be realistic..and they don't!..To achieve that, the level needs to be increased..
> 
> It seems to me that we don't get the same dynamic range in the surrounds that we get from the fronts..
> Now whether that's the AVR that's the limitation or the type of surround speakers used, or some form of compression in the recording, I don't know..but for me to get realistic surround sound with sounds that should be loud, I have to increase the levels above the reference level of the fronts..


A good surround mix should in fact, present the realistic dynamic soundscape that matches the images that we see on the screen. There are some factors that you have to consider when you evaluate quality.

1 - (mentioned already many times) is budget / money
2 - Lack of experience in mixing for surround. don't forget that stereo has been around for more than half a century. Surround is still in it's infancy/teens. There is still a lot to be learned - even for professionals. I am one of them and I debate with colleagues over this, just like end-users do on this forum. Many of us suffer from number one. Not enough budget = no time for perfection.
3 - Difference in setups of reference-master mixing suites and the home-front. Surround sound was designed as 5, 6, 7 or more times a full-range unit (1:1 with the format that is capable of storing the full-range content on each and every track, Plus an additional subwoofer that was supposed to fill the void in the low end of the smaller full range units all around.
In practise, the home market developed somewhat of a spin-off form this idea, where front, center and surround units are not full range. The fanatics will have at least a full range system for front L/R and most of us will have a subwoofer. You must comprehend from this that mixing for home-cinema and mixing for cinema theaters has become a choice. Combine this with number 1 and you understand the obvious choice of the producers. The movie is played for cinema-audiences, so this is where a score has to be made.
4 - Reference mixing is however of the utmost importance. Whithout a reference, the result would be complete chaos. If you system does not properly play back the sound of a particular movie, we at home have the option of upgrading our system or change the settings, for that movie. I would greatly welcome a series of presets and user-memory for switching quickly to the best setting for a given movie.

All this being said. I realize that consumers are being pushed to invest in new formats that are presented to them in a shot period of time, over and over again. (actually, the same goes for the pro's) The DVD/BlueRay industry should account for decent production for for the home-cinema market. Letting them feel it in the money-pocket only works if critisim is communicated to the production industry simultaneously. Otherwise, it will not have the effect you hope for, meaning even smaller budgets and lesser quality.

In short: If you have negative experiences with a movie, gather the critisism from every user on the forum and present that as a report to the producers of THAT movie. Contact information may be found through IMDB and/or (google) search engines.

Thank you. ( I gather I can say this for many professional collegues of mine )

PS: a general short term advise: get bigger speakers :T


----------



## Dale Rasco

Thanks STMY, it's great to get insight from those of you that are in the industry. :T Much appreciated.


----------



## gdstupak

STMY said:


> PS: a general short term advise: get bigger speakers :T


AMEN!
Can't get any punch out of speakers that have to be crossed over at 100hz.
I even think THX's 80hz crossover is too high, I can still hear/localize 80hz coming out of my sub.
Not to mention, with 100hz crossover, any sound below 110hz that was supposed to be dedicated to one certain surround speaker, will now be played through the front speakers if they can handle it, if they are too small, then it would go to a subwoofer.!?


----------



## eugovector

Re-watched Indian a Jones and the Last Crusade, they don't make them like that anymore (literally). Maybe not the bowel-wrenching LF we've gotten accustom to, but the ambiance in almost every scene was so dialed in.

Combine that with a great musical score, humor, and storyline, and it make me sad to see people lined up for Harry Potter, Twilight, and what passes for a blockbuster movie these days.


----------



## Sir Terrence

STMY said:


> A good surround mix should in fact, present the realistic dynamic soundscape that matches the images that we see on the screen. There are some factors that you have to consider when you evaluate quality.
> 
> 1 - (mentioned already many times) is budget / money


The main reason unfortunately.



> 2 - Lack of experience in mixing for surround. don't forget that stereo has been around for more than half a century. Surround is still in it's infancy/teens. There is still a lot to be learned - even for professionals. I am one of them and I debate with colleagues over this, just like end-users do on this forum. Many of us suffer from number one. Not enough budget = no time for perfection.


I don't think experience is an issue here, as many of the folks doing re-recording mixing have been doing it for years - especially in Hollywood. For the top tier movies, the same folks are doing the lions share of the mixing for these movies. Keep in mind, 70mm six track, Dolby A 6 track, Dolby SR 6 track have been around since 1976. So we have been mixing on some variations of a 5.1 palette for at least 35 years. Based on that, it seems to me the budget issue is more of the problem than experience. 



> 3 - Difference in setups of reference-master mixing suites and the home-front. Surround sound was designed as 5, 6, 7 or more times a full-range unit (1:1 with the format that is capable of storing the full-range content on each and every track, Plus an additional subwoofer that was supposed to fill the void in the low end of the smaller full range units all around.
> In practise, the home market developed somewhat of a spin-off form this idea, where front, center and surround units are not full range. The fanatics will have at least a full range system for front L/R and most of us will have a subwoofer. You must comprehend from this that mixing for home-cinema and mixing for cinema theaters has become a choice. Combine this with number 1 and you understand the obvious choice of the producers. The movie is played for cinema-audiences, so this is where a score has to be made.


While the mixing format we use(8 full range channels for D-Cinema) allows us to use full range signals on all channels, the playback hardware does not. Three full range channel across the front, two(or three for 7.1) limited range channels in the surrounds, and a LFE channel is what we currently work with. If a end user can mimic this set up, they will have less problems with the playback of a sound track. However we know home theater is about compromises, but the problem with the compromises is it CAN lead to some playback issues. 

And you are right, we mix for the theater, and the home gets that same mix. Disney is the only studio doing home theater mixes on all of their releases, so the end user should have far less problems with their tracks than they do with other studios tracks.

4 - Reference mixing is however of the utmost importance. Whithout a reference, the result would be complete chaos. If you system does not properly play back the sound of a particular movie, we at home have the option of upgrading our system or change the settings, for that movie. I would greatly welcome a series of presets and user-memory for switching quickly to the best setting for a given movie.[/quote]

With people using anything from a 2.0 to a 7.1 systems, it would be impossible to create presets to accommodate every configuration out there. My best advice is to try and emulate the set up as best you can, and you will find you will have little to no playback issues. 



> All this being said. I realize that consumers are being pushed to invest in new formats that are presented to them in a shot period of time, over and over again. (actually, the same goes for the pro's) The DVD/BlueRay industry should account for decent production for for the home-cinema market. Letting them feel it in the money-pocket only works if critisim is communicated to the production industry simultaneously. Otherwise, it will not have the effect you hope for, meaning even smaller budgets and lesser quality.


I agree with this wholeheartedly!



> In short: If you have negative experiences with a movie, gather the critisism from every user on the forum and present that as a report to the producers of THAT movie. Contact information may be found through IMDB and/or (google) search engines.
> 
> Thank you. ( I gather I can say this for many professional collegues of mine )


The problem with this advice is IME, producers do a movie, and then move on. Many never see the final product in their homes and are not interested in what they did before the current project they are working on. Too many use their time on the dubbing stage as their reference, and never take the time to take the project home to cross-check their decision made there. 



> PS: a general short term advise: get bigger speakers :T


Exactly!!!!


----------



## Drudge

Okay,what Sir T and STMY makes a lot of sense,but what about the fact that I and a few others have been finding that older DVD releases seem to have better overall realism and sound quality.If today's movies have all this state of the art tech and gained experience in designing the sound why do these older releases seem to sound better?Minus anything to do with budgeting.

I don't think that just having bigger speakers is going to solve the issue.Otherwise what's the point of mixing and DVD/Blu-ray authoring rooms having nearfield monitors if the large soffit ones are more ideal,although many have both.The Infinity towers I had were using active 10" drivers with 6" mid/woofers and a 1" dome tweeters and the 2-way nearfield monitors that cost less than the Infinitys's that I use now,are much better at producing a realistic and accurate sound.

When I began getting into HT and had Infinity towers and a less capable sub with a Sony receiver and no idea of room placement or RC or acoustics,most movies seemed to sound very consistent and I thought had pretty good sound,but as I've improved my system through higher quality electronics,acoustic treatment,speakers,RC and a better knowledge of acoustics(still a novice) I notice more and more that the sound is less consistent and realistic from many new films.To be fair,I think music production in the "popular genres" is head over shoulders worse than anything I've heard on any movie to date,but movie soundtracks just seem to be following suit.

Can it all just really be related to translation issues between mixing/dubbing stages to the home theater environment:dontknow:?


----------



## Sir Terrence

gdstupak said:


> AMEN!
> Can't get any punch out of speakers that have to be crossed over at 100hz.


I disagree with this. I work with Genelecs in the studio doing home theater mixes, and their mains just make it to 80hz crossover point. You get ton's of punch if the system is correctly set up. 




> I even think THX's 80hz crossover is too high, I can still hear/localize 80hz coming out of my sub.


If you can still localize your sub using a 80hz crossover point, your sub is A) distorting, B) does not have a steep enough filters to remove the frequencies above 80hz out of the sub(24dbpo is recommended), or C) your sub is vibrating something nearby. 



> Not to mention, with 100hz crossover, any sound below 110hz that was supposed to be dedicated to one certain surround speaker, will now be played through the front speakers if they can handle it, if they are too small, then it would go to a subwoofer.!?


If you don't have a sub, it will go evenly into the L/R mains up front. If you do have a sub, it will go directly there.


----------



## Dale Rasco

Because what you hear is subjective. I personally cannot recall a DVD sound presentation from any time that I thought bested a new release on Bluray, but I know that my opinion is also subjective.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> Okay,what Sir T and STMY makes a lot of sense,but what about the fact that I and a few others have been finding that older DVD releases seem to have better overall realism and sound quality.If today's movies have all this state of the art tech and gained experience in designing the sound why do these older releases seem to sound better?Minus anything to do with budgeting.


Since I have a lot of older DVD releases, I can tell you their apparent superiority is not uniform. There are some good sounding titles, and some bad sounding ones as well; much like we have today. There are some new titles that sound quite realistic, and some studios are better at creating realistic mixes than others. In the end it is just like Dale points out, it is all subjective. What you might not find realistic, I may and visa versa. 



> I don't think that just having bigger speakers is going to solve the issue.Otherwise what's the point of mixing and DVD/Blu-ray authoring rooms having nearfield monitors if the large soffit ones are more ideal,although many have both.The Infinity towers I had were using active 10" drivers with 6" mid/woofers and a 1" dome tweeters and the 2-way nearfield monitors that cost less than the Infinitys's that I use now,are much better at producing a realistic and accurate sound.


As i have pointed out to you earlier, only one studio consistently uses near field monitors in home theater size rooms to mix their DVD and Bluray releases. That would be Disney. All of the other studios(with some special edition titles exempted) have mixes that were done in the dubbing stage, and transferred directly to DVD or Bluray. Dubbing stages do not use soffit mounted speakers, only audio recording studios do. Dubbing stages are configured just like movie theaters, all the way down to the seats installed.



> When I began getting into HT and had Infinity towers and a less capable sub with a Sony receiver and no idea of room placement or RC or acoustics,most movies seemed to sound very consistent and I thought had pretty good sound,but as I've improved my system through higher quality electronics,acoustic treatment,speakers,RC and a better knowledge of acoustics(still a novice) I notice more and more that the sound is less consistent and realistic from many new films.To be fair,I think music production in the "popular genres" is head over shoulders worse than anything I've heard on any movie to date,but movie soundtracks just seem to be following suit.
> 
> Can it all just really be related to translation issues between mixing/dubbing stages to the home theater environment:dontknow:?


To answer your question, yes. All of the issues that folks here are having, I don't have in any of the theaters I own. Why is this? Because all of my movie only theaters(as opposed to those doing double duty with multichannel music) are all fashioned directly after the dubbing stage. I use three large extended range speakers up front, a surround array with the same bandwidth as the dubbing stage, and multiple subs placed under the screen all in a room that has acoustics and background noise tightly controlled. 

Personally I have found that soundtracks on disc have improved dramatically over the years, especially since Bluray has hit the market with lossless or uncompressed audio.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> I disagree with this. I work with Genelecs in the studio doing home theater mixes, and their mains just make it to 80hz crossover point. You get ton's of punch if the system is correctly set up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can still localize your sub using a 80hz crossover point, your sub is A) distorting, B) does not have a steep enough filters to remove the frequencies above 80hz out of the sub(24dbpo is recommended), or C) your sub is vibrating something nearby.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have a sub, it will go evenly into the L/R mains up front. If you do have a sub, it will go directly there.


I fully agree!

My monitors are crossed over at 80Hz and give good punch and if I use a 40Hz(they can go that low) crossover they don't have as much headroom as when I cross them over to 80Hz.When I let the sub take care of the <80Hz range I get more punch and my dual 15" opposing sub doesn't localize like my first 10" Velodyne sub did.



Dale Rasco said:


> Because what you hear is subjective. I personally cannot recall a DVD sound presentation from any time that I thought bested a new release on Bluray, but I know that my opinion is also subjective.


Well,what I have been doing is comparing my old DVD collection to new Blu-ray releases I've been renting over the last year and most,but not all(some early 1990's DD releases are horribly mixed) of my DVD's sound subjectively better to me:huh:.


----------



## Dale Rasco

Drudge said:


> Well,what I have been doing is comparing my old DVD collection to new Blu-ray releases I've been renting over the last year and most,but not all(some early 1990's DD releases are horribly mixed) of my DVD's sound subjectively better to me:huh:.


Exactly!


----------



## Sir Terrence

Dale Rasco said:


> Because what you hear is subjective. I personally cannot recall a DVD sound presentation from any time that I thought bested a new release on Bluray, but I know that my opinion is also subjective.


I totally agree with you. I was a reviewer for Bluray.com. Part of my reviews compared the Bluray sound track with the DVD sound track. I could not find a single one out of my more than 300 reviews were the DVD sounded better than the Bluray. As good as Disney's DVD's sounded, they sounded even better on Bluray, even when the same master was used for both.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> As i have pointed out to you earlier, only one studio consistently uses near field monitors in home theater size rooms to mix their DVD and Bluray releases. That would be Disney. All of the other studios(with some special edition titles exempted) have mixes that were done in the dubbing stage, and transferred directly to DVD or Bluray. Dubbing stages do not use soffit mounted speakers, only audio recording studios do. Dubbing stages are configured just like movie theaters, all the way down to the seats installed.


My mistake I meant large wall mounted monitors not soffit.





> To answer your question, yes. All of the issues that folks here are having, I don't have in any of the theaters I own. Why is this? Because all of my movie only theaters(as opposed to those doing double duty with multichannel music) are all fashioned directly after the dubbing stage. I use three large extended range speakers up front, a surround array with the same bandwidth as the dubbing stage, and multiple subs placed under the screen all in a room that has acoustics and background noise tightly controlled.
> 
> Personally I have found that soundtracks on disc have improved dramatically over the years, especially since Bluray has hit the market with lossless or uncompressed audio.


You must have posted before my last post.I don't think all the older realeases sound good,but most of the ones I own sound better to me than the newest Blu-ray releases,but they may be better than average soundtracks.

You have no issues at all with any movies you playback on your systems or is it that you don't have any translation issues:scratch:?I don't think every movie would sound great,but I could be wrong.I've never been in a studio grade room so to me this is interesting.


----------



## Drudge

Dale Rasco said:


> Exactly!


That's why I said subjectively:thumb:.


----------



## Dale Rasco

Drudge said:


> That's why I said subjectively:thumb:.


Touché


----------



## Drudge

:bigsmile:


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence,

The Sound Equalizers you and Disney use are they the Pro version?

There are 3 versions the unbalanced(that's the one I own)balanced and the Pro version which I think is only for broadcast and post production services and has some sort of interface/remote is that the version you use?


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> Personally I have found that soundtracks on disc have improved dramatically over the years, especially since Bluray has hit the market with lossless or uncompressed audio.


I totally agree..if you're talking about front stage sound..Surround sound on the other hand is something else..
Inconsistencies in the quality of surround sound tracks between the different major Studios and post production studios, to me is the most annoying aspect of today's movies..Regardless of what ever the reason is..

You buy a latest release movie on Blu-ray, for a price.. and it sounds great and worth every cent! You buy another latest release, for the same price and it just not a patch on the previous one for overall sound quality!
It sometimes feels like a lucky dip..You just never know what you're going to get!..

I generally read several different reviews on a movie I'm considering buying..particularly about the video and audio quality and even then, the end result (particularly audio) is not exactly what the reviewer said it was like..which again comes down to subjective opinion I guess..

From the average Joe public's point of view, he probably wouldn't notice any difference between the two and probably wouldn't care if he did notice any difference..and I'm guessing that some studio's are more aligned to Joe public home viewing, since that's the majority..

Unfortunately I can't see this situation improving in the near future as budget constraints will most likely get even worse with the state of the economy and any further improvements to surround sound quality, won't be forth coming..


----------



## STMY

Drudge said:


> Okay,what Sir T and STMY makes a lot of sense,but what about the fact that I and a few others have been finding that older DVD releases seem to have better overall realism and sound quality. If today's movies have all this state of the art tech and gained experience in designing the sound why do these older releases seem to sound better? Minus anything to do with budgeting.


It might very well have to do with budgeting at the time. Either the budgets were less of an issue since DVD was relatively new, and the general trend was to impress the audience and getting them to rent and buy (more) DVD's. Part of this trend still stands with BlueRay today, except that there is more financial pressure. Maximizing the profit for stakeholders becomes more and more important, just as in other industries. With economic crisis around the globe, this issue is enlarged.



> I don't think that just having bigger speakers is going to solve the issue.Otherwise what's the point of mixing and DVD/Blu-ray authoring rooms having nearfield monitors if the large soffit ones are more ideal,although many have both.The Infinity towers I had were using active 10" drivers with 6" mid/woofers and a 1" dome tweeters and the 2-way nearfield monitors that cost less than the Infinitys's that I use now,are much better at producing a realistic and accurate sound.


Nearfield monitors are not used or designed to function as a replacement for big full range monitors (which are also placed further from the mixing position if present. Nearfields should be percieved as the equivalent of a magnifying glass for the top-lows, mids and high frequencies. They are also not ment to be used to listen to a production from A-Z. They are used for editing, pin-pointing details and listen to one track at a time or a selective combination of several tracks at a time. E.g. checking the L/R/Center/etcetera-balance of a dialoge between two characters and it's ambient parts, working on the panning from a fly-over effect of an aeroplane beteen 01:03:55:27 and 01:04:01:35 . The editing stage is the preparing of ingredients before going to the main mix. It may be done by different people at different locations.
This differs much from let's say making the mastermix for scene 1 - 5. And even in the latter, engineers tend to switch from the main speakers to a nearfield from time to time, whenever there is a need to study something closer.

The end product is meant to be played on the "big ones". Using studio quality nearfields in a home setup may give you an advantage, especially when combined with bigger L/R units and a decent subwoofer setup + acoustic treatment.

As a general rule, the bigger the better applies with hardly any exception. Provided the size suits the room. Surround sound in home cinema or theatre without exception will sound better when rear and surround speakers are full range and preferably exactly the same.


----------



## STMY

Sir Terrence said:


> I don't think experience is an issue here, as many of the folks doing re-recording mixing have been doing it for years - especially in Hollywood. For the top tier movies, the same folks are doing the lions share of the mixing for these movies. Keep in mind, 70mm six track, Dolby A 6 track, Dolby SR 6 track have been around since 1976. So we have been mixing on some variations of a 5.1 palette for at least 35 years. Based on that, it seems to me the budget issue is more of the problem than experience.


The people working with Dolby A and SR 6 track are not by definition the same as the ones working on Blue Ray and DVD today, nor am I certain that the experience you are referring to is passed a long as well as the more widespread stereo. But I may be mistaking. 
Nevertheless, like I tried to point out is that cutting budgets means being able to spend less time on detail. Undoubtedly this in return, leads to lesser quality because choices have to be made quickly and then become final.




> With people using anything from a 2.0 to a 7.1 systems, it would be impossible to create presets to accommodate every configuration out there. My best advice is to try and emulate the set up as best you can, and you will find you will have little to no playback issues.


I think I didn't explain myself here precisely enough. I meant presets (with e.g. some variations in the adapted loudness of the rear channels) + memory (on the playback system) to store the user's emulations that you are speaking of. This can most probably only be realized through upgrading firmware in one's multichannel (pre)amp or reciever.

Adapting the setup for different discs/productions would become easier and users might generally be more satisfied during playback, because they now can switch from one set of adjustments to another within a second.



> The problem with this advice is IME, producers do a movie, and then move on. Many never see the final product in their homes and are not interested in what they did before the current project they are working on. Too many use their time on the dubbing stage as their reference, and never take the time to take the project home to cross-check their decision made there.


Your opinion here somewhat contradicts your complete agreement with "getting the message across to prevent even smalle budgets" above. I seriously believe that if the end user doesn't complain to the people responsible, nothing will change. And if it does, most probably not for the better.

Without efforts like this, the result might very well be a stronger growth of downloading and copying. If the end-product seems less in value than before, maybe less people will buy it. This again might lead to further budget reductions. And so on ....

It's important to avoid a downward spiral. We should think more positive about possibilities, instead of shooting the idea. By giving feedback in an organised way, we can play a part in a way up. If you think producers won't listen than who do you suggest to aim our critisism at? 

Your ideas are much appreciated.


----------



## gdstupak

Sir Terrence said:


> I disagree with this. I work with Genelecs in the studio doing home theater mixes, and their mains just make it to 80hz crossover point. You get ton's of punch if the system is correctly set up.


Yes, speakers playing down to 80hz have punch, especially if they are great speakers like Genelecs. But that's why I said 100hz. To me above 100hz is at a level where sound changes from something that can be felt, to something that is just loud. Maybe I'm off on this and need to do some more physical research.
My original line of thinking was in using small speakers, that can't play lower than 100hz, for rear surround speakers. Imagine a prop plane is the only sound playing on a soundtrack, and that plane is coming in very low behind us. When it gets closer to us, the sound would probably have some really strong mid bass that we can feel. 
If the rear surround speakers were full range, all of that sound could come from behind us. But if you're using small speakers, everything below 100hz would be heard from the front speakers which would mess with the surround sound.

As a side question: Sir Terrence, you mention that the surrounds don't get full range frequency? I thought that was the big difference between Dolby Pro Logic and DD, the surrounds were capable of full range. If it is limited range, what is it?




Sir Terrence said:


> If you can still localize your sub using a 80hz crossover point, your sub is A) distorting, B) does not have a steep enough filters to remove the frequencies above 80hz out of the sub(24dbpo is recommended), or C) your sub is vibrating something nearby.


I know they say that 80hz isn't localizable, but I've always been able to hear and locate sounds, whether they are test signals or musical notes, that go down to the 75hz area. If it is a string bass or electric bass, I can hear the notes from that speaker, whether it's a subwoofer or standard speaker.


----------



## STMY

gdstupak/Glenn gives a perfect example of the difference in the use of small versus full-range speakers for rear and surround channels. Not only must be considered that the appearant 20Hz difference plays a part, even a more realistic experience is obtained with actual full-range units that might go down to 40Hz or even lower.

You can debate whether or not this is of use in your home-setup, but it's important to know that there's more to it than the specs on the box. First of all, the specs are likely to be not accurate. + or - 3 dB is within the range of given specs. Therefore if 100Hz is mentioned, the bass roll-off may start as much as 50Hz up. The same goes for speakers that are "specced" at 80Hz.
Besides that you must take into account that -3 dB in this range may very well be bothered more by a postive 3 dB somewhere up the scale that may have the aeroplane in the example sound even more squashed (+ 3dB emphasis somewhere on the mids) or brittle (+3 dB emphasis somewhere on the highs).

If you consider also that manufacturers may actually present there figures even more favorable - e.g. the +3 or -3 dB the is allowed are in fact + or minus 5, maybe even 7 or 10 at some points on the scale - then you can imagine the catastrophic effect this can have on the general presentation.


----------



## Sir Terrence

STMY said:


> The people working with Dolby A and SR 6 track are not by definition the same as the ones working on Blue Ray and DVD today, nor am I certain that the experience you are referring to is passed a long as well as the more widespread stereo. But I may be mistaking.
> Nevertheless, like I tried to point out is that cutting budgets means being able to spend less time on detail. Undoubtedly this in return, leads to lesser quality because choices have to be made quickly and then become final.


Actually the same people who worked with Dolby A and SR 6 track are the same people mixing today. I am one of them, and on our staff of 10 audio engineers, 8 of them worked with the formats. As a matter of fact, most of the folks doing mixing today were around when I first started mixing back in the late 80's. Since most mixers came from film schools, what was taught was pretty universal. 




> I think I didn't explain myself here precisely enough. I meant presets (with e.g. some variations in the adapted loudness of the rear channels) + memory (on the playback system) to store the user's emulations that you are speaking of. This can most probably only be realized through upgrading firmware in one's multichannel (pre)amp or reciever.


That's if the pre-pro or receiver has the necessary horsepower to pull this off. DTS was going to include an option for the proper playback of DTS tracks with set up that are not traditional. They pulled this option off the table because no receiver or pre-pro had the horsepower to make it happen. This was with the introduction of DTS HD Master Audio. 



> Adapting the setup for different discs/productions would become easier and users might generally be more satisfied during playback, because they now can switch from one set of adjustments to another within a second.


It might be easier for us, but would it be for the non techie type? That is the 64 million dollar question.



> Your opinion here somewhat contradicts your complete agreement with "getting the message across to prevent even smalle budgets" above. I seriously believe that if the end user doesn't complain to the people responsible, nothing will change. And if it does, most probably not for the better.


My opinion and reality diverge on this issue. There is no contridiction. Secondly, the public does not decide how much a producer will spend on a movie's soundtrack. They have zero influence in that area no matter how much they complain. The producer alone decides how much to budget for each step in the production. 

My opinion is that I think producers should listen to the public, but the reality is they don't and won't. 



> Without efforts like this, the result might very well be a stronger growth of downloading and copying. If the end-product seems less in value than before, maybe less people will buy it. This again might lead to further budget reductions. And so on ....


This response does not make any sense to me. If these movies suffer on disc, they will suffer as a download as well. Aside from that, nobody runs from a disc based format to a downloading model because of the quality of a sound track. That is a silly assumption, and not one proven by history. Folks steal and download because of the price of disc based media, not the quality of one area or another. 



> It's important to avoid a downward spiral. We should think more positive about possibilities, instead of shooting the idea. By giving feedback in an organised way, we can play a part in a way up. If you think producers won't listen than who do you suggest to aim our critisism at?
> 
> Your ideas are much appreciated.


I would suggest you not complain to anyone, but just not buy the movie. One person's roof is another floor, and this issue is too subjective for any producer to gauge his actions by. 

Now if there is an issue with artifacts that are not apart of the film(improper cropping, or the disc not functioning correctly) then that would be the time to complain; it is not subjective. But with opinons as ubiqutous as butts, there is no way as a producer I am going to listen to joe blow complain about the quality of a sound track. How do I know their system is calibrated or even capable of playing it back correctly?


----------



## Sir Terrence

gdstupak said:


> Yes, speakers playing down to 80hz have punch, especially if they are great speakers like Genelecs. But that's why I said 100hz. To me above 100hz is at a level where sound changes from something that can be felt, to something that is just loud. Maybe I'm off on this and need to do some more physical research.


Actually that threshold is more like 50hz rather than 100hz



> My original line of thinking was in using small speakers, that can't play lower than 100hz, for rear surround speakers. Imagine a prop plane is the only sound playing on a soundtrack, and that plane is coming in very low behind us. When it gets closer to us, the sound would probably have some really strong mid bass that we can feel.


Using your scenrio, the mid bass output would be split between the surround and the subwoofer. The mid and high frequency content determine the direction we hear. 



> If the rear surround speakers were full range, all of that sound could come from behind us. But if you're using small speakers, everything below 100hz would be heard from the front speakers which would mess with the surround sound.


All of the sound from about 80hz and up would come from behind you, and anything under 80hz would sound like it was coming from everywhere in the room. This would happen no matter what speaker configuration you use. It's basic small room acoustics. The longer the wavelength, the less we are able to localize the sound.



> As a side question: Sir Terrence, you mention that the surrounds don't get full range frequency? I thought that was the big difference between Dolby Pro Logic and DD, the surrounds were capable of full range. If it is limited range, what is it?


While the sound formats themsleves allow for 8 full range channels, the theater and dubbing stage can only accomodate limited range surrounds, or the speakers on the walls would be as large as those behind the screen. As you can see in any theater, the surround speakers are considerbly smaller than those speakers behind the screen. A THX array will have filters that limit the output of the surrounds at 80hz. If we wanted more energy below that frequency, we would mix it into the LFE channel. Because it is so easy to blow the woofers in a theater array with deep bass signals, we don't mix them into that channel. 




> I know they say that 80hz isn't localizable, but I've always been able to hear and locate sounds, whether they are test signals or musical notes, that go down to the 75hz area. If it is a string bass or electric bass, I can hear the notes from that speaker, whether it's a subwoofer or standard speaker.


Your comment here flies in the face of science, and small room acoustics. If you are hearing any localization below 80hz, you are hearing either a vibration, distortion, or a filtering problem. The wavelength of a 80hz tone is 14.5ft. That is far greater than the distance between our two ears, and why it is tough to localize tones that low. Any note that exceeds the distance between our ears will be difficult to localize because the sound just bends around our heads, and hit our ears simultaneously. The higher up in frequency you go, the shorter the wavelengths are, and the harder it is for the signals to bend around our heads. This is why it is easier to localize sound in the mid and high frequencies than it is for lower frequencies.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> Sir Terrence,
> 
> The Sound Equalizers you and Disney use are they the Pro version?
> 
> There are 3 versions the unbalanced(that's the one I own)balanced and the Pro version which I think is only for broadcast and post production services and has some sort of interface/remote is that the version you use?


I use the balanced and pro version.


----------



## gdstupak

Sir Terrence said:


> Actually that threshold is more like 50hz rather than 100hz


Earlier I said you don't get any punch from speakers that play at 100hz, you disregarded the 100hz part and disagreed with me saying that your 80hz speakers have plenty of punch.
Now you say that sounds can't be felt until lower than 50hz.
So how can your 80hz speakers have plenty of punch, a punch of sound to me is something felt, not just a loud sound (maybe I should have described 'punch' earlier)?



Sir Terrence said:


> Using your scenrio, the mid bass output would be split between the surround and the subwoofer. The mid and high frequency content determine the direction we hear. All of the sound from about 80hz and up would come from behind you, and anything under 80hz would sound like it was coming from everywhere in the room. This would happen no matter what speaker configuration you use. It's basic small room acoustics. The longer the wavelength, the less we are able to localize the sound.


Once again, you disregard the 100hz crossover in my example.
If you have full range front speakers, the mid bass would go to the front. So now you will hear the plane in the rear and front speakers. If you direct all frequencies 100hz and below to go to a sub, then yes, you will hear it come from where ever the sub is located. No matter what the scenario, the surround sound is compromised with the small speakers.




Sir Terrence said:


> Your comment here flies in the face of science, and small room acoustics.


I know all the science, guess it just can't convince my brain to hear things the way it should.


----------



## STMY

Sir Terrence said:


> Actually the same people who worked with Dolby A and SR 6 track are the same people mixing today. I am one of them, and on our staff of 10 audio engineers, 8 of them worked with the formats. As a matter of fact, most of the folks doing mixing today were around when I first started mixing back in the late 80's. Since most mixers came from film schools, what was taught was pretty universal.


OK, I get that. But in the late eighties surround for the consumermarket was barely starting off. You say that Disney are the only folks that have mixed separately for home-cinema. I understood that this gives positive results. So there is something to be gained from listening to consumers.

I can see from your general response that you look from a professional angle most of the time. If the general attitude towards consumers is that they are just a bunch of nitwits that don't know what they are talking about, then why are we having a discussion. If the consumer is paying for the end-product but his crititsism is being ignored, even though he has seeked for information and spent time on and invested in optimising his home setup, then I say: :Everybody should download and borrow more or buy less".

If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, then be my guest.

Why would a consumer buy a disc for keeps, if he/she can expect general dissappointment. They wil however stil want to see that movie, so instead they will download and delete after use. Things don't evolve to higher levels by people just proclaiming that they know it all or know everything better and expect silent lambs to follow them. If that were the case, university's would not exist. And from a sales management's point-of-view this is a lousy attitude.

On the other hand you write:


> ... the public does not decide how much a producer will spend on a movie's soundtrack. They have zero influence in that area no matter how much they complain. The producer alone decides how much to budget for each step in the production.
> 
> My opinion is that I think producers should listen to the public, but the reality is they don't and won't.


So you do understand.


I do believe in perception of said critisism based on how it is presented to the ones in charge. That is why I proposed a joint effort. Even if it would have a small or hardly any effect, in the proces there is a lot to be learned from eachother. 

---

One last time about my proposed presets and memory (from the consumers point-of-view):

Current (pre-)amps and recievers have the ability to program settings for the relative loudness between channels. Regardless of the format. If a given user (with his speakersystem) has found an optimum setting for most movies, he/she might have to change the settings for another bunch. Going through those menu's and making adjustments is a real drag (and especcially Joe Blow). If there were memory positions for several of these settings and you could give them a name like let's say "Disney", "Rear +5", "Sub -3" (etcetera, you get my drift) then it would become a piece of cake to cater for differently percieved mixes.

It really doesn't matter if the user's setup is not up to professional standards. According to this discussion, there is a demand for something. The user may not have the space or money for decent full range all around. Even though it would never be optimal, those users that are expected to buy the discs could be helped by this.

Even when the general advice will always be: get bigger speakers :blink:


----------



## Sir Terrence

STMY said:


> OK, I get that. But in the late eighties surround for the consumermarket was barely starting off. You say that Disney are the only folks that have mixed separately for home-cinema. I understood that this gives positive results. So there is something to be gained from listening to consumers.


This was not a consumer suggestion, it was my own. It does not matter when the consumer market started, re-recording mixers and sound designers cut their teeth in film, not the consumer market. Engineers were doing surround mixes before people could get surround in their homes. 



> I can see from your general response that you look from a professional angle most of the time. If the general attitude towards consumers is that they are just a bunch of nitwits that don't know what they are talking about, then why are we having a discussion. If the consumer is paying for the end-product but his crititsism is being ignored, even though he has seeked for information and spent time on and invested in optimising his home setup, then I say: :Everybody should download and borrow more or buy less".


Do not make any assumptions about the angle I come from. I participate in forums just like this, and I buy my own disc as well. The problem I have is that you want me to accept a subjective opinion - millions of subjective opinions void of any professional experience in this field, and ask me to spend millions on it. That is not going to happen, it is not realistic, its not efficient, nor is it particularly feasible. 

From a consumer side, I look at the fact that I am getting a master quality sound track, HD video, and all of the interactive bells and whistles one can stick on a disc for $20-25 bucks. I don't second guess the director. producers, or DP's decisions, I just enjoy(or not) what they put on. There are far too many couch based judges online. If it is not AVS with their screenshot science, its Hometheatershack with its members seemingly knowing more about how to mix a movie than the professionals do. Everyone is a star online, but when you get them into the studio.....enough said on that. 




> If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, then be my guest.


With Bluray disc sales growing, I would hardly say that anyone is getting shot in the foot. We need to keep this real. 



> Why would a consumer buy a disc for keeps, if he/she can expect general dissappointment. They wil however stil want to see that movie, so instead they will download and delete after use. Things don't evolve to higher levels by people just proclaiming that they know it all or know everything better and expect silent lambs to follow them. If that were the case, university's would not exist. And from a sales management's point-of-view this is a lousy attitude.


You know...there is a staggeringly large amount of non experienced folks on the web with tons of opinions of what has to be done. It makes no sense whatsoever for me to listen to somebody who has never stepped foot in a studio, never produced a movie, or never been so much as a extra on set to guide me through the production of my project. Once again, like butts everyone has an opinion. Most of the time their lack of experience equals a very bad decision, or one that is too expensive to implement. 



> On the other hand you write:
> 
> 
> So you do understand.


I understand both sides of this. Unfortunately not many have that perspective. Many of you are only looking at things from one perspective, but do not have a clue about the feasiblity or the expense of the ideas that come to their heads. 




> I do believe in perception of said critisism based on how it is presented to the ones in charge. That is why I proposed a joint effort. Even if it would have a small or hardly any effect, in the proces there is a lot to be learned from eachother.


I remember when a bunch of people gathered signatures to save the HD DVD format. While I understand they wanted to protect their investment, the reality is the film industry could not afford to support two formats, and they could no longer support a format war. As I have said before, sometimes folks want their personal wants and desires on disc, even if other say it is unneeded. You cannot chase the wims of everybody that desires something from you, you would be pulled in too many direction to be productive. 



> ---
> 
> One last time about my proposed presets and memory (from the consumers point-of-view):
> 
> Current (pre-)amps and recievers have the ability to program settings for the relative loudness between channels. Regardless of the format. If a given user (with his speakersystem) has found an optimum setting for most movies, he/she might have to change the settings for another bunch. Going through those menu's and making adjustments is a real drag (and especcially Joe Blow). If there were memory positions for several of these settings and you could give them a name like let's say "Disney", "Rear +5", "Sub -3" (etcetera, you get my drift) then it would become a piece of cake to cater for differently percieved mixes.


This kind of request is best directed to manufacturers as opposed to the film studios. 



> It really doesn't matter if the user's setup is not up to professional standards. According to this discussion, there is a demand for something. The user may not have the space or money for decent full range all around. Even though it would never be optimal, those users that are expected to buy the discs could be helped by this.
> 
> Even when the general advice will always be: get bigger speakers :blink:


Bass management is designed to accommodate almost any type of speaker configuration out there. There is no way to put speaker configuration instructions on a disc that would accommodate every type of set up there is. There is only so much room for metadata on disc, and that space is dedicated to aspect ratio flags, EX or ES instructions, mux'ing instructions and various other necessities for that.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> I use the balanced and pro version.


Hmmm....:scratch:

Are you sure that it was an XT32 update and not something else?Maybe Disney mistakenly thought it was an XT32 update:dontknow:?I was asking Audyssey about XT32 and the Sound Equalizers and they said there must be sum kind of confusion with something else if anybody thought they got an update because they never even got around to developing any firmware(before they decided against it) to even update the Sound Equalizers of any version to use XT32.

I know that the Pro software was updated to support XT32 and the associated products,but the Sound Equalizer wasn't included in any XT32 update from it.Could that be what you're referring to?


----------



## STMY

> This kind of request is best directed to manufacturers as opposed to the film studios.





> Bass management is designed to accommodate almost any type of speaker configuration out there. There is no way to put speaker configuration instructions on a disc that would accommodate every type of set up there is. There is only so much room for metadata on disc, and that space is dedicated to aspect ratio flags, EX or ES instructions, mux'ing instructions and various other necessities for that.


My point exactly! It is an idea for the equipment at home, not a request to you. It would not require any extra burden on the production side.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> Hmmm....:scratch:
> 
> Are you sure that it was an XT32 update and not something else?Maybe Disney mistakenly thought it was an XT32 update:dontknow:?I was asking Audyssey about XT32 and the Sound Equalizers and they said there must be sum kind of confusion with something else if anybody thought they got an update because they never even got around to developing any firmware(before they decided against it) to even update the Sound Equalizers of any version to use XT32.
> 
> I know that the Pro software was updated to support XT32 and the associated products,but the Sound Equalizer wasn't included in any XT32 update from it.Could that be what you're referring to?


Yesterday I checked both my systems and Disney's, and you are absolutely correct...it is the Pro version. Don't know how I got that one wrong :dontknow: Corrected my signature, and thanks for bringing that to my attention.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> Yesterday I checked both my systems and Disney's, and you are absolutely correct...it is the Pro version. Don't know how I got that one wrong :dontknow: Corrected my signature, and thanks for bringing that to my attention.


I was just trying to put two and two together and find out more about any possiblity of XT32 for the SEQ,but to no avail:rolleyesno:.

Well I've done enough trying to dig into that matter.

On another note,I have The Chronicles of Narnia, which is Disney,I think it's the second of the series(although I'm not a Narnia fan) coming via Netflix,so I'm looking forward this weekend to checking out how well your Blu-ray mix subjectively translates on my system this weekend and I will make sure I turn off Re-EQ:bigsmile::T.


----------



## Drudge

I understand more now where Sir T and other post production personnel are coming from in the production world,when it comes to what they are trying to achieve.Their job is to make a movie soundtrack that translates as best as possible to the theater environment.After all, from what I've gathered,the dubbing stages are designed to have similiar acoustics to the Academy theater where these movies will ultimately be screened by the industry for the most part,as well as movie theaters and making a film translate to the highest quality there is much more pertinent than how well a movie translates to most of our non-industry standard set-ups and rooms.

It's nice to know that Disney has the money and resources to try and make mixes that translate well to the home as well,but I wonder if it is just best to have the original theatrical mixes and somehow have the HT system adapt it to the individual acoustics of our rooms,since the original mixes conform to a standard that's proven to translate well in the industry and besides I don't think there will ever be a small room standard that will work ideally with most of the HT world.

I'm just trying to understand more why certain films sound great and others don't "subjectively" on most of our systems,or my system if you rather and this thread is helping me understand that better from multiple perspectives.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> I was just trying to put two and two together and find out more about any possiblity of XT32 for the SEQ,but to no avail:rolleyesno:.
> 
> Well I've done enough trying to dig into that matter.
> 
> On another note,I have The Chronicles of Narnia, which is Disney,I think it's the second of the series(although I'm not a Narnia fan) coming via Netflix,so I'm looking forward this weekend to checking out how well your Blu-ray mix subjectively translates on my system this weekend and I will make sure I turn off Re-EQ:bigsmile::T.


LOL....Let me know how you liked the sound track. Constructive criticism is always welcomed addle: :heehee:


----------



## viccmw

Hi,

Hope you don't mind me asking a slightly off topic question, but still related to surround sound:heehee:

This is with regards to 7.1 *discrete* channel DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD Bluray disc. When such 7.1 discrete channel are on the disc, what are the speakers that are expected from the last(?) 2 channels. Are they meant for the rear speakers? 

I am curious because what happens if someone set up their 7.1 speakers as front height? In this case, will the the last two channel be ignored (assuming that no processing eg II Pz or Audyssey DSX invoked) as no rear speakers are hooked-up, so there are no sound from the front height speakers? :dontknow:

Then, what happens when using either Dolby Digital IIPz or Audyssey DSX? Will the AVR send the sound from the LSurround & RSurround channel to the front height and not make use of the last 2 discrete channels? If that is the case, using front height speakers with DD IIPz or Audyssey might not be an optimum choice for 7.1 discrete channel Bluray disc and its better to wire it as rear?

Thanks a lot and if this is seems like noob question - yes, I am a complete newbie :doh: to Home Theatre.


----------



## robbo266317

viccmw said:


> Hi,
> 
> Hope you don't mind me asking a slightly off topic question, but still related to surround sound:heehee:
> 
> This is with regards to 7.1 *discrete* channel DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD Bluray disc. When such 7.1 discrete channel are on the disc, what are the speakers that are expected from the last(?) 2 channels. Are they meant for the rear speakers?
> 
> I am curious because what happens if someone set up their 7.1 speakers as front height? In this case, will the the last two channel be ignored as no rear speakers are hooked-up, so there are no sound from the front height speakers? :dontknow:


I believe the 7.1 is two front plus centre, two side surround, 2 rear and 1 sub. There may be a market for receiver manufacturers to offer the front high as an option at the expense of the rear channels, and I think this would be a viable option once movies start adding the front high channels for some room setups.


----------



## Zeitgeist

This is mostly a question for Sir T, but curious what other people would say as well:

With all the discussion of surround and whether it's over-used, under-used, and examples where it's done perfectly.

In mixing, it seems like selecting the level of the front channels would be relatively simple - in terms of dialogue and most content........ how are levels (when mixing) determined when mixing surrounds? It seems like it would be very subjective in determining the proper levels. You might want most of the effect coming from the front, and maybe SOME coming from behind or the sides...... but is that mostly just what sounds good to the re-recording engineer during the mixing?

The movies that I've been disappointed by - it's been complete lack of surround -- and I can't say that I've heard movies that I have anything bad to say about the surround levels (too high or too low).

Just curious if anyone had any thoughts on whether the mixed level of surrounds is ever incorrect? Or is there even such thing? Who is to say that a sound coming from behind you should be louder or quieter..


----------



## gdstupak

What determines if a soundtrack is done correctly is if it sounds natural, like if a certain scene/situation sounds like it would out in the real world.
It is correct if it helps to take you out of this world and put you in the movie, but you don't want it to distract you either.
Hard balancing act fot Sir T and others like him.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> LOL....Let me know how you liked the sound track. Constructive criticism is always welcomed addle: :heehee:


My criticism could only be "subjective" :devil:.

The last Disney,well....Pixar film I watched was WALL.E and I thought is had great sound as well as picture.Come to think of it, only A Bug's Life fell short of sounding right to me of the CG animated flicks that I have watched.I don't watch to many of Disney's live action films,but from what I remember,the first Narnia didn't disappoint in the sound department,so your in luck:laugh:!

You might get a kick out of this.Home Theater Magazine is reviewing the Atlantis Technology AT-1 loudspeaker with H-PAS in this month's issue and one of the comments was that it has amazing bottom,but the major flaw, lack of matching center and surrounds:rofl2:.


----------



## Dale Rasco

Drudge said:


> My criticism could only be "subjective" :devil:.


Ouch Drudge..... Very, very ouch..... :sad:


----------



## Drudge

Dale Rasco said:


> Ouch Drudge..... Very, very ouch..... :sad:


Actually I'm just poking fun at myself,since what I hear is really only my opinion based on my set-up.

No need to take it seriously Dale:T.


----------



## Dale Rasco

Drudge said:


> Actually I'm just poking fun at myself,since what I hear is really only my opinion based on my set-up.
> 
> No need to take it seriously Dale:T.


I really didn't at all, just joining in the conversation. I've been out of pocket for a couple of days and was just catching up and having some fun.


----------



## Drudge

Dale Rasco said:


> I really didn't at all, just joining in the conversation. I've been out of pocket for a couple of days and was just catching up and having some fun.


Fun is what it's all about!


----------



## Dale Rasco

Sir Terrence said:


> LOL....Let me know how you liked the sound track. Constructive criticism is always welcomed addle: :heehee:


Narnia has great sound, now those guys that worked on Harry Potter are a different story....:whistling:


----------



## Drudge

Dale Rasco said:


> Narnia has great sound, now those guys that worked on Harry Potter are a different story....:whistling:


:laugh:


----------



## Zeitgeist

Sir Terrence said:


> LOL....Let me know how you liked the sound track. Constructive criticism is always welcomed addle: :heehee:


I'll have to check our Narnia..... I'm sure the audio impressive


----------



## rac126

It's true...even when I go to the movie theaters there's barely ambient sounds...you might hear a bird flying over ur head or a door closing right next to u but the sound never engulfs you unless It's a busy scene. My personal opinion is that the movie Avatar did a great job with its surround effects...and also an awesome job with the LFE


----------



## Sir Terrence

Zeitgeist said:


> This is mostly a question for Sir T, but curious what other people would say as well:
> 
> With all the discussion of surround and whether it's over-used, under-used, and examples where it's done perfectly.
> 
> In mixing, it seems like selecting the level of the front channels would be relatively simple - in terms of dialogue and most content........ how are levels (when mixing) determined when mixing surrounds? It seems like it would be very subjective in determining the proper levels. You might want most of the effect coming from the front, and maybe SOME coming from behind or the sides...... but is that mostly just what sounds good to the re-recording engineer during the mixing?


This is were the art comes in. I determine the right level based on what sounds natural(yes totally subjective!). I try to use how I hear things in real life as my guide, so I don't do anything so unnatural that it pulls you out of the movie. I think the best mixes are the ones that are so natural to you, that you forget it a movie, or the sound is coming from speakers. 

One of the worst mistakes I hear in sound tracks is over emphasis of a particular effect...a gunshot for example. If I hear deep bass pops along with that gun fire, but I see a hand gun that is too short for those kinds of low end resonances, it pulls me out of the movie because that is not what a gun that size should sound like. 

Getting levels right is a group decision between the three mixers sewing the track together during re-recording. The lead mixer usually decides how loud the music, dialog and effects are at any time. The last word on the mix comes from either the producers, or the director of the movie. 



> The movies that I've been disappointed by - it's been complete lack of surround -- and I can't say that I've heard movies that I have anything bad to say about the surround levels (too high or too low).


The surrounds should be audibly invisible until attention is called on them. That does not mean they are to be inactive, just not be loud enough to dominate. One of the things I learned in biology is that the more the ears hear, the more active the brain becomes. If there is so much activity going on in a mix, it will distract from the dialog because our brains are processing all that our ears are hearing. It will try and mask the background, and focus on the most dominate sound. This becomes harder and harder to do when the mix is dense or super busy. This is why some mixers choose(or the director chooses for them) to either lower the level of the surrounds during a particular passage, hence the silence you speak of. 



> Just curious if anyone had any thoughts on whether the mixed level of surrounds is ever incorrect? Or is there even such thing? Who is to say that a sound coming from behind you should be louder or quieter..


The cues that establish the loudness of the surrounds come from the screen. If the visual imply that there is a lot of action happening behind you, you bring up the surrounds. If the visual are all front loaded, then having loud surrounds at the moment is unnatural, and it leads to what I call visual and auditory incongruence.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Dale Rasco said:


> Narnia has great sound, now those guys that worked on Harry Potter are a different story....:whistling:


Dale, I am curious as to why you didn't like the sound on Harry Potter(which one, there is a ton of them!:heehee. I was always pretty impressed by the sound on Harry Potter's movies. 

I hated the sound of the first Transformer movie. No dynamics, no subtleties, just loud highly compressed effects that literally blew you out of the chair for the entire movie. My ears were exhausted after watching it.


----------



## Dale Rasco

Sir Terrence said:


> Dale, I am curious as to why you didn't like the sound on Harry Potter(which one, there is a ton of them!:heehee. I was always pretty impressed by the sound on Harry Potter's movies.
> 
> I hated the sound of the first Transformer movie. No dynamics, no subtleties, just loud highly compressed effects that literally blew you out of the chair for the entire movie. My ears were exhausted after watching it.


I was kidding, I liked them quite a bit actually.


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> The surrounds should be audibly invisible until attention is called on them. That does not mean they are to be inactive, just not be loud enough to dominate. One of the things I learned in biology is that the more the ears hear, the more active the brain becomes. If there is so much activity going on in a mix, it will distract from the dialog because our brains are processing all that our ears are hearing. It will try and mask the background, and focus on the most dominate sound. This becomes harder and harder to do when the mix is dense or super busy. This is why some mixers choose(or the director chooses for them) to either lower the level of the surrounds during a particular passage, hence the silence you speak of.


Yes.. I can understand that it would be a real juggling act to get a natural balance, but there are some movies where I believe that just has not happened..as was mentioned that there is a silence to the surround sound, when in reality there should be some..

Point in fact..I was watching a movie awhile ago where two guys were walking down a busy street..They were not talking and there was some backgound music playing (not loud) and there were sounds from the front stage of the sounds of general traffic..
The two characters were walking towards the camera and people were coming from behind the camera...but there was no people or traffic sounds coming from behind..It spoiled the effect of being in an outside environment where you would normally hear sounds all around you..
It seemed to me, that shot would have been an ideal application of surround sound..

As an Ht enthusiast those sort of lapses in the sound track can become distracting and annoying and generally spoil what might have otherwise been a good movie..

So I'm guessing that they sometimes do get it wrong..which surprises me since you said that 3 sets of ears monitor these soundtracks..

I should also add to that..This is not a one off exception as I find this sort of thing happening in a number of films..


----------



## lcaillo

I have noted similar lapses frequently. The fact is that the world is a noisy place and surround effects are often used not to simulate reality but to bring attention to some aspect of the action in the film.


----------



## Sir Terrence

lcaillo said:


> I have noted similar lapses frequently. The fact is that the world is a noisy place and surround effects are often used not to simulate reality but to bring attention to some aspect of the action in the film.


Actually the surrounds are used to simulate reality AND punctuate the action in the movie. But in the end, its budget, budget, budget!


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> Yes.. I can understand that it would be a real juggling act to get a natural balance, but there are some movies where I believe that just has not happened..as was mentioned that there is a silence to the surround sound, when in reality there should be some..


But the question is...is that what the director or producer wanted? In the end, its their decision, and they usually have a good reason for making it. 



> Point in fact..I was watching a movie awhile ago where two guys were walking down a busy street..They were not talking and there was some backgound music playing (not loud) and there were sounds from the front stage of the sounds of general traffic..
> The two characters were walking towards the camera and people were coming from behind the camera...but there was no people or traffic sounds coming from behind..It spoiled the effect of being in an outside environment where you would normally hear sounds all around you..
> It seemed to me, that shot would have been an ideal application of surround sound..


Some questions;

What was the context of the scene as it related to the movie as a whole? It would seem to me a scene with two guys walking not saying a thing is a waste of film if there was not relevancy to the overall film.

Was it a independent movie, or a major studio movie? Budget plays a big role in that answer. 

Remember, if all of the action is in the front sound stage, that is where the sound should be. Creating an immersive surround experience would surely detract from the frontal sound stage, which is why we are not surrounded in sound 100% of the movie. These decisions are made by the directors and producers, not the mixers. We have the technology to create a 100% immersive experience, but we often don't have the money or the last word. 



> As an Ht enthusiast those sort of lapses in the sound track can become distracting and annoying and generally spoil what might have otherwise been a good movie..


If a person relies on one scene to make a movie, then they are more of a judge than a movie enthusiast. You learn this in school really early...it is all about the movie, not the sound, and not the visual effects as separate pieces. When we start basing our movie experience on inactive surrounds, then we are not paying attention to the storyline. Sound serves the movie, not the other way around. The sound is just one of four pieces interacting together, and it should not be pulled out of the overall picture(excuse the pun) as a source of judgement. It is about working the visuals, dialog, music, and effects together, not each separate and standing on its own. 



> So I'm guessing that they sometimes do get it wrong..which surprises me since you said that 3 sets of ears monitor these soundtracks..


Only the director can judge that something is "wrong", it is his creation right? Nobody but him/her knows what the intentions of a individual scene are. If they approved the mix, then nothing is wrong. 



> I should also add to that..This is not a one off exception as I find this sort of thing happening in a number of films..


There is a reason for this, and it has been outlined throughout this entire thread. 

I am going to put this out there(and possibly expose myself in an unattractive way:yikes. My final mixing project in film school was to do sound design for a CG created film by another student. It was a project much like Fantasia 2000, with a lot of really nifty visual effects, some actual creatures and people, and at other times just random figures and moving images. I created a mix that my professor Tomlinson Holman(of THX fame) thought was absolute genius until we sat the other students down to watch it. After it was over, folks clapped politely and walked out of the theater. We could not figure out why my professor loved it, but not the students. Then the student comments came to us. "The music was a perfect fit for the visuals, but the effects were extremely distracting", "just too much for me to wrap my head around" were some of the comments. It is not that they sounded bad, or didn't fit the movie(it was all a perfect fit from a technical standpoint), but so much was swirling around the room, nobody could concentrate on the movie itself. I wanted to cover everything that was happening on screen, to the point I created a mix so dense(as if the great music was not enough) that everyone was looking around the room instead of the screen. I got an "A" on the project, but I was not satisfied. I went back and stripped the mix down, leaving some room for folks to wrap their heads around what was going on screen wise. We call this giving the mix some air. When we took the movie back to the other students, the film's creator and I got a 5 minute standing ovation. Same film, just a less dense mix. 

What lesson did I take away from this? Less is more, and more is less. I should have worked more closely with the film's creator, so I didn't squash his visuals with my sound. Directors do not want the sound to take away from the movie, they want it to enhance it. You cannot enhance something when you are driving it. You seem to want the sound to drive the movie, and no director is going to let that happen.


----------



## Dale Rasco

This actually makes a ton of sense to me when you put it that way. The reason is because of my affinity for writing. I love to write, which is funny because I hate to read, but I have noticed that when I do write, it helps to have some mellow atmospheric music such as a Dan Gibson or Billy McLaughlin type playing. I have also noticed that it is extremely hard for me to write if I have in some Dream Theater or even Nicoló Paganini. There is just too much going on in the music for me to not pay attention to it.


----------



## gdstupak

Sir T makes a great point about the surround sound being too much and detracting from the visuals on the screen and that makes perfect sense.
But that's the total opposite of the point that the Prof. brings up which is zero ambiance from the surround channels and that probably having just a little something would've made it feel more realistic to the viewer. 
To me, what is distracting in a movie is when the surround channels are not used at all for ambiance but then all of a sudden there will be something very noticeable from a surround speaker to punctuate some action, that's when I look back at my surround speaker and say "where have you been for the rest of the movie?" 
But when the surround speakers are used more throughout the movie then when the louder punctuation comes, it doesn't seem unnatural.
But yes, in the end it's up to the director.


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> This is were the art comes in. I determine the right level based on what sounds natural(yes totally subjective!). I try to use how I hear things in real life as my guide, so I don't do anything so unnatural that it pulls you out of the movie. I think the best mixes are the ones that are so natural to you, that you forget it a movie, or the sound is coming from speakers.
> 
> One of the worst mistakes I hear in sound tracks is over emphasis of a particular effect...a gunshot for example. If I hear deep bass pops along with that gun fire, but I see a hand gun that is too short for those kinds of low end resonances, it pulls me out of the movie because that is not what a gun that size should sound like.





> I hated the sound of the first Transformer movie. No dynamics, no subtleties, just loud highly compressed effects that literally blew you out of the chair for the entire movie. My ears were exhausted after watching it.


Hey....:foottap: now we are starting too seeing eye to eye here:R!:clap:

These are exactly the things that I'm talking about that I notice all the time with different movies.It's just when I compare my older DVD releases to a lot of new Blu-ray releases,I find that many(not all) of my older DVD releases have that more natural sound(not necessarily the best sound quality vs.Blu-ray) that allows you to be pulled into the movie and forget about the system and that is what determines a great soundtrack too me.:T

I didn't get a chance yet to watch Narnia this weekend.I'll have to watch it later this week.


----------



## eugovector

gdstupak said:


> To me, what is distracting in a movie is when the surround channels are not used at all for ambiance but then all of a sudden there will be something very noticeable from a surround speaker to punctuate some action, that's when I look back at my surround speaker and say "where have you been for the rest of the movie?"
> But when the surround speakers are used more throughout the movie then when the louder punctuation comes, it doesn't seem unnatural.
> But yes, in the end it's up to the director.


Ditto.


----------



## Prof.

Spot on!!..It's the extremes of surround sound from non existent to overly emphasized that are the most distracting..


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> Some questions;
> 
> What was the context of the scene as it related to the movie as a whole? It would seem to me a scene with two guys walking not saying a thing is a waste of film if there was not relevancy to the overall film.


In the previous scene they had discussed that they needed to find a particular pawnbroker and then set out to find this place..The next scene was of them walking down the street in search of this pawnbroker..no more discussion needed..So it was just a long shot of a street scene with traffic noise and people walking on the footpath.To me an ideal situation for some really good ambient surround sounds allround.. 




> Was it a independent movie, or a major studio movie? Budget plays a big role in that answer.


It was Warner Bros. Sherlock Holmes!..A movie that has some excellent surround sounds through out it..That's why it was so obvious to me that it was missing in that scene.... 



> If a person relies on one scene to make a movie, then they are more of a judge than a movie enthusiast. You learn this in school really early...it is all about the movie, not the sound, and not the visual effects as separate pieces. When we start basing our movie experience on inactive surrounds, then we are not paying attention to the storyline. Sound serves the movie, not the other way around. The sound is just one of four pieces interacting together, and it should not be pulled out of the overall picture(excuse the pun) as a source of judgement. It is about working the visuals, dialog, music, and effects together, not each separate and standing on its own.


That's a good point you make here and herein lies the problem..It all comes down to a personal evaluation of a movie..
When I buy a Blu-ray movie, I buy it on the basis of these reasons and in order of priority 
1. It must be of a genre that I like.. 
2. I will be watching this movie several times..
3. It must have good audio and surround effects..
4. it must have good quality image..
5. It must have a good storyline..

Obviously all these requirements must fall into line to be an enjoyable movie..
However, a lot of people would put the storyline further up in their priorities..and that's what makes the movie for them..
Having been a technical person all my life..I look for the technicalities and the incredible special effects processes in the making of a movie..That's what I really enjoy in movies and why I have a dedicated theatre to hear and see them.. 




> I am going to put this out there(and possibly expose myself in an unattractive way:yikes. My final mixing project in film school was to do sound design for a CG created film by another student. It was a project much like Fantasia 2000, with a lot of really nifty visual effects, some actual creatures and people, and at other times just random figures and moving images. I created a mix that my professor Tomlinson Holman(of THX fame) thought was absolute genius until we sat the other students down to watch it. After it was over, folks clapped politely and walked out of the theater. We could not figure out why my professor loved it, but not the students. Then the student comments came to us. "The music was a perfect fit for the visuals, but the effects were extremely distracting", "just too much for me to wrap my head around" were some of the comments. It is not that they sounded bad, or didn't fit the movie(it was all a perfect fit from a technical standpoint), but so much was swirling around the room, nobody could concentrate on the movie itself. I wanted to cover everything that was happening on screen, to the point I created a mix so dense(as if the great music was not enough) that everyone was looking around the room instead of the screen. I got an "A" on the project, but I was not satisfied. I went back and stripped the mix down, leaving some room for folks to wrap their heads around what was going on screen wise. We call this giving the mix some air. When we took the movie back to the other students, the film's creator and I got a 5 minute standing ovation. Same film, just a less dense mix.
> 
> What lesson did I take away from this? Less is more, and more is less. I should have worked more closely with the film's creator, so I didn't squash his visuals with my sound. Directors do not want the sound to take away from the movie, they want it to enhance it. You cannot enhance something when you are driving it. You seem to want the sound to drive the movie, and no director is going to let that happen.


That was very interesting to read and it makes my point that for most people the storyline is their top priority and anything that distracts from that, ie surround sound effects, becomes an annoyance..

Then there's the other camp..guys like us on this forum who really appreciate the full sound experience and find it distracting when it's not there!..

I certainly don't envy people in your position who are trying to accommodate both camps..at the same time..
So my attitude to these little discrepancies in surround sound that occur from time to time, will be more of acceptance, having learned what I have from people like yourself who are on the front line!! :T


----------



## Sir Terrence

Prof. said:


> In the previous scene they had discussed that they needed to find a particular pawnbroker and then set out to find this place..The next scene was of them walking down the street in search of this pawnbroker..no more discussion needed..So it was just a long shot of a street scene with traffic noise and people walking on the footpath.To me an ideal situation for some really good ambient surround sounds allround..


Now another perspective. If you got what you wished, then the scene would have been about the sound, and not of the search. No director would have accepted this, and that is the limitation you have to deal with. 




> It was Warner Bros. Sherlock Holmes!..A movie that has some excellent surround sounds through out it..That's why it was so obvious to me that it was missing in that scene....


Your choice of words are not reflective of the situation. There is nothing missing if the director and studio approved the mix. You might not like that the scene wasn't what you desire, but the use of missing is absolutely wrong in this scenario. This is their movie, not yours.(I say that very respectfully). 




> That's a good point you make here and herein lies the problem..It all comes down to a personal evaluation of a movie..
> When I buy a Blu-ray movie, I buy it on the basis of these reasons and in order of priority
> 1. It must be of a genre that I like..
> 2. I will be watching this movie several times..
> 3. It must have good audio and surround effects..
> 4. it must have good quality image..
> 5. It must have a good storyline..
> 
> Obviously all these requirements must fall into line to be an enjoyable movie..
> However, a lot of people would put the storyline further up in their priorities..and that's what makes the movie for them..
> Having been a technical person all my life..I look for the technicalities and the incredible special effects processes in the making of a movie..That's what I really enjoy in movies and why I have a dedicated theatre to hear and see them..


Your priorities are almost polar opposite of how a film director sets his or hers. 5 is first and foremost, and 3 and 4 follow. I would classify directors as artists, not technicians. Based on that I would expect their priorities to be different than yours. 




> That was very interesting to read and it makes my point that for most people the storyline is their top priority and anything that distracts from that, ie surround sound effects, becomes an annoyance..
> 
> Then there's the other camp..guys like us on this forum who really appreciate the full sound experience and find it distracting when it's not there!..


I am afraid the former camp rules, and the latter takes a back seat on this one. 



> I certainly don't envy people in your position who are trying to accommodate both camps..at the same time..
> So my attitude to these little discrepancies in surround sound that occur from time to time, will be more of acceptance, having learned what I have from people like yourself who are on the front line!! :T


I am going to throw this out there. To use the words "missing" and "discrepancies" means that your reference rules the roost. To be honest, your reference is not the directors or the producers, so the use of those words is not correct. The correct words would be "not to MY liking", not missing or discrepancy. As far as they are concerned, the product is whole, and reflects THEIR artistic intention they way they want it to. We can either like or dislike it, but we cannot say it is wrong, missing, or full of sonic discrepancies. That really isn't our place. 

To be clear, nobody tries to please any camp, we just try to make great mixes within the budgets we are given. Nothing more, nothing less. I know folks would prefer we tailor and personalize mixes to their tastes, but we just cannot accommodate the millions of different palettes that are out there. Your wrong is somebody else's right, and your right is somebody else's wrong - hence subjectivity.


----------



## GranteedEV

I'm not sure if I said this earlier, but I really appreciate hearing it from your perspective, Sir Terrence. Too often we as end-viewers don't really care about what "they want us to see" and are more interested in "what impresses our friends the most". So all your posts in this and a few other threads (IE where you suggested a horizontal array of monopoles or something along thosse lines) are something I value and appreciate. Thanks


----------



## jedispork

You could always disable the rear speakers if you are that unhappy with a movies surround mix. I used to think games had a more lively surround mix which they do but after reading some of the comments here about to much being a distraction I now realize why I would often disable them. I feel like my senses are being assaulted every time I hear a loud door or gunshots behind me. 

It seems the complaint is to little or to much. I realize I'm in a even smaller group by being happy not using the surrounds. It feels more natural and less distracting to me having the sound come from up front. My other complaint is that it requires more of a sweet spot. If you have people sitting everywhere like I do its more balanced coming from the front. 

I would like to see a stereo mix still included with movies :bigsmile:


----------



## Prof.

Sir Terrence said:


> Your priorities are almost polar opposite of how a film director sets his or hers. 5 is first and foremost, and 3 and 4 follow. I would classify directors as artists, not technicians. Based on that I would expect their priorities to be different than yours.


Yes..and I would go so far as to say that there are very few people who would prioritize their interests in the order I have.. 



> I am going to throw this out there. To use the words "missing" and "discrepancies" means that your reference rules the roost. To be honest, your reference is not the directors or the producers, so the use of those words is not correct. The correct words would be "not to MY liking", not missing or discrepancy. As far as they are concerned, the product is whole, and reflects THEIR artistic intention they way they want it to. We can either like or dislike it, but we cannot say it is wrong, missing, or full of sonic discrepancies. That really isn't our place.


I should have made myself clearer..When I use the words "missing" or "discrepancies", that's from my point of view, inline with what I believe needs to be in the soundtrack..
Obviously others would feel differently..


----------



## marty1

What I have found is that most of the time there is always sounds coming from the surrounds, I only notice this when I stand right next them, the sound is very faint, as discussed, it is obviously recorded at a lower volume.

Well when I am watching a film from my couch, about 4 feet from the rears, I cannot hear any sound at all, only when specific sounds occur, flyovers, bullets whizzing etc.

What I would like to know is why bother recording any sounds there at all? If it is going to be so faint it is inaudible unless your ears are right next to them then why not save more money and have nothing there apart from flyovers, bullets whizzing.

To me it is an all or nothing thing :huh:

I am firmly in the continuous surround sound camp, I agree with them not being too loud to distract but if you are bothering to put something in them then the lowest levels should be continuously audible!

Maybe it is a bipole placement issue but I dont think so as I have had great help from Dale in finding the best placement for my bipoles which are now on the rear wall either side of the 3 seater couch. I tested loud surround scenes and placed the speakers on ladders moving them around and found that the side walls (the other bipole placement option) were really localised. So for big surround scenes on the rear wall they sound great but any other time not so much??

If it is not placement issues then I would have to say that it is more frustrating for the HC perfectionist to put sounds there because I just keep thinking I am missing these effects :dontknow:

Kind Regards

Marty


----------



## fractile

Our hearing is pretty sensitive to low-level sounds. When given a clue from the main source of the sound, the surrounds provide spatial information about the ambiance of the environment, even if it doesn't register as a distinct source.

Are your main speakers outputting at a reference level of say 85dB? This would bring the levels up on the surrounds. Otherwise, you could individually adjust the ratios of the levels to your liking.


----------



## MatrixDweller

Bought a copy of King Kong on Bluray after Christmas. I have to say that movie has some great surround. I was recently in San Francisco and down at fisherman's wharf and it started get foggy so the horns started going. In King Kong when the ship enters the mist and the deep fog horn blares it sent shivers down my spine. The horns in the bay sounded pretty much identical.


----------



## marty1

fractile said:


> Our hearing is pretty sensitive to low-level sounds. When given a clue from the main source of the sound, the surrounds provide spatial information about the ambiance of the environment, even if it doesn't register as a distinct source.
> 
> Are your main speakers outputting at a reference level of say 85dB? This would bring the levels up on the surrounds. Otherwise, you could individually adjust the ratios of the levels to your liking.


I have all my speakers set at 75db from listening position, I think the dilemma is going to be if I turn the db level of the rears right up so I can hear the ambient levels that are being outputted, when the loud sound effects come on it will be really overpowering, as I said through testing speaker placement they sound nicely balanced through high volume surround scenes.

From what I could tell from this thread you are probably not supposed to hear those faint sounds, or at least other people seem to feel like nothing is coming from the surrounds.

Marty


----------



## fractile

I tend to watch as many movies as I can, mainly what I get on standard sat TV and lately from the 80's onward. This thread is about surround sound, but I think it is related with the state of sound production in general. I get the impression that people have come to think that if the sound is done digitally, everything is automatically perfect.

I listen to the microphone technique and the actual record quality of dialog and especially to the quality of the music track. Sound effects are also important in movies like The Transformers. This is all mainly a study to help me be more aware of audiovisual production technique.

Maybe it's a learning lag that people with high definition people have to endure while the industry and their consumers catch up. Consider the downward trend toward iPhone mixes of music and movies.

I'm just going by the standard run of movies I've been watching, plus all the commercials and promos. Sometimes the sound jumps out as exemplary, othertimes it's so-so. Maybe I should take notes of who produced the sound and ask them what the secret is.


----------



## fractile

marty1 said:


> From what I could tell from this thread you are probably not supposed to hear those faint sounds, or at least other people seem to feel like nothing is coming from the surrounds.
> 
> Marty


I mentioned that the hearing is sensitive to ambiance cued by the source sound. You can read about this in the Master Handbook of Acoustics. You hear the sound, call it subliminally, but not as a 'source' sound. Within 10- or 20 mS a sound correlated with the original source, from any other location, is attached to the perception of the original source as additional information.

You can hear those faint sounds if you listen for them. You can have surround-sound that swirls the room around you. Movies are generally centered on the screen.

As a disclaimer, my initiation into surround sound was a few years ago at the AES convention; a demonstration of 5.0 [no sub, with five 20Hz to 20kHz speakers in a ~100x100 foot room] sound, with related video on a front screen.


----------



## marty1

I find that I cannot hear them even when I concentrate, but if I turn my head sideways with ear pointing towards the tweeter I can.

Marty


----------



## fractile

If the sound is coming from behind or the side you'd probably hear it that way. You might agree that the overall sound that you get puts you more inside the scene?


----------



## marty1

fractile said:


> If the sound is coming from behind or the side you'd probably hear it that way. You might agree that the overall sound that you get puts you more inside the scene?


Sorry not sure what you mean?


----------



## fractile

The Main speakers [and the center speaker] are where the general sound comes from in relation to the screen. Generally in a movie the screen is the source of the sound.

There is a lot of potential in true surround sound.

My suggestion is to watch a lot of movies and adjust your system as you go.


----------



## eugovector

If you want the ambient sounds from your surround speakers to be more apparent, you may need to raise the overall volume of your system, or lower your noise floor by eliminated other things making noise in your system (HVAC, Fans, Refrigerators...)


----------



## marty1

Ok I just watched the A-Team, good fun by the way :bigsmile:

I noticed that there was again hardly any rear surround envolvement, so after I finished I went back to the flying tank chapter, switched the sub and the 3 front speakers off and bingo! I can hear lots of sound effects going on from where I sit, so the sound is there :T

Then I tried the 3 fronts again without the surrounds then with all 5 back on again without sub and there was hardly any noticeable difference between surrounds on and off :dontknow:

It would appear to be that the 3 fronts massively overpower the surrounds and to my ears, cancel out some of the rear sound effects.

That is annoying :hissyfit:


----------



## Sir Terrence

marty1 said:


> Ok I just watched the A-Team, good fun by the way :bigsmile:
> 
> I noticed that there was again hardly any rear surround envolvement, so after I finished I went back to the flying tank chapter, switched the sub and the 3 front speakers off and bingo! I can hear lots of sound effects going on from where I sit, so the sound is there :T
> 
> Then I tried the 3 fronts again without the surrounds then with all 5 back on again without sub and there was hardly any noticeable difference between surrounds on and off :dontknow:
> 
> It would appear to be that the 3 fronts massively overpower the surrounds and to my ears, cancel out some of the rear sound effects.
> 
> That is annoying :hissyfit:


Your experience is far different than mine on this movie. I found that when the surrounds needed to be subtle, they were. When they were needed to punctuate the on screen action, they were there. I heard quite a bit of low level surround action as well. Just like any other well recorded soundtrack, I could not localize my speakers as direct sound sources on this track. 

I would say the sound designers and mixers on this film did a pretty good job IME.


----------



## WooferHound

Much of the Low Level sound that you may hear in the surround speakers is Crosstalk. There may not be any sound recorded for the rear speakers but you will hear a small amount of the Front speakers as crosstalk caused by the decoding process and the circuitry inside the multichannel amplifiers. The specs for your sound system should include a number of DB for crosstalk. Speaker wires running bundled together will even cross over between themselfs by induction and cause crosstalk.


----------



## marty1

Sir Terrence said:


> Your experience is far different than mine on this movie. I found that when the surrounds needed to be subtle, they were. When they were needed to punctuate the on screen action, they were there. I heard quite a bit of low level surround action as well. Just like any other well recorded soundtrack, I could not localize my speakers as direct sound sources on this track.
> 
> I would say the sound designers and mixers on this film did a pretty good job IME.


If that is the case then maybe it is my speaker placement? 

Or I need to raise the db level of the rears up a lot higher?

Can you could give me an example of what point in the film that punctuates the on screen action so I know what I am listening out for?

I know from listening to the surrounds by themselves there is a lot going on but once I switch all speakers on I can't here most of these sounds, even when I concentrate on them.

Regards
Marty


----------



## Sir Terrence

WooferHound said:


> Much of the Low Level sound that you may hear in the surround speakers is Crosstalk. There may not be any sound recorded for the rear speakers but you will hear a small amount of the Front speakers as crosstalk caused by the decoding process and the circuitry inside the multichannel amplifiers. The specs for your sound system should include a number of DB for crosstalk. Speaker wires running bundled together will even cross over between themselfs by induction and cause crosstalk.


I think you are talking about matrixed based decoding engines(i.e. Dolby pro-logic, DTS neo), not the discrete formats which have 6 independent channels with no relationship to each other. Crosstalk within the signal chain is a different story; but I would imagine cross talk would be effectively masked by the program material. 

While I am aware of the presence of crosstalk within a system, I really think that is majoring in minors. The question is can it really be heard, and does it really interfere with the actual program material in each channel?
So far nobody has given me compelling evidence that it is a big problem in the field.


----------



## gdstupak

I agree with Sir Terrence.
I think that would have to be a very poor quality avr to get crosstalk. With my current high power system it is non existent and back when I only made $20,000/yr I went through some cheaper <$200 avr's and it still wasn't noticeable.
I've also been through many different room configurations, equipment configurations (including wiring (always cheap wiring)), and never had crosstalk through the wiring. 
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it probably shouldn't be there.
This is also including matrixed surround sound.


----------



## marty1

marty1 said:


> If that is the case then maybe it is my speaker placement?
> 
> Or I need to raise the db level of the rears up a lot higher?
> 
> Can you could give me an example of what point in the film that punctuates the on screen action so I know what I am listening out for?
> 
> I know from listening to the surrounds by themselves there is a lot going on but once I switch all speakers on I can't here most of these sounds, even when I concentrate on them.


Anyone got any suggestions at all?

It would appear from Sir Terrence's experience it is either placement or I have to turn my rears up a few db


----------



## gdstupak

If you have the volume of all the speakers set to the same levels, you should be hearing it the way it was intended.
Do you have much noise in your listening room that might mask the lower level sounds from the surrounds?

This is the way I look at both sub and surround involvement:
It shouldn't be so noticeable that you know they are being used.
They should be at a level where if you were to turn them off, you would say "hey, something is different." Kinda like when a man starts getting gray hair, then uses hair coloring, you might say "something is different about him but I can't put my finger on it."


----------



## marty1

gdstupak said:


> If you have the volume of all the speakers set to the same levels, you should be hearing it the way it was intended.
> Do you have much noise in your listening room that might mask the lower level sounds from the surrounds?


Apart from the projector fan it is silent



gdstupak said:


> This is the way I look at both sub and surround involvement:
> It shouldn't be so noticeable that you know they are being used.
> They should be at a level where if you were to turn them off, you would say "hey, something is different." Kinda like when a man starts getting gray hair, then uses hair coloring, you might say "something is different about him but I can't put my finger on it."


Nicely put

With this A-Team scene I could not really tell that the surrounds were off when I tried it without them, marginally when a jet flies overhead but hardly anything at all.

Looking at the bipole that is to my rear left the tweeter firing towards me is firing at the back of my head, I wonder if that could be affecting the balance. I did try the bipoles on the side wall but found the sound effects I was testing the speakers with to find the ideal position were very localised, I could hear exactly where the left speaker was, I tried the start of cliffhanger when the helicopter flies around the speakers just before the picture first comes on. 

The thing is I tried loads of different material that uses great surround effects to decide my final bipole placement, but I wonder if I should have watched a whole film in each speaker postion to find out whether the ambient sounds and constant sounds coming from these speakers sound better when they were on the sides?

Thanks
Marty


----------



## atledreier

The movie 'Toy Story 3' has some great use of the rears to create an acoustic environment. Very subtle, but oh so effective. At one poitn the main character has a monologue inside a cardboard box, and the ambience clearly change depending on where in the box the camera is. Great stuff!


----------



## gdstupak

marty1 said:


> Looking at the bipole that is to my rear left the tweeter firing towards me is firing at the back of my head, I wonder if that could be affecting the balance.
> Marty


Because of this point, it would probably help to have the same type of speakers and use the same layout as the audio editors. If the audio editor has surround speakers at a 90 degree angle to his ears, he adjusts the sound volume to sound best that way. Then if you were to have your speakers behind your head, the surround volume may be just a little too low.
Don't most mixing studios have multiple side surround speakers? If so, those speakers would have a better shot straight into the ear canal and you would be able to hear the lower nuances better. 

Sir Terrence, if we only have one set of surround speakers, should we place them at 90 degrees, or should they be placed slightly behind the listening position? I know that DD and the others post their recommendations online for set-up. I'm interested in your opinion.


----------



## Drudge

Well,I finally got around to watching Narnia Prince Caspian.All I can say is.....:clap:.That's how a movie should sound in my opinion.The dialog was natural,clear(not over bearing or shouty)there was great ambiance and surround envelopment.The bass was tight,deep and clean and it had great dynamic impact.I switched off Re-EQ and it sounded fine,with it on I lost detail in the sound,so no Re-EQ on Disney flicks:T

The other studio's should source their post production sound work too Disney and let Sir T and the rest work their magic:R.

I would have no problem at all if all movies were mixed like this.

By the way, I really think it's just these action movies that sound like s**t.


----------



## Sir Terrence

My observation of the A-Team soundtrack upon second listening has not change from the first. This soundtrack uses music quite a bit to drive the mood(as opposed to spatially placed sound effects) of the movie. However, the surrounds were subtly used for low level sound effects, and to spread the frontal sound stage wider to the sides of the room. The enveloping characteristics of the track are basically large doses of music, and very subtle effects. While the action is mostly steered at the screen, it is spread quite wide and tall between the front three channels(and in between them as well). The sound track made my speakers disappear as sound sources, and that is exactly what a good sound track should do. 

No two sound tracks are alike, and they should not be evaluated as such. Some will use music to envelope us, and some will use ambiance and sound effects. Each approach is deemed right for that particular movie; and that is evidenced by the approval of the studio, and the director or producer(s).

No soundtrack is created exclusively for home theaters(except Disney's), so distortions and unmet expectations should be expected. When home theater's begin to resemble dubbing stages and professional movie theaters more closely, then HT playback of sound tracks will have less difference from the original intent. There are always exceptions to this(Widescreen reviews old reference system would be one), but in general this is my perception.


----------



## Sir Terrence

gdstupak said:


> Because of this point, it would probably help to have the same type of speakers and use the same layout as the audio editors. If the audio editor has surround speakers at a 90 degree angle to his ears, he adjusts the sound volume to sound best that way. Then if you were to have your speakers behind your head, the surround volume may be just a little too low.
> Don't most mixing studios have multiple side surround speakers? If so, those speakers would have a better shot straight into the ear canal and you would be able to hear the lower nuances better.
> 
> 
> Sir Terrence, if we only have one set of surround speakers, should we place them at 90 degrees, or should they be placed slightly behind the listening position? I know that DD and the others post their recommendations online for set-up. I'm interested in your opinion.


If you are using a single set of surrounds, you should place them at 110 degrees, not 90 degrees. 90 degrees is appropriate if you have a 7.1 set up, but for 5.1, 110 degrees is the ITU-R .775 recommended set up. 

Here is a link:

http://www.hometekdesign.com/post/The-ITU.aspx

This is the set up I use for re-mixing 5.1 sound tracks for the home. 

For 7.1 mixes, the left and right front speakers (L and R) are placed at 30° from the center speaker (C). Side surrounds (Rs and Ls) are placed at 90° and the rear surrounds (Rrs and Rls) are placed at 150°.

Here is the link for that set up.

http://www.dts.com/Consumer_Electronics/Home_Theater/~/media/E339FF665AD1400E8FC33E581EB6F952.ashx


----------



## Drudge

Hey Sir T,

Are you using the Grass Valley K2 media client.That's an impressive box:whistling:!


----------



## Prof.

MatrixDweller said:


> Bought a copy of King Kong on Bluray after Christmas. I have to say that movie has some great surround. I was recently in San Francisco and down at fisherman's wharf and it started get foggy so the horns started going. In King Kong when the ship enters the mist and the deep fog horn blares it sent shivers down my spine. The horns in the bay sounded pretty much identical.


Totally agree with you about King Kong..I watched it again just recently and it has a great soundtrack and the fog horn part is very realistic, even when they approach the Island..
It's a good demo Blu-ray..


----------



## Prof.

marty1 said:


> Anyone got any suggestions at all?
> 
> It would appear from Sir Terrence's experience it is either placement or I have to turn my rears up a few db


I would also check your AVR's time delay, distance and reverb settings (if it has a built in analyser)..These settings can affect the way you hear the sound..


----------



## marty1

Sir Terrence said:


> If you are using a single set of surrounds, you should place them at 110 degrees, not 90 degrees. 90 degrees is appropriate if you have a 7.1 set up, but for 5.1, 110 degrees is the ITU-R .775 recommended set up.


Would that be the same for a bipole?

So if they were on the side walls, 1 tweeter firing at the rear wall and the other firing at you from a 110 degree position?

Thanks
Marty


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> Hey Sir T,
> 
> Are you using the Grass Valley K2 media client.That's an impressive box:whistling:!


It uses the same box, but the guts are quite different. The K2 is made for broadcast environments, and my processor is made for film and HT environments. The K2 uses a Grass Valley developed chip system, and my processor uses 4 cascaded Sony Cell processors, the same processor used in the first PS3. The K2 uses a standard cooling system, mine uses a special turbo push and pull system. It's much more quiet, even at full speed I cannot hear it. The K2 uses up to 24 bit processing, mine uses 32bit with a floating 64bit option. 

They both use an open architecture, and are easily upgradeable by swapping the old modules for new ones. It can never be made obsolete because of this.


----------



## Sir Terrence

marty1 said:


> Would that be the same for a bipole?
> 
> So if they were on the side walls, 1 tweeter firing at the rear wall and the other firing at you from a 110 degree position?
> 
> Thanks
> Marty


That is correct. The closer your tweeter that fires to the rear wall is to that rear wall, you are changing the direct to reflect ratio. If the wall is close to the tweeter, you are going to get a strong direct signal followed closely by a reflected signal. The farther that tweeter is from the wall, the less strong(and more delayed) the reflected signal will be.


----------



## marty1

Sir Terrence said:


> That is correct. The closer your tweeter that fires to the rear wall is to that rear wall, you are changing the direct to reflect ratio. If the wall is close to the tweeter, you are going to get a strong direct signal followed closely by a reflected signal. The farther that tweeter is from the wall, the less strong(and more delayed) the reflected signal will be.


Thanks Sir T :T

It sounds like that is why I am struggling to hear certain ambient noises, if part of the speaker is behind me I guess the sounds from the front will block my hearing.

The tweeter facing the rear wall is about 2 feet away, is that sufficient? The other tweeter firing at my ear from a 110 degree position.

Regards
Marty


----------



## Sir Terrence

marty1 said:


> Thanks Sir T :T
> 
> It sounds like that is why I am struggling to hear certain ambient noises, if part of the speaker is behind me I guess the sounds from the front will block my hearing.
> 
> The tweeter facing the rear wall is about 2 feet away, is that sufficient? The other tweeter firing at my ear from a 110 degree position.
> 
> Regards
> Marty


3 feet would have been more optimal IMO, but 2 feet is just fine.


----------



## marty1

Sir Terrence said:


> 3 feet would have been more optimal IMO, but 2 feet is just fine.


2 feet is the furthest I can get from the rear wall as I have doors on both sides of the room 3 feet in from the back walls 

At least putting them there and watching some films for a while will rule out placement being the cause of lack of surround and let me judge how well the sound mixers have utilised the surround sound......which brings the thread nicely back on track again :bigsmile:

My surrounds may not have been in their best position but the other day I had the pleasure of watching Pearl Harbour (Sorry Guys...Harbor :devil The attack scenes rear soundstage was absolutely incredible, so engrossing, I would love to get the bluray version of this, but only if they did a directors cut where Bay cuts out 2 hours of tedious love story and just has an hour of action!

Regards
Marty


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> It uses the same box, but the guts are quite different. The K2 is made for broadcast environments, and my processor is made for film and HT environments. The K2 uses a Grass Valley developed chip system, and my processor uses 4 cascaded Sony Cell processors, the same processor used in the first PS3. The K2 uses a standard cooling system, mine uses a special turbo push and pull system. It's much more quiet, even at full speed I cannot hear it. The K2 uses up to 24 bit processing, mine uses 32bit with a floating 64bit option.
> 
> They both use an open architecture, and are easily upgradeable by swapping the old modules for new ones. It can never be made obsolete because of this.


You guys in post get all the cool toys:rolleyesno:,but then again it must cost a small fortune to play with those:spend:.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Drudge said:


> You guys in post get all the cool toys:rolleyesno:,but then again it must cost a small fortune to play with those:spend:.


Thanks for reminding of the pain of my expendentures:crying:


----------



## Drudge

Sir Terrence said:


> Thanks for reminding of the pain of my expendentures:crying:


:whistling:


----------

