Some of us were discussing our preferences of Movie Theatre vs. Home Theater in the Favorite Demos section in the LOTR-ROTK thread. In trying to allow that thread to be more about the movie, I’m putting my next comment here.

I’m not trying to put down movie theatre sound, I’m just saying that a theatre owner has different goals than I do when it comes to audio. The owner’s goal is not to suit my tastes or overcome what a small minority of people perceive as shortcomings of the audio in a typical theatre situation. If the owner can maintain a venue that will satisfy 80% of the population, the owner will have success and that may suffice. Certainly it is more difficult to achieve satisfying audio in a movie theatre than at home.

Of course people have preferences too. I may rate a movie theatre’s audio as a 7.5 out of 10 and my home theater as a 8.5 out of 10. Someone else may have the opposite opinion. Regardless, I wouldn’t say such a hypothetical 1-point difference means that the movie theatre is “lousy” while my home theater is “near perfect.” For me it comes down to a preference for home theater, that’s all.

There are family members of mine that think, “I’ll pay the movie theatre prices and let them be concerned with the venue.” As for me, I would rather be concerned about it myself and enjoy the process of research, purchase, setup, and tweak to my heart’s content. I enjoy the pursuit!

Most people have a "good enough" that's a bit lower than ours.

interesting that you spelled the word theater (or theatre) both ways in the topic...

i would say that generally speaking, i much prefer my theatre to their theatre. however, sometimes with dvds i find myself less impressed than i was at first. im sure this has a little to do with seeing the movie a second time, and i am paying more attention to other things the 2nd time.

my ht is pretty exclusively dedicated to movies (a little hdtv thrown in, and even less music) so it is always interesting to compare watching a movie at the theatre to at home...

I greatly prefer my home theater over the local showcase cinemas. I'll take the comfort of home, leather recliners, sound and picture as good as if not better than the theater and the ability to pause whenever I want. Those of us who sat through "The Return Of The King" in theaters waiting 3 hours and change to get to a bathroom know what I'm talking about. Not to mention no noisey teenagers or cell phones going off. Don't even get me started about the ticket prices or the $8.00 popcorns!!

The sound systems in a local cinema will never be as good as a very good home system. They may have more dynamic range because of their horn speakers, but the finesse is lacking. The speakers (usually made by JBL) and power amplifiers are made for maximum output, ruggedness and reliablilty, with sound quality a second consideration.

The "A-chain" electronics like the projector preamps and equalizers are pretty generic in quality compared to the better equipment you can buy for home use.

The biggest leverage movie theaters have? Release date.

I don’t know of anyone who can beat that with their HT.

Sometimes it’s better to take your date to the theater than to invite her over when you didn’t get around to cleaning up.

Considering some of the crap movies released now, the later the better.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited May 27, 2004).]

seem a little bitter sh. there have been very few though. last thing i saw was Troy, and while it was pretty good it was far from great. i like brad pitt's quirkyness though and there were several glimpses of greatness, it was just a little long and lacked focus.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I forget what movie I went to see with my wife, but they had the trailer for Terminator 3. When it was over, my wife, who merely tolerates my HT hobby, turned to me and said, "That would have been better at home."

For us it's release date and date night, the latter being far too infrequent

.

wayne, i guess that is kind of the point of thx certification. to make everything sound similar or at least good enough at the minimum of thx. i have had (still do)experience with thx certified products, and while i see a few benefits of the process, i would never buy any equipment solely because of it (well it being the deciding factor).

the theatre that i go to most regularly is not thx certified, and when i go to one that is thx certified, there is no difference. but that is not comparing apples to apples, because not every theatre is the same acoustically or pushing the same equipment in the first place.

the main audio area where i notice a difference between at home and at the theatre is bass, mine at home being cleaner. the experience of the movie in a theatre is usually a pleasant one... the sound is different than at home for sure, but one is not always better than the other.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Also, if it's not certified it may mean they just didn't pay the money to go through any process to get certified. To me THX seems to be a garauntee that it'll sound decent at least.

Almost all the common equipment available and frequently used in commercial cinemas is already on the THX certification list. The theater does not automatically get blessed with the "THX Theater" certificaiton unless they meet some other acoustic criteria during the construction of the auditorium. And of course there are some costs involved in the actual certification process.

So depending on the construction of the theater, since the same equipment (speakers, amps, preamps, etc, etc) is used, a non-THX installation and one that is blessed can sound identical. The only other variable is the construction of the auditorium itself with things like reverb time, isolation etc being specified in the THX spec. Also the screen is specified, along with it's brightness.

id like to know how much it costs companys to add thx certification to their audio gear... everyone agrees that it at least ensures a minimum level of quality, and that is a good thing, however it by no means guarantees greatness. the reason for no thx is always said to be cost, itd be neat to know exactly how much more cost it would add...

its a shame george lucas is a punk, he should accept his riches and take one for the betterment of his passion and offer thx certification at a minimal price.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

curegeorg, what if they are already charging minimum?

A question to those who are familiar. Most of HT audio source is DVD. What do the movie theaters use?

Movie theaters use 35mm film projectors. There is a growing number of digital cinemas that use special high def video projectors. These play back the movie from a local hard disk. The movie is delivered to the theaters on DVD-ROM I believe, but there is talk of secure downloading in the future if they can get the encryption secure enough.

Some movie theaters have the capability of projecting 70mm film, but these are very much in the minority.

The Dolby Digital audio track on 35mm film is located on the film itself between the sprocket holes (if you can believe that!) The DTS track is on a seperate CD-ROM that is synchronized with the 35 mm film by use of a SMPTE time code track which is imprinted along one edge of the film.

One of the jobs I did in my distant past was a part time movie projectionist.

I think I should remind you folks of IMAX - and its technology.

The film's frame is 10 times the area of 35mm. The sound is uncompressed digital. The standard is 12,000 Watts of power per theatre. I could go on. Check it our for yourself. http://www.imax.com/

Yes there is a dearth of things to see - due to the expense, and the relative limited number of seats that the final product can be shown to - but I doubt whether anyone's home theatre can rival, or even come close, to the IMAX experience. IMAX is, to me, the ultimate movie-going experience.

With the new Harry Potter movie coming to IMAX, perhaps that's a good opportunity for the Outlaws, and their families, to take in the experience. I know that I will.

Jeff Mackwood

imax is neat, but it stinks that they dont show too many new (commerical) films, just a lot of specialty stuff... i know the reasons why they dont, but it would still be nice if they could... why doesnt the movie industry just switch to imax standards?

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I think one of the reasons is time considerations. I remember they had to edit out about 30 minutes of "Attack of the Clones". I think IMAX for some reason is limited to around 90-110 minutes which would explain one reason why Hollywood hasn't embraced it yet.

Edit: I found out most IMAX systems only go for 120 minutes, so I was a bit off.

[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited June 01, 2004).]

The IMAX 70mm film is extremely expensive and Hollywood doesn't see the need to spend that much money on prints for a relatively liminted number of theaters. A regular 35mm release print is over $3,000.00 - mulitiply that by a couple thousand theaters and the cost mounts quickly.

IMAX is sure neat, but it is nowhere near a mass release format.

In my experience with the IMAX theaters in the Los Angeles area, the sound is still not as good as with a good home theater setup. 12,000 uncompressed watts notwithstanding - the sound is generally just as harsh as in any other commercial theater. This is not surprising since the speakers are the same JBL horns, not known for their finesse and the same "industrial" quality power amps made by QSC and others.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 01, 2004).]

Soundhound,

I think that your skill level when it comes to discriminating listening, is probably an order of magnitude better than mine, and most everybody else's in this forum. The next time I visit an IMAX I'll try to be less bowled-over by the experience, and to focus exclusively on the sound.

Jeff Mackwood

Well, I wouldn't ignore the picture totally! It's pretty common for audio quality to be less of a focus when there is a picture to look at. The IMAX sound path is no different than any theatrical release: they are mixed in the same dubbing facilities with the same equipment. The quality of the master material is actually very good, usually starting with 24 bit digital master recordings - it's just the playback chain that is made for high volume levels and high reliability rather than fine sound quality. If for instance the center dialog channel speaker failed, the entire house would have to be refunded.

Your home speakers can do much better with detail, although they of course won't go nearly as loud without risk of damage. The large-format (4") compression drivers and constant directivity horns used in all high-SPL theater systems for the frequencies above 500Hz sound harsh, which is a tradeoff for their high SPL capability.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 02, 2004).]

I think the fact that studios make more money from DVD's now than box office sales, say's it all.

------------------
MeanGene's Home

I did enjoy watching the third Matrix release in IMAX. My opinion of the audio was favorable in that it seemed less strained in those portions that required high output, and that would make sense based on IMAX system specs.

Speaking of screen images, there is a large screen theater format, not as widely known as IMAX, by a company called Showscan in Culver City, CA. Their film production is meant to accompany motion rides. They not only use 70mm film, but they shoot and project at 60 frames per second instead of 24 for ‘flicker-free’ viewing. More expensive film stock and more of it, not something likely to be used for feature films. Then again, no ‘pull-down’ needed for needed for regular television and transfer to HD is a one-to-one ratio.

my comment on why not make everything into IMAX was sarcasm. sarcasm falling on deaf ears it seems.

i just saw "day after tomorrow" at the movies, and it was pretty good, audio included.

so since movie theaters are so crappy, what exactly would professional musicians use while performing on tour? seems to me every local ampitheatre ive been to has something on the order of jbls. so live music is crappy too? oh no wait, we are all trying to recreate that live sound. perhaps we are chasing our tails in the fact that that live sound is not ideal, so we are never going to get closer to it with better gear... i am speaking in the musical sense, with no direction towards films... but the correlation could be drawn between the two.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

.

That home THX is pretty just marketing stuff. Installation requirement is totally different compare it to cinema THX.

Don't you have to set all that HT equipment in the exact places in order for it to be THX? Once you move (or change) something it's no longer THX certified.

curegeorg

Now you have to know this. No matter how great your system is, you still can not recreate live sound. The feeling is totally different. Moreover, CD only 44.1K; what do you expect from it?

Remember the silent movies? I can’t say I do because it was before my time but some of you may. I think the theater audio technology has come a long way since those days. What are we complaining about?

curegeorg, music’s been around long before loudspeaker was invented.

curegeorg:

I think if you were to take that "live" music system and plop in into your living room (if it were big enough of course), you would probably find it rather bad to listen to. These systems are made for maximum sound pressure levels and maximum reliability - "fine sound quality" is a secondary consideration. Of course they try to get the best sound possible in a live venue, but the big horn systems make the unavoidable tradeoff of finesse verses reliability.

You can just imagine if a speaker cluster at a live concert failed from too much SPLs - no sound, no concert, no moolah...

While the systems in a commercial movie theater don't have quite as hard of a time of it SPL-wise as a concert venue, they nevertheless are made for maximum SPLs and reliability. Again, there are unavoidable tradeoffs in the designs of the horn speakers that can produce these high SPLs and have the necessary ruggedness. Things such as fine silk dome tweeters that have flat response beyond 20kHz are certainly not what is found in a speaker used in a movie theater!

(I have worked in the past for the two major loudspeaker manufacturers who produce speakers for both live and movie theater use - JBL and Altec Lansing).

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 04, 2004).]

.

so i am confused as to what you guys desire to do with your home theatres then? excluding wayne, because his intentions are clear to me and i too try to reproduce sound as accurately as possible (perhaps not with the affinity that he has for thx though).

PARTICULARLY in regards to music, not movies. movie sound is easy, you want it to sound as close to possible as it was intended to sound.

music is different entirely though because it can be heard in different formats. i.e. live with amplified sound, on cd, live without amplified sound, etc. so considering that, what sound do you try to reproduce? the exact sound of what you are playing from the source? i would think so, but if you are, then you are only reproducing the sound of the song as recorded at that one moment. not as you remember it in concert, etc. perhaps you enjoyed the concert better than the cd, and therefore dont want to accurately reproduce the cd sound, but instead want it to sound more like the concert... again, im not talking about reproducing movie audio, just music.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

this is a very serious question i have. we all have goals for our home theatres or stereos, so what are the people's goals that listen to lots of MUSIC at home. i dont know, because that is not my passion about audio, i mainly listen to music in my car or off my computer.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Your question could have a book written for a response - and books have undoubtedly been written about just what a recording is supposed to "sound like".

For me, a recording should produce the closest subjective impression of actually sitting in front of a group of performing musicians, and the recording should convey the impression of that music being performed in a space other than the listener's room (good ambience reproduction). The recording should have a sense of where the musicians are physically located within the imaginary "soundstage", and the tonality of the instruments and vocals (most important in classical, jazz and other purely acoustic music) should be such that they sound "real" verses like a recording of a real event.

This is a tall order to fill!!!! A lot depends on the listening room and the equipment (maninly the speakers) in the home, and the acoustics of the listening room. A bad listening room will make even the best system sound bad. There should be no "slap" or "flutter" echoes in the room for instance.

Multi-channel recordings (DVD-A, SACD) have a better chance of reproducing the "performance space" side than purely stereo recordings, although good stereo can be awfully impressive spatially. The "bass demo CDs" that I have circulated are pretty good examples of "purist" recording techniques that capture good "tonality" and a sense of "space".

With popular (rock etc.) music that is recorded in the studio using electronic instruments and which undergoes extensive post-processing during the mixdown process, anything goes - there is no "reality" that is being "reproduced". In this sense, these recordings are more like movie soundtracks where the original "event" is not something that actually existed in real space and in real time. The recording itself is the "real event" - if that makes sense.....

yeah it does make sense. it also tells me that trying to capture the best sound through only one means is pointless, and one would want to setup his system to suit the music that he likes. which also makes sense; however accuracy is also valued.

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

As an exemple, I still prefer to listen to older mono recordings through only one speaker verses two or more speakers playing the same signal, or other processing. Mono through only one speaker sounds more "natural" to the format (mono) to me. It's all subjective

Howdy, Soundhound.........miss you my friend

I'm here if you have questions....just check 'yer sixguns with the bartender....

Actually you can still get THX certification as a Dealer/Installer of THX products. This includes spending 4 days at "The Ranch," and time at SkyWalker sound itself.

I'm actually on the waiting list to one day be a THX Certified Dealer/Installer.

THX is a lot more than a marketing ploy for home use.

For home use it basically is a marketing ploy. They know that 99.9% people buying $250 and up HT receivers aren't going to take the time to meet the strict requirements to actually be a real THX theater, but they know by including it on the front it will sell more units.

.

I think that advancing technology and manufacturing techniques have pretty much caught up with THX to the point where is is relatively easy for manufacturers to meet specifications that were once "exclusive" to THX, and at more reasonable cost. THX does have some fine criteria for performance - the problem is that it is increasingly easier for those criteria to be met on a routine basis by most manufacturers. Most technologies are this way - high performance difficult to achieve in the beginning, and over time that performance becoming routine and less expensive.

Jed- I would suggest you do some research on what it takes to get a THX symbol on your gear. Its more than dishing out $$$$. There are rather strict guidelines needed to meet standards like THX Ultra2. Select is easier to get, and its designed for people with small rooms. It does have guidelines however. You would be shocked in how many units DON'T even meet Select criteria.

I think some wouldn't be shocked in hearing how many units meet the THX requirements but don't bother to pay the licensing fee. However its not as high as some would think.

I'll be happy to share my THX training experience with people once it happens.

how much is it?

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I have my own Movie rating system.

If I think I am going to like the movie, I will go out to the theater. Then I will wait for the special edition DVD.

If I have an interest in the movie, but don't really feel the desire to go out, I will wait for the DVD and if it's at the right price I will buy it.

If my interest is less then I will wait for it to come on TV and if I just happen to be bored when it's on I'll watch it.

Going to the movies is a treat for me not a necessity. When making the final decision it is one with regard to time, everything else seems secondary.

Uh, take a deep breath and reread my post. Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited June 06, 2004).]

.

I agree totally that THX has been a major driving force for raising the performance bar, but I'd like to add a couple things to illustrate my original point.

Regarding the theater compensation for the "X" curve, etc. - all DVDs are now re-EQ'd in a mastering suite using speakers much more typical of a home setup. They remove the "mixed in" brightness of an original film sound mix as part of creating the DVD master. While this was not true of laserdiscs and earlier DVDs, it is standard practice now, along with a rebalancing of the channels and to some extent dynamic range compression. In some instances, the film's original mixing engineers bring some small (usually Genelec) speakers into the original dubbing theater, position them around the console, and create a DVD mix at the conclusion of the film's theatrical mix. This is one feature of THX that release format technology is catching up with and eliminating the need for.

Decorrelation is another THX technology that was once vital to any surround system. However now that the presentation norm is DVD, and the surrounds are always mixed in discrete stereo, decorrelation is not really needed. I have never experienced a single instance in a film's mixing where the engineer intentionally mixed a purely mono signal into both the left and right side surrounds - at the least, stereo reverb is added and usually the mono signal is time-shifted on one side to simulate stereo. If decorrelation is added to a true stereo signal in the surrounds, the imaging is destroyed. An argument could be made for it's use in the rear surrounds in a 7.1 system, but then again part of the usefulness of rear surrounds is to allow precise placement for behind-the-listener effects. Decorrelation used on these channels tends to muddy up that rear imaging and meld it into the side surrounds too much, thus loosing the effect intended by the mixing engineers.

The controlled directivity aspect is one technology that is immune to delivery format advances. This is a technology that I rarely see used on home speakers, outside of THX equipment - probably because of cost. The absolute best way to achieve controlled directivity is by the use of horns, and my good 'ol Altec Lansing A-7-500 speakers were one of the original models used for establishing the amount and nature of the "ideal" controlled dispersion. Horns have been used in movie theaters for dispersion control for decades - the Altec multi-cellular horns are a prime example of this. The later "constant directivity" horns refined the frequency-dispersion performance so that there was better high frequency dispersion.

Personally, I never agreed with electronic timbre matching in any home component (as opposed to timbre matched speakers all around). During the creation and mixing of sound effects and music, these signals are created without the use of any timbre matching scheme - they are intended to be listened to in this way. It doesn't make sense to me to add a layer of equalization which essentially second guesses the intention of the film's mixers and sound designers. Timbre matching (again, I'm talking about the electronic variety, not timbre matched speakers) seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 06, 2004).]

.

If you read what I said at all, I do give credit to THX for what they have done, however I also pointed out that what they have done is now common practice in a lot of products. This is just technological progress.

Whatever papers you may want to cite (and a lot has changed with mixing and recording technology since the dates on them), I am just relaying what I observe first hand in working on film dubbing stages and working with the engineers who are currently performing DVD mastering - and yes, it is now routine to re-equalize, rebalance and sometimes compress the film soundtrack stems for DVD release. Most of the time this is done in a mastering suite that resembles a home environment for the express purpose of optimizing the DVD sound to it's intended listening environment. Sometimes this is done on the film dubbing stage.

This thread describes one such DVD mixing session - you even have a post in it:
http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000262.html

To me, THX is just a company that has done some good things, and some questionable things. Not everybody in the film industry agrees 100% with THX's mandates, and in fact, many of the major "world class" mixing stages in Hollywood are not officially THX certified. There are a lot of companies and people that have contributed to the state of the art in film post production. THX is just one of them, but they are the only one that people seem to get all worked up over if you don't show them proper "respect". It gets very old after awhile....


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 07, 2004).]

Soundhound

I just saw that "bulldog defense" thing and it was awesome. Why you have to modify it? You should release your feeling.

By the way, do they pay a lot for sound engineer position? What is required if I want to apply?

I'm sure the pay is excellent...

As for requirements...Well I've read a lot of soundhound's words and it doesn't take long to realize that it takes a combination of experience and brains (don't let this go to your head soundhound )
I've been a member here about as long as soundhound and his post count is an indication of this man's devotion and willingness to share his experiences and knowledge while mine shows a lack of both

LQQK (AKA Husker @ S&V)




[This message has been edited by LQQK (edited June 07, 2004).]

The pay is excellent but the work is all freelance, and within the last couple years with 9/11 and the general economy, very little to go around. There are colleges that tech audio recording and engineering in many large cities. A lot of people here in L.A. attend USC film school, but when I got into it these types of audio engineering programs didn't exist.

Hmmmm..... I would have never known! From what I've seen over there lately, it's more peaceful here....well, generally....somewhat...

My perception, from the edges of, but not within, the film industry is that one will find some DVD’s largely maintaining original theatrical mix characteristics while at other times a DVD-specific re-mix was done with home theater as the goal. What is done with regard to audio for DVD is a production choice, made for a mix of artistic, budgetary and philosophic reasons. There are no DVD release audio police to make sure there is consistency. One person may think, “I’ll change the emphasis to help the home listener.” Another person will think, “I don’t know in what type of environment this audio will be played. I’ll leave it up to the user to address his or her system/environment needs.” And, regardless of whether a certain type of frequency emphasis is or is not included in the audio of a DVD release, it is only one of many variables in the way the audio mastering turns out. In another post there was even a mild bit of ranting over people with authority in a production who are not fully talented in audio making decisions that adversely affect the audio mastering outcome.

In any case, a THX-certified receiver I was using prior to the 950 had a compensation for ‘theater emphasis’ that could be turned on or off per the user’s preference. The 950 has a ‘theater compensation’ option for much the same reason. See page 34 of the 950 user’s manual. I haven’t noticed any specific labeling on any DVD’s to help me know in advance whether the DVD’s audio still contained ‘theater emphasis’ or not. Maybe I just don’t have the energy to ‘fight’ the system and hope for some standard labeling that will let me know, but it basically comes down to this: if I play a DVD and certain things should too brash, I’ll try engaging the compensation to see if I think the playback sounds more realistic or not.

Regardless of what techniques may or may not be used in forming a surround mix, I, for one, have had the experience of finding some mixes so convincingly realistic that it is unsettling – I think I’m hearing things that might be happening in reality instead of sound from my HT. My applause and appreciation for the sound engineers on such a release. At the other end of the spectrum, I’ve also heard mixes that were merely causing ‘sound to come from that box over there.’ The time and talent available or allowed in certain productions makes a huge difference both in using technology to enhance the listeners experience, and/or in the skill of overcoming the limitations of the technology.

As listeners, we can only do so much. Do what you can, within reason, or at least not too far outside of reason, then hopefully you can relax a bit and enjoy!

The DVD specific mastering is a relatively new thing which I have only seen in routine practice in the last few years. The first film I saw that had a DVD specific mix by the original film mixing engineers was "Avita" (I was working on a film that was setting up to be mixed as they were finishing up the DVD mix). Mix magazine did a pretty good piece several months ago which detailed the mastering procedures that each studio uses for their DVD soundtrack masters. It can be read here:

http://mixonline.com/internet/newformats/audio_mastering_dvd/index.html

Certainly all major films released now get this treatment. Of course there still is variability in the relative brightness of certain films and this is due to individual choices made by the people who did the original film mix and the person who is doing the DVD mastering. My original point however was that the brightness that may be present because of the "X" curve or any of several reasons is compensated for in the DVD mastering stage now. If a film is still too bright in the home, then the Re-EQ or "theater compensation" of course can come in handy. The Outlaw 950's theater compensation is a good example of the general adoption by manufacturers of features which were once THX excusives, while lessening the need for THX certification now.

Just as an aside, at the CES show this last January, I was literally shocked at how generally "bright" the current crop of home theater speakers are - subjectively more bright than almost all monitor speakers I have heard in dubbing theaters and mastering stutes. Speakers with voicing like this will make almost any movie sound too forward and bright, no matter how it's mastered.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 07, 2004).]

.

I'm a little surprised by this comment after reading your post before saying that most mixes were done on Genelecs. Any pair of Genelec speaker I've listened to has just about torn off my head. They have to be the brighest sounding speaker I've ever heard!

The specific Genelecs that are used (they are referenced in the Mix magazine article I posted below) sound to me to be pretty well balanced on the top end. By contrast, many, many of the home theater speakers I heard at CES were off-the-map bright compared to these Genelecs. I don't have any direct experience with the home versions of Genelec speakers, so there might be some variability in how they voice their professional monitors verses their home products.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 07, 2004).]

No problem. Here is the article from Mix magazine that goes into some of the DVD remix workings at the various studios:

http://mixonline.com/internet/newformats/audio_mastering_dvd/index.html


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 07, 2004).]

Soundhound,

did you notice if Ascend Acoustics had a booth at CES? If so, did you have a chance to check them out and your opinion, if any?

I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to specific brand names as I listened, although I do know I heard many of the major ones and too many not-so-major ones. I can't specifically recall if I heard Acend or not. If you've ever been to a CES, you know how much of a blur it can get after awhile because of the sheer number of exhibits. I was there more to take in what's new than to audition anything in paricular. The fact that I got a free pass in the mail helped too....

However, I very much remember the great Mexican dinner I had after the last day of the show, and that pitcher of margaritas!!!


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 07, 2004).]

i wouldnt say my respect for sh is great, perhaps minimal at best. if i lived in a professional studio, however im sure it would improve to at least average :-).

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

While I don't give a gnat's ass what you think about me, I would seriously appreciate it if you would keep it to your self. Thank you and have a nice day.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 08, 2004).]

typically its rat's, not knat's.

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Respect. In my business we use that word alot. I was changing out of some cold, wet clothes recently, and I thought about the extremes some people go to be respected. And how the harder some people try, the less respect they get.

Some people just make alot of loud noise, and some want to be feared. But true respect is earned in much more subtle ways, and it is only granted to those capable of respecting others in reciprical ways.

What is with the smiley symbol after you insult the guy. You think you are funny? You want respect?

lol

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Gnats have smaller asses than rats, ergo, I care even less than usual. Geesh....

.

.

Well....what can I say other than I don't work in the DVD authoring department!!!

Personally, I don't think that compression is necessary in the mastering phase since it is provided in consumer gear as an option with the Dolby Digital decoding, but since when has Hollywood had an obsession with quality?

BTW, I wouldn't be so sure that THX mastered DVD soundtracks are not compressed too. You might call THX directly and inquire about it to them.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 09, 2004).]

.

Refering to those hoping to deliver a great DVD experience for home theater:



While I was thinking about 'theater emphasis' when I wrote that (and more) above, the same applies to other changes in the DVD audio mix.

I certainly can see your point Wayne. I suppose, if asked, which I won't be, I would vote for, "give me the truest reproduction source you can and let me take care of the rest in my listening environment."

.

wayne, i think you invest the most time in your posts, by far, of anyone on here. lol. not that you post a lot, but when you do its 3 screens full. :-)

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

.

Wayne - saw your letter in the newest Sound & Vision magazine. Cool!

Soundhound,

Which issue? Just checked my local Mall-Wart mag section and they still have June's on the racks. Unless Wayne is really "Gil, Jon, Mitch, John, Dale, Harley, Pete, Mike, or Michael" he isn't in that issue.

I guess since the snow and ice have recently turned to slush up here, it's holding up the normal dog sled re-supply convoy.

Jeff Mackwood
(Ottawa)

July/August, Page #14.

.

Just saw it @ the Library during my lunch....congrats!

Just stopped back to say . . .

Just saw Spider Man 2 in a Leow’s movie theater, and the presentation was atrocious!

· Dirt and hair on film: mild but obvious, and on a print that has supposedly been in use for only a few days.
· Repaired print in use: at least two places where the print had been broken and spliced, visually missing a few frames of the film plus causing an old-fashioned analog film audio “fudlump” shortly after the edit went past the projection gate.
· Analog audio from film, with surround sound processing: I suspected this in the first few seconds of the film when what was supposed to be steady violin notes played back with changing pitch at about the same rate as a film reel would complete each revolution – a steady up-and-down pitch variation as one would experience when playing an LP record on a turntable that rotates at an inconsistent speed. ‘Analog’ was confirmed later when a film edit caused the audio to “fudlump” in an analog fashion, not a digital glitch. Also, there were no distinct upper high frequencies and lower bass seemed non-existent – this would occur with analog optical audio tracks due to both high-end and low-end roll-off.
· Center channel sound overdriven and distorted: either one or more drivers in the center speaker array were mildly damaged, or a preamp or processor input was slightly overdriven, because, except for the most quiet of conversations, everything from the center channel was reproduced with mild over-modulation distortion. Of course, this could be the effect of the old-fashioned optical analog audio tracks on the film. Also, the center channel level was so high compared to the left and right mains and surround speakers that, except for one scene where the organ was played in the church, only the center channel seemed active during the whole viewing.

I was thoroughly disgusted. This type of viewing is only possible with theater personnel gross apathy and incompetence.

A friend of mine has a $500 MSRP Onkyo ‘home-theater-audio-in-a-box’ 6.1 system purchased for under $400 that outperforms that movie theater’s presentation in every way!

The job of professional IATSE motion picture projectionist is going the way of professional buggy whip repairman, and you are just as likely as not to have the pimply faced concession stand dweeb (or dweeb-ette) running the projectors. There is no mandatory maintenance requirement in a theater until the complaints get really bad (with the possible exception of some THX theaters, but I've witnessed plenty of bad shows at these too).

Hopefully digital projection will idiot-proof the presentation process to a certain degree, but personally I have all but given up on theater going in favor of my humble home theater where I can have any food/beverage I choose, pause the show, and clothing is optional.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 04, 2004).]

My favourite multiplex here in Ottawa is Famous Players' SilverCity. It's only a few years old, is well-built, and does feature great seats, screen, and sound systems. It appears that they take care and pride in the quality of the picture and sound.

On the very rare occasions (twice to be exact) out of the hundred or so times I've been there, I was disappointed by either the sound or the picture. (One of each). In both cases I asked to see the on-duty manager and explained my concerns - in a polite and instructive manner. In both cases, without asking, I was given four free passes (with pop and popcorn) for future viewings as thanks for having brought it to their attention.

At least at that multiplex they care enough to encourage people to voice their concerns. Maybe that's why all 16 screens seem to be pretty busy year-round, and why I'm still a client.

Jeff Mackwood

it was spider man 2, after all; what did you expect?

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.