what can i say? the system is calibrated properly.

i have dts-es discs, pearl harbor, gladiator and LOTR.

gladiator has very little LFE, actually. LOTR has enormous LFE content. i have to back off quite a bit with certain scenes to equal gladiator or pearl harbor (or, are you saying it's the player or the preamp or the amp?).

the clip indicators don't flash constantly, only during the scenes i use for demo purpose, and i assure you, i don't have the levels set too high. after many hours with many discs and all formats and nearly every conceivable routing/processing scheme...i know a hot signal when i see one.

my point is, really, that i don't believe that average systems handle LFE+RB well at all. they have subsonic filters, peak limiters, grossly distort (and most people simply don't recognize LF distortion), boost certain freqs with cheap eq, produce phase anomolies (the 950 can send RB from 5 different speaker locations at 3 different crossover points plus the LFE at a fixed 120 hz to a single sub that's usually 'placed' where it fits in the room best, close to an a/c outlet), holes or humps in response at crossover and do not play back the original content very well at all.

as far as what engineers would or would not ever do, mixes of all surround formats differ so wildly from one disc to the next, that i simply don't buy that statement. in fact, the fate of hi-res multi-channel audio rests largely in the engineer's and producer's hands. so far, not so good.

using a sub to augment an inadequate stereo setup is one thing. multi-channel audio is vastly different, mostly misunderstood and very far from a 'set-it-and-leave-it' standard. i feel about stereo like i felt about mono when stereo came on the scene. it frustrates me to hear the 'everything is perfectly fine the way it is' response. i guess if i was selling a bunch of this or that dolby or thx or whatever gadget, i would say the same thing.

separating the LFE to it's own system, helps the situation in more ways than one, and not just a little. of this fact, i remain convinced.

I was specifically referring to film mixing engineers here! I know them, I work with them, and I know the consistency of the mixes that come from the stages in Hollywood. In the film industry, everybody needs to be on the same page and in sync with each other, otherwise money gets wasted, and the career of an engineer who's mixes don't hold up in the real world of theaters would not have a job very long. The mixing engineers on the various top stages work pretty much exclusively on their "home" stage. They have teams that they always work with, and they know what to expect. It simply can't be otherwise when release dates are looming, sometimes only days from when the film is finishing it's mix. Films from the various studios that are mixed in the same general era (the 1970s, 1980s, the 1990s etc) sound remarkably alike in their balances. If you are getting "wildly differing" sound from films from the same era, something is wrong in your system.

Multi-channel audio discs are something else. The music recording industry is by comparison extremely unstructured in it's practices when compared to the "factory" like workflow in the film industry. There are no particular requirements or qualifications necessary for music recording engineers, and they don't have to answer to anybody in particular if their mixes don't hold up on real-world systems. There is no "standard" formatting for the use of the various channels: the use (or non-use) and purpose of the LFE channel is still a matter of individual intrepretation, depending on who is doing the mixing. Also, the whole multi-channel music industry is very young compared to the film industry (which has had around 80 years to evolve) , and there is a learning curve.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 06, 2003).]

This has been a most informative and entertaiing thread. Bravo!

I just set my system up for music and let the movie soundtrack performance land where it lands.

Little pieces of black electrical tape over the clipping indicators will fix that problem.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

Considering the huge sonic penalty that the movie soundtracks suffer when encoded into Dolby Digital or DTS, you are being very, very wise!

it's been said here many times...no complaint, no fix.

i'm no fan of dolby labs, and i regularly communicate that fact to them. i leave dts alone, because they represent the ONLY competition to an otherwise absolute monopoly.

when i get some time, i'd like to list a few titles and get your opinions, SH. if it's a bother, i certainly understand, just let me know.

i tried facing the equipment to the wall, shutting off the lights and closing my eyes. it's worse that way.

Music vs Movie Soundtrack

SH, your insight on the production of the movie soundtrack is enlightening because I was with Bosso on this. I also thought that music bass and sound effect bass would interfere with each other. The soundtracks and the systems most of us run are made for each other and I'm glad someone else is responsible for making sure sound effects, music and dialog are perfect in the mix. Bosso, have you tried LOTR DD release along with the DTS release? There appears to be a big difference between the two and the DTS is actually quieter wrt LFE. There must have been some tweaking between theatrical release and the subsequent DVD releases.

It'll be a long while before multichannel music mixing and production settle down. Until then, there'll always be a tweak we need to perform before settling down with a nice DVD-A or SACD.

To be a little more on topic; I find it interesting that you both use 18 inch subs. Have either of you tried 15s or direct radiating 2-10s? I ask because 18s need an awful lot of help from other speakers to be musical. Sure, they are rock solid on the fundamentals but they are lacking on the harmonics that give the low E on a bass and the thump of a bass drum their character. I wonder if stereo or dual mono 18s can truly have the effect you guys describe on properly recorded music or is it the speakers that are handling the low midrange and higher. I would think that to get the stereo/delay effect in the bass from the original recording, you'd need a large enough room.

I have a pair of 18s that I use for my band's PA but I wouldn't use them for my bass guitar. Maybe I'll try to get my family out of the house for awhile and set up the 18s and my 210s. Now where did I put that hand truck?

DollarBill:

There is absolutely NO relationship between speaker size and how "musical" or "fast" a speaker can be if the speaker drivers are properly designed, for their size. "Small woofers are faster" is myth that a lot of people accept as gospel because it's been repeated enough by the audiophile press. Large woofers are not inherently "slow" - BASS is "slow"! If the subwoofer (or any speaker) does not have a sufficiently large magnet and voice coil in relation to the weight of the cone, the speaker will respond slowly, and will continue to move when the musical note stops - "hangover". This will sound "muddy, like "slow bass". The motor assembly of a speaker acts as an "engine" and also as a "generator". This generated voltage, called back EMF, is absorbed by the low output impedance of the power amplifier - this controls the cone of the speaker, keeping it from moving or "resonating" on it's own. The larger the motor assembly the speaker has, the more effective it will be in controlling the speaker. If a speaker has a large magnet and voice coil (my subwoofer's voice coil is 4" in diameter), the "motor" can accelerate the cone as fast as desired. Want the cone to respond faster? Build in a larger motor assembly. Simple as that, just like the engine in a car. If you're trying to make an Abrams tank accelerate faster, you don't put a Honda Civic engine in it.

It costs a lot of money to build a speaker with a massive motor assembly, and frankly, most low and moderate priced subwoofers are lacking in this regard. As you go up in the price range, you are buying a subwoofer that's capable of more articulate reproduction. These can be 8" all the way up to 18" and beyond.

There is NO advantage in going to a smaller woofer, "musical" or otherwise. There are huge disadvantages however, low frequency extension and efficiency being the main ones.

It may shock you to know that the "woofer" in my system that operates from 60Hz up to 1,200Hz is 15" in diameter. However it is more than able to "keep up" with the frequency range it reproduces because it has an extremely light cone, and a massive magnet structure and voice coil in relation to the weight of the cone. The voice coil gap is very focused on the voice coil, and the driver is very efficient as a result. The woofer is also horn loaded so the woofer has to move only a slight distance in order to create very high sound pressure levels.

If I thought that I could improve on my bass by purchasing smaller subwoofers, believe me, I would do it.


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 07, 2003).]

I don't disagree with you at all. I thought you had 18 inch woofers. Also, I guess I really didn't make my point above. My point is that a large woofer will (should?) have more trouble reproducing the higher frequencies. 18s, taken by themselves, will not produce the higher octaves as well as 15s or 10s and it's these higher frequencies that define the timbre of a bass guitar or a bass drum. I think it's also the area in which the sound becomes directional and the stereo effect begins. My guess is that your midrange drivers crossover nicely with your subs. When listening for the bass separation imbedded in the recordings you're discussing, are you sure it's the fundamentals you're hearing or the first few overtones (harmonics)?

A good bass driver needs to be stiff and have large excursion ability. This is at the sacrifice the midrange capability of the driver. Combine this driver with a properly tuned cabinet and you can get good low extention. The size of the driver is less important. I think you can go with smaller drivers, or a combination of them in the case of a 2-10, and still get good low frequency extension and efficiency. The 2-10 I use for bass guitar has better low frequency extention than the 15 inch cab I used to use because of the construction of the driver and the design of the cabinet.

I'm not trying to knock your idea here. In fact, I'm going to try it if I can get rid of my family for a day or two. I can setup two 18 inch bass bins and two 2-10 bass guitar cabs. I don't know what the measured response of the 18s are but my 2-10 cabinets are +/-3 dB at 41Hz and -6 dB at 31 Hz, discounting room coupling.

DB: after reading your post, i decided to read the info (which i never do) that came with this version of LOTR.

i have the 4 disc 'special extended edition' version. it has only DD-EX and DTS-ES versions. inside the booklet, it says:

"...rather than simply inserting deleted scenes, jackson approached this extended edition as if he were creating a whole new version of the film. he and the editor...worked to bring each scene up to the same polish as the rest of the feature-visual effects were completed, dialogue was recorded and sound effects were created. to make sure the scenes flowed, howard shore composed and recorded a new score with the london philharmonic..."

so, now i'm wondering how much this soundtrack is different than the DD/DTS version. i'll rent the disc this weekend and see what's up.

i hate 'the making of' discs. they have really bogus info (i care less how the visual effects were accomplished...actually hurts the film, to me) and they NEVER show the mixing and/or how the sound effects were produced. SH, you should protest.

i guess no one else can comment, as the 950 isn't outputting the LFE of the DTS-ES version.

I'll be interested in reading your comments on the comparison between DD and DTS for LOTR.

Actually, I found the "making of" segment on sound pretty enjoyable on the "Attack of the Clones" disc.