Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 12/11/2017 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Blade Runner (1982) UHD ATMOS http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2763785-ultimate-list-bass-movies-w-frequency-charts-143.html#post55330524
  2. 1 point
    Oh here I thought that was for Blade Runner 2049 and I was about to take the gloves off 😁
  3. 1 point
    Mr Edge, Thanks for the Blade Runner PvA! It looks like the rolloff is similar to the 5.1 version on the prior home release. JSS
  4. 1 point
    Battlefield Bad Company 2 was pretty good. The first Dead Space had great sound.
  5. 1 point
    Right. Don't worry about it. You'll get what you get. I don't see it as a "problem" but more of an unknown, for you. Don't worry about it. I don't see how it would help out in your case at all, no. But... my riser is powered by a single Behringer Europower 4000, bridged to a 4ohm load (two 8ohm drivers in parallel). My entire front sub-bass system is power by a single Cerwin Vega CV5000 running stereo 2ohm. The two rear subs are powered by a single Behringer iNuke 4-6000, bridged to two 4ohm loads.
  6. 1 point
    I have been doing most of the commercial subs in my room as well for quite a while. Mostly as a data point on the room acoustics effects I have and how distortion is lowered in the deep bass. Mic is at head position at the main seat and subs are placed in the same corner each time. Only valid for my room and that exact placement.
  7. 1 point
    I recently tightened down my latest system EQ config, including a complete overhaul of the surrounds that delivers stronger mid-bass and more bass overall. It's nice and punchy for music, without compromising deep bass, where it does show up. I did some testing with music mixed to mono and sent to the center and each surround to confirm that the mid-bass retained its punch on each channel. Over the last few days, I've been testing with movies. The opening bits of GOTG2+BEQ are even better than when I watched it before. The kick drum on the music tracks has life! Tonight I watched "Star Wars: TFA" again with BEQ. I tried with the full mid-bass boost in the BEQ, but backed the PEQ gains down to only +2 dB per channel and added about +0.75 dB @ and below 30 Hz . With the full +4, the mid-bass boost overpowered and killed the deep bass, but it obviously lacked punch at only +0. The extra +0.75 dB down low seemed to get things just right. There is a great balance of shaking effect and lots of chest thump. I can't guarantee these adjustments will do right for everyone else being that they are quite small. In any case, the movie was a fun ride. It was the first time my sister and her husband had heard my system since I got the new speakers and subs. They were smiling pretty big when it was over. Now we're all properly ruined before we go to see "The Last Jedi" at a cinema next weekend.
  8. 1 point
    No, the X curve is not applied to the mix by default or in any kind of automated fashion. Instead, the X-curve imparts a tonal shift that affects what the re-recording mixers hear and influences the EQ they apply on the dub-stage. The mixers are likely to boost the highs and lows to compensate for what they hear. What you really should be saying is: room A acoustics =/= room B acoustics. Size is only one of many room variables, and in fact, listening distance and speaker dispersion pattern are probably at least as important. In some ways, this gets us lost among many details be especially important here. A crucial issue is to distinguish between the effect the above variables have on *perception* from the effect these variables have on the *metric* used in the calibration process. Ideally, the calibration process would rely on a metric that is 100% consistent with perception. Power-averaged response, which is the metric used for X-curve calibration, is not very consistent with perception at all. It is, however, strongly influenced by room acoustics. I'm assuming your response is with regard to the fact that music production doesn't rely on standards? Therein lies a real irony about the cinema standards. It is a case of "no standards" being better than "bad standards". The lack of standards in music forces engineers to adhere to established precedent, which serves as an informal standard. They listen to recordings they consider to be good references and mix and master to achieve approximate parity with those references. Dr. Toole calls this "The Circle of Confusion" for good reason, but in fact, I'd argue that the situation with cinema is worse. That's because, while on the one hand, the cinema standards fail to achieve consistency between different playback systems, the engineers trust in the accuracy of their "calibrated" systems and mostly disregard precedent when making mixing decisions. They simply mix to "what sounds best" to them and assume it will sound like that on other properly calibrated systems. Now to be fair, not all cinema engineers are mixing like I describe above. Through their experience, they have surely noticed that different dub stages sound different and have learned to compensate their mixing technique accordingly with the aim of achieving better results in a wider range of venues. Furthermore, the X-curve standard was actually a decent even if imperfect 1970s-era solution to a very real problem: high frequency absorption of screens is variable, and the best calibration tools that were available at that time relied on power-averaged response analysis of pink noise signals. It's just that today, we have much more capable measurement methods and a much better understanding of perceptual issues. Along those lines, I disagree that Dr. Toole's recommendation (see the second of the two above papers) for calibrating in-room magnitude-smoothed response to a standardized sloped target is the optimal solution, but I believe it'd be a big improvement over the X curve. His recommendation would effectively free up an extra 4-6 dB of headroom per screen channel in cinema soundtracks and would probably lead to a big improvement in the bass for cinema presentations overall. (I'll refrain from giving a detailed justification for this final point unless someone wants me to.) You're right. I didn't have to expand into great deal. I'm just a big geek, you know. And I'm actually quite excited because I think I've finally mostly unraveled a lot of things about film audio that were previously confusing to me and still are confusing to many others. I stand by my statements about the X-curve standard inhibiting headroom on cinema soundtracks, but in time, this is becoming a lot less relevant for those of us who mostly care about home theater, because home mixes are becoming more and more common and are improving in quality. I would not be surprised in the least if "Dunkirk" is a clear exception to this trend. It's probably a straight-up cinema mix and a very loud one at that. Which is still fine by me because I'll re-EQ it as needed when I get a-hold of it. The X-curve is still a big problem in cinema, and I think it's hurting the industry, even if they don't realize it or won't admit it. Dr. Toole has pointed out that many cinemas are hosting music and sports events and corporate video conferences, and stuff like that in order to bring in more revenue, but because they are calibrated on X-curve, all that other audio sounds like poo. That can't be good for their bottom line, and it's the kind of thing that customer satisfaction surveys aren't likely to reveal, being that the influence of audio quality is so unconscious. FWIW, you're like one of the least "asshole" kind of people on these parts, which is why it's kind of funny the way you responded to me. Often that kind of thing pisses me off, but I don't care at this point because I know you and because it doesn't matter that much anyway. Part of my confidence regarding the X-curve is that I can clearly hear it. I'm routinely identifying cinema mixes and re-EQing them to sound better. Ahh yes, so now you think I'm blabbering in Audiophilese? "I can hear the difference man! This will totally transform your audio experience for the better." OK fine, but consider that I really suck at understanding dialog in films. Like, my ears aren't golden at all but are tarnished, maybe even rust colored, right? So when I apply re-EQ and dialog that was shouty and muddy and almost impossible to follow suddenly becomes clear and intelligible, I take note. That's what I'm talking about here. If you'd like, name some titles, hopefully at least one of which is in my library. I'll put it in and try to identify if it's a cinema track that will benefit from re-EQ, I'll play around with it and then publish some PEQs to try to see if it cleans up for you. Is it worth a try? Otherwise, come visit me here in Denver and hear for yourself.
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    I for one am firmly now under the philosophy of cutting up subwoofers into smaller ones and just using multiples. 2 single 18's vs 1 double, etc etc. or 3 12's vs one single 18 sorry, that does not help you here
  11. 1 point
    Star Wars: The Force Awakens-Disney/Lucasfilm DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 Level - 4 Stars (110.94dB composite) Extension - 5 Stars (1Hz) Dynamics - 5 Stars (28.39dB) Execution - TBD Overall - TBD Supervising Sound Editors: Matthew Wood, David Acord Sound Designers: Ben Burtt, Gary Rydstrom, Robert Stambler, Will Files Re-Recording Mixers: Andy Nelson, Christopher Scarabosio, Juan Peralta, Nathan Nance Not much to say about this one that hasn't been said already, and it's true that it is an absolute bass monster. The dreaded 30Hz peak is still present, but the falloff below it is gentle enough to still leave some significant content down low. While most of the bass falls into the typical sci fi bang and slam category, there is plenty of variety in the effects so they never get boring to listen to. Then we get to the 'Force Rumbles' that are unleashed almost every time Kylo Ren appears on screen. They are loud and have significant energy below 20Hz (so bolt down your wall hangings), but thanks to some creative sound design they are not one dimensional and will ebb and flow both in frequency and intensity (no annoying "Interstellar" drones here). Unfortunately they are annoying in one regard: they will reveal every single source of noise in your listening area. The overall quality of the soundtrack is fairly high, but it is also marred by clipping, courtesy of what appears to be a brick wall limiter set to -3dB. Why the limiter was set this low is a mystery, as it leaves the soundtrack noticeably quieter than many others, yet full of flat topped waveforms any time the volume ramps up. Thankfully the distortion is mostly unnoticed aside from a few effects that are pushed too hard, becoming boomy and muddy in the process (the Starkiller base weapon firing is the big one). Overall this is a good, but not great soundtrack. It's a definite step up for JJ over ST:ID but not anywhere near his first Trek movie. Unfortunately, mixing like that seems to have gone out of style, so it was probably a pipe dream to expect TFA to be in the same league. Still, the soundtrack does a good job supporting the movie, and thankfully goes against the grain by featuring some decent dynamic range and an overall tone that is much smoother than the harsh soundtracks that usually grace 'event' movies like this one.
  12. 1 point
    Do you guys know about the compression in the center channel? http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=12141722&postcount=6786 Really tired of home mixes downgrading SQ from theatrical version. Why not have both on this disc?
  13. 1 point
    Definitely enjoyed that part in the woods. There were a few other areas where I felt it dug pretty deep for very quick effect. Final fight scene with the ground cracking had some decent transients, with some ULF seemingly folded in there as well.
  14. 1 point
    Without a doubt. I had my first shot at spinning this bad boy last night and not only did I enjoy the variety of bass effects as minnjd had already mentioned, but the surround presentation IMO was absolutely top notch. Video certainly didn't disappoint and there were several good dark scenes that I felt were well done.
  15. 1 point
    That <5Hz stuff is not noise. Deliberate effects at specific times. JSS
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    I concur on the waveform analysis. I love the knowledge that is so openly shared on this forum. Great stuff!
  18. 1 point
    I don't know why, but I'm liking these movies with a twist on the original. This one is visually excellent and has serious low end, used sparingly but expertly, IMO. I also liked Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and Maleficent. Quirky, well done, well cast and acted and with superb sound. I also love the waveform analysis. Yet another great tool in the Data Bass bag. Props to His Shredness.
  19. 1 point
    Looks like another heavy hitter. Tons of 5-20Hz bass in those captures. Why can't Marvel's movies have this kind of mix and extension?
  20. 1 point
    Terminator Genisys -Atmos track defaulted to 7.1 Dolby TrueHD SCALE 00:02:05 00:08:32 00:19:50 00:27:36
  21. 1 point
    Agreed. The exercise is to see what's encoded on the soundtrack. Signal chain disparities are infinite and have nothing to do with what source an amplifier can reproduce. We already have a good idea how systems perform with internal signal manipulation using current test methods. For example: A mic'd version of this example, using soundtrack source, would reveal a huge distortion in presentation. That is more a matter of the amplifier/alignment/price/performance/driver(s) relationship than what the amplifier alone might be able to present in a waveform comparison. The better comparison is what happens at the listening position, which includes the room, the system and the signal chain and the typically ham fisted post smoothing EQ.
  22. 1 point
    SME makes some of the points I was thinking to myself. It would be very useful to see a direct from disc waveform compared to the signal being sent to the amplifier after equalization, etc...He is right it will be much heavier emphasis on the sub 30Hz frequencies. As he states obviously that will be a bit different for each persons system but a comparison of just a couple of scenes from one or two of the heavy hitter movies would be great information.
  23. 1 point
    Hey max, here is that missile strike scene in Bourne Legacy with the 5.1 DTS track next to the 7.1 DTS-HD MA just for fun.
  24. 1 point
    This is continued from the pictures in post 40 http://data-bass.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/425-analyzing-waveforms-of-heavy-hitting-movies/?p=10248 Here is a scene from the movie Bourne Legacy where the cabin gets hit by a drone missile strike. There is an impressive transient when the missile hits the cabin that is an awesome effect especially coming from the peaceful quiet of the snowfall in the woods in the previous scene. This effect can be missed if your amp doesn't have a sufficient cap reservoir. Here is right after that where there is a sustained "boom" of the explosion. For this scene it looks like an amp would have to supply power for transient peaks of around 10ms. More scenes to come...
  25. 1 point
    I've been thinking about amplifier burst testing lately. The capacitor reservoir in amplifiers is different in every design and it makes a big impact on how the amp performs in sub duties for huge transients where it can give the amp more power than it can draw from the wall power outlet. There are no standards to what length amps are tested for burst power duration. Some claim that they should be tested at up to 500 milliseconds for burst power while others use 1ms and sometimes less to show that an amp has a higher peak power despite having a small cap bank. With a timescale (horizontal) of 50ms per division, here are the different lengths of CEA bursts at a few different frequencies: You can see how much more demanding a 5Hz burst would be because it is a longer duration which will drain a cap bank more than a shorter burst. Looking closely at the 5Hz burst, we can guess where the capacitor reservoir will start to discharge. If we figure that we have a 120V/30A (3600W) power outlet and an amp that is about 60% efficient so that it can do a sustained tone at around 2205W, a 5 ohm speaker load at 5Hz would make for around 105V before running out of juice from the wall. Everything above 105V would have to be covered by the cap bank. This graph has a vertical scale of 50V per division and a horizontal scale of 50 milliseconds per division. Since we now know where to look for the transition from wall outlet power to cap reservoir (a bit over 2 divisions or 105V), we can zoom in on different CEA frequency bursts and see how much time the cap bank will have to pick up. Single digits get pretty stressful on an amplifier no matter what topology it is. The question is what burst frequency is the most logical to use to test an amplifier's capabilities. Stay tuned and I'll show some real world movie content shots of transient waveforms and their time duration zoomed in on to see if that helps pick a burst frequency that most closely matches the stresses that some of the coolest bass hits in movies inflict.