The Low Frequency Content Thread (films, games, music, etc)

[djbluemax1]

As always Marc, thanks for the industry insight. I can see major studios considering those concepts, i.e. to cater to the <1% vs all the theaters that can't play that low and the 99% of the populace that can't either.

 

It's a pity that it isn't more common though. When done well, it adds such a visceral dimension. As has been mentioned in these types of threads, the sensation produced from the ULFs when a gigantic robot onscreen takes a step makes an impact that adds to the realism and immersion. It's what we feel in real life around large objects and its absence is disappointingly apparent, but as you pointed out, it's not something the majority are aware of or capable of replicating.

 

 

Max

[TimVG]

Tim... we've all had this conversation many times... the bolded part is the crux of the issue... we can debate over and over who we should cater for, but my first concern is theatrical distribution.

 

Most enthusiast on here have way better ULF than us.. above 18Hz you'd hear the difference in our rooms that would justify their costs.... you're talking about 15 cycles, and I'm talking about the other 20,000.

 

And when you say "we" I'm curious how many people, as a percentage of HT owners, have <18Hz capability in rooms designed to handle such frequencies properly you think are out there?

 

Bosso and I got into a discussion about this on AVS.... the cost and effort (not to mention alleviating bleed between rooms (even those that are fully floated) for what we (read: most colleagues I've talked with) see as a minimal increase in benefit over what we have now isn't worth it...

 

Again... let me be clear.. I'm not slighting the want/desire/passion for ULF... I'm just stating my personal opinion about what I need to focus on in helping to create a sound track, and knowing what a majority of theaters (as well as a great majority of HT's) are capable of, and what the business realities are vs. what returns we would see...

 

The rooms where Randy Thom mixes those films with the great ULF aren't any more capable than most other dub stages... he is a fantastic designer and sculpts the ULF to get the subs he does have in his room/dub stage to act a certain way..

 

Could others do it? Of course, and some do similar based on what you guys see on your graphs..

 

It's not easy, as everybody would do it with the consistency he does (and even with my vocal comments about the subject, I'd do it more if I had access to an easy tool to create it, even knowing I couldn't hear it but understanding that it would have an impact on the track...)

 

We do remaster for DVD/BR a lot more now a days (doing one tomorrow in fact...)

 

I will be using Genelec 1031's and a Genelec 18" sub... that's better than 99% of what people have in their homes... are we supposed to go more specialized than that for a fraction of the audience that would benefit from it? (and again see my point above about SPLing subs...)

 

But there is a simpler response to your position of "we know it can be done..."

 

I agree.. I don't ever HP filter the LFE, and most people I work with don't either... if it isn't there from the get go, however, I don't seek it out.

 

Just my personal .02...

 

Thank you for your reply Marc

 

I agree that all of the bandwith is equally important, no arguments there. I've been to studios with full Harbeth 40.1 setups (at $7000 a piece it's the finest monitor I've ever heard) and can attest to the quality.

 

I'm sure there are many valid arguments why monitoring below, let's say 20hz, is not worth it in studios.

Let it be space issues, bleeding to other rooms, cost, ..

But why not give it a shot with one room? With the new upcoming surround formats, it's a matter of time before the LFE is going to be revised, no? I can definitely see theaters making use of lower extension, perhaps not through more capable subwoofers, but through tactile transducers for example.

 

I agree people with that kind of bandwith available are hard to find, but then again, why introduce lossless audio on blu-ray? Why introduce 4K? Not many people will be able to enjoy the full effect either.

 

You say it's very hard to design and implement ULF with the available hardware, would you yourself for example be more comfortable implementing it if you could monitor it better?

 

My main argument is, ULF is already being implemented in, and obviously being filtered from, certain movies. Why not give an honest chance to monitor it better? I think the only result can be a better mix in the end. Even with a capable system nobody is stopping anyone from filtering and putting all the energy between 30-60hz if he feels like it. I'm just saying, there is nothing to lose, only to gain.

 

Best

 

Tim

[FOH]

 

Master and Commander DVD

 

The Hurt Locker

 

And I'll run a chart for the Telarc 1812 Overture and Also Sprach Zarathrusta for FOH...

 

 

Nice,

 

M&C DVD should be quite interesting, Hurt Locker as well.

 

Both outstanding films (especially Hurt Locker for me), and the LF/ULF just takes them to another level. I hope Bigelow's upcoming Zero Dark Thirty is packin' a superb soundtrack.

 

Maxmercy, I'm not as concerned with the Strauss piece, as I am the 1812, but I very much appreciate the consideration given. The bottom octaves of the Strauss work are at a low to moderate level.

 

Great work, now I've lost track, but has The Incredibles been analyzed? It's got some energy down toward the bottom octaves.

 

Thanks

[maxmercy]

Quoted from FilmMixer:

 

"(I'm getting ready to start a film with the SD that did Bosso's favorite "Hunger Games.." I'll be sure to have a long discussion about his ideas and thoughts, which are sure to be educational for all.)"

 

"We do remaster for DVD/BR a lot more now a days (doing one tomorrow in fact...)"

 

 

Totally forgot about The Hunger Games and the fireball scene. Added to the queue.

 

It will be very interesting to hear what the SD you will be working with has to say about ULF use.

 

As to the second quote, what setup do you run (room size, acoustic treatment, etc) and what SPLs do you calibrate to for a nearfield mix? Is there a standard most adhere to for home mixes? I have seen pics of the stage you mainly work in, are there pics of the nearfield stages, or are they the same place with nearfield monitors used?

 

Thanks again for contributing. I think I grasp the economics involved, and by my rating system, we have had just as many 4-Star+ films from 2007-2012 as below 4-Star films, but 2011 was a much better year for ULF than 2012.

 

I think so much of the frustration is due to high expectations, and the 'let down' experienced when you realize a mix was highpassed.

 

Again, it will be very interesting to hear things from the design perspective, and I thank you for not filtering when you mix. Can you say the name of the film you are going to be working on?

 

JSS

[FOH]

Marc,

 

Thanks for the contribution, and candor. I realize you're not on the equipment/tech side, your skillset is however quite focused and world class nonetheless, as evidenced by your body of work.

 

Mics? Non issue, ... The guys at Telarc had no problem capturing high level ULF 35 years ago. There's a correct mic for every application, regardless of freq, regardless of level.

 

 

"you're talking about 15 cycles, and I'm talking about the other 20,000" ... The LFE spec is down to 3hz-120. Spectrally, a two octave span is equally as wide from either 5hz-20hz, 10hz-40hz, is just as significantly wide as the 2.5khz to 10khz octave spread. I know you're aware of this, just a friendly reminder.

 

This argument of percentage of systems not being capable, .... then to go on regarding more channels etc, .... in my opinion that doesn't make sense to me.

 

Much more to discuss, I'll leave those issues for others.

 

Again Marc, much respect, thanks for your input. It provides invaluable perspective otherwise unattainable. And I'd absolutely love to experience your workspace, so thanks for everything.

 

 

Kevin

[Sputter]

Marc, I also enjoy your posts.

 

No doubt we are a very tiny group vs the rest of the population even though we are likely the most interested. I don't know the dollars and cents of it, would it really add that much more cost to the project to work with those last few Hz? I suppose it's time and money and the lion share of production is 120-20hz. I'm curious just how much more days/cost it might be.

 

Jim

[maxmercy]

Jim,

 

I think the problem is not in producing the output, but containing it so it doesn't spill over into other rooms...

 

JSS

[Bossobass Dave]

FWIW,

 

FM; thanks for the input and the offer of help regarding who mixed what. As I said earlier, I use IMDb for info and, under Sound Department, I did not know that the proper job description for who mixed the FX is "sound re-recording mixer'. Now that I have some more experience in searching, I have it right, but, as you said, there is often more than one person with that title, so I certainly appreciate the offer to help out with accurate info in that regard.

 

BLEED: This is a subject that, like most others in the field of the subwoofer bandwidth, gets stated as a fact with no debate. Funny thing is that the same folks who say ULF bleed is a problem for commercial cinemas then usually go on to say that ULF is inaudible. That's like saying "The odor of carbon dioxide is a big problem. BTW, carbon dioxide is odorless."

 

I don't believe anyone has ever investigated ULF bleed in a commercial theater except on paper. At least, I've never been able to find anything on the subject that leads me to believe ULF bleed was a confirmed problem.

 

Transmission losses are easily and accurately calculated according to floor, wall and ceiling construction and those losses are not frequency-dependent. MKT has the same room gain profile in his concrete bunker as my wood framed, open to the rest of the house space. The difference is transmission losses. His room is >20 times less lossy than mine. That has nothing to do with ULF vs 20 Hz and everything to do with construction method.

 

RARITY OF ULF CAPABILITY: You take a subwoofer driver, put it in a box (a la Acoustic Research, circa: 60 years ago) or mount it in a wall (a la Bozak, circa: 60 years ago), feed it signal and you have ULF capability. The cost is not incurred in the subwoofer system. Rather, it resides in the signal chain fidelity.

 

SPL is simply a function of adding drivers until your goal is reached. A quick visit to the cult of the infinitely baffled forums will confirm how inexpensive and efficient it is to have the displacement. A sealed system is a 2nd order high pass system. It's corner frequency and Q can easily be totally controlled. Of course, if the input signal is rolled off at 20 Hz, the system will accordingly be distorted.

 

Displacement is available today for $40/Liter and amplification for 6 cents/watt, so cash outlay is not the problem. And, it certainly has little to do with "expertise", so the 'engineers' who get all offended by the mere mention of elegance seem to me to be more profit-minded and less sound engineer-minded. I don't know, but I don't care much either. Facts are facts. It's a simple matter to prove my assertions. I've been doing it for over a decade.

 

There are only 3 reasons a sealed system won't reproduce ULF; 1) the system is HPF'd, 2) the input signal feeding the system is HPF'd and 3) the measurement system isn't accurately showing the response.

 

This apparently universal misunderstanding of the basic function of a sealed system in an enclosed space is so prevalent that it's more likely to read someone commenting on his posted measurements with "As you can see in the posted graph, my room has no room gain below X Hz" than it is to read "As you can see in my posted graph, my signal chain nearly completely negates room gain in my system".

 

Every room is 1/16 space. That's an indisputable fact. If the boundaries are made of cardboard, the 1/16 space reinforcement will all but disappear. If the boundaries are made of mortar-filled concrete block, the 1/16 space reinforcement will be +6dB per boundary. If the input signal is rolled off at 20 Hz, the 1/16 space reinforcement <20 Hz will be zero.

 

I've said the above so many times over the years that there are old-timers in the forums who yawn, roll eyes and say "Here it comes, the frequency response Nazi is playing his broken record again". Just this week in the DIY forum at AVS, a fella said "No source has any content below 5 (or 7 Hz, or whatever... I forget his particular per frequency) Hz and never will." What should I do, just keep reading on as though someone didn't just say gravity doesn't exist? [Please see the SL graph of the WOTW plane crash scene]

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

I don't so much enjoy debate anymore because I've grown weary of being the target of abuse from hurt feelings, professional pride, conventional wisdom, people who just wanna sell stuff who have the 'go away kid, ya bother me' attitude and other irrelevant biases.

 

I had this problem with FM and it pains me to have to go through that for just sticking to basic facts. Hey man, you work the knob twirl desk at Todd AO. That's pretty freakin' awesome in my book. What I say about subwoofers has no bearing on how I feel about that in any way. If you got a contrary impression, please strike it from the record.

[maxmercy]

Wow bosso, that it a long post (just like this one will be), and I agree with most of it.

 

Regarding the threshold of audibility of ULF and its transmission, and the paradox therein: ULF is known to have a very favorable coefficient of transmission even through solid materials. Ask anyone who has tried to design a ULF horn (lilmike and I being two) why the simulations say you should get more ULF; it simply bleeds away before it can get through the horn, among other things like compression ratios being too high for a good impedance match, and other problems. Put it simply, we cannot make ULF horn walls rigid enough. Another fact is that since no mixing facilities that I know of have serious ULF monitoring capability, they really cannot comment on the containment of ULF, just like you said. I can see why you see that this is frustrating, given the heckling you have gotten from the gallery in the past about the audibility or even the ability to sense ULF, and the great word 'artifact'. The research is out there. Humans can perceive ULF, with decently established thresholds through multiple trials for both deaf and normal hearing folks, and research suggests that the cochlea is the most sensitive instrument in our bodies to detect ULF, not our skin/hair/bones/etc.

 

Transmission losses through solids are frequency dependent. It is harder to contain a lower frequency source, due to its higher transmission coefficient through solids, and even through air. But again, you run into the paradox of, "how loud does it have to be to hear it?" Another consideration is sympathetic vibration that may happen which could be annoying in adjacent spaces, probably more annoying than any 'heard' sound at that frequency.

 

But I definitively agree with your points on signal chain and the ability to reproduce ULF, and the fact that it is possible for sound houses to monitor it, (but the expense would be non-trivial, given the levels the subs must reach, and the lower in frequency the pressure vessel gain begins in larger rooms, and the fact that the array, unless made linear enough, will beam and lobe at frequencies at the upper end of the LFE channel's bandwidth), even if the expense were equal to the vented systems they have now, trying to convince someone that the cash outlay is 'worth it' in light of the fact that no commercial theater can reproduce the content, no current mix environment can monitor it (except electronically), and only a very small percentage can reproduce it in the home. Those are non-trivial hurdles.

 

I would like to do anything I can to make them smaller hurdles, though, as experiencing full bandwidth is impressive, to say the least. Impressive enough that you have been on a 10+ year crusade for it, and there are at least a few people who are interested in the spectral content in films who follow this thread, and others who are willing to populate the thread with data.

 

As to the "no source has any content below 5Hz" people, let them believe what they want to believe. If they TRULY believe this, no graph will change their mind. NONE. They don't need education; they need St Jude.

 

I think what needs to happen is some sound folks (and whoever does sound system purchasing for them) need to experience a presentation that is flat to 10Hz or lower, with content that includes infrasonics as well as content that filters it out; and see if they think that the difference is enough to outfit some sound design rooms or smaller mix rooms with the equipment to monitor it, and then measure ULF bleed (or lack of).

 

Any bassheads with ULF capability live in southern california?

 

 

JSS

[maxmercy]

Tonight I'll try to get Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi done. Of course, this means no work on the tutorial or the test disc, but I do have those films and Netflix is still 1-2 days away from sending me the next batch of films.

 

JSS

[maxmercy]

FOH,

 

Here's the Telarc 1812 Overture.

 

It is for real. Unfortunately, Music does not have the same calibration standards as film, and for this to show up as one of our 1-Star films, I had to run it at the equivalent of +6dBRef.

 

It's -10dB point is exactly 5Hz, just like the CD cover says.

 

JSS

[maxmercy]

Star Wars:The Empire Strikes Back BluRay

Level - 4 Stars (110.41dB composite)
Extension - 2 Stars (23Hz)
Dynamics - 5 Stars (28.1dB)
Execution - 3 Stars - Several space flybys are decidedly distorted and/or clipped on the BluRay. Painful to hear.

Overall - 3.25 Stars

Recommendation - Buy. Best film of the SW Series, even though some of the effects are distorted.


JSS

[Bossobass Dave]

Another fact is that since no mixing facilities that I know of have serious ULF monitoring capability, they really cannot comment on the containment of ULF, just like you said.

 

Todd AO used to, until they switched to ported subs. This is from Keith Yates' Way Down Deep series of sub tests:

 

One last point: If you've got the dough and real estate to spare, don't shrug off the sub-20Hz content I've shown in the reference waterfall plots as unintended artifacts—say, scraps of subway rumble or HVAC noise—that somehow slipped through the filters during the mixing process. The content is program-related and meant to be there. So, okay, as a hardware matter, how did the engineers at Todd-AO who snagged an Academy Award for Best Sound for Black Hawk Down monitor all that gut-twisting infrasonic content—all those rumblings I've mentioned that lie just beyond the reach of even refrigerator-sized subs? They used big Bag End subwoofers—22 of 'em.

 

 

losses through solids are frequency dependent. It is harder to contain a lower frequency source, due to its higher transmission coefficient through solids, and even through air. But again, you run into the paradox of, "how loud does it have to be to hear it?" Another consideration is sympathetic vibration that may happen which could be annoying in adjacent spaces, probably more annoying than any 'heard' sound at that frequency.

 

I agree that sound transmission is frequency dependent, but only when looking at the 20-20k Hz bandwidth. I'm talking about the subwoofer bandwidth only where the entire bandwidth will bleed within a much narrower parameter. I've tested this at my house with people standing outside and trust me, it isn't the ULF that causes them to say they hear the subs via transmission.

 

I definitively agree with your points on signal chain and the ability to reproduce ULF, and the fact that it is possible for sound houses to monitor it, (but the expense would be non-trivial, given the levels the subs must reach, and the lower in frequency the pressure vessel gain begins in larger rooms, and the fact that the array, unless made linear enough, will beam and lobe at frequencies at the upper end of the LFE channel's bandwidth), even if the expense were equal to the vented systems they have now, trying to convince someone that the cash outlay is 'worth it' in light of the fact that no commercial theater can reproduce the content, no current mix environment can monitor it (except electronically), and only a very small percentage can reproduce it in the home. Those are non-trivial hurdles.

 

I've been collecting posted in-room response graphs for a long time and I've found no evidence to support the notion that so-called PVG begins at a room size dependent frequency. In any case, there's little chance a 200 foot sound wave can be prevented from reflecting off the boundaries at the speed of sound and avoid the boundary gain phenomenon in any room.

 

think what needs to happen is some sound folks (and whoever does sound system purchasing for them) need to experience a presentation that is flat to 10Hz or lower, with content that includes infrasonics as well as content that filters it out; and see if they think that the difference is enough to outfit some sound design rooms or smaller mix rooms with the equipment to monitor it, and then measure ULF bleed (or lack of).

 

Any bassheads with ULF capability live in southern california?

 

Members of HTS and AVS tend to live in a bubble. The real world of high end home theater is not at all ignorant to content or its playback and room sizes are typically in the 7k cubes and up area. Here's a clip I saved that I found while enjoying Keith Yates' design/installations:

 

 

 

The playback system is built around Mark Levinson source equipment and 7 Levinson monaural class-A power amplifiers; 3 Wilson X-1 loudspeakers; 6 Wilson WATT/Puppy surround speakers; and a pair of e-Quake sub-subwoofers operating in the 5-20Hz range and driven by a proprietary signal processor.

 

This ^^^ was from an article about a custom HT installation Yates did in... ready?... 1997.

 

Yates has had Danley, Seaton and others design and build subs to his app goals and none of them were trivial and all of them provided reproduction to below 10 Hz.

 

Thigpen is another example of hardware that's been available for some time where the room size isn't going to be an issue.

 

Finally, IBers like FOH have come upon the basic physics, design, hardware sources and installation methods, done some homework and built the simplest of systems on-the-cheap in short order.

 

IOW, I don't buy the cost excuse, I never bought the difficulty excuse and I don't buy the room's too big excuse. Industries tend to do what everyone else does. Companies like Harmon dominate and always have in my experience in studios (which goes back quite a ways). If you don't see JBL in the studio, you see a clone of JBL.

 

Again, just my 2 cents.

[Ricci]

Couple of things i wanted to chip in here...

 

Max thanks for the continued work. I am excited about that test disc. Put me on your list for 1 interested party. It will eliminate a couple of funky steps for me when trying to calibrate things to a standard.

 

Also you are correct about music. None of it will register as even a 1 star using the same criteria as the movie tracks because the levels are so much lower. You would need a separate scoring system for music or 2 channel. I would like to see these three short tracks captured in SL because they are well known by most any bass-head. Telarc Jurassic Lunch, Bass I Love You and the Danley Fireworks Finale track. I can send you these if you don't have them.

 

About the bass bleed over issue. It does happen.

 

Last two times I have went to our local theater to watch a movie I have noticed that there were quiet parts during the film I was viewing where I could clearly hear and even get a bit of seat vibration from the bass in the action movie playing in the next theater over that shared a common wall. These are not great quality theaters (Great Escape)and I suspect they have next to no real output below 30Hz. So the bass bleeding into the next theater is all 30-60Hz for the most part. My point with this is that there is already bleed over from typical 30-80Hz bass in many theaters and this range is going to be far more easily noticed or audible than at ULF. I don't see <20Hz really making the situation any worse than it already would be.

[maxmercy]

Bosso/Ricci/FOH/Everyone,

 

Keith Yates subwoofer testing was incredible, esp the waterfall graphs.

 

I'm not sure why ToddAO switched away from the BagEnd subs. They used to use 16 across the floor and two under each main LCR, for the total of 22. I remember doing back of the napkin calculations that they got 12-14Hz capability out of that setup before the BagEnd limiters/processors would prevent too much overexcursion/distortion

 

We are all in agreement re: LF transmission. It is the bandwidth that falls in what can right now be monitored that causes the most problems, as it falls lower on the ELC curves (easier to hear).

 

In my experience (not very much, but analyzed decently scientifically within my means most of the time), PVG begins at different points with different amounts, with the full amount below the longest room's 1st mode. As each room dimension differs, you get more gain in that direction below its 1st mode frequency. It is infinitely more complex though, as construction materials, material resonances, and many more things come into play. But when generalizing, you can be sure that you will get something below the 1st room mode in the longest dimension. Since a full-size theater is not a small room most of the time, those PVG gain numbers don't start to kick in until some low frequencies.

 

Even though you do pose some good examples of folks that have done it right to get very low extension playback, you cannot trivialize the matter of re-equipping a large mixing stage, esp when the people complaining (us) are not directly in the movie-making industry.

 

First, you have to convince someone that it's worth it, someone who can authorize the following:

 

1. Cash outlay for the hardware and ensuring it all interconnects well with current systems

2. Mixing Stage downtime and the revenue loss it incurs

3. Cost for calibration

4. How to change/modify current EQ Systems (X-Curve) to the new extension capability

 

This IS non-trivial, and requires a non-trivial amount of planning, manpower and cash.

 

Case in point: I offered a local, small indy theater 20Hz capability (they barely reach 40Hz, no subwoofer). I offered to charge ONLY MATERIALS to do so, and build them some of lilmike's F20s, as they had the space behind the screen. The manager declined. Too much expense, for no guarantee in increased ticket sales. This is with ~3 sheets of ply for each sub (4 subs in total), and a $140 driver in each, and a single pro amp to drive them all. Sound trivial? Not so, apparently. He would have agreed to it had I 'donated' the setup completely (not currently within my means), noting that the theater does hold fundraisers every year to ensure they remain independent. Is someone here willing to 'donate' a 32 subwoofer setup with the 30+kW amplification to Todd-AO or some other mixing stage, complete with and setup the whole thing on what will most likely be an unrealistic timeline, as they will be losing money every minute you are 'setting up', unless you decide to do it outside of normal operating hours? If so, step right up and do so, and show them what they are missing.

 

IMO, us saying that these are 'excuses' (and I believe that they are excuses) is using a little too much generalization. The real question is:

 

What are we prepared to do about it?

 

Seriously. What? It is plainly obvious that stating that these reasons/excuses has not changed anyone's mind, and that we simply can 'hope' for an unfiltered mix in a film, which is what we currently do.

 

My father used to tell me that to point out a problem one time is good for awareness, but to do it over and over again without having a realistic solution for it is not so productive (he used more 'direct' words).

 

Other than measuring films and complaining (I have done lots of this, esp for Avengers), AFAIK, I really have done nothing other than outfit my own home with decent playback capability, and tell others that they 'don't understand' until they experience it. Many others fall into this camp. Many others have done more.

 

Are we prepared to do more? Contact film-makers? Sound Designers? Mixers? Folks like Tom Holman, who had enough drive and backing to do something about the state of film presentation back in 1977-1983? Are we ready to outfit some sound designer's rooms 'pro-bono'? These are smaller spaces, and would cost less to do so in....

 

If we aren't, I propose we let off some steam anytime a mix doesn't live up to expectations, but not continue to just keep complaining.

 

I really like the fact that FilmMixer is willing to ask other industry folks about ULF, and how it gets added (or subtracted) from a film's final mix. If we know more about how this happens, maybe we can contact the folks that stay away from the high-passing and offer them our thanks for providing unfiltered mixes.

 

 

JSS

 

 

PS - On the measurement side of things:

 

Return of the Jedi tonight.

 

Also, coming from the 'Flix:

 

Hunger Games

Matrix Trilogy

 

The LOTR I was expecting and M&C DVD are apparently 'long' and 'short' waits, respectively.

 

The test disc will be very simple, and only include LFE content and silence in all channels, save for the 'worst case scenario' track, unless you guys want long sweeps in the LCRS channels to see what your receiver is actually doing to your signals....

 

I was thinking tones at 40-80Hz for calibration for SpecLab, and sweeps to be able to do a correction for soundcard/receiver rolloff in scene-caps (very easy to do, BTW, no polynomial functions or anything)

[djbluemax1]

JSS, kudos. That was a great post.

 

 

Max

[maxmercy]

Thanks Max. I just think that most of the complaining we do (even though I am very guilty of this) is in no way productive other than stress relief.

 

Now, onto better things:

 

For FOH and others:

 

I played back Telarc's 'Fantasy Adventure Album', specifically, these tracks:

 

T.Rex!

Splitting Hiars

Cybergenesis

Terminator: Theme

Jurassic Lunch

 

All have the 'you can destroy your speakers!' warning on them. I played them back at +6dBRef:

 

As you can see in the attached file, the tracks are for real, and full bandwidth.

 

 

JSS

[maxmercy]

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi Blu Ray:

Level: 4 Stars (110.14dB composite)
Extension: 1 Star (26Hz)
Dynamics: 5 Stars (29dB)
Execution: 4 Stars - Barely noticeable clipping, not nearly as obvious as in Empire Strikes Back BluRay

Overall - 3.5 Stars

Recommendation: Buy if a SW fan, if not, Rent. Still the best space battle ever filmed, IMO. Even though so much is going on, you can still follow the action.

JSS

[lilmike]

JSS,

 

Any chance you'll do the "despecialized editions"? If I never sent em - smack me...

[maxmercy]

Yes. Harmy says SW DeEd 2.1 is almost wrapped up with new audio. I'll get that one up as soon as it is done. There are tons of improvements.

 

JSS

[kbarnes70]

Some terrific posts here recently. And thanks again to the guys doing all the work on measuring and cataloguing these movies. It is very much appreciated.

[Bossobass Dave]

Posted the Matrix trilogy and reposted TDKR. I've made my albums private and AVS mods have added a copyright disclaimer to their upload feature. At the very least it has sent a message to [that type of person]. That would never have been the case if folks didn't voice their objections to the blatant theft and abuse of the material that's exclusive to this thread.

 

Sorry to disagree with you on these 2 issues Max, but I'm resolute. I'll complain forever and often about other forums nicking our work to post elsewhere, in particular the stuff that has just hit the streets and that no one else has for the moment, and about soundtracks that bite the cheese. Writing your Congressman is a waste of time, but many people will read this thread in the future. Loudness wars and filters to accommodate that will get the 2 thumbs down award and a lotta bellyaching from me. As long as I post, those 2 items will remain on the table.

 

Total Recall comes out next Tuesday. Here's hoping it has good everything, especially sound.

[maxmercy]

YES!!!!!!

 

Hunger Games on the way....

 

JSS

[maxmercy]

Good to see you back. Disagreement is most often a good thing when done in Socratic fashion, after all the Socratic definition of argument is the means by which 2 differing points of view reach a higher truth. I understand where you are coming from, and am glad AVS got you some backing and your images back under your control.

 

Will log off for a while while I run HG.

 

 

JSS

[maxmercy]

Bad news...

 

Hunger Games was a scratched BD, need to return it to the 'Flix and get another one. Held up and stopped at 45 mins in. Nice scratch on the disc. Matrix Trilogy this weekend.

 

JSS