maxmercy
-
Posts
2,085 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
150
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Events
Posts posted by maxmercy
-
-
That is awesome. Thanks for doing this! Once I upgrade my hardware, I'll give it a spin. I will currently be out of the ability to BEQ for a while, as I will be HT-less for a bit during a move. I cannot recommend a BEQ I have not screened myself. I plan on doing some more films in the future, and this tool should allow it to be done faster.
JSS
-
1
-
-
Wow....can't wait to see it!
JSS
-
Offset the pucks and have recess and puck in each cab corner so that they will be stack-able in the preferred way? a 3-1/8" forstner bit should work for the recess and give you a little registration wiggle-room.
JSS
-
Hockey pucks and depressions in the mating cab for them to fit into.
JSS
-
Good to hear more people are seeing the shelf filters put in place by studios and we now can at least do something about them. I wish we would not lose the object based metadata with BEQ, but oh well.
BEQ was always a 'preference', not 'reference'. Unfiltered, reference soundtracks are still out there, and we still get a few of them every now and then. It seems that we got more of them in the past, though.
Given the fact that even after BEQ and MV compensation for same, most BEQ'ed films do not clip nor go above a 7.1 WCS (Worst Case Scenario), the studios should be able to do the same, and with better dynamics. But the loudness war is alive and well in cinema, for many reasons. Mixing stages are often geared toward a different target response than your typical High-End HT; they try to equal the majority of decent movie houses out there, which start rolling off under 30Hz, with haphazard response above that given the current calibration standards.
Due to many factors, I simply do not have the time I used to have to devote to measuring films and coming up with BEQ solutions. I will still do so for films that I like (like RP1, my current BEQ favorite), but not in the numbers I used to be able to.
Good to see others giving BEQ a shot with 3ld00d's app. It is not that difficult to do, once you get a method down. But screening your BEQ is necessary. Some films simply do not improve. K:SI is one of them that is very LOUD&LOW w/ BEQ, but not much better. It is a bit of a ham-handed mix, IMO, but fits right in with PacRim1 and Godzilla(2014), although Godzilla is probably the best of the three, sound-wise. Again, IMO.
JSS
-
1
-
-
On 3/1/2019 at 11:44 PM, SME said:
Did that BEQ end up not being worth it?
Which one?
JSS
-
-
I may have it somewhere, I'll look when I get time.
JSS
-
That looks like a terrific tool, can potentially save many steps in my BEQ process. I will have to check it out. Individual channels can have individual corrections?
JSS
-
Can anyone contact the JRiver developers to ensure that the Q=Slope? Using slope values for Q would result in a VERY different correction. If there is a difference, I'll edit the BEQ post above to include both Q and Slope values.
JSS
-
Ready Player One BEQ (Both UHD and BD have ATMOS tracks, this correction was applied to the 7.1 channel bed)
All effects that need to gain power/heft do so. I like this BEQ, and this film.
Correction:
LFE:
Gain -7dB
Low Shelf 16Hz, Slope 2, +5dB
Low Shelf 16.5Hz, Slope 2, +5dB
Low Shelf 17Hz, Slope 2, +5dB
Low Shelf 33Hz, Slope 0.5, +2dB
Highpass 6dB/oct 3Hz
LCRS:
Gain -7dB
Low Shelf 15Hz, Slope 1, Gain +5.5dB (3 Filters for total of 17.5dB)
Highpass 6dB/oct 3Hz
Let me know what you think, and if you need Q values instead of slope values for the shelf filters.
JSS
-
2
-
1
-
-
Ready Player One tentative BEQ solution:
-
1
-
-
Ready Player One - Dolby ATMOS (7.1 bed measured)
Level - 5 Stars (112.67dB composite) <=NOTE that this is with dialnorm REMOVED=>
Extension - 3 Stars (16Hz)
Dynamics - 5 Stars (29.53dB
Execution - TBD
Notes - Clipped but decent soundtrack to accompany terrific visuals. I still do not have overheads, but my surrounds are mounted high and some overhead effects were experienced. Possible BEQ for this one.
JSS
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, SME said:
The best "room correction", by a long shot, is the space between your ears. Listeners are extraordinarily well-adapted to listening in environments with early reflections, and experimental evidence suggests that listeners *hear better* in the presence of early reflections. As such, the goal is not to correct the room but to correct the speaker for the room and let the brain do its thing. The big problem is that no one has a particularly good perceptual model to apply to in-room IR/FR measurements to assess what listeners will actually hear. Almost every product relies on EQing in-room response to some kind of simplified target, and each such product adds its own twist to make it unique to make it not actually suck.
So what would you do if you had what most people on forums have available: limited budgets, limited placement options, some room treatment, REW measurement capability and limited parametric/IIR correction capability?
Would you mainly focus on minimum phase problems in the LF and largely ignore MF/HF, or how would you go about optimizing a system with limitations like the above, given what you know now?
I ask not only because that's the way my system is set up, but many others with miniDSP or other DSP components who have had less than stellar results with the on-board AVR 'room correction' products.
JSS
-
14 hours ago, SME said:
What we wish to correct is the effect of one or more *boundaries* (among the many other things) on the speaker's *total acoustic power output* response, which does not depend on room location.
I do not follow... How can one correct something that is inherently designed into a speaker (power response), if it does not depend on speaker location? Or are you talking about correcting power response depending on the speaker's location in the room? Is this why incredible amounts of headroom are needed? Is there not a simpler way to do this by changing the possible layout and treatments in the room, or is this correction geared towards getting as much as possible from a current configuration if placement and treatment options are limited?
JSS
-
I'll look at it. I enjoyed the film, but wasn't really impressed by the LF, much like Thor:Ragnarok.
JSS
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, SME said:
A floor bounce alone will contribute substantial ripple to the upper bass / low mid-range part of a single in-room frequency response measurement, and attempting to correct this, even using short-time and/or frequency-dependent windows, will just add new audible resonances to the speakers' sound.
I can see this, by correcting response at one location, you create problems and ringing at others.
18 hours ago, SME said:OTOH, the floor boundary (and any others that are nearby) alters the acoustic impedance adjacent to the speaker, affecting its acoustic power output sensitivity/efficiency vs. frequency. This has a global impact on the sound produced, and *precise* correction of these effects is beneficial.
How can 'precise' correction of a reflection be 'corrected' for many locations? The peaks and dips will occur at different freqs depending on location from the speaker..
JSS
-
1
-
-
Pacific Rim 2 is disappointing with BEQ. While most effects gain a little, it was not as huge a difference as the PvA would lead you to believe.
JSS
-
2
-
-
Are these enclosure/horn/driver or room resonances you are correcting?
JSS
-
"Is it possible that, even though the aggregate PvAs looked similar, the distribution of low frequency energy between the different channels was different between the two tracks?"
This is what I think happened, and constructive interference with bass management took things to another level.
JSS
-
1
-
-
Pacific Rim: Uprising tentative BEQ:
That 10Hz hit skews a lot of the spectrum. It is in an emotion-charged scene. Will screen it soon and report back.
Lots of Infrasonics embedded in the LCRS in this one, which constructively make the PvA look very different from the LFE-only PvA.
JSS
-
This track should not come close to 128dB WCS, largest peak on the ATMOS BEQ is 121dB. The BEQ after-gain for dialogue matching is only 4dB, not the usual 7.
Watching this BEQ at '0' would yield a peak of 124dB (
I did not apply the correction to the DTS track to see how it would do, but I do know the DTS track had a lower Crest Factor.
I chose the ATMOS track to BEQ since it had the more dynamics of the two.
There must be a substantial difference that PvA and simple wav stats do not show to have had that large an effect to clip your setup.
JSS
-
The first time I saw BL2049 was at low volume late at night with the crowsons providing all the deep bass, and still that score was reach-for-the-volume-control-lest-you-wake-people loud.
Something tells me if Philip K Dick was alive he would probably approve.
JSS
-
I will look at it soon.
JSS
-
1
-
The Low Frequency Content Thread (films, games, music, etc)
in Bass Content
Posted
That is terrific news. I hope more film mixing stages and cinemas use the VLFC and other solutions for monitoring and playback of infrasound in films.
JSS