Jump to content

Bossobass Dave

Members
  • Posts

    899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    82

Everything posted by Bossobass Dave

  1. Yes, that's what my opinion is. If you squeeze the colors into the actual window when set at '0' offset, it's the same difference as using the offset and leaving the scale as-is. BTW, as you know, I mic the subs for the data to generate the SL graphs, that's why I have the +5dB on my scale. Running the subs hot and/or a peak in response that coincides with a particular effect when casually graphing or just seeing what the limits of the system are requires it. I recall MKT talking about "pegging the meter" as he runs up to +10dB hot often. In any case, FR non-linearity and less-than-calibrated system (because I move stuff in and out very often and sometimes don't have it fine-tuned calibrated, or I set the mic down in a random spot and graph while I watch the flick are the reasons I'm not overly concerned with exact waterfall calibration. Also, while you're on the subject, exactly how does SL read straight off the disc? It can't decode the formats, so how do you inject the data into SL directly? I don't see how SL reads directly off the disc.
  2. Yeah, that's (+20dBFS) not gonna happen. Even if that would ever happen, again, you have the offset option (no one said 20dB offset was a rule). Regarding accuracy, that's what the peak hold, average and "peak at" functions are for. Even then, how accurate is your calibration? The waterfall graph is for viewing the content, not reading numbers. Losing detail for the sake of closer accuracy, especially this far into the game, makes little sense to me. I'm not interested in seeing what content is audible by conventional wisdom or some other irrelevant metric. I want to 'see' what's there, in as much detail as possible. If you prefer the 'closer to the recorded numbers' approach in a waterfall, you should adjust your scale range and colors accordingly. My point is that there's no point in having a 65dB range with 117 bars of resolution if you're only using 1/2 that or less. Of course, it's your call.
  3. Now you're talkin' You're now using your entire color graph vs half of it. Taking a little slice and enlarging it, you see an area that seems to have next to nothing going on, or at least what's happening is very hard to discern. The offset adds in the detail that's otherwise missing. This is just a small example. The differences are everywhere in every graph.
  4. I understand the quirks in the ranking system. I believe that 5 stars is obviously too rough a gauge. A number scale is prob a better system and would show the fine line differences to a decimal fraction of 1. But, that's entirely your call. I also understand the offset option but I disagree that it makes anything look hotter. The color scale I selected gives around 8dB per color with 18 bars per decade of shading resolution. Changing the offset doesn't affect the levels, it just allows you to use the detail in the selected color scale, which is what the offset option is for. Your graph of the ring scene, for example, shows blue, green yellow and a small portion of red, whereas mine shows blue to a portion of purple. That translates to around 50 bars of shading in your graph vs 90 bars in mine, scene-for-scene. As well, our graphs do not match in relative terms. If I select 8 Hz vs 34 Hz (the hotter blips on your ring scene), You show 8dB difference and I show 3dB difference (approx). If anything, my FR at the LP was higher at 34 Hz than at 8 Hz when I mic'd the scene. I don't understand some of the nuances of the SpecLab program, but with all of the thousands of debates regarding subwoofer systems design and everything related to that over the years, the nuances of SL is not high on the list for me. I'm a bit burnt out on the subject and have slowly taken a more hands off-observer position recently. BTW, along those lines, I'm getting set to wipe the Photobucket account. If you're interested in transferring the pics to another location, ping me. Otherwise, the links will be useless.
  5. I don't understand your graphs. My experience with this disc is that the low end is not at -28dB with single digits -10dB below that. Without any sort of calibration method, using comparison to other discs and the same system playback parameters, I just don't conclude that FOTR is a green/yellow soundtrack.
  6. The first one is when the Balrog is on the bridge and the 2nd is when Frodo puts on the ring near the end. Sorry, I don't have timestamps handy.
  7. Yeah, something not right here. Here are just 2 caps of LOTR:FOTR EE Def getting way below 16 Hz on playback.
  8. My theory is that Abrams got into the session and twirled some knobs. Everyone believes he can mix better than the engineers. Many years ago, I used to have a bazillion band graphic EQ and love to watch (stoned) visitors dork with it to "make it sound better". It wasn't connected to the stereo... thank goodness. In every case where there was a GEQ in the chain (other's stereos), it was just painful to watch (and listen to). I used to tell them "When the guy who wrote and played the bass line tells you that's how it should sound, sit on your hands and just listen".
  9. It really is one of the worst soundtracks in its genre, if not THE worst I've heard. I graph most STs at reference level with very few exceptions being toned back -5dBRL. I started this one at -15dBRL and the wife put her fingers in her ears, so I cut it back further. I kept SL scrolling through the whole flick, hoping against hope, to no avail. After the ship out of water/volcano, I said "It's filtered", and she immediately said "I know... I see it". My opinion is that we're just gonna have to live with this horseshit when it comes to blockbuster movies. The Loudness Wars are here to stay. Guess I'll switch to romantic comedies and sell off the subs. The BR should come with a Victrola and the ST on a 78 RPM hunk of slate in mono that you wind up and try to sync with the picture by pressing the spring release at just the right time.
  10. Glad I rented Star Trek. Nothing worth graphing, not gonna be in my library. This soundtrack is the poster boy for loudness wars.
  11. I bought the extended editions with appendices of the trilogy. The DTS-ES track is definitely world class sound, IMO. The vocals in the CC are the best I've ever heard and the low end is full range and not lacking in level at reference playback. If the BR version is hacked, I certainly appreciate the heads up and will save the dough.
  12. NYSM doesn't have much bass, as Abraham confirms, but a nice bit in CH 3: Chapter 13 also has some nice low end. But, the movie itself is a great bit of entertainment. I liked this one as much as any I've seen this year, maybe best yet. Cast, effects, story, acting, directing, picture... all top notch and loads of fun. Sound is the only bad mark, IMO. The CC when folks are on mic on stage is not the best and surround steering could have been better and, of course, the low end can always be better.
  13. I believe there's a new kid on the block to rival all of his predecessors... Oblivion I'll run this one by the scenes I noted in my first look, but I can just about close my eyes, select any chapter and hit play and it will be low end-loaded. Abraham, I don't know what's up with your assessment that the ST is low level. This one put a hurtin' on my room and person. The finale as I heard it:
  14. GI Joe: Retaliation See the next post for measurements. This one is filtered. Looks to be 15 Hz, 2nd order. Even with that, the extreme low end blip at the end (see the last speclab cap) still got through, so imagine what level it was at before the filter was applied. Also, my system rolls off starting at 4 Hz, and it still shows up all the way down to 2 Hz!! That may have been why they applied a filter to the whole ST? Overall a pretty boring action yarn for me. The ST is also unremarkable, YMMV.
  15. I use Omnigraffle. Unfortunately, the graphs are not overlaid. I pop the graphs into Omni, scale them by stretching horizontally and vertically until they are identical, then create a line with enough data points and lay it on a trace and manipulate the data points until the trace is identically mimicked. I then drag the created trace onto the other graph for comparison. If it sounds tedious, that's because it is. I'm just so familiar with Omni from creating all of the graphics for my business, sites, etc. over the years, that it's just another graphic to me. Sorry, I know nothing about W apps. You might ping LTD because I've seen him do similar work and I know he uses W.
  16. I only post mic'd speclab graphs. In the past, I've posted comparisons of the mic'd version vs the line level version off the player or AVR, but that has been only to confirm the accuracy of mic'ing my system. Here are examples, done at different times over the years, of HTTYD, HULK and BHD "Irene!", of which I did a THD analysis from the differences in spectral content: The differences are so slight as to be irrelevant for general posting, so I use the mic to save the hassle of disconnecting the sub system and running the SW out to the mic interface.
  17. I like Bruce. I like the franchise. Lots of folks don't because of how over-the-top the plots are, but I see lots of jabs at the establishment that they can slip in just because it is so over the top. The low end is largely missing in action in this one. The scene where the truck is driven into the building has some ULF but that's it, as it played in my HT. Anyone have caps? I just got to the bottom of the posting problem. Apparently, Photobucket has placed bandwidth limits on their free accounts. None of my pics are available to view because I've exceeded 10 Gigs of bandwidth!!! Since I only post the PB pics here, that means a LOT of people are viewing them. Currently, I have around 120 megs of photos stored at PB. To exceed their free 10G BW, every single posted pic, 180 of them, would have had to be viewed 83 times this month. That's 15,000 views in July. I'm open to suggestions as to where we can archive/host the pics.
  18. It's not the SL offset. I just haven't completely fine-tuned the system since getting rid of the AVR and just using the Oppo flagship player as a pre/pro. So, the calibration is prob a few dB hot. The Oppo volume is 0-100. There's no '0'dB setting, so it depends on how you calibrate as to what 100 actually is. I roughly set 90 to be '0', but haven't had the time to actually confirm that calibration. EDIT: OK, make that probably 6-8dB hot. Remember, I mic at the LP and my system is -3dB @ 4 Hz, so there's prob lower stuff I'm not playing back. But, I know when there's enough <10 Hz because the floor (which has a resonant freq around 6 Hz) ripples. That 1st cap when the Captain is forced to put the sub within 5M of the tankers screws is truly awesome. The sense of impending disaster is as good as it gets. I watched that scene in the bedroom system (good to high 20s Hz at nowhere near RL) and then in the theater at approx RL and it's like watching a completely different movie.
  19. EDIT: OK, here we go again with this bullshit forum. The pics showed in the composing, then disappeared when I posted it. I'll just say Phantom is a good flick with great low end. I've been checking in and this forum has been stuck on page 56 (for me) since the 3rd of July. I thought the place was abandoned. Later...
  20. Here's the SL cap of that vid (although I wouldn't put money on the accuracy of the transfer). There's not much there. My son capped this. His SC is -3dB @ right around 4 Hz.
×
×
  • Create New...