Jump to content

Bossobass Dave

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Bossobass Dave

  1. OK, forget about the 'per octave' discussions above, as they involve the averaging of dBHz levels, which cannot be done without converting back to PascalHz, and then it would lead to the same results anyway after averaging. The only calculation that is a straight dB+dB addition is for total level, in order to give the Peak level some input and not all the weight into the Level category. Does anyone know of a good way to post stuff from Excel so it doesn't look like the gobbledygook above for all the films rated? JSS PS - Bosso, that looks great. If you need higher res bitmaps, lemme know. I am using JPEG compression as I am posting these things to the forum. Up tonight is Sin City, then I am leaving town until Next Friday, this time for an actual vacation.


    Higher res is good. You can e-mail them to me and I'll save them in a folder until I run the waterfall graphs:




    Also, is there any way you can do a slightly heavier trace line? The red trace is hard to see, although that may change with a higher res copy.

  2. Bosso, Awesome TIH graphs. OK, so there is a new overall LF power champ, Thor. Now I see why bosso says this guy likely clips. I will have to look at the actual signal to see if it does, but that is another time. For now, I present Scott Pilgrim, Thor and Transformers, and Hulk v Thor: JSS EDIT - Transformers is WRONG. It is 4dB too low, as it had a Dialnorm of -4dB. Will re-run again. I was wondering why it looked so puny....


    I was wondering if you used the DVD or BR of Thor? I found the DVD to be quite normal and the BR to be like 10dB hotter. Since that was mic'd at the LP I didn't attribute it to the difference in players (I use Oppo for DVD and Panny for BR). I guess most don't do a rent the DVD then buy the BR or if they do they don't notice a diff, but this one was strikingly different, actually potentially system-damaging different, depending on listening habits and system.

  3. Nothing beats relevant data.


    In the past couple of years I've had a few discussions with the recent proponents of low Le, top heavy drivers. The #1 reason has been making these SL graphs of scenes from every subwoofer-required film in my library. A striking theme in these graphics appears soon after studying them that, after a long while, just jumps out and slaps you in the face...


    Look at the relative weight differences in peak and average and snapshot between the 1st 4 octaves (3-48 Hz) and the top 1-1/2 octaves (48-120 Hz).





    This clicked with something I read way back from Dolby in which it was recommended to filter the LFE at 80 Hz because the 120 Hz filter was a brick wall filter, so you would want your effects to be over before they hit that brick wall. Since then, others have said that the LFE channel is not necessarily brick walled at 120 Hz, but you can most certainly see that most soundtracks (of interest here) have a no mans land from 90-120 Hz.


    This drove me to reconsider the added cost of a flat-to-500 Hz driver motor in terms of $ and compromises to the actual goal.


    Max's graphs drive it home in a blink. I LOVE it when some really smart guy aims his guns at a problem and brings the results to the rest of us to see things we otherwise would never see. Awesome stuff, Max and thanks a truckload.


    I can't tell you how aggravating it was for me to suffer the last go-round with the "the graphs aren't scientific, the content is garbage, I've heard it and it's irrelevant", and my all-time favorite, "Bosso is trying to sell subwoofers so he HAS to say it's important" ... bulllllll shit. It's a ton of work to dig up actual facts regarding the physics, industry members' takes, Dolby and Holman's input, designing and building a system to reproduce faithfully, setting up software like SpecLab, running and posting hundreds of graphs along with the facts, etc., etc. What for? Certainly not for me because I already know this shit fairly comprehensively. Then to get pissed on for keeping the general consensus on track by folks who've never posted a single shred of data for anyone's benefit.


    Anyway, as Max said and as is usually the case, from the bad springs a better version with no noise frem the peanut gallery. Anyone who wishes to ignaore the facts can simply head back to the junk yard where the rest of that sort hangs out.


    I agree that it was so appropriate to land it here where Josh & Kyle have done a bang-up job providing data. This sort of exercise ties in perfectly with what they've provided and hopefully it will be an ever-evolving exercise to the benefit of everyone.


    BTW, I agree with Max, log scale gives too much weight to the first decade. I've tried it several times and just find it less usable than the linear scale. I'll post an example comparison when I get a second to be sure everyone else agrees and it isn't just my own bias.

    • Like 2
  4. Thanks Dave...I also e-mailed you. Here is the graph:





    EDIT: Dave, there is an update available for SL ...should I DL it?



    Got it, and bingo:





    One thing: Change the sampling rate back to 48k Hz. 96k Hz with a decimation of 4 (my setting) gives a sampling rate of 24,000 Hz. What that does is spread the resolution across twice the number of frequencies, which is why the graph is pixelated, like my old settings were (which is when I graphed the scene in the above pic for comparison).


    If you change back to 48k Hz, it should match mine perfectly.


    The only other thing is that with a 0-480 Hz scale, there are no division lines to tell you what frequency the content is. It would be perfect if there were an option for the grid in the waterfall to be in 30 Hz increments, but there is no such option, so for now, you have it as good as it can be.


    It's just a glitch thing (the frequency scale) that I don't know how to deal with yet.


    If you could change the sample rate to 48000 and run that scene 1 more thime, I'll appreciate it.

    • Like 2
  5. Well folks, I got it to work. I can pull data from a SpecLab peak average graph, and I did a test-run on Immortals:


    Immortals Bass Power


    Overall Peak Power 535.7

    0-10Hz Peak Power 28.4

    10-20Hz Peak Power 60.4

    20-40Hz Peak Power 99.8

    40-80Hz Peak Power 183.8

    80-160Hz Peak Power 163.3


    Overall Average Power 31.8

    0-10Hz Average Power 1.6

    10-20Hz Average Power 3.6

    20-40Hz Average Power 6.6

    40-80Hz Avergae Power 10.6

    80-160Hz Average Power 9.5


    The power ratings are in PaHz. I essentially did a numerical integration to find the area under the curve for the peak and average graphs from 0-160Hz, and for each octave specified. Now we can have a truly apples/apples comparison for films.


    One caveat: I do rolloff below 7Hz, -3dB down at 5Hz, and off the cliff under that. But for relative comparisons, this should be a very good tool.


    As far as star ratings, Immortals gets 5 star extension, 5 star level, but 3 star for execution due to the clipping involved, which I believe is in the sattelite channels,average star level of 4.3. Overall buy/no-buy is a coin toss for me. Some great scenes, though, if you can ffwd through the BS parts.





    This is too cool. Just too cool.


    As for the <7 Hz, I can always run a direct digits spectrograph and extrapolate that part of it. It's only 1/2 of the 0-10 Hz leg, and I would only have to do it if there is actually any content there to look at in the first place. I'm going to go direct-digits anyway to eliminate the "you use a mic" whiners. That means I have to redo my entire library because the ones I've graphed (like Star Trek, Hulk, WOTW, X-Men 1st Class, etc.), will have to be in our list.


    Either way, this is shaping up to become one heck of a standard for reference.

  6. The Natural?? I'll have to check that out.


    I agree it takes more then great bass to make a movie a buy. Would you want to make that a buy for those who just care about the bass in Immortals, and a rent for the actual movie? I wouldn't buy Immortals either nor would I use it as a demo. I did like the movie, but the movie isn't something you would watch over and over. So maybe we could rate them on bass first and foremost, and then as a side note whether it's worth a buy, rental, no buy as far as the movie goes just to give someone an idea of what to expect. Nothing too detailed.


    I agree that we should keep it bass-centric. I have lots of movies (including The Natural) that I love to watch for various reasons, but they aren't ever gonna be graphed for this thread.


    If we keep it bass-centric, then rent/buy/no buy is great. For example, I loved Prometheus, so I bought it even though the low end is anemic as heck. (Yeah, i saw others post at AVS that it had amazing/powerful bass, etc., but, if Max graphs it, it will become evident that that ain't so). That means there are indeed other factors that would go into that rating.


    I vote we put you and Ethan in charge of this, after seeing the awesome job you did on your shootout thread.

  7. Thanks for the effort, Larry.


    I'm bringing this one here (have already e-mailed you on this) because it's a head scratcher for sure:


    I put my digital copy of this scene up in Omnigraffle with your latest posted version. I tried to reconsile the 2 graphs for a long while and could not do it. For example, you show a lot of content in the 60 Hz area that just isn't on the disc.


    Finally, my brain caught it. I stretched my graph until just my 0-30 Hz lined up with your 0-120 Hz frequency scale and there it was, a perfect match (although my graph is distorted to a large degree):





    Your graph is on top, my version is on the bottom and the severely stretched version is in the middle.


    I have no clue as to how your SL frequency scale is so far off. I suggested in e-mail that you change your frequency scale (top left corner of the display) to (I think) 0-450 Hz. I would actually like to see 0-480 Hz (reasoning that if your 0-120 Hz is actually 0-30 Hz, then if you quadruple your scale to 480 Hz, you may actually capture 0-120 Hz).


    Windows (ugh)


    I also suggested you reboot your computer and try the graph again.


    If you can post the expanded FR scaled graph here, that would be great...

  8. SpecLab accounts for the decimation at the I/O stage in the FFT Settings dialogue box, and updates with proper bin size and freq range.


    I understand, but I was just saying that the I/O decimation still has to be entered manually or there's nothing to account for.


    I say we have a few different star ratings, with an overall rating given last.


    Overall LF Content Star Rating is an average of several different 5/5 star possible ratings:

    A. Level

    B. Extension

    C. Execution/Appropriateness/Use of LF


    Then a final 'buy' or 'no buy' rating given with everything else taken into acount, like how good the film was, rewatchability, etc.


    The objective ratings (if I can get them to work this weekend) may also play a part.


    I intend to do Peak v Avg graphs and hopefully overall LF Power as well as LF Power Per Octave for each film rated. The ratings will probably be a mix of subjective and objective for an overall star rating.


    Any other suggestions?





    No, is perfect. :^)

    • Like 3
  9. Bosso,


    Due to the cheapness of my BDP and sound card, My sound card cannot accept a digital in, and outside of stereo, there are no further analog outs on the BDP. I think that until a new BDP is purchased, the receiver's roll off may just have to be dealt with.


    I was playing with the Nuttall windows and FFT settings yesterday evening, and I have come to an impasse:


    1. Continue with FFT length of 1024 decimated by 48, which will give me single Hz resolution capability but that has a 1 second Window time, or:


    2. Use an FFT length of 512 decimated by 48, which gives a resolution of 2Hz, but window time is halved, therefore it is better at graphing transient sounds like explosions.....faster rise time for each bin.


    What do you guys think? For a peak/avg graph, I am leaning to the latter. I'll run some comparos on known scenes/trailers this weekend.




    Remember that decimation works on 2 fronts, FFT and sample rate (found in Audio I/O). FFT resolution gets washed out when it's spread across 24,000 Hz (48k Hz SR, decimate=1). Freq BW will = 1/2 your sample rate.


    Just making sure you know that.


    Also, we need to get a rating system down or I have to stop posting the SLs because I don't want to have to go back and change all of them after the fact, so I'll put this on hold until then.

  10. Bosso,


    I gotcha. The main discerning feature is the scale on the left for the freq response of each, very low spectral contamination on Nuttall, at the expense of a slightly lower resolution, but the resolution can be played with by FFT length and decimation. I'll mess with it this weekend.




    I have always used the Soho54's Audio Test DVD's -0.5dBFS LFE tones to calibrate SpecLab, but some films have not clipped individual frequencies, but have clipped the amplitude graph, which I suspect is because of channel summation, not just LFE content, so I plan to use the same tones but have them only come to -10dB on my new peak/avg graphs. I am confident that I will be able to extract data from the screen caps, to really do some apples/apples comparos, much like your CEDIA best/worst output graphs.


    What would be good bass ranges/categories? Here are some suggestions:


    Sub-10Hz = Deep Infrasonic

    10-20Hz = Infrasonic

    20-30Hz = Very Deep Bass

    30-40Hz = Deep Bass

    40-50Hz = Bass

    50-100Hz = Mid Bass

    100-200Hz = Upper Bass


    or all by octaves:


    Sub-10Hz = Deep Infrasonic

    10-20Hz = Infrasonic

    20-40Hz = Bass

    40-80Hz = MidBass

    80-160Hz = UpperBass


    We would be measuring total peak and average signal power for entire films in each range. One problem is my signal chain rolls off starting at 7Hz, and is 3dB down at 5Hz, and falls off the cliff below that, so my Sub-10Hz power ratings may not be as accurate, but will be good relative measurements. I may be able to compensate for that if there is a way to do a 'loopback calibration' type of thing in speclab....I'll research it.




    I like the 2nd metric, by octave.


    How are you getting the feed into SpecLab? I'm assuming you're using an analog connection from the AVR to the sound card, thus the roll off.


    Any way you can connect your player to the computer via USB? Or, if you have to suffer an analog stage roll off, if you have analog outs on your player you can connect that way and avoid the AVRs roll off, which I'm assuming has to be the offending roller.


    My interface has digital coax in and my player has digital coax out. When I go direct, I bypass all analog stages and get the 1s and 0s all the way down. Comparing WOTW plane crash, digital feed vs mic'd version:




  11. Bosso, I have downloaded your speclab settings, and I will make some changes for peak/avg graphs, but overall, I like them. A few questions though: 1. Why Nuttall windowing? Wouldn't Hann or Gauss be a better compromise? 2. I intend to to Peak/Average out to 200Hz, even if individual graphed scenes only have stuff out to 120Hz. I imagine your settings are best for 0-120Hz? I have an idea to quantify the LF content, depending on whether or not I will be able to extract the data from the P/A graphs. With the new SpecLab version's way of graphing individual FFT bins, I may be able to use an autotracing program to get the data and comparison via REW or just Excel may be possible. If I am able to export to a vector drawing program, overlays comparing one film to another may be possible. By adding up the areas under the peak/avg curves for a given freq range, we can literally compare one track to another numerically (0-10Hz, 10-20Hz, 20-30Hz, or the full 0-200Hz). Films/tracks with more average overall content will have more overall bass, films with high peak and lower averages will have less scenes with high signal strength. If we really want to get technical, we can do a 'loudness scale', by implementing ELC, but that may prove to be too difficult. I will have a tutorial on how to do Peak/Avg graphs hopefully by this weekend. JSS


    There are as many windowing choices as there are application for them. Unfortunately, they aren't all available in the SL drop down menu (such as Blackman'Harris, Blackman/Nuttall, etc.). Of the choices available, I chose Nuttall for it's increased dynamic range over Gauss.


    Here's a roughly scaled comparison (again, pictures beat words):





  12. Bosso,


    Question: How much headroom do you leave on SpecLab caps? Because if for some reason a mixer shoves nearly full scale content into each of 7.1 channels, you could get a larger signal than the equivalent of a 0dBFS signal from the SW out.


    According to Soho54's calculations, a 0dBFS LFE only signal should come only to 115dB, if any speaker is set to small and also has the same, coherently summing 0dBFS signal, it adds to this total, with a grand total with 7.1 channels being an impressive 125.13dB. I will from now on calibrate my peak/avg graphs to read -10dB on SpecLab with the -0.5dBFS signals available on Soho54's Audio Test DVD, so that means I'll be re-doing a few Peak/Avg graphs in order to be able to do apples/apples comparisons. Good thing I have Netflix by mail...


    The template scheme for individual scenes is REALLY nice. Real nice.


    I'll d/l your settings for SpecLab and check them out. I think you use a slightly slower scroll speed than I do, but you want whole scenes, not second-to-second variability like the Peak/Avg demands.


    Anyone know a good program to be able to trace out the information on peak/avg graphs and import them to another graphing program for comparisons between tracks? Or a way to make a BMP file 'transparent' and overlay it over another?






    PS - Josh, got the avatar sorted out.


    Since I mic and go direct, there is no universal setting for calibration. Spectrumlab has a calibration methodology:




    To realize absolute voltage readings, level readings in dBuV, etc, the program needs to know the relation between input voltage and A/D converter value.

    This is a rather complex calibration, IMO. I see no reason to go through that process for waterfall graphs.


    The problem I have is that when I switch back and forth from digital feed from the player to the digital feed from the interface I have to re-calibrate, so instead I use the offset feature to reconcile the 2 different inputs.


    I set the level from the interface with the right side amplitude bar. Headroom is dictated by the input from the interface. When I switch to the direct feed from the player, I adjust the "offset" to match the interface input by eye, which is accurate to within a couple of dB since I'm very familiar with the color scale and I'm comparing the exact same scene.


    It's by no means absolutely accurate, but neither is anyone else's method, which is also done by eye, both methods being roughly the same accuracy, which is good enough, IMO.


    The color intensity setting is also set by adjusting the "offset" option. I take a maximum peak from a scene like HTTYD Red Dragon crash scene and use it as the metric for maximum where any single frequency is approximately -5dBFS. Again, this is by no means absolutely accurate, but is based on viewing thousands of scenes compared to max digital RS meter readings, system reaction (VPL, clip limiter indicators vs output voltage readings) and all averaged in general. It gives me +5dB of "headroom" because I set my color scale range from -60dBFS to +5dBFS.


    I don't believe it has ever been shown that there exists a scene in any soundtrack the scenario where 7 channels plus the .1 channel all simultaneously contain coherent 3-120 Hz content at maximum level, so I disregard the 125dB estimate. Of late, the only 2 scenes I would imagine might fit that scenario are the one pictured in the CITW I posted here and the Thor BR scene at the end of the battle with the Ice Giants when Odin shows up. In the latter, I saw a +10dB increase in level vs the DVD. I do not know what that's about. I did use 2 different players to compare that scene, but my system calibration should hold equal for both players, so I'm at a loss as to how the levels are different. IOW, can the mastering house raise the overall level after the disc is encoded, or how else would there be a difference?


    Some people have reported that my settings, which are in the SpecLab preferred .INI format, do not appear to be the same as my settings. I use Windows 7, so I don't understand the problem, but am currently investigating it and should have suggestions to remedy any problems within a week.


    Folks who download my settings should use a universal scene and post the resultant capture here, so that I'll know what any problem might be at a glance. This saves a go-zillion e-mails with graphs that need explanation before I might even begin to see a problem. Since most people have WOTW, the lightning strikes scene is the easiest for me to recognize immediately. Begin where Cruise and Fanning are indoors, Cruise is at the sliding glass doors and says, "Don't worry, lightning never strikes the same place twice" and end where they're under the table and Fanning says, "Why doesn't it stop?".


    I'm a fan of the first posted template, Dave. Although one slight change I'd do: move the SPL scale off the actual graph somehow. At some point it will block some of the graphed content. Maybe have it right below where you have it saying 'Chapter 17'. Right in that spot. There should still be plenty of room for the scene specific details.


    Still wondering about quantifying the rating system. If we are indeed rebooting the whole system and going for consistency, maybe we should not use the star system anymore. Simply thinking because it could be confusing for those regraphed scenes and movies that may get a higher or lower rating than before. Also, there really wasn't a whole lot of science in how we did it before. I'd say for the most part we got it right but those who didn't really skewed things up and then we got into all those back and forth spats regarding a simple star rating. Avengers certainly wasn't the first time it happened.


    I'm very much pumped up to get back into the game and do some scene specific and maybe even do the P-A charts. I just don't know how to do it AND be consistent with someone else's settings. Over the years, I've mostly copied Dave's settings just by eyeing it and then recently he had posted some more specific info. All I need to know is what kind of gear I need to this because I won't be able to afford the awesome microphone B has to do his in room and I'm still stuck at 8-9hz extension in my room so maybe not a hot idea. I'd prefer to do all these digitally so to completely even the playing field and also accurately capture <5hz content when there is some.


    Keep me in the loop. I'll be watching this thread.


    Awesome suggestion, which is what I needed. I have far less time than I need to do all of this graphics and measuring stuff, so I'm really looking forward to guys like yourself to jump in and pick up the slack. I agree and it has always annoyed me when guys set the scale and time stamp info in the waterfall capture.


    Here's the change:





    As far as a rating system goes, I personally use a simple "BUY" or "DON'T BUY". It includes story, cast, script, visual effects and soundtrack. IOW, movies like Cloverfield do not cut muster. Sometimes, the sound will be good enough to outrank the other categories, but Cloverfield, for all its hype, is weak compared to the top soundtrack discs, so the other categories make it a "DON'T BUY". OTOH, WOTW is definitely a strong enough sound track to tip the scales.


    So, whatever everyone decides as a rating system is fine with me. I really dislike subjective descriptions and rating systems. It's like describing the color red to a blind person and always leads to a dog-chasing-its-tail debate.


    Tom Noussaine has that largest single body of eval results I'm aware of. He did all of it in-room, with the flaws that entailed (like his rooms +4dB peak at 32 Hz), but useful as a comparative tool in the end. Keith Yates is the only guy to ever use SpecLab and movie soundtrack scenes to compare subs, but he did so outdoors, GP with no sats (although he did mention a difference in overall dBSPL when FL/FR were added). I've always wished we could get a combination. Do the SL graphs of a global set of scenes indoors. Despite what the conventional wisdom says about all rooms being too different, I've found that to be largely a myth. It's not that hard to get a good enough (+/-) 3dB) FR in-room and if every sub is placed the same and the mic as well, the results would be hugely valuable.




    Why can't I drag an image code file onto this forum (the Mac unclunk method) vs copy/paste (the Windows clunk method), and what the heck is the default font/font size?


    When I copy/paste, the font changes to the pasted font and I can't seem to find the default font on your font options drop down.

  13. 2.25-Star Films:


    47 Ronin

    Closed Circuit

    Mission Impossible II



    2-Star Films:



    Mission Impossible

    Toy Story of Terror


    1.75-Star Films:


    Only Lovers Left Alive



    Edit by nube:  First post got too long, so I had to move maxmercy's measurements methodology here.


    Measurement Methodology:


    The Overall Star Rating is an average of the following four categories (each one explained in greater detail below):


    1. Level

    2. Extension

    3. Dynamics

    4. Execution



    1. Level - This is measured by digitally bass-managing the 5.1 or 7.1 signal.  The Level is a composite number, and is calculated by the average of the [1] highest peak in dB (maximum 126dB for 5.1, 128dB for 7.1), [2] the average/RMS dB level of the track (125ms integration time) and [3] the RMS peak level (loudest single 1/8th of a second of the film) in dB.  Full modulation of the waveform is considered to be 0dBFS.  The ratings are as follows:


    5 Stars - >112.5dB composite

    4 Stars - >110dB composite

    3 Stars - >107.5dB composite

    2 Stars - >105dB composite

    1 Star - <105dB composite



    2. Extension - The same bass-managed digital signal above is analyzed with Spectrum Lab, with Nuttall windowing, and either a 1 second or 2 second integration time (the longer the integration time, the higher the resolution, at the cost of dynamic peaks, but for the extension category, it is a moot point).  Extension is determined as the -10dB point from the overall peak of EITHER the Peak (green) or Average (red) trace, whichever is higher.  The ratings are as follows:


    5 Stars - <10Hz extension

    4 Stars - <15Hz extension

    3 Stars - <20Hz extension

    2 Stars - <25Hz extension

    1 Star - >25Hz extension



    3. Dynamics -  The Overall RMS/Average Level of the track from the Level category is subtracted from the Overall Peak Level of the track from the Level category.  The ratings are as follows:


    5 Stars - >27.5dB Dynamics

    4 Stars - >25dB Dynamics

    3 Stars - >22.5dB Dynamics

    2 Stars - >20dB Dynamics

    1 Star - <20dB Dynamics



    4. Execution - This is the only  purely Subjective category, and will be decided by a plurality in a poll, with single star increments available to be voted on.  Vote what you thought about the LF use in the track, and note any clipping/compression/filtering that took place



    Please note that no objective measurement system is perfect.  The way the measurement scheme is set up, it will be very difficult to achieve 5 Stars overall, and very few films have done so.  How good a movie is to watch has no bearing on how it measures.  This is a way to objectively look at the low frequency content of a track without all the subjective "it was awesome" and "seismic" rhetoric from professional reviewers for nearly every BD release.   


    There will be some films which are LF monsters that will not garner 5 Stars overall, and everyone has their favorites.  In toto, you can expect a film with a higher Overall Star Rating to have more LF than one with a lower star rating, and most of the 4+ Star films/tracks are very good LF experiences.



    **** Beginning of Bossobass's post here ****


    Using Examples (not necessarily with correct time stamp, ratings, pics) of movies I've recently seen, here is where I'm at so far. This will be the template and all graphs and pics will be sized to fit the template. The top template will appear once at the beginning of the title and the bottom template will appear for each successive screen cap with the proper begin/end time stamp and begin/end pics for each scene.

    First, for those who have asked me how to interpret the SpecLab waterfall graphs, here's a quick how-to:


    The waterfall scrolls from top to bottom as the scene plays, so the beginning of the captured scene
    is at the bottom of the waterfall, which is documented by the time stamp and a picture of the scenes beginning and, of course, the end of the scene is at the top of the graph, marked by the time stamp and a picture of the end of the scene.

    Per Josh's suggestion, there will be 3 scenes for each movie. I may, from time to time, post additional scenes if a movie is exceptional or because someone has requested to see the content of a scene, but I'll post them separately to keep the archives of the films uniform.

    If anyone would like to capture scenes in SL to help out with the workload, I've put Spectrumlab and my settings, as well as instructions for loading my settings into SL and the above pictured 'how-to-read-a-SL-waterfall-graph graphic on my site:


    Make sure you note the beginning/end time stamp numbers and take a pic off your screen of the beginning and end. So, for each scene you need 2 pics, 2 time stamps and the waterfall graph. The movie pics are easy to get online at IMDB, which will also have the sound designer and mixer info.



    Members who create SpecLab Caps can forward the caps to me and I'll fit them to the template and return them via e-mail in a file or host/post them.

    Decide on how the rating will work, which graph (just the waterfall or the 3 graph cap), etc. from here.

    Any Mac users, I'll be happy to forward the template for Omnigraffle because having someone to pick up the slack is always a good thing. Omnigraffle makes it very simple to size, place and export the template with everything needed to keep the graphs all the same size and resolution.

    I would also prefer to keep the settings the same for all caps using my settings. They're found in a downloadable file on my site with SpecLab. Just download and then load the settings.INI file into SpecLab.

    You'll have to make sure your volume settings and sound card settings are compatible/correct as well as setting the offset to match the input of your player or AVR to get the intensity of the colors correct and to insure against clipping. This beats the snot outta fighting the extremely steep SL learning curve.

    Of course, I prefer my settings. This is because they are the result of years of experimentation to optimize them for the subwoofer range in a scroll speed that is meant to capture scenes, not huge time blocks. This makes a very accurate combination of resolution at the extreme low end in scenes (which is what everyone always asks for a graph of) that can be used to compare with other soundtracks at a glance.

    Imagine if Josh formatted every set of data for his subwoofer tests differently, using different smoothing, distances, graph scales, etc. It would be infinitely more difficult to interpret the data. Because the data is consistent and presented in a consistent format, it's very easy to use for comparison within the body of work.

    Anyway, this is a lot of spare time out the window. If done correctly and used in conjunction with Maxmercy's P2A (Peak To Average) graphs, also formatted consistently and in the future in a format that allows for instant comparison with other movies, this would become an extremely useful databass, to coin a term.

  • Create New...