Jump to content

AmerCa

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AmerCa

  1. I see. So, the common "issues" with Atmos mixes reported by users are probably due to a *secret* DialNorm people are not aware it exists. What it's hard to understand is that if the DialNorm value is used, it's because it's the level at what such soundtrack should be played. But you turn up the volume anyways, in most cases. DialNorm as an "absolute" value doesn't makes sense, because it should be always relative to another soundtrack. But soundtracks are mixed in all kinds of shapes and forms, Dialnorm makes even less sense. Like you said, maybe it could be useful when you do a gra
  2. Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: 1) The first posted graphs of FFH are what the mixes *really* are in relation with each other. The second graphs are what graphs sound like when AVRs apply the DialNorm, which shows the Atmos mix -5db lower than the DTS, and this is what most users are experiencing in their systems. 2) DialNorm values are something that decoders automatically applies and we cannot do something about it and/or we are not even told it's being applied? I've heard, for instance, that the Rampage Atmos mix is less punchier than the DTS-MA. Maybe a DialNorm va
  3. ^°^°^°^ 1) Right after I posted my previous comment, I did a quick search for the LFE channel. Your response coupled with your example made things a bit clearer to me. I still don't get the need for the LFE channel separately if you're gonna have full range speaker signals. But that belongs to a different discussion. Thanks for the explanation. 2) Since the average lines only differ by 1db, but the DTS peak at 4-5 db hotter, that'd imply the Atmos track has some effects/frequencies that are hotter than the DTS at some point in the film. Either way, we lose, it seems. I ha
  4. I don't understand the concept of full LCRS if the bass is going to be redirected to the sub anyways. My rough understanding of the LFE channel was that it contains bass frequencies redirected from the other channels. If you play without a sub, then the speakers play (or attempt to) its full content, but you wouldn't miss the bass from the LFE channel. That is what would be intuitive to me, anyways, but clearly I'm no expert. Back to the graph, I'm surprised how close the average linea are in both mixes. They essentially only differ in level. Raising the MV or the sub trim could (or shou
  5. This is fair. I too don't think it's incompetence. I just simply don't understand the decisions they make with different versions of the same audio track. How hard would it be for them to measure the "original" mix (whatever "original" means in that context), and stick to it as closely as possible? Why the aforementioned Australian Flatliners Auro3D mix has more >20hz content than the US track? Why Far From Home has more mid-bass than its Atmos counterpart? I mean...I don't get it. It's not like they're "correcting" something wrong they found in the mix. They just do things differently. Ma
  6. I think this is...pretty much it. It really is the most plausible explanation without splitting hairs. Each mixing/authoring team does with the mix what they're allowed to.
  7. I'm very inclined to agree with this. I'm not sure if two mixes graphing nearly the same, mean they sound the same. I don't think those graphs are any indication of "quality". In the BEQ thread at AVS a comparison was made of some audio mix transcoded at different bitrates, the lowest being 128kbps. All graphs look nearly the same. I wouldn't conclude the "quality" is the same. The experiment was done to see if we should expect a difference in bass levels and/or extension in streaming services due purely to audio bitrate. I wonder if there can be some visual representation of quality in a
  8. At this point, and after reading many discussions about it, I've given up trying to understand why there are so many differences between mixes. The Atmos thread at AVS got into a very heated discussion about it, that lead nowhere. In the BEQ thread at AVS we found out that there are differences between the Flatliners (2017) 5.1 DTS-MA and the Australian Auro3D 5.1 DTS-MA core, but there are multiple examples, some of which can be found in this very thread. Same movie, same effects, different levels. Sony can't be bothered to include a 24bit track in the BD. Different bass frequencies are boost
  9. ^°^°^°^I Interesting. So all the multiple reports the Atmos track was botched and the DTS-MA was the better track are perhaps a bit overblown? The Atmos mix is getting very dividing opinions, but most agree the DTS is the clear winner.
  10. People who got to compare both Alita invariably preferred the Atmos mix. And if you like your bass as hot as possible down low probably are fine with this practice for the UHD. At first, and just looking at the graphs and reading the comments, it was easy to think the BD got shafted. It was looking at the heat maps that became apparent they were just boosting the bass in a specific region, to made it look it was a better mix, because otherwise the mixes are pretty much the same. Someone made the experiment of boosting his subs 9db to compensate for the Alita BD levels, and found the exper
  11. Over at AVS it was found out some interesting thing regarding two recent mixes by Fox (Disney?), Battle Angel: Alita and X-Men: Dark Phoenix. The UHD Atmos mixes are boosted by several dbs under the 40hz region, in the case of Alita the boost is around 9 dbs. So, right off the bat the Atmos tracks sound more impactful, and, at least on paper, the mixes are "better" down low. Here's the heat map for Dark Phoenix provided by a member: Looking at it, I'd take the 7.1 DTS-MA over the Atmos, at least regarding the bass. The Atmos mix seems artificially boosted in the 25-40hz, just to
  12. I wanted to add that I understand your perfectionism. I can be as well very obsessive with detail, and I just wish sometimes I didn't notice those small things. But I don't really want to go that route, because in my case it's not healthy. I'd just rather sit and enjoy things, to the best of my ability. I'm sure the moment I get into REW, I'm gonna get into some serious rabbit hole. I'm impressed by your passion for audio and never ending perfectionism; I always enjoy reading your thoughts.
  13. Very nice write-up, SME. I just wish I cared for the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But I always enjoy audio analysis/impressions on movie tracks. On the spider webs, my house is filled with spiders, so what I've always done is cover the speakers (and subwoofer) with the plastic/foam bags the speakers came with in the boxes. Not nice looking, but when I'm not using the speakers, which sometimes can be days or even weeks, I don't have to worry about spiders or other insects messing up with my system. But this "solution" may not be for everyone.😌
  14. In other news, the new Hellboy II 4k DTS:X mix has been butchered. I first heard about the H2 mix here, and I know it was considered among the greatest. But the new mixers considered it was appropriate to filter it and reduce the levels.
  15. Aquaman was fantastic at theaters. The bass graph for the ATMOS track was just posted at AVS and looks great, and people that have listened to the digital version all say great things about the home mix. Mortal Engines is a bass fest, but some have found bass execution a bit underwhelming, even with BEQ. I still look forward to buying the disc when the price is right. Spider-Man: ITSV is said to be fantastic as well, another full bandwidth mix. Edit: Apologies if the formatting is a bit wonky.
  16. While I don't understand all the technicalities you talk about, I understand (and agree) with the gist of it. It's something that myself I've wondered about, but currently I have no way of testing the BEQs that are done at AVS. HOWEVER... people with very capable systems have tried them, and are satisfied with the results. So, they must be doing something right, at least the BEQ version is an improvement over the heavily filtered mixes. At this point, I'd thought you'd have at least gave a couple of them a try, instead of just assuming they must not be good. Also, you seem to have a very
  17. Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster. Sadly, I discovered this place when it started to slow down. I've seen you mention you're not very keen of AVS BEQ approach, but there's tons of BEQs created daily over there, new and old releases, and since you have the possibility of applying BEQ, maybe it'd be worth giving it a try, since the guy who does most of them it's getting better at them. Of course, there is BEQ for K:SI. Chances are before you pop in a disc into your player, there's already a BEQ for it. Regarding K:SI, I agree with you. Not a big fan of the audio mix. Some assumed
×
×
  • Create New...