You must log in or # to comment.
The sound is often so fucked up. Music, explosions, guns, cars etc are so fucking loud, but conversations are very dim, as if people are almost whispering. It’s often very hard to hear what people are saying, especially when eating crisps.
I always use English subs, even when watching stuff in my own language (Dutch)
If you have a soundbar or sound system turn the night mode or quiet mode setting on. It compresses the dynamic range of the audiotrack basically lowers the sound levels of the loud sounds
I don’t have that. I’m an audiophile, I have a proper tube amp stereo sound system. I don’t want to have my sound compressed and filtered.
Well, at least they are reading something…
I turn on subtitles to subtley force my kid to read. He’s got ADHD like me, but mine made me read at a super early age, while he struggles with it. To me, it’s a way to expose him to words and the spelling as they come. My dad struggled with reading as well and basically just memorized most words and their pronunciation instead of actually learning to read. If that helps the kiddo, then I don’t mind it, but I secretly turn it off by myself, and turn it back on when I’m done.
basically just memorized most words and their pronunciation instead of actually learning to read
That’s pretty much the only option you’re Anglo anyway, there are basically no letter-> sound rules that apply over a non trivial vocabulary.
It’s perfectly consistent if you follow the 400 normal rules and 1300 exceptions.
- There was this complete and utter hack with a couple fluke hits under his belt named George Lucas. He noticed that some theaters might not even have functioning audio sometimes, so he hired some engineers to create THX.
- Movie theater audio systems continued to go big blue baby boinking bonkers. Remember when the THX logo wasn’t survivable by children under 7?
- Directors, especially the self-important “my vision must be realized” scrotes, the ones who objected to a playback speed setting on Netflix, start designing their soundtracks to take full advantage of 90.1 channel 1.21 jiggawatt sound systems as found at the local umptyplex. They can make the sound of a dental drill sound like it’s in your mouth.
- While all of that was going on, TV technology changed significantly. We went from big boxes with CRTs and thus plenty of room for speaker cones inside, to a 2 inch thick LCD panel with down/back firing laptop speakers. Or people consume video content on laptops, tablets or phones instead of a “television.”
- Even with the increased popularity/necessity of external soundbars and surround sound systems, a home 5.1 system still can’t keep up with Dolby THX Atmos Skibidi Brushless Guarana Turbo Surround.
- Movie theaters have been closing down in droves.
- Television" the art form has converged a lot with movies. Since the 90’s there’s been a trend of making television shows more “cinematic,” wider aspect ratios, more dramatic lighting, more dynamic camera angles, longer episodes, overall plots that you need to watch in order. So television shows fall into the same engineering traps that movies do. Mix it for the theater, even though half of your audience is going to watch this on an iPhone 12.
- “movies” and “tv” are now mostly consumed on devices with poor quality stereo speakers, and yet the audio was designed for million dollar cinema systems, so the dialog is completely unintelligible.
- “Survey reveals most people under 40 use subtitles.”
This kinda makes sense to me.
Audio levels are mixed horribly and go crazy loud with music but i cant fucking hear anyone talking. It feels like around 2010 or something tv shows and movies were like “lets just forget about voices and let everyone hear explosions and shitty driving music”.
Its not my ears because YouTube folks who can mix their audio properly are easy to hear. Anime is mixed well usually with voices.
Its the studios doing this for whatever reason unknown to us.
I use subtitles 100% of the time now.
For anything cinematic, the intent is usually to get more dynamic range. If you turn it up enough that the dialogue is audible, then the explosions will be as loud as an actual explosion. Fine in a movie theater, not so much in an apartment complex.
They should release dual audio, high dynamic range for ppl with good systems and low dynamics for ppl listening on computer speakers, but if that’s not the case I can always put a compressor on an HDR master, but can’t recover lost information on stuff like anime where a phone vibrates as loud as an explosion.
No, not dual audio. I want more Control. On my Peloton bike I can adjust the volume of the host and the music independently. I want that for TV and movies. Two volume rockers on my remote. One for voice and one for “everything else”. I know the technology exists, and it would not be crazy complicated to implement. Well maybe for broadcast TV… But for anything streaming, this should benrelativwly easy to do. I know that the voice and music and FX tracks already exist separately digitally. Let me mix it myself.
Some games do this - often called “night mode”. Seems like a lot of people would benefit from it in other mediums!
Yeah, running it through a compressor should work. Maybe I should set something like that up… I’ve had issues hearing certain people talk on YouTube when my air conditioner turns on. It’s infuriating if I’m watching an interview or something with multiple people speaking and their mics are at completely different levels so I can only hear one person or get blasted every time they speak.
Mostly is because it’s mixed for 5.1
The center channel takes care of most of the dialog and the rest is distributed to 4 satellite (and usually smaller) speakers but when it’s down sampled to stereo everything has the same level
But even with a 5.1 setup, it is seldom audible.
Anime is very poorly mixed, a phone vibrates as loud as an explosion, there’s no dynamics. That’s not how real sound is supposed do work.
I agree that some shows like modern Star Trek exaggerate and while I can’t hear Michael murmuring the Spore Drive almost blows my woofers away every time Discovery jumps.
However needs needs to have dynamics so the viewer can have an emercive experience.
It helps with the dialogue, but I also like it because I feel like it keeps my mind more active and involved in the story. It’s more like reading a book and watching a movie.
that is also the dryest popcorn I have ever seen, where is the butter?
I have hearing loss, and from this thread I gather most of you have it too lol. Yeah, probably sound mixing is bad, but do yourself a favor and get checked. Your life quality can really improve if you treat this condition.
I got my hearing tested and it’s normal (for my age). I just have terrible auditory processing!
I have a slight hearing loss. If I play a movie with a sound designed for 5.1 on stereo, I will really have a hard time understanding the dialogue. If I switch to 2.0 (if available), I can hear almost everything perfectly.
What can they do to treat it? I thought once it’s gone it’s gone.
Hearing aides.
But what if I don’t want people following me around?
For fucks sake, can we just get releases that have separate audio tracks for dialogue, music, and effects that we the viewer can decide how we want to hear it?
Video games figured this out
I don’t want the explosions to be so loud that it wakes my entire house.
Yeah! It would sure be nice if we took accessibility issues seriously.
Like one lesson we learned as a society in the aftermath of implementing strong ADA laws (in the US) is that what’s needed for the bare minimum for some of us is often really nice for the rest of us.
For example: if you’re delivering a dolly of boxes to a building, the wheelchair ramp really beats working the dolly up the stairs.
It would be amazing if dialog were a separate channel, if only so that it can be boosted for the hard of hearing. If that meant more options for remixing for you and me - oh no?
It would be amazing if the subtitles were available and accurate. Great if you can’t hear the audio. It’s useful for scrubbing if you want to remember and find a obscure movie quote.
and accurate
My pet peeve. I also watch shows in the original (foreign to me) language to train my listening comprehension and often the subtitles are not word for word accurate especially in the hard to understand parts.
Even when it’s English subs with English audio, so much is done with “AI” now but clearly they’re never checked by a human!
I’m not sure but Dolby Atmos might be responsible for some of it. Dolby Atmos lets the engineers assign coordinate values to each “sound object” in the scene, then your receiver takes that information, along with the room calibration mic info and your speaker layout, and actually generates the channels itself based on the listeners position within the scene. As an example, if an object is moving from front to rear then the engineers no longer have to pan it between channels, just tell the coordinate system that the sound is moving “that way” and let the receiver take care of it. Maybe engineers just not putting as much work into making discrete channel audio mixes anymore when the “gold standard” no longer uses discrete channels/tracks.
For people with Atmos-supporting audio equipment, this is actually an improvement. My rear surrounds aren’t in the same place as yours, and my system knows that, so I can hear the positioning the audio engineer intended.
Yeah, full disclosure I have a full atmos system and it’s a noticeable improvement in positional accuracy over even DTS-HD Master. I wish there were less expensive solutions though so that it could go mainstream.
My front speakers have Atmos but my rears don’t.
But Atmos is a receiver level technology?
How does a speaker “have Atmos”?
It has to have upward drives to really have Atmos. It needs the ability to bounce it off other surfaces for it to really be Atmos.
Wouldn’t that mean you have a 5.1.2 setup, a valid Atmos configuration?
The rear ones don’t have to have any upfiring capabilities.
That’s the same configuration I have, with a Denon amp doing the atmos processing. I had some rear upfiring speakers also but I ditched them because my ceiling is too high for the heights to work anyway D=. Even without the heights though you get SIGNIFICANTLY improved positional audio. Things like panning from front to rear are seamless, especially with timbre matched speakers.
No, the directors intent is more important, and obviously you need a full Dolby speaker system to properly enjoy. /s
Turning up the center channel gives you more dialog. But that assumes you’ve got surround sound set up… Producers don’t give as much love to stereo setups these days.
It also assumes all dialog is centered. That usually works for the main characters of a scene, but not all dialog, e.g. a character off-screen trying to get the attention of the other.
We use subtitles because the sound mixing is fucking terrible in most media now. It’s set up for massive theatres where dialogue sounds normal and gunfire or explosions sounds realistically loud. But I’m not trying to have realistically loud explosions in my living room on my Vizio, so the volume is set accordingly, meaning you can’t make out words half the time.
I’ve got a decent 5.1 system. It brings the boom boom when needed.
Still need subtitles. I blame the lack of theatre trained actors. The Hollywood gang mumble.
In the early days of television, directors really only had the choice of using theater trained actors since those were all that existed. Theater actors are trained to speak in that way so that they can be clearly understood on stage even without mics. But people don’t actually speak that way, and modern directors seem to have a preference for “natural performances” so I wouldn’t necessarily blame the actors. They may just be doing what they’ve been directed to do.
A long time ago my dad bought a full blown surround sound set-up, and I got so tired of not being able to hear that I spent days fiddling with the settings to no effect. Went online to do deep dive research and people just kind of hand-waived with a generic “buy a better setup and try different settings”. Completely gave up on good audio and leaned into the subtitle life.
Maybe if someday I could afford a bigger place I’ll try again. I did get some high quality speakers for my PC, but the years of disappointment lowered my standards so much that I didn’t even notice the left speaker was off because I didn’t slot the copper wires correctly for many months.
In the show Andor, there is a character named “Kleaha” But until about halfway through season 2, I thought it was Princess Leaha. It was only that I saw the subtitle that wrote her name out that let me know it was a different person.
Several times in the new fantastic 4 movie, sue storm called her kid, frankling. That’s not a name. It’s Franklin.
Aren’t Franklings what we call people from France?
/s
reminds me of this:
I for one love having to turn it right up to hear the actors mumble important plot points at eachother right before gunshots or jarring violin stingers damage my speakers/ear drums/wake my kids up.
Dunno why you’re pussying around with subtitles lol.
Because they insist on mixing the audio in a shitty way so unless you want to fiddle with the audio-level every 5 seconds or have your eardrums shattered by action/suspense-scenes, you can’t hear dialogue and need subs to understand what the fuck is going on…
Edit: and before people start saying “5.1 in stereo is the cause!1!!1!1”, no forcing stereo does absolutely nothing to alleviate this.
Also, not many of us live in single homes with basements that we can turn into a home theater like our parents did.
Here’s a good video about it… https://youtu.be/VYJtb2YXae8
It’s not that it’s mixed shitty, it’s that they never remixed it for new releases. So it still uses the theater audio mix and range where there’s 12,000+ watts of audio power available and like 12 audio channels.
When they actually remix it to a home release format the issues almost always go away. Even remixing for 5.1 most TVs can downmix to stereo just fine.
Hyperrealistic acting also doesn’t help. Lots of actors insist on mumbling in a way that makes it hard to understand even if in a cinema.
I love Tom Hardy, but dark gods he’s impossible to understand half of the time.
At least I expect that from him and basically all his characters. It’s most irritating when it’s a character who should have eloquence, ht doesn’t.
Also by extension, film / TV is the ideal medium for imperfect dialogue. The medium took queues from theatre and literature in it’s inception but there is truly no other medium suited to the imperfection of real dialogue like real life.
Mediums which demand a high critical analysis like most paintings invite the viewer to study and puzzle over the narrative, but film has it’s roots in cinema, and lowbrow cinema at that. I don’t really mean that critically, it’s my preferred medium, but nothing expects an easily digestible narrative like film and TV.
I don’t think it’s inherently the mediums flaw, duration and viewing time dictates a lot.
- A good song is intended to be listened to by the same person a few times, and as such be meditated on.
- A good painting or photograph is often displayed in a galleries or otherwise as part of some sort of exhibit that encourages reflection and analysis.
- Traditional musical theatre can be shallow and vibes based, but in it’s structure, it’s intending to be viewed once or twice but listened to frequently.
- Literature typically takes days, weeks, or even months to compete, which invites a degree of analysis via it’s inventment.
Film and TV his a wired niche. Although mainstream TV also takes days, weeks of months to compete, the vast majority intentionally invites you to consume without analysis. Mainstream film fully invites the average viewer to see it once, and anything further than that is for chance or deeper fans.
However film and modern high budget TV is mor* e venture capitalism than art, it’s just that in it’s method of consumerism, it poses as art. This gives it its own rules, and one of those rules is that comprehension is only a useful tool when it favours creating and retaining viewers/income.
But as it’s rose to dominate all other media, there and many, many people who enjoy film and TV without any media literacy outside of it, and therefore their only touchstone is reality. That paired with the fact that we’ve largely cracked our ability for movies to direct focus via mise-en-scène, cinematography, editing sound etc, means it’s the ideal medium to not just emulate realistic performance, but focus on it and celebrate it. This often comes with unclear dialogue.
Then the only way for deeper fans to enjoy this mediu BBm is to re-experience it By re-exploring rit. Each additional delve, albeit short - often just an episode or feature film length - gains that viewer status unlike other mediums.
This forces realistic dialogue to be idolised by fans bove clarity, while being irrelevant to the casual viewer. At last in my opinion.
This is a lunatic ramble, which I’m writing at 3am in my time zone after being unable to sleep. Beyond any typos, I apologize if this is entirely incoherent or just wrong and assumptive.
What about direct to streaming shows. They still have the same problem. Not saying it does not happen, but its mostly shitty mixing. Especially in American shows.
That and that they intentionally make the commercials about 30% louder than the show
The habit of compressing commercials super loud comes from the fact that many of them also have to fit radios where it is important for the brainwash being clearly heard on weak signals too.
Commercials? What are those? Sounds like a boomer thing.
Yep, only time i watch “tv” is when im visiting relatives
having surround sound helps, but not enough
deleted by creator
This seems like a good use case for AI so that volume automatically fluctuates when switching between dialogue and action scenes.
There’s no need for AI, standard look-ahead normalization would be more than enough for this if it was allowed to work properly. I’ve not met the content that VLC’s audio normalization can’t fix, for example.
Technically even the standard system is also AI (and it totally would’ve been advertised as such too before the LLM-boom).
Edit: and before people start saying “5.1 in stereo is the cause!1!!1!1”, no forcing stereo does absolutely nothing to alleviate this.
The ‘problem’ is dynamic range. They mix movies with a large dynamic range because explosions and shit are a lot louder than spoken words. You are supposed to have your eardrums shattered during action scenes. That’s how it’s intended to be listened to.
Could they mix it differently? Sure, but that would mean that the people who want to watch it as intended can’t. There is also no reason to because you can simply adjust this during playback. Any half-decent A/V receiver will have an option for dynamic range compression. Just because you didn’t set up your surround sound system properly doesn’t mean the movie is badly mixed.
I don’t have a surround system…I have 2.1 stereo, and even with dynamic range compression this is an issue. And it’s not just explosions, things like suspenseful music is also loud as shit which is unnecessary.
I don’t want eardrums shattered when watching a movie, nobody wants that, it’s unpleasant and 100% unnecessary for watching at home.
I don’t want eardrums shattered when watching a movie, nobody wants that, it’s unpleasant and 100% unnecessary for watching at home.
They don’t mix for a 2.1 home setup, they mix for a (home) theater. You’re using a set-up meant to watch the news and maybe a soccer match to watch a movie and then complain that it’s a crappy experience. Yeah, no shit.
Cool, so you’re not allowed a
goodpassable movie experience if you don’t invest a shitton of money for a home theater.Quality audio doesn’t have to cost a ton. You can get a quality budget Dolby ATMOS soundbar for less than $350.
Buddy you can buy a 55” TV for less than that, it is utterly ridiculous to even entertain the idea that “less than $350” is a reasonable price for passable audio.
I’m sure that is a good price for the soundbar, but speaking for myself it’s too big, I don’t have the space for it, as I imagine many others do too. It isn’t too cheap either, imo.
But that is really not the point. Not everyone is a giant movie geek, they just want to be able to understand what is being said.
Yes, of course, it’s only natural to replace a 2.1 or 2.0 HiFi system with the scam that is Dolby Atmos…
Dolby Atmos does jack shit for quality audio; I say this as an audiophile. It is extremely controversial in HiFi, and not some gold standard. Additionally, the sound bar system you linked is just a facil approximation to what Atmos is, and far, far inferior to good passive stereo bookshelf speakers of the same price (I think Elac DB52s cost about $250, plus a $70 300W per channel fosi v3 amp will get you a fantastic setup. Later you could even add a $200 sub for the <60Hz range.)
Here’s a Benn Jordan vid I found on the subject: https://youtu.be/5Dw3aKbw5Wo
The farthest I would ever go with surround/quadraphonic sound would be something like the Schiit Syn, which is now discontinued anyway. I have two ears: I only need to speakers. If the speakers are good and the track is well mixed, this will always lead to a better result than Dolby Atmos.
Movies like Interstellar are mixed with quiet dialogue for the dynamic range, like you say, and that can make speach difficult to understand. This is a questionable trend in movies led by Christopher Nolan but is absolutely not alleviated by Atmos.
I won’t go into what I think of the trend, but I really want to emphasize that buying an overpriced consumer sound system with Atmos marketing on it will not solve the problem. Please do not invest you money into faux-HiFi! If you are going to spend that much money, spend it wisely, and don’t pay attention to marketing.
There is a lot of text just to bitch to people that probably don’t care about niche differences. We’re talking about budget options here, not “audiophile” snake oil.
I also don’t personally care about a random “audiophile” opinion, especially on a site like Lemmy. You have no credentials here, your opinion has no weight over anyone else’s, that’s why sites with testing and reviewing methodologies are most useful. From my experience most “audiophile” opinions usually are about as good as Monster cables were, pure overpriced snake oil. Especially when that audio opinion includes absolutely insane and anatomically inaccurate things like “I have two ears: I only need to speakers.” You might as well be saying that Airpods are good enough because they’re right there.
I do trust the opinion of places like Rtings where there’s s defined testing methodology and direct comparisons can be taken from those. While the system I posted is definitely a generic mid-range system, it’s what they recommended for a budget soundbar system, it’s $350 all in. You provided anecdotal opinion and an alternative that’s twice as expensive for a pair of bookshelf speakers (actually more, the MSRP of those speakers is $370 alone, plus the amp and the Sub). From a company that markets their products as the “Best Audiophile Speakers” no less. That screams of Monster cable type scam shit, even if it isn’t, that’s the type of snake oil marketing that drives people away now. And in an product industry where snake oil products are a dime a dozen, that’s the opposite of what the serious companies usually try to do.
You have a setup that’s not suitable for watching movies and you’re trying to blame it on the movie. How is that reasonable? The content you’re trying to watch simply was never meant to be watched in that way. I’m not sure what you expect here.
Even if they did a different mix, that still wouldn’t give the intended experience of the movie, it would be at best a watered down version. You simply cannot optimize for two very different things. If they wanted it to be viewed on a TV they would have made a very different movie to begin with. There are plenty of made-for-TV movies that do exactly that.
You expect that something that was made to be shown on a huge screen, in a dark room with a high end sound system somehow magically would work on your living room TV with stereo sound. I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation.
In other words, movies are not intended to be played back at devices that aren’t connected to theater-grade audio hardware.
Of course this requires the question of why movies are even released on Blu-Ray, DVD, or streaming services at all instead of just using the existing distribution system for movie theaters. Everyone who doesn’t run an IMAX setup at home is too poor to watch movies.
In other words, movies are not intended to be played back at devices that aren’t connected to theater-grade audio hardware.
Not just audio hardware, also a big screen, darkened room, etc.
Of course this requires the question of why movies are even released on Blu-Ray, DVD, or streaming services at all instead of just using the existing distribution system for movie theaters.
Because there is a demand for them and they like making money?
If you’re ever in the Netherlands, go visit the Rijksmuseum and see De Nachtwacht by Rembrandt van Rijn. It’s absolutely enormous (363 by 437cm). Just look at it for a while, marvel at the details. Then go visit the gift shop and buy the 50x70cm poster.
Go home, stick the poster on your wall. Do you get the same sense of awe as you did from the full size painting? Can you even make out all the intricate details that make it so compelling? No, you can’t. It doesn’t work in that small format in your living room.
Is this Rembrandt’s fault? No, of course not. He painted it at the size it meant to be viewed at. He didn’t take into account that people would be making small posters off it almost 400 years later. Worse, if he had made the painting so that it would look good on a small poster, would that painting also have had the same impact in its full size? I’d say it wouldn’t have.
Rembrandt also made much smaller paintings, if you want a Rembrandt in your living room you’d be better off getting a reproduction of those. Does this mean that the gift shop shouldn’t be selling small posters of ‘De Nachtwacht’? There clearly is a demand for them.
Same goes for movies. They didn’t set out to make a movie to view at home, they set out to make a movie to be viewed in the theater. Could they have made on that worked at home. Sure, but then it wouldn’t have worked in the theater. Should they not sell them on BluRay when there is clearly a demand for them? There are plenty of people who do have a nice setup at home that does the movie justice.
Everyone who doesn’t run an IMAX setup at home is too poor to watch movies.
No, you can go to the theater or watch made-for-TV movies. The fact that blockbuster movies are made for the theater doesn’t prevent anyone from making TV movies, and they do make them. Just not that particular movie.
The problem is that you didn’t actually want to see that movie, you wanted a similar but different movie, one that would have worked on a regular living room TV. But that’s not the movie they decided to make. You bought the small Rembrandt poster and now you’re complaining that you can’t see the details and the painting kind of sucks because of it.
You got a smidge of a point. Yes, movie surround sound is mastered for (home) cinemas and if that’s the setup you have, it works. You don’t even need a fancy setup. I have a cheap old 5.1 system and when I’m in the mood for a home cinema experience, including the volume, it works great.
However, there’s no excuse for studios to not provide a more compressed TV mix because not everyone has a home cinema or the capability of turning up the volume without angry neighbours kicking down your door. Especially for Series and direct-to-streaming movies that never had a theatrical release but just drop on Netflix one day. Because there are plenty of those that are also not mixed for quieter soundsystems, TV speakers or people who cannot or don’t want to turn up the volume.
So yes. I expect the audio to work well on my living room TV. Because I’m paying to watch it on a service that’s available on on my living room TV and Studios know that the vast majority of people do not have a home cinema. It is thus, in my opinion, a reasonable expectation, for any movie that released past the DVD age, to have an audio track that doesn’t require me to own a home theatre. Because you can optimise for two things, by just having two audio tracks. Some movies on Netflix even have a dedicated stereo tracks available. Why can’t that be the norm?
Or, those streaming services could offer a setting to compress the dynamic range for home viewing. My AppleTV actually has that function built in and it’s very useful when you want to watch something late at night without waking the whole house up. Sadly, most streaming services use their own media player instead of the native one and don’t have a comparable feature…
That said, I very much don’t want a compressed dynamic range sound mix to become the only one available. I happen to have a setup that can just about handle a higher dynamic range in most of cases, if I can/want to raise the volume accordingly and I usually like it that way.
However, there’s no excuse for studios to not provide a more compressed TV mix
I think this depends on how you see movies. Do you see them as art or just a form of entertainment?
For me, it’s about how the movie makes me feel. I think movies are art, and art is meant to make you feel things. If I watch a movie I want to be overwhelmed by the action, I want to be moved by the music swelling at that emotional moment, I want to be creeped out by that scary scene in the spooky house with the wind howling all around me.
You don’t get that if you watch in a bright room with a 2.0 sound track with no dynamic range. To me there is no point in even watching a movie if it can’t immerse me in the movie and make me feel all those things.
I’m not sure why you get so much down voted while you are right. It’s similar how people want to play a 4k movie on a 1080p screen…
Personally, I have experienced that when you’re downmixing a 5.1 to 2.1 solves all the issues OP is talking about.
I’m only an amateur but did some video/audio encoding and it’s a bit more complex than what I’m saying here, but it does indead solves the issue.
I’m not sure why you get so much down voted while you are right. It’s similar how people want to play a 4k movie on a 1080p screen…
People underestimate how big of a difference it makes.
If you ever get the chance to do this on a decent home theater: grab a blu-ray copy of the LoTR trilogy. 1080p, 5.1 audio. Should be pretty good right? Watch it for a couple of minutes. Then switch to the UHD blu-ray (4k HDR, Dolby Atmos). It’s a night and day difference. The 1080p version is fine, but the UHD version just draws you in. It’s almost addictive, once you turn it on you can’t look away. Before you know it you’ve watched the entire trilogy.
It’s shocking how much better the experience is, it’s like a completely different movie.
For the folks disagreeing with you, I think a helpful analogy might be to think of it like a recipe.
If you try to make a fancy dish at home without the high quality equipment and ingredients the chef had, it’s not gonna turn out like the chef intended, and it’s not the chef’s fault or a bad recipe.
It’s art meant to be enjoyed in a particular fashion, and will naturally be less enjoyable when prepared or consumed in another manner.
There’s a valid argument to be made for remixing it for shitty speakers, since it doesn’t seem hard and would make a lot of people happy, but artists shouldn’t be obligated to bastardize their work if they don’t want to
Another solution would be to add a second audio stream (2.1) and let the viewer choose how to watch their movie.
Do you also want to add different video streams for smaller TV’s ?
What you want is a made-for-TV adaptation of the same story, but that wouldn’t be the same movie. Watching a movie is an experience, and you simply cannot reproduce experience that on a small TV with 2.0 audio. Even if they did a 2.0 mix, you won’t get the same sense of awe that you get when you watch it in a theater. What is even the point of watching it if it cannot make you feel that?
Watching a movie is an experience, and you simply cannot reproduce experience that on a small TV with 2.0 audio.
You heard it here guys, enjoying a movie on a normal TV or an iPad is simply wrong and you should feel bad for wanting to be able to understand the dialogue. I guess it makes sense that a BorgDrone would be intolerably inflexible and demand people conform to their unrealistic standards.
You heard it here guys, enjoying a movie on a normal TV or an iPad is simply wrong
It’s simply pointless. Like listening to music with your ears plugged. Why even bother watching a movie like that?
I’ve literally watched 2001: A Space Odyssey on the plain in mono because my seat’s audio was broken and I was trying to use my IEMs without an adapter. I had a great experience, in part because I love more about the movie than just the visual and auditory delivery. I like the story and philosophy as well.
You may not have enjoyed it in that setting, but please don’t gatekeep the experience. It’s also worth mentioning that a lot for movies are, unlike 2001, not art.
I had a great experience, in part because I love more about the movie than just the visual and auditory delivery. I like the story and philosophy as well.
A chain is a strong as its weakest link. You want to tick all boxes, not just half of them.
Because I can still enjoy it, regardless of what your standards are.
Doesn’t it bother you immensely that you’re getting a subpar experience? Even if you enjoy it, doesn’t just knowing it could be so much better suck all the enjoyment out of it?
They already include multiple audio streams for language selection. In fact, watching a movie in a different language than it was originally produced in doesn’t perfectly “reproduce the experience” either. Jokes get cut, names and acronyms change, and cultural references are either altered or become too foreign for the culture of the new audience to instantly recognize.
Offering a different experience of a movie isn’t unusual. Maybe I can’t understand a Miyazaki film to the extent that he fully intended, because I don’t understand Japanese. But that doesn’t mean there’s no point in watching it.
As well, some people don’t want to experience super loud explosions. They’re content not having that aspect of “the experience” for a variety of reasons. Some people have PTSD. Some people have irritable neighbors, or kids who are trying to sleep. Some people suffer from tinnitis and would appreciate not having the rest of the movie drowned out by a loud ringing inside their own heads.
In many ways, a stream without such dynamic noises provides accessibility to people who wouldn’t be able to enjoy the movie otherwise. You can still enjoy a movie however you want. The rest of us just want an option.
They already include multiple audio streams for language selection. In fact, watching a movie in a different language than it was originally produced in doesn’t perfectly “reproduce the experience” either. Jokes get cut, names and acronyms change, and cultural references are either altered or become too foreign for the culture of the new audience to instantly recognize.
Don’t me started on that one… it’s a fscking disgrace.
As well, some people don’t want to experience super loud explosions. They’re content not having that aspect of “the experience” for a variety of reasons.
But then you don’t want to watch that movie, you want to watch a different movie, one they didn’t make. Movies are art, you don’t go changing art to fit your taste, you experience it as it was meant to be experienced. Imagine if we did that with other art forms.
If you don’t want loud explosions, pick a different movie.
it’s a fscking disgrace.
Please don’t provide alternate stream for censored cursing. It’s a disgrace. I want the same sense of awe that I get when I hear it in a theater. What is even the point of reading it if it cannot make me feel that?
Please don’t provide alternate stream for censored cursing.
Not censored, just nerd-humor that went over your head.
Oof, as an artist myself, I’d be understanding if somebody wanted to tweak something I made in order to make it more accessible.
But you know what? You do you, man. I can tell you’re a person with conviction, and though I disagree with your opinion, I respect your passion for art integrity.
a/v receiver
didnt setup your surround system
I got a soundbar. Some look at this like a luxury. You are expecting a receiver?
Sound bars are not worth the money, you can get a better setup for what you pay for a half decent one. They only exist because they have a high WAF.
I expect an A/V receiver with at least 5 speakers and a subwoofer. With the left/right front speakers being 2 full-range floor-standing speakers.
Ideally, you want a 7.1.4 setup.
You’re like the audiophile’s evil twin (I’m kidding). The audiophile insists on purism, only 2.0, and you are waaaay on the side of the spectrum.
I have created, mixed, and mastered music. Half of doing that has been creating really cool sounds on my 2.1 monitors (which sound like shit because they’re monitors) and then spending hours trying to get that same sound on other systems. Not just Kilobuck headphones and megabuck surround sound systems, but also $15 earbuds. That is a big part of mixing, because I want as many people to enjoy my music and the music I mix for other people as possible. I am not so pretentious and arrogant that I insist that everyone who listens to this music do so on my exact speaker setup (that would be the closest to “as the artist intended”).
I have also created pieces for multichannel audio systems. These pieces get exhibitions, and are not available for purchase as audio recordings. Because no one can recreate those exact multichannel systems the way I designed them.
Movies, however, are frequently available past their premieres. Maybe this is greed on the part of the artist, that they sell the movies, even though they know that it is impossible to truly enjoy the movie without the very specific audio setup it was created with?
You’re like the audiophile’s evil twin (I’m kidding). The audiophile insists on purism, only 2.0, and you are waaaay on the side of the spectrum.
No, actually I’m not. I have a nice 2.0 system as well for listening to music. The 5.1.4 system is in my living room with my TV. The 2.0 system is in my bedroom where I can chill out on my bed while listening. I also have a nice set of headphones with a separate DAC for listening to music.
That is a big part of mixing, because I want as many people to enjoy my music and the music I mix for other people as possible.
Sure, but that’s a completely different use-case. Movies are mixed for theaters, people don’t need to spend a fortune on equipment to enjoy that mix, they just need to buy a movie ticket.
Movies, however, are frequently available past their premieres. Maybe this is greed on the part of the artist, that they sell the movies, even though they know that it is impossible to truly enjoy the movie without the very specific audio setup it was created with?
Not the artist, the publishers. They want to wring every dollar out of it they can. The people actually creating movies don’t care about people watching the movie on TV at all.
A good example of this attitude: your movie can’t even be nominated for an Oscar unless it has been in theaters. I.e. a movie that’s not made for theatrical release isn’t even worth considering.
No, actually I’m not. I have a nice 2.0 system as well for listening to music. The 5.1.4 system is in my living room with my TV. The 2.0 system is in my bedroom where I can chill out on my bed while listening. I also have a nice set of headphones with a separate DAC for listening to music.
Interesting. See, I don’t want to spend a few thousand on good bookshelf or tower speakers and then spend a few thousand again on a surround system. Especially when a surround system has no real benefit over good stereo speakers (as I mention in a different comment). I would rather either save the money or spend that money on a better stereo system. But you seem to have no issues with spending large amounts of money on several different audio systems. The thing is, most people do. Most people would — if they are going to spend quite a bit of money on speakers in the first place — rather spend that money on one set of speakers. Not several. And it so happens to be that stereo speakers are generally quite a bit more flexible and quite a bit better value than surround systems. But you do you.
<satire>Headphones also work with binaural recordings, and thus will give you the best possible sound stage and 3D audio, far superior to any multichannel speaker system. It will also give you a more accurate frequency response, and be closer to “what the artist intended.” So you should probably switch to that. I can recommend the Sennheiser HD 800S for sound stage, since that is something you seem to care particularly much about.
I would recommend you get a treated room, though, if you’re taking audio seriously. Or really just a whole new building, with sound insulation in the walls; that’s the only good way to do it. Property is quite cheap nowadays, and you don’t need to get nice land anyway. Building costs aren’t too bad either. Get a farm somewhere out in the country, rebuild with proper insulation — maybe even add an anechoic chamber for good measure.
And you’ll need a Class A amp, a discrete multibit DAC for proper dynamic range, a good DDC to avoid jitter, a better streamer since your TV audio is probably crap… and have you taken measurements of your room’s reflections to ensure that spatialization and crosstalk aren’t issues? Have you checked for signal jitter for all of your system clocks? Are you using I²S for audio transmissions? Otherwise, you aren’t getting proper spatialization and experiencing the movie properly. And you’ll want silver speaker cables too, to avoid distortion and noise. Otherwise you just aren’t getting the real experience. Truly a disrespect to the artist. Why would you even bother watching a movie or listening without silver speaker cables and I²S data transmission.
</satire>In all seriousness, I frankly think that what you are saying is a little pretentious. Actually very pretentious. You are, in effect, gatekeeping movies and the enjoyment of said movies. One doesn’t need the perfect setup to still enjoy something; though, judging by your previous comments, you do, which I don’t envy. I’m an audiophile and have spent more money on headphones, amps, DDCs, DACs, room treatment, etc. than I am willing to admit.
I did not, however, grow up with money and I don’t have a particularly high-paying job right now either. I have just been willing to give up a lot in life in favor of audio quality. HiFi brings me joy. Somewhere inside of my heart, I feel similarly to you about audio for music. When someone listens to a album I particularly love on a crappy car system or airpods, or — god forbid — JBL headphones (my arch enemy), it hurts me a little on the inside. But I also understand that not everyone is willing to spend as much money on HiFi as I do (I spend more on HiFi than on cycling, which is a crazy expensive hobby). And I think that they should still be able to enjoy what they choose to listen to on whatever it is that they were able to afford (or where tricked into buying by marketing staff and sales).
I think that is analogues to what you describe with movies. I think that people should be allowed to still enjoy what they watch on whatever they were able to afford. And I frankly think it is poor-shaming and discriminatory for people like you to insist that what ordinary people are doing is invalid. I still recommend music to my friends and family, despite knowing that they are listening to it on $20 earbuds and can’t hear anything below 150 Hz.
(I am actually currently traveling and only have $20 IEMs I bought out of curiosity with me. They really, really suck. But… somehow — and I really don’t know how this is possible — I am still enjoying my music library. Inexplicable… I guess, give me the choice to never listen to music again or only listen on crappy IEMs, and I would pick the IEMs… not so sure about you.)
It would be okay to mention that whoever you are talking to might enjoy the movie more with DTS:X, and that they should see it in the cinema if they can, but I don’t think it is okay to force that onto people. All you are doing is hurting people and making them feel bad about how they watch the movies they love. Let them love those movies and please don’t try to ruin their experience. Live and let live.
Clearly, though, we are very different people. We disagree on a fundamental level. I think it best to end this conversation here.
Okay moneybags
Ideally I dont care.
If you’re playing the sound back through your TV speakers, it should compress the dynamic range by default.
Also a lot of people forget that English is the international language, and most of the non-native speaker can’t really hear the pronunciation correctly. Well, i don’t at least.
I grew up in the US so my fluency is on par with those born here, I still have to use subtitles.
most of the non-native speaker can’t really hear the pronunciation correctly.
Either that, or the audio quality is just bad.
(I’m looking at you, Christopher Nolan)
I turn on subtitles cue we can’t hear shit when they talk
It’s hard to understand poor pronunciation mixed with fast dialogue. I’m a native English speaker and I often struggle with high paced scenes. I basically always use subtitles for that reason.
As a millennial that had Gen X and boomer relatives… So do they, especially as they got older.
Lies! Boomers can’t read! ;-)
Sadly they can, that’s why they stole Facebook from us
It’s the reading comprehension that gets them.
