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.
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.)
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.
By that measure, most movie theaters also shouldn’t be showing movies – very few of them have the precise setup a given movie was mastered for. If the movie was made with IMAX laser projection in mind, it should only be down in theaters with such projectors even if this excludes 95% of theaters. Likewise for rumble seats. Or theaters with Atmos sound systems if the movie was made with DTS-X in mind.
Of course this leads to the conclusion that it’s financially unwise to release movies at all because any movie will only ever be able to be shown in very few theaters and will not recoup its production costs.
Or, you know, you release it for multiple projection and sound setups and accept that there is a close enough level of fidelity for a given use case. Which leads us back to actually properly mixing it for the home release because the people who have IMAX laser 3D projectors and 12,000 W sound systems are not going to be using Blu-Ray in the first place.
By that measure, most movie theaters also shouldn’t be showing movies – very few of them have the precise setup a given movie was mastered for.
That’s what calibration is for. You master using a reference display and whatever you use in the theater should be calibrated to the same specs.
Or theaters with Atmos sound systems if the movie was made with DTS-X in mind.
Why would that be a problem? DTS:X is more flexible with speaker layout than Atmos. If you have a theater with a speaker layout for Atmos it should be no issue to use them with a DTS:X processor.
Or, you know, you release it for multiple projection and sound setups and accept that there is a close enough level of fidelity for a given use case. Which leads us back to actually properly mixing it for the home release
How do you go from “Atmos and DTS:X in a theater are close enough to give a similar experience” to “we should mix it for a bunch of crappy 2.0 TV speakers” ?
If you mix it for such an inferior setup, nothing is left of the original movie. Sounds i a huge part of the movie experience. Try watching a scary movie with the sound muted, it’s not scary at all. If you mix it for a TV’s built in speakers, nothing of value is left. What is even the point of watching a movie like that?
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 sorta agree with you, except that I’ve worked in audio before, and you can in fact mix for HiFi and normal people at the same time. That is actually what like 90% of mixing/mastering is. Making it sound good everywhere.
I also hard disagree on not being able to get a good experience with 2.0. Spend a couple thousand (obviously not everyone needs to do this) on 2.0 tower speakers, maybe add a sub (technically now 2.1), and you will almost certainly get a better experience than 99% of pre-build everything-in-the-box surround sound systems.
You can, of course, build you own surround sound system for more than a few thousand, but that is a radically different price range, which I don’t think is really relevant to this conversation (I certainly don’t have that kind of money to spend on a speaker that I’m only using when watching movies). I think it is borderline poor-shaming (or really just not-rich-shaming) to say that movies can only have audible dialogue at $10,000 surround sound systems. Before that, 2.0 or 2.1 will almost always be a better investment.
You can, of course, build you own surround sound system for more than a few thousand, but that is a radically different price range, which I don’t think is really relevant to this conversation
It doesn’t have to be expensive at all. You can get a 5.1 setup with a decent amp, floor-standing fronts, bookshelf surrounds, a center and a subwoofer for as little as €3000, and that will blow any sound bar in the same price range out of the water. Add a nice 77” OLED, pick last year’s model for a good deal and you can have a home theater setup that will be good enough for 99,9% of people for less than €5k.
(I certainly don’t have that kind of money to spend on a speaker that I’m only using when watching movies).
Why do you think I would use it only for movies? I have never even heard the speakers in my TV because disabling them was the first thing I did after unboxing. I use my 5.1.4 set all the time. Why wouldn’t you?
I think it is borderline poor-shaming (or really just not-rich-shaming) to say that movies can only have audible dialogue at $10,000 surround sound systems. Before that, 2.0 or 2.1 will almost always be a better investment.
No one says you need to spend that amount of money, it can be much, much cheaper. €3k can get you a pretty nice set, but you can build a passable one for half that.
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
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.
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.
That is a non-answer. You argued that it is “simply pointless” to watch a movie in the same setting I did.
I disagree. I very much enjoyed the experience, ergo it was not pointless: it brought me pleasure.
I was just pointing out that it is indeed possible for people (maybe not you, but other people) to enjoy movies without the luxuries that you afford yourself. You asked a question (“why even bother watching a movie like that”) and I answered.
I also ask that you take into consideration that not everyone can afford to watch a movie with the luxuries you describe. That is ok too. Please don’t gatekeep watching movies is all I ask.
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?
Nah, most things in life don’t have to be either flawless or complete garbage with no in between. There’s plenty of movies and shows I watch for the writing or acting, and the sound is not going to make or break the experience. Being 100% unable to enjoy anything if it’s not absolutely perfect seems like a pretty bleak way to go through life, I try to find enjoyment where I can.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hisense-5-1-2-ch-ax-series-dolby-atmos-soundbar-with-wireless-rear-satellite-speakers-wireless-subwoofer-black/6541474.p
https://www.rtings.com/soundbar/reviews/hisense/ax5125h
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.
Not just audio hardware, also a big screen, darkened room, etc.
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.
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.
By that measure, most movie theaters also shouldn’t be showing movies – very few of them have the precise setup a given movie was mastered for. If the movie was made with IMAX laser projection in mind, it should only be down in theaters with such projectors even if this excludes 95% of theaters. Likewise for rumble seats. Or theaters with Atmos sound systems if the movie was made with DTS-X in mind.
Of course this leads to the conclusion that it’s financially unwise to release movies at all because any movie will only ever be able to be shown in very few theaters and will not recoup its production costs.
Or, you know, you release it for multiple projection and sound setups and accept that there is a close enough level of fidelity for a given use case. Which leads us back to actually properly mixing it for the home release because the people who have IMAX laser 3D projectors and 12,000 W sound systems are not going to be using Blu-Ray in the first place.
That’s what calibration is for. You master using a reference display and whatever you use in the theater should be calibrated to the same specs.
Why would that be a problem? DTS:X is more flexible with speaker layout than Atmos. If you have a theater with a speaker layout for Atmos it should be no issue to use them with a DTS:X processor.
How do you go from “Atmos and DTS:X in a theater are close enough to give a similar experience” to “we should mix it for a bunch of crappy 2.0 TV speakers” ?
If you mix it for such an inferior setup, nothing is left of the original movie. Sounds i a huge part of the movie experience. Try watching a scary movie with the sound muted, it’s not scary at all. If you mix it for a TV’s built in speakers, nothing of value is left. What is even the point of watching a movie like that?
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.
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 sorta agree with you, except that I’ve worked in audio before, and you can in fact mix for HiFi and normal people at the same time. That is actually what like 90% of mixing/mastering is. Making it sound good everywhere.
I also hard disagree on not being able to get a good experience with 2.0. Spend a couple thousand (obviously not everyone needs to do this) on 2.0 tower speakers, maybe add a sub (technically now 2.1), and you will almost certainly get a better experience than 99% of pre-build everything-in-the-box surround sound systems.
You can, of course, build you own surround sound system for more than a few thousand, but that is a radically different price range, which I don’t think is really relevant to this conversation (I certainly don’t have that kind of money to spend on a speaker that I’m only using when watching movies). I think it is borderline poor-shaming (or really just not-rich-shaming) to say that movies can only have audible dialogue at $10,000 surround sound systems. Before that, 2.0 or 2.1 will almost always be a better investment.
It doesn’t have to be expensive at all. You can get a 5.1 setup with a decent amp, floor-standing fronts, bookshelf surrounds, a center and a subwoofer for as little as €3000, and that will blow any sound bar in the same price range out of the water. Add a nice 77” OLED, pick last year’s model for a good deal and you can have a home theater setup that will be good enough for 99,9% of people for less than €5k.
Why do you think I would use it only for movies? I have never even heard the speakers in my TV because disabling them was the first thing I did after unboxing. I use my 5.1.4 set all the time. Why wouldn’t you?
No one says you need to spend that amount of money, it can be much, much cheaper. €3k can get you a pretty nice set, but you can build a passable one for half that.
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.
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.
Who else out here still watching on DVD?
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?
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.
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.
A chain is a strong as its weakest link. You want to tick all boxes, not just half of them.
That is a non-answer. You argued that it is “simply pointless” to watch a movie in the same setting I did.
I disagree. I very much enjoyed the experience, ergo it was not pointless: it brought me pleasure.
I was just pointing out that it is indeed possible for people (maybe not you, but other people) to enjoy movies without the luxuries that you afford yourself. You asked a question (“why even bother watching a movie like that”) and I answered.
I also ask that you take into consideration that not everyone can afford to watch a movie with the luxuries you describe. That is ok too. Please don’t gatekeep watching movies is all I ask.
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?
Nah, most things in life don’t have to be either flawless or complete garbage with no in between. There’s plenty of movies and shows I watch for the writing or acting, and the sound is not going to make or break the experience. Being 100% unable to enjoy anything if it’s not absolutely perfect seems like a pretty bleak way to go through life, I try to find enjoyment where I can.
No, not at all. I just want to watch a movie in bed on my tablet before bed.
But it sure sounds like it bothers you a lot.
This is what I can’t stand about you humans. This tendency to be okay with mediocrity.
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.
Don’t me started on that one… it’s a fscking disgrace.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.