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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay moneybags
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.
Ideally I dont care.
If you’re playing the sound back through your TV speakers, it should compress the dynamic range by default.
Nah, most of it is mixed like shit