I have two words for you...Bass Management UPDATED! (1 Viewer)

[paul o'donnell]

Well...this is one long thread! Read it ALL today!
You guys over there have been discussing for ages and my copies of the DTS discs arrived today (God Bless the UK

)
I must say that I found the DTS DVD of JP a little bit lacking in the LFE (Kewl sentence). I never had the LDs and am the first to admit that my system is not great, hold that, not even good...I don't have the option to set speakers to small, The thing manages volume controls
If I crank the sub up a bit it is good..
Overall I am fine with the discs, its JP ffs. I will probly pick up a DD copy to ease my curiousity tho. Maybe it's just a big marketing ploy from Universal

ps: Vince, you rule...thanks for all the great info in this thread. If I ever get enuff money to buy a decent sound setup, this will all come in handy
------------------
Thanks,
Paul O'Donnell [email protected]
======================
Wanna have your say on DVD
Link Removed Updated Daily!!

 

[Rob L]

The purpose of that comparison was to show exactly what it did, that when compared to modern movies that the bass is nowhere near the level of much newer DVD's and because of that does not warrant a rating of "good" or "great" in regards to low frequencies as many in this thread were suggesting.

Why not? That makes no sense. The movie is 7 years old. Obviously its low end won't have the same punch as today's movies but does that mean it can't be considered great? No. Your comaprison you did was silly. Plain and simple.
This whole debate is pathetic. Why is it that some HT "enthusiasts" just can't enjoy their damn movies without bitching? I wish to God I had the extra feee time that some are able to spend on comparing something so pointless like this. And yes, this DTS LFE (and DD to a lesser extent) debate is pointless. People like it and some don't. Why try and prove that what you feel is correct? God. I often wonder if I am the only person on this forum who actually took up this hobby to enjoy himself with by um, watching MOVIES.
Oh and I'd just like to say Vince has been a very informative guy.

 

[James Q Jenkins]

Vince, thanks for the continuing great information. I think you forgot one thing though when you made the following list:

be compared to another disc containing the same mix. Luckily this could be done two ways: comparing it to another DTS DVD from a different batch (which, to my knowledge no one has done); or comparing it to the DD version, which was SUPPOSEDLY taken from the same mix.

I belive it is generally accepted that the JP DD and DTS LaserDiscs sound identical. The way I've read it people are comparing JP to all LD versions, including the DD and DPL versions (The DPL version has amazing bass just as the DTS and DD versions do on LD). All the LaserDisc versions have significantly more bass than either DVD from what I've read in the complaints here (I don't have the DVD to compare, only the DD/DPL version on LD - I A/Bed the DD and DPL tracks last night and they both ROCKED! The DPL version is absolutely amazing for that format.). I believe that comparison to previous Home Theater releases of the same movie are valid. Sure the mix may not be the same (it should be), but some of us couldn't give a damn about comparing codecs, we just want the best (or most accurate to the original theatrical experience) sounding version we can get. So which is closer to the original theatrical soundtrack? The LDs (all versions) or the DVD (all versions)? The fact that the DVDs (all versions) have so much less bass than the LDs (all versions) is a big disapointment to those of us who consider the Jurassic Park LD a "reference" disc and had high expectations for the DVD release.
Just wanted to clarify that. Vince, thanks again for taking the time to address these issues. You level of knowledge is truly impressive and I really appreciate your continuing to help out! You are a great asset to this forum.
------------------
-JQJ

 

[paul o'donnell]

My above post was based on the quick spin i gave the discs b4 i went to college today...after just givin JP another whirl, I am more than happy, the bass souned way more hefty than this morning (maybe I was just tired )
ps: what's the deal with JP being in an alpha case and Lost World Being in an Amray!?
------------------
Thanks,
Paul O'Donnell [email protected]
======================
Wanna have your say on DVD
Link Removed Updated Daily!!

 

[Mike Witt]

James Q Jenkins - my thoughts exactly.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I have a gut feeling that the DTS and DD laserdiscs are truer to the theatrical mix than the DVD's.
LD's were made for the purists and DVD is more mass market oriented nowadays. Universal probably made it J6P friendier. I wished they had left well enough alone.
As for The Haunting in DTS-ES 6.1, this was supposidly remixed/remastered to duplicate original theatrical levels set by Gary Rydstrom instead of a toned down home theater mix, but with an ear towards audiophile home theater fidelity (since they didn't use theatrical PA speakers during the remix sessions). The kind of loving care given to The Haunting's new discrete 6.1 soundtrack should be used on ALL movies.
The DTS LD of Jurassic Park had TREMENDOUS range in both the bass (low, tight, and musical like The Haunting DTS DVD) and the dynamics (when the T-REX roared-- look out!!).
Dan

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Sure the mix may not be the same (it should be), but some of us couldn't give a damn about comparing codecs, we just want the best (or most accurate to the original theatrical experience) sounding version we can get. So which is closer to the original theatrical soundtrack? The LDs (all versions) or the DVD (all versions)? The fact that the DVDs (all versions) have so much less bass than the LDs (all versions) is a big disapointment to those of us who consider the Jurassic Park LD a "reference" disc and had high expectations for the DVD release.

James,
I am in agreement! If I'm not making a specific arguement about codec qualities: I do give a ton of credit to simply "what sounds best". I don't care if it is a better mix, a better codec or because the smeared it with magic fairy dust, if there is a "better" sounding version, for whatever reason, I'll probably spin that version in my HT!
Now, that being said of course, the reason I disregarded comparing to other formats (mixes) in this specific case is we were attempting to deduce if there was possibly an error in the production phase on the DVD.
Just because the DVD mix has less bass than the LD version just points to a different (some would say WORSE) mix. Although some might not like it, it would be tough to argue a defect. However, if the same mix yields varying bass levels on 2 different formats, then questions arise...
With determining "error" as the goal, I felt it was necessary to lay some ground rules that made for a valid attempt to discover a potential problem. Just because the levels are different from the LD counterpart does not necessarily point to an error, however if we could isolate the difference between mixes we can help discover if there is an error in another phase. We can take out the "mix" variable by comparing to the other DVD from the same master.
When trying to determine a mastering error, comparing to the LD version simply doesn't help us in this case.
Now, again, this certainly isn't an arguement for something subjective like "good" or "best". I wouldn't personally bother debating this (we all will select our chosen format in our own HT): however we were specifically looking for an error or possibility of error, not who was best

------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
Want to join our Ohio Hometheater Club? Click Here .
I'm giving away my CDs! Click Here .

 

[Jim A. Banville]

>>>Why not? That makes no sense. The movie is 7 years old. Obviously its low end won't have the same punch as today's movies but does that mean it can't be considered great? No. Your comaprison you did was silly. Plain and simple.
This whole debate is pathetic. Why is it that some HT "enthusiasts" just can't enjoy their damn movies without bitching? I wish to God I had the extra feee time that some are able to spend on comparing something so pointless like this. And yes, this DTS LFE (and DD to a lesser extent) debate is pointless. People like it and some don't. Why try and prove that what you feel is correct? God. I often wonder if I am the only person on this forum who actually took up this hobby to enjoy himself with by um, watching MOVIES.

 

[Keith Alan Shepard]

Now, again, this certainly isn't an arguement for something subjective like "good" or "best". I wouldn't personally bother debating this (we all will select our chosen format in our own HT): however we were specifically looking for an error or possibility of error, not who was best

Yes, I completely agree. That was the point I was trying to make before I inserted my foot in my mouth.

--
Keith Alan Shepard

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Quote:

But, of course, it is possible that certain levels were required within theatrical environment to express a particular intent that simply weren't needed for the home environment. When these levels were ported over directly from theatrical, the intent was lost and now the levels have become excessive? Then when they were properly reworked to present the intent in the home, and we've compared this to the "excessive" version, we're disappointed.
I'm not saying I know for sure, however I have to accept the possibility that Gary Rydstrom, Gary Summers, and Shawn Murphy would have walked into your place when spinning the DTS LD of Jurassic Park and said "No, no, no: this is all wrong. These bass levels are simply overbearing and the surrounds are way too forceful. This wasn't our intent at all."
More is not always better, nor is it always right. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Regardless, I simply must say- from personal experience, that they simply DO NOT go into a remix situation attempting to dumb down the mix; rather the intent is always to put forth the same "theatrical intent" in a completely different environment.
Of course, this has not really been the point of my previous posts, for anyone keeping score. I refuse to make any declaritive statements about "better" or even "closer to theatrical version", I was previously simply attempting to help determine a possible error in production with valid comparisons.
Hopefully these added, somewhat off topic, posts don't confuse the various issues being discussed with this thread.
Thanks for reading!
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
Want to join our Ohio Hometheater Club? Click Here .
I'm giving away my CDs! Click Here .

 

[Timmy]

1) Is the DVD version of Jurrassic park defective if the bass is in the main channels?

That is why I used the phrase "out-of-the-norm" instead of defective. Although it is not a "defect" to place important 20hz signals on the main channels only; it certainly is out-of-the-norm (IMO) to do so with a disk that is clearly labeled as having a .1 LFE track.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

>>>That is why I used the phrase "out-of-the-norm" instead of defective. Although it is not a "defect" to place important 20hz signals on the main channels only; it certainly is out-of-the-norm (IMO) to do so with a disk that is clearly labeled as having a .1 LFE track.

 

[Timmy]

LFE is an EXTRA channel for adding additional bass effects. It isn't THE bass channel for the whole soundtrack. the other 5 channels are full range and should therefore contain the full range of the soundtrack.

Agreed, but the LFE with its dedicated self-amplified sub can easily out "spl level" the mains at these hard to reproduce frequencies. If the most important low end effects are sent away from the sub, then why not master a 5.0 disk......... and not pretend it is a real 5.1?
Again, not "defective"; but certainly a "stupid" way to master a 5.1 disk.
Btw, its more than just frequency response, the desired "level" needs to be taken into account as well. for the one percentile of you that have bi-amped mains (giving the woofers in these mains their own hi-wattage amps), then this disk poses no problems.

 

[James Q Jenkins]

Well, Dan, I would agree. In fact, I would assume the DTS LD is probably IDENTICAL to the theatrical mix, ported directly from the theatrical DTS encoding to the LD.
However, we have to also ask ourselves about THEATRICAL INTENT. Just because the mix has been ported over directly from the theatrical version doesn't mean it will put across the same intent in the HT environment.
I'm not trying to make an arguement either way because I personally cannot support it with fact, however I don't understand the constant idea that "Version A has more bass and louder surrounds so any other version is a compromise". I simply don't agree.

Important point.
Why were the surrounds jacked on early DTS Laserdisc? Because they ported the theater mix directly from the DTS masters. The theater mix always has the surrounds jacked up 3dB (for obvious reasons if you've ever been in a theater) compared with the "reference" soundtrack made in the studio. Not sure how common this was with Dolby Digital LaserDiscs but I'd be surprised if a lot of DD LDs didn't sneak through with this same treatment. So do we want the exact theatrical mix at home or do we want one crafted especially for the home theater environment? Both have their advantages and either is fine with me.
------------------
-JQJ

 

[TerryC]

Rob L,
The ONLY reason I bought that DD version was I heard it had great bass. If someone had suggested it has great bass for a 7 year old movie I would have skipped it. Where do we draw the line with these statements such as blows away and other non-specific terms. As mentioned is we say JP has "great" bass just how would one describe a movie such as Haunting, SPR, Daylight in regards to their low end output.
Hope you get my point?
Terry
PS-Why not just watch a movie on a 20" black and white with stock TV speakers if the whole point is just watching the movie? IMHO its the whole experience.

 

[Julian Data]

PS-Why not just watch a movie on a 20" black and white with stock TV speakers if the whole point is just watching the movie? IMHO its the whole experience.

I highly agree!
------------------

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Why were the surrounds jacked on early DTS Laserdisc? Because they ported the theater mix directly from the DTS masters. The theater mix always has the surrounds jacked up 3dB (for obvious reasons if you've ever been in a theater) compared with the "reference" soundtrack made in the studio. Not sure how common this was with Dolby Digital LaserDiscs but I'd be surprised if a lot of DD LDs didn't sneak through with this same treatment. So do we want the exact theatrical mix at home or do we want one crafted especially for the home theater environment? Both have their advantages and either is fine with me.

The reason the surround channels on early DTS laserdiscs were jacked up 3 dB isn't so obvious.
The standard reference level for stereo surround channels in the theater is -3 dB compared to the front channels. This means that in order to reach a certain loudness in a surround channel, the sound has to be recorded +3 dB higher than if the same sound was to be recorded in a front channel.
I could be wrong, but I think the reason for this is so that soundtracks with stereo surround channels would be compatible with theaters that were wired for only mono surround, and the reference level for a mono surround channel is the same as the front channels. Mono surround theaters could just mix the stereo surround channels together. In logarithmic math, -3 dB times two equals 0 dB, so the two surround channels combined would be at reference level. And I think the setup also worked for the vice versa, playing mono surround soundtracks in theaters wired for split surround: Play the mono surround track in each of the left and right surround channels at -3 dB, and together they produce the intended 0 dB level.
But in the home theater all 5 channels have the same reference level. The person who is mastering the soundtrack for home video has to make a 3 dB compensation.
DTS was so adamant about encoding the theatrical soundtrack exactly as it was provided to them by the studios with no alterations whatsoever, that they didn't realize that the soundtrack did in fact need to be altered. By not altering the soundtrack they got it wrong.

 

[Timmy]

By not altering the soundtrack they got it wrong.

The most sense anyone has made yet
------------------

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Quote:

And this is a remarkably wonderful way to express my whole 300 word rant above in favor of remixing. Simply carrying over the "theatrical" mix without changes sounds good in theory, but it simply doesn't tell the whole story!
Happy listening

Vince
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
Want to join our Ohio Hometheater Club? Click Here .
I'm giving away my CDs! Click Here .

 

[Martin Schmencke]

"This control was taken out of my hands and placed into the hands of a mix engineer! ".
Ok, Mr Maskeeper, just ake a deep breath, and lie back. Now, tell me, how do you feel about that ?
Dr. Sigmund Schmencke.