THX...What for? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Barefoot]

I agree...the THX CERTIFICATION doesn't mean a product will outperform another without it. I think we should make a distinction between "certification" and "processing". I have been speaking of the processing. As a matter of fact, on my Lex, I don't use the THX processing. I generally use the Logic 7 algorithm...but that offers the same or similar re-equalization and decorrelation that THX does. I just have the option to turn those on or off with Logic 7. I leave mine on. It just sounds better TO ME with MY ROOM and MY SET-UP. That may not be the case in another room and set-up, even to my tin ears.

 

[Luis C]

What multi-channel source is not heavily processed to begin with. It sounds as though you are trying to apply an Audiophile, 2 channel aspiration to multi-channel sources.

You are absolutely right. Multi-channel audio is heavily processed and thats one of its weaknesses and failings. Instead of simply taking what should be the basic steps of "positional" control of a sound, studio engineers (and companies like THX) have shoved EQ standards into the equation. Now, decorrelation is another matter. Positional steering and ambience control thru signal manipulation needs to be done. But equalization of any kind is a step in the wrong direction. As you stated, what sounds "right" to you and what doesn't should be left up to you not to some "processing" gimmick that doesn't take into account your specific requirements. Thats my real problem with the current set of "standards". Re-eq (as an example), in virtually ALL installations I have heard yet (and some are in the 100's of thousands) does nothing but make the soundfield "lifeless" and dry. Its a function of the processing that does this. On two occassions, I had the opportunity to work with the installer to "correct" this problem and in both cases we ended up with a much more satisfying sound by turning off all the "gimmicks" and working the acoustics until the soundfield was infinitely more open, clear, lifelike, 3-dimensional. Its just a matter of room corrections and positioning rather than "push button" fixes.

THX (and its bretheren) have made some great strides in the fields of signal processing but some of their "beliefs" in what we should be hearing are based on very unsure footing and their own hubris about what is right or wrong.

And as a performance standard, THX is certainly NOT a step in the right direction either.

BTW Gordon, you asked "I don't understand why that should be a problem if your technologies meets and/or exceeds the minimum requirements."
Did you know that one of the "minimum requirements" is a distortion figure that is impossibly too low to achieve without using HUGE amounts of feedback in an amplifier circuit, which is the NUMBER 1 cause of lifeless, unnatural sound reproduction in an amplifier? Any good amplifier designer tries to minimize feedback use as much as possible! Not introduce even more! And since the threshold of human hearing is approx 6%-10% distortion, what does this spec achieve? This is just one of the ridiculous specs that THX certification demands. Can you understand now why so few "audiophile" level manufacturers certify their amplifiers? It is a useless and sonically degrading demand. We as a "audio-conscious" amplifier manufacturer, would NEVER dilute our products performance level to meet THX certification standards. Our demand for achieving ultimate quality/performance would never allow this as obviously many high-end companies have also chosen.

Why are there virtually no "audiophile-level" speakers THX-certified? Because the "standards" are not condusive to building a really audiophile performance level speaker. So what does a certification standard for speakers do other than try to sway unknowing consumers into a product by marketing disinformation? Its just WAY too much to go into here... plain and simple, THX started off as a good plan to "fix" some problems associated with theater sound reproduction. What it is now is a marketing company that is using its "earned" influence to redirect misinformed consumers by brand name influence.

 

[Geoff H]

Comparing the $6000.00 Lexicon to the Sony receiver isn't exactly a fair comparison. I think it's not so much the THX certification that improved things as it is evidence to what more (much more) expensive component(s) can do.

 

[Luis C]

Comparing the $6000.00 Lexicon to the Sony receiver isn't exactly a fair comparison. I think it's not so much the THX certification that improved things as it is evidence to what more (much more) expensive component(s) can do.

Amen!

 

[Joe Barefoot]

But, but...I bought it used, so it wasn't that much money! I know what you mean though...it really isn't a fair comparison. I honestly do believe though that it's the re-equalization and decorrelation functions that have helped in my particular situation, not so much the DAC's. Now for 2 channel music....well

 

[GordonL]

Did you know that one of the "minimum requirements" is a distortion figure...

Now that's the kind of information I've been lobbying for you/anyone to post! I get more out of that than your standard "it's simply marketing BS" spiel. Provide solid technical evidence is all I ask for. And keep it coming. What took you so long?
BTW, how does that apply to your pre-pro, which was what the question originally referred to?

 

[Greg_R]

Over on AVS forum there was a thread which included posts by a THX equipment manufacturer (who is intimately familiar with the HT THX cert process). Facts from that thread:
- THX adds very little cost to the unit (quote was less cost than a meal at a fast food restaurant).
- Regardless of how much QC (quality control) the manufacturer did to the unit, THX's testing always found some bugs or areas for improvement.
- Some "well respected manufacturer" submitted their equipment for evaluation and failed miserably. They then released their product w/o certification (and the current bugs). For any volume release of a product, THX cert costs virtually nothing. The question then becomes why do these companies avoid the cert process (something to hide?)?
I'm not claiming that all non-THX cert'd products are junk. However, I sleep a little better knowing that my complex HT components (processor, DVD player) are QC'd by two groups.

 

[Ron-P]

Someone explain this...

http://www.bwspeakers.com/about/news...signmode=false
Why is it that Lucas doesn't even use THX certified speakers? Unless I am mistaken, I thought B&W speakers are not THX certified.
Peace Out~

 

[Geno]

it says that its a 5.1 recording room
does that mean that everything above that is all done by a chip?

too bad those guys probably sign non disclosure agreements!

 

[Justin Lane]

Why is it that Lucas doesn't even use THX certified speakers? Unless I am mistaken, I thought B&W speakers are not THX certified.

Hmm, maybe because that is a studio environment and not the home environment where THX is geared towards. Of course, I do not know the exact models used so I can make as good a guess as you can.

Am I the only one that thinks this thread is a broken record?

J

 

[GordonL]

From avsforum, a question posted by our good buddy, RichardMA, to Jeff Talmadge, Product Manager at Denon USA

It's at the tail end of this very long thread
Food for thought...
Greg_r,
Thanks for finding that thread about the THX certification. That was the one I was referring to that had some good info. I think there were other threads where Buzz Goddard (formerly of Lexicon) also contributed to but its getting difficult to wade thru the mounds of threads.

 

[Stephen Houdek]

Interesting, if THX requires "over-engineering" and increases cost then perhaps it is worth something.

Gordon, thanks for the informative post "finally". You were really hard on Mr. Joey and I see you appologized in the thread. You really should try to be more positve in your posts and not just try to pick his question (and it was a question) apart.

 

[Arthur S]

Ron-P
I suspect that Geno got it right. We are living in a 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 world these days. There is also a residual perception (real or imagined) that THX speakers are not the best for music. So in setting up their new 5.1 studio, Lucas went with speakers that are very highly regarded for music and can also serve quite well for cinema. I think this serves to broaden the market for speaker buyers who also have an interest in THX post-processing. Not many can afford separate HT rooms and music rooms.
I would venture to guess that most owners of electronics with THX post-processing do not own THX speakers. Posssibly with the exception of having dipole surrounds.
B&W was one of the first companies to make a full THX package. Not surprisingly, it was very expensive with huge subs and huge surrounds. I was able to attend a B&W demo and the sound was fabulous for cinema. I've heard less expensive THX speaker systems, and was also quite impressed, again for cinema.
At this point in time, there are not many heavy duty THX speaker packages around, although the Triad Platinum combo would likely run well over $10,000, and the M&K 5000 combo runs about $13,000.
I think the bottom line is Lucas wanted speakers with impeccable credentials for the new 5.1 studio, and it is hard to argue about the 802s.
So while Lucas didn't go for THX speakers, the usefulness and low cost of THX post-processing and certification have made it widely incorporated in pieces ranging from the $600 Kenwood VR-6070 to the high end Lexicon MC-12.
The owner can choose to use it or not.
Better to have more choices than less.
Artie

 

[DanielSmi]

While normal THX ULTRA speakers aren't designed for music, the new ULTRA2 is designed for music and movies. Whether the new spec sacrifices quality in movie reproduction as to not deprive music reproduction remains to be seen this may have been reported on but I don't know. The only ULTRA2 speakers I know of are the Snell setup which very very expensive, now that doesn't mean speakers have to be real expensive to qualify if just that they are.

I guy I know has a full M&K setup I haven't heard him blast any music I can't tell you the musicalty of them but they're pretty good for HT even though he doesn't have them set up right. But since he's a music producer and has been the business since before I was born (20 years ago), I'm not gonna tell him.

Daniel Smith

 

[Holadem]

Is it possible that virtually no high end speakers are THX certified because:

- THX image (high tech, performance) clashes with that of high end speakers (refined, classy etc...) - who want that logo on their nice speaker/furniture ?

- Those speakers are easily above THX specs but they do not seek THX cert because they cater to a crowd that existed long before HT and THX appeared (audiophile), a crowd who don't give a shite about THX cert.

The reason I am saying that though the B&W used by Lucas are not THX certified, I would not be surprised if those speakers actually met THX specs, which is why they chose them in the first place. It just doesn't make sense that they would use speakers who don't meet their own specs, if only because word would get around and that can't be good for business. You don't see the president of Ford driving a Toyota.

So, the fact that Lucas uses non THX certified speakers only means one thing: A speaker does not have to be THX certified to be good - it says nothing about the point or value of THX cert.

--
Holadem

 

[RichardMA]

There are three things to remember about THX:
-Some things they do (THX-Ultra 2's decorrelation of
the 6th channel to produce the 6th and 7th channel
has an effect, for example) actually effect the equipment
it's used on. Better or worse is a matter of opinion.
-THX does not disclose many of it's "specs" leaving people
to wonder exactly what they are certifying? Maybe nothing
tangible? It's kind of stupid, boasting a THX logo
and then refusing to tell people what this achieves.
-THX is good at marketing and anything a mfg. can add that
will allow them to up-price their units and sell them,
they will adopt, especially if it adds little cost to their
unit's production.
If they can tack on that THX badge for $25 cost, and charge
$400 more for the product, you can bet they will do it.

What the Lacoste crocodile did in the 1980s for clothes,
THX has done in the 1990s and 2000s for audio equipment.
Image, Image, Image.

 

[Arthur S]

Holadem

>>> Those speakers are easily above THX specs but they do not seek THX cert because they cater to a crowd that existed long before HT and THX appeared (audiophile), a crowd who don't give a shite about THX cert.

 

[JoeyT]

Just wanted to thank everyone for being civil. Good information and discussions so far.
Gordon, no problem at all.

 

[Rich H]

Luis wrote:

"In my ideal world, the studio sound engineers would STOP playing with the acoustics of the sounds and start using realism as the standard, not some pre-defined "vision" of their own."

You sound like a purist audiophile Luis (and believe me, I know that breed, being an audiophool myself).

But, fellow sound-lover, I hope you'll forgive me if I point out the naivete of your "ideal" approach to movie sound.

"Stop playing with the acoustics of the sounds...?"
Given the nature of film sound editing and mixing, I'm not sure what this could possibly mean. Few of the sounds in film are "natural" to begin with..you are aware of this aren't you? I'm a sound effects editor, and I can assure you that many of the sounds we hand the mixer are heavily manipulated and contrived. Often what sounds like a single sound is actually many different sounds combined (some "low-fi" sounds may be mixed within the "hi-fi" sounds too...whatever it takes to get the effect across).

On-set, "sync" or "production" dialogue is hardly an audiophile's dream. The mic was placed wherever the heck the boom guy could hide it without getting into the frame. (It's an unfortunate truth that the on-set recordist and boom man are often second-class citizens compared to the picture guys; they don't get the same time and accommodation for their set-up, and often have to wrench "acceptable" sound out of very difficult acoustic scenarios).

So, the acoustics of the original production sound are rarely ideal, and often all over the map quality-wise (it's often thin and unnatural sounding, for instance).

Off the top of my head, there are only three areas of movie sound that are typically recorded with any hope of a natural sound balance, due to their being recorded in an acoustically controlled environment: The FILM SCORE, ADR ("looping" the dialogue after the fact), and FOLEY(the "footstep" guys who record many of the human movement sounds in real-time, to picture).

But, of course, these sounds are just a few of the huge number of tracks that must be mixed together. Purist ideals for the sonic fidelity of the dialogue take
a back seat to the dramatic demands of movie making.
When ADR (looped dialogue) is being mixed with production dialogue, it is most important that the ADR/production sound fit together seamlessly, which of course entails matching the sonic signature of two disparate sounds. Hello manipulation and, whoops, the mixer has fiddled with one of those nasty dials again.

Remember too that film sound mixers can be dealing with hundreds of separate Sound FX/Dialogue/ADR/Music/Foley tracks for a major film, all of these tracks being recorded with every kind of microphone under the sun (with their varying "unnatural" sonic signatures).
The mixer MUST manipulate the level, frequency response and acoustic characteristics of these sounds. It's incumbent upon him/her to take this huge sonic mess and mold it into something that makes sonic and, more important, DRAMATIC sense.

And that takes a lot of fader sliding, eq twiddling and sound processing boxes to do this. No way around it.

I understand you want your movie soundtracks to sound natural (and, most often, so do I). In fact, despite all I've written, it can be pretty amazing how natural the final mix can sound in a good mixing theater. But remember: movie sound is about ILLUSION, not FIDELITY (in the purist sense). I think the path you are imagining to your ideal movie sound, in which sonic manipulation is excised, is an impossible one.

Rich H.

 

[Luis C]

Although I agree with you on the basis of your comments Rich, you kinda missed the point I was making.

Signal "processing" (I am referring to eqing and all the "dsp" effects and controls, not signal steering) has become the norm in modern movie sound editing. I will give you a perfect example... in the current DVD of "Terminator", the original mono mix is FAR better than the 5.1 remix provided, primarily because the remix engineer decided to "enhance" the sounds by re-eqing them. It is easily perceptable in many of the louder passages, where the equalization used causes all sorts of phase anomalies. Any high-end HT system will pick this up and it makes the 5.1 soundtrack almost unlistenable. Maybe the idea was to mix it so it would sound better on "lesser" systems but it fails miserably on more transparent systems.

That is what I am referring to. I am fully aware of the "illusion" that the studios are providing us. I just resent the implication that all of us have poorly balanced, non-imaging audio systems supporting the video. That is certainly not the case with me or any of my colleagues. And THX is one of the primary culprits.