A Few Words About A few words about...™ 2001: a space odyssey -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[PMF]

Shirley you can't be serious ...
View attachment 52868

Is that a cassette from the Nolan collection?

 

[PMF]

Considering the OCN history of "2001", I actually think its altogether amazing that this restoration could even approach the visual and audible levels that we've been reading about. Looking forward to seeing the work.

 

[david hare]

Here's the 45m 44s screen. There is no audio distortion or breakup or print through or any other introduced artefact. The music is the first time we hear Ligeti's Atmospheres. The a capella chorus is written in a form like minor second or diminshed intervals, tighly squeezed notes, in musical terms atonal, making the sounds non tonal or non diatonic. Kubrick ends the sequence with the screaming high pitched noise from the Monolith, as we all know. There's no distortion in the sequence. Or anywhere else in the film. I also don't understand what it is when you are talking about color bleeding unless you're referring to high grain in the dupe shots, or the front projection mattes.

 

[Ahab]

Jesus, does anyone just watch the movie anymore? So I should have been paying attention for "audio tearing". BTW I didn't hear any distortion. This is getting like Steve Hoffman Forums.

I dunno. I kind of like the Hoffman forums. Pick up a lot of good info there.

 

[Ahab]

Thank you. I'll just say audio distortion next time, I didn't realize people wouldn't know or infer what the term meant.

Well I didn't know the meaning of the term, but it took me less than a minute to find out by googling. Less than the time it would have taken to post a response complaining about your use of the term.

 

[Brian Husar]

I dunno. I kind of like the Hoffman forums. Pick up a lot of good info there.

I do too, it's when I see people complain and complain and get nitpicky

 

[haineshisway]

Well I didn't know the meaning of the term, but it took me less than a minute to find out by googling. Less than the time it would have taken to post a response complaining about your use of the term.

Really? Just for fun I Googled "audio tearing." Guess how many results came up for those two words together? Zero. So I don't know what YOU Googled but in MY Google a lot of audio information came up, none including the words "audio tearing". Funny how that works huh? But thanks for making me wast my time, really. I've been in the producing CDs business for over thirty years now - dealing with all manner of tapes, including magnetic and optical tracks. No one, NO ONE in those thirty years has ever used such an expression because - it's not really an expression a professional would use.

 

[haineshisway]

Here's the 45m 44s screen. There is no audio distortion or breakup or print through or any other introduced artefact. The music is the first time we hear Ligeti's Atmospheres. The a capella chorus is written in a form like minor second or diminshed intervals, tighly squeezed notes, in musical terms atonal, making the sounds non tonal or non diatonic. Kubrick ends the sequence with the screaming high pitched noise from the Monolith, as we all know. There's no distortion in the sequence. Or anywhere else in the film. I also don't understand what it is when you are talking about color bleeding unless you're referring to high grain in the dupe shots, or the front projection mattes. View attachment 52893

And there you have it, folks, and there you have it.

 

[CarlosMeat]

Really? Just for fun I Googled "audio tearing." Guess how many results came up for those two words together? Zero. So I don't know what YOU Googled but in MY Google a lot of audio information came up, none including the words "audio tearing". Funny how that works huh? But thanks for making me wast my time, really. I've been in the producing CDs business for over thirty years now - dealing with all manner of tapes, including magnetic and optical tracks. No one, NO ONE in those thirty years has ever used such an expression because - it's not really an expression a professional would use.

Who said it was ?

 

[haineshisway]

CarlosMeat, see Ahab's post, which in case you didn't understand, is what and who I was responding to - I even quoted it in my response. You know, I unblocked you at someone's request - that someone said I'd be receiving some kind of apology. Since that hasn't been the case, I think I'll put it back the way it was - what do you think?

 

[dpippel]

Does this stuff really need to be aired in a public forum? PMs are wonderful for such occasions.

 

[haineshisway]

PMs don't work with certain people, as you might imagine. Blocking, which Robert Crawford taught me about, is the berries.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Enough.

We have definitely crossed lines violating the HTF Rulebook about posting about other members rather than staying on topic.

The issue of the quality of the audio on this release is what should be being discussed right now...not whether another member used a descriptive term correctly or incorrectly.

Move on.

10. No personal attacks. We expect all members to treat each other with consideration and respect. While we encourage lively debate, we do not allow personal attacks. This includes direct attacks, such as name-calling, as well as indirect attacks, such as repeated baiting of a member in a provocative or belittling manner. If you believe that you have been subjected to a personal attack, or have witnessed one on another member, please see the section on Dealing with Problems for instructions on how to proceed.

16. Don't get into fights. If you believe that you have been the victim of a personal attack, please follow the procedure outlined in Rule 15 "Reporting a problem," but do not respond in kind. Responding to a personal attack as if you've been "called out" only aggravates the situation, and it puts you as much in the wrong as your attacker. Let the moderators handle it. If you absolutely must say something to your attacker, do it privately in email.

 

[OliverK]

I think that a lot of the ratings discussion stems from the discrepancy in expectations of what a rating should mean. Should it reflect what Warner had to work with or should it adhere to an absolute level of audio/visual perfection.

Clearly just about every reviewer more or less takes into account how good something could possibly look and sound and so should most of us as it does not make any sense to expect more to be extracted from the available elements than is humanly possible.

With that being said I cannot say that it is reasonable to criticize Warner for intended audio effects and optical effects introduced by the techniques used in the production of 2001.

 

[CarlosMeat]

Great post and so true. This the reason why I got out of the PQ thread on another forum . No one took into account things like soft focus techniques true natural grain etc it was obvious when the top tier was only CGI animated titles.

The problem arises when it becomes difficult to distinguish which is the issue, the transfer or the appearance or quality of the original elements.

 

[Ahab]

Really? Just for fun I Googled "audio tearing." Guess how many results came up for those two words together? Zero. So I don't know what YOU Googled but in MY Google a lot of audio information came up, none including the words "audio tearing". Funny how that works huh? But thanks for making me wast my time, really. I've been in the producing CDs business for over thirty years now - dealing with all manner of tapes, including magnetic and optical tracks. No one, NO ONE in those thirty years has ever used such an expression because - it's not really an expression a professional would use.

Guess we just have different ways of using google.

The first link to "audio tearing" on my search stated:

"Fix Audio Static Crackling Popping with Realtek Sound Card. If you have a Windows 7 machine with a Realtek sound chipset or drivers, then you may have run into a problem where you randomly hear crackling or popping or static while playing audio through your speakers or even headsets."

Bunch more following with similar results. I don't expect my searches to always come up with the exact terms I input. But the search did confirm what I already suspected the poster meant by the term "audio tearing" because of the context in which it occurred.

Lot of people posting here are not audio professionals, so I don't assume or expect that all the audio terms being used here are the same professionals use. The poster did specify at what time he heard this sound tearing so it was easy enough for others to check it out as David Hare did in his excellent post.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Huh. I could have sworn that just a few posts ago I called for no more posts about other members, their posts and their terminology. I was pretty specific about this.

This line of discussion has just become meaningless back-and-forth which is adding in volume to the thread but contributing nothing in terms of worthwhile content that anyone will ever want to read about and which has nothing to do with the 4k release of 2001: ASO.

Last warning. This stops right here.

Anyone who continues to proceed down this path will find themselves banned from the thread.

 

[HDMS Carl Mulder]

Here's the 45m 44s screen. There is no audio distortion or breakup or print through or any other introduced artefact. The music is the first time we hear Ligeti's Atmospheres. The a capella chorus is written in a form like minor second or diminshed intervals, tighly squeezed notes, in musical terms atonal, making the sounds non tonal or non diatonic. Kubrick ends the sequence with the screaming high pitched noise from the Monolith, as we all know. There's no distortion in the sequence. Or anywhere else in the film. I also don't understand what it is when you are talking about color bleeding unless you're referring to high grain in the dupe shots, or the front projection mattes. View attachment 52893

Its probably 1 or 2 seconds after that point. Will be testing it on other equipment to be 100% sure, but the distortion is definitely there in that scene.

 

[Bryan^H]

Video is certainly not reference thats for sure, color bleed is a real issue on this disc in some scenes.

Is it possibly your display that is causing the bleed?

 

[OliverK]

Is it possibly your display that is causing the bleed?

There are some red fringes here and there but they were also there in the 70mm prints so we cannot hold that against the UHD release.