Sound and Bar

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by starmike

Dude, I wouldn't champion that sh*tty Atmos mix. It's awful.

Whether you personally like it or not, it is definitely the flagship mix.

Originally Posted by Dr. T

Oh, so I guess they don't need a 2.0 for compatibility. So much for that theory.

Always has been, as has 5.1. That doesn't mean a dynamically downmixed soundtrack sounds as good as a professionally downmixed soundtrack across cheap soundbars, headphones, TV speakers, etc.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Whether you personally like it or not, it is definitely the flagship mix.

It's not. "Flagship" meaning it stands out as an achievement in sound design from WB's library.

It's garbage.

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by Ruined

If it were actually a priority and not just an afterthought that wouldn't fly, though. Plus, they reauthored the disc so they could easily re-encode the 5.1 in TrueHD or DTS-MA like many of Warner's releases have. So that really makes no sense.

Hey! We finally agree on something! It really makes no sense.

This would be the "I know better than the professionals" argument / $31 billion dollar company farms out their media authoring to some guy down the block. Neither one particularly logical or convincing.

It amazes me that someone wants to throw out "professionals" currently given how things are going with studios like WB and Paramount.

Waitasec... I don't know why it took this long to dawn on me who we have to blame for this "Superman: The Movie" mess. It was right in front of us the whole time. Are you this "professional"? Rian Johnson couldn't have written this twist better (really, he couldn't).

"Who could possibly have ruined this release? 'Ruined' this release.... "

"My. God. No."

The Atmos track is the flagship audio, Warner has made that abundantly clear. And that perhaps should be underscored. Anything other than the Atmos audio for this release is consdered a thrown-in extra/afterthought. Last time it was 5.1, this time it was 2.0. 2.0 just happens to have the benefit that it has better compatibility than 5.1.

So, to you, "flagship" = "default"? Because it amazes me that last time the 5.1 was the "flagship" audio when the exact same Atmos track was on the disc.

So, the "afterthoughts" last time were the Atmos track and the 2.0 track?

What about the Warner releases that don't have an Atmos track? They have no "flagship audio"?

Where is this soundbar that can't handle DD5.1?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BrandonJF

So, to you, "flagship" = "default"? Because it amazes me that last time the 5.1 was the "flagship" audio when the exact same Atmos track was on the disc.

The flagship audio is the one primarily marketed by the studio that is given the most attention, care, etc. The Atmos was not the default last time for backwards compatibility purposes (again showing WB cares about BC even though Atmos is technically BC). But, nearly all the marketing by WB about the release focused on the Atmos mix. Also, if the DD5.1 track was the flagship track, it would not be encoded in lossy codec.

What about the Warner releases that don't have an Atmos track? They have no "flagship audio"?

Then the flagship tracks have the 5.1/7.1 encoded lossless. I think you will be hard pressed to find Warner releases that use a lossy encode as the main audio on 4K.

Where is this soundbar that can't handle DD5.1?

I guess we'll have to do this the hard way. Why dont you explain to me exactly how a Blu-ray player downmixes each of the 5.1 track channels to 2.0. Perhaps once you do the research to understand this, that will inform you how the data in the audio channels is handled in a dynamic downmix and you will understand why a professional 2.0 downmix is superior to a player downmixing 5.1 to 2.0.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm not sure they've ever quite known their arse from their elbow when it comes to audio. Putting a full-fat DTS-HD MA 5.1 track alongside the native Atmos on, say, their UHD of Blade Runner 2049 while neglecting to include the previous 5.1 for the original Blade Runner felt like some kind of bizarre joke. If the gear downstream can't play any part of the lossless audio then it'll drop back to the embedded DD 5.1 track which even the shittiest old soundbar can play, over optical (SP-DIF) if need be, that's what makes it even dafter. But sometimes through such daftness gems can be uncovered like the Supes 70mm mix.

I think I explained this before every extra soundtrack costs money if only for QC purposes. Usually studios also will re-encode audio to ensure sound sync when jumping from Blu-ray to 4K, so it's not like they are just going to copy the dd2.0 encode from the BD.

In terms of making money Atmos and dtsx are the sound options that sell releases. Think of them as the equivalent of Dolby vision for HDR marketing. Original audio they will add if they think it will make them more money, but its very obvious it's considered an extra as opposed to the main audio.

Geoff, let's say a soundbar/HTIB is 2.1 so the 5.1 needs to be dynamically downmixed. Where do the 5.1 channels go for that 2.0 downmix that will be played on a 2.1?

[Geoff D]

The player can crunch it down to 2.0 and the soundbar derives the bass for the sub by filtering it from the 2.0. Or the soundbar takes the 5.1 at face value and downmixes the main channels whilst keeping the sub channel intact, which would actually be betterer than a 2.0 downmix.

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that because something is 2.0 or 2.1 that it has no underlying compatibility with 5.1 at all, and that is patently not the case. Christ, my TV can accept 192KHz 5.1 PCM over HDMI. This obsession with soundbars is absolutely hilarious BTW, there ain't no thread like a Ruined thread

[Yearbook]

My soundbar will put a hurtin' on some DD5.1

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The player can crunch it down to 2.0 and the soundbar derives the bass for the sub by filtering it from the 2.0. Or the soundbar takes the 5.1 at face value and downmixes the main channels whilst keeping the sub channel intact, which would actually be betterer than a 2.0 downmix.

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that because something is 2.0 or 2.1 that it has no underlying compatibility with 5.1 at all, and that is patently not the case. Christ, my TV can accept 192KHz 5.1 PCM over HDMI. This obsession with soundbars is absolutely hilarious BTW, there ain't no thread like a Ruined thread

Here is the answer:
1. The LFE is discarded. It is not filtered or mixed in at all, just tossed. Therefore your 2.1 soundbar (or $20,000 boutique speaker 2.1 stereo system, if you prefer) goes poof basically becoming 2.0 and the sub can only HPF out the pittance of LFE in the main channels. In a pro 2.0 downmix, the engineer can place some of the LFE channel in the main channels to restore the bass, which the sub can then HPF out

2. The center channel and corresponding surround channel are each reduced by 3 decibals and mixed into the left and right channels. There is obviously no professional supervision as to whether this reduction in volume will impact the dialogue intelligibility in each scene when flattened to 2 channels.

So now you know and that is the reason we still see 2.0 mixes instead of just the multi-channel

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Here is the answer:
1. The LFE is discarded. It is not filtered or mixed in at all, just tossed. Therefore your 2.1 soundbar goes poof basically becoming 2.0 and the sub can only HPF out the pittance of LFE in the main channels. In a pro 2.0 downmix, the engineer can place some of the LFE channel in the main channels to restore the bass, which the sub can then HPF out

2. The center channel and corresponding surround channel are each reduced by 3 decibals and mixed into the left and right channels. There is obviously no professional supervision as to whether this reduction in volume will impact the dialogue intelligibility in each scene when flattened to 2 channels.

So now you know and that is the reason we still see 2.0 mixes instead of just the multi-channel

This is absolutely ridiculous. Where do you come up with this garbage?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by starmike

This is absolutely ridiculous. Where do you come up with this garbage?

It's the Dolby 5.1 > stereo downmix professional specifications. If everything was just downmixed at 100% volume you'd get two very distorted and overloaded main channels. What's your source for your non-proposal of how downmixing 5.1 to stereo works?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Here is the answer:
1. The LFE is discarded. It is not filtered or mixed in at all, just tossed. Therefore your 2.1 soundbar goes poof basically becoming 2.0 and the sub can only HPF out the pittance of LFE in the main channels. In a pro 2.0 downmix, the engineer can place some of the LFE channel in the main channels to restore the bass, which the sub can then HPF out

2. The center channel and corresponding surround channel are each reduced by 3 decibals and mixed into the left and right channels. There is obviously no professional supervision as to whether this reduction in volume will impact the dialogue intelligibility in each scene when flattened to 2 channels.

So now you know and that is the reason we still see 2.0 mixes instead of just the multi-channel

But you do realise that these 2.0 mixes on the Supes UHDs are 2.0 LtRt original audio tracks which have not been "professionally supervised" to play back on a soundbar, right? And that Warners haven't yet put "soundbar friendly" 2.0 backups on any disc of theirs that didn't have an OG mono or stereo mix?

Speaking of, how many other major studio movies out there on UHD with Atmos have a 2.0 track as a backup that *isn't* a specific OG 2.0 mix included for those darned purists? I can think of two: Lionsgate's Apocalypse Now and Disnee's edition of WALL-E. That's not a lot my dude. Heck, Lionsgate used to include 2.0 "late night" mixes on their Blu-rays but they stopped bovvering with UHD, AN aside.

The funniest thing about this line of reasoning is that most 2.0/2.1 soundbars that the average Joe/Jane is using are so bad sonically that it doesn't matter what's being pumped into them. I tried out a Sony soundbar a while back that retailed for like £300 and it was appalling, regardless of sound format or channel count of the incoming signal.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Ruined

It's the Dolby 5.1 > stereo downmix professional specifications. If everything was just downmixed at 100% volume you'd get two very distorted and overloaded main channels. What's your source for your non-proposal of how downmixing 5.1 to stereo works?

Dude, you said that the LFE is discarded. Your words. So why are there soundbar systems sold with a sub? So all those subs are silent when using 5.1? What do you think the .1 is? LOL

WHY WOULD YOU DISCARD A DISCRETE CHANNEL?

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I guess we'll have to do this the hard way. Why dont you explain to me exactly how a Blu-ray player downmixes each of the 5.1 track channels to 2.0. Perhaps once you do the research to understand this, that will inform you how the data in the audio channels is handled in a dynamic downmix and you will understand why a professional 2.0 downmix is superior to a player downmixing 5.1 to 2.0.

Obviously, the word "compatability" means something different to you than it means to me. You keep throwing around the term "compatability" as if WBHV decided to stick... ummm.... "professional 2.0 downmixes" () on their releases because there are "compatability" issues between, say, a DD5.1 audio track and some piece of equipment.

"Not as good" != "compatibility issue". Not to me, at least. And you're totally guessing as to the quality of these "professional 2.0 downmixes" and the discernability to most listeners. Really, everything you've been saying are your guesses-stated-as-facts.

Ugh.... I keep taking the bait. I get it. It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by starmike

Dude, you said that the LFE is discarded. Your words. So why are there soundbar systems sold with a sub? So all those subs are silent when using 5.1? What do you think the .1 is? LOL

WHY WOULD YOU DISCARD A DISCRETE CHANNEL?

Here is an article in laymen's terms if you prefer:
https://www.tvtechnology.com/opinion...-1-stereo-loro

The way 2.1 soundbars work (or any 2.1 system) is: stereo audio goes to the sub which reproduces 120hz and below (or whatever you set it to), then via a high pass filter the rest of the audio spectrum is returned to the main speakers.

The reason the LFE channel is discarded during a DD5.1 > 2.0 dynamic downmix is to prevent distortion of said main channels during the downmix. In a professional downmix, the technician can place the appropriate amount of LFE into the main channels that avoids overloading them.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Here is an article in laymen's terms if you prefer:
https://www.tvtechnology.com/opinion...-1-stereo-loro

The way 2.1 soundbars work (or any 2.1 system) is they take stereo audio it goes to the sub which takes 120hz and below, via a high pass filter which returns the rest of the audio to the main speakers. They do not necessarily decode 5.1.

The reason the LFE channel is discarded is to prevent distortion of said main channels during the downmix.

Oh this totally makes sense now. Just toss a main feature of a home theater system instead of passing it into the speaker it was designed for.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BrandonJF

Obviously, the word "compatability" means something different to you than it means to me. You keep throwing around the term "compatability" as if WBHV decided to stick... ummm.... "professional 2.0 downmixes" () on their releases because there are "compatability" issues between, say, a DD5.1 audio track and some piece of equipment.

"Not as good" != "compatibility issue". Not to me, at least. And you're totally guessing as to the quality of these "professional 2.0 downmixes" and the discernability to most listeners. Really, everything you've been saying are your guesses-stated-as-facts.

Ugh.... I keep taking the bait. I get it. It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.

We are the problem. We're just not on the same wavelength as him (not for the first time, oddly enough) but we can't help replying

Originally Posted by Ruined

Here is an article in laymen's terms if you prefer:
https://www.tvtechnology.com/opinion...-1-stereo-loro

The way 2.1 soundbars work (or any 2.1 system) is they take stereo audio it goes to the sub which takes 120hz and below, via a high pass filter which returns the rest of the audio to the main speakers. They do not necessarily decode 5.1.

The reason the LFE channel is discarded is to prevent distortion of said main channels during the downmix.

But that's the point of having separate channels incoming, systems can keep what they want and discard/downmix the rest, some will take the discrete surrounds and run their faux-surround processing on them, and some will pass the .1 straight to the sub thus negating said distortion. Though you don't actually know if every 2.1 system discards the .1 channel? Huh

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But you do realise that these 2.0 mixes on the Supes UHDs are 2.0 LtRt original audio tracks which have not been "professionally supervised" to play back on a soundbar, right? And that Warners haven't yet put "soundbar friendly" 2.0 backups on any disc of theirs that didn't have an OG mono or stereo mix?

Speaking of, how many other major studio movies out there on UHD with Atmos have a 2.0 track as a backup that *isn't* a specific OG 2.0 mix included for those darned purists? I can think of two: Lionsgate's Apocalypse Now and Disnee's edition of WALL-E. That's not a lot my dude. Heck, Lionsgate used to include 2.0 "late night" mixes on their Blu-rays but they stopped bovvering with UHD, AN aside.

The funniest thing about this line of reasoning is that most 2.0/2.1 soundbars that the average Joe/Jane is using are so bad sonically that it doesn't matter what's being pumped into them. I tried out a Sony soundbar a while back that retailed for like £300 and it was appalling, regardless of sound format or channel count of the incoming signal.

The 2.0 mixes don't have to be designed for a soundbar, the point is that a pro 2.0 mix was designed for 2 channels and does not have the downsides of a 5.1 > 2.0 dynamic downmix which was not designed for 2 channels. A pro 2.0 downmix will have the appropriate amount of bass and the appropriate dialogue level for each and every scene, while that may not be the case for a dynamic downmix with the LFE discarded and center channel reduced by 3db (pretty much guaranteed it will be bass-neutered at the minimum).

It may seem counterintuitive to prioritize 2.0 quality, but the majority of WB's customers are using soundbars or HTIB, not a high end 5.1 separates setup; that is simply the makeup of the market these days. Since both the level of bass and dialogue are affected by 5.1 dynamic downmixes and those are pretty important things, the ideal is to create a professional supervised 2.0 mix for 2.1 or lower channel configs. If you drill down on data for those soundbar setups, I would bet most of them just have the bar+sub (2.1) and not the surround speakers - people just dont want the clutter the extra speakers bring.

Regarding this release, the idea being, to satisfy "purists" if you are going to throw on a track for "original theatrical audio," which being Warner you actually couldn't care less about since Atmos is the moneymaker and considered the primary track, why not make that original theatrical audio track *also* a 2.0 track (which is technically original audio) which will have the added effect of improving the experience for stereo systems/soundbars? It does actually make quite a bit of sense.

[starmike]

Word salad ^^

[Geoff D]

So when they don't do it for any other 5.1 (or higher) movie of theirs that doesn't also have an OG mono or LtRt mix, what does that mean? People who want to watch Lost Boys or Training Day don't own soundbars?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So when they don't do it for any other 5.1 (or higher) movie of theirs that doesn't also have an OG mono or LtRt mix, what does that mean?

More money saved. They prob figured they had to put "original audio" on Superman or they would be crucified / lose sales (which is happening anyway) lol. The truth is, the 2.0 original audio will be good enough for most people who want original audio, and it will improve experience for stereo users. So its not a bad compromise if you want to spend the least amount of money.