The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[lgans316]

My wife has tinnitus. She sleeps well few days a week but mostly she is unable to due to constant ringing in her ears and the side effect of this is impacting peace at home and she is now allergic to even tiny sounds. So sold my 7.1 speakers except the sub but wife is okay with soundbar. I am on the hunt for a powerful Atmos soundbar and.sadly none exists. Patiently waiting for the Klipsch 54 which is the only one that ticks all my boxes including adding external sub (which means I can put my mighty SVS to good use) but looks like it will never be released.

[koberulz]

I find more noise is better than less, distracts from the ringing.

Try white noise at night. Same theory, give the brain some other noise to focus on. Not "drown everything out" loud, just "take the edge off" loud. Works wonders for me.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Rubykegster

Is there an online resource or thread that shows which discs have the original theatrical audio with absolutely no adjustments like near field re-mixing, reduced dynamics or reduced treble? If not, I hope somebody would start such a thread as I'd find it very helpful.

It's difficult to prove, unless its listed like The Game was

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

My point is it cannot sound "great" on TV speakers or cheap sound bars (I suppose if you've never heard the difference you wouldn't necessarily know what you're missing). They're absolute crap in terms of fidelity (or rather the lack thereof). It'd be like watching a 4K movie on a 1985 27" console TV in 480i. You at least need a decent pair of stereo speakers with proper bass output just to get quality stereo, let alone Atmos.

Like I said, all BDs should have a high-end theatrical mix on them for actual home theater systems, not TV speakers or cheap sound bars. Whether it's "near field" or not is almost irrelevant. The problem is that so-called "near field" mixes aren't just adjusting for treble and the like due to sitting closer to the speakers (it has nothing to do with the transparent screen as proper sound transparent screens are rated for flat response or have set EQ curves to correct for them; "Near Field" means you're sitting 3-8 feet or so from your main speakers. Far Field is greater than 8 feet (along a set X-curve as treble should be rolled off the closer you sit; ALL AVRs have this setting these days and it's called "Cinema EQ" on most or "Re-EQ" on THX processors dating clear back to the 1990s.

Leave the TV speakers for what they were designed for, talk shows and the weather report.

I’m not sure what your point has to do with my point. I know what near field is.

Treble doesn’t need roll off the closer you sit. That’s not how frequencies work. A Flat curve is for near field. Nobody listens in an anechoic chamber.

The X-curve needs to be tossed out period. It’s garbage. So is re-eq.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Rubykegster

Is there an online resource or thread that shows which discs have the original theatrical audio with absolutely no adjustments like near field re-mixing, reduced dynamics or reduced treble? If not, I hope somebody would start such a thread as I'd find it very helpful.

This debate has been around for a long time. Google the subject. There is plenty out there.

Sony IMO offers the best balance. They master for a home environment but they don’t adjust or “re-eq” the top end of their mixes which I think is the best approach. But their older mixes can sound forward. This will depend on how people setup their gear. If you use an auto “room correction” software they automatically default to a curve that rolls off high frequencies. Audyssey, YPAO does which are in 3 of the most common consumer AVR’s. To make things worse they all leave dynamic compression on in their settings. That’s why many audio enthusiasts are looking at different options like Dirac and ARC and now XT32 that allow users to limit how much EQ is applied.

IMO unless you live in a glass house EQing should only be done to the bass frequencies. Or if someone has terrible speakers that are far from accurate.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I’m not sure what your point has to do with my point. I know what near field is.

I don't think you do at all.

Treble doesn’t need roll off the closer you sit. That’s not how frequencies work.

??? That's the very point of the X-Curve and it applies to more than audio signals as well. It's the same reason 5GHz doesn't tree Abel as far or through walls as well as lower frequencies like 2.4GHz. The lower the signal frequency, the further it travels unimpeded, but the less information it cam carry. The Atomic clock signal in Colorado is like 8Hz and can be picked up by clocks over 1000 miles away. Try that with FM in the MHz range and see how far you get at the same power level. Elementary physics.

A Flat curve is for near field. Nobody listens in an anechoic chamber.

The X-curve needs to be tossed out period. It’s garbage. So is re-eq.

Well, you just proved you don't know anything about audio whatsoever so I won't bother to waste anymore of my time. The X-Curve has literally nothing to do with anechoic chambers. Movies are mixed for cinema size rooms and thus the purpose of Re-EQ and Cinema EQ. Actual quality movie theaters use EQ to correct for both their specific space and the distance away on the X-Curve. Cheaper cinemas don't bother. Your TV won't bother nor most sound bars and hence the justification of doing separate mixes. These days it's more about dialog clarity than anything else so the reduce dynamic range and/or raise the dialog track so it's more intelligible at lower overall volume levels. This makes it damn near impossible to listen at Dolby reference levels at home with these mixes even if you have the clean capability because the dialog levels will be too loud at those levels.

I only need to watch the THX Blu-ray of Raiders of the Lost Ark to notice I can raise it to Dolby Reference level and it sounds awesome, but try that with most movies made in the past 20 years and it sounds too loud because if the compressed signal. The same is true of most rock albums made after the mid-90s, despite the CD's capability for more dynamic range. Compare Pink Floyd's The Wall or Roger Waters' Amused To Death to something like The Red Hot Chile Peppers CALIFORNICATION. It's night and day and yet neither of the former even approach the CD limits and yet people think they need 24/96. People are ignorant and gullible to marketing hype and nonsense. I'm an Electronic Engineer. I know better.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

I don't think you do at all.



??? That's the very point of the X-Curve and it applies to more than audio signals as well. It's the same reason 5GHz doesn't tree Abel as far or through walls as well as lower frequencies like 2.4GHz. The lower the signal frequency, the further it travels unimpeded, but the less information it cam carry. The Atomic clock signal in Colorado is like 8Hz and can be picked up by clocks over 1000 miles away. Try that with FM in the MHz range and see how far you get at the same power level. Elementary physics.



Well, you just proved you don't know anything about audio whatsoever so I won't bother to waste anymore of my time. The X-Curve has literally nothing to do with anechoic chambers. Movies are mixed for cinema size rooms and thus the purpose of Re-EQ and Cinema EQ. Actual quality movie theaters use EQ to correct for both their specific space and the distance away on the X-Curve. Cheaper cinemas don't bother. Your TV won't bother nor most sound bars and hence the justification of doing separate mixes. These days it's more about dialog clarity than anything else so the reduce dynamic range and/or raise the dialog track so it's more intelligible at lower overall volume levels. This makes it damn near impossible to listen at Dolby reference levels at home with these mixes even if you have the clean capability because the dialog levels will be too loud at those levels.

I only need to watch the THX Blu-ray of Raiders of the Lost Ark to notice I can raise it to Dolby Reference level and it sounds awesome, but try that with most movies made in the past 20 years and it sounds too loud because if the compressed signal. The same is true of most rock albums made after the mid-90s, despite the CD's capability for more dynamic range. Compare Pink Floyd's The Wall or Roger Waters' Amused To Death to something like The Red Hot Chile Peppers CALIFORNICATION. It's night and day and yet neither of the former even approach the CD limits and yet people think they need 24/96. People are ignorant and gullible to marketing hype and nonsense. I'm an Electronic Engineer. I know better.

Did you read my post? I made a few points. I didn’t say the X-curve has anything to do with anechoic chamber. it was a separate point.

What happens if you place a loud speaker in a large room with no soft furnishings or absorption? What happens if you place the same loudspeaker in an anechoic chamber? How do you think this would change the response of the speaker?

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I find more noise is better than less, distracts from the ringing.

Try white noise at night. Same theory, give the brain some other noise to focus on. Not "drown everything out" loud, just "take the edge off" loud. Works wonders for me.

She did attend some CBT sessions for tinnitus but I think in general she has never been a fan of hearing something loud. Mild noises and music is one way of distracting oneself.

I feel sorry for Geoff here as I am witnessing someone suffering right in front of me everyday.

[koberulz]

The immediate silence is worse during quiet patches the louder the rest is, but other than that I've never really minded. It's just sleeping that's the issue and as I said, white noise works a charm. I have a radio I just tuned to between two stations, gets the job done.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Did you read my post? I made a few points. I didn’t say the X-curve has anything to do with anechoic chamber. it was a separate point.

What happens if you place a loud speaker in a large room with no soft furnishings or absorption? What happens if you place the same loudspeaker in an anechoic chamber? How do you think this would change the response of the speaker?

I did read your post and you're STILL talking about anechoic chambers and now furniture absorption which are related to each other, but have NOTHING to do with the X-Curve and high frequency sound decreasing faster over distance than lower frequencies. That is for DIRECT SOUND not reflections, which is what you're talking about whether you know it or not! Unless you're sitting with your ears behind that furniture so direct sound cannot reach your ears, the reflective/absorptive qualities of the room have NOTHING to do with what I've been talking about with Cinema X-Curve far field frequency response versus home near field response. Re-EQ "garbage" exists to correct for those distance variations as there was no such thing as a "near field mix" until 1999. Some studios still don't use near field mixes (e.g. Paramount and the new Imax Enhanced soundtracks claim to use the same mixes as the cinema and let your equipment compensate if desired) so no, it should not be thrown out.

IF all they were doing with home mixes was applying EQ to correct for the different sized venues, it'd be as simple as turning off Cinema EQ on my Marantz AVR to get a similar experience as the theater, but unfortunately that us not the case. They are free to change anything they desire and often do. Especially grievous is when someone other than the original sound crew remasters older classics and ruins the soundtrack in the process, thinking how great it sounds on a sound bar when it's been butchered on better, more accurate systems.

The sound bars should be manufactured to sound good (and accurate) with movies, not the other way around! Accuracy needs to be tge standard,nit some aging mixing guy that can no longer hear above 12kHz and misses the shrill sounds he created turning up the treble to compensate for things he can no longer hear (one possible example).

BTW, before you go spouting off about anechoic chambers again, realize they have ONE purpose, eliminating sound reflections, nothing more. If anything, the X-Curve would be even more obvious with reduced reflections if the room was large enough to demonstrate it, not less. Neither sound propagation nor human hearing is flat or linear in nature.

[MooneyRara]

Originally Posted by lgans316

She did attend some CBT sessions for tinnitus but I think in general she has never been a fan of hearing something loud. Mild noises and music is one way of distracting oneself.

I feel sorry for Geoff here as I am witnessing someone suffering right in front of me everyday.

Have her talk to her doctor about low dose diazepam. I have bilateral tinnitus and hyperacusis. My otolaryngologist prescribed it and I take it as needed. Has done the trick for years. Full surround in my HT.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by MooneyRara

Have her talk to her doctor about low dose diazepam. I have bilateral tinnitus and hyperacusis. My otolaryngologist prescribed it and I take it as needed. Has done the trick for years. Full surround in my HT.

Thanks buddy. Once this lockdown is lifted, will try your advice.

[MooneyRara]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Thanks buddy. Once this lockdown is lifted, will try your advice.

Give it a shot. It's a little unorthodox but specialists should definitely know about. I thought I was done for good. Just miserable.


Anyway, back on topic. What thread is this again?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

I did read your post and you're STILL talking about anechoic chambers and now furniture absorption which are related to each other, but have NOTHING to do with the X-Curve and high frequency sound decreasing faster over distance than lower frequencies. That is for DIRECT SOUND not reflections, which is what you're talking about whether you know it or not! Unless you're sitting with your ears behind that furniture so direct sound cannot reach your ears, the reflective/absorptive qualities of the room have NOTHING to do with what I've been talking about with Cinema X-Curve far field frequency response versus home near field response. Re-EQ "garbage" exists to correct for those distance variations as there was no such thing as a "near field mix" until 1999. Some studios still don't use near field mixes (e.g. Paramount and the new Imax Enhanced soundtracks claim to use the same mixes as the cinema and let your equipment compensate if desired) so no, it should not be thrown out.

IF all they were doing with home mixes was applying EQ to correct for the different sized venues, it'd be as simple as turning off Cinema EQ on my Marantz AVR to get a similar experience as the theater, but unfortunately that us not the case. They are free to change anything they desire and often do. Especially grievous is when someone other than the original sound crew remasters older classics and ruins the soundtrack in the process, thinking how great it sounds on a sound bar when it's been butchered on better, more accurate systems.

The sound bars should be manufactured to sound good (and accurate) with movies, not the other way around! Accuracy needs to be tge standard,nit some aging mixing guy that can no longer hear above 12kHz and misses the shrill sounds he created turning up the treble to compensate for things he can no longer hear (one possible example).

BTW, before you go spouting off about anechoic chambers again, realize they have ONE purpose, eliminating sound reflections, nothing more. If anything, the X-Curve would be even more obvious with reduced reflections if the room was large enough to demonstrate it, not less. Neither sound propagation nor human hearing is flat or linear in nature.

Thanks professor. I think we are going in circles... again.

Yes it’s true high frequencies degrade much faster than low frequencies. I’m not arguing that. That we agree on hence why I brought up anechoic rooms. It’s important to note because it’s how loud speakers are tested by manufacturers. It’s why reviews are important and why speakers are put on a test bench.

I’m not aware of any consumer speaker brand that recommends EQing full spectrum. I know Golden Ear outright says do not EQ them. Paradigm also does, ARC only limited correction to 1500khz until recently.

Our ears are much more advanced than a cheap omni directional mic especially mic’s that are sold with AVR’s.

There is a reason most auto room correction software is evolving and limiting eq. They started in a time where it was thought that it was needed. It’s really not. This is a debate that can go on and on. I’m in the opinion that if someone prefers EQ over the sound of their speakers than they don’t like their speakers. It’s that simple. Audyssey and YPAO were created years ago when everyone thought THX and especially Re-Eq was the gold standard. A ruler flat FR that starts to roll off at 2K or even 5k like the Audyssey Reference curve is not accurate for a near field mix. It’s like adding a double HF rolloff. It’s really not accurate for any application. I also don’t think Flat is accurate as well. Most people prefer more bass, less treble. I do. It’s why I implemented a downward slope that follows my speakers natural response in my room.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up sound bars. Mixers perform their work using very flat monitors. They check how it sounds on other devices, not just the equipment used.

[VonMagnum]

Anechoic testing is preferable because the room reflections can interfere with the measurements if the speaker itself and that takes the room out of the equation. A pair man review uses close miking about a foot away to limit the influence of the room. That still has nothing to do with the so-called X-Curve. That occurs regardless of whether the room is anechoic or not.

I don't recall suggesting full range EQ at home. Cinema EQ is a simple bandwidth limited notch filter that attempts to reverse the X-Curve bias from the mix designed for huge auditoriums. It does not try to change the speaker's normal response, only correct the excess high frequencies you will typically get from a far field mix when listened to at close range. If you don't like the effect in your home theater (some home theaters are not near field if your seat is significantly over 9 feet away from the mains; others may simply not want EQ regardless as you suggest), you can easily turn it off. The problem with near field mixes is that choice is removed. Turning Cinema EQ on only doubles the effect and leaves less than normal treble. Some might prefer that too, I suppose, but there is no simple way to get the proper cinema balance back for a far field home theater if it's already been removed. I suppose they could start including reverse EQ filters for that purpose, but that wouldn't address all the compression and other volume changes made in specific home mixes that go too far.

The Matrix Atmos mix is generally high regarded and it's probably one of the more docile home mixes in that it mostly only alters dynamic range 6-8dB or so, but improves upon the previous Dolby mixes in accuracy to the original cinema mix while adding some nice Atmos height effects, but 8dB is still a big difference in punch with things like explosions.

Aa for monitors, I guess you didn't watch that little video shared earlier where the mixing guy admits to using TV speakers sometimes. That is very disturbing, IMO.

[Rubykegster]

Wow, lots of useful information provided there. It sounds like there is no single AVR setting you can use then to give the optimal result in a home theatre.

[blakninja]

Will they ever release The Matrix non-green-tint version again?

[KMFDMvsEnya]

The Matrix - Dynamic Range Stats

ATMOS:
Total RMS Amplitude:
L=-24.93 dB
R=-25.03 dB
C=-21.76 dB
LFE=-27.85 dB

ITU-R BS.1770-3 Loudness: -15.69 LUFS


DD 5.1
Total RMS Amplitude:
L=-28.82 dB
R=-28.86 dB
C=-25.82 dB
LFE=-30.98 dB

ITU-R BS.1770-3 Loudness: -20.30 LUFS


DTS Cinema 5.1
Total RMS Amplitude:
Dynamic Range Stats
L=-24.29 dB
R=-24.31 dB
C=-21.57 dB
LFE=-36.69 dB

ITU-R BS.1770-3 Loudness: -14.93 LUFS

Dynamic Range Stats

[Show spoiler]

Waveforms

[Show spoiler]

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Anechoic testing is preferable because the room reflections can interfere with the measurements if the speaker itself and that takes the room out of the equation. A pair man review uses close miking about a foot away to limit the influence of the room. That still has nothing to do with the so-called X-Curve. That occurs regardless of whether the room is anechoic or not.

I don't recall suggesting full range EQ at home. Cinema EQ is a simple bandwidth limited notch filter that attempts to reverse the X-Curve bias from the mix designed for huge auditoriums. It does not try to change the speaker's normal response, only correct the excess high frequencies you will typically get from a far field mix when listened to at close range. If you don't like the effect in your home theater (some home theaters are not near field if your seat is significantly over 9 feet away from the mains; others may simply not want EQ regardless as you suggest), you can easily turn it off. The problem with near field mixes is that choice is removed. Turning Cinema EQ on only doubles the effect and leaves less than normal treble. Some might prefer that too, I suppose, but there is no simple way to get the proper cinema balance back for a far field home theater if it's already been removed. I suppose they could start including reverse EQ filters for that purpose, but that wouldn't address all the compression and other volume changes made in specific home mixes that go too far.

The Matrix Atmos mix is generally high regarded and it's probably one of the more docile home mixes in that it mostly only alters dynamic range 6-8dB or so, but improves upon the previous Dolby mixes in accuracy to the original cinema mix while adding some nice Atmos height effects, but 8dB is still a big difference in punch with things like explosions.

Aa for monitors, I guess you didn't watch that little video shared earlier where the mixing guy admits to using TV speakers sometimes. That is very disturbing, IMO.

I didn’t say anechoic testing relates to the X-Curve. You keep saying that. I don’t know why. I also didn’t say you said full range should be used. I know what the X-Curve is and why it’s been used. I’m saying it shouldn’t be and neither should high frequency filters in a home unless you have a very odd room with tons of reflective surfaces. You’re actually agreeing with what I’m saying about a double rolloff.

Choices should always be included. Going back to my initial example of what Criterion does with some mixes like the Game.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Will they ever release The Matrix non-green-tint version again?

Yes. The UHD unless you can influence the filmmakers and WB to freshly mint a new one