Master and Commander 4K UHD (2003)

[JernetTZ]

I'm one of the few morons that have a Perlisten S system in the world. It's dirac calibrated by professionals and it's quite easy to spot weak tracks. Easiest thing in the world is noticing difference between Spotify and Tidal on the same tracks.

It's just stupid money for a sound system but I had some money to blow.

And no I'm not a snob. I just went for the best available system that measurements could provide. I'd probably be happy with a system half it's price but I trusted the consensus.

Most of the time it's just the sheer volume of a track, I can have a 30 on the receiver and it's earth shattering and then I switch disc and I have to get it to about 45-50 to equalize it in terms of power.

[gpn]

It's too bad this noxious discussion of the bass track is turning some people off from even watching the film. Master and Commander is a marvelous film whether it has house-rattling bass or not, and I would urge those saying they don't want to watch it now, to still give it a chance.

[JernetTZ]

Most people don't have anything to compare it with anyway so it doesn't matter. The film stands on it's own. My biggest gripe is the documentary is left out I think. Every time I bought it, I bought the wrong version without it.

[brian9229]

My copy just arrived, gonna put it up on the big screen tonight, cannot wait to finish my shift and get home.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

Very few home systems, even high quality systems, can reproduce anything below 30Hz. [...] Some who invest a lot in quality subwoofers can, of course, go to 30Hz or below. But that's a small minority of home viewers. [...] You should provide a believable reason that all these brand new 4Ks are deliberately rolling off bass below 30-40Hz other than a desire to screw their customers just for giggles. Because I don't believe that's happening.

Gonna comment on these bits of yours: Over the last 25 years, audio tech has improved greatly, and even very conservative systems can live below 30Hz. Modestly priced powered subs are fairly common from reputable brands that bottom-out in the low 20s. (it's getting under 20 that proves difficult and spendy) Regardless, it's presumptive to say "very few" have this ability when many do.

In that, hearing Disneyfied, atMoused sound, or obvious compressed mixes that lack the range, depth, and clarity is frustrating. I've been hearing it more from releases over the last few years, and while I don't propose to know what conspiratorial reason might be driving it like some, I can say that it is there. Many titles sound very good, but some are just pants.

Note that I'm talking about hearing with my own ears, in my environment where I have reference both in how my stuff sounds and what previous versions sound like in it. This is not discounting graphs and measurements, as those can definitely cause me to import another version or scrutinize one closer, I'm just saying I listen to it.

In the end: Like I'd love for visual options, leave the full range, unfettered, unadulterated oldy-old mix alone. Don't waste time and money trying to remove or add things or "sweetening," just encode it in aDToblySmoseX and go. It will play on every system or TV out there and fold down, roll off, or otherwise present what it can without issue. If the user likes a compressed or other tweaked presentation, just like motion smoothing for PQ, they can enable that on their setup themselves as desired. (they probably have it on already and forgot about it) Add more options to a heart's content and even make those awful things the default if one so chooses, but dang, don't forget that oreegonal sound.

Side thought: For some, dialog is too low with action too loud on a full-range theater mix, and I listen to it and hear nothing but awesome. It makes me think that for those people, their environment sound floor is far too high, and they need range compression ("night mode" or some such) turned on to overcome what they hear as a fault. When they listen to a "modern" mix that effectively is that compression burned in and gush over how great it is, while I am lamenting at the 2D, blunt harshness, it does make me question whether some of those people are at the controls of these mixes. Things that make you go hmm...

[Techlet]

I think I get it now. Movies are only supposed to be mixed for listening inside a concrete bunker with a few of these stacked in front of the screen.



You don't need to see the picture. You're meant to feel it.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Yet some tracks which have been heavily criticized for stuff like unbalanced audio, are actually tracks with higher dynamic range than previous home video audio masterings. To me, those tracks sound a lot better (and even more authentic to theatrical mixes) than previous editions on a quality system at reference volume. Inclusion of alternate mixes for people who can't play back tracks with such dynamic range would be welcome, but there should already be options to dynamically compress such tracks on most systems anyway.

It would really help if the people that are having so much problems with such tracks would mention what they are actually listening to these releases on and at which volume. A lot of these tracks may be frustrating to listen to on TV speakers or low-mid end setups (especially if you're unable to play things loud), but they really shine on high-end equipment. Also, some of the "good" tracks on average equipment which are dynamically compressed to cater to the average person (this was the case with a lot of home video tracks) show their limitations when played back on high-end gear.

Music-related example, but an employee was recently asking why the vocals on an album were so quiet and why they felt the need to adjust the volume on Spotify between some songs when on shuffle. I explained that the "quiet" tracks were mixed to be played back on audiophile equipment and that the "normal-sounding" songs on an average radio would likely sound less impressive using specialist gear.

Yup, probably better said that my word-salad above...

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by Techlet

I think I get it now. Movies are only supposed to be mixed for listening inside a concrete bunker with a few of these stacked in front of the screen.



You don't need to see the picture. You're meant to feel it.

That reminds me, Techlet, you better not hook up to the amplifier. There's a slight possibility for overload.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by Techlet

I think I get it now. Movies are only supposed to be mixed for listening inside a concrete bunker with a few of these stacked in front of the screen.

[Show spoiler]

You don't need to see the picture. You're meant to feel it.

Joking aside, it comes down to simple maths: You can compress wide-stage, full-range audio for low-end setups on the fly and it will sound nice on that hardware, but you cannot do the opposite. If you nerf the audio to sound "good" on lower end setups, you cannot do anything to make that sound good at reference.

[400TX]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

... or an import Australian BD for the original audio.

I had no idea we antipodeans were so blessed. I'll be interested in comparing both when my 4K arrives. What's the go—the Aussie release has the unfiltered bass?

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by sojrner

Joking aside, it comes down to simple maths: You can compress wide-stage, full-range audio for low-end setups on the fly and it will sound nice on that hardware, but you cannot do the opposite. If you nerf the audio to sound "good" on lower end setups, you cannot do anything to make that sound good at reference.

Yes, you can.

So why would the sound mixers for this 4K disk deliberately "nerf" everything below 30Hz? To what purpose? Nobody's actually given any good reason to do that, so why would they?

At least with the BS teal nonsense people claim they're trying to make the image look more "modern". But nobody's given one rational reason that anyone would "nerf" low bass other than the implication that they want somehow to deliberately screw the customers of these 4Ks for some unknown reason.

The evidence that there's "nerfing" going on? Graphs from unknown sources created with unknown methodology from unknown media all intended to push the "magic" of the BEQ system to "recover" bass that users are--for some unknown reason no one can articulate--being denied.

Color me dubious.

(Speaking of color, I was in Amsterdam last week looking at 17th century Dutch Old Master paintings and several of them were just full of teal. Like an entire teal wash. Unlike what I've read on this forum, it seems that the color teal really did exist before 2010--it was even being used 400 years ago.)

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

That reminds me, Techlet, you better not hook up to the amplifier. There's a slight possibility for overload.

Originally Posted by sojrner

Joking aside, it comes down to simple maths: You can compress wide-stage, full-range audio for low-end setups on the fly and it will sound nice on that hardware, but you cannot do the opposite. If you nerf the audio to sound "good" on lower end setups, you cannot do anything to make that sound good at reference.

Exactly. As I mentioned previously, I listen to movies with Audyssey Dynamic EQ/Volume set to Light. I also have my Offset set to 5 for my 4K players and 10 for my streamers and game consoles. Those settings work best in my small living room environment. But what also helps is having a source with as wide a dynamic range as possible. My system can adjust a quality sound recording to taste, but it falters with already deficient audio. You simply cannot polish a turd.

Now, I am not implying that this new mix for M&C is a turd. I haven't heard it yet. But I do advocate offering the highest quality audio experience (with regards to immersion, dynamics, and deep bass extension) in the home media we spend our hard earned money to acquire. And the benefits definitely trickle down to us that do not have high end systems. It's similar to when movies on BD were getting 4K remasters before there were even 4K discs/players/TV. There was a noticeable uptick in discernable image detail in the resulting from the 4K master downconverted to 1080p.

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

The evidence that there's "nerfing" going on? Graphs from unknown sources created with unknown methodology from unknown media

Your attempts to bend over backwards to defend the audio notwithstanding, the graphs correspond with what people are experiencing.

[JustinZed]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

The evidence that there's "nerfing" going on? Graphs from unknown sources created with unknown methodology from unknown media all intended to push the "magic" of the BEQ system to "recover" bass that users are--for some unknown reason no one can articulate--being denied.

I can't speak to anything other than the graph I created for post 710. To make that graph, I ripped the DTS audio from the DVD and imported it into the BEQDesigner tool. BEQDesigner extracted the individual tracks, and I selected the LFE channel. Then the tool created the graph, which I exported and posted here.

Just now, I did the same thing with the TrueHD/Atmos LFE and superimposed it on the DTS graph. You can see that the DTS is mixed several dB higher, but in particular, the audio from increases from 45 Hz to 30 Hz on the DTS but is flat on the UHD. The UHD audio also drops off much more steeply. I can't speculate why the difference exists, but it is undeniably there.

[Midnight_Hour]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Your attempts to bend over backwards to defend the audio notwithstanding, the graphs correspond with what people are experiencing.

Why must people twist themselves into pretzels to argue against all logic and reason? It's ok to enjoy mediocre audio in the privacy of your home!

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by RobertR

It's not a question of being such a "person", but wanting serious low end impact when the movie calls for it. M&C very much calls for it because of the nature of what's being depicted (a battle in WAR). Cannon shots have infrasonic energy (the famous Telarc recording of the 1812 Overture has energy down to 5 Hz, and the live performances I've attended of the piece with real howitzers and Civil War-era cannons make it clear that's very much realistic), and it's perfectly appropriate for someone with a capable system to want to feel that. It adds tremendously to the dramatic impact. Another major example is War of the Worlds. ON the BD, when the Martian machine emerges and SLAMS into the ground, you very much FEEL it with a good system. It's scary. It's supposed to be so. This is a war machine, part of an alien invasion. The Atmos track on the UHD is Meh Wimp City in comparison. There's no justification for this.






What's extremely annoying is that the industry USED to be VERY willing to satisfy that minority. Would sales suffer from doing so now (the people without such capable systems would not be harmed in ANY way by doing so)? NO. Would authoring/mixing be more expensive or difficult by doing so? NO. Is Atmos PERFECTLY capable of reproducing such bass? YES. So what's the justification for the nerfing?. There is NONE.





There is no excuse whatsoever for the industry to deliberately, consciously neuter the bass that they previously deliberately, consciously provided, making the old tracks objectively superior in that particular respect.





Where do you get the idea that the two are mutually exclusive? M&C has plenty of "subtlety and nuance". "Subtlety and nuance" are NOT what one wants during cannon fire, or from an alien war machine. Those ARE depictions of "brute force", and it's ludicrous to not want them depicted as such.





What's "subtle" about cannon fire?? What's "subtle" about a giant alien war machine? NOTHING. Again, you make the unjustified assumption that those who WANT bass slam and impact when it is appropriate don't ALSO want "subtlety" when it is appropriate. And once again, there is no justification WHATSOEVER for the industry to essentially destroy what it previously provided.






The "entire" gestalt? Wrong. Another raison d'être for Atmos is indeed to place specific objects in specific locations. Really, have you never heard the Atmos demos that do precisely that?

I guess I'm one to more "see" the movie, than "feel" the movie.
I know there are theaters that feature the D-Max experience with seats vibrating and the like. But that's not for me. That's more like an amusement park "ride" that some theme parks have.

I really don't want to be in a movie live fire environment for 30 minutes.
I don't intentionally go to the movies to get PTSD.
Explosions are like farts to me. Now big and how loud do they have to be, to be effective. I think that's a matter of taste.

The part of "feeling" a movie for me is great dialogue and, an appropriate moving soundtrack.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by SimonTC

Hello, fairly new here to the forum after lurking on and off for a few years. I just got this movie in the mail and the bass discussion has really messed up this discussion. For one thing bass in movies is a relatively new thing is it not? Movies before Dolby Stereo in the 1970s didn't have bass channels. I would say that the most important thing is the center channel where the dialogue comes from. The words the people are saying need to be clear and understood the most. I plan on watching the movie tonight but I've been really disappointed in what's going on here. I was hoping more people would be talking about the how the movie looks since 20th Century Fox movies on UHD disc have been really hard to come by. I hope they don't stop making them because of things like this.

I didn't start watching the M&C 4K with captions on, but that's how I finished watching it, as I think every word said by every person matters in this film.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by JustinZed

I can't speak to anything other than the graph I created for post 710. To make that graph, I ripped the DTS audio from the DVD and imported it into the BEQDesigner tool. BEQDesigner extracted the individual tracks, and I selected the LFE channel. Then the tool created the graph, which I exported and posted here.

Just now, I did the same thing with the TrueHD/Atmos LFE and superimposed it on the DTS graph. You can see that the DTS is mixed several dB higher, but in particular, the audio from increases from 45 Hz to 30 Hz on the DTS but is flat on the UHD. The UHD audio also drops off much more steeply. I can't speculate why the difference exists, but it is undeniably there.

[Show spoiler]

Again, I must stress that I don't know what the deal with the audio is for this film on any release, but is it possible that the absent low frequencies from the LFE channel have simply been redistributed to other channels for the UHD?

I've had a number of conversations with professionals this year and was told about how home video audio mastering has changed over the years. One thing was that LFE is more commonly redistributed to other channels instead of relying as much on a dedicated LFE channel/subwoofer to handle low frequencies. Apparently main speakers during the DVD era were far more limited than nowadays and bass management wasn't anywhere near as sophisticated which could explain some of these discrepancies on some releases.

I suppose you could (if you're able to) compare all the non-LFE channels during a bass-heavy sequence and see if the non-LFE channels on the UHD contain more LFE than the DVD.

[TroubledSpirits]

Has anyone’s Movies Unlimited order shipped yet?

[OlDirty]

Opened mine tonight, steelbook was completely crushed and didn't notice. No option for replacement now.