Master and Commander 4K UHD (2003)

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

It's only a major issue if you're someone who really cares about that specific kind of bass so deep you actually feel it instead of hear it, for things like explosions. And you have to have equipment capable of reproducing those frequencies to have a chance of hearing/feeling the difference.

If you aren't focused on 'feeling' the booms, and/or you don't have higher end audio gear for LFE, then - like most of us - you won't be bothered.

I agree with this. On one of my systems I have to significantly turn down my subwoofer to keep from damaging my windows due to the nature of my home. I have a second less powerful system that is an Atmos. To me personally I think the UHD is an improvement as all channels are very clear. Dialogue does not get obscured; however, this is a very small room primarily for screening and very conducive for a lower powered system. Overall, absent extras, this is a great release.

I also enjoy SACDs and other high end audio, but an important aspect in all of this is I am over 50. You lose a good bit of detailed hearing as you age, which is why graphs and charts are great but only get you so far. Obviously if you are watching this to look for issues you will find them, but if you are watching this for enjoyment it is great. I also do not like the lessened LFE on Disney releases, but I just don’t think it is that bad here. Wonderful release.

[punisher]

Originally Posted by wolfwall

Why would they put LFE in main channels tho? Nobody does this and it makes no sense they should have just gave us OG 5.1 and called it a day

If you have a passive sub like in the old days, you ran your speakers wires for the front speakers, L/R, directly into the sub and then out to the speakers. Earth shaking sound ,especially with a down firing sub

Lots of subs these days allow the same for the same setup so you can go this way for your main speakers instead of the LFE output of your AVR. Set your mains to Large.

[gto35830]

Originally Posted by tronicb0t

In stock at The Movie Room.
https://www.themovieroom.com/collect...ay-digital-usa

Good morning. Thanks for the info. Have you ordered from them? I noticed that they have not been around to long. Since 2024 I believe. Thanks.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by punisher

If you have a passive sub like in the old days, you ran your speakers wires for the front speakers, L/R, directly into the sub and then out to the speakers. Earth shaking sound ,especially with a down firing sub

Lots of subs these days allow the same for the same setup so you can go this way for your main speakers instead of the LFE output of your AVR. Set your mains to Large.

LFE is separate from the bass in the main channels.

[pikwik]

Originally Posted by Zack83

7.4.2?

7.2.4? 2 subs, 4 ceiling.

[sherlockjr]

I still haven't seen any reason why the 4K sound mixing team would "nerf" (<--love the use of that precise technical terminology) the ultra low end audio.

Leaving it exactly as it was in the theatrical mix would harm no one. It doesn't take up more space. It doesn't (necessarily) harm the audio of the vast majority of viewers who's audio system can't get below 30Hz nor shake their room.

So my guess: nothing was deliberately "nerfed", because there's zero reason at all to "nerf" it. Instead, the sound mixers used the theatrical sound mix as the source and reference for the 4K, not the 20 year old lossy DVD mix. Completely reasonable--why would you use an inferior audio format as a reference when you have the theatrical.

And the theatrical mix didn't boost the ultra low frequencies by 50db(!) or whatever is being claimed. Instead the DVD ultra low end sound was jacked up through the roof in order to provide some of that FX sound to people who's home audio--like in tiny TV speakers) was otherwise incapable of reproducing the sound the way it was in the theater.

Nobody would use a 20 year old DVD as a picture reference when they have the original release images. Why would they use a 20 year old DVD as an audio reference?

[bbeck]

And yet, the LFE in the lossless 5.1 was reduced even further for the Atmos mix.

I've largely stopped spending energy trying to figure out why people do things, particularly when it comes to the home media business. People are inscrutable. They do things for reasons that make sense to them. Sometimes they take their time ensuring the details of a task are done right. And they regularly do things without thinking the issue all the way through.

As a lowly consumer I have no power to change these things, so instead I will take the time to grab the DVD audio, grab the Blu-ray audio, mux them into the UHD as alternative audio options with the Atmos, and always have the option of three different tracks to listen to when I sit down to watch the movie. Case closed, move on to the next thing on my to-do list.

[SimonTC]

Originally Posted by bbeck

And yet, the LFE in the lossless 5.1 was reduced even further for the Atmos mix.

It was?

[PullBackCamera]

Looking at these graphs, it would appear that the LFE on the UHD is about 5db quieter overall compared to the DVD. Yes there is also a roll off below 30Hz, but on 99%+ of setups I'd imagine that simply turning up the gain on the sub by 5db would fix the perceived 'problem' in a blind test.

As to why the Atmos mixers might filter the very low end and lower the LFE. If this mix is also intended for streaming/TV they would need to hit -23 LUFS to be compliant with broadcasting standards. So this would be a way to enable them to push the rest of the mix a little louder.

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

my guess: nothing was deliberately "nerfed"

The evidence is that your guess is wrong. It WAS deliberately nerfed.



"Instead, the sound mixers used the theatrical sound mix as the source"



Also wrong. The end credits for M&C clearly state that real, live cannons were recorded. THAT is the source. We know for a fact that real cannons have considerable infrasonic energy, energy that is missing from the Atmos track. I reference yet again the famous Telarc recording of the 1812 overture, which also used live cannon, and has 5 Hz energy on it.

not the 20 year old lossy DVD mix.

As I said, the original recording was of real, live cannons. THAT is the reference, not the DVD track. The DVD track does a much better job of preserving that reference.

And the theatrical mix didn't boost the ultra low frequencies by 50db(!) or whatever is being claimed.

A strawman argument from you. There is NO claim of a "boost" at all. It is utterly nonsensical to claim that LIVE CANNONS were "boosted". What IS obvious is that the infrasonics that WERE in the original recording were drastically CUT for the Atmos mix. It's the Atmos mix that monkeyed with the original, NOT the DTS mix.

the DVD ultra low end sound was jacked up through the roof

Your claim is absurd. Again, it is utterly nonsensical to talk of "jacking up" the sound of LIVE CANNONS, since they're VERY loud, and have HUGE infrasonic energy. Your claim makes NO sense at all.

[crutzulee]

The last few pages of this thread have been interesting reading while I wait for my disc to get here (supposedly today)..

If memory serves (and it doesn't always lately), I had this title on Laserdisc and would often use it specifically to show off the low end of my system which was considerably less capable than what I'm rocking right now. I haven't seen the movie since, so I'm happy to have it back in my collection, happy that there is an ATMOS track supervised by the OG sound mixer.... but am also scared by the graphs presented here regarding the bass...

Someone in the preceding pages made some comment that a sound authority they knew claimed something to the effect that the concept of home audio being nerfed to protect soundbars is nonsense (sorry for the vagueness but I'm sure the person in question recognizes themselves and will own it)...As a person that absolutely believes this to be the case, I'd love for them to provide more info on this topic.

I'd love for their to be multiple tracks on a disc so everyone could get what they want...Unfortunately, I'm not sure that would help. The most ridiculous thing ever invented was ATMOS on my phone...that is only slightly more ridiculous as the concept of the ATMOS soundbar... These tech advances get put into the hands of marketing people and they feed the enduser what they want to believe- they want to see the little ATMOS indicator light up on their gear so that they can say they're using the latest and greatest tech... The idea of object oriented sound being properly rendered from a soundbar is absolutely ridiculous...and it is clearly what is driving this nerfed bass...It's not a conspiracy... It's what the market dictates...for better or much worse

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by wolfwall

It is not original theatrical audio

By the very fact that it's Atmos means it's not the original theatrical audio, so that's no surprise (lower case "s" for you M&C fans). The question that should be asked now is is the audio on the original DVD the original theatrical audio and can that be proven? If so, how?

Investigating further, the DVD had DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Are they the same levels? Ideally both encoders should be transparent to the source.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Also wrong. The end credits for M&C clearly state that real, live cannons were recorded. THAT is the source. We know for a fact that real cannons have considerable infrasonic energy, energy that is missing from the Atmos track. I reference yet again the famous Telarc recording of the 1812 overture, which also used live cannon, and has 5 Hz energy on it.

Ummmm... No. Canons aren't the reference for a theatrical mix. Neither is a live orchestra recording the soundtrack nor the voices of the actual actors nor the live sound effects added in Foley.

The mix is the mix. You reference the actual track, not the source elements. The source elements are what is recorded initially. Then many days are spent in the mixing studio mixing those elements together to arrive at the final theatrical mix that the director, sound designer, and sound mixers feel is correct.

Again, you've provided zero reason to "nerf" the low frequencies, other than some sort of odd perversity on the part of those creating the home Atmos mix for the 4K disk. While people in Hollywood can sometimes be bit perverse, removing elements that are in the theatrical release version for no reason at all is usually not a symptom of their perversion. So why do it? Just to get a few bassheads undies in a bunch?

Note: very, very few people at home have equipment capable of significant reproduction of 5Hz. Or much of anything below 20Hz. Or 30Hz for that matter. So why remove it at all?

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

Someone in the preceding pages made some comment that a sound authority they knew claimed something to the effect that the concept of home audio being nerfed to protect soundbars is nonsense (sorry for the vagueness but I'm sure the person in question recognizes themselves and will own it)...As a person that absolutely believes this to be the case, I'd love for them to provide more info on this topic.

That was me. I didn't use the phrase "sound authority". The guy I referenced is someone who works on movies in the industry, and used to work for DTS. I'll leave it to you to decide if that makes him a "sound authority".

I'd love for their to be multiple tracks on a disc so everyone could get what they want

Same here.

The idea of object oriented sound being properly rendered from a soundbar is absolutely ridiculous

Agreed.

it is clearly what is driving this nerfed bass...It's not a conspiracy... It's what the market dictates...for better or much worse

I floated the "catering to the soundbar crowd" theory to my industry friend, and he pooh poohed it. He does make a point. How would soundbar people be harmed by infrasonic bass? I don't know. I've said before that I ran a full range signal into my ribbon midranges, and it didn't bother them.

[motorheadache95]

Well this has been quite the whirlwind. There’s a lot of speculation going on about these audio tracks but nobody really seems to know for sure.

I don’t think it’s possible to know without asking the people involved if the new tracks are “nerfed” or not. The idea that the Blu-ray and 4K Atmos mixes are closer to the original theatrical mix and the DVD was boosted is just guess work.

At the same time, saying the DVD mix has the correct low-end because they recorded real canons doesn’t mean anything either. What the raw audio of the sound and foley recordings sound like has little to do with the actual sound mix itself. You’d have to ask the director if he recorded the canons because he wanted to capture all the range of a canon sound, or he merely wanted the sound effects to be authentic.

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

Canons aren't the reference for a theatrical mix.

Live cannons were recorded for the sound track for the movie, just as they were for the Telarc recording. That is documented fact, no matter how much you try to run from it.

The source elements are what is recorded initially. Then many days are spent in the mixing studio mixing those elements together to arrive at the final theatrical mix that the director, sound designer, and sound mixers feel is correct.

The source elements included live cannons. Your claim that live cannons were "boosted" is ludicrous.

very, very few people at home have equipment capable of significant reproduction of 5Hz. Or much of anything below 20Hz. Or 30Hz for that matter.

So what? That does NOT change the fact that the infrasonics WERE there, and were deliberately killed. I talked about this issue to another friend with industry ties, and he said there are people in the industry who obviously do have a justification in their minds. Since they aren't saying, your demand that I read what's in their minds is ludicrous.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Also wrong. The end credits for M&C clearly state that real, live cannons were recorded. THAT is the source. We know for a fact that real cannons have considerable infrasonic energy, energy that is missing from the Atmos track. I reference yet again the famous Telarc recording of the 1812 overture, which also used live cannon, and has 5 Hz energy on it.


As I said, the original recording was of real, live cannons. THAT is the reference, not the DVD track. The DVD track does a much better job of preserving that reference.

I completely agree with sherlockjr here. Why would real-world examples of raw sounds be a valid reference for an artfully-crafted mix? Would this not be like basing how a film's colors should look on real-world examples of objects in the film, while disregarding any other processes used which could be used to tint, saturate or desaturate the look of the film itself?

May be a cringeworthy analogy, but is it not like stating cookies aren't good because they don't retain the texture of the raw cookie dough? I mean I can do both, but honestly this stuff seems like it's way more subjective and down to the individual's preference compared to some objective standard; especially since we don't have confirmed "theatrical audio" to compare any of these releases to.

[PullBackCamera]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

Again, you've provided zero reason to "nerf" the low frequencies

Because no-one wants to be dealing with two different masters, so the mixers would've worked to the broadcast specs, ie. -23 LUFS and keeping the dialogue around -12db on average.

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

very, very few people at home have equipment capable of significant reproduction of 5Hz. Or much of anything below 20Hz. Or 30Hz for that matter.

Agreed on this, it's a very minor issue IMHO and doubt most of those complaining could tell the difference in a blind test with the sub turned up a notch, as I said.

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

WWhat the raw audio of the sound and foley recordings sound like has little to do with the actual sound mix itself.

I wouldn't say "little". The mics would have captured infrasonics, just as they did on the Telarc recording, a recording that's around 45 years old. Now it's true that the LOUDNESS of cannons can't be preserved, but keeping the infrasonics obviously presents no problem.

You’d have to ask the director if he recorded the canons because he wanted to capture all the range of a canon sound, or he merely wanted the sound effects to be authentic.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the director said "I want to record live cannons, but golly, I don't want cannons to sound like cannons". Infrasonics on movie sound tracks were hardly unknown.

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Why would real-world examples of raw sounds be a valid reference for an artfully-crafted mix?

So your claim is that the director said "golly, recording real cannons doesn't mean that I want the mix to sound/feel anything like real cannons, even though infrasonics add to the dramatic impact of a film about WAR".


That doesn't make sense.

May be a cringeworthy analogy, but is it not like stating cookies aren't good because they don't retain the texture of the raw cookie dough?

You're right, it is a cringeworthy analogy.