Master and Commander 4K UHD (2003)

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by RobertR

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.





You're right, it is a cringeworthy analogy.

Cool, it doesn't seem like you're interested in having any sort of sensible discussion. Realism within the context of an inherently unreal art form, aka achieving verisimilitude is absolutely not the same thing as real life. Plus the sense of realism within the context of a sound mix can be achieved without the literal sound mix even approaching the real-world levels/feel of whatever sound.

I seriously hope that James Cameron doesn't try to achieve absolute realism with certain sound effects in what will purportedly be his next non-Avatar film.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by 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

Where did you get it? Been looking around for the steelbook, but it's hard to get here.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by reallynotnick

I mean wouldn't a crossover set correctly just handle that?

A proper crossover setup sure. I am not sure how that works out with 5.1 and what not though. I was just saying the obvious in that nobody wants the actual LFE in their mains.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

A proper crossover setup sure. I am not sure how that works out with 5.1 and what not though. I was just saying the obvious in that nobody wants the actual LFE in their mains.

Correct. There seems to be a lot of confusion about LFE and bass management. These are separate issues. Bass management impacts the frequencies sent to the main channels (left, center, right, left surround, right surround and whatever other loudspeaker positions you may have). This is done to allocate those frequencies these speakers are incapable of reproducing to the subwoofer, but this is independent from the LFE channel. The LFE channel only ever gets sent to the sub.

[NYorker]

Call me uninformed, but...where were these arguments about sound when the blu, or even DVD versions, came out? I don't remember any...

[BaronVH]

This reminds me of the argument at the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail of Arthur arguing with Dennis in the mud.

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

"Realism within the context of an inherently unreal art form, aka achieving verisimilitude is absolutely not the same thing as real life. Plus the sense of realism within the context of a sound mix can be achieved without the literal sound mix even approaching the real-world levels/feel of whatever sound.

That's a strawman argument. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that a movie should match or even approach the level/feel of real cannons. Since real cannons reach 150-185 dB, it would be absurd to attempt that. But you can't tell me that maintaining infrasonics doesn't do a FAR better job of providing a much better FACSIMILE of real cannon fire, and once again, it is not credible to say that a director would have no interest in ADDING to the impact and drama of a WAR film by INCLUDING the infrasonics, infrasonics that were there previously. We KNOW that modern HT equipment is PERFECTLY capable of handling such frequencies.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by RobertR

T But you can't tell me that maintaining infrasonics doesn't do a FAR better job of providing a much better FACSIMILE of real cannon fire,

Almost no one's home equipment is close to capable of reproducing 5Hz at any reasonable level. Maybe that's why the DVD mix jacked up the low end to absurd levels in an attempt to simulate it with frequencies that just might be able to pass through a normal home system of 2003.

and once again, it is not credible to say that a director would have no interest in ADDING to the impact and drama of a WAR film by INCLUDING the infrasonics, infrasonics that were there previously.

No, we don't know those infrasonics were in the theatrical sound mix. Because we have zero reference for the theatrical sound mix. What you're referencing is a more than 20 year old DVD. Not the theatrical sound.

But if it was so important to Peter Weir--and I can believe it was--why was it supposedly "nerfed" in this release? Why would the UHD sound mixers go against the director's explicit wishes?

Most likely because that wasn't what they found in the theatrical mix they referenced.

We KNOW that modern HT equipment is PERFECTLY capable of handling such frequencies.

Actually we know that a tiny minority of home theater users have reproduce sound at any volume even at 30Hz, let alone 5Hz. The reality is that the vast majority of people watching movie at home don't have subwoofers. And many of the cheap subwoofers that are out there ain't getting much output down to, say, 30 or 25Hz, let alone lower.

But say if even 5% of home theater owners can get down to 30 Hz, why deliberately neuter the low frequencies. There has to be a reason, right? Because if it was always there on the theatrical mix, the people creating the 4K master had to make a deliberate choice to "nerf" it. Why would anyone do that if it was there already?

[kishiro]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Call me uninformed, but...where were these arguments about sound when the blu, or even DVD versions, came out? I don't remember any...

Hello "mister Uninformed"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUjvaMWKeBI

... To be fair, there were plenty discussions when the Blu-ray was released, just check the hi-fi forums like avsforum.com, or even this forum at blu-ray.com. Many people brought it up. I remuxed the DTS from the DVD to my Blu-Ray back in 2008 for personal use when it became clear they were not going to fix it and that the Australian BD rumored to contain the original DVD mix turned out to be completely false.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by wolfwall

Laserdiscs stopped being made years before this came out in cinemas

Yeah... memory fart... it had to be the DVD...

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

Almost no one's home equipment is close to capable of reproducing 5Hz at any reasonable level.

So what? What would be the harm in providing such frequencies for those who can make use of it? NONE.

that's why the DVD mix jacked up the low end

I've already shown how nonsensical your claim is, since cannons ARE loud in the low end NATURALLY. They do not need "jacking up". what happened was a CUT of the low bass on the Atmos mix.

we don't know those infrasonics were in the theatrical sound mix.

We KNOW they were there in the original recording, because it was a recording of LIVE CANNONS, the same as the Telarc recording.

"why was it supposedly "nerfed" in this release?

There's no "supposedly" about it. It WAS nerfed. Yoou admitted as much when you tried to defend it by essentially saying "well golly, who cares that it's nerfed, since it makes no difference to most?"



And once again, it's ludicrous for you to demand that I read people's minds, since they don't say what their reason is.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by gates70

Where did you get it? Been looking around for the steelbook, but it's hard to get here.

Inlaws driving back from Florida...

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by RobertR

That's a strawman argument. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that a movie should match or even approach the level/feel of real cannons. Since real cannons reach 150-185 dB, it would be absurd to attempt that. But you can't tell me that maintaining infrasonics doesn't do a FAR better job of providing a much better FACSIMILE of real cannon fire, and once again, it is not credible to say that a director would have no interest in ADDING to the impact and drama of a WAR film by INCLUDING the infrasonics, infrasonics that were there previously. We KNOW that modern HT equipment is PERFECTLY capable of handling such frequencies.

How can you call that a strawman argument, yet put these words in my mouth in the post directly above the one of mine that you quoted?

Originally Posted by RobertR

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".

Forgive me if I misunderstood your argument, but what exactly is your argument? I've read your posts about how cannons should sound/feel based on live cannons, in not just another film, but a piece of music. Plus comments on real cannons having infrasonic energy suggesting that this is proof it must have been captured and was absolutely present in the final mix (which is a baseless theory).

Originally Posted by RobertR

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.

None of your arguments seem particularly sound, and you don't even appear to have a valid reference to determine how the theatrical mix actually sounded. Comparing an audio track for a film crafted for dramatic effect, narrative clarity, and immersion, balancing realism with artistic and technical considerations with a piece of music that I imagine was made to sound almost as if you were there in person is a false equivalence fallacy. Two different formats, two different workflows, different expectations, real world considerations, etc...

Would it not just be easier to state your thoughts/feelings and move on or at least have a discussion without the need to get so defensive and dismissive? It's okay to have preferences, and that's apparently all that we've got since nobody has a reference mix to compare any of these releases to. Besides, it's home video which is inherently revisionist and is still evolving; previous releases aren't a valid reference; sometimes modern tracks that sound different are actually more respectful of the theatrical mix, sometimes not.

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

How can you call that a strawman argument, yet put these words in my mouth in the post directly above the one of mine that you quoted?

You implied that not having infrasonic bass was the director's intent. Explain why he would NOT want it if it adds to the drama and excitement of a depiction of a naval battle? Would having the infrasonics detract from the film or the disc in any way whatsover? Clearly not.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your argument, but what exactly is your argument? I've read your posts about how cannons should sound/feel based on live cannons, in not just another film, but a piece of music. Plus comments on real cannons having infrasonic energy suggesting that this is proof it must have been captured and was absolutely present in the final mix

Another strawman from you. I said "original recording". It is not a baseless claim to say that infrasonics were in that recording, because real cannons have them, and real cannons were recorded.

Comparing an audio track for a film.... with a piece of music.... is a false equivalence fallacy.

Nope. The point I was making was that the recording made of live cannons for the film would have contained infrasonics, just as they were for the Telarc recording. That is not a fallacy.


And once again, it makes no sense for a director to have essentially said "I don't want something that brings people closer to the sound and feel of real cannons. I don't want a more dramatic depiction of war. I want a wimpier depiction of war". Not buying it.

[punisher]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

LFE is separate from the bass in the main channels.

yes it's a separate channel..but by telling your avr you do NOT have a sub..the bass is routed to the mains if you set them to large. You then can wire in and out of your sub back your mains..set the crossover and volume on the sub and probably get better bass than the LFE channel/output is giving you.

[Techlet]

They may have recorded "live cannons" but the captured sound itself is still subject to the quality of the recording and monitoring equipment. The sound mixers aren't creating the theatrical mix with live cannons in the studio next to their ears.

And besides, directors can claim anything they like. How many times now have we heard "every stunt was done for real" or "we really did XYZ on camera" only for the end product on film to be completely replaced by CGI? The intention could very well have been to capture live cannon fire but that doesn't mean the recording was translated 1:1 into the mix or was even used for anything other than a reference for foley.

[Okiephile]

I think you should all watch and listen to it and then comment that you liked it or you didn’t, no need to get personal or mean.

[Hellboy]

Rather disappointing reading all the comments about the lackluster audio but like always I’ll wait and judge for myself if/when this ever arrives seeing as my Steelbook order through Amazon was delayed until 9/5 despite placing it within hours of it going live.

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Techlet

They may have recorded "live cannons" but the captured sound itself is still subject to the quality of the recording and monitoring equipment. The sound mixers aren't creating the theatrical mix with live cannons in the studio next to their ears.

Of course not, and I specifically stated that it would be absurd to try to replicate the level of live cannons. But infrasonics WOULD have been recorded, just as they were on the Telarc recording, and live cannons don't have to be next to the sound mixers for that, any more than it was the case for the Telarc recording. And I'll say it yet again: It is NOT plausible to think that a director would be against adding to the drama and excitement of a depiction of a naval battle. Infrasonics would not have detracted from the film or the disc in any way whatsoever.

How many times now have we heard "every stunt was done for real" or "we really did XYZ on camera" only for the end product on film to be completely replaced by CGI?

Apples and oranges comparison. There's nothing particularly difficult or expensive about recording live cannons. It isn't credible to claim that a small record label could do it AND afford it around 1980, but a major movie studio couldn't do it or afford it in the 2000s.


Edit: I found videos that disprove your claim that they may not have used live cannons:

"Master & Commander: Cannon Sound FX" (2003) Behind-The-Scenes Feature - YouTube

"Master & Commander: On Sound Design" (2003) Behind-The-Scenes Documentary - YouTube

The second video disproves the claim that Peter Weir didn't "really" want the sound of live cannons.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by RobertR

It is NOT plausible to think that a director would be against adding to the drama and excitement of a depiction of a naval battle.

This seems like a bit of a mind-reading leap.

When you sit in a mixing stage you make hundreds of decisions about what sounds best within the entire track of the film, and whether it's giving the specific cinematic effect you want. Those choices are often not the 'obvious'.

Maybe Weir felt the ultra low frequency was too 'effect'-y, too distracting. Maybe he didn't want people in the theater thinking 'wow, that's wild, I really feel that in my body' instead of being focused on the story.

I'm not saying that's what happened. But unless we can talk to Weir or the mixers we have no idea what decisions were made during the mix or why. All I'm saying is that it's certainly plausible that a filmmaker might make a sound mixing choice that you would do differently.

Without access to the original theatrical mix as it was created there's no way to know what was or wasn't there. I completely understand that you think it's silly and a waste to not have those frequencies, but we have no idea if that was Weir's intent or if his work was later undermined by others.