Sir TtT, I can now answer one of your questions

[E-Stat]

Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system?
Empirically, I can now answer "yes". Let me preface my comments by saying that I appreciate your industry video insight and have learned quite a bit regarding the nuances involved with the video standards and specifically, how the Blu-Ray committee operates. FWIW, my thoughts on video have never differed from that of yours. With audio, however, we seemingly live on different planets.

I wish to continue to voice my enthusiasm over the video miracle that is Avatar. In the past three weeks, I've seen it twice in Liemax (Mall of Georgia outside Atlanta, Jordan Crossing outside Salt Lake City) and just this weekend, in "mere" 3D at the Paradiso Cinema in Memphis. The larger Liemax screen definitely adds to the realism in that I find myself completely immersed in the picture. With the standard screen, I was aware that I was watching a rectangular projection with black space around it. In all cases, however, the sound was particularly good for theatres. I tried to discover exactly what the two recent IMAX theatrical screens were using, but couldn't find anything. I did, however, find a reference to exactly what I heard in Memphis found here. (http://www.klipsch.com/na-en/news/features/the-future-of-cinema-malco-develops-10-2-system-with-klipsch-details/)

The 10.2 system most certainly could be characterized as clean, exceptionally flat in response and thoroughly capable of providing the 93 db peaks (as measured at my seat) without a trace of any strain. There is no question that it is quite good at delivering subterranean response at very high levels. I cannot say that I have heard better quality at any theatre elsewhere. Even the *real* IMAX theatres I've attended in Atlanta, Huntsville, Cape Canaveral, Washington, Las Vegas, Dallas, Myrtle Beach, Nashville, Fort Worth, Chattanooga (and probably a couple other cities I can't remember at this time) didn't provide better sound quality than the new Klipsch system in Memphis.

Having said that, the musical performance was lackluster. I have the Avatar soundtrack and know it well. While one cannot entirely compare the full movie soundtrack to the musical score, there are sections in the movie that consist of music only. The movie begins with "You don't dream in cryo" and ends with Leona Lewis' theme. There is simply no comparison to what I heard with the Klipsch system and what I hear at home. There is no danger that one would ever confuse the theater system with live. Despite the twelve channels, the musical presentation is flat and lifeless. There are the front channels and there are the rear and side channels. Powerful and clean, yes - but the image sticks to the screen and never fools you into believing that there is an orchestra or Leona singing in front of you. With my main music system, however, there is a natural ease and transparency that far transcends the theatre experience. You not only hear Leona singing, but you hear her breath and the full emotion of the piece comes through. The image floats in front of you in a way that QSC class H amps and massive horn speakers can never convey. Harry Pearson's system can make all the walls in the room completely disappear (not only the with MC system, but the separate and higher resolution two channel as well) - while the image of theatres sticks strictly within the room.

Theatre systems have come quite a way and provide a wonderful audio experience when viewing movies. They cannot, however, fool you to thinking that the performers are in your very room performing in the way that the highest resolution audio systems are capable of doing. Truly I say this not to bash or slam you or the industry - my earnest wish is that as a recording professional that you take a fresh look at what is truly possible with audio reproduction. I am confident that in time, such will be the case.

rw

[audio amateur]

Isn't there a price difference here between your U-1s and a pair of the main channels from the Klipsch system? Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much. These theater speakers are a tradeoff between absolute SQ, SPL capability and being reasonably priced. Whereas your U-1 are meant for 2c hannel listening, and are focused on delivering exactly what is on the recording, cost no object.
Now i could be wrong about the price of a pair of them horns, they could be just as expensive as the U-1 if not more.
I'm not trying to bash your system either, I would absolutely love to hear it one day. But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?

[E-Stat]

Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much.
Clearly, just as a pickup truck has a greater storage capacity than my S2000!


But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?
Not according to Terrance! Regarding the ability to float a voice with high resolution:

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Clearly, just as a pickup truck has a greater storage capacity than my S2000!


Not according to Terrance! Regarding the ability to float a voice with high resolution:

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw

And you continue to understate what you have never heard. In order to comment on a particular system, you have to actually hear it. Audio requires the ears(as opposed to the mouth) and brain to make a qualitative comparison between systems. That is very difficult when you are sitting on your big butt in another state just blowing smoke from afar.

Floating a voice realistically requires that the speakers have excellent phase characteristics, low in distortion, and a exceptionally flat frequency response in the presence region. Whether we are talking electrostatic panels or cones and domes. My cheapest system(ya noticed that I listed no price here) is a timed aligned two way phase correct speaker system that is just as capable of creating stable and realistic phantom images as a electrostatic panel is. Obviously they will sound different from a electrostatic panel, but different does not equate to better. Better is in the ears of the listener, not in the technology itself. While I will be the first to admit that electrostatic speakers have some very unique qualities, they are not the end all of all speaker designs.

Since you and I listen to music two different ways, and the same music from two different periods of time, it is a no brainer that we do not share the same love of speakers. There are certain properties you like in a speakers, and there are certain properties I like. While I love the midrange of electrostatics, the fact that they compress at high volumes, and are dynamically limited in the bass region makes them unsuitable for the kinds listening I do. The size of the most electrostatics are a problem as well, as most of the listening I do is in multichannel.

I have neither named the components in my cheaper system, nor have I named its price tag. You with zero information about the system (and the room it sits in)and yet you state that your e-stats as head and shoulder better than my system. This is why I cannot take your audio snobbery seriously. If it ain't two channel, or built around mega buck amps and electrostatic panel, it is not good enough. That is a whole pile of bull, and anyone with experience listening to a wide variety of speakers at different price points can attest to that. I have always been told that when listening to speakers, use your ears first, and your mouth last. You seem to have this completely backwards.

[Feanor]

...

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw
Modest as my 2 ch system is, my MC is even more modest. However, based on that, I insist that an MC can do what a stereo cannot. And that is create the illusion that you are in -- inside -- a real space. Yes, the MC might be imperfect in this regard but much less so than the stereo.

But does this mean my modest MC "trounce" my slightly less modest stereo? Not hardly: for music at least, the stereo wins hands down. Its resolution, transparency, and shear accuracy so beat the MC that there is not question which I want to listen to (as opposed to watch). But this is a matter of quality of components. I'm sure you'll agree that HP's MC set up goes a long way towards redressing quality balance vs. your "cheap", (like I believe that), MC system.

On the other hand when it comes to movies -- or opera -- I'm not so sure I prefer my stereo. We viewed Don Giovanni on Sunday and it was great in 5 channel sound -- something about the applause coming from behind us, etc.

Wonderful production BTW ...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dp7RSTBeL._SS500_.jpg

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Isn't there a price difference here between your U-1s and a pair of the main channels from the Klipsch system? Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much. These theater speakers are a tradeoff between absolute SQ, SPL capability and being reasonably priced. Whereas your U-1 are meant for 2c hannel listening, and are focused on delivering exactly what is on the recording, cost no object.
Now i could be wrong about the price of a pair of them horns, they could be just as expensive as the U-1 if not more.
I'm not trying to bash your system either, I would absolutely love to hear it one day. But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?

He is comparing apples and oranges. Theatrical speakers have a particular job that is completely different from a home audio speaker. To compare the two is stupid and illogical, and I have stated this before. It is asinine to walk into a theater full of horn loaded speakers, and compare that experience to sitting at home in front of two large panels. While the e-stats would trump these theatrical speakers in clarity and smoothness, the theatrical speakers would blow the e-stats out of the room in the areas of dynamics and bass extension.

You don't go to a Chinese restaurant looking for a great burger, and thus you should not walk into a theater expecting to hear the level of clarity and smoothness you get from a home audio system.

[E-Stat]

And you continue to understate what you have never heard.
Read the topic again. We're talking about the Klipsch theatre system I heard on Saturday.


In order to comment on a particular system, you have to actually hear it.
That's the raison d'etre for this post Sparky. I have heard the incredible Klipsch theatre system that you seem to think is pretty good. (probably have before, but couldn't document it) Do you remember saying this?

"You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field. Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system?"

The answer is YES. Been there and wasn't impressed. Next.


Floating a voice realistically requires that the speakers have excellent phase characteristics, low in distortion, and a exceptionally flat frequency response in the presence region.
The characteristic to which I refer is not limited to electrostats - just higher resolution gear than theatre systems with their limited quality components and cabling. The Nola Grand Reference and Scaenas are not stats, but have incredible resolution especially when driven by stuff beyond a pro QSC amp.



The size of the most electrostatics are a problem as well, as most of the listening I do is in multichannel.
The discussion is theatre systems vs. high resolution home systems, not limited to stats. The big Nolas and Scaenas have far higher dynamic punch (albeit for a price) and don't sound like sound reinforcement gear.



I have neither named the components in my cheaper system, nor have I named its price tag.
And? Do you have a point to make? I refer to your comment that any good MC system can compete with any two channel system. Right-ty-o! If you read my comments again, notice the word "my" in italics.


You with zero information about the system (and the room it sits in)and yet you state that your e-stats as head and shoulder better than my system.
Wherever did you read that? It is heads and shoulders over the Klipsch theater system for sure.


This is why I cannot take your audio snobbery seriously. If it ain't two channel, or built around mega buck amps and electrostatic panel, it is not good enough.
Your inability to read what I've said is why I cannot take your superiority complex seriously.


You seem to have this completely backwards.
You seem to have trouble reading. I described the experience I had in Memphis.

rw

[E-Stat]

...and thus you should not walk into a theater expecting to hear the level of clarity and smoothness you get from a home audio system.
Finally! Why was that so difficult for you to admit?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Empirically, I can now answer "yes". Let me preface my comments by saying that I appreciate your industry video insight and have learned quite a bit regarding the nuances involved with the video standards and specifically, how the Blu-Ray committee operates. FWIW, my thoughts on video have never differed from that of yours. With audio, however, we seemingly live on different planets.

I wish to continue to voice my enthusiasm over the video miracle that is Avatar. In the past three weeks, I've seen it twice in Liemax (Mall of Georgia outside Atlanta, Jordan Crossing outside Salt Lake City) and just this weekend, in "mere" 3D at the Paradiso Cinema in Memphis. The larger Liemax screen definitely adds to the realism in that I find myself completely immersed in the picture. With the standard screen, I was aware that I was watching a rectangular projection with black space around it. In all cases, however, the sound was particularly good for theatres. I tried to discover exactly what the two recent IMAX theatrical screens were using, but couldn't find anything. I did, however, find a reference to exactly what I heard in Memphis found here. (http://www.klipsch.com/na-en/news/features/the-future-of-cinema-malco-develops-10-2-system-with-klipsch-details/)

The 10.2 system most certainly could be characterized as clean, exceptionally flat in response and thoroughly capable of providing the 93 db peaks (as measured at my seat) without a trace of any strain. There is no question that it is quite good at delivering subterranean response at very high levels. I cannot say that I have heard better quality at any theatre elsewhere. Even the *real* IMAX theatres I've attended in Atlanta, Huntsville, Cape Canaveral, Washington, Las Vegas, Dallas, Myrtle Beach, Nashville, Fort Worth, Chattanooga (and probably a couple other cities I can't remember at this time) didn't provide better sound quality than the new Klipsch system in Memphis.

Having said that, the musical performance was lackluster. I have the Avatar soundtrack and know it well. While one cannot entirely compare the full movie soundtrack to the musical score, there are sections in the movie that consist of music only. The movie begins with "You don't dream in cryo" and ends with Leona Lewis' theme. There is simply no comparison to what I heard with the Klipsch system and what I hear at home. There is no danger that one would ever confuse the theater system with live. Despite the twelve channels, the musical presentation is flat and lifeless. There are the front channels and there are the rear and side channels. Powerful and clean, yes - but the image sticks to the screen and never fools you into believing that there is an orchestra or Leona singing in front of you. With my main music system, however, there is a natural ease and transparency that far transcends the theatre experience. You not only hear Leona singing, but you hear her breath and the full emotion of the piece comes through. The image floats in front of you in a way that QSC class H amps and massive horn speakers can never convey. Harry Pearson's system can make all the walls in the room completely disappear (not only the with MC system, but the separate and higher resolution two channel as well) - while the image of theatres sticks strictly within the room.

Theatre systems have come quite a way and provide a wonderful audio experience when viewing movies. They cannot, however, fool you to thinking that the performers are in your very room performing in the way that the highest resolution audio systems are capable of doing. Truly I say this not to bash or slam you or the industry - my earnest wish is that as a recording professional that you take a fresh look at what is truly possible with audio reproduction. I am confident that in time, such will be the case.

rw

To make this last statement is arrogant as hell. One would have to assume that another is NOT taking a fresh look at something just because it does not conform to the desires of another. Just more fresh BS from a arrogant golden eared audiophile.

Here is another one of your stupid apples and oranges comparison. You are comparing a soundtrack, crafted as a whole to a film score that is mixed with other elements in mind such as the dialog and effects, something the soundtrack does not have. You do not know if the soundtrack is derived from the same master as the film score. You do not know what electronics that were involved in the recording and mixing of either, and yet you want to make a comparison of something that happen in a theater to that of what happens in your listening room. I thought you were smarter than this, but I guess not.

[E-Stat]

To make this last statement is arrogant as hell.
Do you think that the Klipsch theatrical system sounds like live, unamplified music?


Here is another one of your stupid apples and oranges comparison. You are comparing a soundtrack, crafted as a whole to a film score that is mixed with other elements in mind such as the dialog and effects, something the soundtrack does not have.
It is a shame you have forgotten how to read! Let's review what I actually said and see if you can u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d. Here' s what I said specifically about that topic:

"I have the Avatar soundtrack and know it well. While one cannot entirely compare the full movie soundtrack to the musical score, there are sections in the movie that consist of music only. The movie begins with "You don't dream in cryo" and ends with Leona Lewis' theme. There is simply no comparison to what I heard with the Klipsch system and what I hear at home."

Is there any part of that you don't understand? I thought you were smarter.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Read the topic again. We're talking about the Klipsch theatre system I heard on Saturday.

And you still want to make that comparison to a home system? Rediculous!



That's the raison d'etre for this post Sparky. I have heard the incredible Klipsch theatre system that you seem to think is pretty good. (probably have before, but couldn't document it) Do you remember saying this?

The Klipsch system is a pretty good THEATRICAL system, and I would not compare it to a home speaker system. That would be retarded.


"You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field. Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system?"

The answer is YES. Been there and wasn't impressed. Next.

Here is some cake, woopeee



The characteristic to which I refer is not limited to electrostats - just higher resolution gear than theatre systems with their limited quality components and cabling. The Nola Grand Reference and Scaenas are not stats, but have incredible resolution especially when driven by stuff beyond a pro QSC amp.

Want more cake?




The discussion is theatre systems vs. high resolution home systems, not limited to stats. The big Nolas and Scaenas have far higher dynamic punch (albeit for a price) and don't sound like sound reinforcement gear.

This kind of discussion is stupid, and I said so the last time we visited this issue. Now if you still want to walk down this apples and oranges path, go ahead.




And? Do you have a point to make? I refer to your comment that any good MC system can compete with any two channel system. Right-ty-o! If you read my comments again, notice the word "my" in italics.

We are not going to agree on this, so there is no point in kicking a dead horse.



Wherever did you read that? It is heads and shoulders over the Klipsch theater system for sure.

Duh, you sure have a penchant for stating the obvious.



Your inability to read what I've said is why I cannot take your superiority complex seriously.

Whatever.....



You seem to have trouble reading. I described the experience I had in Memphis.

rw

Great for ya. Meaningless in the grand scheme of things when you go in with a prejudiced mind

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do you think that the Klipsch theatrical system sounds like live, unamplified music?

Nope, but I do not think electrostatics have that quality either, no speaker does IMO.



It is a shame you have forgotten how to read! Let's review what I actually said and see if you can u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d. Here' s what I said specifically about that topic:

"I have the Avatar soundtrack and know it well. While one cannot entirely compare the full movie soundtrack to the musical score, there are sections in the movie that consist of music only. The movie begins with "You don't dream in cryo" and ends with Leona Lewis' theme. There is simply no comparison to what I heard with the Klipsch system and what I hear at home."

Is there any part of that you don't understand? I thought you were smarter.

rw

And I thought you were smarter making such a stupid comparison in the first place. If one can not entirely compare, then why do it in the first place? Duh!

You still don't know if the same master was used for the theatrical mix and the soundtrack. My experience tells me it likely was not, which makes any comparison invalid from jump street.

Your entire post is wasted time.

[E-Stat]

The Klipsch system is a pretty good THEATRICAL system, and I would not compare it to a home speaker system. That would be retarded.
I am in 100% agreement when you did exactly that when I pointed out the obvious superiority in resolution with the best home systems!

You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field. Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system?"

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Finally! Why was that so difficult for you to admit?

rw

It wasn't difficult to admit, that is why I said you cannot make the comparison in the first place grandpa! A theatrical system has a different job than a home audio system. So different the two cannot be compared. I have said this at least four times, and yet your pea brain cannot get its cells around that.

[E-Stat]

You still don't know if the same master was used for the theatrical mix and the soundtrack. My experience tells me it likely was not, which makes any comparison invalid from jump street.
So the engineers took the studio recording of Leona Lewis and screwed it up? That's what your experience tells you! If that is true, then those engineers must be incompetent idiots. All they had to do was roll the cut during the end titles. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

It wasn't difficult to admit, that is why I said you cannot make the comparison in the first place grandpa!
Your retraction of two other comments to the contrary so noted.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am in 100% agreement when you did exactly that when I pointed out the obvious superiority in resolution with the best home systems!

You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field. Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system?"

rw

The problem is that you had to point that out. You don't go into a theater expecting the sound system to mimic what you hear at home. Plain and simple. For you to even make this comparison is wacky and illogical.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your retraction of two other comments to the contrary so noted.

rw

I made no such retraction, do you have any other statements you would like to put in my mouth?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So the engineers took the studio recording of Leona Lewis and screwed it up? That's what your experience tells you! If that is true, then those engineers must be incompetent idiots. All they had to do was roll the cut during the end titles. :)

rw

Man, your statements just get more stupid as they go along. Who said they screwed it up?

You don't mix a CD soundtrack the same way you mix a film score. You have elements in the film score that you have to balance against that you do not have in a CD score. My dog pepper could figure this out.

Your arrogance is sickening, your uneducated prognostications are even worse.

[E-Stat]

You don't go into a theater expecting the sound system to mimic what you hear at home. Plain and simple. For you to even make this comparison is wacky and illogical.
It was your comparison, senior. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, it is you who attempted to defend theatrical systems (huh?) - for which you now say is a retarded thing to do!

"Wow E, I am surprised that you found IMAX's audio to be just mediocre...The real IMAX has the 8 story screen, the 14,000 watt worth of power, and two surrounds as opposed to the common array of speakers. It uses the basic 5.1 channel setup with a front height channel the fake IMAX does not have. I have found the real IMAX sound system to be head and shoulders above the typical theater sound system."

Presumably, now you would say it is not fair to compare a theatrical system with a high resolution home system since the home systems trump them in clarity and smoothness. We agree 100% !

rw

[E-Stat]

Man, your statements just get more stupid as they go along. Who said they screwed it up?
That would be your intimation to "defend" the mediocre sonic result. Remember this?

"You still don't know if the same master was used for the theatrical mix and the soundtrack."

Why would there be any difference whatsoever in the Leona Lewis track released on CD and that which they played at the end of the movie? The movie was over! There was no dialogue. No sound effects. They just played the theme!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That would be your intimation to "defend" the mediocre sonic result. Remember this?

"You still don't know if the same master was used for the theatrical mix and the soundtrack."

Why would there be any difference whatsoever in the Leona Lewis track released on CD and that which they played at the end of the movie? The movie was over! There was no dialogue. No sound effects. They just played the theme!

rw

It doesn't freakin matter if it was just the theme. Theatrical sound mixes are different from audio only presentations. If the same printmaster was not used, then your argument is just plain stupid. If the equipment used to mix both was not the same(and it usually isn't) then your argument is stupid. If the CD has two channels, and theatrical mix has 5.1, then your argument is stupid, they are not from the same master, and cannot be compared. If you heard one on a Klipsch theatrical system, and the other on a electrostatic panel in your home, of course they are going to sound different, it is stupid to compare. If you heard one in a theater, the other in your room, then there is no comparison between the two. One is being heard in the nearfield, the other in the far field with all of the acoustical signature of that theater.

Nothing is equal in your argument, so no comparison can be made. It is just that simple.

If you are going to pick a fight on something, perhaps you need to get your duck lined up differently. Your comparison is just plain stupid. If you walked into a theater expecting the same audio experience as you get at home, or even comparing a theatrical speaker system to a home one, then your whole comparison was stupid from the get go. The jobs they have to do is so drastically different, they cannot be compared, and it is stupid to do so.

[E-Stat]

If the same printmaster was not used, then your argument is just plain stupid.
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass. If the engineers weren't incompetent fools, they wouldn't have sacrificed any of the sound quality found in the soundtrack.


If the equipment used to mix both was not the same(and it usually isn't) then your argument is stupid.
Well, your argument most certainly is stupid. Why would you remix that which has already been mixed and recorded? Why would you go out of your way to screw up the quality of that which was already there? Are you serious with these *retarded* (your word) speculations?


If the CD has two channels, and theatrical mix has 5.1, then your argument is stupid, they are not from the same master, and cannot be compared.
Gee, it is you who always says MC will always outperform two channel. If the two channel sounds significantly better than the MC, what does that tell you?


One is being heard in the nearfield, the other in the far field with all of the acoustical signature of that theater.
Your backpeddling is amusing. We have a very different concept of resolution.


Nothing is equal in your argument, so no comparison can be made. It is just that simple.
On this we agree. It is retarded to compare the quality of sound provided by theater quality gear and the best home systems. Professional sound reinforcement ALWAYS involves qualitative compromises.


If you walked into a theater expecting the same audio experience as you get at home, or even comparing a theatrical speaker system to a home one, then your whole comparison was stupid from the get go.
I have never expected the same quality from theatre horns, pro amps and crappy cabling.


The jobs they have to do is so drastically different, they cannot be compared, and it is stupid to do so.
Perhaps you'll remember that the next time I make that observation. Attempting to defend their mediocre quality is pointless. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It was your comparison, senior. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, it is you who attempted to defend theatrical systems (huh?) - for which you now say is a retarded thing to do!

"Wow E, I am surprised that you found IMAX's audio to be just mediocre...The real IMAX has the 8 story screen, the 14,000 watt worth of power, and two surrounds as opposed to the common array of speakers. It uses the basic 5.1 channel setup with a front height channel the fake IMAX does not have. I have found the real IMAX sound system to be head and shoulders above the typical theater sound system."

Presumably, now you would say it is not fair to compare a theatrical system with a high resolution home system since the home systems trump them in clarity and smoothness. We agree 100% !

rw

Okay bozo, where in this sentence did I say this system was comparable to any home system. Let's see......no where. I said comparable to a typical theater sound didn't I.

I said if you walk into a theater expecting it to sound like a home audio system, you are stupid. I still say that, nothing has changed. If you want to keep beating this horse, more power to you.

[audio amateur]

You sound like intelligent 13 year olds arguing. It's a bit pathetic.

E-Stat, Terrence is obviously stubborn and hates to admit things.
Terrence, E-Stat seems to have a little of that but frankly I'm agreeing more with him. Get over it.

[GMichael]

How long have these two been maried?

[E-Stat]

Okay bozo, where in this sentence did I say this system was comparable to any home system. Let's see......no where. I said comparable to a typical theater sound didn't I.
Whether you have ADD or Alzheimer's, both are treatable ailments. With your first response to this post, you couldn't even remember the topic or the experience I shared. Sheesh. I will be more than delighted to point out what you've said and apparently have forgotten since that was - what five days ago!

It is in a response to what I said found here. (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=312316&postcount=54)

TtT: The spatial characteristic you get from a home audio system is generated by reflections within the room.

E: And by a far higher level of resolution and purity. The best home systems render like two and a quarter square Hassleblads while even the best theatre systems are more like entry level 35 mm rangefinders.

TtT: You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field.

It is quite easy to make that statement once you've heard the best theatre systems. Using your terminology, I will once again agree that your comment is utterly retarded. At face value, theatre systems, regardless of whether they are the latest gee-whiz Klipsch design or not will NEVER resolve like the best home and studio gear.



I said if you walk into a theater expecting it to sound like a home audio system, you are stupid. I still say that, nothing has changed. If you want to keep beating this horse, more power to you.

Then I replied: I have never expected the same quality from theatre horns, pro amps and crappy cabling. I still say that and nothing has changed. If you want to keep beating the horse, more power to you. Is there a point to this repetition?

So, either you believe what you've said on this thread or what you said on the other thread. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one can exist. Naturally, we all know which viewpoint is correct. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass. If the engineers weren't incompetent fools, they wouldn't have sacrificed any of the sound quality found in the soundtrack.

E, I'll give you this. You have absolutely no idea about recording practices for either audio or film, and it shows in spades.



Well, your argument most certainly is stupid. Why would you remix that which has already been mixed and recorded? Why would you go out of your way to screw up the quality of that which was already there? Are you serious with these *retarded* (your word) speculations?

Well brightness, we start with one being a two channel CD, and the other being a 5.1 mix. Mixing for one is different than mixing for the other. Remember pea brain, one has a center channel and two surround channels, and the other does not. I would adventure to mention that the CD probably used different mixing equipment than the film score version, probably used different EQ, the system itself uses EQ. Your two channel system is not built into a baffle, does not use horns or EQ as you state. You listened to the soundtrack on a two channel system based on a different technology than the theater system. The theater system does not have room born rear reflections that create an artificial acoustic. A horn loaded system placed away from the walls sounds different than a horn loaded system mounted in a baffle. Difference, difference, difference, that is what you call a screw up, it just plain differences. Amazing that my kid knows more about recording than a golden eared narrow minded audiophile.



Gee, it is you who always says MC will always outperform two channel. If the two channel sounds significantly better than the MC, what does that tell you?

Only the OPINION of the listener. Thats it, nothing more. Did you bother to hear each mix in the same environment? Same system? Same room? Can your verify that each mix used the same equipment(I know for sure they didn't, the film score was mixed using pro-tools, and the CD was not). Did you take into consideration different room acoustics, different speakers, different mix, different, different, different! Hence apples and oranges comparison=no comparison.



Your backpeddling is amusing. We have a very different concept of resolution.

Backpeddling or pointing out obvious differences.



On this we agree. It is retarded to compare the quality of sound provided by theater quality gear and the best home systems. Professional sound reinforcement ALWAYS involves qualitative compromises.

I believe that home audio also has its share of compromises right? No home audio system is perfect is it? However it was you who made this statement

None of the twenty or so IMAX theatres I've attended has sound even approaching the resolution of the best audio I've heard.

Duh! You, in your stupidity directly compared a theatrical system to the best audio at home. That was what got this whole thing started. A stupid comparison that should have never been made in the first place. I was talking strictly theatrical system to theatrical system, and you had to throw in this bird turd.



I have never expected the same quality from theatre horns, pro amps and crappy cabling.

Then why make the stupid statement above then? If you didn't expect it, then why even compare it?



Perhaps you'll remember that the next time I make that observation. Attempting to defend their mediocre quality is pointless. :)

rw

It was not I who walked into a movie theater expecting to hear home audio. That was your crackpot idea. I was merely commenting on the quality of different theater sound systems, you are the one who crap up the thread with your own home brand of twisted comparisons.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Actually audio amature, I think with this post:


Isn't there a price difference here between your U-1s and a pair of the main channels from the Klipsch system? Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much. These theater speakers are a tradeoff between absolute SQ, SPL capability and being reasonably priced. Whereas your U-1 are meant for 2c hannel listening, and are focused on delivering exactly what is on the recording, cost no object.
Now i could be wrong about the price of a pair of them horns, they could be just as expensive as the U-1 if not more.
I'm not trying to bash your system either, I would absolutely love to hear it one day. But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?
You ruined or at least temporarily changed the landscape that E-Stat was trying to paint because it forced him to reply with this:

Clearly, just as a pickup truck has a greater storage capacity than my S2000!

Not according to Terrance! Regarding the ability to float a voice with high resolution:

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw
Seems to me the original spirit of E-Stat's opening post was lost, and had you stayed out of it, maybe Sir T would've reacted differently, at least in the beginning.

Sometimes it's best to let the heavyweights duke it out and the rest of us take what we need or want from what remains. Just my opinion though.<!-- / message -->

[E-Stat]

It was not I who walked into a movie theater expecting to hear home audio.
Nor was it mine. I made a statement of the obvious and you felt the need to *correct* me with a retarded? argument. Did I get that right? Why yes, I did!

E:While the audio found at IMAX theatres is mediocre (if not loud), the video quality is on a completely different plane!

If you felt the need to comment about the audio (since my point was about the superlative video), perhaps you might have said. "yes, I will agree that all theatre audio systems are not up to home quality". For some reason, you went through your "you haven't heard all theatre systems rant". Do you remember ?

rw

[audio amateur]

Sometimes it's best to let the heavyweights duke it out and the rest of us take what we need or want from what remains. Just my opinion though.<!-- / message -->
Ssup Rich?
Yeah, you're probably right...

[E-Stat]

However, based on that, I insist that an MC can do what a stereo cannot. And that is create the illusion that you are in -- inside -- a real space. Yes, the MC might be imperfect in this regard but much less so than the stereo.
True, but I find offsetting factors. I've heard the same Telarc disc played on virtually identical EMM Labs players on HP's two systems and find that while the MC does impart more sense of space (as he emphatically states in his reviews as well), the main system can do things the Maggie system cannot. Ideally, he would have an MC version of the Scaena system. Unfortunately, the additional three channels of the same gear would run another $200k or so. And for someone who has a vast library of music stretching back decades, only some of the collection would ever benefit. Therein lies the rub for me. I think the MC experience is great but does not trump the musical content.


On the other hand when it comes to movies -- or opera -- I'm not so sure I prefer my stereo. We viewed Don Giovanni on Sunday and it was great in 5 channel sound -- something about the applause coming from behind us, etc.
I feel the same about watching Cirque du Soleil videos where the musical quality is not important. Indeed, you are placed in a larger space with the natural ambience.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Whether you have ADD or Alzheimer's, both are treatable ailments. With your first response to this post, you couldn't even remember the topic or the experience I shared. Sheesh. I will be more than delighted to point out what you've said and apparently have forgotten since that was - what five days ago!

It is in a response to what I said found here. (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=312316&postcount=54)

TtT: The spatial characteristic you get from a home audio system is generated by reflections within the room.

E: And by a far higher level of resolution and purity. The best home systems render like two and a quarter square Hassleblads while even the best theatre systems are more like entry level 35 mm rangefinders.

TtT: You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field.

And I stand by that statement. I would make a statement like this AFTER I have heard every sound system in the field, not before. Horse before cart. I would not ignorantly make this statement without hearing every sound system out there because that would make this a limited experience opinion, and not a fact that I have researched. Cart before horse. In spite of this, you heard ONE system, and that is supposed to buttress your argument? I think not. There are literally hundreds of custom theatrical systems sitting in screening and small mixing rooms that you have never heard, so making an absolute statement without hearing all of the systems out there is shortsighted at best.


It is quite easy to make that statement once you've heard the best theatre systems. Using your terminology, I will once again agree that your comment is utterly retarded. At face value, theatre systems, regardless of whether they are the latest gee-whiz Klipsch design or not will NEVER resolve like the best home and studio gear.

This response is based on ignorance rather than fact. If you can emphatically state that you have heard EVERY theatrical sound system out there, and this is your conclusion, I'll buy it. But the reality is, you have not, so whether this statement is true or not, you do not have the experience to state it do you?



Then I replied: I have never expected the same quality from theatre horns, pro amps and crappy cabling. I still say that and nothing has changed. If you want to keep beating the horse, more power to you. Is there a point to this repetition?

Unfortunately for you some theatrical systems(especially ones in smaller rooms) do not employ crappy cabling, pro amps, or horns for that matter. So before you go making blanket statements, perhaps you need to give these custom systems a listen as well. I do not care for ignorant arguments based on limited experience.


So, either you believe what you've said on this thread or what you said on the other thread. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one can exist. Naturally, we all know which viewpoint is correct. :)

rw

I stand by what I said on both threads. You need to listen to ALL of the theatrical sound systems out there(regardless of the speaker technology used) before you can make a blanket statement as you have. Out of the three systems I mentioned, you heard only one of those three, and you still think you have made a point. You still have to hear the HPS-4000 system, and the custom speaker systems I have heard before you make any blanket statements on theatrical speakers. Theatrical systems come in more flavors than JBL and Klispch, and sit in much smaller theaters than the one you visited. Some theatrical systems I have heard would have easily been mistaken for hometheater if there was not a mixing desk sitting in the middle of the room.

I respect informed and well researched conclusions, not the limited exposure snobbish uppidity ignorant conclusions.

[E-Stat]

Yeah, you're probably right...
Actually, I welcome other commentary. Has this um - discourse been childish? It is a shame that it has had to be so. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

...And I stand by that statement. I would make a statement like this AFTER I have heard every sound system in the field, not before.

...It is asinine to walk into a theater full of horn loaded speakers, and compare that experience to sitting at home in front of two large panels. While the e-stats would trump these theatrical speakers in clarity and smoothness.

"Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky"

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nor was it mine. I made a statement of the obvious and you felt the need to *correct* me with a retarded? argument. Did I get that right? Why yes, I did!

Ummm no you didn't. When someone makes absolute blanket statements, those statements had better be well researched. The very fact that you have not heard EVERY theatrical system out there made your comments ignorant at best.


E:While the audio found at IMAX theatres is mediocre (if not loud), the video quality is on a completely different plane!

If you found the audio mediocre, what did you compare that too? It could not have been a comparison of other theatrical systems, or this statement would have been a truly dumb statement to make. Anyone who has heard a true IMAX system when compared to another theatrical system would not have said it is mediocre, as IMAX sound systems in terms of sound quality some of the best systems out there(notice I didn't say the best).


If you felt the need to comment about the audio (since my point was about the superlative video), perhaps you might have said. "yes, I will agree that all theatre audio systems are not up to home quality". For some reason, you went through your "you haven't heard all theatre systems rant". Do you remember ?

rw

E, if you want a parrot, buy one. Please do not expect me to respond like you want me too, you will be frustrated every time. I think and speak for myself, I am not a parrot for others. Since you comment frequently about other reading skills, perhaps you missed this point.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The purpose of a theatrical sound system is not to sound as good as a home based audio system, but to cover many seats with good sound as possible. Some theatrical systems are better at this than others.

Post #46

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, I welcome other commentary. Has this um - discourse been childish? It is a shame that it has had to be so. :)

rw

You could have stopped it at any time.....

[E-Stat]

If you found the audio mediocre, what did you compare that too?
As one who cherishes sound quality, I find it a sad paradox that the presentation of the finest video content offers comparatively poor audio quality. I want both at the same time. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As one who cherishes sound quality, I find it a sad paradox that the presentation of the finest video content offers comparatively poor audio quality. I want both at the same time. :)

rw

You obviously have not really seen the finest video content, much like you have not heard EVERY theatrical sound system. Sadly, this is your inexperience and under exposure, and not really the limitations of the video content.

Be careful, finest video content brings Blu ray into play. Their are quite a few discs out there that would make a lie out of this statement.

[E-Stat]

You obviously have not really seen the finest video content...Be careful, finest video content brings Blu ray into play. Their are quite a few discs out there that would make a lie out of this statement.
I would be positively delighted if Blu-Ray could replicate the overall experience I find at IMAX theatres across the country. Out of about two dozen *real* IMAX films I've seen, I vividly remember seeing "The Dream is Alive" at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum (OmniMAX), "Space Station 3D" at Cape Canaveral, and "Coral Reef Adventure 3D" in Chattanooga. When I lived in Atlanta, the Fernbank Science Center hosted "Martinis and IMAX" on Friday nights. They would screen two films and offer food and a variety of martinis for your viewing pleasure. The wife and I did that many times. Avatar is still a trip even if it is the digital flavor. You are on planet Pandora.

I eagerly await the home 3D experience - once it matures and gets past the gimmicky phase.. When I was at the Paradiso in Memphis, they ran all sorts of previews for upcoming 3D movies. Unfortunately, they tended towards using 3D more as a gimmick. Examples are "Pirahna 3D", "Shrek Forever After" and "Despicable Me". What I really enjoyed about Avatar is Cameron used 3D to enhance the reality, not showcase obvious tricks. In a sense, it was transparent as it should be. The "Pirahna 3D" previews were so fake looking. You were constantly aware that you were viewing 3D. Here are the bouncing chests of the coeds. Here's looking down at the rotating outboard motor. It was like you were in a Brian Regan joke. "I get a snowcone and 3D here?. Ok. I get a snowcone and 3D. Snowcone. 3D. Real 3D. And a snowcone."

rw

[nightflier]

Well, as someone who's been on the receiving end of lil't's rants, I have to say that's he's up to his old deflection, unnecessary insults, and FUD routine. From the way it reads here, E-Stat is making a better case and lil't is not addressing the specific points. There's a number of places where lil't directly disagrees with his own statements, something that E-Stat's posts don't do.

Without prejudice, I have to say that E-Stat has a legitimate complaint that lil't refuses to address directly.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, as someone who's been on the receiving end of lil't's rants, I have to say that's he's up to his old deflection, unnecessary insults, and FUD routine. From the way it reads here, E-Stat is making a better case and lil't is not addressing the specific points. There's a number of places where lil't directly disagrees with his own statements, something that E-Stat's posts don't do.

Without prejudice, I have to say that E-Stat has a legitimate complaint that lil't refuses to address directly.

You know pinocchio, you are one nosy dude. This thread is over, and you stick your fat nosy schnoze in something that has nothing to do with you. If figures, this is nothing more than a hypocrites rant in an effort to stay relevant in the real world. It is difficult to stay relevant when you are making crap up from the top of your head, and not from the brain.

[E-Stat]

You know pinocchio, you are one nosy dude. This thread is over, and you stick your fat nosy schnoze in something that has nothing to do with you.
Perhaps he is still waiting (as am I ) for you to answer my earlier question: Why would there be any difference whatsoever in the Leona Lewis track released on CD and that which they played at the end of the movie? The movie was over! There was no dialogue. No sound effects. They just played the theme!

Let's see here. We already have a high quality CD track. The movie is over and all we need to do is play some music. Why would any person capable of dressing themselves in the morning remix it for a poorer result? Are you engineers that F**king stupid? Or are you just seeking another excuse why the theatrical result sucks as compared to what one can do at home? Do you remember this incredibly stupid comment?

"Theatrical sound mixes are different from audio only presentations."

So the goal is to take a perfectly good recording and render it pathetic? If what you say is true, then movie sound engineers must be among the most inept group of idiots on the planet!

rw

[atomicAdam]

You don't go to a Chinese restaurant looking for a great burger


Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.

[poppachubby]

Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.

Oh so you're the guy who eats those, I always wondered why Chinese restaurants have them on the menu.

[audio amateur]

Oh so you're the guy who eats those, I always wondered why Chinese restaurants have them on the menu.
lol, it's like here in england, they serve stuff like fries and other completely non-chinese foods and you always wonder who would go to a chinese restaurant to eat that?

[E-Stat]

Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.
Must require large chopsticks!

rw

[GMichael]

lol, it's like here in england, they serve stuff like fries and other completely non-chinese foods and you always wonder who would go to a chinese restaurant to eat that?

That would be me. My wife loves Chinese food and I don't. Same goes for seafood restaurants. That's why they serve steak.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps he is still waiting (as am I ) for you to answer my earlier question: Why would there be any difference whatsoever in the Leona Lewis track released on CD and that which they played at the end of the movie? The movie was over! There was no dialogue. No sound effects. They just played the theme!

A) the CD is a two channel medium. You do not mix the same way for a two channel medium that you do for a 5.1 medium, whether it is music only or not.

B) One was created on pro-tools, the other was not. From what I gather from Chris(the lead re-recording mixer on the project) the music only version was not mixed by the film team, nor was it done on theatrical speakers or on a re-recording stage. It was done in a smaller studio using a completely different monitoring system, and with a different audio engineer. The audio only was EQ'd for smaller room playback on a two channel system, the film score on a 5.1 dubbing stage with EQ to tweak the mix for that venue.

C) You listened to one recording in a theater using different speakers than you used when listening to it at home. Your system at home does not have a center speaker(and the theatrical playback did), you system does not have ANY surround speakers let alone an array of them.

D) The acoustics you heard the theatrical presentation in are different from your home.

E) The reason you are asking this question is because you obviously don't know $hit about recording. If the listener took into consideration WHERE he was listening, and WHAT he is comparing to, he would have realized the question(and comparison) was a stupid one from the onset.

F) Horn system versus electrostatic panel= different sound. Both speaker technologies sound extremely different even if the source material was exactly the same.

G) Theater speakers are placed in a gigantic baffle to prevent rear reflections from interfering with the frontal wave in a delayed fashion. Your speakers at home are not, which allows those rear reflection to combine with the frontal wave to create artificial depth. If I put your speakers(you know, those special speakers that do what no other speaker on earth can do) in a baffle, they would sound flat depth wise as well, because it lacks the complex artificial room born reflections that occur at home. Depth in the theater is achieved by bringing the mix INTO the room via the surround speakers, not by artificial room born reflection derived from the end listeners room that were not on the recording in the first place.


Let's see here. We already have a high quality CD track. The movie is over and all we need to do is play some music. Why would any person capable of dressing themselves in the morning remix it for a poorer result?

Different result, poorer is a matter of perspective. My recollection of the end credit track in the theater is that it was presented in 5.1, not 2.0. If they were both 2.0 presentation, then I can understand your question. A CD mix translates very poorly in a movie theater, because all mixes must be done in an environment simular to that which it will be presented in. Duh!


Are you engineers that F**king stupid?

No, but we realize that some of our listeners are.


Or are you just seeking another excuse why the theatrical result sucks as compared to what one can do at home? Do you remember this incredibly stupid comment?

"Theatrical sound mixes are different from audio only presentations."


If you cannot realize what I said is true, then it is your ignorance and not our stupidity that is the problem. If you think that statement is stupid, then once again, you don't know $hit about the recording process. That's your problem, not ours.


So the goal is to take a perfectly good recording and render it pathetic? If what you say is true, then movie sound engineers must be among the most inept group of idiots on the planet!

rw

The goal is to mix a soundtrack to fit the environment. I do not mix an audio only soundtack in a dubbing stage. I do not mix a film soundtrack in a two channel studio. I mix soundtrack for film on a system that accurately translates what I hear in the dubbing stage to the theater. I mix a soundtrack for audio only in a smaller environment, using a different type of speaker(I don't use horns for audio only mixes) which allows it to translate well in most audio systems. Inherently, any recording not mixed on a electrostatic panel(next to none) is going to sound different when played through thus system, than it would when played back by speakers that are more simular to those it was mixed on. Better is a matter of perspective.

I just love how you translate your lack of education and information of the recording process, differences in listening environments and speaker systems, difference in playback formats, and turned that into a stupid inept engineer. To me, that sounds like a stupid listener who has an inablility to connect some very basic dots.

[E-Stat]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Any answer to an earlier question about the availability of any studio 5.1 audio recordings by popular artists or the cinematic composers I mentioned?


The audio only was EQ'd for smaller room playback on a two channel system, the film score on a 5.1 dubbing stage with EQ to tweak the mix for that venue.
They failed with the Leona Lewis music. The 5.1 *enhancement* was none at all.


C) You listened to one recording in a theater using different speakers than you used when listening to it at home. Your system at home does not have a center speaker(and the theatrical playback did), you system does not have ANY surround speakers let alone an array of them.
I listened at three theatres, two of which were IMAX and one was a full sized 1570 one. You'd think they would be representative of what is available. Maybe only the theatres you attend are better. Actually, I do have a multi-channel system at home. It just can't hold a candle to the main music one.


D) The acoustics you heard the theatrical presentation in are different from your home.
Clearly. What was lost was the inner detail and palpability of her voice, neither of which have anything to do with ambience.


E) The reason you are asking this question is because you obviously don't know $hit about recording. If the listener took into consideration WHERE he was listening, and WHAT he is comparing to, he would have realized the question(and comparison) was a stupid one from the onset.
I do wonder why engineers take a finished product and then take time and effort to change it - without any benefit.


F) Horn system versus electrostatic panel= different sound. Both speaker technologies sound extremely different even if the source material was exactly the same.
Naturally. Condenser microphones sound different from dynamic ones.


G) Theater speakers are placed in a gigantic baffle to prevent rear reflections from interfering with the frontal wave in a delayed fashion.
They hide them quite well from IMAX installations. Surely at more than one IMAX, you've seen the intro where they backlight each speaker and show you them through the screen. The ones in the rear are indeed just stuck in the corners.


Depth in the theater is achieved by bringing the mix INTO the room via the surround speakers, not by artificial room born reflection derived from the end listeners room that were not on the recording in the first place.
Ok.



Different result, poorer is a matter of perspective.
We just don't share the same vocabulary. I constantly refer to resolution, not depth. Clarity. Transparency. The ability to hear details in a voice.


My recollection of the end credit track in the theater is that it was presented in 5.1, not 2.0.
Great example of where 5.1 offers no sonic advantages with conventional multitracked studio recordings.


The goal is to mix a soundtrack to fit the environment. I do not mix an audio only soundtack in a dubbing stage.
It is a shame you continue to pen so much ink over a topic not under discussion. I have always referred to the musical only parts where there is no dialogue. There are no soundtracks. Already mixed music shouldn't require mixing. You've always said that music is always recorded in multi-channel then two channel versions are made afterwards. Why not use what already exists?


To me, that sounds like a stupid listener who has an inablility to connect some very basic dots.
I continue to agree with your assessment that the musical experience in a theatre does not share the resolution and realism of the best home systems - cone, ribbon and electrostatic alike. Wish it were. Great picture. Mediocre sound.

edit: In conclusion, I don't have an animosity towards pro gear as you seem to think. It is what it is. It involves different compromises than the best home gear. The very best home systems most certainly do not use QSC class H amps. They offer cheap power (if not locally noisy with the fans) and are quite compact. They provide lots of bang for the buck. But are lacking in the kind of refinement you would find with one of Jon Curl or Nelson Pass' best efforts. Putting the level of quality of the best home systems I've heard in a large space would cost millions. It just isn't practical.
rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Any answer to an earlier question about the availability of any studio 5.1 audio recordings by popular artists or the cinematic composers I mentioned?

Just google, that should help you out. I listen to enough film scores at work and therefore have no need to really collect them.



They failed with the Leona Lewis music. The 5.1 *enhancement* was none at all.

Actually, you failed because you choose that as your reference. If I used your logic, then every 5.1 film mix is a failure. Movies played back in theaters never sound the same played back at home, even if the mix is a theater dump straight to disc. Once again, what you are comparing is apples and oranges, and the other side of that equation is always failure.



I listened at three theatres, two of which were IMAX and one was a full sized 1570 one. You'd think they would be representative of what is available. Maybe only the theatres you attend are better. Actually, I do have a multi-channel system at home. It just can't hold a candle to the main music one.

You cannot use three theaters as a reference and think you have a lock on things. Not even two THX certified theaters sound the same even if the equipment was. As a film guy, I have been in hundreds of movie theaters all over the country. All of them sounded pretty different because of the quality of the A chain, the quality of the B chain, some theaters are underpowered, others have non working drivers in surround arrays, sub are turned off when broken instead of repaired, digital data readers that are out of alignment, not tuned according to SMTPE standards (happens alot), horrible sound islolation between theaters, main speakers are too small for the room, amps malfunctioning, and some that do not apply the proper ISO curve.

The theaters in my are of better quality than most. One of my favorites uses the HPS-4000 system, and the other uses its little brother the Klipsch system. The one "real " IMAX we have is always kept in top condition and tuned twice a year. All of the THX certified theaters have decayed and are probably out of spec by now.



Clearly. What was lost was the inner detail and palpability of her voice, neither of which have anything to do with ambience.

But it does have something to do with acoustics, the mix, and the widely different system it is compared to. Inner detail losses can occur when you sit farther away from the reproduction source, its the difference between near field and far field listening. If all things were equal and you compared what you hear with your setup, and a pair of Wilson audio Alexandria 2 and Maxx 3, you are not likely to hear inner detail in exactly the same way.



I do wonder why engineers take a finished product and then take time and effort to change it - without any benefit.

Because they have to. Do you think your audio experience would have been better if they only used two channels out of the six channels they have? Electrostatics(or domes and cones) wouldn't last three seconds trying to fill a theater with sound, and reproducing the broad dynamics(and the frequency response) of a typical film soundtrack. A mix done in a studio does not sound very good when played back through a theater sound system.



Naturally. Condenser microphones sound different from dynamic ones.

Correct, but both have specific usages that are not exactly interchangeable, much like the differences between home and theater speakers.



They hide them quite well from IMAX installations. Surely at more than one IMAX, you've seen the intro where they backlight each speaker and show you them through the screen. The ones in the rear are indeed just stuck in the corners.

Yes, they are stuck in corners, but they are optimized for that placement, and the radiate evenly a 90-120 degree spread.


snip




We just don't share the same vocabulary. I constantly refer to resolution, not depth. Clarity. Transparency. The ability to hear details in a voice.

We have the same vocabulary. What we don't share is the intrinsic belief that one speaker technology is totally superior to another.



Great example of where 5.1 offers no sonic advantages with conventional multitracked studio recordings.

You are making another blanket statement that you are not qualified to make. Have you heard this soundtrack on a quality 5.1 hometheater speaker system? No, so you cannot make a determination that 5.1 offers no sonic advantages over the 2.0 version you heard. As a person who has mixed the same project in both 5.1 and 2.0, 2.0 offers ZERO advantages over a 5.1 mix when all things are equal.(same quality loudspeaker system). Because you neither record nor mix for a living, you have no idea of how much processing it takes to make a 2.0 recording sound as good as it does. A 5.1 mix IMO is easier to do, requires far less compromises and processing to sound good. Be a casual listener leaves you completely in the dark on what happens in a recording studio. All is not as easy as you think it is.



It is a shame you continue to pen so much ink over a topic not under discussion. I have always referred to the musical only parts where there is no dialogue. There are no soundtracks. Already mixed music shouldn't require mixing. You've always said that music is always recorded in multi-channel then two channel versions are made afterwards. Why not use what already exists?

It is a shame I have to use so much ink to explain something so easy to figure out with some critical thinking.

You obvious do not understand recording language. The sound on film is called a soundtrack. A recording of a film soundtrack is also called a soundtrack, because it is based on a film's soundtrack.

sound·track also sound track (soundtrk)
n.
1. The narrow strip at one side of a movie film that carries the sound recording.
2.
a. The music that accompanies a movie.
b. A commercial recording of such music.



I continue to agree with your assessment that the musical experience in a theatre does not share the resolution and realism of the best home systems - cone, ribbon and electrostatic alike. Wish it were. Great picture. Mediocre sound.

Another blanket statement you cannot make. Film sound tracks start off in theaters, but they end up on hometheater systems where the determination of quality can truly be made. As a re-recording mixer, I would never use a theater sound system to determine the quality of a 5.1 channel sound mix, only that it translated well to that environment. Your logic would fail if you ever heard a Disney/Pixar film played back in a good quality hometheater.


edit: In conclusion, I don't have an animosity towards pro gear as you seem to think. It is what it is. It involves different compromises than the best home gear. The very best home systems most certainly do not use QSC class H amps. They offer cheap power (if not locally noisy with the fans) and are quite compact. They provide lots of bang for the buck. But are lacking in the kind of refinement you would find with one of Jon Curl or Nelson Pass' best efforts. Putting the level of quality of the best home systems I've heard in a large space would cost millions. It just isn't practical.
rw

After all this bickering back and forth we absolutely agree on this statement.

[E-Stat]

The sound on film is called a soundtrack. A recording of a film soundtrack is also called a soundtrack, because it is based on a film's soundtrack.
Gee, that's funny! That's exactly what they call the two channel Avatar CD soundtrack. (http://www.amazon.com/Avatar-James-Horner/dp/B002P5XXR0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1264124294&sr=8-1)



Film sound tracks start off in theaters, but they end up on hometheater systems where the determination of quality can truly be made. I would never use a theater sound system to determine the quality...
Now, I think I finally understand your inability to understand my point. I'm not complaining about the media or the recording. IT'S THE THEATER SOUND SYSTEM!


After all this bickering back and forth we absolutely agree on this statement.
Two in a row! :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Gee, that's funny! That's exactly what they call the two channel Avatar CD soundtrack. (http://www.amazon.com/Avatar-James-Horner/dp/B002P5XXR0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1264124294&sr=8-1)

Yep!




Now, I think I finally understand your inability to understand my point. I'm not complaining about the media or the recording. IT'S THE THEATER SOUND SYSTEM!


Two in a row! :)

rw

There is another level to this as well. Not all theater sound system are created equal.

You have the HPS-4000XL system which is the creme of the theatrical sound system crop. It has a very natural smooth powerful sound that is quite a bit more refined(when properly tuned) than its little brother the Klipsch system. All of the amps are especially designed for this loudspeaker system, and are not the typical Peavey, ASC, or Crown amps. It uses BGW amps which IMO are far better for sound quality than the other amp designs for theater systems. The Allen surround array is the smoothest most powerfully designed surround array in the market. The amps are still not as refined as amps for the home, but it is head and shoulders better than what you heard in Memphis.

Screen speakers

http://www.hps4000.com/pages/4_systems_.html

Surround Array

http://www.hps4000.com/pages/asa_.html

I purchased 6 of these system for Disney's Burbank and Orlando sound stages.

The you have what I call the second best system out there, and the one you were exposed to. The sound is not even close to as refined as the HPS system, but never the less better than other THX certified designs from JBL.

http://www.klipsch.com/na-en/products/kpt-mcm-4-t-grand-overview/

We have two of their largest systems at Disney in Burbank.

The JBL 4732 is the worst sounding cinema speaker in the field IMO. The majority of our sound stages at Disney(and quite frankly everywhere else) are fitting with JBL's top of the line sound system. These sound like PA speakers, are harsh and hard(even at lower volumes) sound muddy, but tell us more about what we are going to hear in the field than the other two systems since these are what most large cinema's use.

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/General/Product.aspx?PId=82&MId=1

Then you have the absolute crap turds of all theatrical sound system. The Bose system, and while there are just a few installations, they are out there.

http://pro.bose.com/ProController?url=/pro/products/panaray_lt/panaraylt9403.jsp


All four of these system even when calibrated to SMPTE standards all sound very different, and have different levels of resolution and refinement when reproducing soundtracks. While the JBL and the Bose systems sound horrible to me, the Klipsch and HPS systems sound much better, and the HPS system sounds the best by far.

[E-Stat]

You have the HPS-4000XL system which is the creme of the theatrical sound system crop. It has a very natural smooth powerful sound that is quite a bit more refined(when properly tuned) than its little brother the Klipsch system.
I referenced the Klipsch system only because you mentioned it. Have you ever heard any Danley Labs speakers? Horn loaded for sure, but all the drivers radiate from a single "mouth" and are said to be more coherent - like my stats and unlike most horns with each driver having its own unique pattern.

Danley Synergy Horns (http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/)


All of the amps are especially designed for this loudspeaker system, and are not the typical Peavey, ASC, or Crown amps. It uses BGW amps which IMO are far better for sound quality than the other amp designs for theater systems.
While BGWs have never really been favorites for me (they've been around for decades), at least they are conventional AB amps with high current capability.



The Allen surround array is the smoothest most powerfully designed surround array in the market. The amps are still not as refined as amps for the home, but it is head and shoulders better than what you heard in Memphis.
Very well.


The JBL 4732 is the worst sounding cinema speaker in the field IMO. The majority of our sound stages at Disney(and quite frankly everywhere else) are fitting with JBL's top of the line sound system. These sound like PA speakers, are harsh and hard(even at lower volumes) sound muddy, but tell us more about what we are going to hear in the field than the other two systems since these are what most large cinema's use.
Perhaps that is more like what to what I'm accustomed. :)

Have any idea what the 1570 IMAX theatre at the Mall of Georgia uses? The picture quality has always impressed if not the sound...

BTW, the opening two seconds of Avatar makes the Sound Labs diaphragms flap at anything but low levels. With the double Advents, you can see the woofers quiver. Evidently, its got some wicked low end like you find on Dafos.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I referenced the Klipsch system only because you mentioned it. Have you ever heard any Danley Labs speakers? Horn loaded for sure, but all the drivers radiate from a single "mouth" and are said to be more coherent - like my stats and unlike most horns with each driver having its own unique pattern.

Danley Synergy Horns (http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/)

Never heard of them, but coherency in loudspeaker design can be achieved in more than one way than just a single "mouth" design. All of my speakers in all of my home theaters are time aligned-phased and frequency correct designs(whether through a stepped back baffle, or through the crossover). In horn loaded speakers, the radiation pattern is determined by the shape of the mouth of the horn. If you use an identical shape for each horn, but each horn has a different size and depth, the radiation pattern will remain identical even as the frequency changes. That is the basis of the constant directivity horn, that when combined with either a stepped baffle, or a time alignment in the crossover region, will yield exactly the same result as a co-axially mounted horn driver to a bass driver. The object of this excersize is to force the signals at all frequencies to arrive at the ear in a continous wave, and not in a staggered pattern like most loudspeakers do.

My horn hybrids use constant directivity horns for the ultra high, high and midrange drivers, and a co-axially mounted 5" driver mounted to a 15" subwoofer. It is time aligned, phase and frequency correct(only a 1.5-/+ variation from 20-50kHz in a anechoic chamber). They are time aligned over a 90x60 constant directivity pattern in the midrange, treble, and high frequency ranges.



While BGWs have never really been favorites for me (they've been around for decades), at least they are conventional AB amps with high current capability.

I believe this is what John uses for the HPS system.



Snip



Perhaps that is more like what to what I'm accustomed. :)

You, and 90% of the theater going public!


Have any idea what the 1570 IMAX theatre at the Mall of Georgia uses? The picture quality has always impressed if not the sound...

rw

It is a classic IMAX theater with the ultra tall screen, and a Sonic Associates speaker package if it hasn't been replaced. Some Sonic Associates speaker designs have had their drivers replaced with those icky JBL ones over the years, as Sonic Associates is now defunct. However the Metreon IMAX Theater in my neck of the woods, and the California Science IMAX use the original Sonic Associates drivers that are not JBL based. Since I still tune the California Science IMAX, I strongly encouraged the owners to stock up on original drivers just in case we had any failures. If it sounded like you described, it probably has the JBL replacement drivers in a Sonic Associates cabinet, because the original drivers did not sound harsh or have muddy bass


BTW, the opening two seconds of Avatar makes the Sound Labs diaphragms flap at anything but low levels. With the double Advents, you can see the woofers quiver. Evidently, its got some wicked low end like you find on Dafos.

According to Chris, it has some below 20hz information in both the effects and music tracks, so yeah I can see drivers shakin like a huge leaf in the wind on some passages.